Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LUBA1993-147 - Matrix Development
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW JEFF H. BACHRACH BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 G. FRANK HAMMOND* TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 BARBARA A. JACOBSON* FAX: (503) 243-2944 KAREN E. JONES** WILLIAM A. MONAHAN PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE JAMES M. COLEMAN NANCY B. MURRAY Special Counsel MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS WILLIAM J. STALNAKER TYK. WYMAN October 4, 1993 ALSO ADMH9ED TO PRAMCB IN WASHINGTON ••AISO ADMH7ED TO PRAMCB IN WASHINGTON AND =AS Ms. Angie T ner- Land Use and of Appeals 306 Stat Library Building 250 Win er Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 RE: Matrix Development v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 93-147 Dear Ms. Turner: Enclosed please f ind an original and one copy of the Motion and Order for Extension of Time to File the Record, along with the r Certificate of Filing and Certificate of Service. Upon filing, please complete and return to me the enclosed reply postcard, indicating the date of filing. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly 'yours, Tim thy V. Rami.s TVR/sb Enclosure tv 101419-3 r/tigard/matri~Vluba.ltl cc: Mr. Stephen L. Pfeiffer_ 1ul ~,l ST Mr. Jack L. Orchard r. r f-COr0~ Ms. Cathy Wheatley,, C~'1.1C~' U..lA1tl g, t Q~3 . C~' l~ftvw.2.t,~' ~.ab+a.ts . f. COPY BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, ) LUBA No. 93-147 Petitioner, ) STIPULATED MOTION V. ) AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME CITY OF TIGARD, ) TO FILE THE RECORD Respondent, ) and ) ROBERT AMES and BULL MOUNTAIN LAND ) DEVELOPMENT CO. ) Intervenor-Respondent. ) Pursuant to OAR 661-10-067(3), the respondent, City of Tigard, moves for an order extending the time for preparation of the record in this proceeding from October 5, 1993 until October 8th, 1993. The staff responsible for preparation of the record require additional time to complete the task. The petitioner and intervenor-respondent have been consulted and have agreed to the extension. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 1993. Referee O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By: V T' othy V. R mis, OSB #75311 Of Attorneys for Respondent twU!Zud%mauix4tipr n .e t(10/4M)sb Page 1 - STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE RECORD t CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on October 4, 1993, I filed the original of this STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE RECORD, together with one copy, with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon, 97310, by first class mail. DATED this 4th day of October, 1993. O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By: Timd y V. Ramis, OSB #75311 Of Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 4, 1993, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE RECORD by first class mail on the following persons: Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard, Jr. Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones & Grey Ball-, Janik & Novack 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 1100 One Main Place Portland, Oregon 97204 101 SW Main Street Telephone: (503) 224-3380 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 228-2525 DATED this 4th day of October, 1993. O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By T(t thy V. Ramis, OSB #75311 Of Attorney for Respondent tvr\tigard\matrix\stipmotx.cfs(l 0/4/93) -sb Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE (Stipulated Motion & Order for Extension of Time to File Record) RECEIV D x r P 2 0 1993 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYSAT LAW BALLOW& WRIGHT BUILDING CLACKAMAMOUNTYOFFICE MARK L. BUSCH 1727 727 N.W Hoyt N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 1 CHARLESE. CORRIGAN• Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 STEPHEN F. CREW (503) 266-1149 G. FRANKHAMMOND' TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 BARBARAA. JACOBSON* FAX: (503) 243-2944 KAREN E. JONES" WILLIAMA. MONAHAN PLEASEREPLYTO PORTLANDOFFICE JAMES M. COLEMAN NANCYB. MURRAY Special Counsel MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS September 16, 1993 WILLIAML STALNAKER TY K. WYMAN 'ALSO ADLUT=M PYAMCBIN WASERNaMN AM ADKGTn=M PRA=CEIN WASHINUMNAND TEX" Mr. Ed Murphy Community Development Director City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223-8199 Re: Matrix v. City of Tigard, Luba No. 93-147 Dear Ed: Enclosed please find a copy of the Notice of Intent to Appeal received by this office in the above-referenced case. According to the attached letter from LUBA, the record must be submitted to LUBA and the Petitioner no later than October 5, 1993. The record is to be prepared in accordance with the specifications set out in OAR 661-10-025(4), which I have also attached. If you need assistance in this matter, please let me know well in advance. Very truly yours, Timothy V. Ramis /sb . Enclosures twhigard/mucphy.lt1 I l~v A 3 H l i-i U L 1S E(JcL O P -IVES 1301-EY JONES E';' By M-e-p"t' O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & C,~... ^J 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON SEP 15 1993 3 Matrix Development Corp. ) 4 ) LUBA No. Petitioner, ) 5 ) NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL V. ) 6 ) City of Tigard, ) C(OPY 7 ) Respondent. ) 8 ) 9 I 10 Notice is hereby given that petitioner intends to 11 appeal that final land use decision of respondent entitled 12 "Case No. SUB 93-0002, Request by Robert Ames for Preliminary 13 plat Approval on a 12.68 Acre Parcel" which became final on 14 August 24, 1993. The petitioner appeared through its attorney 15 at the City of Tigard City Council hearing on July 27, 1993 and 16 objected to the approval. Petitioner has an option on land 17 adjacent to the site which will be affected by the land use 18 decision. 19 II. 20 Petitioner Matrix Development, Inc. is represented 21 by: 22 Steven L. Pfeiffer 23 Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Grey 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2300 24 Portland, Oregon 97204. Telephone: (503) 224-3380 25 26 Page 1 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL na:l-73169.1 IM7 0007 STOEL RIVES BOLEY IONES4-fGREY ♦f 11\P\4 AI l AN I Respondent, City of Tigard has as its mailing address and 2 telephone number: 3 City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 4 13125 SW Hall Boulevard PO Box 23397 5 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Telephone: (503) 639-4171 6 and has as its legal counsel: 7 Timothy V. Ramis 8 City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 9 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 10 Telephone: (503) 222-4402 11 The Applicant is: .12 Robert Ames Bull Mountain Land Development Co. 13 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 14 III. 15 Persons receiving written notice of the land use 16 decision by the City of Tigard as indicated by_its records in- 17 this matter are shown below: 18 Larry York Bull Mountain Land Development 19 Matrix Development Corp. 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Suite 100 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 20 7160 SW Hazelfern Road Tigard, Oregon 97224-7771 21 Bruce Canvasser. Gary Katsion 22 14465 SW Hazelhill Drive Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Tigard, Oregon 97224 610 SW Alder,.Suite 700 23 Portland, Oregon 97205 i 24 Kent Hansen Steven Reinhart 12255 SW Duchilly Ct. 14035 SW-125th Avenue t 25 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Tigard, Oregon 97224 26 Page 2 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL PDll-73169.1 10617 0007 STOEL RIVES BOLEY ]ONES&CREY Ranaye Hoffman James Welch I 12300 SW Duchilly Ct. 14340 SW Hazelhill Drive 2 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Tigard, Oregon 97224 3 Anthony & Sharon Francis Robert Ames 12305 SW Duchilly Ct. c/o Mark Rockwell 4 Tigard, Oregon 97224 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 5 Herman Porter 6 11875 SW Gaarde Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 7 NOTICE: Anyone designated in paragraph III of this 8 notice who desires to participate as a party in this case 9 before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file with the Board a 10 motion to intervene as required by OAR 661-10-050. 11 Dated: September 14, 1993. 12 STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY 13 14 15 Steven L. P'feif-fer, OSB No. 81453 Michael C.`-R6o inson, OSB No. 91090 16 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 c 25 26 Page 3 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL PDI1-73169.1 18817 0001 STOEL RIVES ROLEY IONF &CREY At II IN Y\ \ •1 t ♦p 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on September 14, 1993 I filed 3 the original of this NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL together with 4 two true copies, with the Land Use Board of Appeals by personal 5 service. 6 DATED: September 14, 1993. 7 8 9 "Steven L. ,Pfeiffer, OSB No. 81453 Michael C. Robinson, OSB No. 91090 10 Of Attorneys for Petitioner 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 Page 4 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO AP PEAL vn:1-71169.1 10017 0003 STOEL RIVES BOLEY IONES C REY A(I[Yf.(G A(1 A1v •1~~ G••' r rT.• . r r .ten Tr • nr/'~. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on September 14, 1993, I served 3 a true and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal by 4 first class mail on the following persons: 5 City of Tigard V2imothy V. Ramis c/o Dick Bewersdorff City Attorney 6 Tigard City Hall O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 13125 SW Hall Boulevard 1727 NW Hoyt Street 7 PO Box 23397 Portland, Oregon 97209 Tigard, Oregon 97223 8 Robert Ames Herman Porter 9 Bull Mountain Land 11875 SW Gaarde Street Development Co. Tigard, Oregon 97223 10 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 11 Larry York Mark Rockwell 12 Matrix Development Corp. 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road Suite 100 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 13 7160 SW Hazelfern Road Tigard, Oregon 97224-7771 14 Bruce Canvasser Gary Katsion 15 14465 SW Hazelhill Drive Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Tigard, Oregon 97224 610 SW Alder, Suite 700 16 Portland, Oregon 97205 17 Kent Hansen Steven Reinhart 12255 SW Duchilly Ct. 14035 SW 125th Avenue 18 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Tigard, Oregon 97224 19 Ranaye Hoffman James Welch 12300 SW Duchilly Ct. 14340 SW Hazelhill Drive 20 Tigard, Oregon 97224 Tigard, Oregon 97224 21 Anthony & Sharon Francis 12305 SW Duchilly Ct. 22 Tigard, Oregon 97224' 23 DATED: September 14, 1993. 24 25 Steven Pfeiffer, OSB No. 81453 r Michael C. Robinson, OSB No. 91090 ~J 26 Of Attorneys for Petitioner Page 5 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL PD11-71169.1 18017 0003 STOEI RIVES BOLEY ION ES GREY ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:22 No.012 P.01 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW& WRIOHT BUGAII00 1717 N.W. Hoyt Sum PoWwW, OreSon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX-003) 243-2914 PLBASBREPLYTO PORTLANDOFPICB FAC811STLE TAMOZO13ION COVER SHEET THIS COM MUMCATIONMAYCONSIST OF ATTORNEYMIVLWBDAND CONFmENTIALINFORMATION DaMBDONLYFOR THB USS OF THB INDIVIDUADR ENTIPYNAMBDBELOW. IF THB READER OF THIS mE"AOE is NOT THE D RNDEDRBCIPIBM.OR THEE►PLOYEBOlt AORNTRESPONSELB TO DRONER IT TO THE WMNDBDRBCIPMNT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTEMDTHATANY DISBBMINATIONyIS'I=UTlON OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. >A YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE AAIEDIATBL.YNOTIPY US BY TBLBPHONS AND RETURN THE omoiNALMBSlAOE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIATHB U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. - - - - - - - DATE: September 27, 1943 CLIENT NO.: 90024-4 TO1 Cathy Wheatley City Recorder FAX 01 684-7297 Phone 11 639-4171 FROM: Maggie Daly FAX 0 (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Letter re Matrix Appeal and Motion to Intervene COMMENTS: 5 PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Maggie Daly AN ORIOINALIS BEING MAILBO: AN ORIOINALIS AVAILABLWPON REQUEST: ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:22 No.012 P.02 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN S A L L, J A N I K 6 N O vA C K SEP 2 0 1993 ATTORNCYS AT LAW 0" MAIN PLACE 101 6. W. MAIN 6TRXkT, SUITE 1100 101. ►LOOR,1101 ►ENNOTLNANIA wt. N.W PORTLAND, OREGON 07204.3074 WAS NINOTON, P. C- 10004 TCL[PN ON C (600) 21!6-2626 791JI'MONt ISOV 636-a30Y JACK L. ORCMAIRD TELCCOPY 16 07) E95-1066 7ELEa0►r 12021762-6647 September 17, 1993 Mr. Timothy V. Ramis City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 1727 N.W. Hoyt street Portland, OR 97209 Re: Matrix Development Corp. v. City of Tigard LUBA NO. 93_-147 Dear Tim: Enclosed is the Motion to Intervene that we are filing on behalf of Robert Ames and Hull Mountain Land Development Company. I am concerned that the appeal by Matrix Development Corp. may lead to a delay in development of the Ames Orchard II subdivision. In order to resolve the appeal quickly, I request that the City file the record with LUBA as soon as possible. In addition, please send me a copy of the tape of the July 27, 1993 City Council hearing containing the arguments made to the"City Council by Steven L. Pfeiffer, attorney for matrix Development corporation. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Jack L. Orchard JLO:ek Enclosure 911tr/A/roo1W.616 cc: Mr. Mark Rockwell (w/enc.) Mr. Robert Ames (w/eno.) Mr. Steven L. Pfeiffer (w/enc.) ODONNELL RRMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:23 No.012 P.03 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN SEP 2 01993 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORP., ) 4 Petitioner, } LUSA No. 43-147 5 v. ) XOTION TO XNTER9ZXN ) 6 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 7 Respondent. j 8 9 I. 10 Robert Ames and Bull mountain Land Development Co. move 11 to intervene on the side of Respondent in the above-captioned 12 appeal. Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land Development Co. are 13 represented by: 14 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik 6 Novack 15 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 16 Telephone: (503) 228-2525 17 II. 18 Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land Development Co. are 19 entitled to intervene because that' are the applicants in this 20 * * 21 22 * 23 24 ,t 25 * * 26 * ~r ++r 1189c i XOTION TO INTBRVENN ODONNELL RRMIS ET RL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:23 No.012 P.04 1 matter and they appeared through their attorney, Jack L. Orchard, 2 at the city council hearinq on July 27, 1993. 3 DATED= September 16, 1993. 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 BALL, JANIK 6 NOVACK 6 By L' (9,c4k 0,4- ac L. Orchard, 08B 072166 7 Attorney for Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Development Co. 8 ~I lehd~k/roakwYmalm.~i6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 2 KOTION TO ZXTBRVM BALL, JANIK i NOVACK Att.m.Y. ■I Lev. 101 B. W. M.In 4,.n ►.nloM. Om - 97204 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:23 No.012 P.05 1 CERTIPICATE OP BZLYICE 2 I hereby certify that on September 17, 1993, 1 served 3 copies of this MOTION TO INTERVENE by first class mail, postage 4 pre-paid, on the following: 5 Mr. Dick Bawarsdorff 6 City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard 7 P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 8 Mr. Timothy Y. Ramie City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, p Crew & Corrigan 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 11 Portland, OR 97209 12 Steven L. Pfeiffer Stoal Rives Boley Jonas & Grey 3 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue Suits 2300 14 Portland, OR 97204 15 DATED: September 17, 1993. 16 BALL, JANIK NOVACK 17 p 18 By 1L ~.LM al ar , OSB 072188 Jac OR 19 Of Attorneys for Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land 20 Development Co. 21 22 e1Irwddm*kwGv"m K 23 24 25 26 P890 1 - CNATIPICAT3 OP FILM TALL, JANIK L NOVACR Mlam.r. ::.I 101 W. Mr..T P.,, IN 9 204 f.l.olron.ISO~ !4!•7f~i ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Sep 27,93 11:24 No.012 P.06 1 OERTIF CATA OF YzLruo 2 1 hereby certify that on September 17, 1993, 1 filed 3 the original of this ROTXOV TO XNTERVBMB, together with two 4 copies, with the Land Use Board of Appeals by first-class mail, S postage prepaid. 6 DATEDi September 17, 1993. 7 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK s By: QAt, ~ L 9 ack L. Orchard, OSB 2188 of Attorneys for Robert Ames 10 and Bull Mountain Land Development Co. 11 12 o:lf~/~1KrlnraVpivol.or 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page L - QBRTITICATE OF 9'ILINO z (_V O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street r- w---, Portland, Oregon 97209 3 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 APR 0 8 1994 FAX: (503) 243-2944 994 DATE: April 5, 1994 TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Court of Appeals Motion in Ames-Matrix Case Enclosed is a copy of a Stipulated Motion to the Oregon Court of Appeals involving Matrix Development, Bob Ames and the City. It seeks to have the LUBA opinion in this case vacated and the City's original decision on the Ames-Orchard subdivision reinstated. We expect a reply from the court within the next week to ten days. In discussing the issue of the reimbursement district with Ed, we concluded that the most expeditious way to proceed in this matter is to attempt to get the private parties to set up the transfer of these funds through a private escrow arrangement. This way we can take the City totally out of the money-exchange process and eliminate the need for the reimbursement district. I have called the attorneys for both developers to ask about this possibility and am awaiting their responses. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call me. cc: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director i RECEIVED BALL, .JAN 1 K & NOVACK (\DD U 1994 ATTORNEYS AT LAW APR ONE MAIN PLACE o1~w$m$fau,R 101 S. W. MAIN STREET, SUITE HOO 10- FLOOR, I~lr7.Ek R~YBaN. 4v E. N. W PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3274 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20004 TELEPHONE (503) 228-2525 TELEPHONE 12021638-3307 -'ACK L. ORCHARD TELECOPY 1503) 295-1058 TELECOPY 12021783-6947 April 1, 1994 By Messenger State Court Administr>atol~-- The Court of Apps' for the State of Oregon Case RecogO-6-Division Supra Court Building OR 97310 Re: Matrix Development v. City of Tigard and Robert Ames, et al. LUBA Case No 93-147• CA A83400 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a Stipulated Motion for an order vacating the decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals and reinstating the final decision of the City of Tigard, which has been signed by all parties. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. Sincerely, Jack L. Orchard Enclosure cc: Steven R. Schell, Attorney for Respondent Matrix Developmeryt Ty Kirk Wyman, Attorney for 7 Respondent City of Tigard Mark Rockwell JL0/crs/BJN/CtAppea1s.401 1 r 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, ) 3 ) LUBA Case No. 93-147 Respondent, ) 4 ) V. ) CA A83400 5 ) CITY OF TIGARD, ) 6 ) Respondent, ) STIPULATED MOTION 7 ) and ) 8 ) ROBERT AMES and BULL MOUNTAIN ) 9 LAND and DEVELOPMENT CO., ) 10 Petitioners. ) 11 Matrix Development, the City of Tigard, Robert Ames and Bull 12 Mountain Land and Development Company (the "Parties"), move for 13 an order vacating the decision of the Land Use Board of Appeals 14 and reinstating the final decision of the City of Tigard in this 15 matter. In support of this motion, the Parties stipulate as 16 follows: 17 1. Standing and Jurisdiction 18 The Parties were the only parties involved in the appeal to 19 LUBA of the City of Tigard's final decision in this matter. 20 Thus, pursuant to ORS 197.850, the Parties are the only persons 21 with standing to seek judicial review of the final order of the 22 Land Use Board of Appeals in LUBA No. 93-147. LUBA issued its 23 final order on February 28, 1994. Robert Ames and Bull Mountain 24 Land and Development Company timely filed a Petition for Judicial 25 26 Page 1 - STIPULATED MOTION 1 Review before this Court on March 18, 1994. Thus, this Court 2 currently has jurisdiction over this matter. 3 2. The Issues Raised in the Appeal to LUBA Are Now Moot 4 Matrix Development appealed the City of Tigard's decision 5 approving petitioner's application for subdivision approval for 6 the Ames Orchard II subdivision. The primary basis of that 7 appeal was Matrix Development's contention that Condition 6 of 8 the City's approval violated Tigard Community Development Code 9 §18.164.030(A) because it did not require the applicants to 10 construct required improvements to S.W. Gaarde Street and because 11 it did not require the creation of a cost-reimbursement district 12 to apportion the costs of extending and improving S.W. Gaarde 13 Street.' Condition 6 required that the applicants: 14 "Participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost 15 of extending S.W. Gaarde Street west of 121st [Avenue] where it abuts the north property 16 line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent 17 proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property 18 abutting S.W. Gaarde [Street] to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show, 19 and additional documents will be required to be recorded, giving notice that each 20 individual lot in this subdivision willbe required to participate in a reimbursement 21 district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde 22 23 'Matrix Development previously received approval from the City of Tigard for a subdivision located north of Ames Orchard 24 II. Development of that subdivision will require the extension of S.W. Gaarde Street west of S.W. 121st Avenue. The dispute in 25 this case was over the allocation of the cost of that extension, which will adjoin part of the northern border of the Ames Orchard 26 II subdivision. Page 2 - STIPULATED MOTION 1 1 [Street] along the frontage of the subdivision." 2 While the LUBA appeal was pending., the Parties proceeded 3 with discussions to establish a cost reimbursement district to 4 allocate the costs of extending S.W. Gaarde Street west of 121st 5 Avenue. LUBA issued its final order on February 28, 1994. On 6 March 8, 1994, Matrix Development and Bull Mountain Land and 7 Development Company agreed in writing to an allocation of costs 8 for the street extension project, an agreement which the Tigard 9 City Council supported and the Parties are now cooperating in 10 establishing a financial mechanism to implement it. Under the 11 financial mechanism, Matrix Development and Bull Mountain Land 12 and Development Company will share the costs of the extension; no 13 other person currently will be required to participate in the 14 cost of extending S. W. Gaarde Street. However, because the cost 15 allocation agreement was reached after LUBA issued its final 16 order, the Parties were unable to present that information to 17 LUBA and seek a dismissal of the LUBA appeal. Because the issues 18 raised b Matrix in its LUBA appeal by have been fully and 19 satisfactorily addressed through the cost allocation agreement 20 and the future creation of a financial mechanism for implementing 21 the agreement, the appeal has become moot and there is no need 22 for the City of Tigard to conduct any proceedings on remand 23 relating to the original land use approval for the Ames Orchard 24 II subdivision. 25 26 Page 3 - STIPULATED MOTION 1 3. LUBA Incorrectly and Unnecessarily Decided 2 Issues Related to Condition No. 6 3 As discussed above, Matrix Development contended before LUBA 4 that Condition 6 violated Tigard Community Development Code 5 §18.164.030(A) because it did not require actual construction by 6 the applicant of the portion of the S.W. Gaarde Street extension 7 adjacent to the approved subdivision, and because it left the 8 creation of the reimbursement district or other financial 9 mechanism up to the sole discretion of the City Council. Matrix 10 Development concedes that, in light of the cost allocation 11 agreement and the intention of the Parties to establish a 12 financial mechanism satisfying Condition 6, those arguments were 13 erroneous. Tigard Community Development Code §18.164.030(A) 14 cannot reasonably be interpreted to forbid the use of a cost 15 reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to satisfy a 16 developer's obligation to pay for street improvements. In 17 addition, as evidenced by the cost allocation agreement and the 18 expected creation of a cost reimbursement district, Condition 6 19 is adequate to ensure that Bull Mountain Land. and Development 20 Company pays its share of the costs of extending S.W. Gaarde 21 Street. Thus, LUBA erred in remanding the City's decision for 22 further proceedings to interpret §18.164.030(A). 23 4. LUBA's Decision Should Be Vacate and the Final Decision of the City of Tigard Should B Reinstated 24 The Parties agree that the issues raised by Matrix 25 Development in its appeal have been fully and satisfactorily 26 Page 4 - STIPULATED MOTION I addressed by the cost allocation agreement between Matrix 2 Development and Bull Mountain Land and Development Company, and 3 by the Parties' intention to cooperate in establishing a 4 financial mechanism reflecting that agreement. Therefore, no 5 purpose would be served by holding the remand hearing required by 6 LUBA's final order. 7 Moreover, there are significant reasons to avoid the 8 necessity of such a hearing. First, a remand hearing will delay 9 development of the Ames Orchard II subdivision until a hearing 10 can be held, findings adopted, and the 21 day appeal period 11 passes. That delay is inconsistent with state.policy: 12 "It is the policy of the Legislative Assembly that time is of the essence in reaching final 13 decisions in matters involving land use and that those decisions be made consistently 14 with sound principles governing judicial review." 15 ORS 197.805. By vacating LUBA's final order and reinstating the 16 final decision of the City, the Court of Appeals will avoid 17 unnecessary delay in achieving a final decision that is no longer 18 contested. 19 Second, by eliminating unnecessary delay in the development 20 of the Ames Orchard II subdivision, the Court will help actuate 21 the cost allocation arrangement to which the Parties have agreed, 22 because the development of Ames Orchard II will trigger Bull 23 24 25 26 Page 5 - STIPULATED MOTION r t 1 Mountain Land and Development Company's obligation to contribute 2 to the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street. 3 Third, the City of Tigard estimates that a remand hearing 4 will cost the City a minimum of $1,100 in staff time and 5 resources, to address the issues of code interpretation that the 6 Parties agree are now moot and have been satisfactorily resolved. 7 5. Conclusion 8 For the reasons set forth above, the Parties respectfully 9 request that this Court vacate the final order of the Land Use 10 Board of Appeals and reinstate the final decision of the City of 11 Tigard. 12 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 Date: April 1994 . lY/l-Qi ck L. Orchard, OSB #72188 15 Of Attorneys for Petitioners Robert Ames and Bull Mountain 16 Land and Development Company 17 Date: April 1 1994 18 Steven R. Schell, OSB #6814 Of Attorneys for Respondent 19 Matrix Development 20 Date: April / 1994 41 (.c/ 21 Ty Kir Wyman, OS #92508 Of Attorneys for Respondent 22 City of Tigard 23 JLO/ers/BJN/AmesStip.Mot 24 25 26 Page 6 - STIPULATED MOTION M , . 4 1 CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that I filed the original of the 3 parties' STIPULATION MOTION with the Court of Appeals of the 4 State of Oregon, Case Records Division, Supreme Court Building, 5 Salem, Oregon 97310, by hand-delivery, on April 1, 1994. 6 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK 7 8 By: ;J ck L. Orchard, OSB #72188 9 Of Attorneys for Petitioners 10 Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land and Development Co. 11 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 I hereby certify that I served a true copy of the 14 foregoing STIPULATED MOTION on the following attorneys by mail, 15 in a sealed envelope, at the United States Post Office, Portland, 16 Oregon on April 1, 1994: 17 Steven R. Schell Ty Kirk Wyman Black Helterline O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew 18 1200 Bank of CA Tower & Corrigan 707 S. W. Washington Street 1727 N. W. Hoyt Street 19 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97209 20 BALL, JANIK & NOVACK 21 22 lY ~C.yl By: 23 latk L. Orchard, OSB #72188 24 Of Attorneys for Petitioners Robert Ames and Bull Mountain 25 Land and Development Co. 26 JLO/crs/BJN/Ames.Cer Pagel - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, ) LUBA NO. 93-147 Petitioner, ) ) Index and CITY OF TIGARD, } Record Respondent, ) and ) ROBERT AMES and BULL MOUNTAIN ) LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. ) Intervenor-Respondent. ) Certified to be a ?true Copy of Original on file By: der Cityof Tigar• 11.2 City M807., Date: AMES ORCHARD II SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0002 (CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO. 93-42) CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 93-147) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. -7 143 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Date • I TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae Statement .Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii - iii Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing (Final Order mailed August 27, 1993 - Resolution No. 93-42) 1-31 2 Council Minutes - August 24, 1993 32 - 42 3 Agenda - August 24, 1993 43 - 45 4 Affidavit of Publication (August 24, 1993) Council Agenda Synopsis) 46 5 Council Agenda Summary Report for the August 24, 1993 Council Meeting, Item 6 47 - 50 6 Development Plan Map - Plan B 51 7 Agenda - July 27, 1993 52-54 8 Affidavit of Publication (July 27, 1993) Council Agenda Synopsis) 55 9 Affidavit of Publication (July 27, 1993) Public Hearing Notice 56 10 Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 57 - 67 11 Testimony Sign-In Sheets - July 27, 1993 68 12 Council Agenda Summary Report - July 27, 1993 69 - 106 13 Maps - Site Plan and Area Circulation (2) 107 • ii • Exhibit No. Paoe 14 Page submitted by Steve Pfeiffer during Public Testimony 108 15 Public Testimony - July 23, 1993 - Letter from Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates & Ellis 109-112 16 Ames Orchard Home Owners Association Testimony 113 Addendum - Audio meeting tapes of Tigard City Council meetings are available, upon request iii AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) 1, 0-a, W 'I new w4erAcy LA. . hereby certify: Please Print That 1 am a for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That 1 served notice of the Tigard City Council ~l off-; c e o'q t . r~a.Q -t*u. eo. `QAriQ.s - SVEIQ3-0002 of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named bJ. , persons on the day of Au4ja 19 cl 3 . by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the wed list (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto I~ attached, and deposited in the United States Mall on them - day of ~=c,cCtw 19 ~3 . postage prepaid. LV kl2repared Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 4 3 OFFICIALSEAL r-v\ • ~•~r-v► M. JOANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary Pubk)bf Oregon COMMISSION NO.006s13 My Commission Expires: rn S t 9 4 5 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY b, 1995 h:\Iogin\cathAafofma0 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. _ Page No. CITY OF TIGARD ; 1 Washington County, Oregon . NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER:- BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUR 93-0002 2. Name of Owner: Robert Ames Name of Applicant: Bull Mountain Land Development Co. 3. Address 16325 SW Boones Ferry Rd. City Lake Oswevo State OR Zip 97305 4. Address of Property: North of 'Ames Orchard' subdivision (northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drivel south and southwest of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1OBB, 600 5. Request: An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Subdivision: Community Developmmnt Code Section 18.160.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88,.18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. _ Subdivision Variance: Code Section 18.160.120.8. Zone: R-2 (Residential, 2 units/acre) The R-2 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support • facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. The R-3.5 zone (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) allows the same uses outright with more conditional use including cultural exhibits, duplexes, cemeteries, hospitals and mobile home parks and subdivisions.. 6. Action: Approval as requested _ % Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: % The applicant and owner(s) % Owners of record within the required distance % The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization % Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON ?Sldq jqj3 , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON ~LFI 3 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. - A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their • _ procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. L Page No. a. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93- 4,~ 00 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, AMES ORCHARD-II, SUB 93-0002. WHEREAS, the above application was submitted for approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The Commission reviewed the application at public hearings on April 5, 1993 and June 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Commission found the application was not fully consistent with approval standards and therefore voted to deny approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission-'s decision, and also withdrew the request for a variance to the street design standards, and also provided modified plans; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Commission,'s decision at a public hearing on July 27, 1993; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that modified "Plan B" was acceptable to adjacent neighbors and was consistent with approval standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED-by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Planning commission decision is hereby reversed. Section 2: The Final Decision to approve the preliminary Subdivision plat for Ames Orchard II, SUB 93-0003, modified "Plan B", is hereby adopted subject to the conditions, facts, findings, and conclusions listed in the attached final decision. PASSED: This day f , 1993. ayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of T and . db/Amesil.Res RESOLUTION NO. 93- r~ Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 3 • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION A FINAL DECISION INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY AMES/ROCKWELL ON APPEAL OF A JUNE 71, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY. The Tigard City Council has reviewed the application at a public hearing on July 27, 1993. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: AMES ORCHARD NO.2 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 93-0002 Variance VAR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 10,000 to 23,664 square feet. A 11,568 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. The applicant has withdrawn all variance requests relating to street widths and grades. APPLICANT: Robert Ames AGENT: Alpha Engineering (c/o Mark Rockwell) (Mark Dane/ 16325 SW Boones Ferry Randy Clarno) Lake Oswego, OR 97035 9600 SW Oak Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Robert Ames LOCATION: South of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, north of the Ames Orchard subdivision. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 1OBB, Tax lot 600 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.11 7.1.21 7.3.11 7.4.41 7.6.11 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the subdivision request as modified (Applicant,s "Plan B") subject to conditions. i AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 4 • II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 600 is 12.68 acres in size and has approximately 180 feet of frontage along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. The property extends approximately 800 feet further west of SW Gaardels intersection with SW 121st Avenue adjacent to an approved, but as yet to be constructed and dedicated, extension of SW Gaarde Street. The property is roughly rectangular in size. B. Site location: The site is located between the SW 121st Avenue/SW Gaarde Street intersection and the Ames Orchard subdivision. The present northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is located along the southern boundary of the site. C. Existing uses and structures: The site is presently vacant. Tree cover consists of a filbert orchard covering the western approximately 3/4 of the site. The eastern 1/4 of the site is open grassland. The applicants' exhibit 3 of 3 is an aerial photo which clearly illustrates the existing cover of the site. . D. Tonograohy and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to the north and northeast. A broad Swale which includes an apparently intermittent stream extends from just northeast of the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive to the eastern property boundary. This intermittent stream and a storm sewer drain to a distinct drainageway just to the east of the site. E. Surrounding land uses: Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are developed with single family residences on parcels ranging in size from approximately 0.5 to 6.8 acres. An approximately 1500-1600 foot long private dead-end road which extends northward from SW Bull Mountain Road currently serves eight residences on these parcels to the west. The property to the north of the site has recently been approved for development of a 64 lot subdivision (SUB 92-0005/Vista Point Subdivision). This subdivision would include a westward extension of SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde would abut the northern property line of the subject Ames property. Lots on the north side of SW Gaarde Street near the subject Ames property will average approximately 8,500 square feet in size. . AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 5 Properties to the south of the Ames property are zoned R-1 (Residential_ one unit per acre) and contain 23 single family residences within the Ames orchard subdivision. Lots within this subdivision range from approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. This subdivision was approved by Washington County in the 1976 (to include a second phase on the current subject site), but the subdivision was annexed to the City of Tigard while under construction. SW Hazelhill Drive extends through Ames Orchard I and is stubbed into the southern boundary of the subject site. The fully developed Shadow Hills subdivision is located to the southeast of the subject site and west of Ames Orchard subdivision. Shadow Hills is zoned R-2 (Residential, two dwelling units per acre). Shadow Hills is served by a loop road off of SW Bull Mountain Road. Properties to the east of the subject site range in size from 0.5 to 2 acres in size and contain single family residences, filbert orchards, and a water tank. Properties to the northeast in the Colonial View subdivision range in size from approximately 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and are developed with single family residences. F. Plan designation and zoning: The site and surrounding properties are all designated for Low Density Residential development by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and northeast are under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but are within the City's planning area. Existing zoning of surrounding properties is illustrated on the vicinity map attached to this report. G. Proposed use: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 10,000 to 23,664 square feet as illustrated on sheet 1 of 1 of the applicants' plan set and described in the applicants' statement, plus a submittal map dated July 7, 1993 submitted by Mark Rockwell to Dick Bewersdorff. A 11,568 square foot space tract. intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. A plan was submitted on May 7, 1993 in response to the Planning commission's continuance of the review of this subdivision application. The Commission had reviewed a previous plan for the property on April 5, 1993, and had declined to approve the subdivision plan that had been presented at that time, or City staff proposed revisions to that plan. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-14'i Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 6 • Based on the Planning Commission denial of the subdivision on June 7, 1993, the applicant's subsequent appeal and meeting with staff, the applicant submitted a modified design (Applicant's "Plan A") for the western portion of the subdivision on July 7, 1993. That modification involved extending the legs of what was SW Vista Circle, a loop street, with two streets to the western boundary of the property and dedicating a portion of the right-of-way necessary for future street that would extend north to eventually connect with SW Gaarde. At the public hearing on July 27, 1993, the applicants presented a derivation of the above modification which called for the extension of the north leg of SW Vista Circle to the west and curving to the north to provide a future connection to SW Gaarde and property to the west. This was noted as "Plan B" and was ultimately approved by the City Council. H. Public-service and utilities: The preliminary utility plan (applicant's Exhibit 2 of 2) proposes that the subdivision be served by development of a water main network from the existing 8 inch water line along the western edge of the site. Public storm sewers are proposed within the streets throughout the proposed subdivision with outfall to the proposed storm water quality and detention facility to be constructed within • Tract A in the northeastern corner of the site abutting SW Gaarde Street. The detention facility would drain to an existing storm sewer within SW Gaarde. Sanitary sewers are proposed to be extended through the site from an existing sewer in Gaarde Street through lines to be located in the proposed new streets. I. Access and nearby streets : The street system for the proposed subdivision would consist of a southward local street extension from the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. As noted above, a modified design "Plan B" submitted July 27, 1993 allows for accessibility to property to the west and an eventual connection north to SW Gaarde. An eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path extending 140 feet from the existing southern stub of SW Hazelhill Drive to the proposed cul de sac bulb at the end of the proposed new north-south street is also proposed. This pathway would be located within a 6,280 square foot, triangular shaped open space tract, Tract B. The applicant's statement notes that this tract is intended to be dedicated to the City. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 4 .;-UBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 1 The existing section of SW Hazelhill Drive to which the bikepath within Tract B is proposed to connect is approximately 42 feet wide, has bikeways/walkways striped on the pavement, has open drainage ditches, and has no streetlights, curbs, or sidewalks. SW Hazeltree"Terrace connects SW Hazelhill Drive to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector street under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW . Gaarde Street abuts the property to the north. Jurisdiction for SW Gaarde Street lies with both the City of Tigard and Washington County. SW Gaarde is functionally classified as a major collector street by both the City and County Transportation Plans. Current pavement on Gaarde is approximately 24 feet in width from this point eastward to SW Pacific Highway. No sidewalks are currently provided along SW Gaarde and streetlights are few. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to SW Gaarde Street to the east in the near future. The applicants are proposing to connect this development to SW Gaarde Street directly at its intersection with SW 121st Avenue. The applicants propose dedicating 10 addition feet of right-of-way along the.existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde, along the northeastern edge of the site. The plans submitted May 7, 1993 did not indicate that the applicants intend any improvement to this stretch of street, but the applicants' statement in responding to Policy 8.1.3 appears to indicate that improvements are contemplated. The applicant's appeal statement indicates that a requirement that the applicant bear one-half the cost of the Gaarde Street extension or construct the extension is not a valid requirement. The applicant states that the issue of the Gaarde extension is beyond the scope of this application and should be left to a subsequent proceeding relating to the .improvement project or cost- sharing, including whether the applicant has any obligation to construct or pay for the proposed extension. At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, the applicant Is testified that they would be willing to participate in the formation of a reimbursement district to allocate the costs of constructing the extension of SW Gaarde Street along their subdivisions frontage. The original proposal did not contemplate right-of-way dedication for SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. The applicantsI subdivision submittal statement in its response to Section 18.108 provides arguments for the applicants not improving SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. SW 121st Avenue intersects SW Gaarde Street just north of the subject property. SW 121st Avenue in this area is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW 121st Avenue is also a major collector street with approximately 24 feet of pavement, open ditches, few streetlights, and no sidewalks. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to this section M AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. Sf • of SW 121st Avenue, except for half street improvements on the west side of SW 121st extending approximately 300 feet north of Gaarde that were required as a condition of development approval for the proposed Vista Point subdivision. J. Other applications affecting this parcel: The applicants have recently submitted an application (File No._ZON 93-01) for rezoning of tax lot 600 from R-1 and R-2 (Residential, 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre) to R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). That request was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993. The staff report for application ZON 93-01 contains a brief summary of previous land use and development applications affecting this property. This report incorporates that information by reference. It is important to note that the subject property had two prior subdivision approvals - the first approval was a Washington County approval that included this site with the land that has been developed as Ames Orchard I; the second was a City of Tigard approval for 14 lots on this parcel. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are listed at Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.B are satisfied. In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.48 (R-3.5 zone); Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 {Density Computations); Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not applicable to the current review. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.11 7.1.21 7.3.11 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 also apply to the review of the subdivision development proposal. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 9 IV. NPO & AGENCY COM ENTS 1. Washing= County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: A. SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street (east of SW 121st) adjacent to the site are under -the jurisdiction of Washington County. The County's Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends that approval, of this subdivision proposal be conditioned upon the following: a. If made a condition of approval of this development proposal, the collector road extension of SW Gaarde Street along the north side of the site west of SW 121st Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to Section C.4.a., b., c., d., and e. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard. B. Prior to Final Plat Approval: a. The County shall be afforded the opportunity to complete a traffic analysis pursuant to Washington County Resolution and Order No. 86-95. The applicant shall construct any improvements found to be warranted within the development's impact area pursuant to the County Traffic Analyst's review in relation to R&O 86-95. The applicant shall provide certification from a registered engineer that sight distance is adequate at the SW Gaarde/SW 121st Avenue access point. Contact Doug Norval, County Traffic analyst for specific questions regarding the traffic analysis. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of- way to provide -37 feet from centerline of the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage east of SW 121st Avenue, including adequate corner radius. c. The applicant shall sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. d. A one-foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. io • The documents needed to complete these conditions shall be prepared by the Washington County Survey Division and shall be recorded in the Washington County Records Department. e. Submit plans, obtain County Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit for construction of the following public improvements: i. Concrete sidewalk to County standards along SW Gaarde Street frontage. ii. Adequate roadway drainage along SW Gaarde Street frontage. iii. Any traffic safety improvements required as a result of the completion of the County Traffic. Analyst,'s report based on Washington County Rule and Order No. 86-95. iv. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. C. Prior to Occupancy: a. The road improvements to County roads listed above if required by conditions of approval shall be completed and accepted by Washington County. In response to the potential access onto Gaarde at 121st or the possibility of access onto the Gaarde extension across from the Vista Point access, Washington County suggested the following two recommendations by transmittal July 14, 1993: 1. For either access alternative, submit a construction plan to the Engineering Section regarding the improvements of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde intersection. Provide road. improvements to create an intersection that meets Washington County Road Standards. 2. For either access alternative, submit an intersection control plan to the Operations Division. Provide traffic control improvements as recommended by the Operations Division. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93.147 Exhibit No. I Page No. ► i • 2. The City of Tigard Building Division has provided the following comments: a. Individual lot drainage should be to an approved public storm sewerage system; alternatively, individual private storm drainage systems may be utilized. Plans will need to be. reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard plumbing inspector; b. Maximum finished slopes of all cut banks shall be 2:1; c. Soil tests and engineered footings may be required on an individual lot basis. 3. The City of Tigard Operations Department recommends that SW Hazelhill Drive be extended through the site to connect with SW Gaarde Street. 4. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary plat and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water District and Fire District; b. No parking should be allowed on streets that would have less than 20 feet of driving surface, if such streets are . proposed. c. The Fire District is very concerned with the number of residences in the proposed Ames Orchard II that would be served by a long single-access loop street system. A street connection or emergency vehicle access should be provided to connect the new development with SW Hazelhill Drive or to the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st. 5. Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development lies within the attendance areas of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, Fowler Middle School, and the Tigard Senior High School. (School District review was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. May submittal was not forwarded.) The proposed development is projected to generate the following additional enrollment at those schools: 11 students at C.F. Tigard School; 4 students at Fowler Middle School; and 3 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that, in general, school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfigura- . AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. IJ• tion, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. Staff also contacted Bud Hillman of the School District (phone call on 2/25/93) with regard to whether the District had any concerns with school bus routing. (Contact was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. The May, 1993 submittal was not forwarded to the District.) Mr. Hillman stated that under present policies, school buses would be routed into this subdivision to pick up elementary school students but that secondary students from the proposed development would need to walk out to SW 121st Avenue for school bus service. 6. Neighborhood Planning Organization #3 supports the suggestion made by several neighbors to the south of the proposed development that access to the development should come off of SW Gaarde Street with only an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian and bike path between this development and Ames Orchard I. The NPO does not support any of the variances to Community Development Code road improvement standards that had been originally requested. 7. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there are both a 10 inch diameter high pressure feeder main within the approximate alignment of the Gaarde Street extension. along the northern edge of the site as well as a 2 inch diameter poly main on the north and west sides of the site. The developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have the main located prior to any excavation on the site. 8. The Tigard Water District responded in a letter dated February 16, 1993, which stated that they "have facilities located within existing easements along the eastern and southern property line: • 36-inch water transmission main • 12-inch water main from reservoirs with water station elevation of 713 feet above sea level • 12-inch water main from reservoir adjacent to proposed project, water station elevation of 410 feet • 12-inch drain line from adjacent reservoir to detention pond at west end of Tax Lot 500 • 24" drain line from terminal (10 million gallon) reservoir, at SW 125th Avenue and SW Bull Mountain Road, with the outfall located approximately the center of Tax Lot 300 along its western property line. The above listed facilities impact the eastern property lines of proposed Lots 39, 50, and 51. They also impact most of the • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 0 storm water quality and detention tract and the eastern and southern property line of proposed Lot 52. The existing easement is 30 feet wide and is located at the eastern property line. There is also a 15 foot easement along the northern property line of Tax Lot 2300 that connects the 30 foot easement to SW Hazelhill Drive. Although the water mains are located within existing easements, the average cover. is 48 inches for the 36-inch water main and 36 inches for the 12-inch water main. One of the other concerns to the Water District is the connection shown to the existing 12-inch water main along the eastern property line. This water main is from the reservoir site adjacent to the proposed project which has a water station elevation of 410 feet above sea level. This water main cannot supply adequate water pressure for this development. There is, however, an existing 8-inch water main capable of supplying the necessary water pressure located 75 feet east of the northwest property corner. The Water District will require the developer to extend that water main to the property line between Lot 31 and 32, then south along an easement to SW Vista Circle. The developer will be required to provide a minimum of 15 feet of water line easements when necessary. Although there is an existing 12-inch water main located within SW Hazelhill Drive, which is capable of supplying the demands of the proposed development under normal circumstances, it is not accessible due to the extensive thrust blocking of the 36-inch transmission main at the existing terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive. Even though the Water District is not totally opposed to this development, the developer should be advised of the existing facilities and the need for protecting them." 9. GTE has reviewed the proposal and offered no comments other than that the site developer should contact GTE at least 30 days prior to the opening of utility trenches. 10. The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (cable television) and PGR have-reviewed the original proposal and have offered no comments or objections. 11. At the public hearing on July 27, 1993, Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area. He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. o t CITY OF TIGARD October 18, 1993 OREGON Land Use Board of Appeals 306 State Library Building 250 Winter Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Re: Luba No. 93-147 Matrix Development vs. City of Tigard and Robert Ames & Bull Mountain Land Development Company To Whom It May Concern: In a review of the LUBA record on this date, it was discovered that Page 12 of the Ames Orchard Final Decision was omitted. A .check of the original file was done; Page 12 was mailed o,-:t ::s, part of the Final Order and should have been included as part of the LUBA record. I am submitting the Page which is labeled as follows: LUBA No. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 Page 14-a I apologize for the omission and any problems it may have caused. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard Timothy V. Ramis cwc1018.931 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 No. 2 subdivision, with the proviso that the applicants participate in the formulation-of a--reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer i cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B" was acceptable to them. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Comol{ance Kith Community Development Code - Subdivision 1. Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision- must comply with the Cityls Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; C9 The streets and roads are laid out so-as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved.for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Staff finds that the modified Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the comprehensive Plan Map*s Low Density Residential density opportunity-for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in #3 below. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 12 CUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit NO. I Page No. A q-_ . within Washington County other than the first phase of Ames Orchard subdivision. The form and other details regarding the final plat would be required to be consistent with applicable Oregon Revised Statute standards, as well as the detailed plat filing requirements of the City of Tigard and Washington County. These details are not normally considered during the Planning Commission's preliminary plat review but instead are reviewed by the City's surveyor and the Washington County Surveyor's office; C* The preliminary plat does not provide for a northward extension of SW Hazelhill Drive as would be consistent with the existing road pattern with the previously approved plat for-Ames Orchard I subdivision as well as a previous subdivision approval for the subject property. Conformity with the road patterns of existing plats is required by Code Section 18.160.060.A.3. unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. On April 5, 1993, the Planning commission reviewed a plan that would have provided for an extension of SW Hazelhill Drive through the subject property. After hearing the comments of several residents of the Ames Orchard subdivision, the commission determined that it was in the public's interest to not provide for a road connection between the existing Ames Orchard subdivision and new development on the subject property. The neighbors and the Planning Commission were concerned about changes in the existing neighborhood that might result from additional traffic travelling between SW Gaarde Street and SW Bull Mountain Road. At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, the City Council heard testimony from the Ames Orchard Home Owners Association and accepted the applicant's proposal. Concerns about traffic safety due the number of potential trips that could be carried if the street were connected (as presented by the applicant's traffic consultant) and difficulties relating to limited sight distance at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Hazeltree Terrace, argue against the connection. The proposal does not provide for a street stub to serve future redevelopment of the properties to the east, as was previously proposed. The applicant's revised plan creates a_ street pattern which, if extended to the east, would create a 200 foot plus berm through adjacent properties to reach ordinance • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 13 LUBA, NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 15 required street grades, according to applicant submitted calculations. This would severely impact the development potential of the adjacent properties. With the modified "Plan BOO, the applicants have eliminated the proposed loop street within Ames Orchard II, which could have been considered to be a cul de sac or effectively a dead-end, single- access street. The southwestern-most point of the proposed loop street would have been approximately 11000 feet distant from the single SW Gaarde access to the proposed subdivision. 2. Code Section 18.160.090 authorizes the decision-making authority to grant variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The applicants' appeal withdraws all variance requests. If, at the time of review of plans for the construction of public improvements, the City has approved and adopted new standards for local streets the applicant may use those new standards.. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use standards of the R-3.5 zoning district because the lots • are intended to be used for single-family residences, a permitted use in the R-3.5 zoning district (Code Chapter 18.48). The proposal is consistent with the maximum density of 3.5 units per gross acre allowed for the site by the R-3.5 zone. All lots are consistent with the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone. All proposed lots are consistent with the minimum average lot width standard of 65 feet. Standard R-3.5 setbacks should apply to this subdivision. The proposed development is therefore found to be consistent with the applicable use and dimensional standards of Code Chapter 18.48. 4. Community Development Code Chapter 18.88 establishes standards for solar accessibility for newly created residential lots. Code Section 18.88.040.E allows the hearings authority to reduce the percentage of lots that must meet the solar access design standard if certain conditions relative to the site (such as slope, existing shade, or existing or planned road patterns) make it difficult or impossible to fully comply with the solar access design standards without adversely impacting the development's permitted density and cost or amenities. The applicants request, and staff concurs, that lots 28 and 29 should be exempted from the solar access • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 14 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 16 . calculation because these lots would have an east-west slope in excess of 20 percent. Of the remaining non-exempt lots, Code Section 18.80.040.C requires that 80 percent, or 24 lots, must satisfy the solar access design standards. With the applicant's modified design only five lots, lots 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, would need to be exempted. Therefore, over 80 percent of the lots satisfy the basic solar requirement of a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west orientation and a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet as shown according to the applicant's solar access evaluation sheet. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the solar access lot pattern standards of Chapter 18.88. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) because the 441,930 square foot net developable area of the site (after deductions for streets and Tracts A and B) yields an opportunity for 44 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning district's 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Thirty-three single family residential lots are proposed. The applicants' statement includes a density calculation. • Due to the modification of design and the revisions to the subdivision proposal including increased right-of-way widths and different street pattern, the applicant should be required to submit a revised density calculation that assures that the revised plat is still consistent with Chapter 18.92. It is noted that the proposed subdivision layout would still comply with the allowed density when rights-of way are increased to the standard 50 foot width. 6. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and related grading are anticipated to. necessitate the removal of all of the filbert trees on the western portion of the site as well as some of the other few trees on the site. The applicants intend to remove all of the filbert trees because these trees would generally not be compatible with the future residential landscaping of the proposed lots and because of the possibility of unmaintained nut trees harboring diseases and insects that could be harmful to nearby filbert orchards. For these reasons, removal of these trees should be permitted to occur with approval of a subdivision plan for this site and approval • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. M of grading and erosion control plans. In this special case, no separate tree removal permit should be required. 7. The proposed modified subdivision plan streets and other public improvements, can be found consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) as described above with regard to the general subdivision approval standards if approved with conditions. Staff provides the following additional comments with regard to the requirements of Chapter 18.164: a. Approval of any development application for this site should be conditioned upon dedication of additional right-of-way for SW Gaarde Street as well as improvement to major collector standards. If development of this site follows development of the Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developers of Ames Orchard II should anticipate being assessed for their share of these improvements through a public improvement reimbursement district or other financial mechanism. If development of this site precedes development of Vista Point, the developers of Ames Orchard II should be required to pay a fee to cover their share of the cost of constructing this collector street across the Ames Orchard II frontage or participate in a financial mechanism that guarantees construction. Construction of improvements to this major collector street by the site developer will qualify for traffic impact fee credits for the individual lots in the subdivision. The City was not persuaded by the applicants arguments for-not contributing to the costs-of the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st Avenue in their original submittal. First, the applicants argued that this street will not provide improved access to the subdivision's residents to area destinations. Obviously, with the road approved for construction only several hundred feet west of this site, the road (at first) would not provide significant access to area destinations. However, when the road is fully constructed to SW Walnut Street, the road will provide significantly improved access to destinations in western Tigard, to Beaverton, and to other locations to the north and west through improved connections to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The City Council's final order for the Vista Point development to the north found the following regarding the Code standards which require new developments in this area to contribute AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. • to development of the Gaarde Street extension as well as the benefits the road will provide for future residents of the area: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.164.030.A.1:b' states that "any new street or additional street width planned as part of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code." This street section has been planned for by Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Note 2. As noted in the introduction to the Plan, the Plan "provides a policy framework for decision making on such matters as...subdivisions." (Introduction, Page II-4.) The Council interprets this to mean that overall, the Comprehensive Plan represents the City's planning policies. The underlying basis for the Council's decision to require the Gaarde Street extension is found in the findings of the Transportation Section on Pages II-55 and II-56. The Council notes that the Community Development Code is intended to "implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan," § 18.02.010, and the following referenced sections accomplish that policy. The Council considers the following findings from the Transportation section as mandated guidance from the City~s acknowledged plan in evaluating transportation issues for this area of Tigard. * Major congestion problems within the City have resulted from the rapid population growth since 1970, creating a need for major street improvements. * The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. . AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 17 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 11 * The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard (the affected area). Both of these areas lack adequate improved traffic ways. * A need exists during the planning period to complete a col-lector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. In addition to the findings, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Note 2 specifically states that "A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report." The Council finds authority for this condition in Transportation Policy 8.1.1, which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development.." Strategy 5 of the Transportation Section states that 11[t]he City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way and install necessary street improvements to the city's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." The project site is in the westerly area of Tigard where major residential development was expected and is occurring, and which lacks adequate improved traffic ways. Gaarde Street is specifically mentioned as a necessary collector/connector to Walnut Street. This project site is included in the area covered by note 2 in the Transportation AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 18 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. Q* Plan, which specifically mentions a Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection. This project represents one piece of the development puzzle, the completion of which will provide public improvements to help implement the solutions presented in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds there is a reasonable relationship between the current development of this project and the needs for transportation system improvements, as expressed in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the Development Code Sections 18.164.030.A.1.b and 18.164.030.F.1. (City Council Final Order for the proposed Vista Point development, adopted by Council Resolution No. 93-19). The Council findings are just as applicable to the proposed Ames Orchard II development as they are to the Vista Point proposal. Additionally, the City Council apparently contemplated that other future developments in this area should be required to contribute to the cost of • development of the Gaarde extension. The Council's final order for Vista Point also found: "The subdivision developer will be required to construct an extension of SW Gaarde Street and a major sewer line to serve the proposed subdivision. These improvements will likely be used by other developments. SW Gaarde Street is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a needed collector street improvement. The street and sewer improvements likely will only be constructed as part of a development. Therefore, the City finds it is appropriate to initiate a zones of benefit pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 in order to allow the developer of these facilities to recover a portion of the improvement costs from other subsequent developments using these facilities. Section 13.08.020(a) allows the City to initiate formation of zones of benefit. The City finds that the comprehensive Plan is furthered by initiating zones of benefit because it enables the subdivision developer to AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 19 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. i proceed with the necessary public improvements." Part of the application's arguments for not contributing to the costs of improving the Gaarde extension is the applicants state that the SW Gaarde Road extension is a detriment to the site. The Planning Commission's final order regarding the upzoning of this property from R-2 to R-3.5 (Final Order No. 93-07 PC) cited the approved alignment for the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site as a reason why the property should be up- zoned due to the potential impacts to the site as well as providing improved access to the site. While some argument may be made that the road could be a detriment with regard to livability for future development, the plans for the road were used as an asset to the development in justifying the upzoning. Additionally, the applicants argued that the site has little or no ability to dedicate additional right-of-way for the Gaarde extension. The staff report for the previous proposal noted that some additional right-of-way might be needed, to be determined by the City Engineer through review of the public improvement plans for this site as well as the Vista Point development. It may be found that no right-of-way is actually needed for this road from the Ames Orchard II subdivision, but this will not be clear until final road plans are developed. Washington County is recommending that the subject site be required to dedicate 17 feet for expansion of SW Gaarde east of SW 121st Avenue. It will therefore be necessary for some additional right-of-way to be provided to the west of SW 121st Avenue in order to make a proper transition between these two road segments. There is no physical reason why right-of-way could not be provided by this site. The applicants state the amount of Traffic Impact Fees the proposed subdivision will generate and state that these fees should be more than a sufficient contribution to the construction of this section of the Gaarde extension. While this contribution is important, the City's policy remains that developments are required to participate in actual street improvements, as well. The applicants did not present persuasive arguments for the City to distinguish this proposed • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 20 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. development from other developments that are required to improve collector or arterial streets. The applicants, in fact, agreed at the July 27, 1993 public hearing to participate in the formation of a reimbursement district to allocate the costs of the extension of SW Gaarde Street. b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed although right-of way dedication for SW Gaarde Street would need to be increased to 37 feet from centerline east of SW 121st as the County has requested, and would need to be dependant on final road. design west of SW 121st. Preliminary street improvement plans were consistent with these standards, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced width and sidewalk on one side. As noted above, the applicant has withdrawn the variance requests in the appeal. c. The preliminary plat submitted to the Planning Commission did not provide for a street stub to the east to provide for a future further extension of this street to connect up with SW Gaarde Street (potentially opposite SW 118th Avenue), as was previously proposed with the first submittal. To meet street grade requirements for such a street would require an elongated fill which would inhibit potential development on properties to the east according to calculations and profiles submitted by the applicant. d. The modified development "Plan B" would eliminate the block length that exceeded the 1200 foot maximum block length standard of Code Section 18.164.040.B. The proposed connection to the west and dedication to allow a future connection to SW Gaarde have eliminated the long block length caused by the loop street system that had been proposed. While nothing in the City Council's decision can inhibit the decision making of future Councils, the extension of the "Plan B" modification street to the west and north is predicated on the realization that further extension will not be probable unless adjacent property to the west is developed. e. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum frontage, and other lot AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 21 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. a 3 dimensional standards specified by Code • Section 18.164.060. Although this Code Section discourages the creation of through lots, such as proposed lots 10-17 on the modified "Plan B", the Code recognizes that situations such as this are necessary to avoid lots taking access from major streets such as Gaarde. These lots would need to meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback standard along both streets as specified by this Code Section. f. Access to SW Gaarde Street should be prohibited for all lots which would have frontage along this collector street. These lots as well as all other lots could receive access from local streets. g. Preliminary plans for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water supply, and other utilities would provide appropriate service to the proposed development. B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. The Subdivision/Variance review process for Ames Orchard II is consistent with Plan Policy 2.1.1 because notices of the application and the original April 5, 1993 public hearing on this item were provided to the neighborhood planning organization and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. Notice of that hearing was also advertised in the Tigard Times newspaper. The hearing was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Community Development Code and Oregon Revised Statute provisions, no additional notice was provided for the continued hearing date. Notice of the City Council July 27, 1993 public hearing was published and notice was also sent to property owners in the vicinity. In addition, the applicants and their representatives, as well as City staff, have held meetings with concerned neighbors of the proposed development. Therefore, a substantial opportunity has been provided for the public to comment on this development application as is required by this policy. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, conditions of approval would be warranted to require the developer to submit an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application, as well as to AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 22 tUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. a4 part of the grading permit application, as well as to provide an on-site water quality facility consistent with the recommendations of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 3. The preliminary subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because development of this site will require the developer to extend public sewer, storm drainage, and public water systems through this site. Utility and service providers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No significant concerns have been raised with regard to the capacities of these necessary-services, although the site developer will need to accommodate the utility relocation and construction concerns raised by the utility providers, most notably the Tigard Water District and Northwest Natural Gas. Future development of this site will require provisions for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of these utilities. 4. Staff finds that the modified preliminary plat would provide for an efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons stated above. • 5. The modified subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.3 because the proposed improvements to the public streets and utilities within the proposed subdivision and along SW Gaarde Street east of SW 121st can be consistent with City of Tigard standards or Washington County road improvement standards. The policy is further met with the revised preliminary plan which provides access to the west, and right-of-way dedication for a future connection to the north. Finally, the policy will be met through the condition to participate in the establishment of a funding mechanism for the improvement of SW Gaarde to the west of 121st Avenue. C. Procedural At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, a request was made to hold the record open for seven days. The request was conditional. Since this was not the initial evidentiary hearing, Council action to hold the record open is discretionary under ORS 197.763. The Council did not hold the record open. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 23 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 5 • VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOM[ENDATION The City of Tigard Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision's street plan ("Plan B") will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be detrimental to surrounding land uses provided that development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws and conditions. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the City Council approves Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0002 request for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision subject to the conditions which follow. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMMM SHALL BE COMPLETED OR COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, STAFF CONTACT IS CHRIS DAVILS OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENNT. 1. The final plat shall be limited to the creation of no more than 33 lots. All lots shall be fully dimensioned on the plat and shall be consistent with R-3.5 zoning district dimensional requirements. • The plat and public improvement plans shall be revised to provide for local street connections as approved by the City Council at its July 27, 1993 public hearing. ("Plan B") The above recommended modifications to the plat will affect the applicant's density calculation submitted with the subdivision application. The application shall prepare a revised density calculation clearly exhibiting consistency with the density standards of Community Development Code Chapter 18.92. STAFF CONTACT: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Division. 2. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards consistent with Code Chapter 18.164. Street improvements are not required for the art al right-of-way along the west boundary of lot 10 on "Plan B". The partial right-of-way shall be graded to the approximate horizontal and vertical alignment of proposed street with a pathway constructed at the approximate grade and alignment of a standard sidewalk for the continuation of the proposed street. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 24 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. -1h 3. The pedestrian pathway and emergency vehicle in Tract B shall be constructed to City specifications at the time of other Is public improvements are made. 4. If at the time of plan review for the construction of the public improvements, which includes the local streets, the City of Tigard has approved and adopted new standards for local streets, the applicant may utilize standards applicable at that time. 5. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the site's'SW Gaarde Street frontage (from the Gaardej121st intersection east) to increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show, and additional documents will be required to be recorded, giving notice that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision. 7. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Gaarde Street extension. The basis for the right-of-way shall be as proposed in the preliminary plat and submitted with the Vista Point subdivision (SUB 92-0005). The exact amount to be dedicated, which is that portion of the property that lies within 30 feet of the right-of-way centerline as shown on the preliminary plat of SUB 92-0005, shall be approved by the City Engineer. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 8. The developer shall grade along the north boundary of the subdivision where right-of-way is to be dedicated. The grading shall be to the approximate horizontal and vertical alignment of the standard sidewalk location for the proposed streets. Adjacent lot owners shall not affect or alter the grade as prepared for the future street and sidewalk. 9. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LUBA NO. 93-147 ►GE 25 Exhibit No. Page No. in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 10. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989. 11. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No., 91-47. Proposed Tract A shall either be dedicated to the City of Tigard or shall be owned by a homeowner's association, with an access easement provided to the City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency for storm drainage maintenance purposes. 12. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 13. Storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. .The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 14. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. 15. The applicant shall make an appointment.for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicants engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. 16. Construction of the proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and payment of all permit fees. 17. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County, the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment. As an alternative the applicant may have the plat recorded after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and posted the appropriate maintenance bond has been posted. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LUBA NO. 93-147 PAGE 26 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. ifs' 18. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 19. Prior to the recording of the final plat with Washington County, the City of Tigard shall ensure that the "street plug" at the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is dedicated to the public. The "street plug" is shown as Tract "A" on the Ames Orchard plat (referred to in this report as Ames Orchard I subdivision). The Ames Orchard plat is recorded on Page 37 in Book 39 Record of Town Plats of Washington County. 20. The applicant shall provide half-street improvements along SW Gaarde Street from SW 121st to the east boundary of the subdivision. Half-street improvements shall meet Washington County standards. 21. A one foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage except at approved access points. 22. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of Washington County to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. A copy shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. • 23. The finished slope of all lots with cuts or fills should have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction on all lots with slopes in excess of 25 percent, building permit applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed structure will be sited and designed to ensure structural stability. Foundation plans shall be stamped by a registered engineer. Approved erosion control measures shall be employed throughout the construction process on individual building lots. STAFF CONTACT: City of Tigard Building Official. 24. Private storm drain lines shall be as necessary to allow roof drains to be directed to public storm sewers or existing drainageways. Easements should be provided where storm sewers cross other properties. A joint use and maintenance agreement should be recorded for lots utilizing common private storm drains. STAFF CONTACT: City of Tigard Building Official. 25. Utility plans will need to be revised to adequately satisfy the concerns raised by the Tigard Water District's February 16, 1993 letter to Jerry Offer (copied to Randy Clarno of Alpha Engineering). Final approval of the plans for water main location and size, including water meters, will need to be approved jointly by the Fire and Water Districts. The applicant shall be responsible for providing the City with proof of the Water District and Fire District's approval of AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LUBA NO. 93-147 PAGE 27 Exhibit No. t Page No. -21 . the revised water service plan. CONTACT: Michael Miller, Tigard Water District. APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This ) 4 o day of fCCam' , 1993, by the t'yj City Council of the City---6i Tigard. -Gerald Edwards, Mayor Tigard City Council db/Ames20rc • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LR16A NO. 93-147 PAGE 28 Exhibit No. _1 Page No. 30 STEVEN L. PFEIFFER Af+n: mike HERMAN PORTER, Ambpw SW FIFTH AVE Robinson 11875 SW GAARDE ST. Wkw=m OR 97204-1268 TIGARD OR. 97223 LARRY YORK BULL MOUNTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO MATRIX DEVErXl*=T CORP 16325 SW BOONF.S FERRY RD 7160 SW HAZELFERN RD S-100 LAKE 05WE00 OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97224-7771 BRUCE CANVASSER GARY RATSION 14465 SW HAZELHILL DR _ RITTLESON & ASSOCIATES TIGARD OR 97224 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 M20 BAIL 12255 SW DUCHILLY Cl STEVEN REINHART TIGARD OR 97224 14035 SW-125TH AVENUE TIGARD, -OR 97224 RANAYE HOFFMAN JAMES WELCH 12300 SW DucHILLY CT -14340 SW HAZELHILL DR TIGARD OR 97224 - TIGARD, OR 97224 ANTHONY & SHARON FRANCIS - 12305 SW DUCHILLY CT TIGARD OR 97224 RANDY CLARNO ALPHA ENGINEERING INC 9600 SW OAR #230 - GARD OR 97223 ROBERT AMES C/O MARK ROCKWELL LUBA NO. 93-147 16325 SW BOONES FERRY RD Exhibit No. I LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 Page No. 31 1-iyYjes UrckrA_r~ Sep ~Xj ~ Q ~d rku ~sstie. Far {-c..~s wte~fi Council Agenda Item TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Jerry Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and John Acker, Associate Planner. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review - Council briefly reviewed the business agenda. One item discussed was the Metzger LID issue. It was noted that a copy of a 1988 letter was received from Jack Reardon of Washington Square. This letter outlined concerns with an increase in the assessment for the Metzger LID. Council discussed the park and the effect that a reduction in the LID assessment might have. Council consensus was to ratify the assessment for one year. Staff will gather information to assist Council in their determination of whether the City should continue to support the LID assessment or to pursue other options for this park. Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs~ - Facilitator training was completed last week; 12 people participated. There will be a one-hour "kick-off" meeting (8/31 - 7-8 p.m.) to make assignments, discuss the timing of the first meeting and begin work on the draft agreements. Review of Agenda Item No. 4. Gage Natural Area Local Improvement District - It was noted Council must repeal the resolution approved previously with regard to the petition process (Resolution No. 93-37). If Council should decide to proceed with the LID process, they would need to approve a resolution to start the process on Council's own initiative. 7 Review of Agenda Item No. 6. Consideration of Final Order - Ames Orchard II, SUB 93- 0002 - Legal Counsel Coleman advised two pieces of correspondence were in the Council's meeting material. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the letters were received after close of the Public Hearing. Council should note the letters were received, but that they would not be considered part of the public testimony. The letters should not be accepted as part of the record of the proceedings. If Council would want to hear more on any issue, the Public Hearing would have to be reopened and proper notice must be CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. .1 Page No. _3z) • given. Legal Counsel Coleman, in response to question from Councilor Fessler, advised the final order may be modified by City Council, as long as the modification is consistent with the intent of Council action which was taken previously on the night of the hearing. Metropolitan Advisory Committee - Councilor Fessler received indication of consensus from the Tigard Council that they were not in favor of the Multnomah County proposal to either transfer or fee title to Metro all Multnomah County inventory of Expo, Glendeveer Golf Course, Blue Lake Park, County parks, open spaces, and Pioneer cemeteries. Request from Washington County to use City Hall as a polling place for the November. 1993 election - Council briefly discussed the request. After discussion, Council consensus was to suggest to Washington County they check with the Joint Water Agency administration to determine if that building would be available. It was noted City Hall has a high volume of traffic and is very busy during the day. It was the opinion of Council that the water agency building might better accommodate Election Day needs. Joint Water Agency - City Administrator Reilly advised Audrey Castile had resigned from the Joint Water Agency Board. City Council must select a fourth representative to the Board. Councilor Hunt questioned whether or not the appointment must be made from the membership of the old Tigard Water District Board. City Administrator Reilly advised he thought the City of Tigard had fulfilled their obligation with regard to appointments. Training Session for City Council - Council consensus was they would like to meet in a training session in the Fall. Location and dates will be determined at a later time. Council meeting recessed at 7:16 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Mr. Ed Gallaher, resident of Merestone Court, advised of concern with a developer-built gravel roadway in a nearby greenway. City Engineer will contact developer to determine the schedule for removing the driveway. The City holds a bond until all work is done. Mr. Gallaher questioned status of billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. This item was reviewed later in the Agenda (See Page 10). • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. a Page No. -3.1~ • Curtis Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted his concerns with regard to the `logging" of the Hart property. He expressed concerns with the fact that Mrs. Hart's land is classified as developed land which means there are no restrictions for taking out trees on her property. Mr. Herr advised that 100 to 120 foot trees are being pushed over. He urged criteria be specified for developed and non-developed with regard to tree removal. He noted the tree cutting on the Hart property was an "irreversible situation," and urged that an ordinance be put into place which would take care of situations such as this. He noted that the activity on the Hart property was irresponsible. He reported that there was another slash pile near the 'wetland" area, and that it was his understanding the first pile was to have been removed by August 16. He questioned when the City was going to enforce the removal of the piles. Community Development Director Murphy responded the Code Enforcement Officer returned to the property on August 16 to inspect progress. In the meantime, Mrs. Hart's attorney, John Rankin, was advised Mrs. Hart had permission to access her property through the park by working with staff. Staff determined Mrs. Hart was working towards the removal of the slash piles, and Mr. Murphy advised the piles should be . removed on or before September 3. City Attorney Tim Ramis had also been instructed to contact Mr. Rankin to gain an understanding of how Mrs. Hart was progressing on other items, such as the delineation of the floodplain area. Discussion followed about enforcement and timing for compliance, in general, for a situation such as this. Mr. Herr expressed his concern about the length of time being taken. • Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted that for over two months they have tried to alert the City with their concerns of a "reckless landowner." Mrs. Herr said Mrs. Hart was commercially logging her property. She outlined her frustrations, noting it was too late for this piece of property with regard to trees, and advised of her concerns that those trees left would be vulnerable because of removal of trees next to them. There was discussion by City Council with regard to the process for a tree ordinance. Mayor Edwards advised he hoped staff was moving as quickly as they could on the issues which could be addressed. He advised the changes with regard to the tree ordinance must be fair to everyone concerned. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. D. Page No. 3y • In response to a question by Councilor Fessler, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that on September 3 the next step may be to involve Mrs. Hart in the civil infraction process if it was determined violations of the Code did exist. For each day the property owner is in violation of the Code, a new citation could be issued. There was discussion on the action which could be taken by the City. The same deadline would apply to the fill as well as the slash piles. Legal Counsel Coleman stressed that the philosophy of the civil infraction process was to bring the property owner in compliance and to avoid going to court if at all possible. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda, as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 9340 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. After introduction to this item by Community Development Director Murphy, and upon his recommendation, motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to repeal Resolution No. 93-37, which approved a preliminary feasibility study on a petition-initiated UD process. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. This action was taken because it had been determined that 50% of the affected property owners did not sign a petition to pursue this UD. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report, which included a memo in the Council packet. This memo, dated August 17, 1993, outlined the options available for City Council. Those four options were reviewed by the Community Development Director, who advised he recommended Council approve the first three options. Lengthy Council discussion followed. The following statements are highlights of the discussion: • Councilor Hunt noted he had viewed the property with Dorothy Gage. He advised he was not in favor of proceeding with the study of this LID. He was concerned- there would be limited access to the property which would not be inviting as an area available for use by the general public. He • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. s Page No. J_ advised he could see no evidence of any wetlands or property which would need special consideration. • Councilor Fessler noted she recommended Council go forward with the engineering report and have the petitioners pay for the cost of the report. She advised she wanted to give the people concerned a chance to protect this natural area. • Councilor Hawley advised she would like to have more information to make a proper decision. She noted she was not necessarily in favor of the LID, but wanted to have enough information to make the determination as to whether or not this was a proper thing to do. She also advised she would accept the idea of having the Gages or the petitioners provide the dollars for the engineering report. She said that she was in favor of going ahead with the engineering study. Councilor Hawley advised she would also like to see the neighborhood very involved in determining what they would want for this park. • Councilor Schwartz advised that because this LID was not a public safety issue, he was not inclined to support unless there was an overwhelming majority of proponents. He advised that even if the petitioners paid for a study, he would not vote for a park LID which did not have a super majority of support. One option suggested was that the interested parties purchase the property through the formation of a homeowner's association. • Councilor Schwartz also noted he opposed a great deal of staff time being spent on the issue. • Major Edwards acknowledged the validity of the comments of the other Council members. He noted his agreement with statements made by Councilors Schwartz and Hunt. Mayor Edwards said he thought this would be an excellent CIT project in order to resolve this issue for the neighborhood. He agreed there should be limited staff time in looking this issue over, and he would also oppose an LID where 51% of the population could "drive the other 490/o." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. •2 Page No. 34 There was further discussion on boundaries and clarification of process by staff in response to questions from Council. After lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley,to initiate a preliminary feasibility study (engineer's report) by City Council direction and to have the petitioners bear the cost of the engineering report. Motion failed by a two to three vote. Councilors Hawley and Fessler voted "yes"; Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hunt and Schwartz voted °no." 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT City Administrator Reilly summarized the issue for Council. The issue before Council is to decide whether or not to ratify an increase in the assessment established by Washington County in 1988. Without approval by the City, the County advised the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 would be reduced to an annual maximum assessment of $27,000. City Administrator Reilly noted an article had been written in the Tigard Times and large property owners were sent letters, asking for their opinion on the Metzger Park LID. One letter was received from Washington Square. Mr. Jack Reardon sent to City offices a May 5, 1988 letter from him to Bonnie Hays, Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for Washington County. Mr. Reardon, General Manager of Washington Square, advised his comments in the 1988 letter were still valid. In this letter, Mr. Reardon advised he felt the Board could work with the assessment of $27,000 per year, which was a more than an adequate amount to maintain the park. (Copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet). Mr. Reilly advised the City received six responses from residents. Four persons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments, and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more, or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LID. Mr. Reilly outlined options for Council. These options included: 1. Affirm the increase in assessment by approving the proposed resolution. 2. Approve the increase in assessment, with limitations. 3. Decline to affirm. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 6 LURA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. -X Page No. 31 Mr. Reilly advised his recommendation would be to affirm the proposed resolution for a set period of time. Council discussed the issue briefly. It was determined Council would like to be advised what the actual operating costs are for the park. There was concern expressed that the park not be cut off immediately until some determination can be made as to the need for operating costs for the park. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the proposed resolution (Resolution No. 93-41), with an amendment being added that such approval would be for a one year period of time only. (Note: Legal Counsel noted that in Section 1 it would read as follows: The ongoing maximum annual operations and maintenance assessment for Metzger Park in an amount not to exceed $40,500 is hereby approved for the tax year beginning January 1, 1994.) RESOLUTION NO. 93-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF METZGER PARK FOR ONE YEAR. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD II, SUB 93-0002 Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the Public Hearing had been closed. Two letters included in the Council packet would not be accepted as part of the record. Legal Counsel recommended that the Council clearly make a determination that the letters will not be considered. If Council should feel they would want to take new information, then the City would need to re-notice and advertise the Public Hearing. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, stating that the Council conducted a Public Hearing on this issue. Additional information received after the close of the Public Hearing would not be considered as part of the record for this issue. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He referred to the final decision before Council for ratification. During the course of his presentation, Mr. Murphy recommended that Condition No. 6 be amended. (see Page 25 for Item No. 6 on the Ames Orchard Final Decision, which is attached to Resolution No. 93-42). The proposed change to Condition No. 6 would require additional documents be recorded to give notice that each individual lot -in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision. In this manner, property owners will be advised at the time of the purchase of the financial obligation with regard to the reimbursement district. Discussion followed wherein Community Development Director Murphy responded to questions by Council and clarified the Final Order. RESOLUTION NO. 93-42 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, AMES ORCHARD II, SUB 93- 0002. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-42, with the additional language as outlined by Community Development Director Murphy for Condition No. 6 as specified on Page 25 of the Final Order. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. No members of Council reported any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including site visits. All members of Council indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, nor was there a challenge on the participation of any member of Council. D. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the staff report. He advised the proposal meets. all applicable criteria and therefore staff recommended approval of CPA 93-0008 and ZON 93-0002. He clarified some issues from questions asked by Council. He noted the increased density would add to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. .4 Page No. 34 • inventory of units per acre as required by state density requirements for urban areas. E. Public Testimony - Mayor Edwards advised that for those wishing to testify, they should be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue would preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff had described or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which was believed to apply to the decision. Applicant Testimony • Mr. Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, advised he supported the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission findings. He outlined his research and the need for multi-family housing in this area. He advised that presently there was no multi-family housing planned in the Triangle area. Proponents • None Opponents • Mayor Edwards noted for the record that a letter in opposition was received from Carroll W. Lantz and Patsy R. Lantz, 7270 SW Hermosa Way, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. The letter is on file with the Council packet meeting material. The Lantz's advised the change would not enhance livability or value of their neighborhood within the Triangle. They advised they did not believe the proposed change was in the best interest of the Triangle. They asked that Council deny the proposal and change. • C. L Roberts, 12465 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Mr. Roberts outlined his concerns with increased traffic and expressed he believed that better planning for traffic mitigation should be completed prior to approval of this proposal. F. Rebuttal • Mark Rockwell, during rebuttal, said the proposed amendment to R- 25 zoning would add traffic to what occurs. However, the current commercial zoning (when developed) would draw more traffic than CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. .z Page No. Ato the requested R-25. In addition, Mr. Rockwell advised R-25 zoning would create traffic that would be more defused throughout the day than commercial zoning traffic. G. Council discussed the issue and asked questions concerning the process within the context of the Triangle Master Plan, which is being worked on for this area. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the Master Plan can be taken into account. The plan is still under development and is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan at this time. H. Public Hearing was closed. 1. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the ordinance as presented, noting this request was consistent with the plan and for the area. In addition, Council believes the traffic questions were adequately answered. J. ORDINANCE NO. 93-23 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY CRITERION EQUITIES (CPA 93- 0008, ZON 93-0002). K. Ordinance was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. • 8. Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road: Legal Counsel Coleman advised research is underway to determine whether the Code interpretation that billboards must be oriented towards 1-5 or Highway 217 is defensible. Staff has had discussions with Ackerly communications to advise them of the City's interpretation of the sign code. First step will be to press for compliance. If compliance is not obtained, the City's Civil Infraction process can be utilized. 9. Purchase of property for right of way for the 109th Avenue Extension Project: City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report on this item. After brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - IGelhom property for $161,000 and authorize the City Administrator to sign any documents necessary for completion of the purchase. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present. Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes.° Councilor Hunt abstained from voting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. q Page No. I I 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The. Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ADJOURNMENT: 10:54 p.m. GAttest: Wheatley, City Recorder ( 14 yor, W of Tigard Date: • h:\recorder\ccm\ccm0a24.93 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ? Page No. 4-L CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBUC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 am. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext 309 (voice) or 6842772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. f3- CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 • TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) - Agenda Review - Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 93- 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - RESOLUTION NO. 93--. • Community Development 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION, - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 93- City Administration 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD 11, SUB 93-0002 - RESOLUTION NO. 93- Community Development Department - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. `tN • 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1., 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1. 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1:2. 12. 1.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, and 18.64. CURRENT ZONE: C-P (Professional Commercial) The C-P zone allows public agency administrative services, public support facilities, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, and professional and administrative services. PROPOSED ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows multi-family residential units, residential care facilities, public support services, residential treatment homes, family day care, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Request) Opponents (Oppose the Request) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF - Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT cca0824M i COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 45 / COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal / P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7660 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 The following in&dng highlights are published for your, information. Full f` Legal Notice Advertising 'agendas may be•obtained froth the.City Recorder, 13,125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Trgard,,Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. 's • City of Tigard • E3 Tearsheet Notice CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING ' O Z O AUGUST 24,1993 13125~ SW Hall- Blvd:7' • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • [3 Duplicate Affidavit TIGA,RD CITY HALL -TOWN HALL Q 13125 S.W.-HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON, :1:., co tm • • Council Meeting (7bwn Hall Conference Room) J p. 'Study Session: (6:30 P.M.). . • ;:AA,genda.Review,!,; AFFIDAVIT OF *bBLI . . Business Meeting; ('1:30 P.M.) • Council Discuss{on/Reports from.Staff STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON;, jss' Q`~\Go - Billboard`on'Scholls Ferry Road Judith Koehler Conricii onsi era n. = Asheshaid~ti being first duly sworn, depose and say that I m t e Advertising r , - Final Orde ? . Director, or his principal clerk, of theI'iga Times - - - Potential Oa 0`Natural Area Local Improvement District," a newspaper of general circus lion s. defined In ORS 193.010 Metzger Park Local Improvement District Assessment and 193.020; published at in the aforgsaid Bounty $ndsta e; that the:w,s° i' • .Public Hearing City CAUncil Busjness Mee tag Comprehensive.Plarr`A1meniibrnent CPA 93-0008, Zone Change a printed_copy,_o, whicha hereto annexed„-was- ublishedan the L < ZON 93=0002~Cri~eronEqqui~ies~(Location, G' nerally west of , p 'S.W. 70th-Avenue; east of 72nd Avenue; i;oh of Elmhurst entire issue of said newspaper for One successive and Street; and north of Beveland Street. consecutive in the following Issues: J raci:.- c.. Local Contract Rev ie , Board Meeting August 19, 1993 `Executive, Session t'Y'~i aitiCCit}2'Cl3t ilcil;ma go int l?5cecutiveSes sion under the pfiovr s s ~f:&S 192:660 (1) d), (e), 8t. (h) to'discuss labor relations; real ,transactions, current and pending litigation issues. M660-Publish August 19,,1993; c 1 ;ae r i s t fie t ( ;i3' Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 119th day of August OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON .'Notary 61blic for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 [6mv COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, t997 My Commission Expires: 4 AFFIDAVIT • COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ((1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 24th. 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: August 12th. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Decision. PREVIOUS ACTION: July 27th. 1993 An s Orchar 11. SUB 93-0002 1 - If If 17 PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approval of the final decision on Ames Orchard II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached final decision to approve the preliminary subdivision plat. INFORMATION SUMMARY This subdivision proposal was heard by the Council at a public hearing on July 27th. At that meeting, the Council approved "Plan B", and reviewed the W raft final decision. Two letters were received after the Council hearing - one from Steve Pfeiffer representing "Vista Point", the proposed subdivision to the north of Ames Orchard II, and one from Jack Orchard, representing Ames Orchard II. Both letters are concerning the condition of approval that deals with making improvements to SW Gaarde Street extension. (See Condition #6 in the final decision). Both letters are attached to this report. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Adopt the Resolution approving the preliminary subdivision plat Reopen the hearing for additional testimony only on the wording of Condition #6, modify as may be appropriate, and then adopt the Resolution FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. 0 jM/CCgW.WW LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. -5 - Page No. q- MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Direct DATE: August 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Ames Orchard *II, and Responsibility to Improve SW Gaarde Street Extension SUMMARY: Both the developers of Ames Orchard II and Vista Point have submitted letters suggesting changes to the condition of approval on Ames Orchard II relating to the requirement to participate in the construction of Gaarde Street extension. Staff has reviewed the letters, and discussed the matter with both parties. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Council has required "Vista Point" to improve Gaarde Street, and has offered to assist by allowing the developer to initiate a reimbursement district. The Council, if they adopted the attached final order on "Ames Orchard III', would be obligating "Ames Orchard III' to participate in that reimbursement district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the language in Condition #6 of the final decision. ANALYSIS: The essential question is: what happens if Ames Orchard II precedes Vista Point? It appears to staff that Ames Orchard cannot be responsible for constructing SW Gaarde extension in advance of Vista Point for the following reasons: 1. Most of the right-of-way for Gaarde extension will be dedicated through the Vista Point subdivision. 2. Vista Point is more dependent on SW Gaarde Street extension than is Ames Orchard II. 3. If Ames Orchard II constructs a portion of SW Gaarde Street extension, if will not serve any lots nor connect to any streets, and therefore will be functionally useless. Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. S Page No. 4 Fr It also appears to staff that the appropriate method of handling . this issue is to make both developments responsible for some share of the Gaarde extension. This street will be constructed either by the developer of Vista Point with a reimbursement from Ames Orchard II, or by a Local Improvement District. In either case, the Council would decide at a public hearing how much each party needs to contribute to the road extension. Below please find the related conditions of approval for Vista Point; the language proposed by Jerry Offer in his memo to the Planning Commission dated April 5, 1993, and the proposed condition in the final decision for Ames Orchard II, and a portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993. Vista Point final decision adopted by Resolution No. 93-19, dated April 27, 1993: 11#190 The SW Gaarde Street extension shall be built to major collector standards from SW 121st Avenue to proposed Lot 52 with development of phase I. Prior to or concurrent with construction of phase II, the applicant shall construct the SW Gaarde Street extension to a point 140 feet south of the northern edge of the subject parcel. The collector street improvements shall be 44 feet in width for phase I and 40 feet in width for phase II. The applicant-shall not be responsible for the second lift of asphalt for the section of roadway to be built with phase • II. #31. The City of Tigard will initiate the formation of zones of benefit for the reimbursement of costs incurred for development of the extension of SW Gaarde Street and the extension of sewer to the subject property." Jerry offer's memo to Planning Commission dated April 5, 1993: "Second, it has. been suggested that recommended condition of approval #7 needs to allow for the possibility of Ames Orchard II subdivision being developed prior to the Vista Point subdivision to the north. It has been suggested that a fee in lieu of improvements to Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue be collected rather than for the fee to be collected later through a local improvement district to be imposed upon the individual owners of lots within Ames Orchard II. Staff recommends that condition #7 be revised as follows: 7. The applicant shall share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of SW.121st Avenue, where this street will abut the site's northern property line. If the development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and Page 2 LUBA NO. 93-14_7 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. Q constructing improvements to this section of road, with • the exception of sidewalks which would be the responsibility of the Ames orchard II developer. The developer of Ames Orchard II may be required to pay for up to one half of the cost of the improvements for this road segment if the City Council approves the creation of a reimbursement district. If Ames Orchard II precedes the development of Vista Point, the developer of Ames Orchard II shall prepare preliminary plans and a cost estimate for improving this segment of SW Gaarde Street consistent with the current approval for Vista Point. The Ames Orchard II developer shall deposit with the City of Tigard a fee in lieu of improvements equal to one half the estimated cost of those improvements, minus any credit for improvements constructed by Ames Orchard II. The City shall hold this fee to be released only for the construction of improvements for this road segment." The recommended Condition #6, Ames Orchard II draft Final Order: "6. The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show that each individual' lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision." A portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993: Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area. He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard No. 2 subdivision, providing that the applicants participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B" was acceptable to them." em/Awsll.Mem Page 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 50 _ _ - M CQ CQ U' O a WW MO Cu F' 04 i ~-4 ~I i 1400 ~ ' I I 0A 90, rvi W 4 i 00 H OCO 00 000) Z o i M WA ~02 4 ow I ~i / ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ wN o~ jilt z I~ ~j w dNd i 10 0 . . i i • 410 - - - ~ ' T--_ _ i ~ V~ • ZOO 25' - - - - = = = - = = = = - _ ~ _1~NON-VEHI LAR 86 84' 84T 8 ~ 1 1 1 1 m in 100 .-L`1~--._..`._._..~.,.___ ~ , , ~ ~ b 1~ I ~ ~ ~p ~ 11 I~, ~ I~, I~, ~ ' ~ ~ \ 11.122 SF ~ 10.234 SF . ~ 9,996 i ~ 9,99 SF ~ ~ 9,9. 1\ ` l I I I VEHI LAR ACCESS STRIP ~ ~ ~ $4 $4 $ 1 ~ - ~ I r 0 I I ~ ~ I. V) 21 ~ I ~ ~ N W cy- 20 ~ ,i ' " I I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ! ~ 1~ Ion 9 996 SF 1cn ~ ~ , 9 996 SF 17 213 0~ 9 996 F ~ ~ ' t_ t_ 1~- ~ , 1N W 2S• - - - - 400 ~ 1 0 7 . 0 Z , ~2, 91 ,-18, __T__ g 1 a) CY) (3) 4 i 2,soo sF ~ ; 22 ' 21 ' t N N N j ~I 0,458 SF °0 11,800 SF I o 11, I I 1 LLJ I0° 1~ 1 1 300 Q Q Q w D D D tY_ CV 125' p W C) 0 V) ~c~ ~ - ' ~ ~ o .a. o a co 105~ 118' co N. II c=n m CO ~pJ Z Q W I ~ I ~ ~ ' I ~ I ' Z 5 U X 3 O O 12,464 SF ~ ~ < fJj S © Q w CY- lLJ r r) ~ I- 23 ~ soo F I o ii ~ i~ 10,458 SF ' J ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i i i 20' I N t ~ 91~ 118 a ~ ~'i 1 L s r, 1 ~ ~ ~ 400 i 4,191 SF _ . ~ - - 99, - - T - .t0, ~ T ~ o i 6 8' ~ ! I _ i 500 ~ 4 ' rt ~ j'~, ~ 11,534 F 11,550 S i I dl OI ~ I 13.739 ~ ~ / ~ i i a i ~ r I 195' - I 110 ~ - 110 I w~r.rw w way.. w rrrrgrr~r ~ ir~r~ w w w w rr.r.~.r..~~ w r .wwr~r w w ~ O~ li !I i ~i W I ~ ~ i ' ! ~ / _ _ ~ ~ a ~ I ~ I I 2 Q i ~ ~ I ~ ~ - _ _ _ t~ ~ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ t~ I I ~ . i i I ~ ~ ~ i I - - ~ i ~ f { ~ ~I ~ i s , . ~ I ~ 23 612- SF I x ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 1 t~! ST ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ I i i i ~ ~ _ I ~ - ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I _ ~ i ~ ~ 'I 8~$~F, i; ~ I ~ rn ~ 1 ~ I i ~ ti ~ ~1._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ - 1 ~ ~ i 1 ~ i 0, ~ r ~ o, 1 ~ T t i cn. ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ` - r i ~1 2~ `SF ~ t ~ . i ~ , ~ - r - i i ~ _ i, a ~ ;l ~ I, ~ ~ I ! ~ ~ 245' 1 •r~ _ i 7 1 I d i i i I ~ i ~ ~ t i ~I ~4 ~ ~ ~ l I I ~ `G M ~ ~ ' I MEMO i ~ \ ~ ~ ' ~ ` \ ~ - ~ I i 1 ~ I i~ (Y i0ICi\ 'i iYt i t = I i 1 _ - I I ~ ~ ~ I (l?O~~ ' ~ ~ ~ X X ' _ _ _ BA N0.93.1i LU . 'L Exhibit No. 1 51 Pa a N©. 9 TMM CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 10 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments - Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-.t33 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of asements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93 ff 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer Line.for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 93-,35 3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93 3lv 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Turnout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Consent Agenda Continued on the Next Page..... COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. Sp. 3.6 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award the Contract for Construction of the 93-94 Pavement Major Maintenance Program and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder b. Award the Contract for Construction of the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder C. Award the Contract for Construction of the 96th Avenue Sidewalk Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with All Concrete Specialties, Inc. d. Award the Contract for Construction of the Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Improvement Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder. e. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the 100th/McDonald Storm Drainage Project 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Report from Community Development Department ~-QS Ct 3 - ~ 7 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of °Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 1066, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Appeal) Opponents (Oppose the Appeal) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27 , 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. "I Page No. S3 . 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30,18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - City Administration Department • Public Testimony - Proponent (Supports Amendments) Opponent (Opposes Amendments) • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing G • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93- 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Vacation) Opponents (Oppose the Vacation) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 9Q_0 8. UPDATE: HART LAKE ISSUE • Community Development Department 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. W1 11 . ADJOURNMENT 0727.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 3- LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. '7 Page No. 51 ,q ECOMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Leo Ise TT 7633 r1 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 v~~619g BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 _ J p,RO Legal Notice Advertising The following maetIng` Ni ghts are published foryour information. Full „ OF I~G bagendasamay bd~¢ i f om th t jRecorde ~s G\¢lloul vard~Ti City bf Tigard 13?5 S Hall ~a~ys +E s ~g 97223; or by c~ihng 6394171 to • • ❑ Tearsheet Notic 'e C COUNCl7: BUSINESS MEETII~KI 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ~sft, • ❑ Duplicate Affida •t,t~ p~ M . ms aU~LY~2T7*,199~3y ~a/~T . T • Tigard, OR 97223-8199 J ~M RALL•~ 1V X11\ HALL ~~r}~~' ir•I • • `13125 S BOULEVARD, IMARD, OREGON. (?`fit ~ouncii Meeang 1 Conferee oom O P tud Sessionfi r rij i3t~'f AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION •ti t''~r~ ~ ~ ,~vyi~i2 Business Meetln ;r STATE OF OREGON, )ss • Council Discussion%Re rt.i`rom Staff ' " f t. koCOUNTY OF WASHINGTONGage NaturalLm Judith Koehler being first duly sworn, depose and say t tt I am t~•Advertising „F Public Hearinggs Director, or his principal clerk, of theigard 'limes A ',p64 of Subs vigion Planning Comm ission:benial.--f;.SUB 1 a newspaper of general circulgtion ag defined In ORS 193.010 ~J scKr ,ti,r 93 OOOARtAIGB VAR 93 0004 Amelocation. North and 193.020; published at gar in the tX 9,I `i of "Ames"OrSciatd~subdivi~ion".(northern terminusof S:W. afo~esaid ounty nd ste~te; that& p HazeM`b Vb, uth and southwest of.the intersectioz~;of S.W. it Goounci~ Bus ness eetinQ 121st ,end . dS W Gaat ie Street,; `~l ~ ? is k t OI Hance i ideration -rComprehensi a Plan and`Code ' a printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was published in the r . r t,rAmendmen e ° ovu~g Refnces r w=` entire Issue of said newspaper for--One- successive and , "Vacation of~ ofa 15- oc~" ';'de a asetrrfent-- consecutive in the following Issues: Jubilee at~° vision;, U ate on r} t~~; , •o ~ ~ July 22, 1993 Hart a issue ~ , , , . , t .t , * . • ~ co Local ContractJt+t»g ^Meetingw!'", > IN :~~~°F••lti ~a!.Qil:,•o,r.:~Y~i.~+.'• i Z Executive`Session:,The_Tigard ~icm .~pi nto,Executive; Sees- r; p Z G Sion 'under the provisi.'oniof O~t:;19 0 [;1.~~),'~e); ~ (h)aordiacuss O`labor relations, real prqp~rty trafishcdons'•.current and nding lihgaeon (p issues:;:r°: vis+0', /b q~°.'a, at3;+.; t ; ' 4; ' Subscribed and sworn to ore me this 22nd day of July, 199 V1 MM63~ilblish, Jul}~ 22;19931 , " ' ' • COMMISSION NO. 024552 Notary lic for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT i COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal 1'T 7624 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 PUBLIC HEARING Legal Notice Advertising ,The following will lie considered by.the Tigard City Council on ~ 7uiy 27, • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet x,1993, at 7:30 P.W,* at Tigard,Civic.Center, Town Hall Room, 13,125 S.W. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ,Hall' Boulevardl;Tigard,,!.Oiegori ,Purther information may. be obtained ;'from the Community, l3evelopii 'I Director or City Recorder at the same • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • 13 Duplicate A,.location or by calling'639-,4171,'You are invited to submit.written tes- timony in advance,o , the'•public;;odaiing; written and oral testimony will be considered at the iiearing, The•pttblic hearing will be conducted in ac- cordance with ille'applicable Chapter 832, of the Tigard Municipal'Code. and any rules of. procedure adopted by the. Council and available at City: gib.' :~11, • i$. ,l.r 7 ~M17 •~r . ,;i;,iv,.it ~;rr, :Hall *APPEAL , t.. . ` O't4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION VARIANCE V 93 DENIAL STATE OF OREGON, ) LOCATION: Ndith'btf 'Aftidt Orchard" subdivision..(northern terminus of COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' S.W. Hazelhill.brive)Jouth and-.southwe§t of the ln[ersection of S.W. Judith Koehler 121st Avenue and S.W.',,Gaarde:S0eet (WCT'M 2S1 _IOBB; tax lot 600).; 1. `An'a,peal of a Planitii?J.;C6m in sion 'is' decision to deny aproval of a being first duly sworn,' depose and say that 1 am hp Advertising ~ ``division preliminary 'plat,I6`di4id6,-a .12.68 parcel into 291ots rin inpri Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard es 'size from approximately.l3',0001to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision a newspaper of general circul Uon a defined in ORS 193.010 :Variance requests'for"public" A . 'improvement standards have .been` and 193.020; published at_arl in the withdrawn.'APPLICABL$REVIEW CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Sec-' of resaid co ty andd stet , that t §e tion 18.160.060:A;'C6de Chappte~~rs 18.48, 18.88-,18.92,18.114, •18.150, ~IearinQ~ppeal Suivis on 93-0002 and 18.164; Comprehd6sive'Plan Folicies 3.1.1, 7.1.2,7.4A. 7.6. , a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the .''and 8.1.3. ZONE:;RI3:5'(Residential 3.5 units/acre). The R-3.5 zone Al- entire issue of said news p or for One lows single-family°detached'resid'ential'units, public support facilities, p p successive and ' farming, manufactured homes; residential treatment homes, home occupa- consecutive in the following issues: tions; temporary .uses;and,accessory,,structures among other,uses:;:`"';;; July 15, 1993 .`.'COMPREHENSIVE POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007.:.'_..'. to C ZONE ORDINANCE a1vt13NDMFir1T' ZOA 93-0005 co W A request by the Cityof.rTigard to; amend Comprehensive Platt Pbllcies Q Q n 2.1.1 ImplementationiStrategy.IA-.2,,and 2.1.3. Also, Chap'ters' 18.30, Z Z 1832, and 18.142 of the.City.of Tigard Community Development Code . 0 - Jd2f regarding the establishmeni.-diCitizen-Involvement Teams (CITs) to O Z C broaden citizen participation and teplace the existing Neighborhood Plan ` co ation structure 8 Subscribed and sworn to b re 15th day of July, 199, nin gOr ansz y,S Tfi7624 Publ~ShtJti~yr15;1993:~~? -4 Notaryubli or Oregon COMMISSION N0. .024552 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 11997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT Am es vedic do-rd Be rns on mgt 5 I I, is S-E4, o~ m1 h.u4e-S, i Council Agenda Rem 3. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paid Hunt, and John Schwartz Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Nets Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS Specialist; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director, Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review: Council briefly reviewed business agenda and discussed process on how the meeting would be conducted. Mayor announced that Council agenda items for the Gage and Hart properties (Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 8 respectively) were not public hearings; therefore, no public testimony would be taken during the business meeting. - Miscellaneous Items for Review: A. Councilor Fessler noted she was helping to coordinate the Tigard Country Daze Parade. She advised she would like to know, as soon as possible, how many Councilors plan to ride in the parade. B. Letter concerning billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Ed Murphy responded to a Councilor-question, advising he had received a letter questioning the legality of a billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Community Development Director Murphy advised he will be asking for a formal legal opinion on this sign. C. Solid Waste Transfer Station at Wilsonville. Councilor Hunt reported that Rena Cusma of Metro has formally announced her opposition to a transfer station at Wilsonville. There will be a meeting on August 7, 1993 to consider an appeal of this decision. Metro Councilors Kvistad and Devlin have been attending the meetings where this issue has been discussed. They have recommended the Wilsonville Transfer Station be built. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 16 Page No. s'1 Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & (i to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer. Meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Business Meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. , 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Note: Several persons signed on Visitor's Agenda reference the Gage property issue - Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Edwards announced again that public testimony on this issue would not be received at this meeting. Mayor Edwards also advised the Hart property issue would be heard at the beginning of the agenda, instead of towards the end of the agenda, where it had been originally scheduled.) • Mr. Jack Polaris noted he would be waiting a letter requesting financial impact information with the recent appointment of King City Administrator John Buol to serve, approximately 16 hours per week, as interim • Administrator to the S.E. Washington County Joint Water Agency. • Vlasta Bevcar Barber and Pat Anderson Keerins submitted a letter to the Council which thanked the City for their efforts in the Class of 1943 High School Reunion. Ms. Barber and Ms. Keerins reported on the reunion; it was a great successl - • Mary Tobias, President of the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) presented to the Council a copy of the book,-Doing Business in Washington Courrty. 1993-94, which was compiled by TVEDC. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.1 through 3.5 as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes°.) 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments --Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-33 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of Easements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93-34 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ) 6 Page No. S8 • 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer Line for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 9335 .3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93- 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Tumout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City. Administrator to Sign Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.6(a) through (e) as amended by the addendum as outlined in the July 22, 1993 Memorandum from Gary Alfson to Randy Wooley. (This memo is filed with the Council packet materials). The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes.1 (Update on the Hart property issue was heard at this time - see Agenda Item No. -8 for a summary of this issue). _ 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL • IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Community Development Director Ed Murphy summarized this issue for the City Council. He overviewed the process followed to date. Mr. Nels Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS Specialist, presented the Council with slides illustrating several angles and views of the subject property. • Mr. Murphy reviewed the LID process, which looked as follows: - Petition by at least 50% of affected property owners who have signed. - Neighborhood meeting. - Report to Council. - Council calls for an Engineering report. - Engineering report to Council. - Council calls for a hearing. - Notices sent. - Remonstrances tallied. - Public Hearing. - LID is formed. - Improvements completed. _ - Notices sent. - Public Hearing for setting of LID assessment. - Ordinance adopted. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. io Page No. SIT Financing made available. Bills mailed out (Community Development Director noted he made the initial decision of the boundaries of the possible LID area). Lengthy Council discussion followed. Community Development Director Murphy answered questions and advised the process was at the stage where staff was reporting to Council and Council,. by the proposed resolution, could call for the Engineering report Community Development Director Murphy, in response to Council questions, advised he thought there was barely over 50% who were in favor of proceeding with the LID process. Mr. Murphy advised that the Police Chief reported there were no unusual problems which would be represented by the formation of a natural area LID. There was a review and discussion of a concern expressed regarding whether the Engineering study costs should be bome by the general public or whether the funds should come from the petitioners. Councilor Hunt noted his preference was that the general public should not pay for an Engineering study. The remaining Councilors, after discussion, concurred that since it appeared that approximately 50% of the people wanted to explore this issue further, they would be willing to approve the resolution. Other concerns included the fact that Council would want to revisit the boundaries to determine if those benefitted were, in fact, included in the boundary, and to determine where the support was for the UD. Mayor Edwards expressed some hesitancy, and asked specifically if there was some certainty that over 50% of the affected property owners were in favor of proceeding with the UD. Community Development Director Murphy responded that it looked as if there were 50°/6, noting that additional names were submitted to staff just prior to the meeting. Staff would need to check the names to make sure they were valid. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-37. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. io Page No. _o_ RESOLUTION NO. 93-37 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO HAVE PREPARED A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING A NATURE PRESERVE AND MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY SW HALL BLVD., SW DURHAM ROAD, SW 79TH AVENUE AND SW ASHFORD STREET. Resolution No. 93-37 was adopted by a majority of Council present (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted 'no.1 , Councilor Schwartz clarified that final boundaries were not yet determined and would be set at a later date. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93-0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of 'Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 101313, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public -support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. Declarations or challenges.. Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site today. -C. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report which included a synopsis of the proposal as presented to the Planning Commission. Since that hearing, the applicant, along with the neighborhood, has worked on an alternative proposal. Staff believes this development would be acceptable, with certain conditions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27,1993 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. to Page Nom _ 61 D. Public Testimony: Legal Counsel Coleman advised that for a person to appeal at a later date, he or she must raise their issues at this meeting, or they may not be able to appeal the issue beyond the City Council level. He noted that a continuance on the issues, if requested, would be dealt with at the time such a request was made. - • Mr. -Robert Ames, 12500 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, advised Council he wanted to develop a high quality subdivision, with a broad base of neighborhood support. The applicant reviewed the process followed. He advised he agreed to the conditions as , recommended in the staff report. • Mr. Gary Katsion of Meson and Associates, 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon, 97205, advised the property was designed to mesh with the area He noted that with regard to transportation, the design of the Ames Orchard subdivision would ultimately comply with the safety and operational standards set for the area. • Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard No. 2 subdivision, providing that the applicants • - participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism for the construction of SW Gaarde Street Mr. Pfeiffer cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument thatthe applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B, was acceptable to them. • Mr. James Welch, 14340, SW Hazelhill Drive, Tigard, Oregon, President of the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association, submitted written testimony which noted the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association was in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames/Rockwell, which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members of the Planning Commission meetings of April 5 and June 7, 1993. (Please see written testimony on file with the Council packet material.) This recommendation that the Council approve Plan B was contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requested that full improvement of the remaining access route CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ►d Page No. not be required unless and until the property to the west (rax Lot 200) applies for development. • Steve Reinhart, 14035 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, advised he was the owner of Tax Lot 200. He noted he- was in support of Plan B, but requested that the northwestern access not be completed until such time as future development is requested. He asked if conditions he requested were not met by the City Council, that the record remain open for seven days. • Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, noted he supported the new proposal. He added that as a representative for Mr. Ames, he believed the new proposal provided some solutions to the issue of the zone of benefit for pro-rating the cost of the improvements to Gaarde Street e. Public hearing dosed. f. Staff Recommendation: Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that given the testimony and the modifications as presented in Plan B, staff recommended that the City Council approve Plan B.- Mr. Bewersdorff requested that ' Council direct staff to prepare a final order with findings outlining the conditions including reimbursement district criteria for the Gaarde Street extension improvements. Councilor Fessler suggested it may be appropriate to send the issue, with the changes, back to the Planning Commission for their review. Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded that staff did not recommend that this issue go back through the Planning Commission process. Staff would prepare a detailed explanation to the Planning Commission, outlining the -changes made and noting areas where conditions had been filled by the developer. Councilor Hawley questioned whether future Councils could be bound by the connection adjacent to Tax Lot 200. Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the findings could include a condition that the extension would be completed at the time of development approval for this area. Any change to these conditions would mean that the issue would have to go back through the Planning process. There was brief discussion on notification to the Planning Commission, outlining the changes made. There was also a question on the wording for the reimbursement district on Gaarde Street. Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted the condition of the reimbursement district could be written to specify CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. id L Page No. ~ • that details forming the district would be prepared at a later date. It was noted that the Vista Point. (Matra) subdivision may not be done as quickly as this one; therefore, there is a timing element which will also need to be addressed. There was Council discussion on the change in the new proposal. Of special concern to Councilor Fessler was-the Transportation Plan. She suggested it may be better planning to condition the development to reserve the prospect of a future connection between 121st and Bull Mountain Road. g. After discussion on the traffic configuration, a motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to direct staff to prepare a final order, with findings and conclusions which would approve the development as proposed in "Plan B." h. The motion was approved by a majority of Council present (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes;" Councilor Fessler voted "no".) The meeting recessed at 9:34 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30,18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. - A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Involvement Coordinator Newton reviewed the staff report. She advised that the historical references to the neighborhood planning organizations would not be deleted. Ms. Newton referred to the Planning Commission review and their vote to modify the appeal fee waiver section to allow Council to waive the fee for any party as appropriate. A resolution setting forth the guidelines for fee waivers would be prepared for Council review and approval. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. to Page No. 61 _ . There was review of the staff report and proposed ordinance. It was noted that on the exhibit for Chapter 18.30, on Page 57, a letter (e) would be inserted which would say `the individual recognized by the effective CIT as contact person." This would be consistent with the provisions as noted on page 59, letter (d). D. Public Testimony: Mr. Jack Polaris signed in to testify. He advised he wanted to speak to the topic of CIT facilitator training. Mayor Edwards advised Mr. Polaris this was not a subject of the public hearing.. Mr. Polaris responded that he would send a letter to the Council outlining his concerns on the training. E. Public Hearing dosed. F. ORDINANCE 93-19: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.30, 18.32, AND 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.2 AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING POLICY 2.1.3 AND 11.5.1, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 82-13 AND 82-14. G. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance 93-19, with the change as previously noted on Page 57 to reflect • consistency with similar wording on Page 59. H. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC-HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report was summarized by Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27,1993 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. is Page No. 4 1 D. Public Testimony: • Jay Miller, PO Box 23291, Tigard, Oregon, 97281, advised he was the applicant and was present to answer any questions. E. Councilor Schwartz asked a question and received clarification of the location of the storm drain. F. Public Hearing Closed. G. ORDINANCE NO. 93-20: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH LIES ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN LOT UNE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. H. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 93-20. 1. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted °yes.") 8. UPDATE: HART'PROPERTY ISSUE • Community Development Department - Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff advised that activity on the property was suspended until an engineering study is completed and determination made as to whether the property is in a floodplain. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:07 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & @ to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. ? "'Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r ayor, City of Tigard tt Date: ,2 h:\rewrder\ccm\ccmO727M LUBA NO. 93-147 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 10 Exhibit No. to Page No. 66 lWepending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: July 27, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of °Ames Orchard° subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121 st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 1086, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, etreatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 10 Page No. A0 GENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address Address ~0 fGfi ~ ~ ~r~1 S~ ~a Name r Name WCL C l-~ Address Address /U Name Name J -723r-ess Address 14 6 3S S w 2-~ Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address LURA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 11 Page No. 6 9 G COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27. 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 14. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal P.C. Denial PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Comm. Preliminary-Subdivision Plat - Sub Hearin - June 7 1993 0002 ar 93-0004 - Ames Orchard II///////' PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK Wq, REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council reverse or of 'rm the Planning Commission denial of the preliminary subdivision plat for es Orchard II? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a modified preliminary plat as outlined in the July-27, 1993 addendum to the staff report and direct staff to prepare a final order with conditions of approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY Applicants Robert Ames and Mark Rockwell have appealed a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. *he Commission denied approval because it did not find the proposal fully consistent with approval standards. Staff had recommended denial because variance requests did not meet variance approval criteria and the proposed street design did not adequately connect to adjacent properties. The main issues are addressed in the attached addendum to the staff report. The applicants have withdrawn variance requests and proposed a modification to the street design that can be found to meet code requirements (Exhibit B). The Council needs to determine whether the modifications adequately address all city street system connection and design requirements. The applicants' appeal, a June 21, 1993 letter to Ed Murphy and the site plan reviewed by the Planning commission are attached as Exhibit A. In addition a copy of June 27, 1993 staff report is included for Council review. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the applicants' site plan as submitted for the June 27 Planning Commission meeting and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 2. Approve a modified preliminary plat as indicated by Exhibit B and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 3. Deny preliminary plat approval and call for redesign and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order. Refer the application back to the Planning Commission for hearing. FISCAL NOTES No direct impacts. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. ADDENDUM - STAFF REPORT AMES ORCHARD II SUBDIVISION APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUB 93-0002 HEARING DATE: JULY 27, 1993 HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR. 97223 Background Applicants, Robert Ames/Mark Rockwell, have appealed a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. Based on the testimony from neighbors and Planning Commission deliberation at a April 5, 1993 hearing, the applicants proceeded to redesign their proposed subdivision plat. The subsequent submittal for the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting raised a number of issues. The Commission did not find the proposal fully consistent with applicable approval standards and voted to deny the preliminary plat. Staff had recommended denial for a number of reasons: o variance requests to street width and street grade were not demonstrated to meet variance approval criteria; o the proposed subdivision street loop system served to act as an over-length cul de sac; o the interpretation of transportation plan policy and previous development approvals that require the applicant to participate in the improvement of SW Gaarde Street west of 121st Avenue; and o the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that would allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land (18.164.030.F.) The applicants' statement of appeal is attached (Exhibit A). In their appeal, the applicants have withdrawn variance requests to street improvement standards for street width and grade. The applicants have suggested determination of the share or responsibility for the construction of the extension of SW Gaarde Street should be part of another proceeding. Analysis of Major Issues Variances. By withdrawing the variance requests, the applicants have eliminated street width and grade as a basis for denial. The applicants propose to meet street grades and widths as now required LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. iQ._ Page No. 70 in the development code. Cul de sac/one outlet street. Staff believes that the June 7 proposal involving a loop street system serves as an over length cul de sac which limits circulation and connectivity. The applicants had argued that the concern relative to cul de sacs was for emergency vehicle access. They felt that they had mitigated the problem by providing for emergency access from Ames Orchard I. After studying numerous potential solutions with staff, the applicants now propose to extend both legs of-the loop system to the western boundary of their property and dedicate additional right of way for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde (Exhibit B). This will not only eliminate the long cul de sac issue but also provide access for property to the west to be further developed if the those owners so choose. It appears that there is approximately 10 acres to the west that could be developed. Gaarde Street. Based on code section 18.164.030.A.1.b., plan policy 8.1.1. and previous development decisions, staff believes the applicants are required to share in the responsibility for the extension. of SW Gaarde. Pages 15-18 of the June 7, 1993 staff report outline the analysis of this issue. The applicants opposed participation in the improvement of Gaarde because they felt that Gaarde did not serve or was not necessary to serve their development. By agreeing to conditions of approval to participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street and the dedication of right of way as may be necessary, the applicants can meet their obligation. Connection to Ames I. The applicants' proposed plan provides for emergency vehicle and pathway access between Ames I and Ames II at the end of SW Hazelhill Drive. Staff recognizes neighborhood concern and the effort by the applicants and the neighborhood to work out an agreement regarding access between Ames I and Ames II. Neighbors feel that a full street connection would serve as a collector because of the potential traffic volume. The NE Bull Mountain Traffic Study recommended against the direct connection of 121st Avenue to Bull Mountain Road. The study does not talk about the need for indirect connection of local streets. It is staff's understanding that, at the time of the study, there was discussion that the Traffic Study did not preclude connection of local streets. It would be possible for the Council to require connection between Ames I and II, require a tract to be set aside for a future connection, or require construction of a connection with with Ames I to be barricaded until the completion of additional connections between Bull Mountain Road and Walnut Street. The majority of the Planning Commission appears sympathize with the concern of the neighborhood. Connection to East. The applicants' proposed street layout creates street grade and fill issues that preclude realistic connection to parcels to- the east of Ames II. The applicants' original LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. a Page No. preliminary design included a feasible connection. A major redesign of the present proposal would be required to allow connection to the east. Intersection of 121st and Gaarde. While nothing in the code or plan prohibits an intersection at 121st and Gaarde as proposed by the applicants, there are issues to be considered. These include: Introduction of a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of a future traffic signal at this intersection. This.could increase delays and create the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. Operational problems and neighborhood disruption tend to occur when a major collector street like 121st is continued into a local street (121st Court as proposed). In these cases, lost drivers tend to end up driving through the neighborhood. Drivers turning from the major street frequently do not yield to drivers from the low volume street. Council options 1. Approve Modified Preliminary Plat. This should include withdrawal of the variances, agreement to conditions to participate in the development and implementation of financial means to construct SW Gaarde, a condition to require extension of both legs of the loop street to the western boundary of the applicants' property and dedicate additional right of way to provide for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde and any other conditions that Council finds necessary. A final order with conditions and findings as modified by Council direction would have to be prepared. 2. Approve Applicantsf Orginal Preliminary Plan. It may be difficult to develop findings for the lack of street connections. Variances have not been justified. 2. Deny Prel.iminarv Approval and Call for Redesigns Potential grounds for denial would be whether Transportation Policy 8.1.1 which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development" is met; the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land and the lack of a street layout to conform to already approved plats (18.164.030.F. & 18.160.060.A.3.). Recommendation While staff feels redesign could allow for other connections to adjacent properties and create a more connected street network, the preliminary plan as modified in option 1 above is recommended. The applicants have spent considerable effort trying to adapt marketable plans to a multitude of issues and desires. Findings LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ~ Page No. from the June 7, 1993 would be modified and conditions based on those recommended in option 1 and the April 5, 1993 staff report would be prepared. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. ? EXHIBIT A LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. , z Page No. '7* EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner t~tt FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorde DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Final order - SUB 93- 0002/VAR 93-0004 Dick, attached is the appeal received from Jack L. Orchard of Ball, Janik and Novack (Attorneys at Law) on behalf of Robert Ames, Applicant. I have a tentative hearing date of July 13, 1993, please advise as soon as possible if this date changes. The applicant should also be apprised of the hearing date as soon as possible. Thanks. c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director C~ LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 7 S CITY OF TIGARD OREGON June 25, 1993 Mr. Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack Attorneys at Law One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204-3274 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004) Dear Mr. Orchard: The appeal for the above-referenced Tigard Planning Commission Final Order was received in my office at 2:05 p.m. on this date. Enclosed please find a receipt for your $315 appeal fee check._. I am also returning your Check No. 6060 that you included for transcript fees; transcripts are not a requirement of the hearing. I forwarded a copy of your appeal to Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. You will be contacted by the Planning Staff apprising you of the hearing date within the next few days. If you have questions or need additional information on the Council hearing process, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner cwc0625.93 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i s -13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 - page No. I to BALL..JANIK & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S. W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 10,x. FLOOR. 1101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.w PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-3274 WASHINGTON. D.C.20004 TELEPHONE (503) 228-2525 TELEPHONE 12021638-3307 JACK L. ORCHARD TELECOPY (503) 295-1058 TELECOPY (2021783-6947 June 25, 1993 By Messenger City of Tigard c/o Ms. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Plannincx Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 Dear Ms. Wheatley: This firm represents Applicant in the above-referenced appeal. Enclosed is Applicant's Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission decision of June 14, 1993 and a check in the amount of $315 filing fee. We have also enclosed a blank check prepared for transcript costs, if required at this point. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. _ Si Rrcc ncerely, Vl. V1 • l~l~ 11 u-l G~ Jack L. Orchard Enclosures JLO/Crs/BJN/CitpTigard.625 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. S. Page No. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD Bull Mountain Land ) Development Company, ) Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 on Behalf of ) Robert Ames, Applicant. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code §18.32.340, this Notice of Appeal is submitted by the above- identified Applicant with respect to the case files referenced above. 2. Petitioner on this appeal is the Applicant. The Applicant appeared both in writing and in person before the Tigard Planning Commission with respect to the application to which this appeal relates. 3. The specific grounds for the appeal are the following: (a) The Planning Commission denied Petitioner's request for subdivision approval based on certain conclusions relating to transportation issues. Petitioner hereby withdraws its request for a variance to the existing street standards on the understanding that such standards are in the process of review and possible alteration through a separate code amendment procedure. There is no necessity for a variance to the existing standards at this time. The future street standards may be altered consistent with Petitioner's variance request. 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL 10/aS/A3 _ a:JS P• call LUBA NO. 93-147 G y-rjc Exhibit No. i a.- Page No. 7 r . Petitioner will await final action by the City on the street standard amendments. (b) Another basis for denial of the request were proposed street grades in excess of 12%. Petitioner concurs that the 12% grade standard is appropriate. Petitioner's engineer has confirmed to City technical staff that the proposed grading plan can be feasibly altered so that no street grades for the subdivision will exceed the 12% maximum standard. (c) The denial was further premised on the lack of a street. connection or street stop to the east of the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission was in error in adopting the standard or imposing a condition requiring such a street connection. The proposed subdivision meets all circulation, public safety and access requirements without such a street connection. The street connection would result in unmanageable and impractical grades for lots within the proposed subdivision and would leave them impractical to build upon, leading to excessive housing costs and infra-structure costs. (d) The denial was also based upon a requirement that S. W. Gaarde Street be extended and that Petitioner either bear one- half the cost of the extension or construct the extension. Neither is a valid requirement to impose on Petitioner. The issue.of the Gaarde extension is beyond the scope of this application and should be left to a subsequent proceeding relating to the improvement project or cost-sharing, including 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. r Page No. '7 It whether Petitioner has any obligation to construct or pay for the proposed extension. (e) No other colorable basis exists for denying the subdivision. 4. The Notice of Final Order by the Planning Commission was dated June 14, 1993 and stated that Petitioner had the right to appeal the decision by June 25, 1993. 5. This appeal is accompanied by the $315.00 appeal fee. Petitioner stands ready to provide any required transcript deposit or fee. Respectfully Submitted, BALL, JANIK & NOVACK By: cc' Jkagk L. Orchard Of Attorneys for Petitioner Dated this 25th day of June, 1993. JLO/ers/BJN/Rockvell.App C~ 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. go June 21, 1993 To: Ed Murphy - City of Tigard From: Mark Rockwell - Bull Mountain Land & Development Co. Ref: Ames Orchard II subdivision - Tigard, Oregon SUB 93-0002 / VAR 93-0004 The Staff Report for Ames Orchard II recommended denial, because of (1) our request for a variance to the existing street standards, (2) a preliminary design that contemplated a greater than 12% street grade on S.W. 121st Court, and (3) the fact that the plan did not provide for a street stub to the east. (4) The Staff Report also recommended that if the subdivision application was approved, one of the conditions for approval should obligate Ames Orchard II to pay for 50% of the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street, for that portion of the S.W. Gaarde extension that would front on the Ames Orchard II site. We believe that to a large extent the concerns expressed in the Staff Report can be addressed satisfactorily. We submit the following for your consideration, in the hope that this is an approach we can agree on, and mutually support when our application is heard on appeal to the City Council. (1) Request for a variance to existing street standards. We are prepared to drop our request for a variance to the existing street standards. We and are willing to accept Staffs recommendation that if narrower streets are the standard at the time we construct the subdivision, we would have the opportunity to construct the streets in accordance with the revised standards, otherwise we would be held to the existing standards. (2) Maximum street grades. We are able, and willing, to alter the proposed grading plan so that no street grades would exceed the 12% maximum allowable grade standard. (3) Street connection to the east. Because there is a ravine at the east edge of tax lot 600 (Ames Orchard ll) which results in a large grade change between Ames Orchard II and the properties to the east, we do not believe that constructing a street connection to the east is the best approach.. Such a connection would require approximately 15 feet of fill at the property line, and would also require a large portion of the property to the east (tax lot 300) to undergo extensive filling in order to eventually complete such a street connection. Such a connection would be costly for the owner of tax lot 300 as well as Ames Orchard II, and would substantially reduce the useable area on tax lot 300. Given the fact that all of the tax lots to the east of Ames Orchard II can be readily served by an altemate street layout, we recommend that a connection to the east not be a condition of approval. (4) Cost for extending S.W. Gaarde. There are legitimate questions regarding the cost for extending S.W. Gaarde, and how that cost should be bome. We believe that the proper forum for discussing responsibility for those costs, and determining how the costs are to be divided, is at the time the City establishes a C~ zone of benefit (Code section 13.08.20), and should not be arbitrarily established at the time the subdivision application is approved. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i -j- Page No. 51 zo 684729q FRS M~'k p Ro~~IB~T B 1993 76n • w w me~° I)twd co- P~MO r c4, WP'- -Q" yo o= a 1- 5 • ~ 2~' ~ 335 ° N 1 t~ N Zl N 7rI- t4~ t t1411 a 22 r 4jr 1 _ J NQ l LUBA No. 93-147 Page No. AGENDA ITEM 5.2 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: MONDAY JUNE 7, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: AMES ORCHARD NO.2 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 93-0002 Variance VAR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb internal local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide street within a fifty foot wide right-of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code Section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. APPLICANT: Robert Ames AGENT: Alpha Engineering (c/o Mark Rockwell) (Mark Dane/Randy Clarno) 16325 SW Boones Ferry 9600 SW Oak Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Robert Ames LOCATION: South of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, north of the Ames Orchard subdivision. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 1OBB, Tax lot 600 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. is Page No. S STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the subdivision request. Denial of the variance request. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 600 is 12.68 acres in size and has approximately 180 feet of frontage along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. The property extends approximately 800 feet further west of SW Gaarde's intersection with SW 121st Avenue adjacent to an approved, but as yet to be constructed and dedicated, extension of SW Gaarde Street. The property is roughly rectangular in size. B. Site location: The site is located between the SW 121st Avenue/SW Gaarde Street intersection and the Ames orchard subdivision. The present northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is located along the southern boundary of the site. C. Existing uses and structures: The site is presently vacant. Tree cover consists of a filbert orchard covering the western approximately 3/4 of the site. The eastern 1/4 of the site is open grassland. The applicants' exhibit 3 of 3 is an aerial photo which clearly illustrates the existing cover of the site. 0 D. Topography and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to the north and northeast. A broad swale which includes an apparently intermittent stream extends from just northeast of the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive to the eastern property boundary. This intermittent stream and a storm sewer drain to a distinct drainageway just to the east of the site. E. Surrounding land uses: Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are developed with single family residences on parcels ranging in size from approximately 0.5 to 6.8 acres. An approximately 1500-1600 foot long private dead-end road which extends northward from SW Bull Mountain Road currently serves eight residences on these parcels to the west. The property to the north of the site has recently been approved for development of a 64 lot subdivision (SUB 92-0005/Vista Point Subdivision). This subdivision would include a westward extension of SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde would abut the northern property line of the subject Ames property. Lots on the north side of SW Gaarde Street near the subject Ames property will average approximately 8,500 square feet in size. Properties to the south of the Ames property are zoned R-1 (Residential one unit per acre) and contain 23 single family residences within the Ames Orchard subdivision. Lots within this subdivision range from approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. This subdivision was approved by Washington County in the 1976 (to include a second phase on the current subject site), but the subdivision was annexed to the City of Tigard while 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 9 under construction. SW Hazelhill Drive extends through Ames Orchard I and is stubbed into the southern boundary of the subject site. The fully developed Shadow Hills subdivision is located to the southeast of the subject site and west of Ames Orchard subdivision. Shadow Hills is zoned R-2 (Residential, two dwelling units per acre). Shadow Hills is served by a loop road off of SW Bull Mountain Road. Properties to the east of the subject site range in size from 0.5 to 2 acres in size and contain single family residences, filbert orchards, and a water tank. Properties to the northeast in the Colonial View subdivision range in size from approximately 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and are developed with single family residences. F. Plan designation and zoning: The site and surrounding properties are all designated for Low Density Residential development by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and northeast are under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but are within the City's planning area. Existing zoning of surrounding properties is illustrated on the vicinity map attached to this report. G. Proposed use: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet as illustrated on sheet 1 of 1 of the applicants' plan set and described in the applicants' statement. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water 0 quality facility is also proposed. The current plan was submitted on May 7, 1993 in response to the Planning Commission's continuance of the review of this subdivision application. The Commission had reviewed a previous plan for the property on April 5, 1993, and had declined to approve the subdivision plan that had been presented at that time, or City staff proposed revisions to that plan. H. Public service and utilities: The preliminary utility plan (applicants, exhibit 2 of 2) proposes that the subdivision be served by development of a water main network from the existing 8 inch water line along the western edge of the site. Public storm sewers are proposed within the streets throughout the proposed subdivision with outfall to the proposed storm water quality and detention facility to be constructed within Tract A in the northeastern corner of the site abutting SW Gaarde Street. The detention facility would drain to an existing storm sewer within SW Gaarde. Sanitary sewers are proposed to be extended through the site from an existing sewer in Gaarde Street through lines to be located in the proposed new streets. I. Access and nearby streets: The street system for the proposed subdivision would consist of a southward local street extension from the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street to provide access to a loop street extending westward 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I - I-Page No. 55 through the subdivision. An eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path extending 140 feet from the existing southern stub of SW Hazelhill Drive to the proposed cul de sac bulb at the end of the proposed new north-south street. This pathway would be located within a 5,648 square foot, triangular shaped open space tract, Tract B. The applicant's statement notes that this tract is intended to be dedicated. The internal subdivision streets are proposed to vary from standard local street improvement standards. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb looped local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and SW Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide streets within fifty foot wide right- of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code Section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. The applicant's statement addresses the standard variance approval criteria of Code Chapter 18.134 at pages 8-10, rather than the subdivision variance criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The existing section of SW Hazelhill Drive to which the bikepath within Tract B is proposed to connect is approximately 42 feet wide, has bikeways/walkways striped on the pavement, has open drainage ditches, and has no streetlights, curbs, or sidewalks. SW Hazeltree Terrace connects SW Hazelhill Drive to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector street under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW Gaarde Street abuts the property to the north. Jurisdiction for SW Gaarde Street lies with both the City of Tigard and Washington County. SW Gaarde is functionally classified as a major collector street by both the City and County Transportation Plans. Current pavement on Gaarde is approximately 24 feet in width from this point eastward to SW Pacific Highway. No sidewalks are currently provided along SW Gaarde and streetlights are few. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to SW Gaarde Street to-the east in the near future. The applicants are proposing to connect this development to SW Gaarde Street directly at its intersection with SW 121st Avenue. The applicants propose dedicating 10 addition feet of right-of-way along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde, along the northeastern edge of the site. The plans do not indicate that the applicants intend any improvement to this stretch of street, but the applicants' statement in responding to Policy 8.1.3 appears to indicate that improvements are contemplated. The proposal does not contemplate right-of-way dedication for SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. The applicants', statement in its response to Section 18.108 provides arguments for the applicants not improving SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. SW 121st Avenue intersects SW Gaarde Street just north of the subject property. SW 121st Avenue in this area is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW 121st Avenue is also a major collector street with approximately 24 feet of pavement, open ditches, few streetlights, and no sidewalks. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to this section of SW 121st Avenue, except for half street improvements on the west side of SW 121st extending approximately 300 feet north of Gaarde that were required as a condition of development approval for the proposed Vista Point subdivision. 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 .Exhibit No. /1 Page No. Vb J. Other applications affecting this parcel: The applicants have recently submitted an application (File No. ZON 93-01) for rezoning of tax lot 600 from R-1 and R-2 (Residential, 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre) to R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). That request was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993. The staff report for application ZON 93-01 contains a brief summary of previous land use and development applications affecting this property. This report incorporates that information by reference. It is important to note that the subject property had two prior subdivision approvals - the first approval was a Washington County approval that included this site with the land that has been developed as Ames Orchard I; the second was a City of Tigard approval for 14 lots on this parcel only. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are listed at .Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.B are satisfied. In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.48 (R-3.5 zone); Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations); Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not applicable to the current review. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 also apply to the review of the subdivision development proposal. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has provided comments which are attached as an appendix to this report. 2. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: A. SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street (east of SW 121st) adjacent to the site are under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The County's Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends that approval of this subdivision proposal be conditioned upon the following: a. If made a condition of approval of this development proposal, the collector road extension of SW Gaarde Street along the north side of the site west of SW 121st Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to Section C.4.a., b., c., d., and e. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard. 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibri No. V4, Page No. V(, (4) B. Prior to Final Plat Approval: a. The County shall be afforded the opportunity to complete a traffic analysis pursuant to Washington County Resolution and order No. 86-95. The applicant shall construct any improvements found to be warranted within the development's impact area pursuant to the County Traffic Analyst's review in relation to R&O 86-95. The applicant shall provide certification from a registered engineer that sight distance is adequate at the SW Gaarde/SW 121st Avenue access point. Contact Doug Norval, County Traffic analyst for specific questions regarding the traffic analysis. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 37 feet from centerline of the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage east of SW 121st Avenue, including adequate corner radius. C. The applicant shall sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. d. A one-foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage. The documents needed to complete these conditions shall be prepared by the Washington County Survey Division and shall be recorded in the Washington County Records Department. e. Submit plans, obtain County Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit for construction of the following public improvements: i. Concrete sidewalk to County standards along SW Gaarde Street frontage. ii. Adequate roadway drainage along SW Gaarde Street frontage. iii. Any traffic safety improvements required as a result of the completion of the County Traffic Analyst's report based on Washington County Rule and order No. 86-95. iv. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. C. Prior to Occupancy: a. The road improvements to County roads listed above if required by conditions of approval shall be completed and accepted by 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. V Washington county. 3. The City of Tigard Building Division has provided the following comments: a. Individual lot drainage should be to an approved public storm sewerage system; alternatively, individual private storm drainage systems may be utilized. Plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard plumbing inspector; b. Maximum finished slopes of all cut banks shall be 2:1; C. Soil tests and engineered footings may be required on an individual lot basis. 4. The City of Tigard operations Division recommends that SW Hazelhill Drive be extended through the site to connect with SW Gaarde Street. 5. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary plat and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water District and Fire District; b. No parking should be allowed on streets that would have less than 20 feet of driving surface, if such streets are proposed. C. The Fire District is very concerned with the number of residences in the proposed Ames Orchard II that would be served by a long single- access loop street system. A street connection or emergency vehicle access should be provided to connect the new development with SW Hazelhill Drive or to the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st. 6. Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development lies within the attendance areas of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, Fowler Middle School, and the Tigard Senior High School. (School District review was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. May submittal was not forwarded.) The proposed development is projected to generate the following additional enrollment at those schools: 11 students at C.F. Tigard School; 4 students at Fowler Middle School; and 3 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that, in general, school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. Staff also contacted Bud Hillman of the School District (phone call on 2/25/93) with regard to whether the District had any concerns with school bus routing. (Contact was made with regard to original subdivision plan, 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i.~- Page No. 91r only. May submittal was not forwarded.) Mr. Hillman stated that under present policies, school buses would be routed into this subdivision to pick up elementary school students but that secondary students from the proposed development would need to walk out to SW 121st Avenue for school bus service. 7. Neighborhood Planning organization #3 supports the suggestion of several neighbors to the south of the proposed development that access to the development should come off of SW Gaarde Street with only an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian and bike path between this development and Ames Orchard I. The NPO does not support any of the requested variances to Community Development Code road improvement standards. (These comments were provided in response to the original submittal. The revised preliminary plat has been submitted to NPO #3 for review, although the NPO meeting will occur after issuance of this staff report but prior to the Commission's hearing.) S. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there are both a 10 inch diameter high pressure feeder main within the approximate alignment of the Gaarde Street extension along the northern edge of the site as well as a 2 inch diameter poly main on the north and west sides of the site. The developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have the main located prior to any excavation on the site. 9. The Tigard Water District has provided several comments which are included in a letter attached as an appendix to the report on the original proposal. 10. GTE has reviewed the proposal and offered no comments other than that the site developer should contact GTE at least 30 days prior to the opening of utility trenches. 11. The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (cable television) and PGE have reviewed the original proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Code - Subdivision 1. Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. k a C. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provide for all common improvements. Staff finds that the proposed Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is only partially consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential density opportunity for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in #3 below. However, staff finds that the proposal is only partially consistent with applicable Plan policies and with other applicable regulations, as noted within the accompanying paragraphs that point out specific deficiencies - some which staff feels are significant enough to warrant denial of the proposal. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat within Washington County other than the first phase of Ames Orchard subdivision. The form and other details regarding the final plat would be required to be consistent with applicable Oregon Revised Statute standards, as well as the detailed plat filing requirements of the City of Tigard and Washington County. These details are not normally considered during the Planning Commission's preliminary plat review but instead are reviewed by the City's surveyor and the Washington County Surveyor's office; C. The preliminary plat does not provide for a northward extension of SW Hazelhill Drive as would be consistent with the existing road pattern with the previously approved plat for Ames Orchard I subdivision as well as a previous subdivision approval for the subject property. Conformity with the road patterns of existing plats is required by Code Section 18.160.060.A.4. On April 5, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan that would have provided for an extension of SW Hazelhill Drive through the subject property. After hearing the comments of several residents of the Ames Orchard subdivision, the Commission determined that it was in the public's interest to not provide for a road connection between the existing Ames Orchard subdivision and new development on the subject property. The neighbors and the Planning Commission were concerned about changes in the existing neighborhood that might result from additional traffic travelling between SW Gaarde Street and SW Bull Mountain Road. While staff continues to continues to have concerns with the 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ix Page No. 40 • Planning commission's decision on this matter, we can understand the neighbors and the Commission`s concerns. Staff accepts this decision as being based upon special circumstances which would affect an established neighborhood as well as special concerns about traffic safety on a stretch of SW Bull Mountain Road that presently has limited sight distance. As such, we respect the Commission's decision regarding not connecting Ames Orchard I and II at this time with a public road. (Nevertheless, we urge the Commission to consider requiring any tract for a pathway or emergency vehicle access to be at least 50 feet wide so as to provide for a possible roadway connection in the future, if and when attitudes change regarding this connection and when Bull Mountain Road is improved. It is important to not totally lose opportunities for logical road connections by allowing a house to be built in the way). The applicants, however, have seemed to have understood the Commission's earlier decision to not connect Ames I and II as throwing out the baby with the bathwater such that they have redesigned the subdivision proposal so that it seems to totally ignore Plan and Code directives for developing a safe and efficient transportation system and providing access for future development of abutting properties. Some of the current proposal's inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan Policies and Code standards will be dealt with later in this report in sections directly related to the specific standards, but general concern are addressed here as well as in the attached Engineering Department comments. First, the proposal does not provide for a street stub to serve future redevelopment of the properties to the east, as was previously proposed. Staff believes that such a stub is necessary in order to allow for connectedness of neighborhoods for social, traffic, and emergency vehicle access reasons as discussed in the report on the earlier proposal. Sheet 3 of 3 of the applicant's plan set illustrates a possible scheme for redevelopment of these properties to the east without a connection to Ames Orchard II. This scheme would require a new street to intersect with SW Gaarde Street approximately 250 feet east of the proposed SW 121st Court, opposite SW Rose Vista Drive. The City has attempted to space intersections on major collector streets as far apart as possible, especially attempting to separate local street intersections from major collector/major collector intersections such as 121st and Gaarde that at some point will likely have a traffic signal. Westbound stacking on SW Gaarde would likely extend beyond the Rose Villa intersection, and adding another leg to this intersection would seem to exacerbate this traffic problem. Alternatively, the street to serve redevelopment of these properties to the east might need to be another dead end far in excess of the maximum 400 foot cul de sac length standard of the Community Development Code. Staff recommends that any development of the Ames II property be required to provide a public street connection to serve the efficient redevelopment of these properties to the east, consistent with Code Section 16.164.030.F which states where necessary to give access 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 0,- Page No. 9i or permit a satisfactory future division of land, streets . shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be divided...." Second, the proposed loop street within Ames Orchard II, while not being what most people consider to be a cul de sac, effectively would be a dead-end, single-access street with the southwestern-most point of the proposed loop street being approximately 1,000 feet distant from the single SW Gaarde access to the proposed subdivision. Staff is not clear whether this street should be considered a cul de sac since this term is not defined by the Community Development Code. The Commission can determine whether this street should be determined to be a cul de sac. The Doubleday Dictionary for Home, School, and Office (1975) defines a cul de sac as "a passage open only at one end; blind alley." Certainly, this proposed street system meets this definition and the Commission could therefore find that the proposal must be reviewed against Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.x.1 which states that "a cul de sac shall be as short as possible and in no event shall be more than 400 feet long." Regardless of whether the Commission wishes to determine that the proposed street system is a cul de sac, it is still appropriate to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the theory behind limiting the length of dead end streets. The primary reasons cited for limiting the length of dead end streets are generally to provide adequate and alternative access for emergency vehicles and service vehicles such as.school buses, and to provide for connections between different neighborhoods or between the development and collector streets. It is noted that the Fire District has raised concerns with the proposed dead end street system. Staff recommends that the proposed over-long dead end street system be avoided through the Commission, at a minimum, requiring a street stub to serve redevelopment of the properties to the east as outlined above. In addition, staff would recommend that Ames Orchard II subdivision also be required to provide for a connection to the approved, but as yet unbuilt SW Gaarde Street extension approximately 450 feet west of SW 121st Avenue directly opposite the short north- south street within the approved Vista Point development, if the Commission allows creation of SW 121st Court as currently proposed. Such a street within Ames Orchard II would use up approximately 6,500 square feet of the development site. Because all proposed lots are substantially larger than the minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone, the applicant would not appear to need to eliminate a lot, although some reconfiguration of the subdivision would be necessary. If the applicant raises concerns with losing lot area or possibly losing a lot, we point out that at the time of the filing of this application, the applicants did not have the right for this number of lots without the requested rezoning. Clearly, the Commission should not feel afraid to require necessary public improvements from developers who have already Ci 11 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 91-- benefitted from the Commission's recent upzoning of this property. Because the current proposal is so significantly deficient with regard to satisfying Community Development Code road pattern and road improvement standards and therefore would not provide a safe and efficient road system as required by Plan Policy 8.1.1, staff recommends that the current subdivision Proposal be denied. Staff finds that the current proposal is so far from what should be provided that the application cannot reasonably be approved subject to conditions of approval. We do recommend that the Planning Commission provide clear direction to the applicants as to what is expected for this property so as to guide the preparation of future development plans for this property. 2. Code Section 18.160.090 authorizes the decision-making authority to grant variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The revised applicants' statement continues to ignore the appropriate variance approval criteria and instead refer generally) to the approval standards of Code Chapter 18.134. To make sure that the Commission and applicant are fully aware of the applicable variance approval standards, we quote Code Section 18.160.120.8: Variances to Code development standards may be approved through the subdivision review process upon satisfaction of the following variance criteria: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The applicants' statement at page 5 states that the functional characteristics of the proposed street exceeds that of the City's current local street standards as it relates to...." (Emphasis added). Staff does not disagree with the applicants that the loop street as proposed would function adequately with regard to the roadway width carrying anticipated traffic, providing necessary width for emergency vehicle travel, and providing enough on-street parking spaces. In addition, the sidewalk on only one side of the street may in fact serve future pedestrian traffic adequately. 12 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i.,.- Page No. q,i: However, staff fails to see how the proposed street would exceed the City's local street standards as the applicants assert. It is totally unclear to us how a sidewalk on only one side of a street can provide better pedestrian circulation than that same sidewalk as well as another sidewalk on the other side of the street. Perhaps we're stupid, but it also is unclear to staff how a 28 foot wide street can provide more width of driving area or "clear zone" than a standard 34 foot wide street. Staff finds the applicants to be guilty of overstatement with regard to how the proposed street would exceed the functional characteristics of standard local streets. Staff does not argue that the proposed varied street and right-of- way widths would generally function adequately, and maybe even as well as standard local streets, thereby somewhat satisfying the second variance approval criterion, although this really doesn't address why the varied streets are necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Assuming that this is the case, permitting the proposed street design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the rights of others thereby satisfying the third variance approval criterion. However, the subdivision variance approval standards require a lot more than showing that the varied improvements may function adequately and not be detrimental to others. First, the applicants have not in any manner addressed the variance approval standard which requires that the need for the variance arise from "special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual or peculiar..." (Code Section 18.160.120.8.1). No evidence has been presented regarding any special circumstances or conditions such as excessively steep slopes, presence of wetlands, or other physical characteristics of the site which would preclude development of standard streets with this development plan. Second, the applicants' narrative also does not adequately demonstrate an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations..." (Code Section 18.160.120.B.4). The applicants' statement notes that the applicants may incur "unnecessary hardship" through additional development costs if required to build standard local streets. There clearly is a huge difference between the alleged unnecessary hardship of having to pay the same sorts of development costs as other residential developers and the extraordinary hardship that is necessary to justify a variance. The applicants have clearly not met the burden of proof for this criterion. Unless positive findings can be made for each of the variance approval standards of Code Section 18.160.120.B, a variance request should be denied. The applicants have not satisfied the burden of providing the necessary justification for the requested variances. The usually generous Planning Division cannot see how we can provide the necessary findings for the applicants because of the absence of any shred of special circumstances affecting the site or anything resembling extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the established improvement standards. Therefore, the variance requests should clearly be denied. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use standards of the 13 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 9't R-3.5 zoning district because the lots are intended to be used for single-family residences, a permitted use in the R-3.5 zoning district (Code Chapter 18.48). The proposal is consistent with the maximum density of 3.5 units per gross acre allowed for the site by the R-3.5 zone. All lots are consistent with the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone. All proposed lots are consistent with the minimum average lot width standard of 65 feet. Standard R-3.5 setbacks should apply to this subdivision. The proposed development is therefore found to be consistent with the applicable use and dimensional standards of Code Chapter 18.48. 4. Community Development Code Chapter 18.88 establishes standards for solar accessibility for newly created residential lots. Code Section 18.88.040.$ allows the hearings authority to reduce the percentage of lots that must meet the solar access design standard if certain conditions relative to the site (such as slope, existing shade, or existing or planned road patterns) make it difficult or impossible to fully comply with the solar access design standards without adversely impacting the development's permitted density and cost or amenities. The applicants request, and staff concurs, that lots 28 and 29 should be exempted from the solar access calculation because these lots would have an east-west slope in excess of 20 percent. Of the remaining non-exempt lots, Code Section 18.80.040.C requires that 80 percent, or 24 lots, must satisfy the solar access design standards. Five lots, lots 28, 29, 30, 40, and 50, are exempted under the basic 20 percent exemption. Twenty-four lots satisfy the basic solar requirement of a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west orientation and a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet as shown on the applicant's solar access evaluation sheet. Two other lots (lots 38 and 49) are proposed to have solar building lines recorded. Therefore, eighty percent of the lots not exempted for cause would meet the solar access design standard. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the solar access lot pattern standards of Chapter 18.88. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) because the 441,930 square foot net developable area of the site (after deductions for streets and Tracts A and B) yields an opportunity for 44 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning district's 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Thirty-three single family residential lots are proposed. The applicants' statement includes a density calculation. If revisions to the subdivision proposal are required (such as increased right-of-way widths or a different street pattern), the Commission should require the applicants to submit a revised density calculation that assures that the revised plat is still consistent with Chapter 18.92. It is noted that the proposed subdivision layout would still comply with the allowed density if rights-of way are increased to the standard 50 foot width. 6. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in 14 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. iS Page No. -1 5 diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The • proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and related grading are anticipated to necessitate the removal of all of the filbert trees on the western portion of the site as well as some of the other few trees on the site. The applicants intend to remove all of the filbert trees because these trees would generally not be compatible with the future residential landscaping of the proposed lots and because of the possibility of unmaintained nut trees harboring diseases and insects that could be harmful to nearby filbert orchards. For these reasons, removal of these trees should be permitted to occur with approval of a subdivision plan for this site and approval of grading and erosion control plans. In this special case, no separate tree removal permit should be required. 7. The proposed subdivision's streets and other public improvements, are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) as described above with regard to the general subdivision approval standards and the subdivision variance requests. Staff provides the following additional comments with regard to the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Also see the attached Engineering Department comments): a. Approval of any development application for this site should be conditioned upon dedication of additional right-of-way for SW Gaarde Street as well as improvement to major collector standards. If development of this site follows development of the Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developers of Ames Orchard II should anticipate being assessed for their share of these improvements through a public improvement reimbursement district. If development of this site precedes development of Vista Point, the developers of Ames Orchard II should be required to pay a fee in lieu of half the cost of constructing this collector street across the Ames Orchard II frontage. Construction of improvements to this major collector street by the site developer will qualify for traffic impact fee credits for the individual lots in the subdivision. Staff is not persuaded at all by the applicants arguments for not contributing to the costs of the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st Avenue. First, the applicants argue that this street will not provide improved access to the subdivision's residents to area destinations. Obviously, with the road approved for construction only several hundred feet west of this site, the road (at first) would not provide significant access to area destinations. However, when the road is fully constructed to SW Walnut Street, the road will provide significantly improved access to destinations in western Tigard, to Beaverton, and to other locations to the north and west through improved connections to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The City Council's final order for the Vista Point development to the north found the following regarding the Code standards which require new developments in this area to contribute to development of the Gaarde Street extension as well as the benefits the road will provide for future residents of the area: 15 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ► 3.- Page No. 9 G ...Code Section 18.164.030.A.1.b states that "any new street or additional street width planned as part of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code." This street section has been planned for by Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Note 2. As noted in the introduction to the Plan, the Plan "provides a policy framework for decision making on such matters as subdivisions." (Introduction, Page II-4.) The Council interprets this to mean that overall the Comprehensive Plan represents the City's planning policies. The underlying basis for the Council's decision to require the Gaarde Street extension is found in the findings of the Transportation Section on Pages II-55 and II-56. The Council notes that the Community Development Code is intended to "implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan," # 18.02.010, and the following referenced sections accomplish that policy. The Council considers the following findings from the Transportation section as mandated guidance from the City's acknowledged plan in evaluating transportation issues for this area of Tigard. * Major congestion problems within the City have resulted from the rapid population growth since 1970, creating a need for major street improvements. * The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. * The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard (the affected area). Both of these areas lack adequate improved traffic ways. * A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. In addition to the findings, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Note 2 specifically states that "A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report." The Council finds authority for this condition in Transportation Policy 8.1.1, which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway 16 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ii Page No. 91 system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." Strategy 5 of the Transportation Section states that "(tJhe City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way and install necessary street improvements to the city's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." The project site is in the westerly area of Tigard where major residential development was expected and is occurring, and which lacks adequate improved traffic ways. Gaarde Street is specifically mentioned as a necessary collector/connector to Walnut Street. This project site is included in the area covered by note 2 in the Transportation Plan, which specifically mentions a Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection. This project represents one piece of the development puzzle, the completion of which will provide public improvements to help implement the solutions presented in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds there is a reasonable relationship between the current development of this project and the needs for transportation system improvements, as expressed in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the Development Code Sections 18.164.0,30.A.l.b and 18.164.030.F.1. (City Council Final order for the proposed Vista Point development, adopted by Council Resolution No. 93-19). Staff finds that these Council findings are just as applicable to the proposed Ames Orchard II development as they are to the Vista Point proposal. Additionally, the City Council apparently contemplated that other future developments in this area should be required to contribute to the cost of development of the Gaarde extension. The council's final order for Vista Point also found: The subdivision developer will be required to construct an extension of SW Gaarde Street and a major sewer line to serve the proposed subdivision. These improvements will likely be used by other developments. SW Gaarde Street is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a needed collector street improvement. The street and sewer improvements likely will only be constructed as part of a development. Therefore, the City finds it is appropriate to initiate a zones of benefit pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 in order to allow the developer of these facilities to recover a portion of the improvement costs from other subsequent developments using these facilities. Section 13.08.020(a) allows the City to initiate formation of zones of benefit. The City finds that the Comprehensive 17 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 96 Plan is furthered by initiating zones of benefit because it enables the subdivision developer to proceed with the necessary public improvements. Getting back to the Ames application's arguments for not contributing to the costs of improving the Gaarde'extension, the applicants state that the SW Gaarde Road extension is a detriment to the site. Staff reminds the Commission (and the applicants, especially) that the Commission's final order regarding the upzoning of this property from R-2 to R-3.5 (Final Order No. 93-07 PC) cited the approved alignment for the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site as a reason why the property should be up-zoned due to the potential impacts to the site as well as providing improved access to the site. While in some ways, the road may be a detriment with regard to livability for future development, the plans for the road were an asset to the applicants in justifying the upzoning. Additionally, the applicants argue that the site has little or no ability to dedicate additional right-of-way for the Gaarde extension. The staff report for the previous proposal noted that some additional right-of-way might be needed, to be determined by the City Engineer through review of the public improvement plans for this site as well as the Vista Point development. It may be found that no right-of-way is actually needed for this road from the Ames Orchard II subdivision, but this will not be clear until final road plans are developed. As for the "the site having no ability to contribute area to the proposed right-of-way due to the existing alignment of Gaarde east of the site," it is pointed out that Washington County is recommending that the subject site be required to dedicate 17 feet for expansion of SW Gaarde east of SW 121st Avenue. It will therefore be necessary for some additional right-of-way to be provided to the west of SW 121st Avenue in order to make a proper transition between these two road segments. Staff sees no physical reason why right-of-way could not be provided by this site. Lastly, the applicants state the amount of Traffic Impact Fees the proposed subdivision will generate and state that these fees should be more than a sufficient contribution to the construction of this section of the Gaarde extension. While this contribution is important, the City's policy remains that developments are required to decision on the Vista Point subdivision application In summary, staff does not find that the applicants have presented persuasive arguments for the Planning commission to distinguish this proposed development from other developments that are required to improve collector or arterial streets which abut the developments such that the Commission should break with the Code and Council's directives on requiring improvements to the SW Gaarde Street extension. Staff urges 18 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 99 the Commission to make it clear to the applicants that any future development of this site should be anticipated to result in possible right-of-way dedication requirements and certain road improvements (or financial contributions) for constructing the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site. b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed consistent with City standards for local streets, as noted in staff's analysis of the variance request above, although right-of way dedication for SW Gaarde Street would need to be increased to 37 feet from centerline east of SW 121st as the County has requested, and would need to be dependant on final road design west of SW 121st. Preliminary street improvement plans are consistent with these standards, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced width and sidewalk on one side. As noted above, staff is unaware of any reasons why these streets cannot be developed consistent with the standards of Chapter 18.164 and therefore the variance requests should be denied. C. As noted previously, the preliminary plat does not provide for a street stub to the east to provide for a future further extension of this street to connect up with SW Gaarde Street (potentially opposite SW 118th Avenue), as was previously proposed with the first submittal. Staff recommends that any future development proposal for this site provide for such a stub. When the subdivision is built, a reserve strip and a barricade should be required to be provided at this street stub. The barricade should be posted with a sign indicating that future extension of this street is anticipated with future development. d. The proposed development plan would cause the "block" along SW Gaarde Street to the west to exceed the 1200 foot maximum block length standard of Code Section 18.164.040.8. This standard could be satisfied by the Commission requiring a street to be installed opposite the short north-south street on the north side of Gaarde in the Vista Point proposal. e. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum frontage, and other lot dimensional standards specified by Code Section 18.164.060. Although this Code Section discourages the creation of through lots, such as proposed lots 11-17, the Code recognizes that situations such as this are necessary to avoid lots taking access from major streets such as Gaarde. These lots would need to meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback standard along both streets as specified by this Code Section. f. Access to SW Gaarde Street should be prohibited for all lots which would have frontage along this collector street. These lots as well as all other lots could receive access from local streets. g. Preliminary plans for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water supply, and other utilities would provide appropriate service 19 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. t>-- Page No. 10 • to the proposed development. (See the attached Engineering Department comments). C. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 8. The Subdivision/Variance review process for Ames Orchard II is consistent with Plan Policy 2.1.1 because notices of the application and the original April 5, 1993 public hearing on this item were provided to the neighborhood planning organization and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. Notice of that hearing was also advertised in the Tigard Times newspaper. The hearing was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Community Development Code and Oregon Revised Statute provisions, no additional notice was provided for the continued hearing date. In addition, the applicants and their representatives, as well as City staff, have held meetings with concerned neighbors of the proposed development. Therefore, a substantial opportunity has been provided for the public to comment on this development application as is required by this policy. 9. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, conditions of approval would be warranted to require the developer to submit an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application, as well as to provide an on-site water quality facility consistent with the recommendations of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 10. The preliminary subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because development of this site will require the developer to extend public sewer, storm drainage, and public water systems through this site. Utility and service providers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No significant concerns have been raised with regard to the capacities of these necessary services, although the site developer will need to accommodate the utility relocation and construction concerns raised by the utility providers, most notably the Tigard Water District and Northwest Natural Gas. Future development of this site will require provisions for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of these utilities. 11. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat would not provide for an efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons stated in sections 1 and 7 above. Primarily for these reasons, staff recommends that the subdivision plan be denied. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide substantial direction to the prospective developers with regard to what is necessary to provide a safe and efficient street system in 20 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 13, Page No. i a L this area as it relates to any future development plan for this property. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission make it clear to prospective developers of this site that streets within any future development will need to be consistent with established City of Tigard street improvement standards in order to provide adequate safety and to allow for an appropriate consistency of improvements between abutting developments. Also, the Commission should make it clear that improvements to SW Gaarde Street on both sides of SW 121st Avenue should be anticipated to be made a condition of any future development approval for this site: 12. The subdivision proposal does not comply with Policy 8.1.3 because the proposed improvements to the public streets and utilities within the proposed subdivision and along SW Gaarde Street east of SW 121st are not consistent with City of Tigard standards or Washington County road improvement standards for needed improvements to roads under the County's jurisdiction. The proposed right-of-ways are of an insufficient width to accommodate standard road improvements, and inadequate justification has been provided for the requested variances internal to the- subdivision as well as inadequate justification for not requiring road improvements along Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Tigard Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision's street plan does not promote the general welfare of the City and would be detrimental to surrounding land uses through its lack of connectivity to other developed areas, and adjacent underdeveloped properties. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Planning Division recommends denial of Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0002 request for the proposed Ames orchard II subdivision. In addition, the Planning Division finds that the statements provided by the applicant in support of requested Variance VAR 93-0004 do not adequately address the criteria for approval of a subdivision variance. The Planning Division therefore recommends denial of the requested variance to several road improvement standards of Community Development Code Chapter 18.164 If the Planning Commission elects to approve the Subdivision and Variance requests, staff recommends that the Commission assign responsibility to the applicant for preparing the final order in this case and defending any subsequent appeals. Staff would request an opportunity to prepare conditions of approval for any subdivision to be approved. 21 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 0-- Page No. + e C) CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jerry Offer May 26, 1993 FROM: Chris Davies, Development Review Engineer SUBJECT: SOB 93-0002 - AMES Description: The applicant proposes to divide a parcel of approximately 12.68 acres into 33 lots with variances to local street standards. Findings 1. Transportation: The proposed subdivision creates a new neighborhood of 33 homes with only one vehicular access route. If you take a look at the surrounding areas this problem is' very repetitive; we have neighborhoods with only one access onto a major collector street and no connections with adjacent subdivisions. In addition, this type of development perpetuates the following problems as can be seen from the existing neighborhoods: i. A. It precludes any future alternative access to adjoining areas. B. All trips from homes in the area must be made on the collector street system, even if they are short-distance local trip such as visiting a friend in the adjoining subdivision. C. It means there is no alternative access to the neighborhoods in case of emergency or in case _ construction or repair work blocks the entrance road. The connection of a local street to the intersection of S.W. 121st and S.W. Gaarde should not be made for two reasons. A. Introducing a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of the future signalized intersection, increasing delays and likely creating the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. B. Second is protection of the neighborhood. When a major collector street like S.W. 121st is continued as a local street, we typically experience some operational problems. Lost drivers circulate through the residential areas looking for the continuation of the collector street. Drivers turning from the major street ENGINEERING COMMENTS . . S93-02A AMES Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 E;chibit No. 1 APPE7uDfX ENE Page No. t o )0 frequently do not yield to drivers from the low-volume street. Signing does not seem to cure these problems. 2. Streets:" The applicant is. requesting a variance to Section 18.164.030E of the Community Development Code for the local streets (i.e. S.W. 121st and Vista Circle). The applicant requests narrower streets and right-of-way and elimination of sidewalks on one side. Applicant has not shown compliance with the criteria for variance to street standards as required by CDC 18.160.120. The applicant has not shown that special conditions exist that require the variance nor that the variance is necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Therefore, we recommend denial of the variance request and recommend that the applicant be required to install the proposed streets to local street standards. It should be noted that the City of Tigard is currently reviewing local street standards. - In the near future, standards may be adopted which - allow the use of narrower streets under certain conditions. We recommend, if -the City formally adopts new local street standards, the applicant should have the ability to utilize the new standards. CDC 18.164.030.A.1.a requires that developers improve all streets which front the proposed development. This subdivision has frontage on existing Gaarde Street. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map requires that Gaarde be extended westward along the i north boundary of the subdivision. Therefore, the applicant should be required to provide the following with respect to S.W. Gaarde Street: A. Additional right-of-way along the frontage of S.W. Gaarde Street where it abuts the development; and B. Half-street improvements along the existing Gaarde Street frontage (from 121st to the east boundary of the subdivision); and C. The applicant should be required to share the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street west of S.W. 121st Avenue. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located within S.W. Gaarde Street. The applicant is proposing to connect to and extend the sewer line to serve this development. The existing line has the capacity to handle this development. 4. Storm Drainage: The site slopes-towards the northeast. The applicant is proposing an underground piped system within the subdivision. The system will then divert the storm water to a water quality facility prior to being discharged into the public storm drainage system within S.W. C ENGINEERING COMMENTS : S93-02A AMES Page 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. s Page No. _Le y Gaarde Street. The Unified Sewerage Agency has .established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. As mentioned above the applicant is proposing and should be required to construct on-site water quality facility.- Recommendations: The Engineering Department recommends this application be denied based on the inadequate transportation system. However, if the Planning Commission does grant approval of this proposal or some variation of this proposal we recommend that staff have sufficient time to propose detailed conditions of approval. We could still support approval of the applicant's original proposal with the conditions-indicated in my previous memo. //Z APPROVED: Randall R. Wool , City Engineer dj/RW:S93-02A.CD C ENGINEERING COMMENTS : S93-02A AMES Page 3 LUBA NO. 93-14-1 Exhibit No. tA Page No. ° k C-r MEMORANDUM 1. ,8.165'. o Tttel) J. ,,1 11• '11,;"o '11,;"o CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ✓ 1114_*e4. J'' - .1.. 6e Opp. .xr( A 7I alu, lvl/wrj' fn^~` C-4.0. Z /ti/Aarrii+!~ TO: Planning Commission 4.,~rn. • s, le I b, V d1 f...w e • OIl.; FROM: Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner 7Z. DATE: April 5, 1993 e0Qr'`! ♦w,p aJAnSUBJECT: Revised Recommendation for Ames Orchard Subdivision Application SUB 93-0002 Clew, (y -a.7,/ vt~ Va o"ww, ~y Comments have been received from other City staff members with 1•-2' regard to the recommended conditions of approval for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision. These comments cause me to revise the Planning Division's recommendation as outlined below. First, it has been pointed out that the City of Tigard has typically required developers to construct half street improvements to Washington County roads, such as Gaarde Street east of SW 121st, rather than just partial improvements as Washington County staff typically recommends, and has had been recommended in my staff report of March 24, 1993. The City has required the developers of the Aspen Ridge, Woodford Estates, and Three Mounta' iyisions to construct half stree lmprovemen a on SW Bull Moun oa . L' equire a prospective developers of the Vista Point subdivision to construct half street improvements along that site's SW 121st venue frontage. The City also required the eve oper of the S ariing Crossi _%ubdivision to improve the frontage of both SW Hall Boulevard and SW Bonita Road. We do not see anything that distinguishes the Ames Orchard II proposal from those developments. Therefore, staff recommends that recommended condition of approval #23 be revised as follows: 23. The applicant shall submit plans, obtain Washington County/City of Tigard Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit from Washington County for construction of the following public improvements: a. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage, east of SW 121st Avenue. b. Any traffic improvements required by the City and County in response to the applicant's required traffic study. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I} Page No. 0A _ . .w~~r~rr~~~~~rrn~~~■ r~r~r'~rr•r~~r•r.rwr~..wrrr. iwrnrw.r.rr - - Q7 N ti t7 0 x C~ o z o ~ ` cvO ~ i tir Cl) 0 00 0 to coo u N in 0 co ca 4 ow i I x~ CJ N ' a f 1 E l 3 rn ~ V ~ 0 ~ Q o _ . i ~ ` ` ~ ~cn • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ \ ~ i ~ 'r r f:- LY' _ ~ 1~ NON-VEHI I.AR ACCESS TRIP t!1 4-. - W tY_ -p y~ 3 19 ~ ' ~ ~ . , 90 90 ~ 9 ~ Q~ L7 . , ` I 1 ` ~ ~ ~ ~u a • ~ ~ ' • r 1 • ~ \ ~ , a CD ~ 1 ~ r. ~ ~ ~S S S 5 I \ I \ V \ \ 1 ' ~ ~'ti 1 i w~ .I . . 1 _ . 1 1 S 11 160... SF w.. , 11 16b SF 1 6 .'r Lui _ ~ 1116 SF ~ N • 588 a F 1 N N w ~ 1. N ~ ~ \ . ,r„ ~ 9o s . u'; ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ r~ t ~1 ~ ~ 0 9a\ 0 90 r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A , i ~ 1 rt 1 r o~ rn rn ~ , 1 ~ i ~ •.ti (G ~ 2 u7' u7 ~ ~ f ,,,,,,,,.r~ 1 15 338 SF ~ . i ~ N ti i- i ~ ~ o 0 d ~ ~ ~ ~ w ......rr.. n r ' ~ ~ i ti ~ ~ ~ ~ A \ I r ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 130 ~ p~ 8 11$ i U) t r ~ ..:\.r I ~ ~ ~s W CK N r ~ , ~ ~ ~ CI) m © 0 . ✓'n LO W \ ~ r' _ ~ ~ ti. ~ ~ \ ~ C) W ~ ~ • ~ 12 90 SF 3 ~ 1 390 SF F z E ~ 12 390 S t 1 4~3 SF I ~ ~ N \ to i ~ p p i i d 00 t1p M ` 00 , _ F l..v x U !7 2 L1 _ 11 050.. SF ! ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 118' 1,, 110 ~ 118 i r~l r 4 ..r f ~ ~ ..r ~ r ~.~rA • t 1 r \ i ~ 1 ~ • , S ~ ~ i • s-----., S , - 11 050 SF ~ I s~ ~ ~ If1 l _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 2 390 SF ~ z ~ 2 390 t - ~ ~ ~ 11 ~~3 SF ~ o o ~ ~ I ~ , w ~ ~ ~ , 4 125 , , .r ~t ~ V ~ .118 ~ • 118 '418 , 7 . .r 'T~ ~ • ~ 1 ~ \ w. t.. .r~ rp ~ 98 ~ ~ • ~ 1 ~ 11 10 f f' _ ~ , 8 o ~ i ~ r,. ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ I C'l7 CT r C I 1c ~ ~ i ~ TRA('T R ~PF I~ A~~' A,~f1 P~'(~~' , RiAN n~~F~~ ~n~ ~ Y U, 41 j ~ ~ S ~ - _ - ~ ~ 1 12~ 100 SF ~ S ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ 1210 5F 0 F ~ 10 S 12 090 S o ~ o , o' 1 r ~ 14 083 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 110 110 110 ~ 1 ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ i. ~ ~ ~ \ t 1 i ~ } 9 9 ~ ~ ^ Q~ E ' ~ ~ i f t ~ I ~ ~ A ~ 4 ` \ i E i a rF A t ~ 4 ~y . ~ ~ ` i _J. i i s. _ ......,r l . _ 1 • • t ~ j F e f ~ I ~a ...-.-..~.-r-. _ ~ } i ~ ~ w . ~~,s w.u _ t ~ ^ ~...d~.8n Y. j... A:.. as ~ ~ M ~ dr. d' ? :•Yx s ~ a ~ Y' I I 1 i } i ~ `L i Y ~r 1. ~ r _ 1 s r ~ i.: A= ` r, i- • I~ i F P ~'`~y¢" 7 ,Y f s~' _ r'"r.-++Wrn... ~ ..,i'.+1:. - I. Wrr N,~t+i,'..nu.,~N k ~ ~h. 1 , 1 i ~ Y ' ,i,t:' ~ '.'"ol' t , y t £ {'6'y } ,.s..":......~~.►.:. 1i~~,. n ` K'~ ~ r: ~ r y ~ . 1, A!",: ~.A` ♦ .p ~ I~ t v: v ~ a. r r ,.P.. ,q h } 1 .t T ^ o <w r" r. 1 Y'o,'T4:' p: n 1 4. .iP4 i~ :1 r . r R _ x, P, r, ~ ~ .F, .1 ~i. .t,~.4 '1 Iti Y`~ rw'~1 rra?"~ .e. L'; ~t' , L A,, • 4 f,M y ' ~ r ~ i, a P r ° . u ♦ s~. ~ ~ ~ ti n .ti. k'~ Y kt r d~ _ i r{~r ~ rA:~ , . J ~ ~P, • ,5 • ~~e'a~'!~aAnrartr ~ s r, + r . r. W't ~s 1. ~ . ti M ~ ' 'i<. ~ ~ ~ • ' jj~ , t:'~, 3'! ,.i: t. ~ - t N ~ 'd ~i h 1.~. ::z „R '~7"'ll :l, , yy,, ,r „ , ~ r. 4 , , ~ a',., '7;_R , 1: - i ay. ,n,*t~,e~.- 'i'a ' ~6'. f`z'_ A ?ti 1, 1 , •t, q 1 d"' _ =t , ~ t ~ '.Y,~ 1+; 1 N,`si'n .Mr-a J~l~, r• Fw,p a ."'i• ~ ~ ~ . A.. ~r ~ ,,:~~.:r. }.,`#+t t .{~.r.~ ~ f. d, ~ '..r k r ~I ~~~L ,ry .h::~}. ~vIMYM'4~M~ I W t , . r . ~ : { . r „ y , ,r `r. '~r~'~5,::~ r ~ ~ a 'r ~ I r'. 'i t, ~ r z } c, Ir ~ '"r . y~w^w. sN ' '~v, A rs ' . A ...`M,n4.. , . ~i~'dd #i.,d 1. < ,>.h .i., y d.. ..4 f~ , ` ~ / ;F „ d - r.q+ K~ y a . f .i dr.~ ~ j < ~"il';,:, A 4 f.,,.. ,f, ~ n R . { ~ ~ ~ • it <P f, s r v~' t ww~ t,i,,,,~ ,v r,.r`".'" ~ "s {r '~~.I~ A'r'n~~, ~!ri'' .i r~,.''' ~ ~1~{( ~ { 1, y i~ ' ~'k' ♦ + i .l itpp A. ~4 i. Y ! ! y.. ~ {~'.:4~:~u' „ y r J~ 9A. q i,,''( ~ i~ ~ ~.f ~A 1', ~ „ r r,,e rrY. x~ ~ A ~ t{; '1'. r.r!„~' ~ ~ ; .~ti r I f'~ ~N r r ^r' ~ 1`. ~ w 00 ~'r ,4 v. ~k ~.in k 4 ~,r 4°' i• ,w. k 1 k 1l . ;h A 4 " , 'n S /A.6 e i+'t' 6~ ,Y 4v ~ ,.M .jd,,. ti' `4 . ~t r r, • f fir ,i ~ ~ •r ( d.. ~ r ~ • n. l'4. r Y•.. t. F is d N t, s )i . i . • i ~ i ' x- ~ ~ "~1r, , ~ A r' h ~ t4;. :";M!i r r 5 t}4 r , , r' n , :p. s n1 t' k'..4 ~ „ p i ~ r~ ' . , ~ ~ ~ , r; ~ ' ` „ ~ ;1 .7 r4. r' ~k 1 ~;r >;mMr ~ ~ t,,. w~*.~ ~ q~,J c ~y .i'uSN{ r,,S ~ J' 4Y': .ii 3. kA 1}i ~ J ~ ~ : „ .'X' u A t;Y~y-i a. L,.~ '~4„ r'i ~N~ Vii. I~ ~0 ''k ~ ~1 r.^w, ~01wn:~ ! '.,1,' '.ly Y a i , ' 'r~ ' 4 ' ~ {f' J"n u}r ~ 'i,:l.° °n~ ~ ;r' ti r. -"Vr ~ _ r l~ t ~ ~ - H , J `Y~"; !✓~k~~n. r a~, dk ~r t~ { ^'ir4 yJ{ i~` 1 6 w ' 1 b : ~ ' ~ 1 ~R rA f r ~ .i. .v. ~A, A• 1V .-,'~~:I'.t, r` ;{+NI~.,fl",~n 1• :"~k,,. 1 1 h t~ rA 1 k. xx 'r ' 4 r ~ .rt. , • - , ~ A,. ~ r M'I ~~T via r~ ri' f!4iMZ i '~4a~ \M r:"tAy, ~M _ r j~ yi 5 w ~ • , , ~ , , , - > , 1 { ~ r , , - - ~ ~ ,t.,..~ ~ ~ ~ i~+ - - : ~~u_. A r.}3~'. _ ~ _ '+1 _ lay - - - i~'}J, r ./I - ~ q ~ i?, d:'~. is , ' ;V Fxr`:'IU•S ~t r 4 ~ ...._.A a ' q , a ' , . " - .Ir , `"d'v'~"A. 11,., ' , ~ .'t. h e ' ~ `,wry + f ~f' „ t rY ~ ~ 1 !s Y , , d , , , - Y r . A , ee1A,JL din„ „s. i ~ ~ ~t ++-~~-.db..,A„+wM+-..3+,.s,rw~~«...y,., 1 ,1 A. n" p, `p~ s ~.'r 4.-E~.~1 t a °Y , 7~ ~ f' f~k ~ ~ A r' `r: ~ . ~ • t r' ~ y , } A 1 µ r . 11 K, a.' ~M°},y^i yny.. .~•~l nf; 1 t ~ ~ "yl i.I y >.2 ' ll J 'Lf. ~ r ~ .,q. T r. r~ r"., , r. ~ 1. •'~J: ✓ ~ yl,i, ~ Wi Y"" ~~C, ~ w 1 r t sntA. ~ {I ~.,'l't a. f.., .,t. i~ n. {I; Z••-... n - _ i., t`, 'YR ~4 ~,,1lll r' ..i , • 7'ta~~„ "r'. >:''e.~r~ 'k r,a+~, rel. r E S "v r ~ a,~ , ` ~j+'~ ~ ~1}'s' 7 b ~ w~t~",, P ; e' 'I ~ 1,'-•`t• s. 'rig. r x~ th ~r, - r. - r.i ,yr - l , p M ~ , .t 7 1 ~ r irk. a - - ' ; ` ' . i ^i ,i y ~ A" N di ,Nr,. r, ,N + fir:' 'j,, a v ~ ~ I'° i. ' r r r . , ka. i e '`"'Yir~~'.r " ~ i' ~ ..a ~ . y"' .f' _ r 1, .;tr ~ arr t r, ~ , 't } ~ ~ a ~ ~ , y ~ ~l`,„ n'.: 4 a r l '$':~1`; ,~5 r ezz, A }v',~ ~ wi ~ r ~ ' h; ~t'a•I r Fg 1,"HLL 1 ' 1 : f „ ~i" ~f +v.,t.,...r1~.-rtM~~-I. ;;'q* ~ Y ~M ~ " ° , - r ~ ~ hra E a., ~t 1,., - x. tx. r+r'"~., ' s r_~• ~ ,,,,y* " , ' ~ , 4~~ a i'a ',t' r' .-rr'+ly ~ a,: f a zr::.} { w ► ~ i4 '~a., A , t 1, k w ~ ( + ~ .r ~ r 1. r~✓!~,+ ~ „ ~ ~ P , l+r yl' t dz ~ ' i f~ + , ~ '~4r ~s ~ x r'+ ~.k y +,Vy t {a'a Yi - I.,~ ,d,_ ! ~t. Ip .r ..,i ~ ~5{~ a '1" ~~'k~ 1 i nl . ~ t _ r..t ~ r ~,1 ~ rf i ~ 1. * ~i ' ' r w ~ ~ , ' . r , ~ ~P 4 ( ! ) ~J 4 t'0.4 Vtt } tr ~ ! ~iT. "a ~ - ~ r RS t~ ~ t. e 1 A~ •},.1 ew ! ~y~ ' - rh . ' \y A s le' Y, ii r : "r ~ -rp1, l 1';. "aY•b,,, R, A l t~~ Ki 'se r/4' ti t, J. 1'd' 1, • a ¢ r t?. t' ~ .:ro /,i,i 1. ' 't... ~ . .t~ 7 I T~ L ~ '1 1 r y « t :.a. r,« r s ,,.t:., e,, t '.r ..r.~ y. l ~~'z,t ~i'.0 t ' _!i~..~ M .'pdoa i, ~ 1 ~14~rhw, ~,,:..,~,t ~.4h,. i ~ 1~. y~j V. ~ , y , , vN J ".,?f~.;~, , t ~ .t~ ,~1..> ;M4r y+~, i.. E'.'a€ a ix. 4 , .,1~ 9 F'~:~ d ,+n ~ i~ ~ 1 4; a ( 1 4 1• 1 1 .i # r1~~ s• t .5. A A y4 'Y 'tia1. I. nr t.. M' .f.. j Ila' , .l.5' ~ 1 tQ 1 ~{'~17 Mt l~~Sfl"-1 "+~y'Y~. x~ ~f ' :'1 1.r~~ N~'fEr r: : . ` ~N"'.! i' ,-p ~ ~ " a,. rr~ y1` , Y}.. ~r y, : :`n. .y 4 . 'AA,.a .1 M F ~.4. r~ ~ i I;r r ~ , "k~' i ~ '.11" '^YI 't1'~, ~','r ~ y~ ,..,fir. ~ t , T°: V.• ~ ~ , „ , t,, a ~ , r' ,,1, 1+.. ~ r7 ~ t , rt', tr r,~. :',M,/ Y•,.,, WN'.".-.-'++.:.'}C', ^ , .1. k ..,k ~ ,r< ~ tr , a . , . , , . " is a b r ~ ±,1 a r , ~ ~?kk~, v. e,>'r v. t 1• oi' y'' .l t', ,y ' v, 4 rw a , ~ .a+ rRn i` f ~ ~f~ ~ ~ t{.,a~ ;il} , + r,. ,~:.3?.. S. NBf` Yj 1 d. t. ,..y, ..e.. yr, r ~w- } ~ iF' ids r ~ 3n, .a ~ r r • ~ '~z q, tr, .4 k•".': r.. ~ ~ ° A. { t, < ~ ~ ',nk ,r •i `'°YL 1, rw, 4' q. i w A; 1 ~ r t.. a; , ~ zP .j, 1. 1, w 1 ,f lr ~ r., t L I ~ .9 ( ~tl...i! } J ~i r, ~ 1 Y P;r. I.d. ♦ y ~ i. , ~ , ♦ ~ , •v, •k.. . 1,.. ~'f ~w,~,yry :I 1. a r ! Y ~ .y :u. 4 ~ .~t 'fi , it: ~.C. ,,{t _'In~'. '~~N, Y~ ~.A .d. i. y A; { r a 6' N~ I` 1' `+t , « ~ 't, r i i v. Y" • l r., ~ :f, r a M1 "4 ar, 'V~ a•r~ s r t L ' ~ , > ? 1' ~~7€ t4 "S r ''1',i .a, ~ i , u. 't. i~ ~kE ;I ,1 ^'~t r S-i 1 'J~ t. / t 'k° L - ra ~.z . a s' i`' 4.. A 'r`'.k I r rl A 4 r ' 1 + ~ . . , ~'r, r r . ,x 't, a r^i' a 'wk. r ~ Is a :t , } 1': i r i n . 'N l~. .,,r. ,-,r w'' , x{.K . , I , i,~ .r ....~rl. w „ ~ , - . i / ~ . , + 1 ^ft I ~ t 'r, t. "kr S" W r ~ r+s i k R A. r orr ti r -t, ~ ~ qq l.~J„i'A .Y t :t'., t./. l "ar k ~7. ~A x ~ , , '1~ k~ „pk M,.' J,V 1~,'5A•f..:.r, r'+", ~ t, j.i 1 "t. t. 'f 1 I H 1" i,a C 1' y `R ~,rr! 1 ti t fit'{ l: 'I A ' ..I r.+. r.a .1 ` .'f".. M~ `1~: ia,~ • 'i'!~ r; , W . 1 ~ Nr~ . t pF{ ~ti Y; .nth, r,,.if 1'"1 , t 'i 1Yh J ,!3. ~ C .:1. eNt +b ~ 4 ~ d ~ , 7 'x. ~A Y~ ~ , 1 ;r ''ia :.1 'r , , '~X •4 1p+ k y 11^, : i 1)~~ 4•ki' ~,4 r 1 P.A., 4. t ti~i ;r', y ~1^N+v~~ ,(,y," ~ r . 1C '!it I . ,I ~'r" 4 4. k' . 1 , r `b; v ~t•4l? 7Cr f'. .,,,x 4~. i, 'qr.4•~. ,d. 7 ei,;~,.. z. ~ti ~.4 ~ ip,~ r• w' ' r" i ~ , vN ' 1 tz ~:>ri ~ r ir' t ~ ° r 4'y + g7t„ ~;;7'~~ .y i{`'~~.4~.~~ r . - I 'i+ it ~.C ' a.. ~ 1 d, i' a. y, ~ " "`a ,.x,,', "P ~t r fro- 'tl l~J~ l ~ tl~ 1,y1, "''i ~ + ¢ . , t . v. . M x A 1 , } . t , ~r 1. z~'r~: z~.i~.',~, ir,. w. r'~✓~+, b, .+I~ ...r 1. 1 kr A ~ 't~ ~r `1 t': ldt i. 1 ',4 `R ~.,;..~t s . n-:... ,IJ';:.n,, y. , ,r.'~r:, l : °,C :,}'i~'. i x~ s t 'rt { r,. w' ,zl r dnyr' ~ ,4 : ^fk, ~ ,n nY,~. ~.,r., 4 ~A.. , 1'9, Y. , ,,I ~ 1(,r 3 , x J e -0 y _ i ~i,i~~, , ` , d { ;ar w yt7j ...k. r r Fl, vl i '7 ilk t~ ilk .,l, k e- }C A, .t ~?v~r. N":t k ,,r ;1,'t,.fC+ 't ,y' ~ ~I ~ x! ,FJr'' h,, ( rt' I p,. 5°," ~ 1 .,~y r f , d y 4 p rA Y d~ Ir , t ,z rr ~7 ~ ,d~ t,,J. dl,~ i : M ~ R rw,lni,, a', ~viv.. •iF t + ' Av, f. tRi. 2 .N . ";x' - a ~ , r . ~1t , 1 S.,,C k._ r F- •.V' ;~:~`.ry :.i. h'!:w •M". r v'"r'. , ~ - + ki~iP Ir ~'~~iM„t, 'd,, w lt' nt. r'~ 4YY i 'zr h v^ t l"^, y;' } 1, at`"y', i;r a: 1 1 1 ,~,H y. r ~ K '4 „~,.C~i e.1n a M.' w.a+ ' ,{p {er~..t,:: , P v.. v'k',`. `.-'r7Y j~ ;'ir ~Q Y ~,h ti r L ' °a,'. It w., i. t ~ , i + i h 1. •r v q , Sri { 1 a. . rib„ ~ ,f , 1w.: ~t 4; ~ d 9 ~ n , a. ,iY t °a . ~G K . , ~ k w: , , r, ~1 ~`l ° 's t 1 ~ 1. d ~:r •r, a' l ~r r k~ t >f k a.j 1 ` 1 r P A'r h' ~ K ~ K W` l L.. , Y- ( ~ S Y ata: i l r' ti. • r i , , 'i a' , 7 sw+' + t. f h. , p {z , A c i, 'r s ~ } l i C 'S' t, k r '1.~. ~ , ~ " t. , i 1 :'i. ti. 1 x t l ,:4: ' F. I w , 1> y i y f } M • 11 y* r t r. J r ti w'r ~ ; . > ~ i' w:. t i } .T~ • f '"f ~•R f ` ri e.! , ` ~ 1 r 'I-. Sy: ~ 1, M e. 1, rJ J,1 1 d' i,. l,l. , . , Y !'o i ,.,E4, t d l , r k' .a r. ` , R sx ,.w I.'•~~,; 'EA~~.~ d .u ~4. ^K `1, tF-t . :a8 .r ~ „ ~ ',?fi Jt r, i ~ , f G „ l r,,, ~ +4,, t~ ~ i ? r ~ j~ .J ~~yy ,A. ,.a F;',r ,a as b1, a I4i d 's4' A.. ~,>e R i~ ''f' .'i',• +l h 'fit. 1 t ~ `i,;,q'~~. ' A ,+p r' , , -rt .i rw .,-t. .r- l flk~. r., 4't~' y 9'ti.+P'i, ."r.~,. ~n.., r` `'S f ~ , • r ';~r M~ ,K' °,i,.}. I~~ rb ,:4, y~...4 .vY. 'a~- a ~„'4~ , ~ ~?r . ,;a e .c,. ,.u4+, i. i>.'ti`ft'a.,C +.'}i`r,"r,. .:vy~li ,r 1. .>t ,"a41' 3 ,r, nl': ~ r'' ti 1 Yr .i f. Ai• ,x~r~w:' t 'e~ . , ' . ~ a<, J.," t p ' i :;r l ~ . 4 7 t . ,«R r a i.( { x k;,w ►`~lei r yAl, t ,a' .,MA y a . , .1 I;r ,r ,.r' } , y.' M^VWM1 ...7 ~ , _t, ~ G~{ t *7 , ~~..A `t'~..'1 ~ M r r~ ,ro" : z,. ••....n, t ,'":'e: Vie.,.' i:Mt~. ~F~' :1 `;-i,~ ~`i: i r' , d i'~ 1. a 'i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .w' , ~ ~`Ad wt.~,! '4 4'- ' ' ± ' , _r „y y , , ri.,l,+rr I' V rr ~p ` pp t...n lti" ~,,:1 ,r ,:i~~ 4: F } o. , ~ ? `t, °►WA~ n S,~ "h~.t':'rk. 1 A ! r I:',' , rv :,.1 } , . , w, . ; i ,r. E t 4. , { . ,t ~ ~,l~ 1 yi , 'v' Y :.a... q i,. :r « ~ dr::. n., ,ql,. a- a <~.:,v r 1 ,.~~SE r~' q," ,P,- v. ,i :ar,t^, - + ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ,>.e',, r,ti. y:. ,1~..~ a ~ ',';a f '.u kw'..,~':: i.,,;~,.,.4., ~ ~ i '~..H,•R~ 'l„ I t. ~.J, 'I , e „ r i w S '.1'~i~^• p; . i ~:.V ~~{f 4 ,,yjk/~ t a i ~ ~ , F r ~ t ' - ~►1w~Llefii„ i b N' t AY I t 7 ,EQ , ~ t. y"~ i t '~1 r t w, n '"k r.,, "t ~ , t` Tf ~hi1A A yy ,Ad 7K A ' ~ ~ ,r ,i ~~;d. i. , i':., i , ~ l a, ~'4 F, tiJ s,.1b1 ft F ~•Ii ~ . .~'v N i~h , .r , , 4:i ' „ , q ) y,. z r !`W_ ~ f J!~ 'n~-. '!{~1 'r''N ~ 'a.'' - R rYN~ ~ ~.j. .A.., o-',,. „ , r.. .~:'i, .,r ,or. ll ar 1 ,i,, •I 14 ~g fir,: ~ , ~ ; < A,,; g,.,~ 1 ! ' ~ i , w 'irk , 4. `!wr ,~f 1:'~ 1~1 r ; i ~ r.,,.. l p .e , ~ A.z,, , r a ;w~ fit, t" 4 "t-• .i,'. •a'r ~ ' 1 IiY r; t ..A. t~ l" d. +il e, 3('~futy 1Y; ~'.,pt , ~ 1 r a~„ P, rl .f H. ~ r i,.. a ~ ''^i~~d rNl`^,'t~ 'EV ~ ~ ~ A t~ l 3 v i d~ / X' Yd r„4 ',:.-rye, r.." ;.~r.a.~ .t;,Yt s+, ,,1,, ~ t r;.~a. k.,,. 1 yp,A"~, ' ' r N } b. ~ t ~'t.f.'~.>r, ~ 1 ~i'•rM r ~ f ~ -,l ,~1 i' iii+ d., ?w'~~,~ d r , y . ~.eP 7- ~ _,t - a. !.i ' ~ ~ ~ I t i • Al 'Y -S}.. . ~ ~ ' ; ' ~ ~M 1': ,"',~,~!n ,~n 11 A: N. 7 ~,.t; ~.,,,~{W.,~•..' i r rk' ~ '9"sr' ~I'r fyll` hl' 1:. ,'i.r ~l~ .R~ i, r,.7 ;1:: 'I~ .R ~ i.y ,r'.. ;r04 d,fi7!+`: , •ai `r.q t~ I" ti , r. :a d „ k.+. r. t~, r M r4' 'N' i, `.y t Y,„ F i' i~ '~;N . 4.. t ,i, i~: ~:r "Lkk 7,Mt, ~ , ~ ,•a. er- Ht tr.,.err*r.wrDl1 yy,, a ~ r l.x~-1. a ~ r ~ , 1~. 7 i tvk `.on tr r {i.. At'++I~la. 'y ~ it ,i ~ ~4:. 1' r,~~ !p ' ;v'S w' 3' ~1. ,rh' 1 xr ~ ~ tt t n~ ~ + ' ~~tc,5, f r~w N 1;' Il'u _ ,r „h 'k ~ !a" •J `P'"'r,,•~A ! 4 W.. .a 1 ..~~4Y+ 11~ `~,D r ,1 .wl~.+. i, y'i ~ 't . Hu t. t ~ ~ .4 d ~ ~w. ~ yAM . :jf. " o,d~-.• J 1 •`~51i , . Y , ~ ~ ' 1 , Y ~„qi v' r , ~ , n 1 ,k t a asr, ;Y,qr i . ,R i 1 d.~«r.w- ~ 11'' k l w , ~ c. ~kM A y ,7?I ~ ~~,,J ~ a 'dj y;t• ~ 1~ ~ , ~ tY. r.~~~ r A { :d r kr' ,R~ r -Ji 1. tM' .1 ,jr i'~'a M"1"P~i'. , .•h` M'r dal'" ~'a• ,-d ,k Y' ,M.~~"^s1 .,.fl ~"ri.' «.+F+r~~ti?' z, rv Y. w .P ~,n, 1. y~ ~ ~ 1 ' rr~'; ~ • i 1 wu...,.. i~liAa +x~.„ +w, • „k i`' P z:j~, I.'~; „ i~' Al 4'T ~ ..,~dM.,r 1 i '.k a. iY ,(v ~M 1 •N i=c ;1.,.I ~ I j; k .t,, ~ a ~ ~r~Y d''!'. >c~ .'1.", {u tE ~p y ' 1 '1 1. y,' ,I, 1' , `Ie `M'd3". h~i''~ t rN. ""Ira M A "l• tL'. t?~ ,A. z it n ~ t ~ yy'.,r; a z~ d~~ ~ f , ~ ~ . ~riw4r ! a l i ~ .w a* tN° ,rnr t 1-,~'t,~'~ ti ~ A~~~Ird~, a + ;h' '~i~w..Ntiw~,.yi ~,,.f~.C. }'kfA= ~ ~;w~d;,J r 1 u ~ 1 ~ i'W may, ~1 ~ ~ , 1 - ai, . =V - ' If i Y' Yr , l l p t i C. Construction of the 121st/Gaarde intersection to County standards. d. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. Second, it has been suggested that recommended condition of approval #7 needs to allow for the possibility of Ames Orchard II subdivision being developed prior to the Vista Point subdivision to the north. It has been suggested that a fee in lieu of improvements to Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue be collected rather than for the fee to be collected later through a local improvement district to be. imposed upon the individual owners of lots within Ames Orchard II. Staff recommends that condition #7 be revised as follows: 7. The applicant shall share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue, where this street will abut the site's northern property line. If the 51nb'm~ development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of S~A Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of b Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and constructing improvements to this section of road, with ~\G3 the exception of sidewalks which would be the responsibilitty of the Ames Orchard II developer. The developer of Ames Orchard II may be required to pay for up to one half of the cost of the improvements for this road segment if,the City Council approves the creation of a reimbursement district. If Ames Orchard II precedes the development of Vista Point, the developer of Ames Orchard II shall prepare preliminary plans and a cost estimate for improving this segment of SW Gaarde Street consistent with the current approval for Vista Point. The Ames Orchard II developer shall deposit with the City of Tigard a fee in lieu of improvements- equal to one half the estimated cost of those improvements, minus any credit for improvements constructed by Ames Orchard II. The City shall hold this fee to be relesed only for the construction of improvents for this road segment. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No._~ x-23-93 03 : 20'I"M FPOM PRESTON i AVi F HRM TO 6:0-A7297 P001/004 PRESTON" 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower THORGRINISON 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue v Portland. Oregon 97204-3688 SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Telephone: (503) 228-3200 l)/ 7 6oLA*-, L Facsimile: (503) 248-9085 ATTORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE COVER PAGE July 23, 1993 To: City Council Clerk From. Dan Kearns (Individual) City of Tigard No. of Pages: 4 (company) (Including Cover Page) 694-7297 Gient/Matter No.: 31474-00001 (Tolecopy No.) _ 639-4171 (Confirmation No.) Client/Matter Name: AmesOrchard Homeowners Ass'n If yuu do not receive all of the pages, plcaae contact our telecopy operator of (503) 228-3200. ❑ Original will not be sent. ❑ Original sent by U.S. mail. ❑ Original sent by overnight mail. COMMENTS: Please distribute the attached letter to all members of the City Council for the Tuesday (7/27/93) meeting. Also distribute a copy to Dick Sewsdorff, the City Planner. Thank you. DHK LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. I• (OThe information contained in this facsimile is confidential and may also be attorney-privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication ie strictly orohibited. If you have received the facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by a collect telephone call to (503) 228-3200, and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. 07-23-93 03:2011` = :014, S'1if1,1 + W FIRIA TO 680297 ?002/004 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower PRESTO* 111 S.W. Pitch Avenue T14ORGRI MSON Portland. OR 97204-3688 SH I DLER Telepbone: (503) 228-3200 MATES & ELLIS Pacsizd1z:(503)249A095 DANIEL H. KEARNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 23, 1993 Tigard city council P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SENT BY FAX TO 684-7297 Re: Ames Orchard II Subdivision, SUB 93-0002, Hearing date: July 27, 1993 Our file no. 31474-00001 Dear Council Members: This firm represents the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association, the group of residents living to the south of the property which is . the subject of this application. We submit this letter in support of this application, but we also wish to place in the record specific objections to certain alternatives which have been presented by staff in its latest staff report (dated July 27, 1993). To begin with, the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association has worked closely with the developer/applicant, Mark Rockwell, throughout the application and planning commission process. We participated before the planning commission by submitting a 4/5/93 "Report to the Planning Commission" and a 6/7/93 letter from James P. Welch. The Council should refer to those submissions for additional details. Throughout the process we have appreciated the applicant's responsivcncas and ability to accommodate our needs. in this fashion, we hope the product will be a development proposal which even the planning staff will support. Regardless of what that design ultimately looks like, we have the following primary concerns: 1. We oppose any design which includes a through connection between Ames I and Ames II by way of the Tract I'D" or Lot No. 33. We agree that .Tract "8" is appropriate for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access, but not through traffic. This has been our position Prom the beginning, and is a position shared by the applicant and the staff. On this basis, the planning commission decisively rejected the through connection between the Ames I and Ames II. However, we notice this design option has reappeared on page 2 of the July 27, 1993 staff report. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. 110 -23-33 03: 2 0 P M r R0 REST0N I n` V1' F 7 Pi- T0 u34 1297 P003/004 . PRESTON TH0RURIM. 0N SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Tigard city council July 23, 1993 Page 2 There are several compelling reasons to reject the connection option. First, all parties remain opposed to connecting Ames I and Ames II in this manner. Second, as noted, the planning commission rejected this option. Third, in 1989, the city commissioned the Bull Mountain Transportation Study, which analyzed then and future traffic in this part of Tigard. That study concluded that a connection between Caarde street and Bull Mountain Road by extending Hazelhill Drive would be unacceptably dangerous. Not only would such a connection route 5000 to 8000 cars per day through Ames I, a quite residential neighborhood with small interior streets, but there are significant sight distance problems at the Bull Mountain-Hazelhill Drive intersection. Any through- traffic connection between Ames I and Ames II would create an unacceptably dangerous traffic situation, in violation of Transportation Policy 8.1.1 and purposes A(4)(5)&(6) of the Tigard Development Code §18.160.010. We request that the City Council decisively reject the possibility of a connection between Ames I and Ames II via the extension of Hazelhill Drive through Tract "B." 2. We oppose any design which includes, or leaves open the option of, extending 125th Street from the south, up along the western edge of Ames I and Ames II to a future connection with Gaarde Street. All parties have opposed any option which would have provided for or allowed the extension of 125th Street along the boundary of Ames I and Ames II developments. The present design for Ames II envisions a second access onto the proposed Gaarde extension through the northwestern corner of the development. We believe that, if a second access is required for Ames II, this access should be north to the proposed Gaarde extension, not south to 125Ch street. The northerly access option would be the safest, least expensive and most efficient means of providing the second access to Ames II, and would be adequate to serve the Walker properties should they be developed in the future. We request the City Council to decisively reject the possibility of extending 125th up from the south, and instead, assuming a second access point is needed at all, that second access should be through the northwestern corner of the Arnes II property. The Council should also consider adding a condition of approval stating that the second access point would not be developed unless or until a development application for the Walker properties is filed. Subject to these concerns, the Ames Orchard Homeowners' Association supports approval of the current design configuration. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. I I I 07-23-93 03 : 20PM FROM PRESTON, LAW F i R M T 0 ~ A: 7297 :004/004 PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS 0 Tigard City Council July 23, 1993 Page 3 However, the Association prefers the design option involving the internal loop configuration, which was submitted to the planning commission June 7th. This is the design which staff characterizes as a "cul-de-sacs" - a characterization which we dispute and which is, at best, debatable. Also, should the City Council decide to ignore either of our two primary points, we specifically request that the record be left open so we can submit additional evidence and argument in support of our position. Thank you. Sincerely, PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Daniel Kearns cc: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Director Mark Rockwell, applicant Tony Francis, AOHA (by fax) LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. I I L --e cd -7G-)1 tr3 Ames Orchard Home Owners Association +0S testimony to Tigard City Council SUB -93-002,VAR - 93-004 July 26, 1993 The Ames Orchard Homeowners Association (AOHA) is in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames / Rockwell which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion of the plate (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members at the Planning Commission meetings of April 5th and June 7th. Specifically, • The modified plan meets section 8.1.1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which ells for a safe and efficient street system. Access for emergency vehicles is immediately provided through two points, the 121st Street / Gaarde entrance and the emergency vehicle aooess via Hazelhill Dr. In addition, the northwest stub street would provide future access when properties to the west are developed. • The modified plan meets section 6.3.3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which "protects established areas with primary consideration to preserve and enhance the character of adjacent established areas". The developers have consistently sought and incorporated inputs from AOHA members. • The modified plan is consistent with the findings of the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Study of 1990 commissioned by the City. The Study specifically recommended against the connection of Hazelhill Drive to 121st Street The City Planning Department has mentioned in the staff report that such a connection remains an option for the Council's consideration. This connection was specifically opposed by the NPO #3 and was rejected by the April 5th Planning Commission due the inevitable traffic and safety hazards it presented Hazelhill Drive simply isn't constructed to support increased traffic. The Kitterson traffic study submitted in the developer's original application supports the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Studyof 1990 at least in this regard- • The modified plan meets the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule by providing bicycle / pedestrian access between Hazelhill Drive and the proposed development thereby promoting non-motorized modes of transportation. Ames Orchard Homeowners Association members have worked closely and cooperatively with the developers in meeting the needs of both the proposed and surrounding neighbors. AOHA is also concerned about the effect of the northwestern future access to Gaarde St AOHA strongly recommends that the council APPROVE Plan B contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved and stubbed as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requests that full improvement of the remaining access route shall not be required unless and until property to the west (Tax Lot 200) applies for development Furthermore, AOHA urges the City to agree not to condemn any portion of tax lot 200 for the purpose of completion of the remaining section of this access. If the Council finds a disagreement with the Plan B as submitted and proposed which is inconsistent with AOHA interests, then AOHA requests that the record be kept open for a period of 7 days so that additional testimony may be submitted Respectfully submitted, James P. Welch President AOHA 14340 SW Haze lhi Drive, Tigar OR. c.- LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 16 Page No. 113 CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 8, 1993, 1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 93-147 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by messenger delivery. DATED: October 8, 1993. atherine Wheatley / Tigard City Recorder v • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 8, 1993, 1 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 93-147 by first class mail on the following persons: Steven L. Pfeiffer Stoal, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik, & Novack . 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: October 8, 1993 therine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder 1 , CITY OF TIGARD OREGON November 15, 1993 Land Use Board of Appeals 306 State Library Building 250 Winter Street, NE Salem, OR 97310 Re: LUBA No. 93-147 - Matrix Development, Petitioner/City of Tigard, Respondent & Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land Development Co., Intervenor-Respondent Enclosed is a copy of "Exhibit B" as requested for the above- referenced LUBA Case Number. Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard Timothy V. Ramis 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 f t ~ > E~ V I ~ I i i r ~ ~ .r"" ~ ~ ~ ~ ` \ ` ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ f ~ \ - I ~ ~ ~ ~'o i o ' ~ ~ \ ~ ~ N `,A - ~ NON-~VEHI LAR, ACCESS S1R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w _.____1___ ~ 4 84 ! - ~ 1 ~ I`~ I 1 ~ ~ 100 ` ~ ~ _ _ l ~ ~ v v ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ' ~ \ 1 \ SF ~ o oo~ , 1 Q,000 SF _ 11 122 SF , ~ 10 234 F ~ ~ \ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 4, ~ i ~ I 1 1 ~ ~ / ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 1 - - ~ 86 ~ 4 ~ 4 I ~ ~ _ __--t__ ..~_-V.,.- . \ ~ 2 1 ~ _ ,,....w.~......... ~ . _ / , ~ t 2 - - _ > ~ ~ 1 , 91 118 ~ I cP• ~ t, ti I ~ ~ ~ `v r ~ ~ i - - ~ ~ ~ i i~ ~ o ~ 12 goo s V7 1 w I w w . t~ p ~ C tT I ~ ~ 11 800 F w 0 4 8, SF. o, 1 c t ` , ~ A• ~ ~ \ ~ ~ I ~ 1 300 \ ~ i I ~ I ~ ~ y~ 125 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z j~ w ~ ' / l I ~ X98 1Q5 i 1 ~ , ~ - ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~ i w ¢ 1 ~ n ~ ao I ~ ~ ~ 1 1 12 464 SF o t w o 1~ soo sF ~~c ~ ~ I I ~ 10 458 SF 1 1 I ~ I 12o f ~ , .n.~w~ ~ ...+rrrw me m . N ~ ~ , . 91 1~8 ~ r. ~ I" tr ~ ~ 400 ~ y' „ .......Y,.~__._.. - 11 . 'ffi.q A, / 1 1 \ ' ~ 11 _ i 6 $ ~ ~ ~ f~ \ ~ / r- ~ \ \ I ~ ~ I I r ~ I , ~ I~_ 11534 F ti~.. 118oS 1 ~n ~ ii. \ ~ 13 739 F i ~ _ ~ ! . ~ i ' \ \ ,I \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ,Y ~ ~ , ~ ~ 11 Q. ~ ~ 195 ? ti ~ w w w~ wwwr~r ~ w. w w w M., ww w~rwrh.. w w w ~ { , A ~ ~ ~ ~ t -rte..- i00 A A I ~ 1 \ 1 ~ t t ~ ; ~ ~ ~ Q . 4 • ~ v T V ~ ~ ~ _ / J DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ i \ i ~ ~ i i ~~~,1 2 F \ r ~ , ~ ~ ~o0 60o EXHIBIT ~ ~ ~ i i I ► ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ r" 6100 6 " PLAN B" srrrwr J i ~ 4\\ i ` \ ! V II • • ~ _ 1100 800 ~ 4 ~ , ~ w..~.~,,..__._H. . ma~.~ BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, ) LUBA NO. 93-147 Petitioner, ) Index and CITY OF TIGARD, ) Record } Respondent, ) and ) ROBERT AMES and BULL MOUNTAIN ) LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. ) Intervenor-Respondent. ) Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file 8y City Recorder - City of Tigard 0 Date: t o hlo _ AMES ORCHARD II SUBDIVISION SUB 93-0002 (CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO. 93-42) CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC HEARING RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 93-147) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Date • i • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement. Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii - iii Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing (Final Order mailed August 27, 1993 - Resolution No. 93-42) 1-31 2 Council Minutes - August 24, 1993 32 - 42 3 Agenda - August 24, 1993 43 - 45 4 Affidavit of Publication (August 24, 1993) • Council Agenda Synopsis) 46 5 Council Agenda Summary Report for the August 24, 1993 Council Meeting, Item 6 47 - 50 6 Development Plan Map - Plan B 51 7 Agenda - July 27, 1993 52-54 8 Affidavit of Publication (July 27, 1993) Council Agenda Synopsis) 55 9 Affidavit of Publication (July 27, 1993) Public Hearing Notice 56 10 Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 57 - 67 11 Testimony Sign-In Sheets - July 27, 1993 68 12 Council Agenda Summary Report - July 27, 1993 69 - 106 13 Maps - Site Plan and Area Circulation (2) 107 ii . Exhibit No. Page 14 Page submitted by Steve Pfeiffer during Public Testimony 108 15 Public Testimony - July 23, 1993 - Letter from Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates & Ellis 109-112 16 Ames Orchard Home Owners Association Testimony 113 Addendum - Audio meeting tapes of Tigard City Council meetings are available, upon request • iii I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) City of Tigard ) &hf. I Ae. UL>W-CAA L_ j . hereby certify. PlP-i ase Print That I am a 6?:e e.1LAA--) for the City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served notice of the Tigard City Council ce 0~ C rta-t Oc lcszn. - n~..(Y1-~n~a -b e.. I o.A Ap•s cc3--000a of which the attached is a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named persons on the day of Au4dd 19 q3 . by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the attached fist (Marked Exhibit B), said notice is hereto r~ attached, and deposited in the United States Mall on them - day of =u lect4 19 ~3 • postage prepaid. ed Notice Subscribed and sworn to before me toles-? l" day of u,. 19 4 3 OFFICIAL SEAL . M. JOANN HAYES NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Notary PubUbf Oregon _ COMMISSION NO. 006513 . My Commission Expires: m S t 9 4 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5.1995 • h:\Iogin\c aVrAafof naH LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. _ Page No. CITY OF TIGARD 1 Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER:- BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUB 93-0002 2. Name of Owner: Robert Ames Name of Applicant: Bull Mountain Land Development Co. 3. Address 16325 SW Boones Ferry Rd. City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97305. 4. Address of Property: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1OBB, 600 5. Request: An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Subdivision: Community Developemnt Code Section 18.160.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88,.18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. _ Subdivision Variance: Code Section 18.160.120.8. Zone: R-2 (Residential, 2 units/acre) The R-2 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support . facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. The R-3.5 zone (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) allows the same uses outright with more conditional uses including cultural exhibits, duplexes, cemeteries, hospitals and mobile home parks and subdivisions. 6. Action: Approval as requested _ % Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) % Owners of record within the required distance % The affected Neighborhood Planning organization % Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: MM DE SION WAS SIGNED ON X~ol~ P-3 , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON att/ 3 The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. - A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their • - procedures. 9. QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please call the Tigard City Recorder at 639-4171. LUBA NO. 93-14'T Exhibit No. Page No. ,A- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93-4~ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, AMES ORCHARD-III SUB 93-0002. WHEREAS, the above application was submitted for approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, The commission reviewed the application at public hearings on April 51 1993 and June 7, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Commission found the application was not fully consistent with approval standards and therefore voted to deny approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the Planning CommissionIs decision, and also withdrew the request for a variance to the street design standards, and also provided modified plans; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the CommissionIs decision at a public hearing on July 27, 1993; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that modified "Plan B" was acceptable to adjacent neighbors and was consistent with approval standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED-by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Planning Commission decision is hereby reversed. Section 2: The Final Decision to approve the preliminary subdivision plat for Ames Orchard II, SUB 93-0003, modified "Plan B" , is hereby adopted subject to the conditions, facts, findings, and conclusions listed in the attached final decision. PASSED: This C day f , 1993. ayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of T and db/AmeaII.Res RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-747 Exhibit No. I Page No. 3 . TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FINAL DECISION A FINAL DECISION INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY AMES/ROCKWELL ON APPEAL OF A JUNE 7, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY. The Tigard City Council has reviewed the application at a public hearing on July 27, 1993. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below. I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: AMES ORCHARD NO.2 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 93-0002 Variance VAR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests. Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 10,000 to 23,664 square feet. A 11,568 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. The applicant has withdrawn all variance requests relating to.-street widths and grades. APPLICANT: Robert Ames AGENT: Alpha Engineering (c/o Mark Rockwell) (Mark Dane/ 16325 SW Boones Ferry Randy Clarno) Lake Oswego, OR 97035 9600 SW Oak Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Robert Ames LOCATION: South of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, north of the Ames Orchard subdivision. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 1OBB, Tax lot 600 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.11 7.1.21 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.11 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the subdivision request as modified (Applicantfs "Plan B") subject to conditions. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. • II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 600 is 12.68 acres in size and has approximately 180 feet of frontage along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. The property extends approximately 800 feet further west of SW Gaarde,*s intersection with SW 121st Avenue adjacent to an approved, but as yet to be constructed and dedicated, extension of SW Gaarde Street. The property is roughly rectangular in size. B. Site location: The site is located between the SW 121st Avenue/SW Gaarde Street intersection and the Ames Orchard subdivision. The present northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is located along the southern boundary of the site. C. Existing uses and structures: The site is presently vacant. Tree cover consists of a filbert orchard covering the western approximately 3/4 of the site. The eastern 1/4 of the site is open grassland. The applicants' exhibit 3 of 3 is an aerial photo which clearly illustrates the existing cover of the site. • D. Topography and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to the north and northeast. A broad swale which includes an apparently intermittent stream extends from just northeast of the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive to the eastern property boundary. This intermittent stream and a storm sewer drain to a distinct drainageway just to the east of the site. E. Surrounding land uses: Adjacent properties to the north and. west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are developed with single family residences on parcels ranging in size from approximately 0.5 to 6.8 acres. An approximately 1500-1600 foot long private dead-end road which extends northward from SW Bull Mountain Road currently serves eight residences on these parcels to the west. The property to the north of the site has recently been approved for development of a 64 lot subdivision (SUB 92-0005/Vista Point Subdivision). This subdivision would include a westward extension of SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde would abut the northern property line of the subject Ames property. Lots on the north side of SW Gaarde Street near the subject Ames property will average approximately 8,500 square feet in size. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 2 LURA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 5 Properties to the south of the Ames property are zoned 'R-1 (Residential- one unit per acre) and contain 23 single family residences within the Ames Orchard subdivision. Lots within this subdivision range from approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. This subdivision was approved by Washington County in the 1976 (to include a second phase on the current subject site), but the subdivision was annexed to the City of Tigard while under construction. SW Hazelhill Drive extends through Ames Orchard I and is stubbed into the southern boundary of the subject site. The fully developed Shadow Hills subdivision is located to the southeast of the subject site and west of Ames Orchard subdivision. Shadow Hills is zoned R-2 (Residential, two dwelling units per acre). Shadow Hills is served by a loop road off of SW Bull Mountain Road. Properties to the east of the subject site range in size from 0.5 to 2 acres in size and contain single family residences, filbert orchards, and a water tank. Properties to the northeast in the Colonial View subdivision range in size from approximately 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and are developed with single family residences. F. Plan designation and zoning: The site and surrounding properties are all designated for Low Density Residential development by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and northeast are under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but are within the City's planning area. Existing zoning of surrounding properties is illustrated on the vicinity map attached to this report. G. Proposed use: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 10,000 to 23,664 square feet as illustrated on sheet 1 of 1 of the applicants' plan set and described in the applicants' statement, plus a submittal map dated July 7, 1993 submitted by Mark Rockwell to Dick Bewersdorff. A 11,568 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. A plan was submitted on May 7, 1993 in response to the Planning Commission"s continuance of the review of this subdivision application. The Commission had reviewed a previous plan for the property on April 5, 1993, and had declined to approve the subdivision plan that had been presented at that time, or City staff proposed revisions to that plan. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-141 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 6 • Based on the Planning Commission denial of the subdivision on June 7, 1993, the applicant's subsequent appeal and meeting with staff, the applicant submitted a modified design (Applicant's "Plan All) for the western portion of the subdivision on July 7, 1993. That modification involved extending the legs of what was SW Vista Circle, a loop street, with two streets to the western boundary of the property and dedicating a portion of the right-of-way necessary for future street that would extend north to eventually connect with SW Gaarde. At the public hearing on July 27, 1993, the applicants presented a derivation of the above modification which called for the extension of the north leg of SW Vista Circle to the west and curving to the north to provide a future connection to SW Gaarde and property to the west. This was noted as "Plan B" and was ultimately approved by the City Council. H. Public service and utilities: The preliminary utility plan (applicantls Exhibit 2 of 2) proposes that the subdivision be served by development of a water main network from the existing 8 inch water line along the western edge of the site. Public storm sewers are proposed within the streets throughout the proposed subdivision with outfall to the proposed storm . water quality and detention facility to be constructed within Tract A in the northeastern corner of the site abutting SW Gaarde Street. The detention facility would drain to an existing storm sewer within SW Gaarde. Sanitary sewers are proposed to be extended through the site from an existing sewer in Gaarde Street through lines to be located in the proposed new streets. I. Access and nearby streets: The street system for the proposed subdivision would consist of a southward local street extension from the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. As noted above, a modified design "Plan B" submitted July 27, 1993 allows for accessibility to property to the west and an eventual connection north to SW Gaarde. An eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path extending 140 feet from the existing southern stub of SW Hazelhill Drive to the proposed cul de sac bulb at the end of the proposed new north-south street is also proposed. This pathway would be located within a 6,280 square foot, triangular shaped open space tract, Tract B. The applicant's statement notes that this tract is intended to be dedicated to the City. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 4 UBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. 7 The existing section of SW Hazelhill Drive to which the bikepath within Tract B is proposed to connect is approximately 42 feet wide, has bikeways/walkways striped on the pavement, has open drainage ditches, and has no streetlights, curbs, or sidewalks. SW Hazeltree"Terrace connects SW Hazelhill Drive to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector street under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW . Gaarde street abuts the property to the north. Jurisdiction for SW Gaarde Street lies with both the City of Tigard and Washington County. SW Gaarde is functionally classified as a major collector street by both the City and County Transportation Plans. Current pavement on Gaarde is approximately 24 feet in width from this point eastward to SW Pacific Highway. No sidewalks are currently provided along SW Gaarde and streetlights are few. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to SW Gaarde Street to the east in the near future. The applicants are proposing to connect this development to SW Gaarde Street directly at its intersection with SW 121st Avenue. The applicants propose dedicating 10 addition feet of right-of-way along the.existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde, along the northeastern edge of the site. The plans submitted May 7, 1993 did not indicate that the applicants intend any improvement to this stretch of street, but the applicants' statement in responding to Policy 8.1.3 appears to indicate that improvements are contemplated. The applicant's appeal statement indicates that a requirement that the applicant bear one-half the cost of the Gaarde Street extension or construct the extension is not a valid requirement. The applicant states that the issue of the Gaarde extension is beyond the scope of this application and should be left to a subsequent proceeding relating to the improvement project or cost- sharing, including whether the applicant has any obligation to construct or pay for the proposed extension. At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, the applicant's testified that they would be willing to participate in the formation of a reimbursement district to allocate the costs of constructing the extension of SW Gaarde Street along their subdivision's frontage. The original proposal did not contemplate right-of-way dedication for SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. The applicants' subdivision submittal statement in its response to Section 18.108 provides arguments for the applicants not improving SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. SW 121st Avenue intersects SW Gaarde Street just north of the subject property. SW 121st Avenue in this area is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW 121st Avenue is also a major collector street with approximately 24 feet of pavement, open ditches, few streetlights, and no sidewalks. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to this section AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 91 of SW 121st Avenue, except for half street improvements on the west side of SW 121st extending approximately 300 feet north of Gaarde that were required as a condition of development approval for the proposed Vista Point subdivision. J. Other applications affecting this parcel: The applicants have recently submitted an application (File No. _ ZON 93-01) for rezoning of tax lot 600 from R-1 and R-2 (Residential, 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre) to R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). That request was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993. The staff report for application ZON 93-01 contains a brief summary of previous land use and development applications affecting this property. This report incorporates that information by reference. It is important to note that the subject property had two prior subdivision approvals - the first approval was a Washington County approval that included this site with the land that has been developed as Ames Orchard I; the second was a City of Tigard approval for 14 lots on this parcel. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are • listed at Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.8 are satisfied. In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.48 (R-3.5 zone); Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations); Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not. applicable to the current review. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.11 7.1.21 7.3.1, 7.4.41 7.6.11 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 also apply to the review of the subdivision development proposal. . AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 9 . IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. Wash i ngon County's DoRg3 tMnt of Land Use and Transportat on has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: A. SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street (east of SW 121st) adjacent to the site are under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The County's Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends that approval of this subdivision proposal be conditioned upon the following: a. If made a condition of approval of this development proposal, the collector road extension of SW Gaarde Street along the north side of the site west of SW 121st Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to Section C.4.a., b., c., d., and e. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard. B. Prior to Final Plat Approval: a. The County shall be afforded the opportunity to complete a traffic analysis pursuant to Washington County Resolution and Order No. 86-95. The applicant shall construct any improvements found to be warranted within the development's impact area • pursuant to the County Traffic Analyst's review in relation to R&O 86-95. The applicant shall provide certification from a registered engineer that sight distance is adequate at the SW Gaarde/SW 121st Avenue access point. Contact Doug Norval, County Traffic analyst for specific questions regarding the traffic analysis. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of- way to provide '37 feet from centerline of the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage east of SW 121st Avenue, including adequate corner radius. C. The applicant shall sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. d. A one-foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. to The documents needed to complete these conditions shall be prepared by the Washington County Survey Division and shall be recorded in the Washington County Records Department. e. Submit plans, obtain County Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit for construction of the following public improvements: i. Concrete sidewalk to County standards along SW Gaarde Street frontage. ii. Adequate roadway drainage along SW Gaarde Street frontage. iii. Any traffic safety improvements required as a result of the completion of the County Traffic Analyst's report based on Washington County Rule and Order No. 86-95. iv. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington • County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. C. Prior to occupancy: a. The road improvements to County roads listed above if required by conditions of approval shall be completed and accepted by Washington County. In response to the potential access onto Gaarde at 121st or the possibility of access onto the Gaarde extension across from the Vista Point access, Washington County suggested the following two recommendations by transmittal July 14, 1993: 1. For either access alternative, submit a construction plan to the Engineering Section regarding the improvements of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde intersection. Provide road improvements to create an intersection that meets Washington County Road Standards. 2. For either access alternative, submit an intersection control plan to the Operations Division. Provide traffic control improvements as recommended by the Operations Division. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93.147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 11 • 2. The City of Tigard Building Division has provided the following comments: a. Individual lot drainage should be to an approved public storm sewerage system; alternatively, individual private storm drainage systems may be utilized. Plans will need to be. reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard plumbing inspector; b. Maximum finished slopes of all cut banks shall be 2:1; c. Soil tests and engineered footings may be required on an individual lot basis. 3. The City of Tigard ocerations Department recommends that SW Hazelhill Drive be extended through the site to connect with SW Gaarde Street. 4. The Tualatin valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary plat and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water District and Fire District.; b. No parking should be allowed on streets that would have less than 20 feet of driving surface, if such streets are • proposed. C* The Fire District is very concerned with the number of residences in the proposed Ames Orchard II that would be served by a long single-access loop street system. A street connection or emergency vehicle access should be provided to connect the new development with SW Hazelhill Drive or to the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st. 5. Tigard School District 23J has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development lies within the attendance areas of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, Fowler Middle School, and the Tigard Senior High School. (School District review was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. May submittal was not forwarded.) The proposed development is projected to generate the following additional enrollment at those schools: 11 students at C.F. Tigard School; 4 students at Fowler Middle School; and 3 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that, in general, school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently reviewed and approved developments- within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfigura- • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. ~a tion, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. Staff also contacted Bud Hillman of the School District (phone call on 2/25/93) with regard to whether the District had any concerns with school bus routing. (Contact was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. The May, 1993 submittal was not forwarded to the District.) Mr. Hillman stated that under present policies, school buses would be routed into this subdivision to pick up elementary school students but that secondary students from the proposed development would need to walk out to SW 121st Avenue for school bus service. 6. Neighborhood Planning Orcanization #3 supports the suggestion made by several neighbors to the south of the proposed development that access to the development should come off of SW Gaarde Street with only an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian and bike path between this development and Ames Orchard I. The NPO does not support any of the variances to Community Development Code road improvement standards that had been originally requested. 7. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there are both a 10 inch diameter high pressure feeder main within the approximate alignment of the Gaarde Street extension along the northern edge of the site as well as a 2 inch diameter poly main on the north and west sides of the site. The developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have the main located prior to any excavation on the site. 8. The Tigard Water District responded in a letter dated February 16, 1993, which stated that they "have facilities located within existing easements along the eastern and southern property line: • 36-inch water transmission main • 12-inch water main from reservoirs with water station elevation of 713 feet above sea level • 12-inch water main from reservoir adjacent to proposed project, water station elevation of 410 feet • 12-inch drain line from adjacent reservoir to detention pond at west end of Tax Lot 500 • 24" drain line from terminal (10 million gallon) reservoir, at SW 125th Avenue and SW Bull Mountain Road, with the outfall located approximately the center of Tax Lot 300 along its western property line. The above listed facilities impact the eastern property lines of proposed Lots 39, 50, and 51. They also impact most of the AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 0 storm water quality and detention tract and the eastern and southern property line of proposed Lot 52. The existing easement is 30 feet wide and is located at the eastern property line. There is also a 15 foot easement along the northern property line of Tax Lot 2300 that connects the 30 foot easement to SW Hazelhill Drive. Although the water mains are located within existing easements, the average cover. is 48 inches for the 36-inch water main and 36 inches for the 12-inch water main. one of the other concerns to the Water District is the connection shown to the existing 12-inch water main along the eastern property line. This water main is from the reservoir site adjacent to the proposed project which has a water station elevation of 410 feet above sea level. This water main cannot supply adequate water pressure for this development. There is, however, an existing 8-inch water main capable of supplying the necessary water pressure located 75 feet east of the northwest property corner. The Water District will require the - developer to extend that water main to the property line between Lot 31 and 32, then south along an easement to SW Vista Circle. The developer will be required . to provide a minimum of 15 feet of water line easements when necessary. Although there is an existing 12-inch water main located within SW Hazelhill Drive, which is capable of supplying the demands of the proposed development under normal circumstances, it is not accessible due to the extensive thrust blocking of the 36-inch transmission main at the existing terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive. Even though the Water District is not totally opposed to this development, the developer should be advised of the existing facilities and the need for protecting them.10 9. GTE has reviewed the proposal and offered no comments other than that the site developer should contact GTE at least 30 days prior to the opening of utility trenches. 10. The Metropolitan Area communications commission (cable television) and PGE have reviewed the original proposal and have offered no comments or objections. 11. At the public hearing on July 27, 1993, Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area. He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. if CITY OF TIGARD October 18, 1993 OREGON Land Use Board of Appeals 306 State Library Building 250 Winter Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310 Re: Luba No. 93-147 Matrix Development vs. City of Tigard and Robert Ames & Bull Mountain Land Development Company To Whom It May Concern: In a review of the LUBA record on this date, it was discovered that Page 12 of the Ames Orchard Final Decision was omitted. A check of the original file was done; Page 12 was mailed our as pars: of the Final Order and should have been included as part of the LUBA record. I am submitting the Page which is labeled as follows: LUBA No. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 Page 14-a I apologize for the omission and any problems it may have caused. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard Timothy V. Ramis cwc1018.931 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r j JV No. 2 subdivision, with the proviso that the applicants participate in the formulation-of a-.reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer cited code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B" was acceptable to them. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. compliance with Community Development Code - Subdivision 1. 'Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision must comply with the City-'s Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; C* The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved.for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Staff finds that the modified Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: ` a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Mapes Low Density Residential density opportunity-for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in $3 below. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat M ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. - Page No. 1q_A1-- J Y No. 2 subdivision, with the proviso that the applicants participate in the formulation-of a-reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer s cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan Bn was acceptable to them. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Cg=liancg with Community Development code - subdivision 1. Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision must comply with the Cityes Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; co The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved.for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. Staff finds that the modified Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential density opportunity-for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in #3 below. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 12 CUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. - Page No. within Washington County other than the first phase of Ames Orchard subdivision. The form and other details regarding the final plat would be required to be consistent with applicable Oregon Revised Statute standards, as well as the detailed plat filing requirements of the City of Tigard and Washington County. These details are not normally considered during the Planning Commission's preliminary plat review but instead are reviewed by the City's surveyor and the Washington County Surveyor's office; co The preliminary plat does not provide for a northward extension of SW Hazelhill Drive as would be consistent with the existing road pattern with the previously approved plat for-Ames Orchard I subdivision as well as a previous subdivision approval for the subject property. Conformity with the road patterns of existing plats is required by Code Section 18.160.060.A.3. unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. On April 5, 1993, the Planning commission reviewed a plan that would have provided for an extension of SW Hazelhill Drive through the subject property. After hearing the comments of several residents of the Ames Orchard • subdivision, the Commission determined that it was in the public's interest to not provide for a road connection between the existing Ames Orchard subdivision and new development on the subject property. The neighbors and the Planning Commission were concerned about changes in the existing neighborhood that might result from additional traffic travelling between SW Gaarde Street and SW Bull Mountain Road. At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, the City Council heard testimony from the Ames Orchard Home Owners Association and accepted the applicant's proposal. Concerns about traffic safety due the number of potential trips that could be carried if the street were connected (as presented by the applicant's traffic consultant) and difficulties relating to limited sight distance at the intersection of SW Bull Mountain Road and SW Hazeltree Terrace, argue against the connection. The proposal does not provide for a street stub to serve future redevelopment of the properties to the east, as was previously proposed. The applicant's revised plan creates a. street pattern which, if extended to the east, would create a 200 foot plus berm through adjacent properties to reach ordinance AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. - 5 required street grades, according to applicant submitted calculations. This would severely impact the development potential of the adjacent properties. With the modified "Plan B", the applicants have eliminated the proposed loop street within Ames Orchard II, which could have been considered to be a cul de sac or effectively a dead-end, single- access street. The southwestern-most point of the proposed loop street would have been approximately 11000 feet distant from the single SW Gaarde access to the proposed. subdivision. 2. Code Section 18.160.090 authorizes the decision-making authority to grant variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The applicants' appeal withdraws all variance requests. If, at the time of review of plans for the construction of public improvements, the City has approved and adopted new standards for local streets the applicant may use those new standards. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use standards of the R-3.5 zoning district because the lots • are intended to be used for single-family residences, a permitted use in the R-3.5 zoning district (Code Chapter 18.48). The proposal is consistent with the maximum density of 3.5 units per gross acre allowed for the site by the R-3.5 zone. All lots are consistent with the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone. All proposed lots are consistent with the minimum average lot width standard of 65 feet. Standard R-3.5 setbacks should apply to this subdivision. The proposed development is therefore found to be consistent with the applicable use and dimensional standards of Code Chapter 18.48. 4. Community Development Code Chapter 18.88 establishes standards for solar accessibility for newly created residential lots. Code Section 18.88.040.E allows the hearings authority to reduce the percentage of lots that must meet the solar access design standard if certain conditions relative to the site (such as slope, existing shade, or existing or planned road patterns) make it difficult or impossible to fully comply with the solar access design standards without adversely impacting the development's permitted density and cost or amenities. The applicants request, and staff concurs, that lots 28 and 29 should be exempted from the solar access • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 14 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. t (o calculation because these lots would have an east-west slope in excess of 20 percent. Of the remaining non-exempt lots, Code Section 18.80.040.C requires that 80 percent, or 24 lots, must satisfy the solar access design standards. With the applicant's modified design only five lots, lots 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, would need to be exempted. Therefore, over 80 percent of the lots satisfy the basic solar requirement of a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west orientation and a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet as shown according to the applicant's solar access evaluation sheet. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the solar access lot pattern standards of Chapter 18.88. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) because the 441,930 square foot net developable area of the site (after deductions for streets and Tracts A and B) yields an opportunity for 44 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning district's 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Thirty-three single family residential lots are proposed. The applicants' statement includes a density calculation. • Due to the modification of design and the revisions to the subdivision proposal including increased right-of-way widths and different street pattern, the applicant should be required to submit a revised density calculation that assures that the revised plat is still consistent with Chapter 18.92. It is noted that the proposed subdivision layout would still comply with the allowed density when rights-of way are increased to the standard 50 foot width. 6. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and related grading are anticipated to. necessitate the removal of all of the filbert trees on the western portion of the site as well as some of the other few trees on the site. The applicants intend to remove all of the filbert trees because these trees would generally not be compatible with the future residential landscaping of the proposed lots and because of the possibility of unmaintained nut trees harboring diseases and insects that could be harmful to nearby filbert orchards. For these reasons, removal of these trees should be permitted to occur with approval of a subdivision plan for this site and approval • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. it of grading and erosion control plans. In this special case, no separate tree removal permit should be required. 7. The proposed modified subdivision plan streets and other public improvements, can be found consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) as described above with regard to the general subdivision approval standards if approved with conditions. Staff provides,the following additional comments with regard to the requirements of Chapter 18.164: a. Approval of any development application for this site should be conditioned upon dedication of additional right-of-way for SW Gaarde Street as well as improvement to major collector standards. If development of this site follows development of the Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developers of Ames Orchard II should anticipate being assessed for their share of these improvements through a public improvement reimbursement district or other financial mechanism. If development of this site precedes development of Vista Point, the developers of Ames Orchard II should be required to pay a fee to cover their share of the cost of constructing this collector street across the Ames Orchard II frontage or participate in a financial mechanism that guarantees construction. Construction of improvements to this major collector street by the site developer will qualify for traffic impact fee credits for the individual lots in the subdivision. The City was not persuaded by the applicants arguments for-not contributing to the costs of the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st Avenue in their original submittal. First, the applicants argued that this street will not provide improved access to the subdivision's residents to area destinations. Obviously, with the road approved for construction only several hundred feet west of this site, the road (at first) would not provide significant access to area destinations. However, when the road is fully constructed to SW Walnut Street, the road will provide significantly improved access to destinations in western Tigard, to Beaverton, and to other locations to the north and west through improved connections to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The City Councill's final order for the Vista Point development to the north found the following regarding the Code standards which require new developments in this area to contribute AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. f to development of the Gaarde Street extension as well as the benefits the road will provide for future residents of the area: Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.164.030.A.14b states that "any new street or additional street width planned as part of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code." This street section has been planned for by Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Note 2. As noted in the introduction to the Plan, the Plan "provides a policy framework for decision making on such matters as...subdivisions." (Introduction, Page II-4.) The Council interprets this to mean that overall, the Comprehensive Plan represents the City's planning policies. The underlying basis for the Council's decision to require the Gaarde Street extension is found in the findings of the Transportation Section on Pages II-55 and II-56. The Council notes that the Community Development Code is intended to . "implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan," § 18.02.010, and the following referenced sections accomplish that policy. The Council considers the following findings from the Transportation section as mandated guidance from the City's acknowledged plan in evaluating transportation issues for this area of Tigard. * Major congestion problems within the City have resulted from the rapid population growth since 1970, creating a need for major street improvements. * The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 17 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 19 • * The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard (the affected area). Both of these areas lack adequate improved traffic ways. * A need exists during the planning period to complete ' a col-lector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. In addition to the findings, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Note 2 specifically states that "A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report." The Council finds authority for this condition in Transportation Policy 8.1.1, which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development.." Strategy 5 of the Transportation Section states that11(t]he City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way and install necessary street improvements to the city"s standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developers proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." The project site is in the westerly area of Tigard where major residential development was expected and is occurring, and which lacks adequate improved traffic ways. Gaarde Street is specifically mentioned as a necessary collector/connector to Walnut Street. This project site is included in the area covered by note 2 in the Transportation • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 18 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. z1o Plan, which specifically mentions a Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection. This project represents one piece of the development puzzle, the completion of which will provide public improvements to help implement the solutions presented in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds there is a reasonable relationship - between the current development of this project and the needs for transportation system improvements, as expressed in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the Development Code Sections 18.164.030.A.1.b and 18.164.030.F.1. (City Council Final order for the proposed Vista Point development, adopted by Council Resolution No. 93-19). The Council findings are just as applicable to the proposed Ames Orchard II development as they are to the Vista Point proposal. Additionally, the City Council apparently contemplated that other future developments in this area should be required to contribute to the cost of development of the Gaarde extension. The Council's final order for Vista Point also found: "The subdivision developer will be required to construct an extension of SW Gaarde Street and a major sewer line to serve the proposed subdivision. These improvements will likely be used by other developments. SW Gaarde Street is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a needed collector street improvement. The street and sewer improvements likely will only be constructed as part of a development. Therefore, the City finds it is appropriate to initiate a zones of benefit pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 in order to allow the developer of these facilities to recover a portion of the improvement costs from other subsequent developments using these facilities. Section 13.08.020(a) allows the City to initiate formation of zones of benefit. The City f inds that the Comprehensive Plan is furthered by initiating zones of benefit because it enables the subdivision developer to AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 19 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. .2L • proceed with the necessary public improvements." Part of the application's arguments for not contributing to the costs of improving the Gaarde extension is the applicants state that the SW Gaarde Road extension is a detriment to the site. The Planning Commission's final order regarding the upzoning of this property from R-2 to R-3.5 (Final Order No. 93-07 PC) cited the approved alignment for the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site as a reason why the property should be up- zoned due to the potential impacts to the site as well as providing improved access to the site. While some argument may be made that the road could be a detriment with regard to livability for future development, the plans for the road were used as an asset to the development in justifying the upzoning. Additionally, the applicants argued that the site has little or. no ability to dedicate additional right-of-way for the Gaarde extension. The staff report for the previous proposal noted that some additional right-of-way might be needed, to be determined by the City Engineer through review of . the public improvement plans for this site as well as the Vista Point development. It may be found that no right-of-way is actually needed for this road from the Ames Orchard II subdivision, but this will not be clear until final road plans are developed. Washington County is recommending that the subject site be required to dedicate 17 feet for expansion of SW Gaarde east of SW 121st Avenue. It will therefore be necessary for some additional right-of-way to be provided to the west of SW 121st Avenue in order to make a proper transition between these two road segments. There is no physical reason why right-of-way could not be provided by this site. The applicants state the amount of Traffic Impact Fees the proposed subdivision will generate and state that these fees should be more than a sufficient contribution to the construction of this section of the Gaarde extension. While this contribution is important, the City's policy remains that developments are required to participate in actual street improvements, as well. The applicants did not present persuasive arguments for the City to distinguish this proposed • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 20 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. - Page No. AA- development from other developments that are required to improve collector or arterial streets. The applicants, in fact, agreed at the July 27, 1993 public hearing to participate in the formation of a reimbursement district to allocate the costs of the extension of SW Gaarde Street. b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed although right-of way dedication for SW Gaarde Street would need to be increased to 37 feet from centerline east of SW 121st as the County has requested, and would need to be dependant on final road. design west of SW 121st. Preliminary street improvement plans were consistent with these standards, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced width and sidewalk on one side. As noted above, the applicant has withdrawn the variance requests in the appeal. C. The preliminary plat submitted to the Planning Commission did not provide for a street stub to the east to provide for a future further extension of this street to connect up with SW Gaarde Street (potentially opposite SW 118th Avenue), as was previously proposed with the first submittal. To meet street grade requirements for such a street would require an elongated fill which would inhibit potential development on properties to the east according to calculations and profiles submitted by the applicant. d. The modified development "Plan B" would eliminate the block length that exceeded the 1200 foot maximum block length standard of Code Section 18.164.040.B. The proposed connection to the west and dedication to allow a future connection to SW Gaarde have eliminated the long block length caused by the loop street system that had been proposed. While nothing in the City Council's decision can inhibit the decision making of future Councils, the extension of the "Plan B" modification street to the west and north is predicated on the realization that further extension will not be probable unless adjacent property to the west is developed. e. The proposed lots are consistent with Code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum frontage, and other lot AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 21 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. 3 dimensional standards specified by Code . Section 18.164.060. Although this code section discourages the creation of through lots, such as proposed lots 10-17 on the modified "Plan B", the Code recognizes that situations such as this are necessary to avoid lots taking access from major streets such as Gaarde. These lots would need to meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback standard along both streets as specified by this Code section. f. Access to SW Gaarde Street should be prohibited for all lots which would have frontage along this collector street. These lots as well as all other lots could receive access from local streets. g. Preliminary plans for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water supply, and other utilities would provide appropriate service to the proposed development. B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. The Subdivision/Variance review process for Ames Orchard II is consistent with Plan Policy 2.1.1 because notices of the application and the original April 5, 1993 public hearing on this item were provided to the neighborhood planning organization and to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. Notice of that hearing was also advertised in the Tigard Times newspaper. The hearing was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Community Development Code and Oregon Revised Statute provisions, no additional notice was provided for the continued hearing date. Notice of the City Council July 27, 1993 public hearing was published and notice was also sent to property owners in the vicinity. In addition, the applicants and their representatives, as well as City staff, have held meetings with concerned neighbors of the proposed development. Therefore, a substantial opportunity has been provided for the public to comment on this development application as is required by this policy. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, conditions of approval would be warranted to require the developer to submit an-erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application, as well as to AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 22 tUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. a4 . part of the grading permit application, as well as to provide an on-site water quality facility consistent with the recommendations of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 3. The preliminary subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.21 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because development of this site will require the developer to extend public sewer, storm drainage, and public water systems through this site. Utility and service providers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No significant concerns have been raised with regard to the capacities of these necessary-services, although the site developer will need to accommodate the utility relocation and construction concerns raised by the utility providers, most notably the Tigard Water District and Northwest Natural Gas. Future development of this site will require provisions for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of these utilities. 4. Staff finds that the modified preliminary plat would provide for an efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons stated above. • 5. The modified subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.3 because the proposed improvements to the public streets and utilities within the proposed subdivision and along SW Gaarde Street east of SW 121st can be consistent with City of Tigard standards or Washington County road improvement standards. The policy is further met with the revised preliminary plan which provides access to the west, and right-of-way dedication for a future connection to the north. Finally, the policy will be met through the condition to participate in the establishment of a funding mechanism for the improvement of SW Gaarde to the west of 121st Avenue. C. Procedural At the July 27, 1993 public hearing, a request was made to hold the record open for seven days. The request was conditional. Since this was not the initial evidentiary hearing, Council action to hold the record open is discretionary under ORS 197.763. The Council did not hold-the record open. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 23 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. I Page No. 5 . VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Tigard Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision's street plan ("Plan BOO) will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be detrimental to surrounding land uses provided that development that occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws and conditions. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the City Council approves Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0002 request for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision subject to the conditions which follow. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE COLLETED OR COMPLETION SHALL BE FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, STAFF CONTACT IS CHRIS DAVIES OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 1. The final plat shall be limited to the creation of no more than 33 lots. All lots shall be fully dimensioned on the plat and shall be consistent with R-3.5 zoning district dimensional requirements. • The plat and public improvement plans shall be revised to provide for local street connections as approved by the City Council at its July 27, 1993 public hearing. ("Plan B") The above recommended modifications to the plat will affect the applicant's density calculation submitted with the subdivision application. The application shall prepare a revised density calculation clearly exhibiting consistency with the density standards of Community Development Code Chapter 18.92. STAFF CONTACT: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Division. 2. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the subdivision. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards consistent with Code Chapter 18.164. Street improvements are not required for the partial right-of-way along the west boundary of lot 10 on "Plan B". The partial right-of-way shall be graded to the approximate horizontal and vertical alignment of proposed street with a pathway constructed at the approximate grade and alignment of a standard sidewalk for the continuation of the proposed street. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION PAGE 24 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. ~b 3. The pedestrian pathway and emergency vehicle in Tract B shall be constructed to City specifications at the time of other public improvements are made. 4. If at the time of plan review for the construction of the public improvements, which includes the local streets, the City of Tigard has approved and adopted new standards for local streets, the applicant may utilize standards applicable at that time. 5. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the site's'SW Gaarde Street frontage (from the Gaarde/121st intersection. east) to increase the right-of-way to 37 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW- Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show, and additional documents will be required to be recorded, giving notice that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement . district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision. 7. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the SW Gaarde Street extension. The basis for the right-of-way shall be as proposed in the preliminary plat and submitted with the Vista Point subdivision (SUB 92-0005). The exact amount to be dedicated, which is that portion of the property that lies within 30 feet of the right-of-way centerline as shown on the preliminary plat of SUB 92-0005, shall be approved by the City Engineer. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are available from the Engineering Department. 8. The developer shall grade along the north boundary of the subdivision where right-of-way is to be dedicated. The grading shall be to the approximate horizontal and vertical alignment of the standard sidewalk location for the proposed streets. Adjacent lot owners shall not affect or alter the grade as prepared for the future street and sidewalk. 9. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE: these plans are AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LUBA NO. 93-147 M 25 Exhibit No. Page No. in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. 10. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to $'Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989. 11. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No.. 91-47. Proposed Tract A shall either be dedicated to the City of Tigard or shall be owned by a homeowner's association, with an access easement provided to the City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency for storm drainage maintenance purposes. 12. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 13. Storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage (basin service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. -The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 14. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. 15. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicantls engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. 16. Construction of the proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and payment of all permit fees. 17. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County, the applicant shall provide a 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment. As an alternative the applicant may have the plat recorded after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and posted the appropriate maintenance bond has been posted. AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION _LUBA NO. 93-147 PAGE 26 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. 18. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of the NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 19. Prior to the recording of the final plat with Washington County, the City of Tigard shall ensure that the "street plug" at the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is dedicated to the public. The "street plug" is shown as Tract "A" on the Ames Orchard plat (referred to in this report as Ames Orchard I subdivision). The Ames Orchard plat is recorded on Page 37 in Book 39 Record of Town Plats of Washington County. 20. The applicant shall provide half-street improvements along SW Gaarde Street from SW 121st to the east boundary of the subdivision. Half-street improvements shall meet Washington County standards. 21. A one foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage except at approved access points. 22. The applicant shall obtain a facility permit from the Department of Land Use and Transportation of_Washington County to perform work within the right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. A copy shall be provided to the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 23. The finished slope of all lots with cuts or fills should have a maximum slope of 2:1, or else a professional engineer shall certify the stability of any steeper slopes. Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction on all lots with slopes in excess of 25 percent, building permit applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed structure will be sited and designed to ensure structural stability. Foundation plans shall be stamped by a registered engineer. Approved erosion control measures shall be employed throughout the construction process on individual building lots. STAFF CONTACT: City of Tigard Building Official. 24. Private storm drain lines shall be as necessary to allow roof drains to be directed to public storm sewers or existing drainageways. Easements should be provided where storm sewers cross other properties. A joint use and maintenance agreement should be recorded for lots utilizing common private storm drains. STAFF CONTACT: City of Tigard Building Official. 25. Utility plans will need to be revised to adequately satisfy the concerns raised by the Tigard Water District's February 16, 1993 letter to Jerry Offer (copied to Randy Clarno of Alpha Engineering). Final approval of the plans for water main location and size, including water meters, will need to be approved jointly by the Fire and Water Districts. The applicant shall be responsible for providing the City with • proof of the Water District and Fire District's approval of AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LUBA NO. 93-147 PAGE. 27 Exhibit No. I Page No. -21 the revised water service plan. CONTACT: Michael Miller, Tigard Water District. APPROVAL SHAD, BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. It is further ordered that the applicant and parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This day of 1993, by the City Council of the CitM-oft Tigard. i Gerald Edwards, Mayor Tigard City Council cb/AmesWrc • • AMES ORCHARD FINAL DECISION LRJBA NO. 93-147 PAGE 28 Exhibit No. _ Page No. 30 STEVEN L. PFEIP'FER A~+~'1: Mik2 _ HERMAN PIORTER SW FIFTH AVE --Robinsor► 11875 SW GAARDE ST qmwcm=m OR 97204-1268 TIGARD OR- 97223 LARRY YORK -BULL MOUNTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO MATRIX DEVELOPMENT 00" 16325 SW BOONES FERRY RD 7160 SW EM22LFEM RD 5-100 LAKE OSWEM OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97224-7771 CANVASSER GARY KATSION - 14465 SW HAZEGBILL DR _ KITTLESON & ASSOCIATES TIGARD OR 97224 610 SW ALDER. SUITE 700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 M= HANSEN 12255 SW DOCHILLY Ci STEVEN REINHART TIGARD OR 97224 14035 SW-125TH AVENUE TIGARD,-OR 97224 RANAYE HOFFMAN JAMES WELCH 12300 SW DUCHILLY CT _14340 SW HAZELHILL DR TIGARD OR 97224 - TIGARD, OR 97224 ANTHONY & SHARON FRANCIS - 12305 SW DUCHILLY CT TIGARD OR 97224 RANDY CLARK) ALPHA ENGINEERING INC 9600 SW OAK $230 - TIGARD OR 97223 ROBERT AMFS C/O MARK ROCKWELL LUBA NO. 93-147 16325 SW BoONFS FERRY RD Exhibit No. I LAKE OS'WEGO OR 97035 Page No. 31 M wcs Drckccr~ .5e,2 p5 I a_ ~j~ 405-7 A>- sc t m ►r~ A~W o~ rki5 4sw.f- far tt s Council Agenda Item `r N TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Jerry Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator, Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and John Acker, Associate Planner. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review - Council briefly reviewed the business agenda. One item discussed was the Metzger UD issue. It was noted that a copy of a 1988 letter was received from Jack Reardon of Washington Square. This letter outlined concerns with an increase in the assessment for the Metzger LID. Council discussed the park and the effect that a reduction in the LID assessment might have. Council consensus was to ratify the assessment for one year. Staff will gather information to assist Council in their determination of whether the City should continue to support the LID assessment or to pursue other options for this park. Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) - Facilitator training was completed last week; 12 people participated. There will be a one-hour "kick-off" meeting (8/31 - 7-8 p.m.) to make assignments, discuss the timing of the first meeting and begin work on the draft agreements. Review of Agenda Item No. 4. Gage Natural Area Local Improvement District - It was noted Council must repeal the resolution approved previously with regard to the petition process (Resolution No. 93-37). If Council should decide to proceed with the LID process, they would need to approve a resolution to start the process on Council's own initiative. 7 Review of Agenda Item No. 6. Consideration of Final Order -Ames Orchard II, SUB 93- 0002 - Legal Counsel Coleman advised two pieces of correspondence were in the Council's meeting material. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the letters were received after close of the Public Hearing. Council should note the letters were received, but that they would not be considered part of the public testimony. The letters should not be accepted as part of the record of the proceedings. If Council would want to hear more on any issue, the Public Hearing would have to be reopened and proper notice must be • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. :I Page No. 3.7 given. Legal Counsel Coleman, in response to question from Councilor Fessler, advised the final order may be modified by City Council, as long as the modification is consistent with the intent of Council action which was taken previously on the night of the hearing. Metropolitan Advisory Committee - Councilor Fessler received indication of consensus from the Tigard Council that they were not in favor of the Multnomah County proposal to either transfer or fee title to Metro all Multnomah County inventory of Expo, Glendeveer Golf Course, Blue Lake Park, County parks, open spaces, and Pioneer cemeteries. Request from Washington County to use City Hall as a polling place for the November. 1993 election - Council briefly discussed the request. After discussion, Council consensus was to suggest to Washington County they check with the Joint Water Agency administration to determine if that building would be available. It was noted City Hall has a high volume of traffic and is very busy during the day. it was the opinion of Council that the water agency building might better accommodate Election Day needs. Joint Water Agency City Administrator Reilly advised Audrey Castile had resigned from the Joint Water Agency Board. City Council must select a fourth representative to the Board. Councilor Hunt questioned whether or not the appointment must be made from the membership of the old Tigard Water District Board. City Administrator Reilly advised he thought the City of Tigard had fulfilled their obligation with regard to appointments. Training Session for City Council - Council consensus was they would like to meet in a training session in the Fall. Location and dates will be determined at a later time. Council meeting recessed at 7:16 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Mr. Ed Gallaher, resident of Merestone Court, advised of concern with a developer-built gravel roadway in a nearby greenway. City Engineer will contact developer to determine the schedule for removing the driveway. The City holds a bond until all work is done. Mr. Gallaher questioned status of billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. This item was reviewed later in the Agenda (See Page 10). • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. a Page No. 3_ • Curtis Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted his concerns with regard to the °logging" of the Hart property. He expressed concerns with the fact that Mrs. Hart's land is classified as developed land which means there are no restrictions for taking out trees on her property. Mr. Herr advised that 100 to 120 foot trees are being pushed over. He urged criteria be specified for developed and non-developed with regard to tree removal. He noted the tree cutting on the Hart property was an "irreversible situation," and urged that an ordinance be put into place which would take care of situations such as this. He noted that the activity on the Hart property was irresponsible. He reported that there was another slash pile near the "wetland" area, and that it was his understanding the first pile was to have been removed by August 16. He questioned when the City was going to enforce the removal of the piles. Community Development Director Murphy responded the Code Enforcement Officer retumed to the property on August 16 to inspect progress. In the meantime, Mrs. Hart's attorney, John Rankin, was advised Mrs. Hart had permission to access her property through the park by working with staff. Staff determined Mrs. Hart was working towards the removal of the slash piles, and Mr. Murphy advised the piles should be removed on or before September 3. City Attorney Tim Ramis had also been instructed to contact Mr. Rankin to gain an understanding of how Mrs. Hart was progressing on other items, such as the delineation of the floodplain area. Discussion followed about enforcement and timing for compliance, in general, for a situation such as this. Mr. Herr expressed his concern about the length of time being taken. • Christy Herr, 11386 SW Ironwood Loop, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, noted that for over two months they have tried to alert the City with their concems of a "reckless landowner." Mrs. Herr said Mrs. Hart was commercially logging her property. She outlined her frustrations, noting it was too late for this piece of property with regard to trees, and advised of her concems that those trees left would be vulnerable because of removal of trees next to them. There was discussion by City Council with regard to the process for a tree ordinance. Mayor Edwards advised he hoped staff was moving as quickly as they could on the issues which could be addressed. He advised the changes with regard to the tree ordinance must be fair to everyone concerned. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 3N • In response to a question by Councilor Fessler, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that on September 3 the next step may be to involve Mrs. Hart in the civil infraction process if it was determined violations of the Code did exist. For each day the property owner is in violation of the Code, a new citation could be issued. There was discussion on the action which could be taken by the City. The same deadline would apply to the fill as well as the slash piles. Legal Counsel Coleman stressed that the philosophy of the civil infraction process was to bring the property owner in compliance and to avoid going to court if at all possible. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda, as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 93-40 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. • 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. After introduction to this item by Community Development Director Murphy, and upon his recommendation, motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to repeal Resolution No. 93-37, which approved a preliminary feasibility study on a petition-initiated LID process. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. This action was taken because it had been determined that 50% of the affected property owners did not sign a petition to pursue this LID. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report, which included a memo in the Council packet. This memo, dated August 17, 1993, outlined the options available for City Council. Those four options were reviewed by the Community Development Director, who advised he recommended Council approve the first three options. Lengthy Council discussion followed. The following statements are highlights of the discussion: • Councilor Hunt noted he had viewed the property with Dorothy Gage. He advised he was not in favor of proceeding with the study of this LID. He was concerned- there would be limited access to the property which would not be inviting as an area available for use by the general public. He • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. ~5 advised he could see no evidence of any wetlands or property which would need special consideration. • Councilor Fessler noted she recommended Council go forward with the engineering report and have the petitioners pay for the cost of the report. She advised she wanted to give the people concerned a chance to protect this natural area. • Councilor Hawley advised she would like to have more information to make a proper decision. She noted she was not necessarily iri favor of the LID, but wanted to have enough information to make the determination as to whether or not this was a proper thing to do. She also advised she would accept the idea of having the Gages or the petitioners provide the dollars for the engineering report. She said that she was in favor of going ahead with the engineering study. Councilor Hawley advised she would also like to see the neighborhood very involved in determining what they would want for this park. • Councilor Schwartz advised that because this LID was not a public safety issue, he was not inclined to support unless there was an overwhelming majority of proponents. He advised that even if the petitioners paid for a study, he would not vote for a park LID which did not have a super majority of support. One option suggested was that the interested parties purchase the property through the formation of a homeowner's association. • Councilor Schwartz also noted he opposed a great deal of staff time being spent on the issue. • Major Edwards acknowledged the validity of the comments of the other Council members. He noted his agreement with statements made by Councilors Schwartz and Hunt. Mayor Edwards said he thought this would be an excellent CIT project in order to resolve this issue for the neighborhood. He agreed there should be limited staff time in looking this issue over, and he would also oppose an LID where 51% of the population could °drive the other 490/o.° . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. -2 Page No. J-~-- There was further discussion on boundaries and clarification of process by staff in response to questions from Council. After lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley,to initiate a preliminary feasibility study (engineer's report) by City Council direction and to have the petitioners bear the cost of the engineering report. Motion failed by a two to three vote. Councilors Hawley and Fessler voted "yes"; Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hunt and Schwartz voted "no." 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT City Administrator Reilly summarized the issue for Council. The issue before Council is to decide whether or not to ratify an increase in the assessment established by Washington County in 1988. Without approval by the City, the County advised the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 would be reduced to an annual maximum assessment of $27,000. City Administrator Reilly noted an article had been written in the Tigard Times and large property owners were sent letters, asking for their opinion on the Metzger Park LID. One letter was received from Washington Square. Mr. Jack Reardon sent to City offices a May 5, 1988 letter from him to Bonnie Hays, Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for Washington County. Mr. Reardon, General Manager of Washington Square, advised his comments in the 1988 letter were still valid. In this letter, Mr. Reardon advised he felt the Board could work with the assessment of $27,000 per year, which was a more than an adequate amount to maintain the park. (Copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet). Mr. Reilly advised the City received six responses from residents. Four persons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments, and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more, or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LID. Mr. Reilly outlined options for Council. These options included: 1. Affirm the increase in assessment by approving the proposed resolution. 2. Approve the increase in assessment, with limitations. 3. Decline to affirm. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 6 LURA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 31 Mr. Reilly advised his recommendation would be to affirm the proposed resolution for a set period of time. Council discussed the issue briefly. It was determined Council would like to be advised what the actual operating costs are for the park. There was concern expressed that the park not be cut off immediately until some determination can be made as to the need for operating costs for the park. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the proposed resolution (Resolution No. 93-41), with an amendment being added that such approval would be for a one year period of time only. (Note: Legal Counsel noted that in Section 1 it would read as follows: The ongoing maximum annual operations and maintenance assessment for Metzger Park in an amount not to exceed $40,500 is hereby approved for the tax year beginning January 1, 1994.) RESOLUTION NO. 93-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF METZGER PARK FOR ONE YEAR. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD II, SUB 93-0002 Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the Public Hearing had been closed. Two letters included in the Council packet would not be accepted as part of the record. Legal Counsel recommended that the Council clearly make a determination that the letters will not be considered. If Council should feel they would want to take new information, then the City would need to re-notice and advertise the Public Hearing. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, stating that the Council conducted a Public Hearing on this issue. Additional information received after the close of the Public Hearing would not be considered as part of the record for this issue. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He referred to the final decision before Council for ratification. During the course of his presentation, Mr. Murphy recommended that Condition No. 6 be amended. (see Page 25 for Item No. 6 on the Ames Orchard Final Decision, which is attached to Resolution No. 93-42). The proposed change to Condition No. 6 would require additional documents be recorded to give notice that each individual lot. in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision. In this manner, property owners will be advised at the time of the purchase of the financial obligation with regard to the reimbursement district. Discussion followed wherein Community Development Director Murphy responded to questions by Council and clarified the Final Order. RESOLUTION NO. 93-42 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT, AMES ORCHARD II, SUB 93- 0002. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-42, with the additional language as outlined by Community Development Director Murphy for Condition No. 6 as specified on Page 25 of the Final Order. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. No members of Council reported any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including site visits. All members of Council indicated they had familiarized themselves with the application. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter, nor was there a challenge on the participation of any member of Council. D. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the staff report. He advised the proposal meets. all applicable criteria and therefore staff recommended approval of CPA 93-0008 and ZON 93-0002. He clarified some issues from questions asked by Council. He noted the increased density would add to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Q Page No. .31 inventory of units per acre as required by state density requirements for urban areas. E. Public Testimony - Mayor Edwards advised that for those wishing to testify, they should be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue would preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff had described or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which was believed to apply to the decision. Applicant Testimony • Mr. Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 97035, advised he supported the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission findings. He outlined his research and the need for multi-family housing in this area. He advised that presently there was no multi-family housing planned in the Triangle area. Proponents • None Opponents • Mayor Edwards noted for the record that a letter in opposition was received from Carroll W. Lantz and Patsy R. Lantz, 7270 SW Hermosa Way, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. The letter is on file with the Council packet meeting material. The Lantz's advised the change would not enhance livability or value of their neighborhood within the Triangle. They advised they did not believe the proposed change was in the best interest of the Triangle. They- asked that Council deny the proposal and change. • C. L Roberts, 12465 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. Mr. Roberts outlined his concerns with increased traffic and expressed he believed that better planning for traffic mitigation should be completed prior to approval of this proposal. F. Rebuttal • Mark Rockwell, during rebuttal, said the proposed amendment to R- 25 zoning would add traffic to what occurs. However, the current commercial zoning (when developed) would draw more traffic than CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. .a Page No. 4a • the requested R-25. In addition, Mr. Rockwell advised R-25 zoning would create traffic that would be more defused throughout the day than commercial zoning traffic. G. Council discussed the issue and asked questions concerning the process within the context of the Triangle Master Plan, which is being worked on for this area. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the Master Plan can be taken into account The plan is still under development and is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan at this time. H. Public Hearing was closed. 1. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the ordinance as presented, noting this request was consistent with the plan and for the area. In addition, Council believes the traffic questions were adequately answered. J. ORDINANCE NO. 93-23 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED BY CRITERION EQUITIES (CPA 93- 0008, ZON 93-0002). • K. Ordinance was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road: Legal Counsel Coleman advised research is underway to determine whether the Code interpretation that billboards must be oriented towards 1-5 or Highway 217 is defensible. Staff has had discussions with Ackerly communications to advise them of the City's interpretation of the sign code. First step will be to press for compliance. If compliance is not obtained, the City's Civil Infraction process can be utilized. 9. Purchase of properly for right of way for the 109th Avenue Extension Project: City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report on this item. After brief discussion, there was a motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the purchase of a portion of the Ristig - IGelhom property for $161,000 and authorize the City Administrator to sign any documents necessary for completion of the purchase. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted °yes.° Councilor Hunt abstained from voting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The. Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:15 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ADJOURNMENT: 10:54 p.m. ~Ipm-I/YU IA Attest: tWheatley, City Recorder yor, C' of Tigard Date:( ~1C3 h:\recorder\ccm\ccm0824.93 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -AUGUST 24, 1993 -PAGE 11 J LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. yi CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting- either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet: Business agenda items • can be heard in any order after 730 pm. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the De4. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deat). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA • COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 43 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) - Agenda Review - Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes - July 27, 1993 3.2 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for the 109th Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the Mayor to Sign - Resolution No. 93- 4. CONSIDERATION OF GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - RESOLUTION NO. 93--. • Community Development 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 93-_ • City Administration 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD 11, SUB 93-0002 - RESOLUTION NO. 93 _ • Community Development Department - COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. +4 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 93-0008, ZONE CHANGE ZON 93-0002, CRITERION EQUITIES Location: Generally west of S.W. 70th Avenue, east of 72nd Avenue, south of Elmhurst Street, and north of Beveland Street (WCTM 2S1 1AB, Tax Lots 800, 801, 900, & 1000). A request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Commercial Professional to Medium-High Density residential and a zone change from Commercial Professional (C-P) to Residential, 25 units per acre (R-25). The request is for four parcels totalling 5.06 acres on S.W. 72nd Avenue in the Tigard Triangle. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1., 6.1.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 7.1.2, 7.2.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 7.8.1. 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.2.2, 9.1.2. 12.1.1 and Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32, 18.56, and 18.64. CURRENT ZONE: C-P (Professional Commercial) The C-P zone allows public agency administrative services, public support facilities, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support services, and professional and administrative services. PROPOSED ZONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) The R-25 zone allows multi-family residential units, residential care facilities, public support services, residential treatment homes, family day care, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Request) Opponents (Oppose the Request) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order 8. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF Billboard on Scholls Ferry Road 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT - ccaM4M • COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 24,1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. 45 / COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal / P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7660 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full Legal Notice Advertising !agendas may be-,obtained from the City Recorder, 13,125 S.W. Hall r Boulevard, Tigard; Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. M -i- • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CTIy Comm BUSINESS MEETING' Z 13125-SW Hall`-Blvd. AUGUST 24,1993 O • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit TIGARD'CITY HALL - TOWN HALL Q 13125 S.W.,.HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON,', m } Council Meeting (TbwnHall Conference Room) J d v E~, 'Study Session: (6:30 P.M.). . • enda•Review AFFIDAVIT OF 4~b!31_1 A I''....: Business Meedn a30 P.M. g'C~' ) v~~ STATE OF OREGON, ; ` ~p• • Council Discus9ion7Reports from. Staff COUNTY OF WASHINGTON; . as Q... GP - Billboard'on Scholls Ferry Road i I Judith Koehler O 4 'Council ens era : T , a ~being first duly sworn, depose and eay, hat 1 sin toe Advertising + • -Final Order= A[I1es hard Director, or his principal clerk, of the oA _-d rl imes Potential Gagof Natural Area Local Improvement Districv,~, a newspaper of general circy~tion qa defined In ORS 193.010 Metzger Park Local Improvement District Assessment and 193.020; published at 112 - in the afor said ounty $nd eta a; that Joe Jt p., " •t , i • : Public Hearing Ci t utlCil Busitles8 Mp tag i, : Cori rehensive Plan 141'e nient•CPA 93-0008, Zone Change a printed copy of„which.ig heretofan.nex.ed,-was-published in the - h ZO 93;0002'.Ctlie on Eqqui(iesr(Location; G¢~nerally west of S.W: 70th- nue; east'of'72nd Avehue;46ifth of Elmhurst One d* j entire issue of said newspaper for -successive and Street; and.north-of Beveland Street:) consecutive in the following issues: Local Contract RevieW,. oard Meeting August 19, 1993 i r,., Execut#ve, Secs#on 8 jai Ciry CtSdiicii;ma go int~ESiecutiveSes=i sion under the ptov s ors of;O~tS 192.660 (1) td), (e), & .(h) to discuss labor relations;:>;eaip t#ansactions, current and pending litigation issues.... a~+'$;tt ,r&u i, ,,•,n,:tiiti` Alaq Tl'7660 - Publish August 19, 1993. r i ~t 3;3'' 7"~ rc Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 19th day o A Zst OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON 6117~ 0 c for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 'Notary bli MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 1997 My Commission Expires: _AFFIDAVIT COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: August 24th, 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: -AUgHst 12th. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Decision. PREVIOUS ACTION: July 27th. 1993 -Ames Orch r SUB 93-0002 PREPARED BY: DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OR REQUESTED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Approval of the final decision on Ames Orchard II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached final decision to approve the preliminary subdivision plat. INFORMATION SUMMARY This subdivision proposal was heard by the Council at a public hearing on July 27th. At that meeting, the Council approved "Plan B", and reviewed the draft final decision. Two letters were received after the Council hearing - one from Steve Pfeiffer representing "Vista Point", the proposed subdivision to the north of Ames Orchard II, and one from Jack Orchard, representing Ames Orchard II. Both letters are concerning the condition of approval that deals with making improvements to SW Gaarde Street extension. (See Condition #6 in the final decision). Both letters are attached to this report. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES Adopt the Resolution approving the preliminary subdivision plat Reopen the hearing for additional testimony only on the wording of Condition #6, modify as may be appropriate, and then adopt the Resolution FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. eJm/ccsun.eme LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. q7 - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ed Murphy, Community Development Direct DATE: August 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Ames Orchard'II, and Responsibility to Improve SW Gaarde Street Extension SUMMARY: Both the developers of Ames Orchard II and Vista Point have submitted letters suggesting changes to the condition of approval on Ames Orchard II relating to the requirement to participate in the construction of Gaarde Street extension. Staff has reviewed the letters, and discussed the matter with both parties. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Council has required "Vista Point" to improve Gaarde Street, and has offered to assist by allowing the developer to initiate a reimbursement district. The Council, if they adopted the attached final order on "Ames Orchard III', would be obligating "Ames Orchard II" to participate in that reimbursement district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the language in Condition #6 of the final decision. ANALYSIS: The essential question is: what happens if Ames Orchard II precedes Vista Point? It appears to staff that Ames Orchard cannot be responsible for constructing SW Gaarde extension in advance of Vista Point for the following reasons: 1. Most of the right-of-way for Gaarde extension will be dedicated through the Vista Point subdivision. 2. Vista Point is more dependent on SW Gaarde Street extension than is Ames Orchard II. 3. If Ames Orchard II constructs a portion of SW Gaarde Street extension, if will not serve any lots nor connect to any streets, and therefore will be functionally useless. Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. S Page No. s+ rr I It also appears to staff that the appropriate method of handling this issue is to make both developments responsible for some share of the Gaarde extension. This street will be constructed either by the developer of Vista Point with a reimbursement from Ames Orchard II, or by a Local Improvement District. In either case, the Council would decide at a public hearing how much each party needs to contribute to the road extension. Below please find the related conditions of approval for Vista Point; the language proposed by Jerry Offer in his memo to the Planning Commission dated April 5, 1993, and the proposed condition in the final decision for Ames Orchard II, and a portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993. Vista Point final decision adopted by Resolution No. 93-19, dated April 27, 1993: "#19. The SW Gaarde Street extension shall be built to major collector standards from SW 121st Avenue to proposed Lot 52 with development of phase I. Prior to or concurrent with construction of phase II, the applicant shall construct the SW Gaarde Street extension to a point 140 feet south of the northern edge of the subject parcel. The collector street improvements shall be 44 feet in width for phase I and 40 feet in width for phase II. The applicant shall not be responsible for the second lift of asphalt for the section of roadway to be built with phase II. . #31. The City of Tigard will initiate the formation of zones of benefit for the reimbursement of costs incurred for development of the extension of SW Gaarde Street and the extension of sewer to the subject property." Jerry Offer's memo to Planning Commission dated April 5, 1993: "Second, it has_ been suggested that recommended condition of. approval #7 needs to allow for the possibility of Ames Orchard II subdivision being developed prior to the Vista Point subdivision to the north. It has been suggested that a fee in lieu of improvements to Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue be collected rather than for the fee to be collected later through a local improvement district to be imposed upon the individual owners of lots within Ames Orchard II. Staff recommends that condition #7 be revised as follows: 7. The applicant shall share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue, where this street will abut the site's northern property line. If the development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and • Page 2 LUBA NO. 93-14_7 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. Q constructing improvements to this section of road, with the exception of sidewalks which would be the responsibility of the Ames Orchard II developer. The developer of Ames Orchard II may be required to pay for up to one half of the cost of the improvements for this road segment if the City Council approves the creation of a reimbursement district. If Ames Orchard II precedes the development of Vista Point, the developer of Ames Orchard II shall prepare preliminary plans and a cost estimate for improving this segment of SW Gaarde Street consistent with the current approval for Vista Point. The Ames Orchard II developer shall deposit with the City of Tigard a fee in lieu of improvements equal to one half the estimated cost of those improvements, minus any credit for improvements constructed by Ames Orchard II. The City shall hold this fee to be released only for the construction of improvements for this road segment." The recommended Condition #6, Ames Orchard II draft Final Order: "6. The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision." A portion of the minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 27, 1993: Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised that he represented those individuals for the Matrix Development in a nearby area. He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard No. 2 subdivision, providing that the applicants participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism for the construction of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer cited Code Section 18.164.030(x) as the basis for his argument that the applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street. Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B" was acceptable to them." em/Ameell.Mem Page 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 5o CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an x- agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet Business agenda items can be heard in am order after 7:30 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 P.M.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments - Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-~ 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of asements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93-5 Y 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer Line.for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 93-,35 3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93-310 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Turnout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Consent Agenda Continued on the Next Page..... COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 7 Page No. 5~ 3.6 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award the Contract for Construction of the 93-94 Pavement Major Maintenance • Program and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder b. Award the Contract for Construction of the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder C. Award the Contract for Construction of the 96th Avenue Sidewalk Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with All Concrete Specialties, Inc. d. Award the Contract for Construction of the Bonita Road East Railroad Approach Improvement Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign a Contract with the Low Bidder. e. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the 100th/McDonald Storm Drainage Project 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Report from Community Development Department -*~WleS o- ~ eq3. - 3 7 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121 st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 10613, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Appeal) Opponents (Oppose the Appeal) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Motion for Final Order COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. S3 . 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30,18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - City Administration Department • Public Testimony Proponent (Supports Amendments) Opponent (Opposes Amendments) • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing G • Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93-1 I 7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - Community Development Department • Public Testimony Proponents (Support the Vacation) - Opponents (Oppose the Vacation) Rebuttal • Staff Recommendation • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 93e v 8. UPDATE: HART LAKE ISSUE • Community Development Department 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT 0727.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 3- LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. `7 Page No. 51 C Er~OMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, IN. Legal TT 7633 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 v~~g 1993 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 r g t ' + lilg~ilights' mek iu Pdbllshed for,your information. The followin , Full p, Legal Notice Advertising dn ! , E 11G RO' agendas may be o fiaiti „f~om'thg City RecordeX,n1325:5 W `Hall Boulevard;Mgw1 ft 97223 or by calling 639-4171 y ''ill • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 7, CEL BUSINESS MEETII~1Ci: i • Ti and OR 97223-8199 • 13 Duplicate Affida~; r">Y~aJLTL.Y 27;,1993 g `f I(3 CTTY..•HALL'-'TOWN HALL ' • • ` S~f ` ~;6h7;131255 BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON` ~ouncil Meetang y 1 Conferee Room),(6.3,0 Pt AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) Business Meettng ~~~taatA~ ss • Council Discusson/Report,fror Staff 'rax $ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) -Gage Natural Local;Im vemen Di"tnc val on , Judith Koehler being first duly sworn, depose and say that I aarmd &Adevgertising H • Public Iearingg Director, or his principal clerk of the „n Appeal o Sub` v'Sion,Planning Commissioenial.=,;;SUB i a newspaper' of general circulglon a~ defined in ORS 193.010 0002/VARtiCB' VAR 93;0004 A~e3,°L;ocation:'North 11. r . $Ame rOrc>i~rd~suvision (northern terminusof S,W, and 193.020; published at_gar in the of p rX, afo Qsaid ounty n st te; that a Haze1hi11l~ uth and southwgsf of.the mtersectio ,o> SW 6it G~ounci~ usness eetins~ {f J r tfi 121st Avetiu X „ d S W ,Gaatie Street{ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Ordinati et idbradon -=Comprehensive Plan anwuode r z i. t t xAmendmen " ovihj•Ref aces ..x.41' } i entire Issue of said newspaper for nee successive and Vacation of of a 15 de Wage easement- ' tl consecutive in the following issues: Jubilee Plac ' 1'xitvis10 y ~t r. r 'ira t'drX4~'il ~t~'~,,0/, pr~ t~, t.~ 1 ~ ~ >r~~'°~ 4 t Update oa Hart a issue ;„e f r , r~"~s t r July 22, 1993 C Local Congact,t Meeang~f a t Z I . Executive` Session:. The Tigard he nto;Execuuve~es- C Z sion under the provisions•of (h)ao dijcuss z • Q ' labor relations, redl' " oh. yk traiishcdons, current and pending litiga on PrQ issue S' r' n r{.~s+v+~1w~'Ik tD Subscribed and sworn to ore me this 22nd day of Julys 199 "F`R+ A •rr ii, 0_ v>! TT"]6331-Pubhsh;Ju122",':1993. V n:: D COMA 41SSION NO. 024552 Notary lic for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 My Commission Expires: _ AFFIDAVIT...____ i ` COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal TT 7624 J P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 - : I y` ~IJBLIC HEARING ` Legal Notice Advertising The following will,be considered l y.the Tigard City Council on' 1 + 7, • City of Tigard • 13 Tearsheet 1,,1993, at 7:30 P.M:; atTigard,Ci* Center, 7bwn Hall Room 13,125 S.W. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Hall' Boulevardt;..,Tigard, 0regop urther information maybe obtained from the Community 13evelopir i Director or City Recorder at the same • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate A`location or by calli ng'639,4171:-;You are invited to submit. written tes- dmony in advance;of the.public;eacing; written and oral testimon~r will • ,'be considered at the hearing:..... V public hearing will be conducted in ac-: cordance with`the'applicable Chapter.I8:32 of the Tigard Code. and any rules of procedure.adopted by, the. Council and available at City: Hall. ' ' : 1.Mdn+~rv'Ca tiwi y1~d ,~hr . f . ,i. r ,;1., r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION VARIANCE VAR 93' '!DE AL - AMES ` terminus of STATE OF OREGON, LOCATION: Ndith'6f "Ahdg ;Orchard" subdivision ((northern COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' S.W. Hazelhill Drive)~south and southwest of thi niersection of S.W.. 121st Avenue hhd' S:W ,.Gaarde`Street t,WCTM 251 IOBB; tax lot 600).: I, Judith Koehler' ';•An ap of a Plahil n`'Commission decision to deny a of a being first duly sworn,' de ose and say th t I a g Advertising t y 9 g Mhe Ad ~ Preliminary plat,to''di' ide,'a 12.68 parcel into'2 lots ra4ing•in; Director, or his clerk, of the ar " principal , & size from approximately,11,000ito 22,000 square feet. Subdivision, a newspaper of general circul Vona defined in ORS 193.010 r' " $ Variance requests for public'stie'et improvement standards'have.been` and 193.020; published at ~l -ara In the withdrawn.'APPLICABLE;.REVIEW CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Sec-' of resatd co ty and s a the 'rtion 18.160.060"A 'Code Chapiers'18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 0314118.150,. oHearin al`u~divsion 93-0002 .4, 7.6A 8:1:1, g~-PPe `and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1,7.1.2,7.4 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the `and 8.1.3. ZONE:; R•{3:5(Residential 3.5 units/acre): The R-3.5. zone al- entire issue of said news One lows single-familydetached'residential units, public support facilities, paper for successive and farming, manufactured homes; residential treatment homes, home 'occupa- uses; and accessory;structures among other. uses. consecutive in the following Issues: bons, temporary July 15, 1993 .'COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007 Z_nNE ORDINANCE AMRNi~MRNT 7_.OA 93-0005 cp ? W A request by the CityofTigard : to: amend Comprehensive Plan Policies O' D 2. 1.1 Implementation;Strategy ;21'.2,,and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters' 18.30, Z Z 18.32, and 18.142 of the:City- , of -Tigard Community Development Code, O Z 0 regarding the establishinent,of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to O broaden citizen participation and >;lace the existing Neighborhood Plan ` 15th day of July, 199 ning.Organization structure., V1 Subscribed and sworn to b re me this-, aria'' r y 'I I,7624 Publi htJtily,;15;199 Notary ubli or Oregon COMMISSION N0,024582 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT Arnes vrdxtrd BeWis S Onr 5{ 5 lr► S-0' - M- vtu4es Council Agenda item 3. 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 • Meeting was.called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior- Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Nels Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS Specialist; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Agenda Review: Council briefly reviewed business agenda and discussed process on how the meeting would be conducted. Mayor announced that Council agenda items for the Gage and Hart properties (Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 8 respectively) were not public hearings; therefore, no public • testimony would be taken during the business meeting. Miscellaneous Items for Review: A. Councilor Fessler noted she was helping to coordinate the Tigard Country Daze Parade. She advised she would like to know, as soon as possible, how many Councilors plan to ride in the parade. B. Letter concerning billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Ed Murphy responded to a Councilor-question, advising he had received a letter questioning the legality of a billboard on Scholls Ferry Road. Community Development Director Murphy advised he will be asking for a formal legal opinion on this sign. C. Solid Waste Transfer Station at Wilsonville. Councilor Hunt reported that Rena Cusma of Metro has formally announced her opposition to a transfer station at Wilsonville. There will be a meeting on August 7, 1993 to consider an appeal of this ' decision. Metro Councilors Kvistad and Devlin have been attending the meetings where this issue has been discussed. They have recommended the Wilsonville Transfer Station be built. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 16 Page No. S l Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:55 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & @ to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer. Meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Business Meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Note: Several persons signed on Visitor's Agenda reference the Gage property issue - Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Edwards announced again that public testimony on this issue would not be received at this meeting. Mayor Edwards also advised the Hart property issue would be heard at the beginning of the agenda, instead of towards the end of the agenda, where it had been originally scheduled.) _ • Mr. Jack Polaris noted he would be writing a letter requesting financial impact information with the recent appointment of lGng City Administrator John Buol to serve, approximately 16 hours per week, as interim Administrator to the S.E. Washington County Joint Water Agency. ` • Vlasta Bevcar Barber and Pat Anderson Keerins submitted a letter to the Council which thanked the City for their efforts in the Class of 1943 High School Reunion. Ms. Barber and Ms. Keerins reported on the reunion; it was a great successl - • Mary Tobias, President of the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation (TVEDC) presented to the Council a copy of the book,-Doing Business in Washington Country. 1993-94, which was compiled by TVEDC. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.1 through 3.5 as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes°.) 3.1 Approve Library Board Appointments -.Christine Lewis and Nancy Irwin - Resolution No. 93-33 3.2 Authorize Acquisition of Easements for Industrial Area Sewer Capital Improvement Project - Resolution No. 93-34 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27,1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 16 Page No. S8 . 3.3 Approve the Formation of a Reimbursement District for a Sanitary Sewer Line for Randy and Janette Wilder - Resolution No. 93-M .3.4 Approve the Traffic Signal Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign - Resolution No. 93M 3.5 Approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met to Allow for Construction of a Bus Tumout in Conjunction with the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project and Authorize the City- Administrator to Sign Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.6(a) through (e) as amended by the addendum as outlined in the July 22, 1993 Memorandum from Gary Alfson to Randy Wooley. (This memo is filed with the Council packet materials). The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes.' (Update on the Hart property issue was heard at this time - see Agenda Item No. 8 for a summary of this issue). - 4. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/REPORT FROM STAFF: GAGE NATURAL AREA LOCAL • IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EVALUATION • Community Development Director Ed Murphy summarized this issue for the City Council. He overviewed the process followed to date. Mr. Nels Mickaelson, Assistant Planner/GIS Specialist, presented the Council with slides illustrating several angles and views of the subject property. • Mr. Murphy reviewed the LID process, which looked as follows: - Petition by at least 50% of affected property owners who have signed. - Neighborhood meeting. - Report to Council. - Council calls for an Engineering report. - Engineering report to Council. - Council calls for a hearing. - Notices sent. - Remonstrances tallied. - Public Hearing. - LID is formed. - Improvements completed. _ - Notices sent. - Public Hearing for setting of LID assessment. - Ordinance adopted. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. io Page No. sq Financing made available. Bills mailed out (Community Development Director noted he made the initial decision of the boundaries of the possible LID area). Lengthy Council discussion followed. Community Development Director Murphy answered questions and advised the process was at the stage where staff was reporting to Council and Council,. by the proposed resolution, could call for the Engineering report Community Development Director Murphy, in response to Council questions, advised he thought there was barely over 5096_ who were in favor of proceeding with the LID process. Mr. Murphy advised that the Police Chief reported there were no unusual problems which would be represented by the formation of a natural area LID. There was a review and discussion of a concern expressed regarding whether the Engineering study costs should be borne by the general public or whether the funds should come from the petitioners. Councilor Hunt noted his preference was that the general public should not pay for an Engineering study. The remaining Councilors, after discussion, concurred that since it appeared that approximately • 50% of the people wanted to explore this issue further, they would be willing to approve the resolution. Other concerns included the fact that Council would want to revisit the boundaries to determine if those benefitted were, in fact, included in the boundary, and to determine where the support was for the LID. Mayor Edwards expressed some hesitancy, and asked specifically ff there was some certainty that over 50% of the affected property owners were in favor of proceeding with the LID. Community Development Director Murphy responded that it looked as if there were 50%, noting that additional names were submitted to staff just prior to the meeting. Staff would need to check the names to make sure they were valid. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 93-37. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. io Page No. __40 RESOLUTION NO. 9337 - A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO HAVE PREPARED A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING A .NATURE PRESERVE AND MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY SW HALL BLVD., SW DURHAM ROAD, SW 79TH AVENUE AND SW ASHFORD STREET. Resolution No. 93-37 was adopted by a majority of Council present (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted 'yes'; Councilor Hunt voted 'no.1 , Councilor Schwartz clarified that final boundaries were not yet determined and would be set at a later date. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93-0002/VARIANCE VAR 9340004 - Location: North of 'Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2$1 1066, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement 'standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 _ units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, residential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. A. Public Hearing was opened. B. Declarations or challenges.. Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site today. -C. Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff gave the staff report which included a synopsis of the proposal as presented to the Planning Commission. Since that hearing, the applicant, along with the neighborhood, has worked on an alternative proposal. Staff believes this development would be acceptable, with certain conditions. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. to Page Nom 41 _ D. Public Testimony: Legal Counsel Coleman advised that for a person to appeal at a later date, he or she must raise their issues at this meeting, or they may not be able to appeal the issue beyond the City Council level. He noted that a continuance on the issues, if requested, would be dealt with at the time such a request was made. - • Mr. -Robert Ames, 12500 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, Oregon, advised Council he wanted to develop a high quality subdivision, with a broad base of neighborhood support. The applicant reviewed the process followed. He advised he agreed to the conditions as , _ recommended in the staff report. • Mr. Gary Katsion of Meson and Associates, 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, Oregon, 97205, advised the property was designed to mesh with the area He noted that with regard to transportation, the design of the Ames Orchard subdivision would ultimately comply with the safety and operational standards set for the area. • Mr. Steve Pfeiffer, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204, advised that he represented those individuals for the Matra Development in a nearby area He advised he was in support of the Ames Orchard No. 2 subdivision, providing that the applicants - participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district, or other financial mechanism for the construction of SW Gaarde Street Mr. Pfeiffer cited Code Section 18.164.030(a) as the basis for his argument thatthe applicant should participate and share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde Street Mr. Pfeiffer noted the proposal presented as "Plan B- was acceptable to them. • Mr. James Welch, 14340, SW Hazelhill Drive, Tigard, Oregon, President of the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association, submitted written testimony which noted the Ames Orchard Homeowner's Association was in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames/Rockwell, which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members of the Planning Commission meetings of April 5 and June 7, 1993. (Please see written testimony on file with the Council packet material.) This recommendation that the Council approve Plan B was contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requested that full improvement of the remaining access route CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. lo_ Page No. not be required unless and until the property to the west (rax Lot 200) applies for development • Steve Reinhart, 14035 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, advised he was the owner of Tax Lot 200. He noted he- was in support of Plan B, but requested that the northwestern access not be completed until such time as future development is requested. He asked if conditions he requested were not met by the City Council, that the record remain open for seven days. • Mark Rockwell, 16325 SW Boones Ferry Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, noted he supported the new proposal. He added that as a representative for Mr. Ames, he believed the new proposal provided some solutions to the issue of the zone of benefit for pro-rating the cost of the improvements to Gaarde Street e. Public hearing dosed. f. Staff Recommendation: Senior Planner Bewersdorff advised that given the testimony and the modifications as presented in Plan B, staff recommended that the City Council approve Plan B.- Mr. Bewersdorff requested that _ Council direct staff to prepare a final order with findings outlining the conditions including reimbursement district criteria for the Gaarde Street extension improvements. Councilor Fessler suggested it may be appropriate to send the issue, with the changes, back to the Planning Commission for their review. Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded that staff did not recommend that this issue go back through the Planning Commission process. Staff would prepare a detailed explanation to the Planning Commission, outlining the _changes made and noting areas where conditions had been filled by the developer. Councilor Hawley questioned whether future Councils could be bound by the connection adjacent to Tax Lot 200. Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the findings could include a condition that the extension would be completed at the time of development approval for this area. Any change to these conditions would mean that the issue would have to go back through the Planning process. There was brief discussion on notification to the Planning Commission, outlining the changes made. There was also a question on the wording for the reimbursement district on Gaarde Street Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted the condition of the reimbursement district could be written to specify • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. id- Page No. 0 • that details forming the district would be prepared at a later date. It was noted that the Vista Point. (Matrix) subdivision may not be done as quickly as this one; therefore, there is a timing element which will also need to be addressed. There was Council discussion on the change in the new proposal. Of special concem to Councilor Fessler was-the Transportation Plan. She suggested it may be better planning to condition the development to reserve the prospect of a future connection between 121st and Bull Mountain Road. g. After discussion on the traffic configuration, a motion was made by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to direct staff to prepare a final order, with findings and conclusions which would approve the development as proposed in 'Plan B.' r h. The motion was approved by a majority of Council present (Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes;' Councilor Fessler voted °no".) The meeting recessed at 9:34 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AMENDMENT CPA 93-0007, ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0005 - A request by the City of Tigard to amendment Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 Implementation Strategy, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Also, Chapters 18.30, 18.32, and 18.142 of the City of Tigard Community Development regarding the establishment of Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs) to broaden citizen participation and replace the existing Neighborhood Planning Organization structure. - A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Involvement Coordinator Newton reviewed the staff report. She advised that the historical references to the neighborhood planning organizations would not be deleted. Ms. Newton referred to the Planning Commission review and their vote to modify the appeal fee waiver section _ to allow Council to waive the fee for any party as appropriate. A resolution setting forth the guidelines for fee waivers would be prepared for Council review and approval. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. __O- There was review of the staff report and proposed ordinance. It was noted that on the exhibit for Chapter 18.30, on Page 57, a letter (e) would be inserted which would say "the individual recognized by the effective CIT as contact person.* This would be consistent with the provisions as noted on page 59, letter (d). D. Public Testimony: Mr. Jack Polaris signed in to testify. He advised he wanted to speak to the topic of CiT facilitator training. Mayor Edwards advised Mr. Polaris this was not a subject of the public hearing. Mr. Polaris responded that he would send a letter to the Council outlining his concerns on the training. E. Public Hearing closed. F. ORDINANCE 93-19; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTERS 18.30, 18.32, AND 18.142 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 2.1.2 AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOLLOWING POLICY 2.1.3 AND 11.5.1, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 82-13 AND 82-14. G. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance 93-19, with the change as previously noted on Page 57 to reflect consistency with similar wording on Page 59. H. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted `yes.") 7. PUBLIC-HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): VACATE A PORTION OF THE 15-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH CROSSES THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION - Consideration of the vacation of the southerly five feet of the 15-foot wide storm drainage easement which crosses the northern lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of the Jubilee Place Subdivision. The request was initiated by the City Council on June 22, 1993, on behalf of Mr. Jay Miller, President of New Castle Homes, Inc. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by July 27, 1993, by 7:30 p.m. A. Public Hearing Opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report was summarized by Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. to Page No. • D. Public Testimony: • Jay Miller, PO Box 23291, Tigard, Oregon, 97281, advised he was the applicant and was present to answer any questions. E. Councilor Schwartz asked a question and received clarification of the location of the storm drain. F. Public Hearing Closed. G. ORDINANCE NO. 93-20: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION . OF A PORTION OF THE 15 FOOT WIDE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT WHICH LIES ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN LOT LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE JUBILEE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. H. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 93-20. - 1. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted yes.°) 8. UPDATE: HART-PROPERTY ISSUE • Community Development Department - Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff advised that activity on the property was suspended until an engineering study is completed and determination made as to whether the property is in a floodplain. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. - 10 EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:07 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h), & (i to discuss- labor relations, real property transactions, current & pending litigation issues, and performance evaluation of a public officer 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. tt , )CAMedne*Wheadey, City Recor r ayor, City of Tigard ~a Date: • h:\recorder\=n\cc m0727M LUBA NO. 93-147 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 27, 1993 - PAGE 10 Exhibit No. io Page No. 66 epending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: July 27, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): APPEAL OF SUBDIVISION DENIAL; SUB 93- 0002/VARIANCE VAR 93-0004 - Location: North of "Ames Orchard" subdivision (northern terminus of S.W. Hazel Drive) south and southwest of the intersection of S.W. 121 st Avenue and S.W. Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1 1066, tax lot 600). An appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a Subdivision preliminary plat to divide a 12.68 parcel into 29 lots ranging in size from approximately 13,000 to 22,000 square feet. Subdivision Variance requests for public street improvement standards have been withdrawn. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Subdivision: Code Section 18.169.060.A; Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.114, 18.150, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. ZONE: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, farming, manufactured homes, Pesidential treatment homes, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among ther uses. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. io Page No. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address Address Flo f Gfi /rY/~ 57?0 Name J) Name W G- L C l-~ Address Address Iu 3 yo sup e , T . Name ~ Name a e J -MUr-ess ress Add 1483s Sw Z- Name Q Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name ,J.-Name. dreAddress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name ress Address LURA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 11 Page No. 6 9 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 27 1993 DATE SUBMITTED: July 14. 1993 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appeal P.C. Denial PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Comm. Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Sub Hearin - June 7 1993 0002 ar 93-0004 - Ames Orchard II i PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council reverse or of 'rm the Planning commission denial of the preliminary subdivision plat for es Orchard II? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a modified preliminary plat as outlined in the July, 27, 1993 addendum to the staff report and direct staff to prepare a final order with conditions of approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY Applicants Robert Ames and Mark Rockwell have appealed a Planning Commission decision to deny approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. *he Commission denied approval because it did not find the proposal fully consistent with approval standards. Staff had recommended denial because variance requests did not meet variance approval criteria and the proposed street design did not adequately connect to adjacent properties. The main issues are addressed in the attached addendum to the staff report. The applicants have withdrawn variance requests and proposed a modification to the street design that can be found to meet code requirements (Exhibit B). The Council needs to determine whether the modifications adequately address all city street system connection and design requirements. The applicants' appeal, a June 21, 1993 letter to Ed Murphy and the site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission are attached as Exhibit A. In addition a copy of June 27, 1993 staff report is included for Council review. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the applicants' site plan as submitted for the June 27 Planning Commission meeting and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 2. Approve a modified preliminary plat as indicated by Exhibit B and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order with conditions. 3. Deny preliminary plat approval and call for redesign and direct staff to prepare findings and a final order. Refer the application back to the Planning Commission for hearing. FISCAL NOTES No direct impacts. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. L;Z Page No. -k!T- ADDENDUM - STAFF REPORT AMES ORCHARD II SUBDIVISION APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUB 93-0002 HEARING DATE: JULY 27, 1993 HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR. 97223 Background Applicants, Robert Ames/Mark Rockwell, have appealed a Planning commission decision to deny approval of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots. The property is located north of the Ames Orchard Subdivision and south of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street. Based on the testimony from neighbors and Planning commission deliberation at a April 5, 1993 hearing, the applicants proceeded to redesign their proposed subdivision plat. The subsequent submittal for the June 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting raised a number of issues. The Commission did not find the proposal fully consistent with applicable approval standards and voted to deny the preliminary plat. Staff had recommended denial for a number of reasons: o variance requests to street width and street grade were not demonstrated to meet variance approval criteria; o the proposed subdivision street loop system served to act as an over-length cul de sac; o the interpretation of transportation plan policy and previous development approvals that require the applicant to participate in the improvement of SW Gaarde Street west of 121st Avenue; and o the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that would allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land (18.164.030.F.) The applicants' statement of appeal is attached (Exhibit A). In their appeal, the applicants have withdrawn variance requests to street improvement standards for street width and grade. The applicants have suggested determination - of the share or responsibility for the construction of the extension of SW Gaards Street should be part of another proceeding. Analysis of Major Issues Variances. By withdrawing the variance requests, the applicants have eliminated street width and grade as a basis for denial. The applicants propose to meet street grades and widths as now required LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 7° in the development code. Cul de sac/one outlet street. Staff believes that the June 7 proposal involving a loop street system serves as an over length cul de sac which limits circulation and connectivity. The applicants had argued that the concern relative to cul de sacs was for emergency vehicle access. They felt that they had mitigated the problem by providing for emergency access from Ames Orchard I. After studying numerous potential solutions with staff, the applicants now propose to extend both legs of the loop system to the western boundary of their property and dedicate additional right of way for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde (Exhibit B). This will not only eliminate the long cul de sac issue but also provide access for property to the west to be further developed if the those owners so choose. It appears that there is approximately 10 acres to the west that could be developed. Gaarde Street. Based on code section 18.164.030.A.1.b., plan policy 8.1.1. and previous development decisions, staff believes the applicants are required to share in the responsibility for the extension of SW Gaarde. Pages 15-18 of the June 7, 1993 staff report outline the analysis of this issue. The applicants opposed participation in the improvement of Gaarde because they felt that Gaarde did not serve or was not necessary to serve their development. By agreeing to conditions of approval to participate in the formulation of a reimbursement district, local improvement district or other financial mechanism to allow for the construction of SW Gaarde Street and the dedication of right of way as may be necessary, the applicants can meet their obligation. Connection to Ames I. The applicants' proposed plan provides for emergency vehicle and pathway access between Ames I and Ames II at the end of SW Hazelhill Drive. Staff recognizes neighborhood concern and the effort by the applicants and the neighborhood to work out an agreement regarding access between Ames I and Ames II. Neighbors feel that a full street connection would serve as a collector because of the potential traffic volume. The NE Bull Mountain Traffic Study recommended against the direct connection of 121st Avenue to Bull Mountain Road. The study does not talk about the need for indirect connection of local streets. It is staff's understanding that, at the time of the study, there was discussion that the Traffic study did not preclude connection of local streets. It would be possible for the Council to require connection between Ames I and II, require a tract to be set aside for a future connection, or require construction of a connection with with Ames I to be barricaded until the completion of additional connections between Bull Mountain Road and Walnut Street. The majority of the Planning Commission appears sympathize with the concern of the neighborhood. Connection to East. The applicants' proposed street layout creates street grade and fill issues that preclude realistic connection to parcels to- the east of Ames II. The applicants' original LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. a Page No. It preliminary design included a feasible connection. A major redesign of the present proposal would be required to allow connection to the east. Intersection of 121st and Gaarde. While nothing in the code or plan prohibits an intersection at 121st and Gaarde as proposed by the applicants, there are issues to be considered. These include: Introduction of a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of a future traffic signal at this intersection. This could increase delays and create. the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. Operational problems and neighborhood disruption tend to occur when a major collector street like 121st is continued into a local street (121st Court as proposed). In these cases, lost drivers tend to end up driving through the neighborhood. Drivers turning from the major street frequently do not yield to drivers from the low volume street. council options 1. Approve Modified Preliminary Plat. This should include withdrawal of the variances, agreement to conditions to participate in the development and implementation of financial means to construct SW Gaarde, a condition to require extension of both legs of the loop street to the western boundary of the applicants' property and dedicate additional right of way to provide for a future north-south connection to SW Gaarde and any other conditions that Council finds necessary. A final order with conditions and findings as modified by Council direction would have to be prepared. 2. Approve Agplicantsf Orginal Preliminarv Plan. It may be difficult to develop findings for the lack of street connections. Variances have not been justified. 2. Deny Preliminary Approval and Call for Redesign. Potential grounds for denial would be whether Transportation Policy 8.1.1 which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development" is met; the lack of street extensions to tract boundaries that allow access or satisfactory future division of adjoining land and the lack of a street layout to conform to already approved plats (18.164.030.F. & 18.160.060.A.3.). Recommendation While staff feels redesign could allow for other connections to adjacent properties and create a more connected street network, the preliminary plan as modified in option 1 above is recommended. The applicants have spent considerable effort trying to adapt marketable plans to a multitude of issues and desires. Findings LUBA NO. 93.147 Exhibit No. r - %-Page No. 7>-- from the June 7, 1993 would be modified and conditions based on those recommended in option 1 and the April 5, 1993 staff report would be prepared. C~ LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No.1 :i- Page No. 79 EXHIBIT A LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 :x Page No. ^7,f EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner Ott FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorde DATE: June 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Final order - SUB 93- 0002/VAR 93-0004 Dick, attached is the appeal received from Jack L. Orchard of Ball, Janik and Novack (Attorneys at Law) on behalf of Robert Ames, Applicant. I have a tentative hearing date of July 13, 1993, please advise as soon as possible if this date changes. The applicant should also be apprised of the hearing date as soon as possible. Thanks. c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director r LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. it Page No. -7 S CITY OF TIGARD OREGON June 25, 1993 Mr. Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack Attorneys at Law - One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1.100 Portland, OR 97204-3274 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004) Dear Mr. Orchard: The appeal for the above-referenced Tigard Planning Commission Final Order was received in my office at 2:05 p.m. on this date. Enclosed please find a receipt for your $315 appeal fee check, I am also returning your Check No. 6060 that you included for transcript fees; transcripts are not a requirement of the hearing. I forwarded a copy of your appeal to Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff. You will be contacted by the Planning Staff apprising you of the hearing date within the next few days. If you have questions or need additional information on the Council hearing process, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Ed Murphy, Community Development Director - Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner C0 cwc0625.93 LUBA NO. 93-147 -13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 - Exhibit No. j z Page No. -7& BALL, .JAN I K & NOVACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE MAIN PLACE 101 S.W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 SO- FLOOR, 1101 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N. Mt PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3274 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20004 TELEPHONE (503) 228-2525 TELEPHONE 1202) 638-3307 JACK L. ORCHARD TELECOPY (503) 295-1058 TELECOPY 12021783-6947 June 25, 1993 By Messenger City of Tigard c/o Ms. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Bull Mountain Land Development Company Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 Dear Ms. Wheatley: This firm represents Applicant in the above-referenced appeal. Enclosed is Applicant's Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission decision of June 14, 1993 and a check in the amount of $315 filing fee. We have also enclosed a blank check prepared for transcript costs, if required at this point. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. _ Si Rrc4 ncerely, 1~.. - l alb L 4C c&A, ex, Jack L. Orchard Enclosures JLO/crs/8JN/CitpTigard.625 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i~- Page No. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD Bull Mountain Land ) Development Company, ) Case File No. SUB 93-0002/VAR 93-0004 on Behalf of ) Robert Ames, Applicant. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Pursuant to Tigard Community Development Code §18.32.340, this Notice of Appeal is submitted by the above- identified Applicant with respect to the case files referenced above. 2. Petitioner on this appeal is the Applicant. The Applicant appeared both in writing and in person before the Tigard Planning Commission with respect to the application to which this appeal relates. 3. The specific grounds for the appeal are the following: (a) The Planning Commission denied Petitioner's request for subdivision approval based on certain conclusions relating to transportation issues. Petitioner hereby withdraws its request for a variance to the existing street standards on the understanding that such standards are in the process of review and possible alteration through a separate code amendment procedure. There is no necessity for a variance to the existing standards at this time. The future street standards may be altered consistent with Petitioner's variance request. 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL lnla S/q3 _ a;vS p. ry, ~ LUBA NO. 93-147 Gf ~-rJ c Exhibit No. t3-_ y r Page No. -7S-- Petitioner will await final action by the City on the street standard amendments. (b) Another basis for denial of the request were proposed street grades in excess of 12%. Petitioner concurs that the 12% grade standard is appropriate. Petitioner's engineer has confirmed to City technical staff that the proposed grading plan can be feasibly altered so that no street grades for the subdivision will exceed the 12% maximum standard. (c) The denial was further premised on the lack of a street connection or street stop to the east of the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission was in error in adopting the standard or imposing a condition requiring such a street connection. The proposed subdivision meets all circulation, public safety and access requirements without such a street connection. The street connection would result in unmanageable and impractical grades for lots within the proposed subdivision and would leave them impractical to build upon, leading to excessive housing costs and infra-structure costs. (d) The denial was also based upon a requirement that S. W. Gaarde Street be extended and that Petitioner either bear one- half the cost of the extension or construct the extension. Neither is a valid requirement to impose on Petitioner. The r issue of the Gaarde extension is beyond the scope of this application and should be left to a subsequent proceeding relating to the improvement project or cost-sharing, including 2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. '7 1 whether Petitioner has any obligation to construct or pay for the proposed extension. (e) No other colorable basis exists for denying the subdivision. 4. The Notice of Final-Order by the Planning Commission was dated June 14, 1993 and stated that Petitioner had the right to appeal the decision by June 25, 1993. - 5. This appeal is accompanied by the $315.00 appeal fee. Petitioner stands ready to provide any required transcript deposit or fee. Respectfully Submitted, BALL, JANIK & NOVACK By: JQ~ L. Orchard Of Attorneys for Petitioner Dated this 25th day of June, 1993. JI0/crs/BjW/Rockve11.App C~ 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. r Page No. g 'p June 21, 1993 To: Ed Murphy - City of Tigard From: Mark Rockwell - Bull Mountain Land & Development Co. Ref: Ames Orchard II subdivision - Tigard, Oregon SUB 93-0002 / VAR 93-0004 The Staff Report for Ames Orchard II recommended denial, because of (1) our request for a variance to the existing street standards, (2) a preliminary design that contemplated a greater than 12% street grade on S.W. 121st Court, and (3) the fact that the plan did not provide for a street stub to the east. (4) The Staff Report also recommended that if the subdivision application was approved, one of the conditions for approval should obligate Ames Orchard II to pay for 50% of the cost of extending S.W. Gaarde Street, for that portion of the S.W. Gaarde extension that would front on the Ames Orchard II site. We believe that to a large extent the concerns expressed in the Staff Report can be addressed satisfactorily. We submit the following for your consideration, in the hope that this is an approach we can agree on, and mutually support when our application is heard on appeal to the City Council. (1) Request for a variance to existing street standards. We are prepared to drop our request for a variance to the existing street standards. We and are willing to accept Staffs recommendation that if narrower streets are the standard at the C . time we construct the subdivision, we would have the opportunity to construct the streets in accordance with the revised standards, otherwise we would be held to the existing standards. (2) Maximum street grades. We are able, and willing, to alter the proposed grading plan so that no street grades would exceed the 12% maximum allowable grade standard. (3) Street connection to the east. Because there is a ravine at the east edge of tax lot 600 (Ames Orchard II) which results in a large grade change between Ames Orchard II and the properties to the east, we do not believe that constructing a street connection to the east is the best approach. Such a connection would require approximately 15 feet of fill at the property line, and would also require a large portion of the property to the east (tax lot 300) to undergo extensive filling in order to eventually complete such a street connection. Such a connection would be costly for the owner of tax lot 300 as well as Ames Orchard Il, and would substantially reduce the useable area on tax lot 300. Given the fact that all of the tax lots to the east of Ames Orchard II can be readily served by an alternate street layout, we recommend that a connection to the east not be a condition of approval. (4) Cost for extending S.W. Gaarde. There are legitimate questions regarding the cost for extending S.W. Gaarde, and how that cost should be borne. We believe that the proper forum for discussing responsibility for those costs, and determining how the-costs are to be divided, is at the time the City establishes a C~ zone of benefit (Code section 13.08.20), and should not be arbitrarily established at the time the subdivision application is approved. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. S / F~ M~k P Ro~V,wei$IT B . jul x,1993 00" 2OW nomo vos,t*- wa(ld taX u~ itt~ f ca P~fO ~ Ga p+pa- 100 ' ya M Za ° 4 o f ya' ~ N 2A' s i4 12 ~ 1 No _ o vii lap Z3 o ~ SQ r s pis ~ - 1 1r ' / -irVCU~A LuBA N°'93--147 Page N°' -g--y- AGENDA ITEM 5.2 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: MONDAY JUNE 7, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. HEARING LOCATION: TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL. 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: AMES ORCHARD NO.2 SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 93-0002 Variance VAR 93-0004 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb internal local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide street within a fifty foot wide right-of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code Section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. APPLICANT: Robert Ames AGENT: Alpha Engineering (c/o Mark Rockwell) (Mark Dane/Randy Clarno) 16325 SW Boones Ferry 9600 SW Oak Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Tigard, OR 97223 OWNER: Robert Ames LOCATION: South of the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street, north of the Ames Orchard subdivision. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: WCTM 2S1 1OBB, Tax lot 600 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential 3.5 units per acre) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.150, 18.160, 18.164 and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the subdivision request. Denial of the variance request. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Site size and shape: Tax lot 600 is 12.68 acres in size and has approximately 180 feet of frontage along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde Street. The property extends approximately 800 feet further west of SW Gaarde's intersection with SW 121st Avenue adjacent to an approved, but as yet to be constructed and dedicated, extension of SW Gaarde Street. The property is roughly rectangular in size. B. Site location: The site is located between the SW 121st Avenue/SW Gaarde Street intersection and the Ames orchard subdivision. The present northern terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive is located along the southern boundary of the site. C. Existing uses and structures: The site is presently vacant. Tree cover consists of a filbert orchard covering the western approximately 3/4 of the site. The eastern 1/4 of the site is open grassland. The applicants' exhibit 3 of 3 is an aerial photo which clearly illustrates the existing cover of the site. D. Topography and drainage: The property slopes generally from the south to the north and northeast. A broad swale which includes an apparently intermittent stream extends from just northeast of the present terminus of SW Hazelhill Drive to the eastern property boundary. This intermittent stream and a storm sewer drain to a distinct drainageway just to the east of the site. E. Surrounding land uses: Adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Properties to the west are developed with single family residences on parcels ranging in size from approximately 0.5 to 6.8 acres. An approximately 1500-1600 foot long private dead-end road which extends northward from SW Bull Mountain Road currently serves eight residences on these parcels to the west. The property to the north of the site has recently been approved for development of a 64 lot subdivision (SUB 92-0005/Vista Point Subdivision). This subdivision would include a westward extension of SW Gaarde Street. SW Gaarde would abut the northern property line of the subject Ames property. Lots on the north side of SW Gaarde Street near the subject Ames property will average approximately 8,500 square feet in size. Properties to the south of the Ames property are zoned R-1 (Residential one unit per acre) and contain 23 single family residences within the Ames Orchard subdivision. Lots within this subdivision range from approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. This subdivision was approved by Washington County in the 1976 (to include a second phase on the current subject site), but the subdivision was annexed to the City of Tigard while 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. # x Page No. 94 under construction. SW Hazelhill Drive extends through Ames Orchard I and is stubbed into the southern boundary of the subject site. The fully developed Shadow Hills subdivision is located to the southeast of the subject site and west of Ames Orchard subdivision. Shadow Hills is zoned R-2 (Residential, two dwelling units per acre). Shadow Hills is served by a loop road off of SW Bull Mountain Road. Properties to the east of the subject site range in size from 0.5 to 2 acres in size and contain single family residences, filbert orchards, and a water tank. Properties to the northeast in the Colonial View subdivision range in size from approximately 14,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet and are developed with single family residences. F. Plan designation and zoning: The site and surrounding properties are all designated for Low Density Residential development by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Properties to the east and northeast are under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but are within the City's planning area. Existing zoning of surrounding properties is illustrated on the vicinity map attached to this report. G. Proposed use: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 12.68 acre parcel into 33 lots ranging in size between 11,050 to 23,664 square feet as illustrated on sheet 1 of 1 of the applicants' plan set and described in the applicants' statement. A 12,663 square foot space tract intended to include a water quality facility is also proposed. The current plan was submitted on May 7, 1993 in response to the Planning Commission's continuance of the review of this subdivision application. The Commission had reviewed a previous plan for the property on April 5, 1993, and had declined to approve the subdivision plan that had been presented at that time, or City staff proposed revisions to that plan. H. Public service and utilities: The preliminary utility plan (applicants' exhibit 2 of 2) proposes that the subdivision be served by development of a water main network from the existing 8 inch water line along the western edge of the site. Public storm sewers are proposed within the streets throughout the proposed subdivision with outfall to the proposed storm water quality and detention facility to be constructed within Tract A in the northeastern corner of the site abutting SW Gaarde Street. The detention facility would drain to an existing storm sewer within SW Gaarde. Sanitary sewers are proposed to be extended through the site from an existing sewer in Gaarde Street through lines to be located in the proposed new streets. I. Access and nearby streets: The street system for the proposed subdivision would consist of a southward local street extension from the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street to provide access to a loop street extending westward 10 3 CUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. '9 S through the subdivision. An eight foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path extending 140 feet from the existing southern stub of SW Hazelhill Drive to the proposed cul de sac bulb at the end of the proposed new north-south street. This pathway would be located within a 5,648 square foot, triangular shaped open space tract, Tract B. The applicant's statement notes that this tract is intended to be dedicated. The internal subdivision streets are proposed to vary from standard local street improvement standards. Variances have been requested to Community Development Code Section 18.164.030 to allow 28 foot wide curb to curb looped local streets (tentatively named SW 121st Court and SW Vista Circle on the preliminary plat) within 40 foot wide right-of-ways whereas this Code Section requires 34 foot wide streets within fifty foot wide right- of-ways. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to Code Section 18.164.070.1.b for these same streets to install sidewalk only on the outside of the looped streets whereas this Code Section requires sidewalks on both sides of local streets. The applicant's statement addresses the standard variance approval criteria of Code Chapter 18.134 at pages 8-10, rather than the subdivision variance criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The existing section of SW Hazelhill Drive to which the bikepath within Tract B is proposed to connect is approximately 42 feet wide, has bikeways/walkways striped on the pavement, has open drainage ditches, and has no streetlights, curbs, or sidewalks. SW Hazeltree Terrace connects SW Hazelhill Drive to SW Bull Mountain Road, a major collector street under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW Gaarde Street abuts the property to the north. Jurisdiction for SW Gaarde Street lies with both the City of Tigard and Washington County. SW Gaarde is functionally classified as a major collector street by both the City and County Transportation Plans. Current pavement on Gaarde is approximately 24 feet in width from this point eastward to SW Pacific Highway. No sidewalks are currently provided along SW Gaarde and streetlights are few. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to SW Gaarde Street to.the east in the near future. The applicants are proposing to connect this development to SW Gaarde Street directly at its intersection with SW 121st Avenue. The applicants propose dedicating 10 addition feet of right-of-way along the existing right-of-way of SW Gaarde, along the northeastern edge of the site. The plans do not indicate that the applicants intend any improvement to this stretch of street, but the applicants' statement in responding to Policy 8.1.3 appears to indicate that improvements are contemplated. The proposal does not contemplate right-of-way dedication for SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. The applicants' statement in its response to Section 18.108 provides arguments for the applicants not improving SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue. SW 121st Avenue intersects SW Gaarde Street just north of the subject property. SW 121st Avenue in this area is under the jurisdiction of Washington County. SW 121st Avenue is also a major collector street with approximately 24 feet of pavement, open ditches, few streetlights, and no sidewalks. There are no current plans for widening or improvements to this section of SW 121st Avenue, except for half street improvements on the west side of SW 121st extending approximately 300 feet north of Gaarde that were required as a condition of development approval for the proposed Vista Point subdivision. 4 LUBA NO. 93-147 .Exhibit No. 1 1 Page No. rd 4 J. Other applications affecting this parcel: The applicants have recently submitted an application (File No. ZON 93-01) for rezoning of tax lot 600 from R-1 and R-2 (Residential, 1 and 2 dwelling units per acre) to R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). That request was approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993. The staff report for application ZON 93-01 contains a brief summary of previous land use and development applications affecting this property. This report incorporates that information by reference. It is important to note that the subject property had two prior subdivision approvals - the first approval was a Washington County approval that included this site with the land that has been developed as Ames Orchard I; the second was a City of Tigard approval for 14 lots on this parcel only. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS The approval standards for a preliminary subdivision plat are listed at Code Section 18.160.060.A. The hearings authority may grant variances to Community Development Code standards if the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120.8 are satisfied. In addition, the proposal must also be found to be consistent with the development standards of the following Code Chapters: Chapter 18.48 (R-3.5 zone); Chapter 18.88 (Solar Access Requirements); Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations); Chapter 18.150 (Tree Protection); and Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards). Standards of other Community Development Code chapters may apply to subsequent development of the subject site but are not applicable to the current review. Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3 also apply to the review of the subdivision development proposal. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has provided comments which are attached as an appendix to this report. 2. Washington County's Department of Land Use and Transportation has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: A. SW 121st Avenue and SW Gaarde Street (east of SW 121st) adjacent to the site are under the jurisdiction of Washington County. The County's Department of Land Use and Transportation recommends that approval of this subdivision proposal be conditioned upon the following: a. If made a condition of approval of this development proposal, the collector road extension of SW Gaarde Street along the north side of the site west of SW 121st Avenue shall be constructed pursuant to Section C.4.a., b., c., d., and e. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Washington County and the City of Tigard. 0 5 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibk No. iA Page No. • B. Prior to Final Plat Approval: a. The County shall be afforded the opportunity to complete a traffic analysis pursuant to Washington County Resolution and Order No. 86-95. The applicant shall construct any improvements found to be warranted within the development's impact area pursuant to the County Traffic Analyst's review in relation to R&O 86-95. The applicant shall provide certification from a registered engineer that sight distance is adequate at the SW Gaarde/SW 121st Avenue access point. Contact Doug Norval, County Traffic analyst for specific questions regarding the traffic analysis. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to provide 37 feet from centerline of the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage east of SW 121st Avenue, including adequate corner radius. C. The applicant shall sign a waiver not to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district or other mechanism to improve the base facility of SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and SW Pacific Highway. d. A one-foot non-access reserve strip shall be established along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage. The documents needed to complete these conditions shall be prepared by the Washington County Survey Division and shall be recorded in the Washington County Records Department. e. Submit plans, obtain County Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit for construction of the following public improvements: i. Concrete sidewalk to County standards along SW Gaarde Street frontage. ii. Adequate roadway drainage along SW Gaarde Street frontage. iii. Any traffic safety improvements required as a result of the completion of the County Traffic Analyst's report based on Washington County Rule and Order No. 86-95. iv. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. C. Prior to Occupancy: a. The road improvements to County roads listed above if required by conditions of approval shall be completed and accepted by C. 6 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Page No. fS~ Washington County. 3. The City of Tigard Building Division has provided the following comments: a. Individual lot drainage should be to an approved public storm sewerage system; alternatively, individual private storm drainage systems may be utilized. Plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard plumbing inspector; b. Maximum finished slopes of all cut banks shall be 2:1; C. Soil tests and engineered footings may be required on an individual lot basis. 4. The City of Tigard operations Division recommends that SW Hazelhill Drive be extended through the site to connect with SW Gaarde Street. 5. The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District has reviewed the preliminary plat and has provided the following comments: a. Hydrant locations should be coordinated with the Tigard Water District and Fire District; b. No parking should be allowed on streets that would have less than 20 feet of driving surface, if such streets are proposed. C. The Fire District is very concerned with the number of residences in the proposed Ames Orchard II that would be served by a long single- access loop street system. A street connection or emergency vehicle access should be provided to connect the new development with SW Hazelhill Drive or to the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st. 6. Tigard School District 231 has reviewed the proposal and has noted that the proposed development lies within the attendance areas of C.F. Tigard Elementary School, Fowler Middle School, and the Tigard Senior High School. (School District review was made with regard to original subdivision plan, only. May submittal was not forwarded.) The proposed development is projected to generate the following additional enrollment at those schools: 11 students at C.F. Tigard School; 4 students at Fowler Middle School; and 3 students at Tigard High School. The School District notes that, in general, school capacities are projected to be exceeded as a result of this proposed development and other recently reviewed and approved developments within those attendance areas. The District notes that core facilities of the schools are insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. Staff also contacted Bud Hillman of the School District (phone call on 2/25/93) with regard to whether the District had any concerns with school bus routing. (Contact was made with regard to original subdivision plan, 7 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i.)- Page No. Sg only. May submittal was not forwarded.) Mr. Hillman stated that under present policies, school buses would be routed into this subdivision to pick up elementary school students but that secondary students from the proposed development would need to walk out to SW 121st Avenue for school bus service. 7. Neighborhood Planning organization #3 supports the suggestion of several neighbors to the south of the proposed development that access to the development should come off of SW Gaarde Street with only an emergency vehicle access/pedestrian and bike path between this development and Ames Orchard I. The NPO does not support any of the requested variances to Community Development Code road improvement standards. (These comments were provided in response to the original submittal. The revised preliminary plat has been submitted to NPO #3 for review, although the NPO meeting will occur after issuance of this staff report but prior to the Commission's hearing.) 8. Northwest Natural Gas has commented that there are both a 10 inch diameter high pressure feeder main within the approximate alignment of the Gaarde Street extension along the northern edge of the site as well as a 2 inch diameter poly main on the north and west sides of the site. The developer's representatives should contact Northwest Natural Gas to have the main located prior to any excavation on the site. 9. The Tigard Water District has provided several comments which are included in a letter attached as an appendix to the report on the original proposal. 10. GTE has reviewed the proposal and offered no comments other than that the site developer should contact GTE at least 30 days prior to the opening of utility trenches. 11. The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (cable television) and PGE have reviewed the original proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Compliance with Community Development Code - Subdivision 1. Code Development Code Section 18.160.060.A provides the following approval standards for a subdivision application: a. The proposed subdivision must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations: b. The proposed plat name may not be duplicative of another recorded plat and the plat must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92 related to a plat; t• 8 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. T 9 C. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and d. An explanation has been provide for all common improvements. Staff finds that the proposed Ames Orchard No. II subdivision is only partially consistent with the approval criteria for a proposed subdivision as described below: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential density opportunity for the site and with the use, density, and dimensional standards of the R-3.5 zoning district as described in #3 below. However, staff finds that the proposal is only partially consistent with applicable Plan policies and with other applicable regulations, as noted within the accompanying paragraphs that point out specific deficiencies - some which staff feels are significant enough to warrant denial of the proposal. b. The proposed name of the subdivision, Ames Orchard No. II, is not duplicative of any recorded plat within Washington County other than the first phase of Ames Orchard subdivision. The form and other details regarding the final plat would be required to be consistent with applicable Oregon Revised Statute standards, as well as the detailed plat filing requirements of the City of Tigard and Washington County. These details are not normally considered during the Planning Commission's preliminary plat review but instead are reviewed by the City's surveyor and the Washington County Surveyor's office; C. The preliminary plat does not provide for a northward extension of SW Hazelhill Drive as would be consistent with the existing road pattern with the previously approved plat for Ames Orchard I subdivision as well as a previous subdivision approval for the subject property. Conformity with the road patterns of existing plats is required by Code section 18.160.060.A.4. On April 5, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan that would have provided for an extension of SW Hazelhill Drive through the subject property. After hearing the comments of several residents of the Ames Orchard subdivision, the Commission determined that it was in the public's interest to not provide for a road connection between the existing Ames Orchard subdivision and new development on the subject property. The neighbors and the Planning Commission were concerned about changes in the existing neighborhood that might result from additional traffic travelling between SW Gaarde Street and SW Bull Mountain Road. While staff continues to continues to have concerns with the 9 LUBA NO. 93-14! Exhibit No. j ;k- Page No. 90 Planning commission's decision on this matter, we can understand the neighbors and the Commission's concerns. Staff accepts this decision as being based upon special circumstances which would affect an established neighborhood as well as special concerns about traffic safety on a stretch of SW Bull Mountain Road that presently has limited sight distance. As such, we respect the commission's decision regarding not connecting Ames Orchard I and II at this time with a public road. (Nevertheless, we urge the Commission to consider requiring any tract for a pathway or emergency vehicle access to be at least 50 feet wide so as to provide for a possible roadway connection in the future, if and when attitudes change regarding this connection and when Bull Mountain Road is improved. It is important to not totally lose opportunities for logical road connections by allowing a house to be built in the way). The applicants, however, have seemed to have understood the Commission's earlier decision to not connect Ames I and II as throwing out the baby with the bathwater such that they have redesigned the subdivisionproposal so that it seems to totally ignore Plan and Code directives for developing a safe and efficient transportation system and providing access for future development of abutting properties. Some of the current proposal's inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan Policies and Code standards will be dealt with later in this report in sections directly related to the specific standards, but general concern are addressed here as well as in the attached Engineering Department comments. First, the proposal does not provide for a street stub to serve future redevelopment of the properties to the east, as was previously proposed. Staff believes that such a stub is necessary in order to allow for connectedness of neighborhoods for social, traffic, and emergency vehicle access reasons as discussed in the report on the earlier proposal. Sheet 3 of 3 of the applicant's plan set illustrates a possible scheme for redevelopment of these properties to the east without a connection to Ames Orchard II. This scheme would require a new street to intersect with SW Gaarde Street approximately 250 feet east of the proposed SW 121st Court, opposite SW Rose Vista Drive. The City has attempted to space intersections on major collector streets as far apart as possible, especially attempting to separate local street intersections from major collector/major collector intersections such as 121st and Gaarde that at some point will likely have a traffic signal. Westbound stacking on-SW Gaarde would likely extend beyond the Rose Villa intersection, and adding another leg to this intersection would seem to exacerbate this traffic problem. Alternatively, the street to serve redevelopment of these properties to the east might need to be another dead end far in excess of the maximum 400 foot cul de sac length standard of the Community Development Code. Staff recommends that any development of the Ames II property be required to provide a public street connection to serve the efficient redevelopment of these properties to the east, consistent with code Section 18.164.030.E which states where necessary to give access ~i 10 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. #-A- Page No. V or permit a satisfactory future division of land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be divided...." Second, the proposed loop street within Ames Orchard II, while not being what most people consider to be a cul de sac, effectively would be a dead-end, single-access street with the southwestern-most point of the proposed loop street being approximately 1,000 feet distant from the single SW Gaarde access to the proposed subdivision. Staff is not clear whether this street should be considered a cul de sac since this term is not defined by the Community Development Code. The Commission can determine whether this street should be determined to be .a cul de sac. The Doubleday Dictionary for Home, School, and Office (1975) defines a cul de sac as "a passage open only at one end; blind alley." Certainly, this proposed street system meets this definition and the Commission could therefore find that the proposal must be reviewed against Community Development Code Section 18.164.030.8.1 which states that "a cul de sac shall be as short as possible and in no event shall be more than 400 feet long." Regardless of whether the Commission wishes to determine that the proposed street system is a cul de sac, it is still appropriate to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the theory behind limiting the length of dead end streets. The primary reasons cited for limiting the length of dead end streets are generally to provide adequate and alternative access for emergency vehicles and service vehicles such as.school buses, and to provide for connections between different neighborhoods or between the development and collector streets. It is noted that the Fire District has raised concerns with the proposed dead end street system. Staff recommends that the proposed over-long dead end street system be avoided through the Commission, at a minimum, requiring a street stub to serve redevelopment of the properties to the east as outlined above. In addition, staff would recommend that Ames Orchard II subdivision also be required to provide for a connection to the approved, but as yet unbuilt SW Gaarde Street extension approximately 450 feet west of SW 121st Avenue directly opposite the short north- south street within the approved Vista Point development, if the Commission allows creation of SW 121st Court as currently proposed. Such a street within Ames Orchard II would use up approximately 6,500 square feet of the development site. Because all proposed lots are substantially larger than the minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone, the applicant would not appear to need to eliminate a lot, although some reconfiguration of the subdivision would be necessary. If the applicant raises concerns with losing lot area or possibly losing a lot, we point out that at the time of the filing of this application, the applicants did not have the right for this number of lots without the requested rezoning. Clearly, the Commission should not feel afraid to require necessary public improvements from developers who have already 11 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i a.- Page No. 91- benefitted from the commission's recent upzoning of this property. Because the current proposal is so significantly deficient with regard to satisfying Community Development Code road pattern and road improvement standards and therefore would not provide a safe and efficient road system as required by Plan Policy 8.1.1, staff recommends that the current subdivision proposal be denied. Staff finds that the current proposal is so far from what should be provided that the application cannot reasonably be approved subject to conditions of approval. We do recommend that the Planning Commission provide clear direction to the applicants as to what is expected for this property so as to guide the preparation of future development plans for this property. 2. Code section 18.160.090 authorizes the decision-making authority to grant variances to Code standards if the requested variance can be found to be consistent with the variance approval criteria of Code Section 18.160.120. The revised applicants' statement continues to ignore the appropriate variance approval criteria and instead refer generally) to the approval standards of Code Chapter 18.134. To make sure that the Commission and applicant are fully aware of the applicable variance approval standards, we quote Code Section 18.160.120.8: Variances to Code development standards may be approved through the subdivision review process upon satisfaction of the following variance criteria: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The applicants' statement at page 5 states that the functional characteristics of the proposed street exceeds that of the City's current local street standards as it relates to...." (Emphasis added). Staff does not disagree with the applicants that the loop street as proposed would function adequately with regard to the roadway width carrying anticipated traffic, providing necessary width for emergency vehicle travel, and providing enough on-street parking spaces. In addition, the sidewalk on only one side of the street may in fact serve future pedestrian traffic adequately. 12 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. - Page No. qJ? However, staff fails to see how the proposed street would exceed the City's local street standards as the applicants assert. It is totally unclear to us how a sidewalk on only one side of a street can provide better pedestrian circulation than that same sidewalk as well as another sidewalk on the other side of the street. Perhaps we're stupid, but it also is unclear to staff how a 28 foot wide street can provide more width of driving area or "clear zone" than a standard 34 foot wide street. Staff finds the applicants to be guilty of overstatement with regard to how the proposed street would exceed the functional characteristics of standard local streets. Staff does not argue that the proposed varied street and right-of- way widths would generally function adequately, and maybe even as well as standard local streets, thereby somewhat satisfying the second variance approval criterion, although this really doesn't address why the varied streets are necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Assuming that this is the case, permitting the proposed street design would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to the rights of others thereby satisfying the third variance approval criterion. However, the subdivision variance approval standards require a lot more than showing that the varied improvements may function adequately and not be detrimental to others. First, the applicants have not in any manner addressed the variance approval standard which requires that the need for the variance arise from "special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual or peculiar..." (Code Section 18.160.120.B.1). No evidence has been presented regarding any special circumstances or conditions such as excessively steep slopes, presence of wetlands, or other physical characteristics of the site which would preclude development of standard streets with this development plan. Second, the applicants' narrative also does not adequately demonstrate an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations..." (Code Section 18.160.120.B.4). The applicants' statement notes that the applicants may incur "unnecessary hardship" through additional development costs if required to build standard local streets. There clearly is a huge difference between the alleged unnecessary hardship of having to pay the same sorts of development costs as other residential developers and the extraordinary hardship that is necessary to justify a variance. The applicants have clearly not met the burden of proof for this criterion. Unless positive findings can be made for each of the variance approval standards of Code Section 18.160.120.B, a variance request should be denied. The applicants have not satisfied the burden of providing the necessary justification for the requested variances. The usually generous Planning Division cannot see how we can provide the necessary findings for the applicants because of the absence of any shred of special circumstances affecting the site or anything resembling extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the established improvement standards. Therefore, the variance requests should clearly be denied. 3. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use standards of the 13 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i Page No. 9'f R-3.5 zoning district because the lots are intended to be used for single-family residences, a permitted use in the R-3.5 zoning district (Code Chapter 18.48). The proposal is consistent with the maximum density of 3.5 units per gross acre allowed for the site by the R-3.5 zone. All lots are consistent with the minimum 10,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-3.5 zone. All proposed lots are consistent with the minimum average lot width standard of 65 feet. Standard R-3.5 setbacks should apply to this subdivision. The proposed development is therefore found to be consistent with the applicable use and dimensional standards of Code Chapter 18.48. 4. Community Development Code Chapter 18.88 establishes standards for solar accessibility for newly created residential lots. Code section 18.88.040.E allows the hearings authority to reduce the percentage of lots that must meet the solar access design standard if certain conditions relative to the site (such as slope, existing shade, or existing or planned road patterns) make it difficult or impossible to fully comply with the solar access design standards without adversely impacting the development's permitted density and cost or amenities. The applicants request, and staff concurs, that lots 28 and 29 should be exempted from the solar access calculation because these lots would have an east-west slope in excess of 20 percent. Of the remaining non-exempt lots, Code Section 18.80.040.C requires that 80 percent, or 24 lots, must satisfy the solar access design standards. Five lots, lots 28, 29, 30, 40, and 50, are exempted under the basic 20 percent exemption. Twenty-four lots satisfy the basic solar requirement of a front lot line orientation within 30 degrees of a true east-west orientation and a minimum north-south dimension of 90 feet as shown on the applicant's solar access evaluation sheet. Two other lots (lots 38 and 49) are proposed to have solar building lines recorded. Therefore, eighty percent of the lots not exempted for cause would meet the solar access design standard. The proposed subdivision is therefore consistent with the solar access lot pattern standards of Chapter 18.88. 5. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92 (Density Computations) because the 441,930 square foot net developable area of the site (after deductions for streets and Tracts A and B) yields an opportunity for 44 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning district's 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Thirty-three single family residential lots are proposed. The applicants' statement includes a density calculation. If revisions to the subdivision proposal are required (such as increased right-of-way widths or a different street pattern), the Commission should require the applicants to submit a revised density calculation that assures that the revised plat is still consistent with Chapter 18.92. It is noted that the proposed subdivision layout would still comply with the allowed density if rights-of way are increased to the standard 50 foot width. 6. Chapter 18.150 requires that the number of trees over six inches in 14 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. is Page No. -15 diameter that are removed during construction be minimized. The proposed development's public streets, utilities, and residences and related grading are anticipated to necessitate the removal of all of the filbert trees on the western portion of the site as well as some of the other few trees on the site. The applicants intend to remove all of the filbert trees because these trees would generally not be compatible with the future residential landscaping of the proposed lots and because of the possibility of unmaintained nut trees harboring diseases and insects that could be harmful to nearby filbert orchards. For these reasons, removal of these trees should be permitted to occur with approval of a subdivision plan for this site and approval of grading and erosion control plans. In this special case, no separate tree removal permit should be required. 7. The proposed subdivision's streets and other public improvements, are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Improvement Standards) as described above with regard to the general subdivision approval standards and the subdivision variance requests. Staff provides the following additional comments with regard to the requirements of Chapter 18.164 (Also see the attached Engineering Department comments): a. Approval of any development application for this site should be conditioned upon dedication of additional right-of-way for SW Gaarde Street as well as improvement to major collector standards. If development of this site follows development of the Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developers of Ames Orchard II should anticipate being assessed for their share of these improvements through a public improvement reimbursement district. If development of this site precedes development of Vista Point, the developers of Ames Orchard II should be required to pay a fee in lieu of half the cost of constructing this collector street across the Ames Orchard II frontage. Construction of improvements to this major collector street by the site developer will qualify for traffic impact fee credits for the individual lots in the subdivision. Staff is not persuaded at all by the applicants arguments for not contributing to the costs of the Gaarde Street extension west of SW 121st Avenue. First, the applicants argue that this street will not provide improved access to the subdivision's residents to area destinations. Obviously, with the road approved for construction only several hundred feet west of this site, the road (at first) would not provide significant access to area destinations. However, when the road is fully constructed to SW Walnut Street, the road will provide significantly improved access to destinations in western Tigard, to Beaverton, and to other locations to the north and west through improved connections to SW Scholls Ferry Road. The City Council's final order for the Vista Point development to the north found the following regarding the Code standards which require new developments in this area to contribute to development of the Gaarde Street extension as well as the benefits the road will provide for future residents of the area: 15 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ► 3 Page No. 9 G ...Code section 18.164.030.A.1.b states that "any new street or additional street width planned as part of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in accordance with this Code." This street section has been planned for by Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map Note 2. As noted in the introduction to the Plan, the Plan "provides a policy framework for decision making on such matters as...subdivisions." (Introduction, Page II-4.) The Council interprets this to mean that overall the Comprehensive Plan represents the City's planning policies. The underlying basis for the Council's decision to require the Gaarde Street extension is found in the findings of the Transportation Section on Pages II-55 and II-56. The Council notes that the Community Development Code is intended to "implement the Tigard Comprehensive Plan," # 18.02.010, and the following referenced sections accomplish that policy. The Council considers the following findings from the Transportation section as mandated guidance from the City's acknowledged plan in evaluating transportation issues for this area of Tigard. * Major congestion problems within the City have resulted from the rapid population growth since 1970, creating a need for major street improvements. * The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. * The major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard (the affected area). Both of these areas lack adequate improved traffic ways. * A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. In addition to the findings, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map, Note 2 specifically states that "A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report." The Council finds authority for this condition in Transportation Policy 8.1.1, which requires that the City "plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway 16 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ri Page No. 11 system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development." Strategy 5 of the Transportation Section states that "[t]he City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way and install necessary street improvements to the city's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." The project site is in the westerly area of Tigard where major residential development was expected and is occurring, and which lacks adequate improved traffic ways. Gaarde Street is specifically mentioned as a necessary collector/connector to Walnut Street. This project site is included in the area covered by note 2 in the Transportation Plan, which specifically mentions a Gaarde Street-Walnut Street connection. This project represents one piece of the development puzzle, the completion of which will provide public improvements to help implement the solutions presented in . the Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds there is a reasonable relationship between the current development of this project and the needs for transportation system improvements, as expressed in the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the Development Code Sections 18.164.030.A.1.b and 18.164.030.F.1. (City Council Final order for the proposed Vista Point development, adopted by Council Resolution No. 93-19). Staff finds that these Council findings are just as applicable to the proposed Ames Orchard II development as they are to the Vista Point proposal. Additionally, the City Council apparently contemplated that other future developments in this area should be required to contribute to the cost of development of the Gaarde extension. The Council's final order for Vista Point also found: The subdivision developer will be required to construct an extension of SW Gaarde Street and a major sewer line to serve the proposed subdivision. These improvements will likely be used by other developments. SW Gaarde Street is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a needed collector street improvement. The street and sewer improvements likely will only be constructed as part of a development. Therefore, the City finds it is appropriate to initiate a zones of benefit pursuant to Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 in order to allow the developer of these facilities to recover a portion of the improvement costs from other subsequent developments using these facilities. Section 13.08.020(a) allows the city to initiate formation of zones of benefit. The City finds that the Comprehensive 17 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1 - >-Page No. 96 Plan is furthered by initiating zones of benefit because it enables the subdivision developer to proceed with the necessary public improvements. Getting back to the Ames application's arguments for not contributing to the costs of improving the Gaarde'extension, the applicants state that the SW Gaarde Road extension is a detriment to the site. Staff reminds the Commission (and the applicants, especially) that the commission's final order regarding the upzoning of this property from R-2 to R-3.5 (Final order No. 93-07 PC) cited the approved alignment for the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site as a reason why the property should be up-zoned due to the potential impacts to the site as well as providing improved access to the site. While in some ways, the road may be a detriment with regard to livability for future development, the plans for the road were an asset to the applicants in justifying the upzoning. Additionally, the applicants argue that the site has little or no ability to dedicate additional right-of-way for the Gaarde extension. The staff report for the previous proposal noted that some additional right-of-way might be needed, to be determined by the City Engineer through review of the public improvement plans for this site as well as the Vista Point development. It may be found that no right-of-way is actually needed for this road from the Ames Orchard II subdivision, but this will not be clear until final road plans are developed. As for the "the site having no ability to contribute area to the proposed right-of-way due to the existing alignment of Gaarde east of the site," it is pointed out that Washington County is recommending that the subject site be required to dedicate 17 feet for expansion of SW Gaarde east of SW 121st Avenue. It will therefore be necessary for some additional right-of-way to be provided to the west of SW 121st Avenue in order to make a proper transition between these two road segments. Staff sees no physical reason why right-of-way could not be provided by this site. Lastly, the applicants state the amount of Traffic Impact Fees the proposed subdivision will generate and state that these fees should be more than a sufficient contribution to the construction of this section of the Gaarde extension. While this contribution is important, the City's policy remains that developments are required to decision on the Vista Point subdivision application In summary, staff does not find that the applicants have presented persuasive arguments for the Planning Commission to distinguish this proposed development from other developments that are required to improve collector or arterial streets which abut the developments such that the Commission should break with the Code and Council's directives on requiring improvements to the SW Gaarde Street extension. Staff urges 18 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 13, Page No. 99 the Commission to make it clear to the applicants that any future development of this site should be anticipated to result in possible right-of-way dedication requirements and certain road improvements (or financial contributions) for constructing the SW Gaarde Street extension abutting the site. b. Internal subdivision streets should be able to be developed consistent with City standards for local streets, as noted in staff's analysis of the variance request above, although right-of way dedication for SW Gaarde Street would need to be increased to 37 feet from centerline east of SW 121st as the County has requested, and would need to be dependant on final road design west of SW 121st. Preliminary street improvement plans are consistent with these standards, with the exception of the requested variances for reduced width and sidewalk on one side. As noted above, staff is unaware of any reasons why these streets cannot be developed consistent with the standards of Chapter 18.164 and therefore the variance requests should be denied. C. As noted previously, the preliminary plat does not provide for a street stub to the east to provide for a future further extension of this street to connect up with SW Gaarde Street (potentially opposite SW 118th Avenue), as was previously proposed with the first submittal. Staff recommends that any future development proposal for this site provide for such a stub. When the subdivision is built, a reserve strip and a barricade should be required to be provided at this street stub. The barricade should be posted with a sign indicating that future extension of this street is anticipated with future development. d. The proposed development plan would cause the "block" along SW Gaarde Street to the west to exceed the 1200 foot maximum block length standard of Code Section 18.164.040.B. This standard could be satisfied by the Commission requiring a street to be installed opposite the short north-south street on the north side of.Gaarde in the Vista Point proposal. e. The proposed lots are consistent with code standards for maximum lot depth-to-width ratio, minimum frontage, and other lot dimensional standards specified by Code Section 18.164.060. Although this Code Section discourages the creation of through lots, such as proposed lots 11-17, the Code recognizes that situations such as this are necessary to avoid lots taking access from major streets such as Gaarde. These lots would need to meet the minimum 20 foot front yard setback standard along both streets as specified by this Code Section. f. Access to SW Gaarde Street should be prohibited for all lots which would have frontage along this collector street. These lots as well as all other lots could receive access from local streets. g. Preliminary plans for sanitary sewers, storm drainage, water supply, and other utilities would provide appropriate service 19 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. j>- Page No. t v • to the proposed development. (See the attached Engineering Department comments). C. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 8. The Subdivision/Variance review process for Ames Orchard II is consistent with Plan Policy 2.1.1 because notices of the application and the original April 5, 1993 public hearing on this item were provided to the neighborhood planning organization and'to owners of property in the vicinity of the site. Notice of that hearing was also advertised in the Tigard Times newspaper. The hearing was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Community Development Code and Oregon Revised Statute provisions, no additional notice was provided for the continued hearing date. In addition, the applicants and their representatives, as well as City staff, have held meetings with concerned neighbors of the proposed development. Therefore, a substantial opportunity has been provided for the public to comment on this development application as is required by this policy. 9. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, conditions of approval would be warranted to require the developer to submit an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River basin as part of the grading permit application, as well as to provide an on-site water quality facility consistent with the recommendations of the City of Tigard Engineering Department. 10. The preliminary subdivision proposal complies with Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because development of this site will require the developer to extend public sewer, storm drainage, and public water systems through this site. Utility and service providers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. No significant concerns have been raised with regard to the capacities of these necessary services, although the site developer will need to accommodate the utility relocation and construction concerns raised by the utility providers, most notably the Tigard Water District and Northwest Natural Gas. Future development of this site will require provisions for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. No significant concerns were raised by the providers of these utilities. 11. Staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat would not provide for an efficient street system as required by Policy 8.1.1 for the reasons stated in sections 1 and 7 above. Primarily for these reasons, staff recommends that the subdivision plan be denied. However, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide substantial direction to the prospective developers with regard to what is necessary to provide a safe and efficient street system in 20 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 0, Page No. r d Lt_ this area as it relates to any future development plan for this property. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission make it clear to prospective developers of this site that streets within any future development will need to be consistent with established City of Tigard street improvement standards in order to provide adequate safety and to allow for an appropriate consistency of improvements between abutting developments. Also, the Commission should make it clear that improvements to SW Gaarde Street on both sides of SW 121st Avenue should be anticipated to be made a condition of any future development approval for this site. 12. The subdivision proposal does not comply with Policy 8.1.3 because the proposed improvements to the public streets and utilities within the proposed subdivision and along SW Gaarde Street east of SW 121st are not consistent with City of Tigard standards or Washington County road improvement standards for needed improvements to roads under the County's jurisdiction. The proposed right-of-ways are of an insufficient width to accommodate standard road improvements, and inadequate justification has been provided for the requested variances internal to the subdivision as well as inadequate justification for not requiring road improvements along Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The City of Tigard Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision's street plan does not promote the general welfare of the City and would be detrimental to surrounding land uses through its lack of connectivity to other developed areas, and adjacent underdeveloped properties. In recognition of the findings and conclusions contained herein, and incorporating the staff report and other reports of affected agencies and public testimony and exhibits received in this matter, the Planning Division recommends denial of Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0002 request for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision. In addition, the Planning Division finds that the statements provided by the applicant in support of requested Variance VAR 93-0004 do not adequately address the criteria for approval of a subdivision variance. The Planning Division therefore recommends denial of the requested variance to several road improvement standards of Community Development Code Chapter 18.164 If the Planning Commission elects to approve the subdivision and Variance requests, staff recommends that the Commission assign responsibility to the applicant for preparing the final order in this case and defending any subsequent appeals. Staff would request an opportunity to prepare conditions of approval for any subdivision to be approved. 21 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 0- Page No. + e C7~1ANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jerry Offer May 26, 1993 FROM: Chris Davies, Development Review Engineer SUBJECT: SUB 93-0002 - AMES Description: The applicant proposes to divide a parcel of approximately 12.68 acres into 33 lots with variances to local street standards. Findings: 1. Transportation: The proposed subdivision creates a new neighborhood of 33 homes with only one vehicular access route. If you take a look at the surrounding areas this problem is' very repetitive; we have neighborhoods with only one access onto a major collector street and no connections with adjacent subdivisions. In addition, this type of development perpetuates the following problems as can be seen from the existing neighborhoods: A. It precludes any future alternative access to adjoining areas. B. All trips from homes in the area must be made on the collector street system, even if they are short-distance local trip such as visiting a friend in the adjoining subdivision. C. It means there is no alternative access to the neighborhoods in case of emergency or in case _ construction or repair work blocks the entrance road. The connection of a local street to the intersection of S.W. 121st and S.W. Gaarde should not be made for two reasons. A. Introducing a fourth leg to the intersection will reduce the efficiency of the future signalized intersection, increasing delays and likely creating the need for additional traffic lanes at the intersection in the long term. B. Second is protection of the neighborhood. When a major collector street like S.W. 121st is continued as a local street, we typically experience some operational problems. Lost drivers circulate through the residential areas looking for the continuation of the collector street. Drivers turning from the major street ENGINEERING COMMENTS : S93-02A AMES Page 1 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. ~ z Page No. APPE7UDfX 6iVE o frequently do not yield to drivers from the low-volume street. Signing does not seem to cure these problems. 2. Streets:" The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 18.164.030E of the Community Development Code for the local streets (i.e. S.W. 121st and Vista Circle). The applicant requests narrower streets and right-of-way and elimination of sidewalks on one side. Applicant has not shown compliance with the criteria for variance to street standards as required by CDC 18.160.120. The applicant has not shown that special conditions exist that require the variance nor that the variance is necessary for the proper design of the subdivision. Therefore, we recommend denial of the variance request and recommend that the applicant be required to install the proposed streets to local street standards. It should be noted that the City of Tigard is currently reviewing local street standards. In the near future, standards may be adopted which - allow the use of narrower streets under certain conditions. We recommend, if the City formally adopts new local street standards, the applicant should have the ability to utilize the new standards. CDC 18.164.030.A.1.a requires that developers improve all streets which front the proposed development. This subdivision has frontage on existing Gaarde Street. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map requires that Gaarde be extended westward along the north boundary of the subdivision. Therefore, the applicant should be required to provide the following with respect to S.W. Gaarde Street: A. Additional right-of-way along the frontage of S.W. Gaarde Street where it abuts the development; and B. Half-street improvements along the existing Gaarde Street frontage (from 121st to the east boundary of the subdivision); and C. The applicant should be required to share the cost of _ extending S.W. Gaarde Street west of S.W. 121st Avenue. 3. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located within S.W. Gaarde Street. The applicant is proposing to connect to and extend the sewer line to serve this development. The existing line has the capacity to handle this development. 4. Storm Drainage: The site slopes. towards the northeast. The applicant is proposing an underground piped system within the subdivision. The system will then divert the storm water to a water quality facility prior to being discharged into the public storm drainage system within S.W. C• ENGINEERING COMMENTS : S93-02A AMES Page 2 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 1'2- Page No. i e Y L L Gaarde Street. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. As mentioned above the applicant is proposing and should be required to construct on-site water quality facility.- Recommendations: The Engineering Department recommends this application be denied based on the inadequate transportation system. However, if the Planning Commission does grant approval of this proposal or some variation of this proposal we recommend that staff have sufficient time to propose detailed conditions of approval. We could still support approval of the applicant's original proposal with the conditions indicated in my previous memo. APPROVED: Randall R. Wool o, City Engineer dj/RH_S93-02A.CD ENGINEERING COMMENTS S93-02A AMES Page 3 LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. i.X Page No. 1 - ` - nCv } a7 Ice, • j~c~rtx.C~~ T~~-4.w.-S MEMORANDUM •6y. o Jt(,9) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ ~ •o~.~~.~.~ 0 71 Alw Z /T. /n ~rri~ awl TO: Planning Commission ~~"~'t./✓ ,,,ttt~~~ FROM: Jerry Offer, Development Review Planner~"`n~° T~-• AW:z ~z►w~<y DATE: April 5, 1993 ~~'`r''g' f i w,p aJA nSUBJECT: Revised Recommendation for Ames Orchard Subdivision Application SUB 93-0002 Cleo, 1y 6~,,,~J).,/ -s, zv 4i.V^.4 w /d Geww, Comments have been received from other City staff members with J-Irl' regard to the recommended conditions of approval for the proposed Ames Orchard II subdivision. These comments cause me to revise the Planning Division's recommendation as outlined below. First, it has been pointed out that the City of Tigard has typically required developers to construct half street improvements to Washington County roads, such as Gaarde Street east of SW 121st, rather than just partial improvements as Washington County staff typically recommends, and has had been recommended in my staff report of March 24, 1993. The City has required the developers of the Aspen Ridge, Woodford Estates, and rLe e Mountai ivisions to construct half stree improvemen SW Bul l Moun oa . L' equire a prospective developers of the Vista Point subdivision to construct half street improvements along that site's SW 121st venue frontage. The City also required the eve oper of the riing Crossing ~u division to improve the frontage of both SW Hall Boulevard and SW Bonita Road. We do not see anything that distinguishes the Ames Orchard II proposal from those developments. Therefore, staff recommends that recommended condition of approval #23 be revised as follows: 23. The applicant shall submit plans, obtain Washington County/City of Tigard Engineering Division approval, and obtain a facility permit from Washington County for construction of the following public improvements: a. Standard half-street improvements, . including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the site's SW Gaarde Street frontage, east of SW 121st Avenue. b. Any traffic improvements required by the City and County in response to the applicant's required traffic study. T LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. J} b- Page No. 0 A is ) i 'o c R Abb,~-4y{yy i T ~ 6d'M1 {~A V) #Xb•~`s4rp 5 0 V) z f:-4 0~ _....___._..__..m..._..____._~_. C,? am CO x C\) cs3 (aka d i i ' I 1 i ~ ` s _ ~ U !i ~ - (/~J ' /l''J~, tr.' V , ~ ~ it ' l ' ~ ~ 1 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i' ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ } W.. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i S - ~ r'i l1 y t ',t 1~ NON-~VENI t.AR ACCESS STRIP r' rr, w . r ' t . 195 ~ ~ ~ r ~ 94 9 90 ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ > > ~ 1 r ''ti, ~ ~ ~ ! i r ~ ~ ! ~ ~ S ~ S ~ ~ ~ s j I 4 ~ i Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ . _ Q 1 1 SF` 11 18.0 , 11.160 SF ~ fi 11 16 ~F t ~ t _ . , 1 9U S r ~ - \ ~ ~ J tom----. _ ~__.~~..y._...m_._F»....-.-.~.~.,_....._ ~y ~h j f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ , 4 ~ ~ ~Y i ` ~ ' . r i 1 6 0 94, 0 .90 - . 7 • E to ~ , , ' ~ ~ l 1 338 SF 5 i ►n I ~ ~ 9 , ? Cal W. ~ , ! 0{ g g i1':3 t ~ , i ~ ~ t • i + i ; i t17 I ` ~ ~ .2~ f € ~i Y~ \ ~ a ~ -a~~ F • ~ W ~ ~ F ~ 12 390 S 1 3 F 1 39~ S V ~ it F E 1473 F ~ ~ ~ it'3 N ~ ' O O oa ao t ; C 3 Cl- 11 0~0 SF 4, , I t ~ • ,~A • N [n~ , N w~ ~rrr mow. ~ ~l f ~ wrr ~+.si. r w~ wwr ~r w~r.~r Y` S ~ \ f ~ ~ i 'l ~ ` ~ ~ 1 ~'S • ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ a ~ ~ . 110~o sF • . _ ~ ~ 1 90 S ~ • 2 390 SF 12 390 2 3 y 4 11 473 SF ~ i a o i . 1 j Y _ i fg }T r , , 125 S {{S ~ , ~ ~ , 4 i `~7 ~ 1 118 '118 91 1 8 (',xaW~.....rrav mwaMi11YY~M~IP~IiiY.'~4 , L` r \ . xwu.:rvrwna+~~aaw.buaoer*e , n ~ n'mfi:aH..~ 9~ • ` ~ ~ _ _ ti.. - X fem. .ww ,pw ~ nrr err rrw 98 x~ ~ • { 114, ~o 'i .11 E i ~ 1 r ~ ~ d r ~ y~ A \ ! i 3 ~ ~ - f , ~ S ~ 12100 F F 121© ~F ~ ~ 100 ~ 12 0~0 s 2 ~ o o , o ~ } 1 n 13 X19 S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z = . pp ~ a x 11 ♦ 3 14 08 ! q ( ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i / ~ \ ~ ~ j ~ + g 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ 11 ni • \ V R ~ ~y I IU ~~O 0 ~ 105. ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~r.r r`r ~w rr a.rw:- ; nwrYr rr rr '~r~ ~Y ~~rr~ ~ ~ ~Y rr , r.wrrrrw.wr .w wi ~ ewr~ - , _ Y f ~ ~ _ k \ i ~ ~ ` ~ ti G \ 1 A k ( ~ _k d. , L ~ ~ J \ .1 ~ ~ a ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ i . ` ,t t .4 I ~ ~ \ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ C ~ ~ j ~ t~ ~ i ; h i ' 4 N i o ~ E ~J Q' ]C ~'1 ~ X t ~ a r ~ i / ~ 1 i i ~ ~ j ~ l 4./ ~ D i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i I i ! ~ . i i l i i ~ ~ V E ~ ~ r.~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ a ~ i ~ ` ~ , -.:nWF ~a-awasNUW , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i s'ib' ~ M1 ~ i f ~ 4 r i ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ I i ~ 1 ~ ~ ' 1 7~aC~ I f ~ ~ ~ r ! ~ ~ l~ t, ~ ` f, i f I ~ ~ ~ 1~1, , . i l ~ r E ~ ! M,. ~ E r~x t, I i i 5~ ~ i I 1 e ~M ,4 r11~ ~ 4 j i k r I I - ,III i ' { a i ~ i i i ~ ~ { II ' ~ i ~ ° t . i ~ ~ j ' i ~ k ; i ~ ~ ! ~ I I I I ~ / 1 ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ p i A4s. w.saw'm~» mw ..eawetwlWiYMWMU•Y*lri~ i ~4 ~ S~AL~: ~ .____..~.~..~,,.~._.._.~..._._.w....._.....~...~..~...._1_._..~..._.._.._Y.___.___._.~__...._._~_~ ~ 3) Q rl ' C. f a N C). LAT ~».~.....~.....a... W ~ .,~..w...._ nw~...~ , CUBA N0. ,BA NO. 93-147 Exh~t~t No. Mlbft No. Pa a No. _ !ge No. _.__161 9 C. Construction of the 121st/Gaarde intersection to County standards. d. Provide design of the Gaarde Road extension as set forth in UPAA agreement between the City and County. These improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards. Second, it has been suggested that recommended condition of approval #7 needs to allow for the possibility of Ames Orchard II subdivision being developed prior to the Vista Point subdivision to the north. It has been suggested that a fee in lieu of improvements to Gaarde west of SW 121st Avenue be collected rather than for the fee to be collected later through a local improvement district to be imposed upon the individual owners of lots within Ames Orchard II. Staff recommends that condition #7 be revised as follows: 7. The applicant shall share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of SW 121st Avenue., where this street will abut the site's northern property line. If the 51~b`m~ development of Ames Orchard II follows the development of S-A Vista Point subdivision to the north, the developer of b Vista Point shall be responsible for designing and constructing improvements to this section of road, with the exception of sidewalks which would be the responsibilitty of the Ames Orchard II developer. The developer of Ames Orchard II may be required to pay for up to one half of the cost of the improvements for this road segment if the City Council approves the creation of a reimbursement district. If Ames Orchard II precedes the development of Vista Point, the developer of Ames Orchard II shall prepare preliminary plans and a cost estimate for improving this segment of SW Gaarde Street consistent with the cent approval for Vista Point. The Ames Orchard II developer shall deposit with the City of Tigard a fee in lieu of improvements" equal to one half the estimated cost of those improvements, minus any credit for improvements constructed by Ames Orchard II. The City shall hold this fee to be relesed only for the construction of improvents for this road segment. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. Imo' r_ Page No. 07-23-93 Oa:20PM FR014 PR STON LAW FIRM TO 61^7297 P001/00" PRESTON" 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower 01 THORGiRIMSON 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue v Portland. Oregon 97204-3688 SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS ( `18 1-a- Telephone: (503) 228-3200 l~/ 7~~7 Cvu.v~ Gr l Facsimile: (503) 248-9085 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~ FACSIMILE COVER PAGE July 23, 1993 To: City Council Clerk From: Dan Kearns (1nclividusti) Chv of Tlaard No. of Pages: 4 (Company) (including Cover Page) 684-7297 Client/Matter No.: 31474-00001 (Telocopy No.) 639-4171 (Confirmation No.) Client/Matter Name: Ames_._ Orchard Homeowners Ass'n If yuu do not receive all of the pages, plcase contact our telecopy operator of (503) 2283200. ❑ Original will not be sent- 0 Original sent by U.S. mail. ❑ Original sent by overnight mall. COMMENTS: Please distribute the attached letter to all members of the City Council for the Tuesday (7/27/93) meeting. Also distribute a copy to Dick Bewsdorff, the City Planner. Thank you. DHK LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. O (*The information contained In this facsimile is confidential and may also be attorney-privileged. The information Is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to -hom it is addressed. It you are not the intended recipient, or the employee of agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination. rfictributlon or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by a collect telephone call to (503) 228-3200, and return the original message to us at the address above via the U.S. Postal Servicr_. Thank you. 07-23-93 03:20PI ROTA PRESTON L i FIRS TO 6841291 P0021004 PRESTON 3200 U.S. Bancorp Tower tll S.W. Pitch Avenue T14ORGPJ MSON Portland OR 97204-3688 SH 1 DLER Tclephona: (503) 228.3200 GATES ELLS Pscshrdw(503)248-9085 DANIEL H. KEARNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW July 23, 1993 Tigard city council P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 SENT BY FAX TO 684-7297 Re: Ames Orchard II Subdivision, SUB 93-0002, Hearing date: July 27, 1993 our file no. 31474-00001 Dear Council Members: This firm represents the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association, the group of residents living to the south of the property which is the subject of this application. We submit this letter in support of this application, but we also wish to place in the record specific objections to certain alternatives which have been presented by staff in its latest staff report (dated July 27, 1993). To begin with, the Ames Orchard Homeowners Association has worked closely with the developer/applicant, Mark Rockwell, throughout the application and planning commission process. We participated before the planning commission by submitting a 4/5/93 "Report to the Planning Commission" and a 6/7193 letter from James P. Welch. The Council should refer to those submissions for additional details. Throughout the process we have appreciated the applicant's responsiveness and ability to accommodate our needs. In this fashion, we hope the product will be a development proposal which even the planning staff will support. Regardless of what that design ultimately looks like, we have the following primary concerns: I. We oppose any design which includes a through connection between Ames I and Ames II by way of the Tract "B" or Lot No. 33. We agree that .Tract "8" is appropriate for pedestrian, bicycle and emergency access, but not through traffic. This has been our position from the beginning, and is a position shared by the applicant and the staff. on this basis, the planning commission decisively rejected the through connection between the Ames I and Ames II. However, we notice this design option has reappeared on page 2 of the July 27, 1993 staff report. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 - Page No. I ► o ,7-23 03: 20PM Oi~i pp ErTON LAW r i'iQ ~ O 6~4?297 4 P003/00: PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Tigard City Council July 23, 1993 Page 2 There are several compelling reasons to reject the connection option. First, all parties remain opposed to connecting Ames I and Ames II in this manner. Second, as noted, the planning commission rejected this option. Third, in 1989, the City commissioned the Bull Mountain Transportation Study, which analyzed then and future traffic in this part of Tigard. That study concluded that a connection between Gaarde strset and Bull Mountain Road by extending Hazelhill Drive would be unacceptably dangerous. Not only would such a connection route 5000 to 8000 cars per day through Ames I, a quite residential neighborhood with small interior streets, but there are significant sight distance problems at the Bull Mountain-Hazelhill Drive intersection. Any through- traffic connection between Ames I and Ames II would create an unacceptably dangerous traffic situation, in violation of Transportation Policy 8.1.1 and purposes A(4)(5)&(6) of the Tigard Development Code §18.160.010. We request that the city council decisively reject the possibility of a connection between Ames I and Ames II via the extension of Hazelhill Drive through Tract "B." 2. We oppose any design which includes, or leaves open the option of, extending 125th Street from the south, up along the western edge of Ames I and Ames II to a future connection with Gaarde Street. All parties have opposed any option which would have provided for or allowed the extension of 125th Street along the boundary of Ames I and Ames II developments. The present design for Ames II envisions a second access onto the proposed Gaarde extension through the northwestern corner of the development. We believe that, if a second access is required for Ames II, this access should be north to the proposed Gaarde extension, not south to 125th street. The northerly access option would be the safest, least expensive and most efficient means of providing the second access to Ames II, and would be adequate to serve the Walker properties should they be developed in the future. We request the City Council to decisively reject the possibility of extending 125th up from the south, and instead, assuming a second access point is needed at all, that second access should be through the northwestern corner of the Ames II property. The Council should also consider adding a condition of approval stating that the second access point would not be developed unless or until a development application for the Walker properties is filed. Subject to these concerns the Ames Orchard Homeowners' Association supports approval of the current design configuration. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. I) I 07-23-93 03:20FM FROM PRESTON LAW FIRM TO 6847297 1_004/004 PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Tigard city council July 23, 1993 Page 3 However, the Association prefers the design option involving the internal loop configuration, which was submitted to the planning commission June 7th. This is the design which staff characterizes as a "cul-de-sacs" - a characterization which we dispute and which is, at best, debatable. Also, should the City Council decide to ignore either of our two primary points, we specifically request that the record be left open so we can submit additional evidence and argument in support of our position. Thank you. sincerely, PRESTON THORGRIMSON SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS Daniel Kearns cc: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Director Mark Rockwell, applicant Tony Francis, AOHA (by fax) LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 15 Page No. i I L e cc~/dam K3 t~3 Ames Orchard Home Owners Association testimony to Tigard City Council SUB -93-002,VAR - 93-M July 26, 1993 The Ames Orchard Homeowners Association (AOHA) is in unanimous support of the modified loop street plan submitted by Ames / Rockwell which provides a second access to the proposed development through the northwest portion of the plate (Plan B). AOHA finds this proposal consistent with the written and oral testimony presented by members at the Planning Commission meetings of April 5th and June 7th. Specifically, • The modified plan meets section 8.1.1 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which calls for a safe and efficient street system. Access for emergency vehicles is immediately provided through two points, the 121st Street / Gaarde entrance and the emergency vehicle access via Hazelhill Dr. In addition, the northwest stub street would provide future access when properties to the west are developed. • The modified plan meets section 6.3.3 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan which "protects established areas with primacy consideration to preserve and enhance the character of adjacent established areas". The developers have consistently sought and incorporated inputs from AOHA members. • The modified plan is consistent with the findings of the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Study of 1990 commissioned by the City. The Study specifically recommended against the connection of Hazelhill Drive to 121st Street The City Planning Department has mentioned in the staff report that such a connection remains an option for the Council's consideration. This connection was specifically opposed by the NPO #3 and was rejected by the April 5th Planning Commission due the inevitable traffic and safety hazards it presented Hazelhill Drive simply isn't constructed to support increased traffic. The Kitterson traffic study submitted in the developer's original application supports the Northwest Bull Mountain Transportation Studyof 1990 at least in this regard. • The modified plan meets the Goal 12 Transportation Planning Rule by providing bicycle / pedestrian access between Hazelhill Drive and the proposed development thereby promoting non-motorized modes of transportation. Ames Orchard Homeowners Association members have worked closely and cooperatively with the developers in meeting the needs of both the proposed and surrounding neighbors. AOHA is also concerned about the effect of the northwestern future access to Gaarde St AOHA strongly recommends that the council APPROVE Plan B contingent upon the northwestern access being partially improved and stubbed as indicated on the submitted plate. AOHA requests that full improvement of the remaining access route shall not be required unless and until property to the west (Tax Lot 200) applies for development Furthermore, AOHA urges the City to agree not to condemn any portion of tax lot 200 for the purpose of completion of the remaining section of this access. If the Council finds a disagreement with the Plan B as submitted and proposed which is inconsistent with AOHA interests, then AOHA requests that the record be kept open for a period of 7 days so that additional testimony may be submitted. Respectfully submitted, James P. Welch President AOHA 14340 SW Haze OR. LUBA NO. 93-147 Exhibit No. 11, Page No. It 3 CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 8, 1993, 1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 93-147 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by messenger delivery. DATED: October 8, 1993. ithlerine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 8, 1993, 1 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 93-147 by first class mail on the following persons: Steven L. Pfeiffer Stoal, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Portland, Oregon 97204 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik, & Novack 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: October 8, 1993 LCatherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CITY OF TIGARD OREGON November 15, 1993 Land Use Board of Appeals 306 State Library Building 250 Winter Street, NE Salem, OR 97310 Re: LUBA No. 93-147 - Matrix Development, Petitioner/City of Tigard, Respondent & Robert Ames and Bull Mountain Land Development Co., Intervenor-Respondent Enclosed is a copy of "Exhibit B" as requested for the above- referenced LUBA Case Number. Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c: Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard Timothy V. Ramis 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ,~""'ar' ~ ~T - ~ \ f ~ ~ r 1 1 II i ~ I 1 ~ , i ~1 ~ ~ \ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i • • y _ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ \ i ` \ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ NON`' V£HI 25 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I O NON=~V£HI LAR, AC SS STRIP w~ ~ _ . 4 84 64 ~ ~ 84 ~ ~ ~ ,t ~ w , 1 \ ~ \ ~ 2~.~ 1 \ _ 1 ~ ,v ~ N - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ A, ~ ~ ~ 100 ~ w ~ ♦ w ..`ly ~ y , O 00 SF _ r 1a~o ~ , - , 1 o,oao sF ~ o0o sF ~ 10 00o sF _ 1 13 ~ ~ a, ~ V t~ t" r 1 ~ A ,ooo SF e- ~ t- t r - 11 122 SF I 0 234 F w~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 5 F A ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~r t I ~ I ~ , A. i ~ w w ~r ~ "I , ~ \ ~ ~ ' , 3 ~ ,l ~~86 i $4 ,e 4 / I w, w w .1 ww~\1~1I~II r w w' A ~ \ ~ ~ 72 ~ ~4 ~ 84 ~ 84 _ 1 , 2 , ' .~___~_____v._..-....._._.__._~___._ _..._._,..e_.__~ ._._.,_t_._...__ .........~..~._~__...,s~__..,.__....._e . ........_.r _ ,,...a..__,...._w_.,..~,~..___._, _.._...~_._.__.~.,,,_.___~_____.__.e._.___._._....._.._._.__.~ t 4 k I ~ _ 1 ~ O ~ ~j` _ `-°w 2 \ \ \ ~ - ) r 1 91 11$ cA. N I \ ~ , ~ ~'i ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ 12 800 S ~ d-~. ~ o , o, 11 00 F ~ ~ ~ 048SF~, o ~ o I j , ~ ~ (p 1- ~ \ r s ~ ~ ~ . i ~ 11 ~ ~ I ~ I \ I ~ ~ \ \ ~ 300 125' ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ww www~u.w s x \ t ~ ~t . ~ \ \ ~ , \ ~ ~ w w w..r wr w ~ ~ ti v 105 ~ 8 , i ~ . i ao I ~ \ I \ , ~ ! I 'a 12 464 SF \ ~ ~ I \ ~ ~ o\ \ 1 00 SF` o I oo ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 10 458 SF ~ , ~ ! Rq ' A I ~ I ~ t\ ~ ! i 1 120 ~ r •wM11~M1 r r~ aID r i \1 i N ~ k, ~ 1 _..,...~......,.~y..,~,_._.____._____ (~i r w I ~ ~ ~ ~ 14191 SF 400 i ti ~ 9 11 I r ~ ~ ~L ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ; ~ ~ ~ r - ~ ~ awl t . _ _ , , ~ , 1~ ~ 534 F 1 ~ ~ 11 0 S 1 ~ .n ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o r- ~ ~ ~ r-- ~ 13 739 F ~ , i >.I A ~ 1, \ ~ ,I ~ \ f I ` ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..195 110 ,r ~ ~ f w w ~*•ww w Cs arw~~ 111 w w . wi►, w a.1r1r #w w a1 .1 l ~ "4 ~ \ ~ \ ~ r' \ i \ r . ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I i 0 ~ , I r ~ - I.:1. - goo I 600 J DEVELOPMENT PLAN i EXHIBIT _ a/. 6200 6100 j 6 I' "PLAN B" i ~ ~ \ ~y - _ _ _ _ _ _ o , , , ~ ~~0 2 3 0 0 ; , - i S.W. DUCHILLY COURT i ' i ~ ~ 800 1100 ~ F_..~..~ Steven L. Pfeiffer Jack L. Orchard Stoal, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray Ball, Janik, & Novack 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Portland, OR 97204 Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney Land Use Board of Appeals O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 306 State Library Building 1727 NW Hoyt Street 250 Winter Street, NE Portland, OR 97204 Salem, OR 97310 BEFORE TFE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS ' OF THE STATE OF OREGON MATRIX DEVELOPMENT. ) Petitioner, ) LUBA qo. 93-147 V. ) ) CITY OF TIGARD, ) ) ' Respondent, ) and ) r ROBERT AMES and BULL MOUNTAIN ) LAND DEVE:LOP14ENT CO., } ' Intervenors-Respondents. } ' - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Pahl R. Hribernick_, OSB #`80271 Ty K. Wyr:ian, OSB #92508 Black, Helterline James M. Coleman OSB #76101 Suite 1200 O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & 707 SW Washington Street Corrigan Portland, Oregon 97205 1727 N11 Hoyt Street Telephone: (503) 224-°5560 Portland, Oregon 97209 Of Attorneys for Petitioner Telephone: (503) 222-4402 Of Attorneys for Respondent ' Jack L. Orchard, GSB m72188 Ball, Janik & Novack ' 1100 One :Main Place 101 SW Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 ' Telephone: (503) 228-2525 Of Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondents 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS i Paae I. PETITIONER'S STANDING . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 III. JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR . . . . . . . . 1 A. Resoonse to Sixth Assignment of Error . . . 6 1 RESPONDENT CITY PROPERLY NOTICED APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THOSE CRITERIA IN ITS FINDINGS. 4 B. Response to Seventh Assignment of Error. 11 1 THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT (UPAA) DOES NOT SET OUT APPROVAL 1 CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THIS SUBDIVISION APPEAL UNDER THE TCDC. IN DECIDING UPON THAT APPEAL RESPONDENT CITY DID ALL THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER 1 THE UPAA. C. Response to Eighth Assignment of Error . . . 14 1 THE LANGUAGE OF CONDITION 6 ENSURES THE EQUITABLE SHARING OF COSTS OF THE 1 EXTENSION OF SW GAARDE STREET AND FULFILLS APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIREMENTS ' OF THE TCDC. V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 APPENDIX, • Portion of transcript of July 27, 1993, City ' Council meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. I • Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies and Tigard Community Development Code . . . . . . . . . App. II 1 • Urban Planning Area Agreement . . . . . . App. III i 1 ' TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGES Boldt v. Clackamas County, 107 Or App 619, 622, 623 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' Cummins v. Washington County, 22 Or LUBA 129 (1991) . . . 5 Newcomer v. Clackamas County, 92 Or App 174, 187 (1988) . 3 Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695, 712 (1993). . 4 ' Wuester v. Clackamas County, 25 Or LUBA 425, 428 (1993) . 4, 5, 6 ' STATUTES ORS 197.763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 ORS 197.763 (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4 ' ORS 197.830(10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ORS 197.835(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ORS 227.173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ' TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 . . . . . . . . . 16 ' Tigard Community Development Code § 18.48.050(4)(d). . 10 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.48.050(4)(a). . 11 ' Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.088 . . . 11 ' Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.96 . . . 10 Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.102 . . . 10 ' Tigard Community Development Code § 18.102.015(0). . . 10 Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.106. . . 10 ' Tigard Community Development Code 5118.106.020 . . . . 10 ' Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.108 . . . 9 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.108.020(0). . . 9 ' ii r Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.114 . . . 9 ' Tigard Community Development Code § 18.114.020 . . . . 9 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.114.030 . . . . 9 Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.150 . . . 9 ' Tigard Community Development Code § 18.160.030 . . . . 8, 9 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.160.060 . . . . 8 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.160.060(A). . . 8 ' Tigard Community Development Code § 18.160.070 . . . . 8 Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.164 . . . 6, 7, 9 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.164.030(A). . . 15 Tigard Community Development Code § 18.164.030(A)(1)(c)(iii)16 'Tigard Community Development Code § 18.164.100 . . . . 7 ' iii 1 I. PETITIONER'S STANDING ' Respondent -City of Tigard adopts and incorporates by reference Intervenors-Respondents' response on the issue of Petitioner's standing, as set forth in Intervenors-Respondents' ' Brief, dated January 10, 1994. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ' Respondent adopts and incorporates by reference Intervenors-Respondents' statement of the case. III. JURISDICTION ' Respondent agrees that the Board has jurisdiction to review the challenged decision. ' IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Respondent adopts and incorporates by reference ' Intervenors-Respondents' responses to the assignments of error. ' This brief further addresses the Petitioner's ability to bring its assignments of error before the Board, and comments on three ' of those assignments, because of the significance of these issues to the integrity of the City's land use regulatory process. "Raise it or waive it." The issues which may be raised in a petition for review are "limited to those raised by any ' participant. before the local hearing body as provided in ORS 197.763." ORS 197.830(10). This Board's scope of review is ' similarly limited. ORS 197.835(2). None of Petitioner's ' assignments of error are eligible for consideration here because at the hearing below Petitioner failed to raise them "with sufficient specificity so as to afford the governing body . . . and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond." ORS ' 1 197.763(1). While the facts at hand are distinct from those ' which commonly call for consideration of the so-called "raise it or waive it" rule, this distinction makes the appeal easier to dispose of. ' Consideration of the "raise it or waive it" rule generally focuses on petitioners who have only implicitly raised ' a given issue, in either written or oral testimony, before the ' local body. As such, the extent to which a petitioner may have explicitly neglected to raise an issue or issues has received ' less attention. Indeed, the context in which the testimony was received, i.e., as a proponent or as an opponent of the ' application, can generally be assumed. In this case, however, these threshold issues demand consideration. ' Affirmative Waiver. The public hearing on the appeal of ' subdivision denial which is at issue appeared as Agenda Item 5 of the Tigard City Council meeting of July 27, 1993. R. 53. ' The agenda delineates the different portions of that public hearing, i.e., declarations and staff report. The public testimony portion of the hearing is further divided into three ' phases, "proponents (support the appeal)," "opponents (oppose the appeal)," and "rebuttal." R. 53. It is clear from the record that Matrix appeared as a proponent of the local appeal. This contention is borne out in ' two ways. First and foremost is the fact that its representative at the hearing, Steven Pfeiffer, signed in as a proponent of Agenda Item 5. R. 68. The sign in sheet offers ' the hearing body, as well as other parties, a witness' most basic representation as to the nature of his or her testimony. 2 By signing in as a proponent, Matrix' representative clearly ' indicated to both Respondent and Intervenors-Respondents a ' posture on the subdivision appeal completely at odds with that presented to this Board. In addition, Pfeiffer's testimony ' before the council did little to detract from this representation, as he introduced himself as appearing "on behalf ' of matrix, in support with one proviso." See App. I (emphasis added). The threshold issue raised by these facts is that of affirmative waiver. The notion of an affirmative waiver was discussed by the Court of Appeals in Newcomer v. Clackamas ' County, 92 Or App 174 (1988). "County states: 'it is important to draw the distinction between a LUBA petitioner who simply has not raised an issue before the local body and one who affirmatively states below that he agrees with the opposing side . . . a ' party should not be allowed to argue on appeal that black is white where the parties specifically agreed below that black was. black.' We agree. Nothing in the statutes or our decisions . . . sanctions luring another party into an abbreviated presentation at the local level through the pretense of abandoning an issue." Id. at 187. The testimony of Petitioner's representative at the council hearing, explicitly stating "support" for the local ' appeal subject to "one proviso," clearly implicates this rule. Save for the matter of that proviso, Petitioner cannot gainsay that it falls neatly into the category described in Newcomer, ' supra, "one who affirmatively states below that he agrees with the opposing side." ' Affirmative waiver is a matter of character, not degree. It is the character of Petitioner's testimony before the Council which clearly exemplifies a waiver of all but one isolated issue 3 in this matter. The scope of this Board's review of the ' petition must be limited accordingly. Impact of Wuester opinion. Petitioner attempts to use Wuester v. Clackamas County, 25 Or LUBA 425 (1993), to support ' its post-hoc rationale for changing its stripes in its petition. The Wuester opinion, however, stated no desire to upset the underlying purposes of the "raise it or waive it" rule, as they have been carefully delineated by the state's appellate authorities. ' In Boldt v. Clackamas County, 107 Or App 619 (1991), the Court of Appeals discussed some of the issues which are ' important in determining whether a matter has been raised with sufficient specificity. It explicitly adopted a portion of this ' Board's findings which stated that "[t]he purpose of ORS 197.763(1) is to prevent unfair surprise." Id. at 622. The Court of Appeals went on to interpret the statute to require "no more than fair notice to adjudicators and opponents." Id. at 623. The concepts of notice and surprise are important to 1 consider, as they focus not upon what is said but what is understood. They are issues which must be determined primarily ' based upon the perceptions of other parties. This Board's opinion in Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993), supports this contention. There, the Board described the required notice as a matter of "enabl[ing] a reasonable decision maker to understand the nature of the issue." Id. at 712. As ' such, it is the hearing body's perception that drives determination of the sufficiency of an issue's discussion. ' 4 Consideration of the record leads to the inescapable ' conclusion that the Respondent perceived at the close of the ' hearing that, aside from reservations about the sixth condition of approval (Condition 6), R. 27, Petitioner would be satisfied ' with, indeed would support, approval. Although it is now clear that the Petitioner disavows this earlier position, it is ' equally clear that any reasonable decision maker would have so ' understood at that time. It is upon analysis of these purposes that critical distinctions between this case and Wuester arise. In Wuester, the Petitioner clearly raised several issues at the local ' hearing, and can be reasonably inferred to have appeared as a opponent. Wuester, at 428. In this case, as discussed above, ' the Petitioner clearly appeared as a proponent and affirmatively ' waived all but one isolated issue. Furthermore, Petitioner was represented by counsel experienced in the conduct of local land ' use hearings and knowledgeable of the reasonable expectations and understandings of local governing bodies. ' As in Cummins v. Washington County, 22 Or LUBA 129 ' (1991), "Petitioner cites nothing in the record to show these issues were raised below." In fact, the record contains no 1 reference on Petitioner's part to any issues beyond those specified in its conditional support of the local appeal. Its entire argument on the waiver issue rests upon a rather casual ' reference to Wuester. To allow Petitioner to bring its gamut of issues before ' this Board on a record such as that at hand would undermine any notion of preventing unfair surprise in these proceedings. ' 5 Respondent advocates an interpretation of Wuester which does not undermine the well-understood purposes of the "raise it or waive ' it" rule. A. Response to Sixth Assignment of Error. ' RESPONDENT CITY PROPERLY NOTICED APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THOSE CRITERIA IN ITS FINDINGS. ' Petitioner's claim under this assignment relates to sufficiency of the City's notice under ORS 197.763. This assignment.of error is a threshold question because if the City followed the requirements of ORS 197.763, then Petitioner is precluded from raising new issues before the Board. The City ' did comply with ORS 197.763, as well as Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 in identifying applicable approval ' standards and preparing notice of those standards. The following addresses those points raised in pages 27-34 Petitioner's Brief. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1, relating to physical ' limitations, is listed as an applicable approval standard on the City's notice. R. 56. ' Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.2.1, relating to water quality, is implemented in Tigard Community Development Code (TCDC) Chapter 18.164 on drainage and sewer requirements, and is ' not an approval standard because its provisions are found in the code. TCDC Chapter 18.164 is listed as an approval standard in ' the City's notice. R. 56. Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.3.1, relating to noise t pollution, is not an approval standard unless the subdivision is in a "noise congested area." There is no reference in ' 6 1 Comprehensive Plan Section 4.3 to noise generated by major ' collectors. In fact, the finding of that section states that ' "noise levels for almost all residential districts in Tigard appear to be within acceptable levels." There are major ' collectors in some of those neighborhood districts. The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map (Figure 3, Volume 1) shows ' a network of major collectors within the city. The findings under Section 4.3 mention specific streets that have the highest noise levels, but none are residential streets. For all these reasons, the City was not required to include Policy 4.3.1 as an approval standard in the notice. ' Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1, relating to public facilities, requires the City to establish conditions of ' approval regarding storm drainage. This policy is implemented, ' as called for in Implementation Strategy 2, in TCDC § 18.164.100. Chapter 18.164 is listed as an applicable approval standard in the City's notice. R. 56. Comprehensive Plan Policies 7.5.1 and 7.5.2, relating to t police protection, are not approval standards because the plan ' does not require police department review of subdivisions. Rather, Implementation Strategy l.b requires police review of ' permit applications and emergency signage during design review, planned development or conditional development application, not for preliminary subdivision plats. ' Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.6.1, relating to fire protection, is not an approval standard for subdivision ' preliminary plats. The application is required to include purpose, type, location and size of domestic water and fire ' 7 hydrants, among other things. TCDC S 18.160.070. As discussed ' below, this code section is a preliminary procedural ' requirement, which is not part of the decision making process. Implementation Strategy 1 requires that the City and ' private developers coordinate with the fire district. Fire code compliance under the supervision of the fire district will be ' required prior to the issuance of building permits, not as part of the preliminary plat process. ' The final decision explains that there will be adequate ' water pressure to the subdivision, because the Tigard Water District will require the developer to connect to an existing 8- ' inch water main. R. 14. Petitioner's reference to "serious concerns" about water pressure, Pet. 31, fails to note the ' solution to those concerns. TCDC S 18.160.030, relating to preliminary application conference and reviewing the application for completeness, is a ' preliminary procedural matter that is not an approval standard. ORS 197.763 applies to a complete application that has been t scheduled for a public hearing. The notice requirements are to ' allow the applicant and opponents a chance to respond to the city's approval standards on the complete application. The preliminary requirements are no longer applicable. TCDC S 18.160.060, relating to approval standards for preliminary plat, is listed as an approval standard in the City's notice as 18.160.060(A). R. 56. The entire decision is based upon the City's response to this general standard. R. 9. ' TCDC S 18.160.070, relating to preliminary plat submission requirements, is another preliminary procedural ' 8 matter that is not an approval standard. For the reasons stated above relative to TCDC 18.160.030, the notice required under ORS ' 197.763 need not include this preliminary code section. The Petitioner overlooks the oversized copies of the site plan and ' area circulation plan submitted by the applicant, R. 107, and the preliminary plat (Plan B) also submitted by the applicant. R. 51. TCDC Chapter 18.164, relating to street and utility ' improvement standards, is listed in the City's notice as an ' applicable approval standard. R. 56. It is addressed at length in the final decision. R. 18-24. ' TCDC Chapter 18.150, relating to tree protection, is listed in the City's notice as an applicable approval standard. ' R. 56. It is addressed in the final decision. R. 17. ' TCDC Chapter 18.114, relating to signs, is listed as an approval standard in the city's notice. R. 56. It is not ' addressed in the City's final decision because there were no signs proposed. The chapter requires a permit prior to sign installation, TCDC § 18.114.020, but signs are not required for subdivision approval where no sign is proposed. The applicant here could not install a sign without applying for a permit under TCDC § 18.114.030. TCDC Chapter 18.108, relating to access, egress and circulation, is not an approval criterion for a preliminary ' plat. TCDC § 18.108.020(0) requires a scaled access plan prior to issuance of a building permit. It is premature at this ' preliminary stage of a subdivision development. Therefore, it is not required in the notice. 9 TCDC Chapter 18.106, relating to off-street parking and ' loading, is not an approval criterion for a preliminary plat. ' TCDC § 18.106.020 requires a parking plan prior to issuance of a building permit. It is premature at this preliminary stage of a subdivision development. Therefore, it is not required in the notice. ' TCDC Chapter 18.102, relating to visual clearance areas, is not an approval criterion for a subdivision preliminary plat. ' TCDC § 18.102.015(C) requires a site plan be submitted for approval prior to construction. It is premature at this preliminary stage of a subdivision development. Therefore, it is not required in the notice described in ORS 197.763. TCDC Chapter 18.96, relating to additional yard setback, ' is not an approval criterion for a preliminary plat. Setbacks ' are required when the actual building sites are chosen. It is premature at this preliminary stage of a subdivision ' development. Therefore, it is not required in the notice described in ORS 197.763. This notwithstanding, there is ' sufficient information in the record to show that the lots in question have enough depth to meet the additional setback ' requirement. R. 51. TCDC Chapter 18.96 requires an additional 30 feet setback from the center line of Gaarde Street, plus the normal 15 feet ' rear yard setback required by the R-3.5 zoning district, TCDC § ' 18.48.050 (4)'(d) , for a total setback of 45 feet. The front yard faces the new subdivision, because the lots will not have access to Gaarde Street. The site plan shows the centerline of the existing Gaarde Street is 25 feet from the property line, which 10 means only five additional feet need be taken on the subject f property. R. 51. Therefore, combining the five feet of additional setback ' with the 15 feet required yard, the building would have to be ' sited at least 20 feet from the northern boundary on those lots adjacent to Gaarde Street. The front yard setback is a minimum of 20 feet. TCDC § 18.48.050(4)(a). The lots in question are 119 feet deep. After allowing for both required front and rear setbacks (40" f6et total), there is 79 feet remaining for building placement. TCDC Chapter 18.088, relating to solar access, is listed as an approval standard in the City's notice, R. 56, and is addressed in the final decision, R. 14-15. For the reasons stated above, none of Petitioner's alleged violations of notice requirements hold up under scrutiny. The applicant and any interested parties were given ' adequate notice by the City of the proposed subdivision approval standards. Petitioner does not allege any other violations of the requirements of ORS 197.763: B. Response to Seventh Assignment of Error. 1 THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEKENT (UPAA) DOES NOT SET OUT APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THIS SUBDIVISION APPEAL UNDER THE TCDC. IN ITS DECISION ON THAT APPEAL RESPONDENT CITY DID ALL THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE UPAA. The UPAA. In the context of its discussion in the Petition for Review, the UPAA sets out three basic requirements of the originating agency, in this case the City; viz, to include the county's comments in the staff report, to respond to any concerns addressed by the county in the staff report or 11 orally at the hearing, and to give the comments consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. Pet. App. ' 4. Petitioner does not accurately paraphrase these requirements, and fails to support its contention that the UPAA requires "specific findings" by the City if the comments are not ' followed. Pet. 35.; See App. III, UPAA S II (B)(3). Examination of the record illustrates how the City ' complied with the requirements. The staff report and the final ' order both publish the county's comments as required. R. 86a- 88; 10-11. The City's final order includes several conditions of approval that speak directly to the county's concerns. Conditions of approval number 5, 6, 21 and 22, R. 26-27, correspond to county comments B.b, B.c, B.d and B.e, R. 10-11, 1 respectively. The direct conformity of certain of the County's language clearly indicates that the City respondeu. to the ' comments. The record also includes other evidence of staff consideration of the county's comments, as well as discussion 1 about the issues that concerned the county, i.e., improvements to portions of Gaarde Street and 121st Street. See R. 103-105; ' 106-108; 18-24. The agreement does not contain enforcement procedures. ' The county's only remedy is to appeal the city's final decision. ' Pet. App. 4. Washington County did not exercise its right to appeal; nor did it intervene in this action. 1 Respondent is, of course, called on to approve or deny permit applications "based on standards and criteria, which 12 shall be set forth in the development ordinance." ORS 227.173. ' Given that the UPAA does not constitute an approval criterion, ' Petitioner's assignment of error fails entirely. Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.3.1. Petitioner's reference ' to Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.3.1 is puzzling. This Policy is not an approval standard, and Petitioner does not assert it ' as such or explain why it is germane to this application. Pet. 37. The Policy is not mentioned in the Seventh Assignment of Error or in Petitioner's Argument Summary, Pet. 35, and Petitioner does not claim this policy is required under the UPAA. r The policy is not applicable to individual land use applications. Rather, it is an internal direction to City ' staff. Accordingly, the policy was not listed as an approval ' criterion in the final decision, and the City was not required to address it specifically. ' Petitioner cites the Policy to illustrate the City's concern with 121st and Gaarde Streets. The record contains ' numerous discussions and references to improvements to these streets. See R. 103-105; 106-108; 18-24.1 1 Without mentioning Policy 11.3.1, the City ' nonetheless -has considered the issues which it addresses, as follows: a) Because this is a new development, the street improvements to Gaarde and 121st will not be directly impact "existing residential structures," and this subsection is not generally applicable. Conditions 5 & 6 require the dedication of additional right of way along Gaarde Street. R. 27. Because the land for these street improvements will be taken from this development, there will be no effect on existing dwellings. The final decision states that the proposed 13 C. Response to Eighth Assignment of Error. ' THE LANGUAGE OF CONDITION 6 ENSURES THE EQUITABLE SHARING OF COSTS OF THE EXTENSION OF SW GAARDE ' STREET AND FULFILLS APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE TCDC. As indicated above, Petitioner explicitly limited its concern on the local appeal to one issue. Petitioner's final assignment of error is the only one which relates to that issue which Petitioner did raise in its appearances before the City. However, Petitioner's argument relevant to the eighth assignment of error confuses crucial matters regarding the t relevant law. Petitioner piecemeals, and in the process misquotes, Condition 6. See Pet. 26. Full and accurate quotation of that condition of approval is as follows: "The applicant shall participate in a reimbursement ' district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street west of 121st where it abuts the north property line. Exact cost allocations or percentages are to be determined through subsequent proceedings. If the Ames Orchard II subdivision precedes development of property abutting SW Gaarde to the north, the final plat shall be conditioned to show, and additional documents will be required to be recorded, giving notice that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share in the cost of extending SW Gaarde along the frontage of the subdivision." R. 27 (emphases added). ' subdivision as conditioned meets all required setbacks and applicable use and dimensional ' standards. R. 16. § b) The city staff considered traffic flow and possible ' negative effects on other intersections. R. 103- 105; 106-108. § c) The final decision includes discussion of the need for these street improvements because of the residential growth in this part of Tigard. R. 18- 23. 14 Matrix' representative before the Council stated that its ' "sole concern is that we had [sic] some assurance of an ' equitable situation in the funding of Gaarde along the frontage of this site." See App. I. The City addressed this concern in ' Condition 6, wherein. it required that "the applicant shall participate in a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism to share the cost of extending SW Gaarde Street." R. 27. Petitioner summarizes its discussion of this assignment ' of error with reference to directives of the Comprehensive Plan and the TCDC which, it claims, "require current construction of r road improvements." Pet. 39-40 (emphasis in original). Closer examination of the provisions cited to support this contention ' reveals otherwise. ' Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1 states that "[t]he City shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth development." This policy in no way mandates that road construction be contemporaneous with development. Rather, it ' requires the City to plan for such improvements, which, in regard to SW Gaarde Street, it clearly has done. ' Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.3 does set out a mandate on individual development approval, viz., "that individual ' developers participate in the improvement of existing streets, ' curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impact." The TCDC implements this policy at § 18.164.030(A). That code section clearly allows the City to "accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements" under certain 15 conditions. One of these conditions is that "due to the nature ' of existing development on. adjacent properties it is unlikely 1 that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under ' review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity." TCDC S 18.164.030(A)(')(c)(iii). Contrary to Petitioner's statements, the requirement upon the developer to participate in the improvement of the existing street does exist in condition 6, as called for in that policy. Implementation Strategy 5 clearly does not set out the sort of requirement which Petitioner thinks it does. It merely 1 states that "necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal." Furthermore, Petitioner's focus on the "zone of benefit" process described in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 misses the point. The condition explicitly requires either a reimbursement district or other financial mechanism. Formation of the district may be subject to the discretion of the Council, but fulfillment of the condition is not subject to anyone's discretion. This critical point is completely missed in the Petition for Review. ' 16 VI. CONCLUSION ' For the reasons set forth above, Respondent City of Tigard respectfully asks the Board to deny Petitioner's assignments.of error and affirm the City's decision. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of January, 1994. O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By : ' Ty--K-~Wl man, OSB 92508 James M. Coleman, OSB #76101 tkw/tigard/matrix/luba.brf(1/10/94) ' 17 pPPEND~ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3E_A'T BY: Xerox Tele::;.,er ?021 ;1'x25-S3 ;11:41AM DDOD 2 j { TRANSCRIPT OF STEVE PFEIFFER TESTIMONY City Council Hearing on July 27, 1993 [SIDE T:MEE, COMIT 013) Pfeiffer: Mayor Edwards, members of the Council, my name is stove Pfeiffer. I'm here tonight on behalf of matrix Development. Address: 900 S.W. Fifth, Suite 2300, Portland 97204. We're here tonight, or I'm here tonight, on behalf.of matrix in support with one proviso. As many, if not all of ' you, or at least most Of you recall, Matrix received preliminary plan approval for the property just to the north of this under the name of Vista Point earlier this Spring.. That proposal included the construction of Gaarde through a substantial portion of that property. As a result of the revisions that finally came out of the t final Council approval, it stops about 140 feet short of the north boundary of that. That portion of Gaarde runs along the northern boundary, as the staff pointed out, of this project. our sole concern is that we had some assurance of an equitable situation in the funding of Gaarde along the frontage of this site, not the entire extension as it lies through our site, of course, but only along that frontage. In the same manner that we were required to construct )n-site, we'd like to ensure that at least as orl-jinally proposed by staff as I understand it, we have a half-street improvement requirement imposed on this project, the remainder of course to be borne ' by Vista Point. That stems from a provision in the Code, just for your reference, 18.164.030(x) which requires as the staff points out in the reports both for this project and Vista Point, ' that streets within.a development and streets adjacent shall be approved in accordance with the requirements of this title being code. Just as that was imposed upon us initially back before ' Gaarde was a specific alignment-in your transportation, back when it was what we referred to as the black hole, it indicated that at some point, at some location, there would be a connection between Gaarde through this area to connect with walnut. It was later modified, of course, to require the specific alignment route as depicted now in the plan. We're simply asking 5~A'T 9Y:Xerox iele:c'ier 7021 :12-26-SS ;11:41A11 OODD 3 .R H ' the provision that I just citad that we that under p have the same kind of half-street improvement ' obligation carried by this project as we borne ours and if you recall in our case, there was talk about the establishment of a zone benefit and all. The last point I'd make is a point that Dick ' brings up. My testimony to the Planning commission turned on a staff memorandum that was submitted to the Planning Commission in the form of a revised recommendation dated April 5, 1993, and it was submitted to the Planning Commission on that date. It had in-it a specific condition to deal with this issue and I think what I'll do is hand this in at the clove so you have it in front of you since it is a bit dated. And what that condition in essence does is it recognizes that there may be a question of timing as to which of ' these two developments were to proceed. Recognizing thatif one were to proceed in advance of the other, we could do in this case a cash deposit in lieu of for the half-street improvements to be applied later to the construction of the full improvement. That's the approach that was on the table at the time and at the Planning Commission last time, and that's still the approach that we can endorse without question. And the specific language was provided by staff in that memo. Dick points out tonight another approach, I think, and it hasn't really been discussed yet but it was ' the reimbursement approach. And I guess without hearing more of that, I think the more certaialy favorable approach from out standpoint is the one that staff originally recommended in April. The zone of benefit as it applies in this case, depending on how it works is unclear there so until I, we hear more of it it's real difficult for me to endorse that and until frankly I can ' explore that with my clients, it would be difficult for me to endorsement it. I'm not going to ask for a continuance to belabor this process ' :-to get that information so I'll leave you with the testimony that we would prefer the condition Number 7 which is reflected in this April memo. ' With that, any questions? I'd be happy to answer. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Jim Welch. 1 MDR/01/DOel/C2 2 APPENDIX II 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ' This chapter addresses Statewide Planning Goal #1: 'To develop a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.' Tigard is now well known for its active citizen participation program; primarily with the Neighborhood Planning Organizations. Through the drafting and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, these organizations contributed their time and energy developing Tigard's plan. ' Plan policies have been prepared to preserve the continuity of Tigard's active citizen involvement program and to ensure that citizens will continue to have access to information that enables them to identify, understand, and have input ' into the planning issues related to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Additional information on this topic is available in the 'Comprehensive Plan Report: Citizens Involvement.' ' Findings • .Throughout the development of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, the City has actively sought the participation of Neighborhood Planning organizations and other citizens groups. • The Neighborhood Planning Organizations and the Committee for Citizen ' Involvement met on a monthly basis throughout the Comprehensive Plan revision process. • Continued citizen participation in all aspects of land use planning helps ' to ensure that City government meets the needs of Tigard's citizens. In order to participate in land use planning decisions, citizens need to have access to information which enables them to become aware of and informed about planning issues and City policies. It is essential that this j information be made available to all citizens in an understandable form. • Land use planning education is important to promote and stimulate interest ' in the citizen participation process during all phases of planning. POLICY ' 2.1.1 THE CITY SHALL Y1AINTAIN AN ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND SHALL ASSURE THAT CITIZENS WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall periodically review notification requirements and methods to ' determine if they adequately provide notice to affected citizens and revise these requirements and methods as necessary. l ' 11 - 9 ' 2. The City shall continue to assist and support any City Council recognized citizen group in providing adequate meeting places, distribution of materials, policy direction and staff involvement. 3. Additional citizen task forces shall be appointed by the City Council, as the need arises, to advise the City with regard to Comprehensive Plan issues. POLICY ' 2.1.2 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: ' a. THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS SHALL BE THE PRIMARY MEANS FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAM; b. WHERE APPROPRIATE, OTHER INVOLVEMENT TECHNIQUES WILL BE USED; AND ' c. THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM FACILITATORS SHALL SERVE AS•THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM AND FOR WORKING WITH ' THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS IN RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN THE PROGRAM. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Committee for Citizen involvement shall conduct their citizen involvement programs in accordance with the needs of the Tigard community ' and LCDC Goal =1 requirements. A. review and evaluation of each group's programs and processes shall be reported to the Planning Commission and City Council on a yearly basis. ' 2. The City Council, the Plannina Commission, and the Committee for Citizen J Involvement shall recommend, as needed, additional methods for involving citizens in the planning process. POLICY 2.1.3 THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT INFORMATION ON LAND USE PLANNING ISSUES IS t AVAILABLE IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE FORM FOR ALL INTERESTED CITIZENS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The Citv shall continue to publish information on land use planning issues in a form accessible to all citizens. (Ord. 93-19) II - 10 1 ' 3. NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE ' This chapter addresses a broad range of topics all having to do with the natural resources located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area. This chapter reflects the concerns expressed in several of the Statewide Planning Goals including: Goal #3 - Agricultural Lands; Goal #4 - Forest Land; Goal #5 - Open ' Spaces; Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources; Goal #7 - Areas subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards; and Goal #8 Recreational Needs. ' The natural environments within the planning area offer many opportunities for a unique and healthy urban development. Those environments, when viewed as a series of systems rather than isolated features, will provide Tigard with those elements necessary for a healthy place in which to live, work and play. ' Floodplain greenways, for example, can provide the community with an excellent system of open space links between neighborhoods and services, in addition to providing a relatively inexpensive system for storm water runoff. It is to the community's benefit that consideration be given to both the opportunities and the ' limitations of the various environments within the planning area. The natural environments included within the planning area all have their own respective limitations with regard to urbanization. Development pressure upon ' lands with such limitations can have profound effects on the environment. Erosion of steep slopes caused by inappropriate development, for instance, does not occur as an isolated incident. Soil type, permeability, vegetation and drainage all play major roles in and are effected by development. Likewise, the t effects of inappropriate development located within the floodplain areas could have adverse effects on properties both up and down stream from the development site. The social, cultural and economic values of such resource lands could be reduced by the effects of urban development nearby. The limitations of the ' various environments should be considered in reviewing new development within the planning area. The recognition of the natural environment in the planning area and the development of findings and policies which address the characteristics of the environment are extremely important elements in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this chapter is to define the parameters of the various natural environments in the planning area and to identify the limitations and opportunities inherent in those environments. Additional information on this topic is available in the 'Comprehensive Plan Report: Natural Features and Open Spaces.' t 3.1 PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS, NATURAL HAZARDS AND WETLANDS Findinas • The physical features which form the make-up of any piece of land have a direct relationship to the type and density of development which can be accommodated on that property (carrying capacity). Combinations such as ' steep slopes and unstable soils create severe development constraints. Excessive development in such physically limited areas greatly increases the potential severity of landslide, earthquake damage, flooding, etc. • Many portions of the floodplain area contain natural aspects such as significant vegetation, wildlife, and scenic areas, and are valuable for open space and recreation. l ' ZI - 11 1 t Vegetation serves an essential element in runoff and erosion control, as well as for the protection and natural habitation of wildlife. Nonetheless, ' it is too often removed and replaced by buildings or impervious surfaces. Due to the general nature of soils and geologic mapping, site specific / analysis is often necessary to determine the presence of geologic hazards and the severity of soil problems which are constraints to development. Such geologic hazards exist when certain combinations of slope, soil, (and) bedrock and moisture render land unstable. ' Earthflow and slump areas exist in hilly sections of the planning area and are associated with poor drainage, shallow subsurface flow on ground water and springs, and high susceptibility to erosion. Earthflow and slump occurrences can destroy roads and buildings, and adversely affect water ' quality. Mass movement has not resulted in any major loss of life or property thus far, because little in the way of urban development exists on land with serious problems. ' Increased runoff and sedimentation from poorly developed hillsides can require increased public expenditures for flood and erosion control and storm water management. • The City of Tigard had adopted a 'Hillside Development Provision' within the ' Sensitive Lands ordinance which requires additional review of those developments. • The City of Tigard requires new developments to have a storm water runoff ' plan to ensure against adverse effects such as erosion and sediment. POLICY ' 3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL ' MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. (NOTE: THIS POLICY DOES NOT APPLY TO LANDS DESIGNATED AS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MAP.): ' a. AREAS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF WETLANDS UNDER CHAPTER 18.26 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; b. AREAS HAVING A SEVERE SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL; ' c. AREAS SUBJECT TO SLUMPING, EARTH SLIDES OR MOVD=; d. AREAS HAVING SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25%; OR ' e. AREAS HAVING SEVERE WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS. (Rev. Ord. 85-13; Ord. 84-36) 1 l II - 12 1 ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. Areas having physical limitations (poor drainage, seasonal flooding, ' unstable ground) may be subject to policy 3.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City shall revise the Sensitive Lands section of the Tigard Community Development Code to identify the standards and define those areas having ' distinct constraints and limitations. 3. The City shall cooperate with other agencies to help identify these areas. ' 4. The City of Tigard shall provide in the Community Development Code a provision for the City to require site specific soil surveys and geologic studies where potential hazards are identified based upon available geologic and soils evidence. When natural hazards are identified, the City will require that special design considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and geologic constraints present in order to protect life and property, and to protect environmentally sensitive areas. ' S. The Community Development Code shall not permit developments to be planned or located in known areas of natural disasters and hazards without appropriate safeguards. (Rev. Ord. 85-13) 3.2 FLOODPLAINS Findinas • The objective of the City is to use the detailed information gathered on floodplains from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and develop policies to: 1. Control development, as to not adversely affect the floodplain and ' floodway areas; 2. Minimize the runoff-erosion impact of development on the surrounding area and downstream properties;.and ' 3. Emphasize the retention of a vegetative buffer along streams and drainageways, to reduce runoff and flood damage and provide erosion and siltation control. ' In addition, there is the issue of the cumulative effect of development upstream of Tigard. Flood levels in Tigard will be substantially determined by the controls exercised over development outside the plan area, as well as inside Tigard's Planning Area. ' The Fanno Creek drainage system includes numerous small water courses. The integrity of these natural drainageways is intrinsically connected to the ' systems capacity to absorb excessive runoff and on subsequent flood levels. Often, however, water courses are altered to provide more usable land. If alterations are done incorrectly, impacts can be adverse. If the impacts are adverse, they can be detrimental _to the entire drainage system, i.e., ' the storage capacity of the water course is lessened and flooding occurs. In fact, in lower reaches, it is beneficial to have more water move through at a faster rate. ' II - 13 ' Some infiltration problems exist in the sewage systems. • Reduction of open space, removal of vegetation cover, and development which increases the amount of impervious surface all contribute significantly to increases in the peak flows of urban storm runoff entering storm sewers, creeks and drainageways. • Offsetting measures can reduce the negative effects of urban development on ' water quality and quantity problems. Examples include on-site retention/ detention of storm water, inclusion of landscape buffer areas adjacent to new development and conservation and improvement of streamside vegetation along creeks and other water courses. ' POLICIES ' 4.2.1 ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. 4.2.2 THE CITY SHALL RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, ' PLANNING, AND REGULATING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AS DESIGNATED IN MSD'S WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT AND 208 CRAG STUDY. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. In order to improve the water quality and quantity in the Tigard Area, the City shall consider developing regulations in the Tigard Community ' Development Code or instituting programs to: a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to help correct water quality problems; ' b. Improve the management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative water quality impacts; C. Regulate site planning for new development and construction through the ' Tigard Community Development Code to better control drainages and erosion and to manage storm runoff; d. Increase storage and retention of storm runoff to lower and delay peak storm flows; e. Reduce street related water quality and quantity problems; and ' f. Increase public awareness concerning the use and disposal of toxic substances. 2. The City shall not permit industrial or other uses which violate State of ' Oregon water quality discharge standards. 3. The City shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Service District and other appropriate agencies to establish practices which minimize the introduction of pollutants, into ground and surface waters. 4. The City shall require that new developments be connected to the City's or the Unified Sewerage Agency sanitary sewerage systems. ~l t 11 - 24 ' 4.3 NOISE POLLUTION Findings ' Noise is a recognized cause of physical and psychological stress which has been directly related to various health problems. ' Motor vehicle traffic noise is the major contributor to the ambient noise level in Tigard. • Noise levels for almost all residential districts in Tigard appear to be • within acceptable levels. The highest noise levels appear to be found along Pacific Highway (99W), Main Street, I-5, Hwy. 217 and Hall Boulevard. ' Effective control of the undesirable effects of highway generated noise levels requires a three part approach: 1) source emission reduction; 2) improved highway design and street design; and 3) land use controls. The ' first two components are currently being addressed by private industry and by federal, state and regional agencies. The third area is essentially a local government responsibility. POLICY 4.3.1 THE CITY SHALL: ' a. REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS LOCATED IN A NOISE CONGESTED AREA OR A USE WHICH CREATES NOISE IN EXCESS OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING INTO THE SITE PLAN: ' 1. BUILDING PLACEMENT ON THE SITE IN AN AREA WHERE THE NOISE LEVELS WILL HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT; OR j 2. LANDSCAPING AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO LESSEN NOISE IMPACTS TO LEVELS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. b. COORDINATE WITH DEQ IN ITS NOISE REGULATION PROGRAM AND APPLY THE .DEQ LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM. ' c. WHERE APPLICABLE REQUIRE A STATEMENT FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY (PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE PROPOSAL) THAT ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CAN BE MET. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ' 1. The Tigard Community Development Code shall ensure that future 'noise sensitive' developments are designed and located so as to minimize the intrusion of noise from motor vehicle traffic and/or neighboring noisy uses. 1 l II - 25 2. The Tigard Community Development Code shall ensure that new commercial, industrial and public developments are landscaped and designed such that Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) noise standards are met and neighboring 'noise sensitive' properties are not negatively impacted by the new land use or associated activities. This shall be accomplished through building setbacks, buffering standards and use compatibility. 3. The City shall seek a response and/or assistance from the Department of ' Environmental Quality (DEQ) when reviewing commercial or industrial uses in or near residential areas to prevent degradation of previously quiet environments. ' 4.4 LAND RESOURCES Findinas • Solid waste disposal is a regional concern requiring regional solutions. • Land quality in Tigard is not currently threatened by a large - scale waste ' disposal site. Normal human activity and economic processes in Tigard contribute to the quantity of regional waste disposal. ' The Metropolitan Service District (MSD) has the authority to provide solid and liquid waste disposal in the metropolitan area. • Although MSD has the authority over solid waste site location, local governments will be involved in the selection process. POLICIES 4.4.1 THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE, IF POSSIBLE, THE CURRENT QUALITY OF TIGARD'S LAND RESOURCES. / 4.4.2 THE CITY SHALL RECOGNIZE MSD'S RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall actively participate with the Metropolitan Service District ' (MSD) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in the solid waste site selection process. 2. The City shall discourage solid waste sites which would adversely affect neighboring land uses or which are unsuitable because of natural conditions at the site, including but not limited to: a. Depth to water table; ' b. Soil conditions; C. Impacts upon drainage; d. Water quality degradation or similar problems. II - 26 i POLICIES 7.2.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE; GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH ' SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE OFF-SITE IMPACTS: b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOW ' THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON-SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND WILL ENSURE NO ADVERSE OFF-SITE IMPACTS; C. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON-SITE OR THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE THE OFF-SITE IMPACT;, d. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S*. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE ' - PROTECTED; AND e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 7.2.2 THE CITY SHALL: a. INCLUDE IN ITS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, PLANS FOR SOLVING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS; b. RECOGNIZE AND ASSUME ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING, PLANNING AND REGULATING WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AS DESIGNATED IN THE MSD WASTEWATER TREATMENT MANAGEMENT '208' PLAN; AND C. APPLY ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WASTEWATER. ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City will include measures in this plan and in its implementation ' ordinances to reduce soil erosion. 7.3 WATER SERVICE Findinas • Both Tigard and Metzger Water Districts have made substantial capital improvements in recent years to provide the highest quality water at the most reasonable rates. • Reliable and adequate water supply, storage, and delivery systems are ' presently available or planned to provide sufficient quantities of high quality water to meet existing and future needs of the community. II - 43 • The Metzger Water District has signed a 25-year water purchase contract for 100% of its water. with the Tigard Water District entering into long term contracts with the City of Portland and the City of Lake Oswego, citizens of Tigard can be assured of a long-term supply of high quality water. POLICY ' 7.3.1 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT AND THE METZGER WATER DISTRICT TO PROVIDE A HIGH STANDARD OF WATER SERVICE TO MEET FUTURE DEMANDS AT ALL TIMES. NOTE: For pre-conditions to development, see Policy 7.6.1. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ' 1. The City of Tigard shall take an active role in participating with the Tigard and Metzger Water Districts in making its views known on matters pertaining to water rates, tax rates, annexations, capital improvements, ' budgets, etc. 2. When negotiating long-term water supply contracts, the City shall coordinate with the water districts in seeking rates and schedules that are equitable ' to all water users within the City. 3. If it appears in the best interests of the citizens to consolidate the water district and City operations, it shall'be accomplished in an orderly manner ' with full and detailed consultation with the water districts involved. 4. The City of Tigard shall coordinate with the water districts, through a capital improvements program, to assure adequate water service for future urban development. 5. The Tigard Community Development Code shall require of developers the burden i of proof for providing adequate water service prior to the approval and issuance of any development permits. 7.4 SEWER SERVICE Findinos • The availability of sewer lines is now the single most important public service controlling the direction and pace of urban growth. • In order to more efficiently use existing vacant land within the already developed area, the network of trunk sewer lines should be completed before there are any significant extensions to non-urbanized areas. t 1 II - 44 ' POLICIES ' 7.5.1 THE CITY SHALL COORDINATE EXPANSION OF POLICE PROTECTION, SERVICE AND FACILITIES WITH THE OVERALL GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY. 7.5.2 AS A PART OF THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THE CITY SHALL:. ' a. REQUIRE VISIBLE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS TO ASSIST EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN LOCATING THE AREA OF THE PROBLEM; b. UTILIZE DEFENSIBLE SPACE CONCEPTS; AND C. REQUIRE THE TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1.' As part of the Tigard Community Development Code, crime prevention provisions will be included in: a. The Land Division section of the Tigard Community Development Code; and ' b. The Site Design Review, Planned Development and Conditional Development sections of the Tigard Community Development Code to include: 1) Requirements for visible identification signs to assist emergency vehicles in locating the area of the problem; 2) Defensible space concepts; and ' 3) Provisions requiring the Tigard Police Department to review development permit applications. 2. Prior to approving or supporting an annexation proposal, the City will make certain that the proposed area can be adequately served with police protection. If the area cannot be served, the City will coordinate with the applicable ' police department to specify any corrective measures that would have to be taken by the City, police department or persons proposing the annexation before the annexation takes place. 3. The nature and level of police services will be subject to coordinated monitoring by the City police department for evaluation and long-range planning. 1 4. The City will strive to reduce citizen fear of, and susceptibility to crime through increasing awareness of crime prevention methods in development, and involving the entire community in crime prevention programs. 7.6 FIRE PROTECTION Findings • Currently, the City of Tigard is serviced by the Tualatin Rural Fire District and Washington County Fire District #1. 1 ' II - 47 ' Continued growth and urbanization places additional need for fire related services. • Congestion on some area streets slows the response time to fires. Among locations where this has been noticed are: 1 Vicinity of Greenburg & Tiedeman; Pacific Highway; ' Main Street; Hall Boulevard between Commercial and Pacific Highway; Walnut Street; Tiedeman; ' Railroad crossings at Hall Boulevard and Main Street. During flooding, some bridges may be closed (e.g., at Grant Street and on Hall Boulevard) necessitating the use of time consuming circuitous routes. ' Subdivision plats can create access problems when there are too few through streets. There are numerous examples of dead end streets throughout the city. ' POLICY 7.6.1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT: a. THE DEVELOPMENT BE SERVED BY A WATER SYSTEM-HAVING ADEQUATE WATER PRESSURE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; b. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE WATER PRESSURE IN THE AREA BELOW A LEVEL ADEQUATE FOR FIRE PROTECTION PURPOSES; AND ' c. THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW ALL APPLICATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ' 1. The City and private developers will coordinate with the applicable fire districts on all development proposals within the City. ' 2. Prior to approving or supporting an annexation proposal, the City will make certain that the proposed area can be adequately served with fire protection. If the area cannot be served, the City will coordinate with the applicable fire district to specify any corrective measures that would have to be taken by the City, fire district or persons proposing the annexation before the annexation takes place. 3. The nature and level of fire services will be subject to coordinated monitoring by the City and fire districts for evaluation and long-range ' planning. 7.7 PRIVATE UTILITIES Findinas • Utilities such as natural gas, electricity and telephone are provided by private utility agencies. 1 II - 48 1 • Many of the streets in Tigard are dead-ended which adds to the congestion on existing completed streets. Therefore, a number of street connections need to be constructed. • A major concern of the community regarding transportation is the need to maintain and improve the livability of residential areas in the face of increasing population and transportation requirements. ' The City needs to develop a strategy to coordinate public street improvements with private sector improvements to achieve the most effective use of the limited dollars available for road development and improvement. ' Major residential growth during the planning period is expected to occur in the westerly and southerly areas of Tigard. Both of these areas lack adequate improved trafficways. • A need exists during the planning period to complete a collector street system between Scholls Ferry Road, Walnut Street, Gaarde Street, Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway. The location of these connections needs to be coordinated between the City, County, State and (the) Metropolitan Service District. • A need exists to complete the collector street system within the Tigard Triangle area to make more of this area accessible to developers, employers ' and employees. POLICIES ' 8.1.1 THE CITY SHALL PLAN FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT MEETS CURRENT NEEDS AND ANTICIPATED FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. ' 8.1.2 THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS WITHIN THE CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA THROUGH COOPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. 8.1.3 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRECONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT ABUT A. PUBLICLY DEDICATED STREET OR HAVE ADEQUATE ACCESS APPROVED BY THE APPROPRIATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY; b. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BE DEDICATED WHERE THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD IN WIDTH; C. THE DEVELOPER COMMIT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO CITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; ' d. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING STREETS, CURBS AND SIDEWALKS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACTS; ' e. STREET IMPROVEMENTS BE MADE AND STREET SIGNS OR SIGNALS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO CREATE OR INTENSIFY A TRAFFIC HAZARD; f. TRANSIT STOPS, BUS TURNOUT LANES AND SHELTERS BE PROVIDED WHEN THE PROPOSED USE OF A TYPE WHICH GENERATES TRANSIT RIDERSHIP; II - 55 g. PARKI14G SPACES BE SET ASIDE AND MARKED FOR CARS OPERATED BY DISABLED PERSONS AND THAT THE SPACES BE LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE ENTRANCE DESIGNED FOR DISABLED PERSONS; AND h. LAND BE DEDICATED TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED PLAN. 8.1.4 WHEN THE ACTUAL ROUTES OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS HAVE NOT ' BEEN DETERMINED, THE CITY SHALL DESIGNATE STUDY AREAS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP AND PROVIDE GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS TO: ' a. IDENTIFY THE APPROXIMATE AREAS WITHIN WHICH THESE PROJECTS WILL OCCUR, AND; b. TO EXPLAIN THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF THESE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS. ' 8.1.5 WHEN REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP STUDY AREAS, THE CITY SHALL WORK WITH APPLICANTS TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH THE LOCATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ' IMPROVEMENTS. 8.1.6 A CHANGE IN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION, OR LOCATION SHALL REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP, AND; WHEN THE ' LOCATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF A ROADWAY WITHIN A TRANSPORTATION MAP STUDY AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED, THE MAP WILL BE AMENDED BY: a. DESIGNATING THE LOCATION OF THE ROADWAY. ' b. DESIGNATING ITS CLASSIFICATION, AND; C. DELETING THE APPROPRIATE PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA INVOLVED. 8.1.7 THE CITY SHALL SUPPORT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND CAPACITY AT THE INTERCHANGE OF I-5 AND HIGHWAY 217/KRUSE WAY. HOWEVER, THE CITY i RETAINS THE PREROGATIVE TO REVIEW, COMMENT AND CONCUR WITH THE ACTUAL ' ALIGNMENTS OF THE PROJECT. (Rev. Ord. 91-13) ' IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall develop, adopt and implement a master street plan that anticipates all needed trafficway improvements so as to plan for the ' necessary available resources to develop these streets when they are needed. 2. The City shall develop, maintain and implement a capital improvements program which: a. Is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan; b. Encourages a safe, convenient and economical transportation system; ' c. Furthers the policies and implementation strategies of the City's Comprehensive Plan; ' d. Considers a variety of transit modes within the rights-of-way; e. Meets local needs for improved transportation services; ~l ' II - 56 ' f. Pursues and establishes other funding sources from the federal, state, regional and/or local agencies; and g. Designates the timing of such projects to ensure their installation when those facilities are needed. 3. The City shall specify street design standards within the Tigard Community ' Development Code. 4. The City shall maintain the carrying capacity of arterials and collectors by reducing curb cuts and other means of direct access, and requiring ' adequate right-of-way and setback lines as part of the development process. The Community Development Code shall state the access requirements for each street classification. S. The City's Tigard Community Development Code shall require developers of land to dedicate necessary rights-of-way(s) and install necessary street improvements to the City's standards when such improvements have not been done prior to the developer's proposals. These necessary dedications may be required upon approval of any development proposal. 6. The City shall control and limit the number of access points and will signalize trafficways in a manner that provides for a consistent flow of ' traffic and therefore minimizes or reduces vehicular emissions. 7. The City shall include provisions in the Tigard Community Development Code which addresses the aesthetic quality of the transportation system to ensure ' community livability and to minimize the effects on abutting properties. This can be accomplished through: J 11 - 56-1 ' POL_ ICIES ' 11.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN PREPARING STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT AFFECT S.W. 121ST AVENUE OR GAARDE STREET. a. THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND THE ' ALTERNATIVES WHICH HAVE THE MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECT IN TERMS OF: 1. REDUCING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET; AND 2. NOISE IMPACTS. b. THE EFFECT THE IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OTHER STREET INTERSECTIONS. C. MINIMIZING THE USE OF THESE STREETS AS PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC. ' 11.3.2 THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL WORK WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTERIAL ROUTE CONNECTION FROM MURRAY BOULEVARD OR SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY. THIS ARTERIAL ROUTE SHOULD BE LOCATED WEST OF BULL MOUNTAIN, AND SHOULD NOT UTILIZE ROADS WHICH PASS ' THROUGH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN TIGARD. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ' 1. S.W. Gaarde Street and S.W. 121st Avenue (between Gaarde and Walnut) shall be developed as two-lane roads with pedestrian-bicycle paths, restricted parking and left turning lanes as needed at congested intersections. ' 2. The undeveloped land along S.W. 121st Avenue (south of Walnut) shall be planned for development in accordance with the locational criteria policies that apply to locating medium and higher densities close to arterials and i in accordance with the policies for 'Established' and 'Developing' areas. 3. The Tigard Community Development Code shall rewire site design review for any development other than a single 'or two family structure. The site ' design review shall include review of street right-of-way and pavement location. ' 11.4 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION #4 POLICIES ' 11.4.1 IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE (I.E. THAT AREA BOUNDED BY PACIFIC HIGHWAY, HIGHWAY 217, AND THE INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY), IN THOSE PARCELS DESIGNATED 'CP,' HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (I.E., 20 TO 40 UNITS PER ' ACRE)•SHALL BE A USE ALLOWED OUTRIGHT IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL USES. ' II - 73 1 i 1 Y , S e e N O T E S on G A R D back of p a g e. \ Comprelie ns i ve 1) \ 1T P 1 a n Tran spor Lat lon 71ST AW SEE NOTE 1. Map N I MaTA lr'. \ \ \ \ \ Figure 3 "kE tR = rt T» ~SE E . E 5 Corri d o r SEENOT 4~~ Study Area y ~~\b Study Area i E E E 2. S E S E E N SEE 0 T E 3 Ma or 1 a Co 1ecLor I Minor ~ 1 PR CoIlecLor 1 - Wmoc t> 4 Freciv ay Interchan e d 11M-D------= _ ; k Digital dole k mop represento- z Lion compiled by the City of r'°"'""" I iigord eliliti►g 6109rephic f~ Information System (CIS) software. Information R~ portrayed here may be O r d i n a n c e N o. ~ 1 intended to be vsed with 1 j~( additional t hnt N D R T 11 and/or inleropr eictoli re data as determined by Map aDRA 7 1 dopted ted y y The City of ligord. (VPIRNS) 1 See back for revision schedule 3600 (3119/91) J K, i is S N T E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MAP NOTES I i These notes are a part of the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map and are ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN intended to provide' direction as to the kind and extent of transportation rtsrotrrATION ru►r improvements which are to occur within the designated study areas. REVISION SCHEDULE ORDINANCE DATE 1. Scholls Ferry Road to be realigned to connect with Davies Road. Upon completion of the realignment, the existing roadway east of Davies Road i shall become a local street with a cul-de-sac terminus at the northwest end. 2. Study area to determine a future connection between the Walnut/132nd ' intersection and the Gaarde/121 st intersection. A major collector extension of Gaarde Street has been recommended by the Northeast Bull Mountain Transportation Study Report. An indirect connection of minor collectors has ' been recommended by NPO #3. 3. Approximate alignments are shown for the extensions of 132nd Avenue south of Benchview Terrace, 135th Avenue south of Walnut Street, and Benchview Terrace west of 132nd Avenue. These streets are to be designed as minor collectors with a design speed of 25 m.p.h.. 4. Study area to determine a connection from southbound Pacific Highway y (99W), to Main Street. 5. Study area to determine the alignment of (1) a minor collector street connection between 68th Parkway near Red Rock Creek and the Dartmouth ' Street extension, and (2) a minor collector street connection between 72nd Avenue at Hampton Street and the Dartmouth Street extension, within the westerly portion of the Tigard Triangle. 6. Study area to determine the alignment of connections between Highway 217, Kruse Way, 1-5 and the Tigard Triangle. ' 7, Connections between Hunziker Street, Hall Boulevard at O'Mara Street (generally) and Bonita Road. 8. Study area to consider extension of Hall Boulevard southward to connect with Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin for either pedestrian or vehicular access. t 9. Study area to consider an additional crossing of Highway 217 to relieve traffic volumes on Pacific Highway and other routes. I 18.48.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130) A. Conditional uses in the R-3.5 district are as follows: ' 1. Children's day care; 2. Community recreation including structures; 3. Residential care facility; ' 4. Cultural exhibits and library services; 5. Duplex residential units; ' 6. Funeral and internment services: interning and cemeteries; 7. Hospitals; 8. Utilities; 9. Mobile home parks and subdivisions, Chapter 18.94; 10. Public safety facilities; 11. Religious assembly; ' 12. Schools and related facilities; and 13. Accessory dwelling units (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.48.050 Dimensional Requirements ' A. Dimensional requirements in the R-3.5 district are as follows: 1. The minimum lot area shall not be less than 10,000 square feet; 2. The average minimum lot width shall not be less than 65 feet; 3. The average minimum lot width for duplexes shall be not less than 90 feet; ' 4. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.96 and Section 18.100.130, the minimum setback requirements are as follows: a. The front yard setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet; b. On corner and through lots, the minimum setback for each side ' facing a street shall be a minimum of 20 feet; however, the provisions of 18.102 must also be satisfied; C. The side yard setback shall be a minimum for five feet; i Revised 1/17/91 Page 103 ' d. The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet; and e. The distance between the property line and the front of the ' garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet; 5. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 18.98, no building in an R-3.5 ' zoning district shall exceed 30 feet in height. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85- 32; Ord.. 83-52) 18.48.060 Additional Requirements A. Additional requirements in the R-3.5 district are as follows: 1. Residential density transition, Section 18.40.040; ' 2. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84 Sensitive Lands, and 18.88 Solar Access Requirements; 3. Supplemental Provisions, Chapters 18.90 Environmental Performance Standards, 18.92 Density Computations, 18.94 Manufactured/Mobile Home Regulations, 18.96 Additional Yard Setback Requirements and Exceptions, 18.98 Building Height Limitations: Exceptions, 18.100 Landscaping and Screening, 18.102 Visual Clearance Areas, 18.104 Fuel Tank Installations, 18.106 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements, 18.108 Access, Egress, and Circulation, and 18.114 Signs; 4. Site Development Review, Chapter 18.120; 5. Development and Administration, Chapters 18.130 Conditional Use, 18.132 Nonconforming Situations, 18.134 Variance, 18.140 Temporary Uses, 18.142 Home Occupations, 18.144 Accessory Structures, 18.146 Flexible Setback Standards, and 18.150 Tree Removal; and 6. Land Division and Development Standards, Chapters 18.160 Land Division: Subdivision, 18.162 Land Division: Land Partitioning - Lot Line ' Adjustment, and 18.164 Street and Utility Improvement Standards. (Ord. 91-02; Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-29; Ord. 83-52) Revised 1/31/91 Page 104 ' Chanter 18.88 SOLAR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ' Sections: ' 18.88.010 Purpose 18.88.020 Applicability of Provisions 18.88.030 Definitions 18.88.040 Solar Access for New Development ' 18.88.050 Solar Balance Point 18.88.010 Purpose ' The purpose of this chapter is to implement comprehensive plan policies to promote the use of renewable energy sources by establishing criteria to allow improved access to sunlight for single family and duplex residences. (Ord. 91-02) 18.88.020 Applicability of Provisions ' The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the creation of lots which are intended for single family or duplex.residences and the construction of single family or duplex residences. (Ord. 91-02) 18.88.030 Definitions The definitions to be used in this chapter are in addition to Chapter 18.25, Definitions. In the case of similar or identical terminology, the definitions in this section shall govern for Chapter 18.88, Solar Access Requirements. A. Crown Cover: The area within the drip line or perimeter of the foliage of a tree. B. Development: Any partition, subdivision or planned development that is created under the City land division or zoning regulations. C. Exempt tree or vegetation: The full height and breath of vegetation that the Director has identified as 'solar friendly that are listed and kept on file in the office of the Community Development Department; and any vegetation listed on a plat map, a document recorded with the plat, or a solar access permit is exempt. D. Front lot line: For purposes of the solar access regulations, a lot line abutting a street. For corner lots the front lot line is that with the narrowest frontage. When the lot line abutting a street is curved, the front lot line is the chord or straight line connecting the ends of the curve. For a flag lot, the ' front line is the shortest lot line adjoining the pole portion of the lot, excluding the unbuildable portion of the pole (see Figure 1). E. Non-exempt tree or vegetation: Vegetation that is not exempt. - F. Northern lot line: The lot line that is the smallest angle from a line drawn east-west and intersecting the northernmost point of the lot, excluding the pole ' portion of a flag lot. If the north line adjoins an undevelopable area other than a required yard area, the northern lot shall be at the north edge of such undevelopable area. If two lot lines have an identical angle relative to a line drawn east-west, or if the northern lot line is less than 35 feet, then the northern line shall be a line 35 feet in length within the lot parallel with and at a maximum distance from the front lot line (see Figure 2). ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 194/195-1 1 G. North-south dimension: The length of a line beginning at the mid-point of the ' northern lot line and extending in a southerly direction perpendicular to the northern lot line until it reaches a property boundary (see Figure 3). H. Protected solar building line: A line on a plat or map recorded with the plat ' that identifies the location on a lot where a point two feet above may not be shaded by structures or non-exempt trees (see Figure 10). I. Shade: A shadow cast by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the ' sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 22.7 degrees east and west of true south. J. Shade point: The part of a structure or non-exempt tree that casts the longest shadow onto the adjacent northern lot(s) when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging from 22.7 degrees east and west of true south; except a shadow caused by a narrow object such as a mast or whip antenna, a dish ' antenna with a diameter of 3 feet or less, a chimney, utility pole, or wire. The height of the shade point shall be measured from the shade point to either the average elevation at the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line. If the shade point is located at the north end of a ridgeline ' of a structure oriented within 45 degrees of a true north-south line, the shade point height computed according to the preceding sentence may be reduced by 3 feet. If a structure has a roof oriented within 45 degrees of a true east-west line with a pitch that is flatter than 5 feet (vertical) in 12 feet (horizontal) the shade point will be the eave of the roof. If such a roof has a pitch that is 5 feet in 12 feet or steeper, the shade point will be the peak of the roof (see Figures 4 and 5). K. Shade reduction line: A line drawn parallel to the northern lot line that intersects the shade point (see Figure 6). L. Shadow pattern: A graphic representation of an area that would be shaded by the shade point of a structure or vegetation when the sun is at an altitude of 21.3 degrees and an azimuth ranging between 22.7 degrees east and west of true south (see Figure 12). ' M. Solar access height limit: A series of contour lines establishing the maximum permitted height for non-exempt vegetation is allowed to grow on lots to which ' a solar access permit applies. N. Solar access permit: A document issued by the City that describes the maximum height that non-exempt vegetation is allowed to grow on lots to which a solar ' access permit applies. 0. Solar feature: A device or combination of devices or elements that does or will use direct sunlight as a source of energy for such purposes as heating or cooling of a structure, heating or pumping of water, and generating electricity. Examples of a solar feature include a window or windows that contain(s) at least 20 square feet of glazing oriented within 45 degrees east and west of true south, a solar greenhouse, or a solar hot water heater. A solar feature may be used for purposes in addition to collecting solar energy, including but not limited to serving as a structural member or part of a roof, wall, or window. A south- facing wall without windows and without other features that uses solar energy is not a solar feature for purposes of this ordinance. P. Solar gain line: A line parallel to the northern property line(s) of the lot(s) south of and adjoining a given lot, including lots separated only by a street, ' that intersects the solar feature on that lot (see Figure 7). Page 195-2 Revised 5/1/91 ' Q South or South facing: True south or 20 degrees east of magnetic south. ' R. Sunchart: One or more photographs that plot the position of the sun between 10:30 am and 1:30 pm on January 21, prepared pursuant to guidelines issued by the Director. The sunchart shall show the southern skyline through a transparent grid on which is imposed solar altitude for a 45-degree and 30 minute northern latitude in 10-degree increments and solar azimuth from true south in 15-degree increments. S. Undevelopable area: An area that cannot be used practicably for a habitable structure, because of natural conditions, such as slopes exceeding 20% in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, severe topographic relief, water bodies, or conditions that isolate one portion of a property form another portion so that access is not practicable to the unbuildable portion; or manmade conditions, such as existing development which isolates a portion of the site and prevents its further development; or setbacks or development restrictions that prohibit development of a given area of a lot by law or private ' agreement; or existence or absence of easements or access rights that prevent development of a given area. T. Figures: (Ord. 91-021 r Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-3 ' Figure 1 F LVE ,T FRONT LOT LINE ' LOT Ltr~E / NOPOAAL FWXa LOT LWE CiA7vID F}~t,(r LOT LM I I Figure 2 ' NORTHERN LOT LINE < 45 degrees T NORnHEFv I I LOT LINE N NORTHEFN LOT LINE 1 + ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-4 Figure 3 NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION OF THE LOT r N- ' NORTH-SOUTH DIMENSION Figure 4 HEIGHT OF THE SHADE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE ' If the tidgeline runs EAST-WEST If the ridgelute runs EAST-WEST and the pitch is or flatter than 5 in 12: and the pitch is S in 12 or steeper. - EAVE ' SHADE POINT - RIDGE ' %7paw I han - Roof Pitch S in 12 Roof Pact or more ' OINT- SHADE POINT- VE RIDGE TH_ SO<nH SHADE If the ridgeli ne runs NORTH-SOUTH measure from the northernmost POINT point of the ridge, but reduce the height measurement by three (3) ' feet NORTH -1 ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-5 ' Figure 5 SHADE POINT HEIGHT ' Measure to average grade at the front lot line. SHADE POINT HEIGHT Front lot line Figure 6 SHADE REDUCTION LINE Shade Reduction Line ' measured to Shade Point from Northern Lot Line 60' 35 N ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-6 ' Figure 7 ' SOLAR GAIN LINE Solar Gain Line N North Lot Line of your South Neighbor Figure 8 ' SOLAR BALANCE POINT STANDARD ' MAXIMUM SHADE POINT HEIGHT ALLOWED SHADE ON SOLAR FEATURE Protecting your northern Locating your house neighbofs sun to receive sun on south windows i ' N ' GL RANTESD ' 3tr HEIGHT N LOT CENT81 ~i ______.70. 70-__-__- Standard SiU S*tback- 5 5 Reduced SM Sotbad~s SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IF NEEDED TO MEET SOLAR STANDARDS Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-7 ' Figure 9 SOLAR LOT OPTION 1: BASIC REQUIREMENTS ' N Minimum of 9lr nonh-south lot dimension required Front lot line is within 30 degrees of an an east-west axis Figure 10 SOLAR LOT OPTION 2: PROTECTED SOLAR BUILDING LINE t N ' Protected Solar Su+ldirV Une within W degrees of exu-west r t i At lost 7a between solar r bu3d+q ine and middle r bt to the south. This wiG r ensure abaty to build two 1 r Sam bouse- 1 - r ' L_____-. 1 ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-8 ' Figure 11 SOLAR ACCESS HEIGHT LIMIT ' 938 Scotts Avenue Parcel A Parcel' B Parcel C 944 938 932 cc t FF 2 - - - - - --20'• North ' V ----------30. 25, - - - - - - - - - --SCOttS Ave: - 35' --40'-------------- 4 5'- -50 55'- - - -60---- ---65'- --70-75'- 8 0' Parcel D Parcel E Parcel F ' SCALE 1' = 100' 945 937 933 ' Figure 12 SHADOW PATTERN North Scotts Avenue 22.7' EAST b WEST OF TRUE NORTH SOUTH Axis ' -9 Revised 5/1/91 Page 195 18.88.040 Solar Access for New Development ' A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that land is divided so that structures can be oriented to maximize solar access and to minimize shade on adjoining properties from structures and trees. ' B. Applicability. The solar design standard in section 18.88.040 C shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single family detached and duplex dwellings in all ' other residential zones, except to the extent the approval authority finds that the applicant has shown one or more of the conditions listed in sections 18.88.040 D and E exist, and exemptions or adjustments provided for therein are warranted. ' C. Design Standard. At least 80 percent of the lots in a development subject to this section shall comply with one or more of the options in this section; provided, a development may, but is not required to, use the options in ' subsections 18.88.040 C.2 or C.3 to comply with this section. 1. Basic Requirement (see Figure 9). A lot complies with this section if ' it: a. Has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more; and ' b. Has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. 2. Protected Solar Building Line Option (see Figure 10). In the ' alternative, a lot complies with this section if a solar building line is used to protect solar access as follows: a. A protected solar building line is designated on the plat or in ' documents recorded with the plat; and b. The protected solar building line is oriented within 30 degrees ' of a true east-west axis; and c. There is at least 70 feet between the protected solar building line and the middle of the north-south dimension of the lot to the ' south, measured along a line perpendicular to the protected solar building line; and d. There is at least 45 feet between the protected solar building ' line and the northern edge of the buildable area of the lot, or habitable structures are situated so that at least 80 percent of their ground floor south wall will not be shaded by structures or ' non-exempt vegetation. 3. Performance Option. In the alternative, a lot complies with this section if: ' a. Habitable structures built on that lot will have their long axis oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis, and at least 80 percent of their ground floor south wall will be protected from ' shade by structures and non-exempt trees using appropriate deed restrictions; or ' b. Habitable structures built on that lot will orient at 32 percent of their glazing and at least 500 square feet of their roof area to face within 30 degrees east or west of true south, and that glazing and roof area are protected from shade by structures and ' non-exempt trees using appropriate deed restrictions. Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-10 ' D. Exemptions from Design Standard. A development is exempt from section 18.88.040 C if the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the ' following conditions apply to the site. A development is partially exempt from section 18.88.040 C to the extent the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of the following conditions apply to a corresponding portion of the site. If a partial exemption is granted for a given development, the remainder of the development shall comply with section 18.88.040 C. 1. Slopes. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is ' sought, is sloped 20 percent or more in a direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south, based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. ' 2. Off-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is sought, is within the shadow pattern of off-site features, such as but not limited to structures, topography, or non-exempt ' vegetation, which will remain after development occurs on the site from which the shade is originating. ' a. Shade from an existing or approved off-site dwelling in a single family residential zone and from topographic features is assumed to remain after development of the site. ' b. Shade from an off-site structure in a zone other than a single family residential zone is assumed to be the shadow pattern of the existing or approved development thereon or the shadow pattern that would result from the largest structure allowed at the ' closest setback on adjoining land, whether or not that structure now exists. C. Shade from off-site vegetation is assumed to remain after development of the site if: (i) The vegetation that causes it is situated in a required setback area; or (ii) The vegetation is within a fully developed area, public park, or legally reserved open space; or ' (iii) The vegetation is within a developable remainder of a parcel that is separated by an undevelopable area or feature; or ' (iv) The vegetation is part of landscaping required pursuant to chapter 18.100. ' d. Shade from other off-site sources is assumed to be shade that exists or that will be cast by development for which applicable local permits have been approved on the date a complete application for the development is filed. 3. On-site shade. The site, or a portion of the site for which the exemption is requested, is: a. in'ithin the shadow pattern of on-site features such as, but not limited to structures and topography which will remain after the development occurs; or Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-11 b. Contains non-exempt trees at least 30 feet tall and more than 6 inches in diameter measured 4 feet above the ground which have a crown cover over at least 80 percent of the site, or the relevant portion. The applicant can show such crown cover exists using a scaled survey or an aerial photograph. If granted, the exemption shall be approved subject to the condition that the applicant ' preserve at least 50 percent of the crown cover that causes the shade that warrants the exemption. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the county recorder binding the applicant to comply with this requirement. ' The City shall be made a party to any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. ' E. Adjustments to Design Standard. The approval authority shall reduce the percentage of lots that must comply with section 18.88.040 C to the minimum extent necessary if it finds the applicant has shown it would cause or is subject ' to one or more of the following conditions: 1. Adverse impacts on density and cost or amenities. ' a. If the design standard in section 18.88.040 C.1 is applied, either the resulting density is less than that proposed, or on-site development costs (e.g. grading, water, storm drainage and sanitary systems, and road) and solar related off-site development ' costs are at least 5 percent more per lot than if the standard is not applied. The following conditions, among others, could constrain the design of a development in such a way that ' compliance with section 18.88.040 C.1 would reduce density or increase per lot costs in this manner. The applicant shall show which, if any, of these or other similar site characteristics apply in an application for a development: (i) The portion of the site for which the adjustment is sought has a natural grade that is sloped 10 percent or more and is oriented greater than 45 degrees east or west of true ' south based on a topographic survey of the site by the professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. ' (ii) There is a significant natural feature on the site, identified as such in the comprehensive plan or development ordinance, that prevents given streets or lots ' from being oriented for solar access, and it will exist after the site is developed. (iii) Existing road patterns must be continued through the site or must terminate on-site to comply with applicable road standards or public road plans in a way that prevents given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for solar access. (iv) An existing public easement or right-of-way prevents given streets or lots in the development from being oriented for ' solar access. Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-12 ' b. In the design standard in section 18.88.040 C.1 applies to a given lot or lots, significant development amenities that would otherwise benefit the lot(s) will be lost or impaired. Evidence that a significant diminution in the market value of the lot(s) would result.from having the lot(s) comply with section 18.88.040 C.1 is relevant to whether a significant development amenity is lost or impaired. Refer to amenities that qualify or to relevant comprehensive plan provisions or inventories. 2. Impacts of existing shade. The shadow pattern from non-exempt trees cover over at least 80 percent of.the lot and at least 50 percent of the ' shadow pattern will remain after development of the lot. The applicant can show the shadow pattern using a scaled survey of non-exempt trees on the site or using an aerial photograph. ' a. Shade from non-exempt trees is assumed to remain if: the trees are situated in a required setback; or they are part of an existing or proposed park, open space, or recreational amenity; or they are separated from the developable remainder of their parcel by an undevelopable area of feature; or they are part of landscaping required pursuant to Chapter 18.100; or they do not need to be removed for a driveway or other development. ' b. Also, to the extent the shade is caused by on-site trees or off- site trees on land owned by the applicant, it is assumed to remain if the applicant files in the office of the county recorder a ' covenant binding the applicant to retain the trees causing the shade on the affected lots. F. Protection from Future Shade. Structures and non-exempt vegetation must comply with the Solar Balance Point Ordinance in Section 18.88.050 on all lots in a development subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development, including. lots for which exemptions or adjustments to the Solar Access Ordinance for New ' Development have been granted. The applicant shall file a note on the plat or other documents in the office of the county recorder binding the applicant and subsequent purchasers to comply with the future shade protection standards in Section F. The City shall be made a part of any covenant or restriction created to enforce any provision of this ordinance. The covenant or restriction shall not be amended without written City approval. ' G. Application. An application for approval of a development subject to this ordinance shall include: ' 1. Maps and text sufficient to show the development complies with the solar design standard of Section 18.88.050 C, except for lots for which an exemption or adjustment from Section 18.88.050 C is requested, including ' all of the following items: a. The north-south lot dimension and front lot line orientation of each proposed lot. ' b. Protected solar building lines and relevant building site restrictions, if applicable. Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-13 c. For the purpose of identifying trees exempt from Section F, a map showing existing trees at least 30 feet tall and over 6 inches diameter at a point 4 feet above grade, including their height, diameter and species, and stating that they are to be retained and are exempt. ' d. Copies of all private restrictions relating to solar access. 2. If an exemption or adjustment to Section 18.88.050 C is requested, maps and text sufficient to show that given lots or areas in the development comply with the standards for such an exemption or adjustment in Sections 18.88.050 D or E shall also be required. H. Review Process. Compliance with Section 18.88.050 shall be determined by the approval authority in conjunction with an application for a subdivision (Chapter 18.160), or land partition (Chapter 18.162). (Ord. 91-02) 18.88.050 Solar Balance Point A. Purpose. The purposes of this section are to promote the use of solar energy, to minimize shading of structures and accessory structures, and, where applicable, to minimize shading of structures by trees. Decisions related to this section are intended to be ministerial. B. Applicability. This section applies to an application for a building permit for all structures in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and all single family detached and duplex structures in all other residential zones, except to the extent the approval authority finds the applicant has shown that one or more of ' the conditions listed in sections 18.88.050 E or F exists, and exemptions or adjustments provided for them are warranted. In addition, non-exempt vegetation planted on lots subject to the provisions of section 18.88.040.F of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development shall comply with the shade point height standards as provided in sections 18.88.050 D and E. C. Solar Site Plan Required. An applicant for a building permit for a structure ' subject to this section shall submit a site plan that shows: 1. The maximum shade point height allowed under section 18.88.050 D; 2. If the maximum shade point height is adjusted pursuant to section 18.88.050 D.l.b, the average elevation of the rear property line; and 3. The location of the shade point, its height relative to the average elevation of the front lot line or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line, and its orientation relative to true south; and, if applicable, 4. The solar balance point for the structure as provided in section 18.88.050 H. ' D. Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The height of the shade point shall comply with either subsection 1 or 2 below. ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-14 1. Basic Requirement. a. The height of the shade point shall be less than or equal to the height specified in Table A or computed using the following formula. The height of the shade point shall be measured from the shade point to either the average elevation at the front lot line ' or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line. If necessary interpolate between the 5 foot dimensions listed in Table A. ' H = (2 x SRL) - N + 150 5 ' Where: H the maximum allowed height of the shade point (see Figures 4 and 5); SRL = shade reduction line (the distance between the shade point and the northern lot line, see Figure 6); and N = the north-south lot dimension, provided that a north-south lot dimension more than 90 feet shall use a value of 90 feet for this section. ' b. Provided, the maximum allowed height of the shade point may be increased one foot above the amount calculated using the formula or Table A for each foot that the average grade at the rear property line exceeds the average grade at the front property line. ' TABLE A - MAXIMUM PERMITTED SHADE POINT HEIGHT (In Feet) Distance to North-south lot dimension (in feet) Shade 100+ 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 Reduction Line from northern lot line (in feet) ' 70 40 40 40 41 42 43 44 65 38 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 60 36 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 55 34 34 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 50 32 32 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 45 30 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 36 37 38 35 26 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ' 30 24 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 25 22 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 20 20 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 15 18 .18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 16 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 14 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - ' 2. Performance Option. The proposed structure, or applicable non-exempt vegetation, will shade not more than 20 percent of the south-facing glazing of existing habitable structure(s), or, where applicable, the proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation comply with section 18.88.040.0.2 or C.3 of the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development. If section 18.88.040.C.2, Protected Solar Building Line, is used, 1 non-exempt trees and the shade point structures shall be set back from the protected solar building line 2.5 feet for every 1 foot of height of the structure or of the mature height of non-exempt vegetation over 2 feet. Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-15 E. Exemption from the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The approval authority shall exempt a proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation from sections 18.88.050 C and D if the applicant shows that one or more of the conditions in this section exist, based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns, suncharts. or photographs, or other ' substantial evidence submitted by the applicant. 1. Exempt Lot. When created, the lot was subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development and was not subject to the provisions of ' section 18.88.040 F. 2. Pre-existing shade. The structure or applicable non-exempt vegetation will shade an area that is shaded by one of more of the following: ' a. An existing or approved building or structure; ' b. A topographical feature; or c. Non-exempt vegetation will remain after development of the site. It is assumed that this vegetation will remain after development ' if it: (i) Is situated in a building setback required by this title; or (ii) Is part of a developed area or landscaping required by Chapter 18.100, a public park or landscape strip, or legally reserved open space; or (iii) Is in a developable remainder of 'a parcel that is separated by an undevelopable area or feature; or (iv) Is on the applicant's property and not affected by the development; or (v) A duly executed covenant is used to preserve trees causing such shade. 3. Slope. The site has an average slope that exceeds 20 percent in a ' direction greater than 45 degrees east or west of true south based on a topographic survey by a licensed professional land surveyor or USGS or other officially recognized topographic information. 4. Insignificant benefit. The proposed structure or non-exempt vegetation shades one or more of the following: a. An undevelopable area; b. The wall of an unheated space, such as a typical garage; ' c. An area without solar features; or d. An undeveloped lot, other than a lot that was subject to the Solar Access Ordinance for New Development, where: (i) There are at least four single family detached or attached homes or duplexes within 250 feet of the lot within the same subdivision or a phase of the subdivision; and (ii) A majority of the homes identified in subsection d.(i) above have no solar features. ' Revised 5/1/01 Page 195-16 ' 5. Public Improvement. The proposed structure is a publicly owned improvement. F. Adjustments to the Maximum Shade Point Height Standard. The approval authority shall increase the maximum permitted height of the shade point determined using section 18.88.050 D to the extent it finds the applicant has shown one or more of the following conditions exist, based on plot plans or plats, corner elevations or other topographical data, shadow patterns, suncharts or photographs, or other substantial evidence submitted by the applicant. 1. Physical conditions. Physical conditions preclude development of the site in a manner that complies with section 18.88.050 D, due to such things as lot size less than 3,000 square feet, unstable or wet soils, ' or a drainage way, public or private easement, or right-of-way. 2. Conflict between the Maximum Shade Point Height and Allowed Shade on the Solar Feature Standards. A proposed structure may be sited to meet the ' solar balance point standard described in section 18.88.050 H or be sited as near to the solar balance point as allowed by section 18.88.050 H, if: a. Siting the proposed structure to meet the maximum shade point ' height standard using section 18.88.050 D would cause its solar feature(s) to potentially be shaded as determined using section 18.88.050 G; and b. The application includes a form provided for that purpose by the City that: (i) Releases the applicant from complying with section 18.88.050 D and agrees that the proposed structure may shade an area otherwise protected by section 18.88.050 D; ' (ii) Releases the City from liability for damages resulting from the adjustment; and (iii) Is signed by the owner(s) of the properties that would be shaded by the proposed structure more than allowed by the provisions of section 18.88.050 D. ' c. Before the City issues a permit for a proposed structure for which an adjustment has been granted pursuant to section 18.88.050 F.2, the applicant shall file the form provided for in subsection 2.b above in the office of the County Recorder with the deeds to the affected properties. G. Analysis of Allowed Shade on Solar Feature ' 1. An applicant may, but is not required to, perform the calculations in or comply with the standards of section 18.88.050 G. ' 2. Applicants are encouraged to design and site a proposed habitable structure so that the lowest height of any solar feature(s) will not be shaded by buildings or non-exempt trees on lot(s) to the south. The applicant should complete the following calculation procedure to determine if solar feature(s) of the proposed structure will be shaded. To start, the applicant should choose which of the following sources of shade originating from adjacent lot(s) to the south to use to calculate the maximum shade height at the north property line: a. Existing structure(s) or non-exempt trees; or Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-17 ' b. The maximum shade that can be cast from future buildings or non- exempt trees, based on Table C. If the lot(s) to the south can be further divided, then the north-south dimension is assumed to be the minimum lot width required for a new lot in that zone. 3. The height of the lowest point of any solar feature of the proposed ' structure is calculated with respect to either the average elevation or the elevation at the midpoint of the front lot line of the lot to the south. 4. The applicant can determine the height of the shadow that may be cast upon the applicant's solar feature by the source of shade selected in subsection 2 by using the following formula or Table B. SFSH = SH - (SGL/2.5) Where: SFSH = the allowed shadow height on the solar feature (see Figure 8) SH = the height of the shade at the northern lot line of lot(s) to the south as determined in section 18.88.050 G.2 SGL = the solar gain line (the distance from the solar feature to the northern lot line of adjacent lot(s) to the south, see Figure 7) TABLE B - MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF SHADOW AT SOLAR FEATURE (feet) Distance from Allowed Shade Height at Northern Lot Line ' Solar Gain Line of Adjacent Lot(s) to the South (feet) to lot line (feet) 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 50 2 1 45 4 3 2 1 40 6 5 4 3 2 1 35 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 30 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 25 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 20 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 15 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Table C may be used to determine (SH) in the above formula TABLE C North-south lot ' dimension of adjacent 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 lot(s) to south ' Allowed shade height at the north property 12 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 line of adjacent lot(s) to south ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-18 5. If the allowed shade height on the solar feature calculated in subsection ' 4 is higher than the lowest height of the solar feature calculated in subsection 3, the applicant shall be encouraged to consider changes to the house design or location which would make it practical to locate the solar feature so that it will not be shaded in the future. ' H. Solar Balance Point. If a structure does not comply with maximum shade point height standard in section 18.88.050 D and the allowed shade on a solar feature standard in section 18.88.050 G,•then the solar balance point of the lot shall ' be calculated (see Figure 8). The solar balance point is the point on the lot where a structure would be the same from complying with both of these standards. ' I. Yard Setback Adjustment. The City shall grant an adjustment to the setback requirement(s) as indicated below if necessary to build a proposed structure so it complies with either the shade point height standard in section 18.88.050 D, the allowed shade on a solar feature standard in section 18.88.050 G, or the ' solar balance point standard in section 18.88.050 H as provided herein (see Figure 8). This adjustment is not intended to encourage reductions in available solar access or unnecessary modification of setback requirements, and shall apply only if necessary for a structure to comply with the applicable provisions of this chapter. 1. R-7, R-12, R-25, and R-40 Zones: a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. ' c. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 3 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than ' 15 feet. e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. ' 2. R-3.5 and R-4.5 Zones: ' a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. 1 c. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 3 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. ' e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. ' 3. R-1 and R-2 Zones: a. A front yard setback may be reduced to not less than 25 feet. ' b. A rear yard setback may be reduced to not less than 20 feet. C. A side yard setback may be reduced to not less than 5 feet. d. Corner and through lot setbacks may be reduced to not less than 15 feet. ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-19 e. Setback to the front of a garage may be reduced to not less than 18 feet. ' J. Review Process. Compliance with Section 18.88.050 shall be determined by the Director in conjunction with an application for a building permit: (Ord. 91-02) 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ' Revised 5/1/91 Page 195-20 ' Chapter 18.96 ADDITIONAL YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS ' Sections: 18.96.010 Purpose ' 18.96.020 Additional Setback from Centerline Required 18.96.030 Distance Between Multiple-Family Residential Structure and Other Structures on the Site ' 18.96.040 No Yard Required: Structure Not.on the Property Line 18.96.050 Exceptions to Yard Requirements 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard 18.96.070 Projections into Required Yards 18.96.080 Lot Area for Flag Lots 18.96.090 Front Yard Determination 18.96.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to permit or afford better light, air and vision clearance on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to make the location of structures compatible with the need for the eventual widening of streets by providing for ' additional yard setback distances, to ensure there is adequate distance between buildings on the site and to provide standards for projections into yard areas. 18.96.020 Additional Setback from Centerline Required A. To ensure improved light, air, and sight distance and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, structures in any zoning district which abut certain arterial and collector streets shall be ' set back a minimum distance from the centerline of the street. B. Where the street is not improved, the measurement shall be made at right angles from the centerline or general extension of the street right-of-way: 1. Arterial Streets: a. The required setback distance for buildings on arterial streets is the setback distance required by the zoning ' district plus the following distances measured from the centerline of the street: 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 206 Additional Centerline Setback ' Street Names Requirement (in feet) S.W. Pacific Highway within City.Limits 50 Hall Boulevard 45 ' Scholls Ferry Road 50 except between its intersections with old Scholls Ferry Road Durham Road (between Hall Blvd. ' & Upper Boones Ferry) 45 Upper Boones Ferry Road 45 ' 2. Collector Streets: a. The required setback distance for buildings on the following collector streets is the setback distance required by the ' zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street. Street Names Ash Avenue Atlanta - Haines (east of 68th Avenue) Atlanta (west of 68th Avenue) ' Beef Bend Road Bonita Road Bull Mountain Road Burnham Street Cascade Boulevard Commercial Street Durham (Pacific Highway-Hall Boulevard) ' Franklin Street Gaarde Street Grant Avenue Greenburg Road ' Hunziker Road Main Street McDonald Street Murdock Street North Dakota Avenue Oak (west of Hall) Pfaffle Street Sattler Street (40 feet pavement between 100th and Hall) Scholls Ferry between its intersections with Old Scholls Ferry Road Summerfield Drive Tiedeman Avenue Tigard Street Walnut Street ' 68th Avenue 68th Avenue (south of Pacific Highway) 70th Avenue (south of Pacific Highway) 72nd Avenue 1 97th Avenue ' Revised 3/17/93 Page 207 ' 98th Avenue 110th Avenue 121st Avenue ' Planned, Dartmouth to Pfaffle connection Planned, Hampton to 69th (westerly loop road) C. The minimum yard requirement shall be increased in the event a yard abuts t a street having a right-of-way width less than required by its functional classification on the City's transportation plan map and, in such case, the setback shall be not less than the setback required by the zone plus one-half of the projected road width as shown on the transportation map. D. The minimum distance from the wall of any structure to the centerline of an abutting street, however, shall not be less than 25 feet plus the yard ' required by the zone. This provision shall not apply to rights-of-way of 50 feet or greater in width. (Ord. 92-23; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.96.030 Distance Between Multiple-Family Residential Structure and Other ' Structures on the Site A. To provide privacy, light, air, and access to the multiple and attached residential dwellings within a development, the following separations shall apply: 1. Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls ' shall have a 25 feet separation; 2. Buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall have a 15 feet separation; ' 3. Buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 feet separation; 4. Building separation shall also apply to buildings having projections ' such as balconies, bay windows, and room projections; and 5. Buildings with courtyards to maintain separation of opposing walls as listed in 1, 2, and 3 above for walls in separate buildings. ' B. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30 feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30 feet. C. Driveways, parking lots, and common.or public walkways shall maintain the ' following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: Revised 3/17/93 Page 208 ' I. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and ' 2. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet.; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least seven feet. (Ord. ' 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.96.040 No Yard Required: Structure Not on Property Line ' A. In zoning districts where a, side yard or a rear yard setback is not required, a structure which is not to be built on the property line shall be set back from the property line by a distance in accordance with the ' Uniform Building Code requirements. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.96.050 Exceptions to Yard Requirements ' A. If there are dwellings on both abutting lots with front yard depths less than the required depth for the zone, the depth of the front yard for the intervening lot need not exceed the average depth of the front yards of the abutting lots. B. If there is a dwelling on one abutting lot with a front yard of less depth than the required depth for the zone, the front yard for the lot need not exceed a depth one-half way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required front yard depth. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.96.060 Storaae in Front Yard ' A. Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity may be stored in a required front yard in a residential zone subject to the ' following: 1. No such unit shall be parked in a visual clearance area of a corner lot or in the visual clearance area of a driveway which would ' obstruct vision from an adjacent driveway or street. 2. No such unit shall be used for dwelling purposes except that one camper, house trailer or recreational vehicle may be used for sleeping purposes only by friends, relatives, or visitors on land entirely owned by or leased to the host person for a period not to exceed 14 days in one calendar year, provided that such unit shall not be connected to any utility, other than temporary electricity hookups and provided that the host person shall receive no compensation for such occupancy or use. 3. Any such unit parked in the front yard shall have current state license plates or registration and must be kept in mobile condition. (Ord. 93-06; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.96.070 Projections into Required Yards A. Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, canopies, or similar architectural ' features may extend or project into a required yard not more than 36 inches provided the width of such yard is not reduced to less than three feet. ' B. Fireplace chimneys may project into a required front, side, or rear yard not more than three feet provided the width or such yard is not reduced to less than three feet. ' Revised 3/17/93 Page 209 C. Open porches, decks, or balconies not more than 36 inches in height and not covered by a roof or canopy, may extend or project into a required rear or side yard provided such natural yard area is not reduced to less than three feet and the deck is screened from ' abutting properties. Porches may extend into a required front yard not more than 36 inches. ' D. Unroofed landings and stairs may project into required front or rear yards only. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.96.080 Lot Area for Flag Lots A. The lot area for a flag lot shall comply with the lot area ' requirements of the applicable zoning district. B. The lot area shall be provided entirely within the building site area exclusive of any accessway (see figure following). (Ord. ' 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' AfZEA NOf IN CL [ADEQ ' IN L.Or AREA 18.96.090 Front Yard Determination ' A. The owner or developer of a flag lot may determine the location of the front yard, provided no side yard setback area is less than 10 ' feet and provided the requirements of Section 18.98.030, Building Heights and Flag Lots, are.satisfied. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 210 t Chapter 18.102 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS ' Sections: 18.102.010 Purpose 18.102.015 Applicability of Provisions 18.102.020 Visual Clearance: Required 18.102.030 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accessway 24 Feet or More t In Width 18.102.040 Computation: Arterial 18.102.050 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accessway Less Than 24 ' Feet In Width 18.102.010 Purpose ' A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards which will assure proper sight distances at intersections in order to reduce ' the hazard from vehicular turning movements. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.102.015 Applicability of Provisions A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of ' existing structures (See 18.120.020) and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. ' B. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or ' deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter. No notice is required. The decision may be appealed as provided by 18.32.310.A. ' C. The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: 1. The location and height of all hedges, trees, plantings, ' fences or wall structures within the vision clearance area as computed in 18.102.030, 18.102.040, and 18.102.050; and 2. The location of all access points, parking and circulation areas, loading areas and pedestrian walkways within the vision clearance area as computed in Section 18.102.030, 18.102.040, ' and 18.102.050. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 Revised 02127/89 Page 224 ' 18.102.020 Visual Clearance: Required A. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to the intersection ' of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding 3 feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center ' line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below 8 feet are removed. C. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings, fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in height or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required clear vision area. (Ord. 92- 04; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.102.030 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accesswav 24 Feet or More In Width A. A visual clearance area for all street intersections, street and accessway intersections (accessways having 24 feet or more in width), and ' street or accessway and railroad track intersections shall be that triangular area formed by the right-of-way or property lines along such lots and a straight line joining the right-of-way or property line at points which are 30 feet distance from the intersection o_ the rio_ht-of- ' way line and measured along such lines. Visual Clearance Areas for Corner Lots and-Driveways 24 Feet or More In Width (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) i - 18.102..040 Computation: Arterial A. On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. ' Revised 02/11/92 Page 225 i ' 18.102.050 Computation: Non-Arterial Street and Accessway Less Than 24 Feet In Width A. The visual clearance area for street intersections, street and accessway intersections, and street or accessway and railroad track intersections (accessways having less than 24 feet in width) shall be that triangular area whose base extends 30 feet along the street right-of-way line in both directions from the centerline of the accessway at the front setback line of a single family and two family residence, and 30 feet.back from the property line on all ' other types of uses. Visual Clearance Area for Corner Lots and Driveways Less Than 24 ' Feet In Width. .(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) r t Revised 02/27/89 Page 226 Chapter 18.104 ' FUEL TANK INSTALLATIONS Sections: 18.104.010 Purpose 18.104.020 Definitions 18.104.030 Applicability of Provisions 18.104.040. Requirements 18.104.010 Purpose A. The purpose of these regulations is to guide the installation of stationary fuel tanks within the City limits in residential, commercial and industrial zones. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08) ' 18.104.020 Definitions A. 'Container' - any 60 gallon or less capacity can, bucket, barrel, drum, ' or portable tank (except stationary tanks), tank vehicle, or tank can used for transporting or storing flammable or combustible liquids. B. "Fuel' - Flammable liquids and combustible liquids Class I, II, and III ' as defined and classified by the Uniform Fire Code.and liquid petroleum gas (LPG and propane). ' C. 'Tank' - a vessel containing more than 60 U.S. gallons. (Ord. 90-25; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08) 18.104.030 Applicability of Provisions ' A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new and existing development in all zoning districts. These provisions shall not apply to nonstationary fuel containers. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08) ' 18.104.040 Requirements A. All stationary containers, tanks, equipment, and apparatus used or ' intended to be used for the storage, handling, use, or sale of flammable or combustible liquids or fuels shall be of an approved type as per the Uniform Fire Code. B. Small tanks of 300 gallons or less or containers with capacities of 60 U.S. gallons or less, used or intended to be used for the above-ground storage of residential or home heating fuels (combustible liquids-Class II and III and liquified petroleum gas), are permitted in all districts when they conform to the standards and requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and local fire district requirements. ' C. Installation of all fuel tanks with capacities greater than 60 U.S. gallons for the storage of flammable liquids (Class I) shall be prohibited above-ground in all commercial and residential zoning 1 districts. ' Revised 11/08/90 Page 227 D. Installation of above-ground fuel storage tanks shall be permitted in all industrial zoning districts subject to Uniform Fire Code construction, siting, and permit requirements. Tanks containing Class I, II, or III liquids shall not exceed 6,000 gallons individual or 18,000 gallons aggregate in total volume. Fuel tanks shall be related to and clearly incidental to an approved use of the site. ' E. Specific concerns of tank placement on a site with respect to topographical conditions, barricades, walls, building exits, proximity to buildings or adjacent properties, tank construction, and storage ' permits for Class I, II and III liquids shall be addressed prior to the time of Building Code permit approval and site development review (where applicable), and shall conform to all requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the applicable fire district. ' F. All underground fuel tank and above-ground stationary fuel storage containers may be installed in all districts provided: 1. All fuel tank installations must be reviewed and approved by the Building official; and ' 2. Application for the necessary permits from the City Building official shall be accompanied by a signed, approved document from the applicable fire district. (Ord. 90-25; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 86-08) ke/TMC1870.PT3 N:\WORD\CTYREC 1 ' Revised 11/08/90 Page 228 ' Chapter 18.106 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS ' Sections: 18.106.010 Purpose t 18.106.015 Applicability of Provisions 18.106.020 General Provisions 18.106.030 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements ' 18.106.040 Modification to Parking Requirements 18.106.050 Parking Dimension Standards 18.106.060 Reservoir Areas Required for.Drive-In Use ' 18.106.070 Loading/Unloading Driveways Required On-Site 18.106.080 Off-Street Loading Spaces 18.106.090 Off-Street Loading Dimensions 18.106.010 Purpose ' A. The purpose of these regulations is to establish parking areas having adequate capacity and which are appropriately located and designed to minimize any hazardous conditions on-site and at access points. ' B. The parking requirements are intended to provide sufficient parking in close proximity to the various uses for residents, customers, and employees, and to establish standards which will maintain the traffic ' carrying capacity of nearby streets. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.106.015 Applicability of Provisions A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of ' existing structures (see Section 18.120.020) and to a change of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. An Indirect Source Construction Permit is required for parking facilities having 250 or more parking spaces. B. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review do not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter. No notice is required. The decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. C. The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: ' 1. The location of the structures on the property and on the adjoining property; ' 2. The delineation of individual parking and loading spaces and their dimensions; Revised 02/27/89 Page 229 1 ' 3. The location of the circulation area necessary to serve the spaces; 4. The location of the access point(s) to streets, to accessways and to ' properties to be served; 5. The location of curb cuts; 6. The location and dimensions of all landscaping, including the type and size of plant material to be used, as well as any other landscape material incorporated into the overall plan; ' 7. The proposed grading and drainage plans; and 8. Specifications as to signs and bumper guards. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-24; ' Ord. 83-52) 18.106.020 General Provisions ' A. Parking Dimensions 1. The dimensions for parking spaces are: ' a. Nine feet wide and 18 feet long for a standard space; b. Eight and one-half feet wide and 15 feet long for a compact space; and ' c. As required by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards for designated disabled person parking spaces. ' B. Building Permit Conditions 1. The provision and maintenance of off-street and loading spaces are the continuing obligations of the property owner: a. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the Director to show that property is and will remain ' available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading space; and b. The subsequent use of property for which the building permit is t issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by this title. 1 1 ' C5/05/92 Page 230 C. Parking Requirements for Unlisted Uses 1. Upon application and payment of fees, the Director, as provided t by Subsection 18.32.090.A, may rule that a use, not specifically listed in Section 18.106.030, is a use similar to a listed use and that the same parking standards shall apply. No notice need be given. The decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. The ruling on parking area requirements shall be based on findings that the following criteria are ' satisfied: a. The use is similar to and of the same general type as a listed use; ' b. The use has similar intensity, density, and off-site impact as the listed use; and ' c. The use has similar impacts on the community facilities as the listed use; ' 2. This section does not authorize the inclusion of a use in a zoning district where it is not listed, or a use which is ' specifically listed in. another zone or which is of the same general type and is similar to a use specifically listed in another zoning district, and ' 3. The Director shall maintain a list of approved unlisted use parking requirements which shall have the same effect as an amendment to this chapter. ' D. Existing and New Uses ' 1. At the time of erection of a new structure or at the time of enlargement or change in use of an existing structure within any district, off-street parking spaces shall be as provided in ' accordance with Section 18.106.030; and: a. In case of enlargement of a building or use of land existing on the date of adoption of this title, the number of parking and loading spaces required shall be based only on floor area or capacity of such enlargement; and ' b. If parking space has been provided in connection with an existing use or is added to an existing use, the parking space shall not be eliminated if the elimination would ' result in less space than is specified in the standards of this section when applied to the entire use. Revised 02/27/89 Page 231 ' E. Change in Use 1. When an existing structure is changed in use from one use to ' another use as listed in Section 18.106.030, and the parking requirements for each use are the same, no additional parking shall be required; and 2. Where a change in use results in an intensification of use in terms of the number of parking spaces required, additional parking spaces shall be provided in an amount equal to the difference between the number of spaces required for the existing use and the number of spaces required for the more ' intensive use. F. Shared Parking in Commercial Districts ' 1. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the hours of operation do not overlap; ' 2. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the Director in the form of deeds, leases, or contracts to establish the ' joint use; and 3. If a joint use arrangement is subsequently terminated, the ' requirements of this title thereafter apply to each separately. G. Shared Parking in Multiple-Family Residential Districts ' 1. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests of all of the residents of the complex; and ' 2. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the ' developments. H. Location of Required Parking 1. Off-street parking spaces for single-family duplex dwellings and single-family attached dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling; and ' 2. Off-street parking spaces for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use they ' are required to serve, measured in a straight line from the building with the following exceptions: ' a. Shared parking areas, as provided by Subsection 18.106.020.E for commercial use which require more than 40 parking spaces may provide for the spaces in excess of the ' required 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the commercial building or use; and Revised 02/27/89 Page 232 t b. Industrial and manufacturing uses which require in excess of 40 spaces may locate the required spaces in excess of the 40 spaces up to a distance of 300 feet from the ' building. I. Mixed Uses ' 1. Where several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land or a combination of uses are included in one business, the total off-street parking spaces and loading area is the sum of the ' requirements of the several uses, computed separately. J. Choice of Parking Requirements ' 1. When a building or use is planned or constructed in such a manner that a choice of parking requirements could be made, the ' use which requires the greater number of parking spaces shall govern. ' K. Availability of Parking Spaces 1. Required parking spaces shall: ' a. Be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons, and employees only; ' b. Not be used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or use; ' and c. Not be rented, leased, or assigned to any other person or ' organization unless the required number of spaces. L. Parking: Recreation Vehicles ' 1. The parking restrictions shall not be interpreted to prevent the parking on-site of one unoccupied house or camping trailer and one pleasure boat provided the applicable parking requirements ' of this title and the provisions of Section 18.106.030 are satisfied. M. Parking Lot Landscaping 1. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the requirements in Chapter 18.100. t Revised 02/27/89 Page 233 1 ' N. Designated Parking for the Handicapped 1. All parking areas shall be provided with the required numbers and sizes t of disabled person parking spaces as specified by applicable State of Oregon and federal standards. All disabled person parking spaces shall be signed and marked on the pavement as required by these standards. ' O. Designated Parking for Compact Vehicles 1. All parking spaces designated for compact vehicles shall be labeled by ' painting the words 'COMPACT-ONLY' on the parking space. P. Bicycle Parking 1. At least one secured bicycle rack space shall be provided for each 15 parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian ways. ' Q. Lighting 1. Any lights provided to illuminate any public or private parking area ' or vehicle sales area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from any abutting or adjacent residential district. R. To be Ready for Use by Final Building Inspection ' 1. Required parking spaces shall be completely improved to City standards and available for use at the time of the final building inspection. ' S. Plan Building Permit Prerequisite 1. A plan drawn to scale, indicating how the off-street parking and loading requirement is to be fulfilled, shall accompany the request for ' a building permit on-site development review permit in accordance with Subsection 18.120.180.A.12. ' T. Measurement for Required Parking 1. Where square feet are specified, the area measured shall be gross floor area under the roof measured from the faces of the structure, excluding ' only space devoted to covered off-street parking or loading. 1 Revised 05/05/92 Pace 2?: I U. Employees 1. Where employees are specified, the employees counted are the ' persons who work on the premises including proprietors, executives, professional people, production, sales, and distribution employees during the largest shift at peak season. ' V. Fractions 1. Fractional space requirements shall be counted as a whole space. W. On-Street Parking 1. Parking spaces in the public street or alley shall not be eligible as fulfilling any part of the parking requirement. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.106.030 Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements ' A. Residential Uses 1. Single-family residences 2 spaces for each dwelling (attached or detached) unit, one of which shall be on a local street covered 2. Single-family residences 2 spaces for each dwelling ' (attached or detached) unit, at least one of on a collector or which shall be covered arterial street ' 3. Two-family residences Same as single-family ' 4. Multiple dwelling See Subsection 18.106.020.E a. Studio 1 covered space for each unit ' b. 1-2 bedroom units 1.5 spaces for each unit, one covered. ' c. More than 2 bedrooms 2 spaces for each unit - each per unit unit shall have 1 covered parking space 5. Group residential 1 space for each guest room plus 1 space for each employee ' 6. Group care residential 1 space per 3 beds plus 1 space for each employee Revised 02/27/89 Page 235 ' B. Civic uses 1. Community recreation As required by facilities ' provided 2. Cultural exhibits and 1 space per 400 square feet library services of gross floor area ' 3. Children's day care 5 spaces plus 1 space per classroom ' 4. Hospitals 1-1/2 spaces per bed 5. Lodge, fraternal, and 1 space for every 6 fixed ' civic assembly seats or every 12 feet of bench length or 1 space for every 60 square feet of gross floor area, ' whichever is greater 6. Public agency 1 space for every 350 square administrative feet of gross floor area Service 7. Public safety services 1 space for every employee of the ' largest shift 8. Religious assembly 1 space for every 6 fixed seats or every 12 feet of bench length in the assembly area or every 100 square feet of floor space in the assembly area where there are no permanent seats, whichever is greater ' 9. Schools a. Preschool/ 5 spaces plus 1 space per ' kindergarten classroom b. Elementary, junior 1.5 spaces for every employee, ' high school or plus 1 space for each 100 equivalent private square feet of floor area in or parochial school the auditorium or other assembly or ' 1 space for each 8 seats, whichever is greater ' c. Senior high and 1.5 spaces for each employee, equivalent private plus 1 space for every 6 or parochial school classroom seats, and 1 space for ' each 100 square feet of floor area or 1 space f or each 8 seats in the auditorium or other assembly room, whichever is greater Revised 02/27/89 Page 236 d. Commuter-type 1 space for every full-time college equivalent student e. Resident-type 1 space for every 3 full-time college equivalent students f. Commercial or business 1 space for every full-time school equivalent student C. Commercial Uses 1. Administrative and 1 space for each 350 square professional services feet of gross floor space ' 2. Adult entertainment 1 space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area if bookstore, and 1 space per 6 seats or 12 feet of bench length if theater 3. Agricultural sales 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment 4. Agricultural services 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment ' 5. Amusement enterprises 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area, plus 1 space for ' every 2 employees or 1 space per 4 seats ' 6. Animal sales and services a. Auction 1 space per 50 square feet of gross ' floor area b. Grooming 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area c. Kennels 1 space per employee ' d. .Veterinary 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area 1 7. Automotive and equipment a. Cleaning 1 space per 500 square feet of ' gross floor area Revised 02/27/89 Page 237 b. Fleet storage 1 space per each employee on the largest shift or 1 space per 1500 square feet, whichever is larger ' c. Repairs: heavy 1 space per 500 square feet equipment of gross floor area, but not less than 3 spaces for each establishment ' d. Repairs: light 1 space per 500 square feet equipment of gross floor area, but not less ' than 3 spaces for each establishment e. Sales: rental: 1 space per 1,000 square feet ' farm equipment of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment f. Sales: rental: 1 space per 1,000 square feet heavy equipment of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment ' g. Sales: rentals: 1 space per 1,000 square feet light equipment of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment h. Storage: 1 space for each employee on nonoperating vehicles largest shift or 1 space for each ' 1,500 square feet, whichever is larger i. Storage: Recreational 1 space for each employee on vehicles and boats largest shift or 1 space for each 1,500 square feet, whichever is larger 8. Building maintenance service 1 space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area, but not less than 3 spaces for each establishment 9. Business equipment sales 1 space per 350 square feet and service of gross floor area 10. Business support services 1 space per 350 square feet of ' gross floor area 11. Communication services 1 space per 350 square feet of ' gross floor area 12. Construction sales and 1 space per 1,000 square feet services of gross floor area 13. Consumer repair 1 space per 500 square feet services of gross floor area Revised 02/27/89 Page 238 r 14. Convenience sales and 1 space per 400 square feet personal service of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces per each establishment ' 15. Eating and drinking 1 space per 50 square feet of establishments dining area plus 'l space for every ' 2 employees 16. Explosive storage 1 space for every employee on the largest shift or 1 space for each ' 1,500 square feet, whichever is larger ' 17. Financial, insurance 1 space per 350 square feet and real estate of gross floor area ' 18. Food and beverage 1 space per 200 square feet retail sales of gross floor area, plus 1 space for every 2 employees 19. Funeral and internment services ' a. Crematory and under- 1 space per each 4 seats or 8 taking feet of bench length in depth, or 1 space per 60 square feet where there are no fixed seats b. Interning and Exempt cemeteries 20. General retail 1 space for each 400 square sales feet of gross floor area, but not less than 4 spaces for each establishment ' 21. Laundry service 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, but not less than 3 spaces for each establishment 22. Medical and dental service 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area t 23. Participant sports and recreation a. Indoor 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area b. Outdoor 1 space per 100 square feet, plus 1 space for every 2 employees Revised 02/27/89 Page 239 24. Personal service 1 space per 500 square feet facilities of gross floor area ' 25. Research services 1 space for each employee on the largest shift or 1 space per 500 square feet, whichever is larger ' 26. Retail sales: 1 space for each 1000 square bulky merchandise; feet of gross floor area but ' i.e., furniture, appliances not less than 10 spaces for each establishment ' 27. Scrap operations and 1 space per each employee, recycling center but not less than 5 spaces for each establishment 28. Spectator sports and 1 space per 6 seats or 12 entertainment feet of bench length ' 29. Transient lodging 1 space for each room plus 1 space for each 2 employees ' D. Industrial Uses 1. Manufacturing, 1 space per employee of the production, processing largest shift and assembling 2. Wholesaling, storage 1 space for each 1,000 square ' and distribution feet of gross floor area (plus 1 space per 700 square feet of patron serving area) but not less than 10 ' spaces for each establishment 3. Mini warehouse 1 space for every 200 square feet of gross office floor area, plus 2 spaces for a caretaker residence. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-04; Ord. 85-07; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.106.040 Modification to Parkin Requirements ' A. The provisions of this section as to number of spaces may be modified by the approval authority as follows: 1. Compact Car Spaces a. Up to 25 percent of the required parking spaces may be compact spaces; and Revised 02/27/89 Page 240 ' 2. Group Care Residential Facilities, Group Residential and Residential Homes ' a. The approval authority may, upon request, allow a reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces in housing developments for elderly or handicapped persons if ' such reduction is deemed appropriate after analysis of the size and location of the development, resident auto ownership, number of employees, possible future conversion ' to other residential uses. Notice of the decision shall be given as provided by Section 18.32.120 and the decision may be appealed as provided by subsection 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' -18.106.050 Parking Dimension Standards ' A. Accessibility 1. Each parking space shall be accessible from a street or other right-of-way, and the access shall be of a width and location as described by Sections 18.108.070 and 18.108.080. B. Table of Standards: 1. Minimum standards for a standard parking stall's length and width, aisle width, and maneuvering space shall be determined ' from the following table. Dimensions for designated compact spaces are noted in parenthesis: Angle Overall from Stall Channel Aisle Curb Length Curb Width Width Width per Stall ' Parallel 900" 990" 12'0" 23' (8'6(816") (12'0") (20'0") 30~ 9'0" 16'10" 12'0" 18'0 (8'6") (14110") (12'0") (17'0 0 45 9'0" 19'1" 14'0" 12'9" ' (8'6") (1617") (14'0") (12'0") 60* 9'0" 20'1" 18'0" 10'5" (8'6") (17'3") (18'0") (1013") ' 90~ 990" 18'0" 2410" 910" (8'6") (15'0") (2410") (816") Revised 02/27/89 Page 241 2. Sample Illustration: B C A ' D 3. The width of each parking space includes a four inch wide stripe ' which separates each space. C. Aisle Width: 1. Aisles accommodating two direction traffic, or allowing access from both ends shall be 24 feet in width. D. Angle Parking: 1. Angle parking is permitted; provided, that each space contains a rectangle of not less than nine feet in width and 18 feet in length or 8-1/2 feet in width and 15 feet in length for compact spaces, and an appropriate aisle width as determined by ' interpolation of the table in Subsection 18.106.050.B. E. Service Drive: 1. Excluding single-family and duplex residences, except as provided by Subsection 18.164.030.P, groups of more than two parking spaces shall be served by a service drive so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way would be required; and 2. Service drives shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress, and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular ' traffic on the site. F. Street Access: ' 1. Each parking or loading space shall be accessible from a street and the access shall be of a width and location as described in this title. 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 242 G. Parking Space Configuration: 1. Parking space configuration, stall, and access aisle size shall be in ' accordance with the minimum standard. H. Parking Space Markings: ' 1. Except for single-family and two-family residences, any area intended to be used to meet the off-street parking requirements as contained in this chapter shall have all parking spaces clearly marked using a ' permanent paint; and 2. All interior drives and access aisles shall be clearly marked and signed to show direction of flow and maintain vehicular and pedestrian ' safety. 1. Parking and Load Area Surface Requirements: ' 1. Except for single-family and two-family residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas as authorized in Subsections 3 and 4 below, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat, or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces according to the same standards required for the construction and acceptance of City streets; 2. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface to specifications as approved by the City Engineer; 3. Parking areas to be used primarily for the storage of fleet vehicles or construction equipment may be gravel surfaced when authorized by the approval authority at the time the site development approval is given. The Director may require that the property owner enter into an ' agreement to pave the parking area: a) within a specified period of time after establishment of the parking area; or b) if there is a change in the types or weights of vehicles utilizing the parking area; or c) if there is evidence of adverse effects upon adjacent roadways, ' water courses, or properties. Such an agreement shall be executed as a condition of approval of the plan to establish the gravel parking area. Gravel surfaced parking areas may only be permitted consistent t with the following: a. Gravel parking areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet of any residentially zoned or residentially developed area; ' b. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any public right-of-way; and ' c. A paved driveway of at least 100 feet in length shall connect a gravel parking area with any public street providing access to the gravel area; ' d. Gravel parking areas shall not be allowed within 100 feet of any water course. ' 4. Parking areas to be used in conjunction with a temporary use may be gravel when authorized by the approval authority at the time the permit is approved. The approval authority shall consider the following in determining whether or not the gravel parking is warranted: ' Revised 05/05/92 PA3P 243 ' O. Maintenance of Parkings Areas: 1. All parking lots shall be kept clean and in good repair at all times. Breaks in paved surfaces shall be repaired promptly and broken or ' splintered wheel stops shall be replaced so that their function will not be impaired. (Ord. 92-16; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 85-46; Ord. 85-38; Ord. 85-32; Ord. 85-07; Ord. 84-50;-Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.106.060 Reservoir Areas Required for Drive-In Use A. All uses providing drive-in services as defined by this title shall provide ' on the same site a reservoir for inbound vehicles as follows: Use Reservoir Requirement Drive-in banks 5 spaces/service terminal ' Drive-in restaurants 10 spaces/service window Drive-in theaters 10% of the theater capacity Gasoline service stations 3 spaces/pump Mechanical car washes 3 spaces/washing unit Parking facilities: Free flow entry 1 space/entry driveway Ticket dispense entry 2 spaces/entry driveway ' Manual ticket dispensing 8 spaces/entry driveway Attendant parking 10% of that portion of parking capacity served by the driveway (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.106.070 Loadina/Unloading Driveways Required On-Site A. A driveway designed for continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers shall be located on the site of any school or other meeting place which is designed to accommodate more ' than 25 people at one time. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.106.080 Off-Street Loading Spaces ' A. Buildings or structures to be built or altered which receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck shall provide and maintain off-street loading and maneuvering space as follows: ' 1. Every commercial or industrial use having floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, shall have at least one off-street loading space on site; and ' 2. One additional space shall be provided for each additional 20,000 square feet or major fraction thereof. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 ' Revised 05/02/92 Page 245 ' 18.106.090 Off-Street Loading Dimensions A. Each loading berth shall be approved by the City Engineer as to ' design and location. B. Each loading space shall have sufficient area for turning and maneuvering of vehicles on the site, and: ' 1. At a minimum, the maneuvering length shall not be less than twice the overall length of the longest vehicle using the t facility site. C. Entrances and exits for the loading areas shall be provided at ' locations approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 18.108. ' D. Screening for off-street loading facilities is required and shall be the same as screening for parking lots in accordance with Chapter 18.100. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) t 1 t Revised 02/27/89 Page 246 1 ' Chapter 18.108 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION t Sections: ' 18.108.010 Purpose 18.108.020 Applicability and General Provisions 18.108.025 Applicability of Provisions 18.108.030 Joint Access ' 18.108.040 Public Street Access 18.108.050 Required Walkway Location 18.108.060 Inadequate or Hazardous Access ' 18.108.070 Minimum Requirements: Residential Use 18.108.080 Minimum Requirements: Commercial and Industrial Use 18.108.090 Width and Location of Curb Cuts ' 18.108.100 One-way Vehicular Access Points 18.108.110 Director's Authority to Restrict Access: Appeal Provisions 18.108.120 Variances to Access Standards 18.108.130 Administration and Approval Process 18.108.140 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time 18.108.150 Approval Standards 18.108.160 Application Submission Requirements ' 18.108.010' Purpose ' A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and regulations for safe and efficient vehicle access and egress on a site and for general circulation within the site. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.020 Applicability and General Provisions t A. The requirements and standards of this chapter shall not apply where they conflict with the subdivision rules and standards of this title. B. The provisions and maintenance of access and egress stipulated in ' this title are continuing requirements for the use of any structure or parcel of real property in the City. ' C. No building or other permit shall be issued until scaled plans are presented and approved as provided by this chapter that show how access, egress, and circulation requirements are to be fulfilled. ' D. Should the owner or occupant of a lot or building change or enlarge the use to which the lot or building is put, thereby increasing ' access and egress requirements, it is unlawful and is a violation of this title to begin or maintain such altered use until the provisions of this chapter have been met if required or until the appropriate approval authority has approved the change. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 247 t ' 18.108.025 Applicability of Provisions A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all development ' including the construction of new structures, the remodeling of existing structures (see Section 18.120.020), and to a change' of use which increases the on-site parking or loading requirements or which changes the access requirements. B. Where the provisions of Chapter 18.120, Site Development Review, do t not apply, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter. No notice is required. The decision may be appealed as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A. ' C. The applicant shall submit a site plan which includes: 1. The location of the structures on the property and on the adjoining property; ' 2. The location of parking and loading areas and their dimensions; 3. The location of the circulation area necessary to serve the spaces; 4. The location of the access point(s) on the site and on the adjoining properties; 5. The location of curb cuts on adjoining properties and on the subject site; ' 6. The location and dimensions of all landscaping, including the type and size of plant material to be used, as well as any other landscape material incorporated into the overall plan; 7. The proposed grading and drainage plans; and r 8. Specifications as to signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.030 Joint Access A. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same access and egress when the combined access and egress of both uses, structures, or parcels of land satisfies the combined requirements as designated in this title, provided: 1. Satisfactory legal evidence shall be presented to the City Attorney in the form of deeds, easements, leases, or contracts ' to establish the joint use; and Revised 02/27/89 Page 248 I ' 2. Copies of the deeds, easements, leases, or contracts are placed on permanent file with the City Recorder. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.040 Public Street Access A. All vehicular access and egress as required in Sections 18.108.070 ' and 18.108.080 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maintained at the required standards on a continuous basis. ' B. Vehicular access to structures shall be provided to residential uses and shall be brought to within 50 feet of the ground floor entrance ' or the ground floor landing of a stairway, ramp, or elevator leading to the dwelling units. C. Vehicular access shall be provided to commercial or industrial uses, and shall be located to within 50 feet of the primary ground floor entrances. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.050 Required Walkway Location A. Walkways shall extend from the ground floor entrances or from the ground floor landing of stairs of all commercial and industrial uses, ramps, or elevators to the streets which provide the required access and egress. B. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.060 Inadequate or Hazardous Access ' A. Applications for building permits shall be referred to the Commission for review when, in the opinion of the Director, the access proposed: ' 1. Would cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or 2. Would provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or 3. Would in any other way cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. Direct individual access to arterial or collector streets as designated on the Tigard comprehensive plan map: transportation ' element from single-family dwellings and duplex lots, established after the effective date of the code codified in this title, shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no alternative way to access the site. Revised 02/27/89 Page 249 ' 1. In no case shall the design of the service drive or drives require or facilitate the backward movement or other maneuvering of a vehicle within a street, other than an alley; and ' 2. Service drives for multi-family dwellings shall be fully improved with hard surface pavement with a minimum width of: ' a. When accommodating two-way traffic, 24 feet, or ' b. When accommodating one-way traffic, 15 feet. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-61; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.070 Minimum Requirements: Residential Use A. Vehicular access and egress for single-family, duplex or attached single-family dwelling units on individual lots, residential use, shall not be less than the following: Number Minimum Number Dwelling of Driveways Minimum Minimum Pavement Unit/Lots Required Access Width Width 1 1 15' 10' 2 2 15' 10' or 1 25' 20' 3-6 1 30' 24' (curbs and walkway required) B. Private residential access drives shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code. ' C. Access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by one of the following: ' 1. A level, circular, paved surface having a minimum turn radius measured from centerpoint to outside edge of 45 feet. ' 2. A level, hammerhead-configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum ' width of 20 feet. D. Vehicular access and egress for multiple-family residential uses ' shall not be less than the following: Revised 02/27/89 Page 250 i ' Minimum Number Dwelling of Driveways Minimum Access Minimum Pavement Units Required Required Sidewalks. Etc. ' 1-2 1 10' 10' 3-19 1 30' 24' if two-way, 15' if one-way: Curbs and 5' walkway required 20-49 1 30' 24' if two-way, or 2 30' 15' of one-way: ' Curbs and 5' required ' 50-100 2 30' 241: Curbs and 5' walkway required 100+ for each 100 one additional 24' drive with spaces 5' walkway or a public street (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.080 Minimum Requirements: Commercial and Industrial Use A. Vehicle access, egress and circulation for commercial and industrial ' use shall not be less than the following: Required Minimum Number ' Parking of Driveways Minimum Access Spaces Required Width Minimum Pavement ' 0-99 1 30' 241; curbs required 5' sidewalk one side only ' when abutting streets with sidewalks 100+ 2 30' 24'• curbs and 5' sidewalk ' or required 1 50' 401; curbs and ' 5' sidewalk required Revised 02/27/89 Page 251 ' B. Additional requirements may be placed as conditions of site design review for truck traffic. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.090 Width and Location of Curb Cuts A. The curb cut standards shall. be in accordance with Subsection ' 18.164.030.N. Cross-sections of each street and related standards. are shown in Subsection 18.164.030.Z. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18 108.100 One-Way Vehicular Access Points ' A. Where a proposed parking facility indicates only one-way traffic flow on the site, it shall be accommodated by a specific driveway serving ' the facility; the entrance drive shall be situated closest to oncoming traffic and the exit drive shall-be situated farthest from oncoming traffic. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.110 Director's Authority to Restrict Access: Appeal Provisions ' A. In order to provide for increased traffic movement on congested streets and to eliminate turning movement problems, the Director may restrict the location of driveways on the street and require the location of driveways be placed on adjacent streets upon the finding ' that the proposed access would: 1. Cause or increase existing hazardous traffic conditions; or 2. Provide inadequate access for emergency vehicles; or 3. Cause hazardous conditions to exist which would constitute a clear and present danger to the public health, safety, and. general welfare. ' B. A decision by the Director may be appealed to the Commission as provided by Subsection 18.32.310.A, Procedures for Decision Making: Quasi-Judicial. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.108.120 Variances to Access Standards ' A. In all zoning districts where access and egress drives cannot be readily designed to conform to Code standards within a particular parcel, access with an adjoining property shall be sought. If access ' cannot be achieved, the Director may grant a variance to the access requirements of this chapter based on the standards set forth in Section 18.108.150. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) t 18.108.130 Administration and Approval Process A. The applicant of an access variance shall be the recorded owner of ' the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. Revised 02/27/89 Page 252 B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. (See Section 18.32.040.) ' C. Due to possible changes in state statutes, or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is valid for not more than six months: 1 1. Another preapplication conference is required if any accessory use or structure application is submitted six months after the ' preapplication conference; and 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information ' required by this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria, or requirements of the applications. ' D. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a temporary use. The Director shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18.140 when reviewing an application for a temporary use. E. The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A. ' F. The Director shall mail notice of the decision to the persons who are entitled to notice in accordance with Section 18.32.120. (Ord. ' 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.140 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time ' A. An access variance approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within.a one-and-one-half-year period; or 2. Construction of the site is a departure from the approved plan. ' B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to ' exceed one year, provided that: 1. No changes are made on the original access variance plan as ' approved by the Director; 2. The applicant can show positive steps have been taken to initiate construction of the site within the six-month extension ' period; and 3. There have been no changes in the facts or applicable policies ' and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. C. The decision of the Director may be appealed as provided by ' Subsection 18.32.310.A. No notice of the Director's decision need be given. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 253 18.108.150 Approval Standards A. The Director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request ' for an access variance based on findings that: 1. It is not possible to share-access; ' 2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; ' 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; ' 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will ' result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be ' met. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.108.160 Application Submission Requirements ' A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: ' 1. Copies for review by the Director of site plan(s) (number to be determined at the preapplication conference), and necessary data or narrative which explains how the access variance proposal conforms to the standards: a. The site plan(s) drawings shall be drawn on sheets preferably not exceeding 18 inches by 24 inches; and b. The scale shall be an engineering scale; and ' c. All drawings of structure elevations shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4 inches or 1/8 inches; ' 2. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 100 feet of the site; and ' 3. The required fee. B. The proposed access variance site plan shall include the following ' information: 1. The subdivision name, block and lot number or the section, ' township, range and tax lot number; 2. The relationship of the lot to the road system; Revised 02/27/89 Page 254 I ' 3. The location of access points on adjoining lots and on the lots across the street; ' 4. The location and setback of structures and parking areas on the lot and on the adjoining lots; ' S. The location of the proposed access; and 6. The site distances from the proposed access point. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 1 1 t Revised 02/27/89 Page 255 1 - Chapter 18.114 SIGNS Sections: ' 18.114.010 Purpose 18.114.012 Effective Date of this Chapter 18.114.015 Definitions 18.114.020 Permits Required ' 18.114.030 Administration and Approval Process 18.114.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time ' 18.114.050 Inspections 18.114.060 Sign Exemptions 18.114.070 Certain Signs Prohibited 18.114.080 Sign Illumination ' 18.114.085 Sign Measurement 18.114.090 Special Condition Signs 18.114.100 Temporary Signs ' 18.114.110 Nonconforming Signs 18.114.120 Sign Removal Provisions: Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations ' 18.114.140 Sign Code Exceptions 18.114.145 Approval Criteria for Exceptions to Sign Code 18.114.148 Criteria for Approval of an Administrative Exception ' 18.114.150 Sign Code Exception Application Submission Requirements 18.114.160 Sign Permit Application Requirements 18.114.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is: ' 1. To protect the health, safety, property, and welfare of the public; ' 2. To improve the neat, clean, orderly, and attractive appearance of the community; 3. To allow and promote positive conditions for meeting sign users' ' needs while at the same time avoiding nuisances to nearby properties; ' 4. To provide for safe construction, location, erection, and maintenance of signs; ' S. To prevent proliferation of signs and sign clutter; and 6. To minimize adverse visual safety factors to public highway ' travelers. * Prior Ordinance History: Ords. 87-41, 86-65, 86-32, 86-23, 85-32, 85-07, ' 84-71, 84-69, 84-61, 84-22, 83-52. Index maps and figures pertaining to signage on Highway 217 and Interstate Highway 5 are attached to Ord. 88-20 which is on file in the office of the City Recorder. Revised 02/27/89 Page 256 B. In addition, it is the purpose of this chapter to regulate the design, . quality of materials, construction, location, electrification, illumination, and maintenance of all signs visible ' from public property or from public rights-of-way. C. It is not the purpose of this chapter to permit the erection or t maintenance of any sign at any place or in any manner unlawful under any other ordinance, or state or federal law. D. This chapter adopts by reference the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act, ORS Chapter 377. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' .18.114.012 Effective Date of this Chapter A. All references made in this chapter to the effective date of this chapter shall mean November 9, 1983, unless otherwise specifically stated in an ordinance revision. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.015 Definitions ' A. For the purpose of this chapter, words used in the present tense include the future, the singular number includes the plural, "shall" is mandatory and not Directory, and "building" includes "structures" except "sign structures." B. As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings set forth in this chapter. C. The definitions to be used in this chapter are in addition to Chapter 18.26, Definitions, and are as follows: 1. "A" Board Sign - any double face temporary rigid sign. 2. Abandoned Sign - a structure not containing a sign for 90 t continuous days or a sign not in use for 90 continuous days. 3. Area - see Section 18.114.085 for definition of sign area. 4. Awning Sign - a wall sign incorporated into or attached to an awning. 5. Ballbon - see definition under Temporary Sign, Subsection 18.114.015.C.52. ' 6. Banner - see definition under Temporary Sign, Subsection 18.114.015.C.52. ' 7. Bench Sign - bench designed to seat people which carries a written or graphic message. ' 8. Billboard - a sign face supported by a billboard structure. Revised 02/27/89 Page 257 ' 9. Billboard structure - the structural framework which supports a billboard. 10. Building official - officer or designee of the City empowered to enforce the uniform Building Code. ' 11. Business - all of the activities carried on by the same legal entity on the same premises and includes eleemosynary, fraternal, religious, educational, or social organizations. ' "Legal entity" includes, but is not limited to, individual proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, nonprofit corporations, associations, or joint stock companies. ' 12. Construct - every type of display in 'the form of letters, figures, characters, representations. ' 13. Cutout - every type of display in the form of letters, figures, characters, representations or others in cutout or irregular form attached to or superimposed upon a sign or advertising sign. 14. Development Review - the site development review process set forth in Chapters 18.120 or 18.130 or 18.80. 15. Directional Sign - a permanent sign which is designed and erected solely for the purpose of traffic or pedestrian ' direction and placed on the property to which the public is directed. 16. Display Surface - the area made available by the sign structure ' for the purpose of displaying the advertising or identification message. 17. Electrical Sign - includes any sign utilizing electrical wiring. 18. Electronic Information sign - includes signs, displays, devices ' or portions thereof with lighted changing messages that change at intermittent intervals, each lasting more than two seconds, by electronic process or remote control. Electronic information signs are not identified as rotating, revolving, or moving signs. Also known as an automatic changeable copy sign or electronic variable message center. ' 19. Face of a Building - all windows and wall areas of a building in one or more parallel planes. ' 20. Flashing Sign - any sign which is illuminated by an intermittent or sequential flashing light source whose interval is two seconds or less in duration, or which is in any other way ' animated so as to create the illusion of movement without actual physical movement or the illusion of a flashing or intermittent light or light source. Revised 02/27/89 Page 258 ' 21. Flush Pitched "Roof" Sign - a sign attached to a mansard or similar type of vertically aligned roof. See Subsection 18.114.090(G). 22. Freestanding Sign - a sign erected and mounted on a freestanding frame, mast or pole and not attached to any building. ' 23. Freeway Interchange - any intersection of an exit off-ramp of - Interstate Highway 5 or State Highway 217 with a surface street. ' 24. Freeway-Oriented Sign - a sign primarily designed to be read by a motorist traveling on a highway designated by the Oregon State ' Highway Department as a freeway or expressway; specifically, these shall be Interstate 5 and Oregon State Highway #217, and shall not include Highway 99W. 25. Frontage - the length of the property line of any one premises along a public roadway. 26. Housing Complex - a grouping of one or more single-family attached residential units or one or more multi-family residential units. 27. Immediate or Serious Danger: a. Whenever any portion of the structure is damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood, or other causes; and any member or appurtenance is likely to fail, become detached or ' dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property; b. Whenever any portion of the structure is not of sufficient strength or stability. or is not so anchored, attached or fastened in place as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one-half of that specified in the Uniform Building Code for this type structure or similar structure, and will not exceed the working stresses permitted in the Uniform Building Code for such structures; and c. Whenever the location of the sign structure obstructs the view of motorists traveling on the public streets or ' private property, and thus causes damage to property or thereby injures persons. ' 28. Industrial Park - -a parcel of land which complies with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.68. 29. Lawn Sign - see definition under Temporary Sign, Subsection ' 18.114.015.52. ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 259 30. Lighting Methods: a. Direct - exposed lighting or neon tubes on the sign face; ' b. Flashing - lights which blink on and off randomly or in sequence; C. Indirect or External - the light source is separate from the sign face or cabinet and is directed so as to shine on ' the sign; and d. Internal - the light source is concealed within the sign. 31. Maintenance - normal care needed to keep a sign functional such as cleaning, oiling and changing, and repair of light bulbs and sign faces. Does not include structural alteration. 32. Nonconforming Sign - a sign or sign structure lawfully erected and properly maintained that would not be allowed under the sign 1 regulations presently applicable to the site. 33. Nonstructural Trim - the moldings, battens, caps, nailing strips ' and latticing, letters and walkways which are attached to a sign structure. 34. Painted Wall Decorations - displays painted directly on a wall, designed and intended as a decorative or ornamental feature. Decorations may also include lighting. 35. Painted Wall Highlights - painted areas which highlight a building's architectural or structural features. ' 36. Painted Wall Sign - a sign applied to a building wall with paint and which has no sign structure. ' 37. Person - individuals, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, and joint stock companies. 38. Premises - one or more lots on which are constructed or on which are to be constructed a building or a group of buildings designed as a unit. 39. Projecting Sign - a sign attached to a building other than a wall sign in which the sign face is not parallel to the wall. ' Such sign shall not project above the wall of the building to which it is attached, except where there is an existing parapet. 40. Projection - the distance by which a projecting sign extends ' from a building.. 41. Public Sign - signs legally erected for traffic or informational ' purposes by or on behalf of a government agency. Revised 02127/89 Page 260 42. Readerboard Sign - any sign with changeable copy or a message, except electronic information signs. 43. Roof Line - the top edge of a roof or building parapet, whichever is higher, excluding any cupolas, chimneys, or other minor projections. 44. Roof Sign - a sign erected fully upon or directly above a roof line or parapet of a building or structure. Exceptions: Approved temporary balloons, signs attached to existing architectural features and flush mounted "roof" signs. ' 45. Rotating, Revolving or Moving Sign - any sign, or portion of a sign, which moves in any manner. ' 46. Shopping Center - developments of not less than eight business units. 47. Shopping Plaza - developments of between two and seven business units. ' 48. Sign - materials placed or constructed primarily to convey a message or other display and which can be viewed from a right-of-way, another property or from the air. ' 49. Sign Structure - any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any sign as described in the Uniform Building Code. A sign structure may be a single pole and may or may not be an integral part of a building. 50. Structural:Alteration - modification of the size, shape, or height of a sign structure. Also includes replacement of sign structure ' materials with other than comparable materials, for example metal parts replacing wood parts. 51. Surface Street - a street which does not have limited access and which ' is not a freeway or expressway. 52. Temporary Sign - any sign, "A" board frame, banner, lawn sign, or balloon which is not permanently erected or permanently affixed to any ' sign structure, sign tower, the ground or building. a.. Balloon - an inflatable, stationary temporary sign anchored by some means to a structure or the ground. Includes simple childrens, balloons, hot and cold air balloons, blimps and other dirigibles. See Subsection 18.114.090.0; Revised 05/02/92 Page 261 b. Banner - a sign made of fabric or other nonrigid material with no enclosing framework. C. Lawn Sign - a freestanding sign in residential zones which is exempt from sign permit requirements provided the size requirements in Subsection 18.114.060.8.2 can be met. 53. Tenant Sign - a sign placed in control of a current tenant or property owner. 54. Uniform Building Code - the most recent structural and specialty Oregon Uniform Building Code as adopted by the Oregon Department of Commerce, and which Uniform Building Code, by this reference, is incorporated in this title to the extent of specific citations thereof in this title. ' 55. Wall Sign - any sign attached to, painted on, or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the wall. (Ord. 92-20; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.020 Permits Required A. No sign or sign structure shall hereafter be erected, re-erected, constructed, structurally altered or relocated within the City limits except as provided by this title, and a permit for the same sign or sign structure has been issued by the Director. B. A separate permit shall be required for each sign or signs for each business entity and a separate permit shall be required for each group of signs on a single supporting structure. C. Separate structural permits under the Uniform Building Code shall also I apply. D. An electrical permit shall be obtained for all illuminated signs, from the enforcing agency subject to the provisions of the State Electrical Code. E. The Director may require application for sign permits for all signage at a given address if no existing permits previously had been approved or documented. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.030 Administration and At>nroval Process A. The applicant for sign permit proposals, sign code exceptions, administrative variances, or exceptions shall be the recorded owner of the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. 1 I Revised 05/02/92 Page 262 B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required for sign code exception and administrative variance applications. (See Section 18.32.040.) C. Due to.possible changes in State statutes,. or regional or local policy, information given by staff to the applicant during the preapplication conference is.valid for not more than six months: 1. Another preapplication conference is required if any sign permit or structure application is submitted six months after the preapplication conference; and 2. Failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by ' this chapter shall not constitute a waiver of the standards, criteria or requirements of the applications. D. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a sign permit. The Director shall apply the standards set forth in this chapter when reviewing an application for a sign. E. The decision of the Director may be appealed in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.A. The following shall qualify to have standing as a party: 1.. Any person who has been ordered by the Director to remove a sign, alleged to be in violation of this chapter; ' 2. Any person whose permit to erect or alter a sign has been refused or revoked under this chapter; 3. Any person seeking an exception from the provisions of this Chapter; 4. Any person adversely affected by a determination of nonconformity by ' the Director under Section 18.114.110; and 5. Any person otherwise adversely affected by a determination made under this chapter. F. No hearing before the Hearings officer shall be granted from a decision by the Director unless the appeal is filed within 10 days of the decision. G. Application for hearing shall not stay the action of the Director unless the applicant requests a stay and, after appropriate notice and hearings, the Director determines that specific public safety considerations outweigh the ' delay of the action for the hearing and review process. Revised 1/17/91 Page 263 H. The Director is authorized and directed to enforce all of the provisions of this chapter: 1. All signs for which permits are required shall be inspected by the Director; and 2. Upon. presentation of proper credentials, the Director may enter at reasonable times any building, structure, or premises in the City to perform any duty imposed upon the position by this chapter. 1 I. Sign permit, sign code exception, and administrative variance fees will be set by resolution of the City Council. J. Application for administrative variances to this chapter shall be reviewed by the Hearings officer, according to the approval criteria contained in Section 18.134.050. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. Sign permit approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 90 days from the date of approval. ' B. The sign permit approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within the 90 day period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. C. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed 90 days provided that: ' 1. No changes are made on the original sign permit plan as approved by the Director; 2. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction of the sign ' within the 90 day extension period; and 3. There have been no changes in the applicable policies and ordinance provisions and uniform Building code provisions on which the approval was based. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.050 Inspections ' A. General: 1. All construction work for which a permit is required shall be subject to an inspection by the Building Official in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and this title: 1 Revised 1/17/91 Page 264 ' a. A survey of the lot or proposed location for sign erection may be required by the Building Official to verify compliance of the structure with approved plans; and ' b. Neither the Building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense or other obligations entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection. B. Inspection Requests: 1. It shall be the duty of the person doing the work authorized by a permit to notify the Building Official that such work is ready for inspection. The Building Official may require that every request for inspection be filed at least one working day before such inspection is desired. C. Required Inspections: ' 1. Reinforcing steel or structural framework of any part of the proposed structure shall not be covered or concealed without first obtaining approval of the Building Official. D. Foundation inspections shall be made after all required excavations, form work and bolt settings are completed and ready to receive concrete. ' E. All anchorages shall be left exposed for inspection. F. Electrical inspection shall be made by the agency issuing electrical permits. r G. Final Inspections: 1. Final inspection shall be called for by the applicant when all work is completed. This inspection shall cover all items required by the Building official under State. law or City ordinances such as the locations, landscaping if required, and general compliance with the approved plans and requirements of this title. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88- 20) 18.114.060 Sian Exemptions A. The following signs and operations shall not require a sign permit but shall conform to all other applicable regulations of this chapter and the provisions of Subsection (B) below: r Revised 05/02/92 Page 265 1. Lawn signs which do not exceed the maximum allowable area on one premise regardless of the number of signs as follows; ' a, a total of 12 square feet in single family residential zones; b. a total of 24 square feet_in multi-family residential zones. ' 2. Signs not oriented or intended to be legible from a right-of-way, other property, or from the air; ' 3. Signs inside a building, except for strobe lights visible from a right- of-way, other property or from the air; 4. Painted wall decorations; 5. Painted wall highlights; 6. Signs affected by stipulated judgments to which the City is a party, entered by courts of competent jurisdiction; 7. Directional signs; 8. Interior window signs; 9. Nothing in this title shall prevent the erection, location or ' construction of directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to direct pedestrians or vehicular traffic while on the parcel of real property on which the signs are located. No sign permit or fee shall be required for such signs; and 10. Nothing in this title shall prevent the erection, location or construction of signs on private property where such erection, ' construction or location is required by any law or ordinance, nor shall any public agency or utility be prohibited from erecting signs on private property when otherwise permitted. No sign permit or fee shall be required for such signs. l t 1 1 t t I Revised 05/02/92 Page 266 r B. All signs exempt from permit requirements under Subsection A above shall meet the following requirements: 1. The sign shall be erected on private property with the consent of the lawful possessor of the property and shall not be placed on utility poles or in the public right-of-way; and ' 2. At least one sign shall be permitted per parcel of land; additional signs on such parcel shall be spaced at least 50 feet apart in residential zoning districts and 30 feet apart in nonresidential zoning ' districts. C. The sign permit provisions of this section shall not apply to repair, maintenance, or change of copy on the same sign (including, but not limited 1 to the changing of a message on a sign specifically designed and permitted for the use of changeable copy), or unlawfully erected or maintained signs. (Ord. 92-20; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18.114.070 Certain Signs Prohibited A. Prohibited Display of Flags and Banners: It is a violation of this chapter to erect or maintain strings of pennants, banners or streamers, festoons of lights, clusters of flags, strings of ' twirlers or propellers, flashing or blinking lights, flares, balloons, and similar devices of carnival character. Exceptions: 1. National, state, and institutional flags properly displayed; 2. Signs and banners approved as temporary signs; and 3. Balloons as allowed in Subsection 18.114.090(C). B. Unsafe Signs or Improperly Maintained Signs: No sign shall be constructed, erected, or maintained unless the sign and sign structure is so constructed, erected and maintained as to be able to withstand the wind, seismic and other requirements as specified in the Uniform Building Code or this title. C. Signs at Intersections: No sign shall be erected at intersections of any streets in such a manner as to materially obstruct free and clear vision. All signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102 of this title: I Revised 05/02/92 Page 267 ' 1. No sign shall be erected at any location where, by reason of the position, shape, or color, that interferes with, obstructs the ' - view of, or could be confused with any authorized traffic signal or device; and ' 2. No sign shall be erected which makes use of the word "stop," "look," "danger," or any other similar word, phrase, symbol, or character in such manner as is reasonably likely to interfere with, mislead or confuse motorists. ' D. Obscenity:. 1 No sign shall bear or contain statements, words or pictures in which the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex or is patently offensive because it affronts ' the contemporary community standard relating to the description or representation of sexual material which is utterly without redeeming social value. E. Traffic Obstructing Signs: No sign or sign structure shall be constructed in such a manner or at such a location that it will obstruct access to any - fire escape or other means of ingress or egress from a building or any exit corridor, exit hallway, or exit doorway. No sign or supporting structure shall cover, wholly or partially, any window or doorway in any manner that it will substantially limit access to the building in case of fire. F. Abandoned Signs G. Bare Light Bulbs: Strings of bare lights shall not be constructed, erected, or maintained within view of any private or public street or right-of-way except if designed as part of a structure's architectural design. This subsection shall not apply to lighting displays as described in Subsection 18.114.070.A.2. t H. Roof Signs: ' Roof signs of any kind are prohibited, including temporary signs with the sole exception of approved temporary balloons. ' I. Revolving Signs: Revolving, rotating or moving signs of any kind are prohibited. 1 ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 268 t J. Flashing Signs: A sign which displays flashing or intermittent or sequential light, or ' lights of changing degrees or intensity, with each interval in the cycle lasting two seconds or less. Exposed reflective type bulbs, strobe lights, rotary beacons, par spots, zip lights, or similar devices shall be ' prohibited. K. Temporary Signs with Illumination or Changeable Copy: ' A sign not permanently erected or affixed to any sign structure, sign tower or building which is an electrical or internally illuminated sign or a sign with changeable message characteristics. ' L. Right-of-Way: Signs in the public right-of-way in whole or in part, except signs legally ' erected for informational purposes by or on behalf of a government agency. M. Signs on a Vehicle: Any sign placed on or painted on a motor vehicle or trailer, as defined by ORS Chapter 801, with the primary purpose of providing a sign not otherwise allowed for by this chapter. ' N. Billboards: Billboards are prohibited. (Ord. 93-12; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.080 Sian Illumination A. The surface brightness of any sign shall not exceed that produced by the ' diffused output obtained from 800 milliampere fluorescent light sources spaced not closer than eight inches, center on center. B. Any exposed incandescent lamp which exceeds 25 watts shall not be used on the exterior surface of any sign so as to expose the face of such bulb or lamp to any public street or public right-of-way with the exception of electronic information signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18.114.085 Sian Measurement A. Projecting and Freestanding: 1. The area of a freestanding or projecting sign shall include all sign faces counted in calculating its area. Regardless of the number of sign cabinets or sign faces, the total allowable area shall not be ' exceeded.. 2. The area of the sign shall be measured as follows if the sign is ' composed of one or more individual cabinets or sides: ' Revised 11113193 Page 269 ' a. The area around and enclosing the perimeter of each cabinet, sign face or module shall be summed and then totaled to determine total area. The perimeter of measurable area shall not include embellishments such as pole covers, framing,. decorative roofing, etc., provided there is no written advertising copy, symbols, or logos on ' such embellishments; ' b. If the sign is composed of more than two sign cabinets, sign facia or modules, the area enclosing the entire perimeter of all cabinets and/or modules within a single, continuous geometric figure shall be the area of the sign. ' Pole covers and other embellishments shall not be included in the area of the sign measurement if they do not bear written advertising copy, symbols or logos; and c. The overall height of a freestanding sign or sign structure is measured from the grade directly below the sign to the ' highest point of the sign or sign structure and shall include architectural and structural embellishments. B. Wall Signs: 1. The area of the sign shall be measured as follows: ' a. The area around and enclosing the perimeter of each cabinet, sign face or module shall be summed and then totaled to determine total area. The perimeter of ' measurable area shall not include embellishments such as pole covers, framing, decorative roofing, etc., provided there is no written advertising copy, symbols or logos on such embellishments; b. If the sign is composed of individual letters or symbols ' using the wall as the background with or without added decoration, the total sign area shall be calculated by measuring the area within the perimeter of all symbols and letters or other decoration including logos; C. Measurement of the wall area pertaining to flush pitched "roof" signs shall be calculated as if the sign were ' mounted directly on the wall face immediately below the sign; and ' d. Measurement of the wall area pertaining to awning.or canopy signs shall be calculated to include the vertical surface of the awning or canopy on which the sign is to be mounted ' and the wall surface of the structure to which it is attached. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 1 ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 270 ' 18.114.090 Special Condition Signs A. Special condition signs shall have special or unique dimensional, locational, illumination, maximum number or other requirements imposed upon them in addition to the regulations contained in this chapter. ' B. Bench Signs: 1. Bench signs shall only be permitted at designated transit stops in commercial, industrial, and multi-family zones where no bus shelter ' exists: a. There shall be no more than one bench sign per allowable transit t stop; 1 t Revised 04/13/93 Page 271 ' b. Placement of the bench sign shall not interfere with pedestrian traffic or be located within a vision clearance area or a public right-of-way unless otherwise determined to be permissible by the City Engineer; C. Application for a bench sign shall include the signature of the affected property owner, proof of liability insurance and any ' required permits from the State Highway Division or Washington County, where applicable; and d. The sign area shall be limited to a total of 14 square feet. C. Balloons: ' 1. One inflatable, stationary balloon or one cluster of childrens, balloons firmly secured shall be allowed only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: ' a. A City of Tigard-sign permit is obtained for each; b. Each owner or legal occupant of property or a building shall be ' allowed one balloon per year; C. A balloon sign shall be allowed to remain up for a period of no longer than 10 days per year; t d. A permit issued for a balloon will serve as one of the three sign permits allowed per business in a calendar year. ' e. Balloons may be permitted as roof signs with a City sign permit; f. The size of a balloon shall not exceed 25 feet in height, and ' g. The balloon shall be secured to a structure on the ground and shall not be allowed to float in the air higher than 25 feet above the nearest building roof line. ' D. Electronic Message Centers: 1. Electronic Message Center (variable message) sign regulations shall be ' as follows: a. Zones Permitted: ' (i) Electronic Message Center signs shall be permitted only in the C-G and CBD zones; b. Height and Area: (i) The maximum height and area of an electronic message center sign shall be that which is stipulated in Subsection ' 18.114.130(C); Revised 05/02/92 Page 272 C. Locations Permitted: (i) Electronic Message Centers shall be allowed to ' substitute for one freestanding sign or one wall sign; ' (ii) One Electronic Message Center sign, either freestanding or wall, shall be allowed per premises; d. Light Patterns: (i) Traveling light patterns ("chaser effect") shall be prohibited; ' (ii) Messages and animation shall be displayed at intervals of greater than two seconds in duration. E. Freeway Oriented (Freestanding) Signs: ' 1. Freeway oriented sign regulations shall be as follows: a. Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard; ' b. Zones Permitted: (i) Freeway oriented signs shall be permitted only in the C-G, I-P, I-L, and I-H zoning districts; C. Locations Permitted: ' (i) Freeway oriented signs shall be permitted to locate within 200 feet of Highway 217 and/or Interstate Freeway No. 5 rights-of-way as shown in the FOS ' (Freeway Oriented sign) overlay zone maps in Figure 1; (Figure 1 is on file in the City Recorder's office.) ' d. Number: (i) One freeway oriented freestanding sign shall be ' allowed per premises; e. Height: ' (i) The maximum height of a freeway oriented sign shall not exceed 35 feet from the ground level at its base; Revised 02/27/89 Page 273 ' f. Total Area: (i) For freestanding signs a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per face (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard then the provisions of Subsection 18.114.090.A.3.b shall apply; g. Freeway oriented signs shall be oriented to be viewed from the freeway; ' h. In addition to a freeway oriented sign, each parcel, development complex, or premises shall be allowed one ' freestanding sign provided all other provisions of this chapter can be met and both signs are located on separate frontages with different orientations; ' i. Freeway oriented signs are not permitted as roof, tenant, temporary, balloon, wall, and awning signs; ' j. Permits Required: (i) Freeway oriented signs shall be allowed only by t administrative approval of a sign permit application or by approval of a sign code exception by the Commission. F. Awning Signs: 1. Zones Permitted: a. Awning signs shall be permitted in all zoning districts; 2. Height: a. Awning signs (copy) may not extend above the upper surfaces ' of the awning structure. They may be hung below the awning if the sign clears the sidewalk by at least 8-1/2 feet; ' 3. Lighting: a. Awning signs may be internally or externally illuminated; ' and 4. Right-of--Way: ' a. Awning signs may extend into the public right-of-way 6-1/2 feet or 2/3 of the distance to the roadway, whichever is ' less. However, no sign may extend within two feet of the roadway. State Highway Division approval shall be necessary for awning signs on state highways. Revised 02/27/89 Page 274 ' G. Flush Pitched 'Roof' Sign 1. Zoning District: ' a. Allowed in all zoning districts except residential; 2. Height: a. The face of flush pitched 'roof' signs may not extend more than six inches above the roof line; ' 3. Placement: a. Flush pitched 'roof' signs shall be parallel to the building face. They may not extend beyond the building wall. Such surfaces shall be considered part of a wall surface in the calculation of total wall area; ' 4. Attachment: a. Such signs shall be attached to a mansard or other near vertical ' roof where the roof angle is greater than 450 from horizontal; and 5. All Code provisions applicable to wall signs shall also be applicable to this type of sign. ' H. Painted Wall Signs 1. Wall signs, including symbols or logos, which are painted directly onto ' the wall surface shall not exceed in gross wall area that percentage normally allowed for a wall sign in that zoning district; however, the vertical dimension of the sign cannot exceed 20 percent of the height of the wall. (Ord. 93-12; Ord. 92-20; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.100 Temporary Signs ' A. Authorization: 1. The Director shall be empowered to authorize temporary signs not exempted by Section 18.114.060. The Director shall attach such conditions to the issuance of a permit for a temporary sign as may be necessary to ensure discontinuance of the use of the sign in accordance with the terms of the authorization, and to ensure substantial ' compliance with the purpose of this title. B. Issuance Authority: ' 1. The Director may issue temporary sign permits which shall terminate within 30 days from the date of issuance; and Revised 04/13/93 Page 275 ' 2. No permit shall be issued for a period longer than 30 days, but a permit may be reissued by the Director for two additional permit periods (30 days each) per calendar year. C. Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as follows: 1. The total number of temporary'signs shall not exceed one for any use ' at any one period of time; such signs are not permitted for single family and duplex dwellings.. 2. The total area of a temporary sign shall not exceed 24 square feet and no more than 12 square feet per face; such signs are not permitted for single family and duplex dwellings. The permitted area for a banner shall be no more than 24 square feet per face with the total sign area not to exceed 24 square feet. 3. See Subsection 18.114.015.C.52, Temporary Signs, for types approved; ' 4. Special event banners to be hung across public right-of-ways may be permitted by the City Manager's designee. 5. A balloon as provided in Subsection 18.114.090.0. ' D. Location shall be as approved by the Director. E.-- Attachment: ' 1. Temporary signs may not be permanently attached to the ground, buildings or other structures. (Ord. 92-20; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' P.evised 05/02/92 Page 276 ' 18.114.110 Nonconforming Signs A. Except as provided in this chapter, signs in existence on March 20, t 1978, in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 77-89 and 78-16, which do not conform to the provisions of this chapter, but which were constructed, erected or maintained in compliance with all previous regulations, shall be regarded as nonconforming signs which may be continued until March 20, 1988. B. Signs in existence on January 11, 1971, which do not conform to the ' provisions of this chapter, but which were constructed, erected or maintained in compliance with all previous regulations, were regarded as nonconforming signs and could be continued for a period of 10 ' years from January 11, 1971. All such signs which were not brought into compliance with the standards in Ordinance Nos. 77-89 and 78-16 and the extensions granted, are now in violation of this chapter. C. Signs located on premises annexed into the City after January 11, 1971, which do not comply with the provisions of this chapter, shall be brought into compliance with this chapter within a period of ten years after the effective date of the annexation. ' D. Any sign which is structurally altered, relocated or replaced shall immediately be brought into compliance with all of the provisions of this chapter, except the repairing and restoration of a sign on site or away from the site to a safe condition. Any part of a sign or ' sign structure for normal maintenance shall be permitted without loss of nonconforming status. ' E. For purposes of this title, a sign face or message change shall be subject to the following provisions: ' 1. A sign face or message change on a nonconforming sign is not allowed as an alteration when the affected property and sign structure have been abandoned for greater than 90 days; ' 2. A sign face or message change shall be allowed as an alteration only fer existing conforming signs and for nonconforming signs prior to their amortization expiration date; and ' 3. No sign permit shall be required for allowable sign face or message changes. 1 F. Should a nonconforming sign or sign structure or nonconforming portion of structure be destroyed or repaired by any means to an ' extent of more than SO percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this title.. Revised 02/27/89 Page 277 ' G. Signs in existence on the effective date of this chapter which do not comply with provisions regulating flashing signs; use of par spotlights or rotating beacons; rotating and revolving signs; flags, ' banners, streamers, or strings of lights, (or temporary or incidental signs); shall be -made to conform within 90 days from the effective date of this chapter. H. Billboard signs in existence on the effective date of this title which do not comply with the provisions of Subsection 18.114.090.A shall be permitted to remain along Highway 99W only until June 10, ' 1998, at which time such signs shall be brought into conformity. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18-114.120 Sign Removal Provisions: Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs A. All signs erected after the effective date of this title, which are ' in violation of any provisions of this ordinance, shall be removed or brought into conformance upon written notice by the Director. B. All signs which do not comply with this chapter, but were erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance, shall be removed or brought into conformance within 60 days from written notice by certified mail given by the Director. ' C. If the owner of sign, building, structure or premises fails to comply with the written order, the Director may then cite the owner into ' court subject to Chapter 18.24, Enforcement. The following exceptions apply: ' 1. Section 18.114.110, Nonconforming Signs, provides for certain time limits and other conditions for certain signs as described therein; ' 2. Any sign that by its condition or location presents an immediate or serious danger to the public, by order of the Building official, shall be removed or repaired within the time the Building Official may specify: a. In the event the owner of such sign cannot be found or refuses to comply with the order to remove, the Building official shall then have the dangerous sign removed and the owner cited for noncompliance and recovery of any damage or ' expense; 3. Temporary Signs ' a. All temporary signs shall be removed as provided in Subsection 18.114.100.B.1, or in the case of temporary balloons as provided in Subsection 18.114.090.0.3. Revised 02/27/89 Page 278 ' D. Any person who owns or leases a nonconforming or abandoned sign or sign structure shall remove such sign and sign structure when the expiration of the amortization period for the sign(s) as provided in ' Section 18.114.110 has occurred or the sign has been abandoned: 1. If the person who owns or leases such sign fails to remove it as provided in this section, the Director shall give the owner of ' the building, structure, or premises upon which such sign is located, 60 days written notice to remove it; ' 2. If the sign has not been removed at the expiration of the 60 days notice, the Director may remove such sign at cost to the owner of the building, structure or premises; 3. Signs which are in full compliance with City sign regulations, which the successor to a person's business agrees to maintain as ' provided in. this chapter, need not be removed in accordance with this section; and ' 4. Costs incurred by the City due to removal, may be made a lien against the land or premises on. which such sign is located, after notice and hearing, and may be collected or foreclosed in the same manner as liens otherwise entered in the liens docket ' of the City. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.130 Zoning District Regulations ' A. No sign of any character shall be permitted in an R-7, R-4.5, R-3.5, R-2 or R-1 zone except the following: ' 1. Wall Sign(s): ' a. May not exceed a combined total area of four square feet; 2. Every housing complex shall be allowed one permanent freestanding sign at, each entry point to the housing complex ' from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped and not exceeding 32 square feet per face in area. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or ' private nuisance, as determined by the Director considering the purpose of the zone; 3. Every platted subdivision shall be allowed cne permanent, freestanding sign at each entry point to the subdivision from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped and ' not exceeding 32 square feet per face in area. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or private nuisance, as determined by the Director considering the purpose ' of the zone; Revised 02/27/89 Page 279 t ' 4. Nonresidential Signs: a. One illuminated or nonilluminated freestanding sign not t exceeding six feet in height and 32 square feet in area per sign face for uses approved under the site development review or conditional use process. Wall signs may not ' exceed five percent of the gross area of the wall face on which the sign is mounted; 5. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said ' signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; ' 6. Signs Exempt From Permit: a. The signs specified in Subsection 18.114.060.A shall be ' allowed, subject to any restrictions imposed by this title; 7. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and t 18.114.100; 8. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060.A.l.c.6 and ' A.l.b; 9. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and 10. Additional Allowable Signs: a. Awning sign(s) and painted wall sign(s). B. Multi-family Residential Zones: ' 1. No sign shall be permitted in an R-12, R-25 or R-40 zone except for the following: ' a. Wall Sign(s): (i) May not exceed a combined total area of one square ' foot per dwelling unit and may not project from the wall face; ' b. Every housing complex shall be allowed one permanent freestanding sign at each entry point to the housing complex from the public right-of-way, with the site ' properly landscaped and not exceeding 32 square feet in area per sign face. Illumination may be approved as long as it does not create a public or private nuisance, as determined by the Director considering the purpose of the ' zone; Revised 02/27/89 Page 280 C. Every platted subdivision shall be allowed one permanent freestanding sign at each entry point to the subdivision ' from the public right-of-way, with the site properly landscaped and not exceeding 32 square feet in area per sign face. Illumination may be approved as long as it does ' not create a public or private nuisance, as determined by the Director considering the purpose of the zone; ' d. Nonresidential Signs: U) One illuminated or nonilluminated freestanding sign not exceeding six feet in height and 32.square feet in area per sign face permitted in .a multi-family residential zone, if such use has been approved ' under the site development review or conditional use process. ;fall signs may not exceed five percent of the gross area of the wall face on which the sign is to be mounted; e. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter ' 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; f. Signs Exempt From Permit: ' M The signs specified in Subsection 18.114.060.A shall be allowed, subject to any restrictions imposed by this title; ' g. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; ' h. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.069 A.6 and B.2; ' i. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and ' j. 'Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s) and painted wall sign(s). C. Commercial Zones. 1. No sign shall be permitted in a C-G and CBD zone except for the following: r Revised 02/27189 Page 281 ' a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned C-G and CBD: (1) One multifaced, freestanding sign shall be permitted subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and ' (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; ' (ii) Area Limits: (1) The maximum square footage of signs shall be 70 t square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property, ' line into public right-of-way space; (iii) Area Limit Increases: ' (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign ' is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved, the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This ' increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 90 square feet per face or a total of 180 square feet for all faces; and (iv) Height Limits: ' (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in i height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement, whichever is less, to a maximum of 22 feet in height; ' b. Wall Signs: (i) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs, including illuminated readerboards, ' may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area 15 percent of any building face on which the sign is to be mounted; Revised 02/27/89 Page 282 Wall signs may not project more than 18 inches from the wall or extend above the wall to which they are attached; and (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this subsection, 'copy' includes symbols, logos, and letters. C. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Electronic Message Centers as per Subsection 18.114.090.D. e. Signs Exempt From Permit (i) The signs specified in Subsection 18.114.060.A shall be allowed, subject to any restrictions imposed by this title; f. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; g. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and B.2; h. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and ' i. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), freeway oriented sign(s), tenant sign(s), projecting sign(s), and ' painted wall sign(s); D. Commercial-Professional Zone: 1. No sign shall be permitted in a C-P zone except for the following: revised 04111193 Page 283 a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned ' C-P; (1) One multifaced, freestanding sign per premises small be permitted, subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and ' (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; ' (ii) Area Limits: (1) The maximum square footage of freestanding ' signs shall be 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; ' (iii) Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in ' sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and ' (iv) Height Limits: (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed eight feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 10 feet in height; b. Wall Signs: (i) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs,. including illuminated readerboards, may be erected or maintained but shall not ' exceed in gross area five percent in gross area of any wall face on which the sign is to be mounted; Revised 02/27/89 Page 284 Wall signs shall be parallel to the face of the building upon which the sign is located; and ' (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this subsection, "copy" includes symbols, logos, and letters; ' c. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square ' feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; e. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and B.2; ' f. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and g. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). ' E. Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Zones 1. No sign shall be permitted in the C-N or C-C zones except for the following: a. Freestanding Signs: ' (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned C-N or C-C: (1) One multifaced, freestanding sign per premises shall be permitted subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and ' (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; Revised 03/17/93 Page 285 (ii) Area Limits: (1) The maximum square footage of freestanding t signs shall be 32 square feet per face or a total of 64 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property line into public right-of-way space; (iii) Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in ' sign area is limited to a maximum of 52 square feet per face or a total of 104 square feet for all faces; and (iv) Height Limits: (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public ' right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each ten feet of setback from the ' property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement whichever is less to a maximum of 22 feet in height; ' b. Wall Signs (i) Allowable Area: (1) Wall signs, including illuminated ' reader-boards, may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area ten percent of any building face on which the sign is to be mounted; ' (ii) Wall signs shall be parallel to the face of the building upon which the sign is located; and (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and ' overall design quality would be served, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, ' in the additional area permitted. For purposes of this subsection, "copy" includes symbols, logos, and letters; Revised 02/27/89 Page 286 t c. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per driveway. Said signs shall be consistent with Chapter 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; d. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; ' e. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and B.2. ' f. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and g. Additional Allowable Signs: (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). F. Industrial Zones ' 1. No signs shall be permitted in an I-P, I-L, or I-H zone except for the following: ' a. Freestanding Signs: (i) Freestanding signs shall have certain limitations and conditions when permitted on properties zoned commercial and industrial; ' (1) One multifaced, freestanding sign shall be permitted subject to conditions and limitations as stated herein; and ' (2) A readerboard assembly may be an integral part of the freestanding sign; ' (ii) Area Limits: (1) The maximum square footage of signs shall be 70 ' square feet per face or a total of 140 square feet for all sign faces. No part of any freestanding sign shall extend over a property ' line into public right-of-way space; Revised 02/27/89 Page 287 ' (iii) Area Limit Increases: (1) The sign area may be increased one square foot for each lineal foot the sign is moved back from the front property line to which the sign is adjacent. If the street is curbed and paved, the measurement may be taken from a point which is 15 feet from the pavement. This increase in sign area is limited to a maximum of 90 square feet per face or a total of ' 180 square feet for all faces; and ' (iv) Height Limits: (1) Freestanding signs located next to the public right-of-way shall not exceed 20 feet in ' height. Height may be increased one foot in height for each 10 feet of setback from the property line or a point 15 feet from the edge of pavement, whichever is less, to a maximum of 22 feet in height; ' b. Wall Signs: (i) Allowable Area: ' (1) Wall signs, including illuminated readerboards, may be erected or maintained but shall not exceed in gross area 15 percent of any building ' face on which the sign is to be mounted; (ii) Wall signs may not project more than 18 inches from ' the wall or extend above the wall to which they are attached; and ' (iii) If it is determined under the development review process that the wall sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served, an ' additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area may be permitted. No copy will be permitted, however, in the additional area permitted. For purposes of ' this subsection, "copy" includes symbols, logos, and letters; C. Directional signs on private property when such signs are solely designed to identify driveway entrances and exits for motorists on adjoining public streets. One sign with an area of four square feet per face shall be permitted per ' driveway. Said signs shall be, consistent with Chapter . 18.102, Visual Clearance Areas; Revised 02/27/89 Page 288 I t d. Signs Exempt From Permit: ' (i) The signs specified in Subsection 18.114.060.A shall be allowed, subject to any restrictions imposed by this title; e. Temporary Signs in accordance with Sections 18.114.090 and 18.114.100; f. Lawn Signs in accordance with Subsections 18.114.060 A.6 and'B.2. g. Special Condition Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090; and h. Additional Allowable Signs: ' (i) Awning sign(s), tenant sign(s), freeway-oriented .sign(s), projecting sign(s), flush pitched "roof" sign(s), and painted wall sign(s). G. Other Requirements Which Shall Apply to Commercial and Industrial Zones 1. If it is determined under the development review process that the sign's visual appeal and overall design quality would be served while maintaining the intent and purpose of this chapter, an additional 50 percent of the allowable sign area and 25 percent of sign height may be permitted. No copy will be permitted in the additional area or ' height. For purposes of this subsection the word "copy" includes symbols, logos, and figures, as well as letters; ' a. Each freestanding sign shall be surrounded by an area set aside to protect the sign from vehicles negotiating in the parking area of the business and the area set aside shall be landscaped; (i) The size and shape of the area set aside and the landscaping shall be represented on the plot plan required by permit and shall be subject to the review and control of the Director, under the development review process; and ' (ii) On existing sites where a landscape island is not feasible, the minimum clearance between the lowest ' portion of a freestanding sign and the ground shall be 14 feet in any vehicle maneuvering area; Revised 04111193 Page 289 ' b. No freestanding sign, nor any portion of any freestanding sign, shall be located or project over any portion of a street, sidewalk or other public right-of-way or property t unless an exception has been granted; C. When a premises contains more than a single tenant but is not defined as a shopping center, the provisions of a freestanding sign shall take into consideration the need for providing a signing system which is harmonious in appearance and legible: ' (i) The building owner shall provide, at his own expense, a common support for all tenant signage; and ' (ii) Up to an additional 50 percent of sign copy area may be permitted under the design review process so as ' to adequately identify the separate tenants when determined that the increased sign area will not deter from the purpose of this chapter; ' d. Shopping centers or industrial parks shall establish a single signing format: ' (i) Up to an additional 50 percent of sign area may be permitted under the development review process to adequately identify the complex when it can be ' determined that the increased sign area will not deter from and purposes of this chapter; ' (ii) This increase should be judged according to unique identification needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible; and (iii) When a shopping center or industrial- park has more than one main entrance on separate frontages, a ' second freestanding sign may be allowed under the design review process. The two allowable signs shall face separate frontages and are not intended ' to be viewed simultaneously; e. Legal owners or occupants of properties or buildings which ' -are in shopping plazas and which are directly located or are proposed to be located on a commercially and industrially zoned corner property(ies) (one or more ' contiguous tax lots located at the intersection of two or more public streets), shall be allowed to have one freestanding sign along each street frontage when all of ' the following are met: (i) A sign permit shall be required for each sign prior to its erection; Revised 02/27/89 Page 290 The total combined height of two freestanding signs on the premises shall not exceed 150 percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same ' zoning district; (iii) Neither of the- signs shall exceed the sign height ' normally allowed in the zoning district in which the signs are located. (See Subsection 18.114.130.) (iv) The total combined area of two freestanding signs on the t premises shall not exceed 130 percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; ' (v) No more than two freestanding signs shall be permitted; (vi) The two allowable signs shall face separate frontages ' and are not intended to be viewed simultaneously; and (vii) All other provisions of this chapter shall apply. ' f. Shopping centers in the C-G zoning district shall be entitled to freestanding signage according to the following optional standards: ' (i) Number. A maximum of two freestanding signs shall be permitted per roadway frontage provided they can' meet both sign area and sign height requirements as set forth in this ' subsection. (ii) Allowable Height. The combined height of two signs shall not exceed 150 percent of the sign height normally ' allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150 percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the area normally allowed in the ' same zoning district. (iv) Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or ' will project into the public right-of-way. (v) A sign permit shall be required prior to erection of any freestanding sign referred to in this subsection. (Ord. 93- 12; Ord. 92-34; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) Revised 04113193 Page 291 1 ' 18.114.140 Sian Code Exceptions ' A. The Hearings Officer or, on review, the Council may grant exceptions to the requirements of this chapter when the applicant demonstrates that, owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design, structure or placement of the sign in relation to other structures or land uses or the ' natural features of the land, the literal interpretation of this chapter would interfere with the communicative function of the sign without corresponding public benefit. B. When the Hearings Officer or the Council approves an exception, the rights thereby given to the applicant shall continue to exist and to belong to. the applicant or any other owner of the land for a period of one-and-one-half years from the date of final approval: 1 If, at the expiration of one-and-one-half years from the date of approval, construction of the structure or initiation of the use giving ' rise to the need for the exception has not begun, the rights given by the exception approval shall terminate without further action by the City, the Hearings Officer, or the Council; and 2. Said rights shall also terminate at or after the expiration of one-and- one-half years from approval if, though commenced within one-and-one- half years, construction ceases and is not resumed within 60 days. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18.114.145 Approval Criteria for Exceptions to the Sian Code A. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for an exception to the sign code based on findings that at least one of the following criteria are satisfied: 1. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site ' in conformance with Sign Code standards; 2. A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented towards a different ' street frontage; 3. Up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height may be permitted ' when it is determined that the increase will not deter from the purpose of this chapter. This increase should be judged according to specific needs and circumstances which necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently legible. The increase (s) shall not conflict with any ' other•nondimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter; 4. The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in ' Subsection 18.114.130.G of this chapter; ' 292 Revised 1/17/91 Page 5. The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is appropriate because all of the following apply: ' a. The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150 percent of the sign height normally allowed for one freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height ' normally allowed in the same zoning district; b. Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will project ' into the public right-of-way; and c. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed 150 percent of what is normally allowed for one freestanding sign in 1 the same zoning district; however, neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the same zoning district. B. In addition to the criteria in Subsection A above, the Hearings officer, or in the case of an administrative exception, the Director shall review all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its relationship to the intent and purpose of this chapter. As a condition of approval, the ' Commission or Director may require: 1. Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve compliance with the standards contained in this chapter; 2. Removal or alteration of conforming signs in order to establish a consistent sign design throughout the development; and 3. Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits or removal of such illegal signs. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18.114.148 Criteria for Approval of an Administrative Exception A. The purpose of this section is to set forth the criteria whereby the Director is empowered to grant an administrative exception as a prerequisite ' to a sign permit for a proposed new sign or as a means to allow the continued use of a marginally nonconforming sign (due only to its dimensions). ' B. The proposed administrative exception(s) to sign height and/or sign area does/do not or will not exceed by more than five percent the existing sign height and sign area standards that otherwise would be applicable in the ' same zoning district for the same type of sign. C. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny.an application for an administrative exception based on findings that all of the following criteria are satisfied: ' Revised 1/17/91 Page 293 i I. The proposed administrative exception(s) applies/apply to an existing nonconforming sign or a proposed new sign for a developing site; ' 2. The proposed administrative exception(s) will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, be in conflict with ' the policies of the comprehensive plan, to any other applicable policies and standards and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 3. The proposed administrative exception(s) will not be detrimental to public safety and welfare; 4. The proposed administrative exception(s) will not involve an extension into the public right-of-way; and 5. Nonconforming sign(s) may be allowed past the expiration of its/their amortization date when the Director finds that: a. The proposed modified sign(s) is/are closer to conformance than the old sign in terms of a percentage reduction in its/their dimensional nonconformance; and b. The overall visual impact of all signs on the site has been improved with respect to the total number and size of all signage. D. In addition to the criteria set forth in 18.114.148.0, at least one of the following criteria shall also be met: 1. The proposed sign height or area administrative exception(s) is for the convenience of the regional or national business which wishes to use a standard-sized sign; 2. The administrative exception(s) will allow an unique sign of ' unique design or style which will enhance the area or will be a visible landmark; or 1 3. One of the sign code exception criteria in Subsection 18.114.145.A is satisfied. E. When all of the above criteria in Subsection 18.114-.148.A is ' satisfied-, the Director shall review all existing and proposed signage for the development as outlined in Subsection 18.114..145.8. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) ' 18.114.150 Sign Code Exception Application Submission Requirements ' A. All sign code exception applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: Revised 02/27/89 Page 294 I. Copies for review by the Director of the sign plan(s) and any necessary data or narrative (number to be determined at the preapplication conference), which explains how the, sign plan proposal conforms to the standards. Fifteen copies for review by the Commission of the sign plans for sign code exception: a. Sheet size for sign drawings and sign site plan(s) and ' required drawings shall preferably be drawn on sheets not to exceed 18 inches by 24 inches; b. The scale of the sign site plan shall be an engineering scale; and ' c. All drawings of the sign elevations and structural components shall be a standard architectural scale, being 1/4 inches or 1/8 inches; 2. The required fee; 3. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 250 feet of the site; 4. ..The applicant's statement; ' 5. An assessor's map; and ' 6. A title transfer instrument. B. The proposed sign site plan shall include the following information: 1. The location of the proposed sign and all existing signs_on the site; ' 2. The location of all existing and proposed buildings on the site; 3. The location of all existing and proposed streets and rights-of-way, including names and widths; and 4. The location of all overhead power and utility lines located on 1 the site. C. The proposed sign architectural plans shall include the following ' information: 1. The sign dimensions; ' 2. The materials and colors to be used; ' 3. The height of the sign above the ground; Revised 02/27/89 Page 295 4. The source and intensity of any illumination; 5. Construction drawings indicating size of footings, anchorages t and welds; 6. The Director may require engineers' calculations for sign construction, anchorage and footing requirements, including wind resistance and seismic forces, all in conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code in accordance with ' Subsection 18.32.080.A. All sign structures on or near a building shall conform to the State Fire Life Safety requirements and the Uniform Building Code requirements of the building, structure or area where it is erected; and ' 7. All electrical illuminated signs shall bear the Underwriters Laboratory label or equivalent. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) 18.114.160 Sign Permit Application Requirements ' A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: ' 1. Two copies for review by the Director of the sign site plan(s) and two copies of the sign architectural plans: a. The proposed sign site plan shall include the following information: (i) The location of the proposed sign and all existing freestanding, wall or other external signs on the site; ' (ii) The location of all existing and proposed buildings on the site; ' (iii) The location of all existing and proposed streets and rights-of-way, including names and widths; (iv) The location of all overhead power and utility lines located on the site; (v) The distance of the sign to the nearest public right(s)-of-way; (vi) The address of the site where the sign will be ' located; and (vii) The name, address and phone number of the applicant; 1 r r Revised 02/27/89 Page 296 f ' b. The proposed sign architectural plans shall include the following information: (i) The sign area dimensions; (ii) The materials and colors to be used; (iii) The height of the sign above the ground; (iv) The source and intensity of any illumination; (v) Construction drawings indicating size of footings, anchorages and welds; (vi) The address of the site where the sign(s) will be located; ' (vii) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant; and (viii) For those cases where an existing sign is to be modified, the applicant for a sign permit shall provide documentation or verifiable proof of when a sign was erected and, wherever possible, shall submit a copy of the original sign permit; C. Proof of a current City business tax certificate; d. Proof of a U.L. or equivalent label subscriber number; and ' e. The required fee. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20) Revised 02/27/89 Page 297 ' Chapter 18.150 TREE REMOVAL Sections: ' 18.150.010 Purpose 18.150.020 Permit Required/Applicability 18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of Permits 18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation 18.150.040 Emergencies: Authority 18.150.050 Application Submission Requirements ' 18.150.010 Purpose A. The City of Tigard is now benefitted by large numbers of trees, both ' natural growth and those which have been planted throughout the years by Tigard's residents. These varied wooded trees add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air, and provide ' noise barriers. B. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit the unnecessary removal ' of trees on undeveloped lots in the City prior to the development of those lots. At the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain trees to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.150.020 Permit Required/Applicability ' A. This provision shall apply to all undeveloped land, and developed commercial and industrial land. ' B. This provision excludes: ' 1. Developed residential property; and 2. Property registered with Washington County Small Woodlands Association and certified as a West Coast Tree Farm by the 1 Industrial Forestry Association, and used for commercial log harvesting or Christmas trees. ' C. No person shall cut a tree(s) upon private or public property without first obtaining a permit from the City, except as in Subsection B. ' D. For the purpose of this chapter, tree removal shall not include tree topping and pruning under power and utility lines, or pruning of trees located with visual clearance areas as defined in Chapter 18.102. Revised 02/27/89 Page 385 E. For the purpose of this chapter, tree removal permits shall be required for all trees having a trunk six inches or more in diameter, four feet above the ground level. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-29; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.150.030 Criteria for Issuance of Permits A. The following criteria shall be used by the Director or designee for the ' issuance or nonissuance of a tree cutting permit. To issue a permit, the following criteria must be satisfied: 1. The trees are diseased and there is a danger the trees may fall on ' existing or proposed structures or interfere with utility services or traffic safety; 2. There is a necessity to remove certain trees in order to construct ' proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; 3. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) due to the topography of the land because there will be no effect from the tree removal on erosion, soil retention, stability of earth, flow of surface waters; 4. There is not a need to retain the tree(s) to protect nearby trees as ' windbreaks, and as a desirable balance between shade and open space; 5. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and ' 6. The applicant's proposals, if any, to plant new trees or vegetation as a substitute for the tree(s) to be cut, will restore the aesthetic value of the removed trees. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.150.035 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time - Revocation A. Approval of a Tree Removal Permit by the Director shall be effective for a ' one and one-half year period. B. The Director shall renew the permit for a maximum period up to one year upon finding that: ' 1. All of the conditions of approval have been satisfied; 2. There has been no change in the original application approved by the ' Director; 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies on which the approval was based; Revised 1/17/91 Page 386 4. The applicable approval criteria in 18.150.030 are satisfied; 5. The applicant certifies that he/she is complying with the conditions of approval and agrees to comply in the future. C. The Director may revoke a Tree Removal Permit if the conditions are not satisfied as required by the original permit. ' D. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by subsection 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 90-41) ' 18.150.040 Emergencies: Authority A. In the event of emergency conditions requiring the immediate cutting or ' removal of trees in order to avoid danger or hazard to persons or property, an emergency permit will be issued, without fee, by the Director. During nonbusiness hours, emergency permits shall be issued by an on-duty officer in the police department. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.150.050 Application Submission Requirements A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and shall be accompanied by: 1. Two copies of the necessary data.or narrative; and ' 2. The required fee. B. The necessary data or narrative shall include: ' 1. The specific location of the property by address and assessor map number and tax lot; 2. The number, size, species, and location of the trees to be cut; ' 3. The time and method of cutting or removal and the reason for the tree removal; ' 4. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the cut trees; and 5. A narrative as to how the criteria in subsection 18.150.030.A are ' satisfied. C. The Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional information in accordance with Section 18.32.080. (Ord. ' 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' Revised 1/17/91 Page 387 Chapter 18.160 ' LAND DIVISION: SUBDIVISION Sections: 18.160.010 Purpose ' 18.160.020 General Provisions 18.160.030 Administration and Approval Process 18.160.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time ' 18.160.050 Phased Development 18.160.060 Approval Standards: Preliminary Plat 18.160.070 Application Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat 18.160.080 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements ' 18.160.090 Variances Authorized 18.160.100 Referrals 18.160.110 Appeal ' 18.160.120 Criteria for Granting a Variance 18.160.130 Variance Application 18.160.140 Application Submission Requirements: Final Plat ' 18.160.150 City Review of Final Plat: Approval Criteria 18.160.160 Centerline Monumentation: Monument Box Requirements 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement 18.160.180 Bond: Cash Deposit ' 18.160.190 Filing and Recording 18.160.200 Prerequisites to Recording the Plat 18.160.210 Vacation of Plats 18.160.220 Vacation of Streets 18.160.010 Purpose ' A. The purpose of this chapter is: ' 1. To implement the comprehensive plan; 2. To provide rules, regulations, and standards governing the ' approval of plats of subdivisions; . 3. To carry out the development pattern and plan of the City, 4. To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; 5. To lessen congestion in the streets, and secure safety from ' fire., flood, pollution, and other dangers; 6. To provide adequate light and air, prevent overcrowding of ' land, and facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water supply, sewage, and drainage; and 7. To encourage the conservation of energy resources. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 388 ' 18.160.020 General Provisions ' A. An application for a subdivision shall be processed through a two-step. process: the preliminary plat and the final plat: 1. The preliminary plat shall be approved by the Hearings Officer before the final plat can be submitted for approval consideration; and 2. The final plat shall reflect all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. ' B. All subdivision proposals shall be in conformity with all state regulations set forth in ORS Chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. ' C. When subdividing tracts into large lots, the Hearings officer shall require that the lots be of such size and shape as to facilitate future redivision in accordance with the requirements of the zoning district and this title. D. Temporary sales offices in conjunction with any subdivision may be granted as set forth in Chapter 18.140. E. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize ' flood damage. F. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain outside the zero-foot rise floodway, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and ' within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. ' G. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. ' H. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; and I. Where base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available form ' another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 87-66; Ord. 87-20; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.030 Administration and Approval Process A. The applicant of a preliminary plat proposal shall be the recorded owner of ' the property or an agent authorized in writing by the owner. Revised 1/17/91 Page 389 ' B. A preapplication conference with City staff is required. However, failure of the Director to provide any of the information required by this section shall not constitute a waiver of the standard, criteria, or requirements ' of the applications. C. Another preapplication conference is required if any preliminary plat application is submitted more- than six months after the initial preapplication conference. D. Upon receipt of an application, the Director shall review it for compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 18.160.060, Approval Standards; and ' 1. If a land division application is incomplete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the exact information which is missing within 30 days of receipt of the application; ' 2. The applicant shall be allowed to submit the missing information and upon submission of the missing information, the application shall be deemed complete; and ' 3. The applicant may refuse to submit the missing information in which case the application shall be deemed complete on the 31st day after the initial submittal of the application. E. Final action, including the resolution of all appeals and review on the land division application, shall be taken within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, and the Director shall: ' 1. Schedule a public hearing to be held by the Hearings officer within 45 days from the time the complete application is filed and shall provide a notice of the hearing in accordance with the provisions of ' Section 18.32.130; 2. Furnish one copy of the proposed preliminary plat to the City Engineering Division; ' 3. Furnish one copy of the preliminary plat and supplemental material to: t a. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation; and b. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), if the proposed ' subdivision is adjacent to a state highway and access to the state highway is desired by the applicant (these agencies will be given at least five days to review the plan, suggest revisions, and return the plans to the City); 4. Incorporate all staff recommendations into a report to the Hearings Officer. ' Revised 1/17/91 Page 390 ' F. The Director shall mail notice of the preliminary plat proposal to persons who are entitled to notice in accordance with Section 18.32.130 as follows: 1. The Hearings Officer shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny ' any application for preliminary plat. The Hearings officer shall apply the standards set forth in Section 18.160.060 when reviewing an application for a subdivision. ' G. The decision of the Hearings Officer may be appealed in accordance with Section 18.32.310.B. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.040 Expiration of Approval: Standards for Extension of Time A. The preliminary plat approval by the Hearings officer shall lapse if: 1. A final plat has not been submitted within a one-and-one half year ' period; or 2. The final plat does not conform to the preliminary plat as approved ' or approved with conditions. B. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one extension of the approval period not to exceed six months; provided that: ' 1. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat plan as approved by the Hearings Officer; ' 2. The applicant has expressed written intent of submitting a final plat within the one-year extension period; 3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan ' policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based; and 4. An extension of time will not preclude the development of abutting ' properties. C. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the applicant. The Director's decision may be appealed by the applicant as provided by Subsection t 18.32.310.A. (Ord. 90-41; Ord 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.050 Phased Development ' A. The Hearings Officer may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a preliminary plat. Revised 1/17/91 Page 391 ' B. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: 1. The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; 2. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on ' the use of temporary public facilities: a. For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or ' district standard; and 3. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. C. The application for phased development approval shall be heard concurrently with the preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. Ord. 89-06; 83- 52) 18.160.060 Approval Standards: Preliminary Plat ' A. The Hearings officer may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: ' 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with the City's comprehensive plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; 2. The proposed plat name is not duplicative or otherwise satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92[.090(1)); 3. The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for ' adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and ' 4. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. B. The Hearings Officer may attach such conditions.as are necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan and other applicable ordinances and regulations ' and may require: 1. Reserve strips be granted to the City for the purpose of controlling access to adjoining undeveloped properties. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; ' 83-52) Revised 1/17/91 Page 392 i 18.160.070 Application Submission Requirements: Preliminary Plat A. All applications shall be made on forms provided by the Director and ' shall be accompanied by: 1. Copies of the preliminary plat map and required data or narrative (number to be determined at the preapplication conference); 2. A list of the names and addresses of all persons who are property owners of record within 250 feet of the site; and 3. The required fee. B. The preliminary plat map and data or narrative shall include the following: 1. Sheet size for the preliminary plat shall preferably not exceed 18 inches by 24 inches; ' 2. The scale shall be an engineering scale, and limited to one phase per sheet; 3. The proposed name of the subdivision shall comply with ORS Chapter 92 and shall not duplicate or resemble the name of any other subdivision in the County, unless the land platted is ' contiguous to and platted by the same party that platted the subdivision bearing that name or unless the applicant files and records the consent of the party that platted the ' subdivision bearing that name; 4. Vicinity map showing the general location of the subject ' property in relationship to arterial and collector streets; 5. Names, addresses' and telephone numbers of the owner, developer, engineer, surveyor, and designer, as applicable; 6. The date of application; ' 7. The assessor's map and tax lot number and a legal description sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; 8. The boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided; ' 9. The names of adjacent subdivisions or the names of recorded owners of adjoining parcels of unsubdivided land; 10. Contour lines related to a City established benchmark at two-foot intervals for grades zero to ten percent and five-foot intervals for grades over ten percent; Revised 02/27/89 Page 393 i ' 11. The purpose, location, type and size of all the following (within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision) existing and proposed: ' a. Public and private rights-of-way and easements; b. Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines, ' domestic water mains including fire hydrants, gas mains, major power (50,000 volts or better), telephone ' transmission lines, and watercourses; and c. Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pathways, and any other land encumbrances; 12. Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated and plans of the ' proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the location of valves and fire hydrants; ' 13. Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision; 14. Scaled cross sections of proposed street rights-of-way; 15. The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water ' overflow, and the location, width, and direction of flow of all watercourses and drainageways; ' 16. The proposed lot configurations, approximate lot dimensions and lot numbers. where lots are to be used for purposes other than residential, it shall be indicated upon such lots. Each ' lot shall abut upon a public street; 17. The location of all trees with a diameter six inches or greater measured at four feet above ground level, and the location of proposed tree plantings, if any; 18. The existing use of the property, including location of all ' structures and present use of the structures, and a statement of which structures are to remain after platting; ' 19. Supplemental information including proposed deed restrictions, if any, proof of property ownership, and a proposed plan for provision of subdivision improvements; and ' 20. Existing natural features including rock outcroppings, wetlands, and marsh areas. ' C. If any of the foregoing information cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and submitted with the application. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 394 ' 18 160 080 Additional Information Required and Waiver of Requirements A. The Director may require information in addition to that required by this ' chapter in accordance with Subsection 18.32.080.A. B. The Director may waive a specific requirement for information in accordance with Subsections 18.32.080.B and C. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.090 Variances Authorized A. Variances to the subdivision regulations prescribed by this title may be ' authorized by the Hearings officer, and application shall be made with a preliminary plat application in accordance with Section 18.160.070. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.100 Referrals A. The Director shall transmit copies of the application for variance to staff for review. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.110 Appeal A. The Hearings Officer's action on an application for a variance may be appealed in accordance with Subsection 18.32.310.B. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89- 06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.120 Criteria for Grantina a Variance ' A. The Hearings Officer shall consider the application for variance at the same meeting at which it considers the preliminary plat. B. A variance maybe approved, approved with conditions, or denied provided the ' Hearings Officer finds: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land *as compared to other lands ' similarly situated; 2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property; and ' 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. (Ord. 90-41; Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 1/17/91 Page 395 18.160.130 Variance Application A. Application for a variance shall be made on forms provided by the ' Director. B. The applicant shall state fully the reasons for the application, the supporting facts, and any other data pertinent to the findings prerequisite to the granting of a variance prescribed in section 18.160.120. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.140 Application Submission. Requirements: Final Plat A. Unless otherwise provided in Section 18.160.020, the applicant shall ' submit: 1. A final plat and five copies to the Director within one year which complies with the approved preliminary plat; and 2. The required fee. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.150 City Review of Final Plat: Approval Criteria A. The Director and the City Engineer shall review the final plat and shall approve or deny the final plat approval based on findings that: 1. The final plat complies with the plat approved by the ' Commission and all conditions of approval have been satisfied; 2. The streets and roads for public use are dedicated without reservation or restriction other than revisionary rights upon vacation of any such street or road and easements for public utilities; ' 3. The streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan of such subdivision have been approved by ' the City; 4. The plat contains a donation to the public of all common improvements, including but not limited to streets, roads, ' parks, sewage disposal, and water supply systems; 5. An explanation is included which explains all of the common ' improvements required as conditions of approval and are in recordable form and have been recorded and referenced on the plat; ' 6. The plat complies with the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; I Revised 02/27/89 Page 396 7. A certification by the appropriate water district that water will be available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted on the proposed plat or bond, contract or other assurance has been provided by the subdivider to the City that a domestic water system will be installed by or on behalf of the subdivider to the lot line of each and every lot depicted on the proposed plat. The amount of the bond, contract or other assurance by the subdivider shall be determined by a registered professional engineer, subject to any change in amount as determined necessary by the City; 8. A certificate has been provided by the City's Engineering Division that a sewage disposal system will be available to the lot line of each and every lot depicted in the proposed plat; ' 9. Copies of signed deeds have been submitted granting the City a reserve strip as provided by Section 18.160.060; ' 10. The final plat has been made in black India ink, upon material that is 18 inches by 24 inches in size; that is suitable for binding and copying purposes, and that has characteristics of strength and permanency; 11. The lettering of the approvals, dedication and affidavit of the surveyor is of such a size and type, and the plat is at ' such a scale, as will be clearly legible, but no part shall come nearer any edge of the sheet than one inch; 12. If there is more than one sheet, a face sheet and index has been provided; and ' 13. The plat contains a surveyor's affidavit by the surveyor who surveyed the land represented on the plat to the effect the land was correctly surveyed and marked with proper monuments as provided by ORS Chapter 92 and indicating the initial point ' of the survey, and giving the dimensions and kind of such monument, and its reference to some corner established by the U.S. survey or giving two or more objects for identifying its ' location. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.160 Centerline Monumentation: Monument Box Requirements A. Centerline Monumentation: ' 1. The centerlines of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before City acceptance of street improvements; and Revised 02/27/89 Page 397 2. The following centerline monuments shall be set: a. All centerline-centerline intersection points; ' b. All cul-de-sac center points; and c. Curve points, beginning and ending points (point of ' curvature (P.C.) and point of tangency MT.)). B. Monument Boxes Required. ' 1. Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points and cul-de-sac center points; and 2. The tops of all monument boxes will be set to finished ' pavement grade. 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement A. Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements ' and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. B. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.180 Bond: Cash Deposit A. As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: ' 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the state of Oregon; ' 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the state of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in ' writing that it may be terminated; or Revised 02/27/89 Page 398 ' 3. Cash. B. The assurance of performance shall be for a sum determined by the City Engineer as required to cover the cost of the improvements and repairs, including related engineering and incidental expenses. C. The subdivider shall furnish *to the City Engineer an itemized ' improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. 1 D. In the event the subdivider fails to carry out all provisions of the agreement and the City has unreimbursed costs or expenses resulting ' from such failure, the City shall call on the bond, cash deposit or letter of credit for reimbursement. E. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.190 Filing and Recording A. Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of county officials as required by ORS Chapter 92 and Section 18.160.150. ' B. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.160.200 Prerequisites to Recording the Plat A. No plat shall be recorded unless all ad valorem taxes and all special assessments, fees, or other charges required by law to be placed on the tax roll have been paid in the manner provided by ORS Chapter 92. B. No plat shall be recorded until it is approved by the County surveyor in the manner provided by ORS Chapter 92. (Ord. 89-06; ' Ord. 83-52) 18.160.210 Vacation of Plats ' A. Any plat or portion thereof may be vacated by the owner of the platted area at any time prior to the sale of any lot within the ' platted subdivision. B. All applications for a plat or street vacation shall be made in accordance with Sections 18.160.020 and 18.160.030, and Subsection ' 18.160.160(A). Revised 02/27/89 Page 399 ' C. The application may be denied if it abridges or destroys any public right in any of its public uses, improvements, streets, or alleys. D. All approved plat vacations shall be recorded in accordance with ' Section 18.160.190: 1. Once recorded, the vacation shall operate to eliminate the ' force and effect of the plat prior to vacation; and 2. The vacation shall also divest all public rights in the streets, alleys and public grounds, and all dedications laid out or described on the plat. E. When lots have been sold, the plat may be vacated in the manner herein provided by all of the owners of lots within the platted area. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.160.220 Vacation of Streets A. All street vacations shall comply with the procedures and standards ' set forth in ORS Chapter 271 and Chapter 15.08 of this code. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 400 Chapter 18.164 t STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS ' Sections: 18.164.010 Purpose ' 18.164.020 General Provisions 18.164.030 Streets 18.164.040 Blocks 18.164.050 Easements 18.164.060 Lots 18.164.070 Sidewalks ' 18.164.080 Public Use Areas 18.164.090 Sanitary Sewers 18.164.100 Storm Drainage ' 18.164.110 Bikeways 18.164.120 Utilities 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required 18.164.140 Monuments ' 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee 18.164.160 Installation: Conformation Required 18.164.170 Plan Checking Required ' 18.164.180 Notice of City Required 18.164.190 City Inspection Required 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required ' 18.164.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to provide construction standards for ' the implementation of public and private facilities and utilities such as streets, sewers, and drainage. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.164.020 General Provisions A. Unless otherwise provided, the standard specifications for ' construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs and other public improvements within the City shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. ' B. The City Engineer may recommend changes or supplements to the standard specifications consistent with the application of ' engineering principles. C. No vehicles on a building construction site shall be allowed on unimproved surfaces. ' D. The provision of Section 7.40 of the Tigard Municipal Code shall apply to this chapter. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 410 ' 18.164.030 Streets A. Improvements: t 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street: ' a. Streets within a development and streets adjacent shall be improved in accordance with this title; b. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an approved street plan shall be dedicated and improved in-accordance with this code; and c. The Director may accept a future improvement guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the ' following conditions exist: (i) A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve property design standards; (ii) A partial improvement may create a potential safety ' hazard to motorists or pedestrians; (iii) Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street ' improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a ' significant improvement to street safety or capacity; ' (iv) The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; (v) The improvement is associated with an approved land ' partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or ' (vi) Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the ' application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. ' B. Creation of Rights-of-way for Streets and Related Purposes: ' 1. Rights-of-way shall be created through the approval of a final subdivision plat or major partition; however, the Council may approve the creation of a street by acceptance of a deed, provided that such street is deemed essential by the Council ' for the purpose of general traffic circulation: Revised 02/27/89 Page 411 ' a. The Council may approve the creation of a street by deed of dedication without full compliance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions or major partitions if any one or more of the following conditions ' are found by the Council to be present: ' (i) Establishment of a street is initiated by the Council and is found to be essential for the purpose of general traffic circulation, and partitioning of subdivision of land has an incidental effect rather than being the primary objective in establishing the road or street for public use; and ' (ii) The tract in which the road or street is to be dedicated is an isolated ownership of one acre or ' less and such dedication is recommended by the Commission to the Council based on a finding that the proposal is not an attempt to evade the ' provisions of this title governing the control of subdivisions or major partitions; t b. .With each application for approval of a road or street right-of-way not in full compliance with the regulations applicable to the standards, the proposed dedication ' shall be made a condition of subdivision and major partition approval: (i) The applicant shall submit such additional ' information and justification as may be necessary to enable the Commission in its review to determine whether or not a recommendation for approval by the ' Council shall be made; (ii) The recommendation, if any, shall be based upon a t finding that the proposal is not in conflict with the purpose of this title; ' (iii) The Commission in submitting the proposal with a recommendation to the Council may attach conditions which are necessary to preserve the standards of this title; and ' (iv) All deeds of dedication shall be in a form prescribed by the City and shall name "the City of ' Tigard, Oregon" or "the public," whichever the City may require, as grantee. ' C. Creation of Access Easements: Revised'02/27/89 Page 412 I 1. The approval authority may approve an access easement established by deed without full compliance with this title provided such an easement is the only reasonable method by which a lot large enough to develop can develop: ' a. Access easements which exceed 150 feet shall be improved in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207; 1 b. Access shall be in accordance with Sections 18.108.070 and 18.108.080. ' D. Street Location, Width and Grade: ' 1. The location, width and grade of all streets shall conform to an approved street plan and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographic conditions, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets: ' a. Street grades shall be approved by the public works Director in accordance with Subsection M below; and ' b. Where the location of a street is not shown in an approved street plan, the arrangement of streets in a development shall either: (i) Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in the surrounding ' areas, or (ii) Conform to a plan adopted by the Council, if it is ' impractical to conform to existing street patterns because of particular topographical or other existing conditions of the land. Such a plan shall be based on the type of land use to be served, the ' volume of traffic, the capacity of adjoining streets and the need for public convenience and safety. ' E. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Widths: 1. Unless otherwise indicated on an approved street plan, the street right-of-way and roadway widths shall not be less than the minimum width described below (see Comprehensive Plan: Transportation). Where a range is indicated, the width shall ' be determined by the City. a. In Developing Areas: Revised 02/27/89 Page 413 i Minimum Minimum Right-of-way Roadway Moving Type of Street width (feet) Width (feet) Lanes Arterial 60-90 12'/lane 2-4 Major Collector 60-80 44' 2-4 Minor Collector 60 40' 2-3 Local Street 50 34' 2 Local Streets (planned 50 26' 2 developments only with equal off-street parking) Cul-de-sac dead-end 50 34' 2 ' streets, (not more than 400' long) Turn-arounds for 50' radius 42' radius dead-end streets Alley: Residential, 20 20' Business or Industrial 20 20' ' b. In established areas improvements to streets shall be made according to adopted City standards, unless the approval authority determines that the public benefit in ' a particular case does not warrant imposing an expected severe, adverse impact on the existing development. Any required variances to the standards shall be in the following priority order: (i) Narrow or eliminate landscape strips; ' (ii) Narrow or eliminate on-street parking; (iii) Narrow or eliminate sidewalks and/or bike trails; ' (iv) Eliminate left turn lanes; and ' (v) Narrow travel lanes. F. Future Extensions of Streets and Reserve Strips: 1. 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, and: a. A reserve strip across the end of a dedicated street shall be deeded to the City; and ' b. A barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street by the property owners which shall not be removed until ' authorized by the City Engineer, the cost of which shall be included in the street construction cost. Revised 02/27/89 Page 414 G. Street Alignment: 1. As far as practical, streets shall be dedicated and constructed in alignment with existing streets by continuing the centerlines thereof. In no case shall the staggering of streets making "T" intersections at collectors and arterials be designed such that jogs of less than 300 feet on such ' streets are created, as measured from the centerline of such street. ' H: Intersection Angles: 1. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practicable, except where topography requires a lesser angle, but in no case shall the angle be less than 60° unless there is special intersection design, and: a. Streets shall have at least 25 feet of tangent adjacent to the right-of-way intersection unless topography requires a lesser distance; b. Intersections which are not at right angles shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet along the right-of-way ' lines of the acute angle; and c. Right-of-way lines at intersection with arterial streets ' shall have a corner radius of not less than 20 feet. I. Existing Rights-of-Way: ' 1. Whenever existing rights-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional rights-of-way ' shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. J. Partial Street Improvements: ' 1. Partial street improvements resulting in a pavement width of less than 24 feet; while generally not acceptable, may be approved where essential to reasonable development when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and when it will be practical to require the improvement of the other half when the adjoining property developed. K. Gals-de-sac: 1. A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no event be more than 400 feet long: a. All culs-de-sac shall terminate with a circular turnaround; and 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 415 ' b. The length of the cul-de-sac shall be measured along the centerline of the roadway from the near side of the intersecting street to the farthest point of the ' cul-de-sac. L. Street Names: 1. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets in Washington County, except for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the surrounding area. M. Grades and Curves: 1. Grades shall not exceed ten percent on arterials, 12 percent ' on-collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street, and: a. Centerline radii of curves shall not be less than 700 feet on arterials, 500 feet on major collectors, 350 feet on minor collectors, or 100 feet on other streets; and b. Streets intersecting with a minor collector or greater functional classification street, or streets intended to be posted with a stop sign or signalization, shall provide a landing averaging five percent or less. Landings are that portion of the street within 20 feet of the edge of the intersecting street at full improvement. N. Curbs, Curb Cuts, Ramps, and Driveway Approaches: 1. Concrete vertical curbs, curb cuts, wheelchair, bicycle ramps ' and driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with standards specified in this chapter and Section 15.04.080, and: ' a. Concrete curbs and driveway approaches are required; except b. Where no sidewalk is planned, an asphalt approach may be constructed with City Engineer approval; and c.' Asphalt and concrete driveway approaches to the property line shall be built to City configuration standards. 0. Streets Adjacent to Railroad Right-of-Way. 1. Wherever the proposed development contains or is adjacent to a ' railroad right-of-way, provision shall be made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land, and: Revised 02/27/89 Page 416 ' a. The distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets or the minimum distance required for approach grades. and to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along the railroad right-of-way in nonindustrial areas. P. Access to Arterials: ' 1. Where a development abuts or is traversed by an existing or proposed arterial street, the development design shall provide ' adequate protection for residential properties and shall separate residential access and through traffic, or if separation is not feasible, the design shall minimize the traffic conflicts. The design requirements shall include any of the following: a. A parallel access street along the arterial; ' b. Lots of suitable d abutting the arterial depth to provide ' adequate buffering with frontage along another street; C. Screen planting at the rear or side property line to be contained in a nonaccess reservation along the arterial; or d. Other treatment suitable to meet the objectives of this ' subsection. Q. Alleys, Public or Private: ' 1. Alleys, 20 feet in width, shall be provided in commercial and industrial districts, unless other permanent provisions for ' access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made as approved by the Commission, and: a. While alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided, the corners of necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than 12 feet. ' R. Survey Monuments: ' 1. Upon completion of a street improvement and prior to acceptance by the City, it shall be the responsibility of the developer's registered professional land surveyor to provide ' certification to the City that all boundary and interior monuments shall be reestablished and protected. 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 417 S. Private Streets: 1. Private streets are permitted within planned developments and mobile home parks, and: a. Design standards for-private streets shall be established by the City Engineer; and b. The City shall require legal assurances for the continued ' maintenance of private streets, such as: (i) A bonded maintenance agreement; and 1 (ii) The creation of a homeowners association; T. Railroad Crossings: 1 1. Where an adjacent development results in a need to install or improve a railroad crossing, the cost for such improvements may be a condition of development approval, or another equitable means of cost distribution shall be determined by the public works Director and approved by the Commission. U. Street Signs: ' 1. The City shall install all street signs, relative to traffic control and street names, as specified by the City Engineer for any development. The cost of signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. V. Mailboxes: ' 1. Joint mailbox facilities shall be provided in all residential developments, with each joint mailbox serving at least two dwelling units. ' a. Joint mailbox structures shall be placed adjacent to roadway curbs; ' b. Proposed locations of joint mailboxes shall be designated on a copy of the preliminary plat or development plan, and shall be approved by the Director prior to plan approval; and c. Plans for the joint mailbox structures to be used shall ' be submitted for approval by the Director prior to final approval. Revised 02/27/89 Page 418 i W. Traffic Signals: 1. The location of traffic signals shall be noted on approved street plans,.and: a. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an ' immediate need for a traffic signal, a signal meeting approved specifications shall be installed. The cost shall be included as a condition of development. ' X. Street Light Standards: 1. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with regulations adopted by the City's direction. Y. _ Street Name Signs: 1. Street name signs shall be installed at all street intersections. Stop signs and other signs may be required. ' Z. Street Cross Sections: t 1. The cross-section of streets in inches shall not be less than the minimum shown in the following table: ' Type of Street Subbase Leveling Course Surface Arterial 12" 4" 4" Commercial and Collectors 12" 3" 4" Local Streets 8" 2" 3" a. Subbase and leveling course shall be of select crushed rock; ' b. Surface material shall be of Class C or B asphaltic concrete; ' c. The final lift shall be placed on all new construction roadways prior to city final acceptance of the roadway; however, not before 90 percent of the structures in the new development are completed unless three years have ' elapsed since initiation of construction in the development; ' d. The final lift shall be Class B asphaltic concrete as defined by A.P.W.A. standard specifications; and ' e. No lift shall be less than 1-1/2 inches in thickness. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-50; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 419 18.164.040 Blocks A. Block Design: ' 1. The length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providingadequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. ' B. Sizes: 1. Blocks shall not exceed one 1,200 feet in length, except for ' blocks adjacent to arterial streets or unless the existing adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify a variation. The recommended minimum distance between intersections on arterial streets is 1,800 feet. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.164.050 Easements A. Easements: ' 1. Easements for sewers, drainage, water mains, electric lines or other public utilities shall be either dedicated or provided for in the deed restrictions, and: ' a. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse, or drainageway, there shall be provided a storm water ' easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the watercourse, and such further width management purposes. ' B. Utility Easements: ' 1. 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: a. 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; and ' b. Where feasible utility easements shall be all on one lot. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 420 ' 18.164.060 Lots A. Size and Shape: 1. Lot size, width, shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the development and for the type of use ' contemplated, and: a. No lot shall be dimensioned, to contain part of an existing or proposed public right-of-way; ' b. The depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average width; C. Unless a variance has been granted, lot sizes shall not be less than the size required by this title. ' d. Depth and width of properties reserved zoned for commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to ' provide for the off-street parking and service facilities required by the type of use proposed. ' B. Lot Frontage: 1. Each lot shall abut upon a street other than an alley for a width of at least 25 feet unless the lot is created through a ' minor land partition in which case Subsection 18.162.050 (C) applies. ' C. Through Lots: 1. Through lots shall be avoided except where they are essential 1 to provide separation of residential development from major traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation, and: ' a. A planting buffer at least ten feet wide. is required abutting the arterial rights-of-way; and ' b. All through lots shall provide the required front yard on each street. ' D. Lot Side•Lines: 1. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall be at right angles to the street upon which the lots front. Revised 02/27/89 Page 421 ' E. Large Lots: 1. In dividing tracts into large lots or parcels which at some future time are likely to be redivided, the Commission may ' require that the lots be of such size and shape, and be so divided into building sites, and contain such site restrictions as will provide for the extension and opening of ' streets at intervals which will permit a subsequent division of any tract into lots or parcels of smaller size, and: a. The land division shall be denied if the proposed large development lot does not provide for the future division of the lots and future extension of public facilities. ' (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.070 Sidewalks ' A. Sidewalks: Required 1. Except where exempted by the Commission, sidewalks shall be ' constructed, replaced or repaired to City design standards as set forth in the standard specifications manual and located as follows: a. On both sides of arterial and collector streets to be built at the time of street construction; b. On both sides of all other streets and in pedestrian easements and rights-of-way, except as provided further in this section, to be constructed along all portions of the property designated for pedestrian ways in conjunction with development of the property, and ' c. On one side of any industrial street to be constructed at the time of street construction or after determination of curb cut locations. ' B. A planter strip separation of at least five feet between the curb and the sidewalk shall be required in the design of any arterial or ' collector street where parking is prohibited adjacent to the curb, except where the following conditions exist: there is inadequate right-of-way; the curbside sidewalks already exist on predominant portions.of the street; or it would conflict with the utilities. C. In the central business district sidewalks shall be 10 feet in ' width, and: 1. All sidewalks shall provide a continuous unobstructed path; and ' 2. The width of curbside sidewalks shall be measured from the back of the curb. Revised 02/27/89 Page 422 ' D. Maintenance: 1. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the ' continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner. E. Application for Permit and Inspection: ' 1. If the construction of a sidewalk is not included in a performance bond of an approved subdivision or the performance bond has lapsed, then every person, firm or corporation desiring to construct sidewalks as provided by this chapter, shall, before entering upon the work or improvement, apply for a street opening permit to the public works department to so ' build or construct: a. An occupancy permit shall not be issued for a development ' until the provisions of this section are satisfied. b. The City Engineer may issue a permit and certificate allowing temporary noncompliance with the provisions of this section to the owner, builder or contractor when, in his opinion, the construction of the sidewalk is impractical for one or more of the following reasons: (i) Sidewalk grades have not and cannot be established for the property in question within a reasonable length of time; (ii) Forthcoming installation of public utilities or ' street paving would be likely to cause severe damage to the new sidewalk; (iii) Street right-of-way is insufficient to accommodate a sidewalk on one or both sides of the street; or (iv) Topography or elevation of the sidewalk base area ' makes construction of a sidewalk impractical or economically infeasible; and c. The City Engineer shall inspect the construction of sidewalks for compliance with the provision set forth in the standard specifications manual. ' F. Council Initiation of Construction: ' 1. In the event one or more of the following situations are found by the Council to exist, the Council may adopt a resolution to initiate construction of a sidewalk in accordance with City ' ordinances: Revised 02/27/89 Page 423 ' a. A safety hazard exists for children walking to or from school and sidewalks are necessary to eliminate the hazard; ' b. A safety hazard exists for pedestrians walking to or from a public building, commercial area, place of assembly or other general pedestrian traffic, and sidewalks are ' necessary to eliminate the hazard; C. 50 percent or more of the area in a.given block has been ' improved by the construction of dwellings, multiple dwellings, commercial buildings or public. buildings and/or parks; and ' d. A criteria which allowed noncompliance under Section E.l.b above no longer exists and a sidewalk could be ' constructed in conformance with City standards. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.080 Public Use Areas A. Indicated in Development Plan: Dedication Requirements: ' 1. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision. B. Not Indicated in Development Plan: Dedication Requirements: ' 1. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public ' use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of ' parks and other public use. C. Acquisition by Public Agency: ' 1. If the subdivider is required to reserve land area for a park, playground, or other public use, such land shall be acquired ' by the appropriate public agency within 18 months following plat approval, at a price agreed upon prior to approval of the plat, or such reservation shall be released to the subdivider. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.164.090 Sanitary Sewers ' A. Sewers: Required ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 424 ' 1. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains in accordance with the provisions set forth in Standard ' Specification Manual and the adopted policies of the comprehensive plan. B. Sewer Plan Approval: ' 1. The City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to issuance of development permits ' involving sewer service. C. oversizing: ' 1. Proposed sewer systems shall include consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the ' Comprehensive Plan. D. Permits Denied: ' 1. Development permits may be restricted by the Commission or Hearings officer where a deficiency exists in the existing sewer system or portion thereof which cannot be rectified ' within the development and which if not rectified will result in a threat to public health or safety, surcharging of existing mains, or violations of state or federal standards ' pertaining to operation of the sewage treatment system. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.164.100 Storm Drainage A. Storm Drainage: General Provisions: ' 1. The Director and City Engineer shall issue a development permit only where adequate provisions for storm water and flood water runoff have been made, and: t a. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewerage system; ' b. Where possible, inlets shall be provided so surface water is not carried across any intersection or allowed to ' flood any street; and c. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every ' development proposal plan. Revised 02/27/89 Page 425 B. Easements: 1. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and ' maintenance. C. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage: ' 1. A culvert or other drainage facility shall, and in each case be, large enough to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the development, and: ' a. The City Engineer shall determine the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of the 1981 master drainage plan. ' D. Effect on Downstream Drainage: 1. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development will overload an existing drainage facility, the Director and Engineer shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with the 1981 master ' drainage plan. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.110 Bikeways t A. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through the dedication of easements or ' rights-of-way. B. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, ' conditional use permits, and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost of bikeway improvements. C. Where possible, bikeways should be separated from other modes of travel including pedestrians. D. Minimum width for bikeways is six feet per travel lane. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 426 18.164.120 Utilities A. Underground Utilities: 1. All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television ' services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface mounted transformers, surface mounted connection boxes and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during ' construction, high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above, and: a. The subdivider shall make all necessary arrangements with the serving utility to provide the underground services; ' b. The City reserves the right to approve location of all surface mounted facilities; ' c. All underground utilities, including sanitary sewers and storm drains installed in streets by the subdivider, shall be constructed prior to the surfacing of the streets; and d. Stubs for service connections shall be long enough to avoid disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made. B. Information on Development Plans: 1. The applicant for a subdivision shall show on the development plan or in the explanatory information, easements for all ' underground utility facilities, and: a. Plans showing the location of all underground facilities as described herein shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and . b. Care shall be taken in all cases to ensure that above ground equipment does not obstruct vision clearance areas for vehicular traffic. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required A. All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as ' to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City Council. ' B. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. C. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of ' Section 18.160.180. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 427 ' 18.164.140 monuments A. Any monuments that are disturbed before all improvements are completed by the subdivider shall be replaced prior to final ' acceptance of the improvements. (Ord. 89-06; Ord..83-52) 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee ' A. No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements t shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. ' B. The permit fee is required to defray in whole or in part the cost and expenses incurred by the City for construction and other services in connection with the improvement, and such fee shall be a sum equal to four percent of the estimated cost of such subdivision improvement. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.160 Installation: Conformation Required_ ' A. In addition to other requirements, improvements installed by the land divider either as a requirement of these regulations or at his own option, shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to improvement standards and specifications followed by the City. ' B. The Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Oregon Chapter A.P.W.A., and Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 71-9, shall be a part of the City's adopted installation standard(s); other standards may also be required upon ' recommendation of the City Engineer. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.170 Plan Checking Required ' A. work shall not begin until nine sets of construction and construction estimate plans have been submitted and checked for ' adequacy and approved by the City in writing. B. All such plans shall be prepared in accordance with requirements of the City. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.180 Notice to City Required ' A. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. ' B. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) Revised 02/27/89 Page 428 ' 18,164.190 City Inspection Required A. Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the City. The City may require changes in typical sections and details' if unusual conditions arising during construction warrant such changes in the public interest. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required t A. The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and ' construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) 1 Revised 02/27/89 Page 429 APPENDIX III . s/ss WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREII~iT THIS AGpxma= is entered into this day of ' 19Tg _ by WAs=x(;TON COUN'T'Y, a political subdivision of the -State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY"', and the CITY OF TIGARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon, ' hereinafter referred to as the "CITY". WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local government may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and Wks, Statewide Planning Goal $2 (Land Use Planning) requires ghat' City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall;be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the. cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; ' and WEEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission ' requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgment of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WMMEAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to ' establish: 1. A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the ' CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and ' development in the Urban Planning Area; 3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development ' in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement. ' NOW TM EFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ' I. Location o the Urban PI-anning- Area The Urban Pl.ar ,_--7 Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY includes -irQL designa::ed on Exhibit "A" to `-his ' agreement. 1 Page 2 II. Coordination of Co=rehensive Planning and Develorment ' A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation ' 1. Definitions Campr Ze-nsive Plan as defined by OAR 660-18-410(5) means a ' generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but ' not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs: "Comprehensive Plan° amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes. Implementing Regulation means any local government zoning ' ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation" does not include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional use permits, individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit development approval or denials, annexations, variances, building permits and similar administrative-type decisions. 2. The county shall provide the CITY.with the appropriate ' opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, ' review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: a.- The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the ' responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are initiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final hearing on ' adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY a.nd the COUNTY. The I page 3 ' "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at the time ' of being notified of a proposed action, the responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to ' negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of understanding". b. The originating agency shall transmit draft ' recommendations on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding", the responding agency' ' shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of • response'shall be considered "no objection" to the ' draft. c.4 The-originating agency shall respond to the comments 'made by the responding agency either by a) revising ' the final recommendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals ' body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the originating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ' ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documentation is available to properly ' inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. ' B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property owners 1. Definition ' Development Action Reauirina Notice means an action by a local government which requires notifying by mail the owners of property which could potentially be ' affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a prcuosed development action which directly affects and i_. ariplied to a. specific parcel or ' parcels. evelopment actions may include, but not be limit--d small tract zoning or comprehensive Page 4 plan map amendments, conditionai or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. ' Z. The. COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning ' Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY Stith the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY ' limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3.• The following procedures shall be followed by the ' COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction ' over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at '`,..he earliest opportunity, but no less than ten (lo) days prior. ' to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate an action if a good ' faith attempt was made by-the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the notice'may respond at its ' discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. ' c. If received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall include or attach the comments to the ' written staff report and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. ' d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. I Page 5 C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to t notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation requirements contained ' in subsections A and B above. a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the ' originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agendas which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, ' hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an ' agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. ' b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond at its discretion. Comments may be ' submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. c. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such ' consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. ' Ill. Comprehensive Plannin and Development Policies ' A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition ' Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unincorporated areas contiguous to the .incorporated area for vhich the CITY conducts ' comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on i.bit "-W'. 2. The CITY sha__ be resnQnsible for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. Page 6 3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption t~ and amendment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active Planning Area which would create lots less than ' 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water service'ar. available to the property. 5. The COMM shall not approve a development in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent ' with CITY-Is Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. ' 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be continent upon provision of -adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm t drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY's Active Planning Area. B. Area of interest ' 1. Definition Area O Interest or Primary Area of Interest means ' unincorporated lands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated ' as Area B on Exhibit "All. 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive ' planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, ' adoption and amendment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 +,li`..hin the Area of Interest. ' 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of interest subject to the following: The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in ' the Area-of interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for development. ' Page 7 ' ~ b- Annexations by the CITY within the Area of interest shall not create islands unless the CITY ' declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community'Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon ' Revised Statutes. d. Ubon annexation of land within the Area of t interest to the CITY, the CITY agrees to convert COMITY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards *of COUNTY designations. ' Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this . designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and the COUNTY ' Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an amendment may be initiated before the one yeas ' period is over. 5. The City of Beaverton and the City of. Tigard have reached an agreement on a South Beaverton-North Tigard ' boundary establishing future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit "A". ' Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of interest boundary line may change in the future upon•mutual agreement of both cities. ' C. Special Policies The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of ' ?.'21~tg,1 to comprehensive planning and development actions to the stZ'>~ ic PC%) Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures outlined in Section III of this "QC' .-,s ak4`cm' Agreement. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which a proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (r-) days after its introduction. 3. At least one cor a any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits cf the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after is introduction. I Page a 1 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington county have agreed to the following stipulations ' regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street: ' a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County agree•to'amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect the following functional classification and design considerations: 1. Designation: Collector 2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at • major intersections) ' 3. Bike Lanes: Yes 4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements ' where necessary) 5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum 6. Access: Limited 7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.A. a. Minimum Turn a.ng Radius : 350 to 50.0 feet 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street 10. 'Upon verificat=on of need by traffic analysis, ' the connection may be planned to eventually accommodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and Murray/New Scholls Ferry intersections. 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and Murray Boulevard connection will be designed with ' Murray Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue terminating at the Mu--ray connection with a "T" intersection. ' 12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection is illustrated in Exhibit B. ' b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic f r~ impacts are adequately analyzed. I Page 9 ' c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County shall support improvements to ' the regional transportation system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st I Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard from. Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street. e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of ' Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersections in 1986. 5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative procedures and designate appropriate ' 'personnel to receive and review notices required by Sections II A, B and C of this Agreement. ' IV. Amendments to the urban Planning Area Aareement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and ' - the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the 'Urban Planning Area Boundary: 1. The C?TY or COUNTY, whichever. jurisdiction originates ' the proposal, shall submit a formal request for amaenc=ent to the responding agency. ' 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement describing the amendment. ' b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. ' c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, -a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. ' 3. 'Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the ' appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received. 4. The CITY and COUNTY sh ' make good faith a;forts to resolve reauests to amend this agreement_ Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may ' approve -he request, deny the request, or make a i Page 10 determination that the proposed amendment warranis additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following ' procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in the review process as outlined in Section IV (3), the CrTY and the COUNTY may agree to initiated a joint study:"'Such a study shall commence within 90 days of the date it is ' determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures ' regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations drawn from it shall be .included within the record of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. B. Prior to the connencement of neriodic review for the City of Ti iTard and the Countv' s Urban Areas (April. 1989) the CITY and the COUNTY shall mutually study the following ' topics: 1. The feasibility of expanding the "active planning area" to include the current '!area of interest" and ' assigning land use planning responsibility to the C2TY. ' 2. The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the CITY and the COUNTY contracting to provide building inspection and plan review services, administer development codes and collect related-fees within the active planning ' area . Proposed revisions to .,.his Agreement shall be considered ' by.the CITY and the COUNTY as soon as analysis of the above topics is complete, subject to the time constraint and other requirements of the COUNTY's land use ordinance ' hearings and adoption process. C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to ' evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of f exec Li: i shall be ccIIpleted wi;..hin 60 days. Both par t:.cs ~~_a_:, make a gocd =faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may nave developed since the previous review. if, after completion of the 60 day review pericd ' inconsistencies still. rena_n, either party may terminate this Agreement. Page I1 V.' This 'J=ban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning Area agreement dated September 9, 19a6. ' This Agreement commences an 2.9 ' MT w=TNESS 'R-r R,EOF the parties have executed this Urban PlarLning ' Area Agreement on the date set opposite L.he:.r signatures. ' CM'-"Y OF TIG;M BY Date ' Mayor ti+ M =NGTON COTMTy BY Date Chairman, Board of Lou CDmmissianers Date .Recording Secre;.ary i 1 1 t MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION GENERAL ALIGNMENT m t a~ amrr B Sao • 602 UMM aauM&Q AF" AC NT 601 604 501 107 301 800 106 ' b00 108 101 ' 1100 100 200 1101 . 1301 1200 ~ 7302 1 ' 1300 100 ' 201 101 ' 200 t ' MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION 1 1 (;IIY U ~ ~ r _ TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA ~L._ ~ _ I . WASHINGTON COUNTY--TIGAM URBAN PLANNING AREA AF)REEAIENT $ + r •.17. nwn.nntvrn.5.-it C1 ; f-- ~.-;ls Aejs t I+ D ~ - - - - - ~it7a• h •}xa f` ,~c • ~ s. ~ y 7 ~~u-"L~- r_ I+J ~ .1_ . 1 •5 lL ' f~i i ~T i ~ ^?•~y'i~ k,4r f ~ j _r-_ I r'~ ! Jam:.. C ~ l 4,, _ , • I , it 1,••'- ~ ~ r~;~`~r;;:~~~~ - ~ ~~c~~. ! ~ ~~~<~<<~~ . < s: ~<~t'~,<a. ~~:•5:~, - - r::'i~. LAC ~•1 _ s I ~ / I ~iT~ C~~i: >t, ' • .fit ~S~ f~iS.''3e~-,4, ;iY t;~~,•: i r t l -x YA ~ t('I I ~ f ~ M ' + .t { '1>Y `~~}~y'I;.r. 0.11 7 / ~ M d Lt~i jyY~>>: . ,IY~ t 2p (F<{ f , I i _ D1r1:.~A lal• • - j _ #6 I`;R (~7p~' c w ,l 1 I~i1ARD ~ ' ~,tjflf~'1 } i. • ~3. }h ` < ~~I • In•1' •;7 2\ ~.~"1~~(`•Tf.:~-~~<.t~' t`' x{111 fi'r'- .~J1~L!gMr ~ ~ 1 'S•;A..~f$>f•'••i,G¢• { r\ :.::.:~=~X' -r•;..! l` j .ors ! t1 q1 1008 3M N Il;l~~' n; rL ; f3 IIGARD j( URBAN PLANNING AREA t`r1~11rlr3z'E ~nnr 1,r t CL v~, ` r' 1' 11 •a t < , u- f~ t PLANNING AREA it~k AREA OF IF)TCRES7 t •c~r~o1 ' n,• ~ .}~y~ to,• 1 : °~'~-~?~~y~~ _ _ _ • ~Ial Ana -•11 ' CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on January 10, 1994, I filed the original of this Respondent's Brief, together with four copies, ' with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310, by first class mail. ' DATED this 10th day of January, 1994. ' O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By: < Ty K. OSB 92508 James ~yman, . Coleman, OSB #76101 ' Of Attorneys for Intervenors- Respondents t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 10th, 1994, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondent's Brief by ' first class mail on the following persons: Paul R. Hribernick Black, Helterline ' Suite 1200 707 SW Washington Street Portland, Oregon 97205 Jack L. Orchard Ball, Janik & Novack 1100 One Main Place ' 101 SW Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204 ' DATED this 10th day of January, 1994. O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN By: ' Ty K- /"7--'7 . W an, OSB #92/508 James . Coleman, OSB #76101 Of Attorneys for Intervenors- Respondents tkw\tigard\ma trix\lubabrf.cfs-sb ' Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE - CITY OF TIGARD V. MATRIX (Respondent's Brief)