Loading...
LUBA1994-128 - Marge Davenport, Beverly Swink (2) BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Beverly Swink, ) LUBA No- Marge Davenport(lead) ) Petitioners ) CJ"_ _ vs ) City of Tigard Respondent ) ~e iCrc NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL LID ' o I p, t`1ti Notice is hereby given that the petitioners intend to appeal that-land use decision or limited land use decision of respondent entitled Triad Tigard Limited Partnership, Case No SDR 93-0009/ PDR 93-006, Site Development Review/Planned Development Review in the matter of a final order upon City Council Review of remand of the decsion in Davenport V. City of Tigard (LUBA No. 93-191,5/19/94 City Council.upholds the Planning Commission's decision approving site development of Triad Tigard Limited Partnership with the additional conditions of approval and modification of the con- ditions of approval as approved by City Council on 10/26/93-&6/Z8/94 which became final on 28th of June 1994. Involved is 348 unit apartment complex on 27.2 acres of property at SW Naeve Street between SW Pacific Highway and SW 109th Ave, and the access there- to. II Petitioners, Beverly Swink, 15875 SW Greens Way, Tigard, OR 97224, Phone 684-8466, and Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th Ave., Tigard, Or 97224, Phone 639-5637, are represented by selves (unless later advised). Respondent, City of Tigard is represented by City Attorney, Timothy V. Ramis, 1717 NW Hoyt, Portland, Or 97209, Phone 222-2402. (more) • Page 2 III Applicant, Tigard Triad Limited Partnership, was represented in the proceeding by Steven L, Pfeiffer, 900 SW Fifth, Suite 2300 Portland, Ora, 97204, Other persons mailed written notice of the land use .decision by the City of Tigard include: (see attached) NOTICE: Anyone designated in paragraph III of this Notice who desires to participate as a party in this case .before the Land Use Board of Appeals must file with the Board a Motion to Intervene in this proceeding as required by OAR 661-10-050, Petiti er etiti.oner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 14, 1'994 I served a true and correct copy of this Notice of Intent to Appeal on all. persons listed in paragraphs II and III of this Notice pursuant to OAR 661-10=015 (2) first class mail. Dated... : '1-9'9' Signatut 5p ~c~~-Poch 7IIA HOWARD GRAHAM BEVERLY SWINK ca- u-~ 9410 SW LAKESIDE DR 15875 SW GREENS WAY TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 cS GORDON F. RIES GEORGE WILLOUGHBY 10400 SW GREENLEAF TERR 15371 SW 114TH CT #109 TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 AL ERICKSON MARGE DAVENPORT 15200 SW 109TH 15100 SW 109TH U TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 v~ x/30 /9 ~ JACK POLANS WILLIAM R. LINDSAY 16000 SW QUEEN VICTORIA 15505 SW 109TH AVE. KING CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DOUGLAS J. COLEMAN LENORE SCHUSTER 15100 SW CROWN DR, #6 14962 SW 109TH AVE KING CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DIANE BARTON DOROTHY STERRETT 14915 SW 100TH 15495 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 SUE CARVER ROSS WOODS 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TIGARD, OR 97224 320 ANDOVER PARK EAST, #235 SEATTLE, WA 98188 MATT DRISCOLL, ARCHITECT PAM WIEDEMAN 114 VINE ST KAMPE & ASSOCIATES SEATTLE, WA 98121 3990 SW COLLINS WAY, S-309 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUMMERFIELD CIVIC ASSOCIATION CITY OF KING CITY 10650 SW SUMMERFIELD DR 15300 SW 116TH TIGARD, OR 97224 KING CITY, OR 97224 ROSS WOODS STEVEN PFEIFFER TRIAD DEVELOPMENT MATRDC DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 88070 900 SW 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98138 PORTLAND, OR 97204 JOE VINE WAYNE KITTELSON 15202 SW ALDERBROOK PLACE KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES TIGARD, OR 97224 610 SW ALDER S-700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 LENORE A SCHUSTER WALT MUNHALL 14962 SW 109TH AVENUE 14805 SW 103RD AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 JACQUELINE E. SWINT MIKE ROBINSON 9425 SW BRENTWOOD PLACE 900 SW 5TH, SUITE 2300 TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97204 JOHN RANKIN 22151 SW 55TH TUALATIN, OR 97062 K\L0GlN\J0\TRM.LBL ChemkeeStrip ~ N dC:) QI - Pp Tigard City ^:ouncil City Hall Tigard, Or 97223 i BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON BEVERLY SWINK, ) MARGE DAVENPORT ) LUBA NO. 94-128 Petitioners, ) Vs. ) Index and CITY OF TIGARD, ) Record Respondent, ) Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file Lvq 4cord I l•/a8 By: City Recorder • City) of Ti rd i _ Date: i TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SITE PLAN REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SDR 93-0009/PD 93-0006) LUBA REMAND DAVENPORT V. CITY OF TIGARD, OR LUBA (LUBA NO. 93-191, MAY 19, 1994) CITY OF TIGARD RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 94-128) 1, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. Catherine Wheatley, Tigard City Re der Date: S// / 9 y i • TABLE OF CONTENTS - Paae Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Tigard City Council SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-006; Resolution No. 94-29 2 Council Meeting Minutes for the June 28, 1994 Meeting 8-27 3 Affidavit of Publication - Public Hearing Notice for June 28, 1994 28 Tigard City Council Public Hearing 4 Affidavit of Publication - Council Meeting Agenda Highlights for the June 28, 1994 City Council Meeting ........1 29 - 30 5 Council Meeting Agenda for the June 28, 1994 Council Meeting 31 - 34 6 Testimony Sign-In Sheet for June 28, 1994 Public Hearing 35 - 36 7 Tigard City Council Agenda Item Summary Sheet for the ? June 28, 1994 Council Meeting 37 8 Two large maps which were part of the June 28, 1994 Council packet for the hearing item - Agenda Item No. 5 38-39 9 Transportation Impact Analysis - Tigard Apartments (I(itelson & Associates Feb. 1990) 40-80 - Audio tapes of June 28, 1994, Tigard City Council meeting can be made available upon request ii AFFIDAVIT OF HAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) so. City of Tigard ) I, 4. 10 Ah" being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print), 1 That I am an Q n~. w: S~ R a. f : ~t ZE.a iuda IW for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council • A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Harked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named per ns at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit 'B' on the 30 day of 19 9`f , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as her Nu.*%k- attached, was pbi3ted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 3o _m day of , 19q64 ; and deposited in the United States Hail on the ,36m",J day of 19qq postage prepaid. v 7 Prepare otice Sub c ibed and sworn/affirm to me on the 30~ day of , 19. OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON CONNIE MARTIN Hy Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC • OREGON COMMISSION No. 015877 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4,1996 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. I Page No. • CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006 2. Name of Owner: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership Name of Applicant: Same 3. Address 320 Andover Park East #235 City Seattle State OR Zip 98188 4. Address of Property: 11165 - 11185 SW Naeve Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1ODB, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, and 2S1 -10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900. North side of Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments. 5. Request: A request for approval of a revised site plan for conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with.TCDC 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken.by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acrg, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential,'25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). 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) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Citizen Involvement Team Representative X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON ~~8 )aq~ , AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON Z. 30 Ty The adopted findings of act, 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. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of August 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to certain conditions of approval (Planning Commission Final Order 93- 14PC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by separate appeals filed by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink; and WHEREAS, the Triad application was approved by the City Council on . October 26, 1993 with additional conditions of approval and modification of some of the Commission's conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Council's approval was.appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and LUBA remanded the plans back to the City Council for review of driveway widths on May 19, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed revised plans and findings at a public hearing on June 28, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that : the City Council upholds the Planning commission's decision approving Site- Development Review/Planned Development Review application (SDR 93-0009/ PDR 93-0006) with the additional conditions. of approval and modification of the conditions of approval as approved by the City Council on October 26, 1993, with the added condition that-the access points on the detailed development plan conform to TCDC 18.102.030 as determined by the City Engineer. The Council adopted as findings the attached Exhibit "A". The site plan which is approved is the revised site plan addressing the LUBA remand. PASSED: This day of , , 1994. or - City of Tigard ATTEST: • R r•J1 / City Recor er - Ci y/of Tigard LUBA NO. 94-128 RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. 1 Page 1 Page No. 3 • EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING REVISED PLANS PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) WITH RESPECT TO TCDC 18.108.070(D). The Tigard City Council has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on June 28, 1994. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: This matter is before the City Council as a limited evidentiary hearing. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") remanded the city's prior approval of this application in Davenport v. City of Tigard, Or LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994. LUBA rejected all of petitioners' assignments of error, except their argument concerning the width of required access driveways. The purpose of this limited evidentiary hearing is to take testimony only on the issue of the site plan's compliance with TCDC 18.108.070(D). No other evidence or testimony is permitted. TCDC 18.108.070(D) establishes the minimal requirements for vehicular access and egress for multiple-family residential uses. For multiple- family residential projects with more than 100 dwelling units, the minimum access width for each driveway is 24 feet with a five-foot walkway, or a public street. Triad's site plan proposes nonpublic streets, so the drives must be 24 feet wide with a five-foot walkway. In Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 93-191, LUBA upheld the City's interpretation that the site plan provided the required number of access driveways (eight). Slip op 13, 14. LUBA said, with respect to TCDC 18.108.070(D), that the minimum pavement width is 24 feet. The applicant has submitted the revised site plan which demonstrates that each of the eight access driveways is a minimum of 24 feet wide with a five-foot walkway. The driveways serving the multiple-family residential project are all a minimum of 24 feet. Further, the site plan indicates that there are no changes other than the width of the driveways from the site plan previously approved by the City. The City Council finds that it is necessary to determine whether the site plan conforms to TCDC 18.108.070(D). The ordinance's requirements are noted above. The City Council interprets this section to permit the driveways to be 24 feet wide on either side of the median, therefore meeting both the minimum number of access points required and the minimum pavement width. The City Council also interprets this section to allow all driveways to be a minimum of 24 feet wide. The City Council finds that these interpretations are necessary to demonstrate that the revised site plan conforms to the requirements of TCDC 18.108.070(D). The City Council hereby determines that the revised site plan meets requirements of this ordinance section. The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands should be determined during detailed design. The City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately LUBA NO. 94-128 Page 1 - EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. 1 _ Page No. provides for left-turn movements to and from the driveways and that • meets adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain, as a minimum, the driveway widths shown on the revised site plan. The petitioners/appellants raised an issue with respect to the number of driveways to be approved as part of this conceptual development plan, to the effect that two one-way drives separated by a median do not constitute two access points. LUBA has previously upheld the City Council's interpretation of the applicable code provision (TCDC 18.108.070(D)) in its opinion dated May 19, 1994 on this point. This issue may not therefore be raised at this hearing and Council declines to consider it. The petitioners/appellants believe the approval of the current application would result in inconsistency with prior findings that 24- foot driveways would be "confusing and dangerous." There is no evidence in the record to support such a conclusion at this point. Moreover, the petitioners/appellants cite no TCDC provision concerning safety or any other provision which would apply. Council finds that LUBA, in its remand of the decision, required 24-foot driveways as shown on the current application. The Council therefore finds that the proposed 24- foot driveways conform to TCDC 18.108.070(D) and are consistent with LUBA's remand. The petitioners/appellants raised the possible lack of conformance of 24-foot driveways to the City's Visual Clearance Areas code provisions, TCDC 18.102.030. There were no precise calculations submitted to demonstrate the lack of conformity to TCDC 18.102.030 as the drawing was not to scale. However, the site plan as submitted appears to have some minor conflicts of garage structures with the required visual clearance area. Council concludes that such minor conflicts can be addressed and conformance with TCDC 18.102.030 can be assured through the final design process in approval of the detailed development plan. A condition of approval shall be added to the conceptual development approval requiring conformance to TCDC 18.102.030. Finally, petitioners/ appellants raised the issue of the need for 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each entrance to the project. This is an issue which was not raised in the prior appeals and Council therefore declines to consider it. Council's review is limited to the issue on remand, namely driveway width. Nevertheless, Council finds: there was no other evidence submitted on this point. Council finds that the statement describing 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each driveway from the traffic study was based on a prior site plan. Nothing in the study affirmatively requires such unobstructed distance nor does any City code provision require it or provide such a standard. Council therefore concludes that there was insufficient evidence presented to determine that any traffic safety issue which Council is required to address results from the current site plan. Council rejects the submittal by petitioners/appellants of an alternative site plan as not relevant to the issue on remand which issue • was the sole topic of the public hearing, i.e., driveway widths under TCDC 18.108.070(D). LUBA NO. 94128 Page 2 - EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. Page No. f ~p WARD GRAHAM BEVERLY SWINK SW LAKESIDE DR 15875 SW GREENS WAY -_..RD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 GORDON F. RIES GEORGE WILLOUGHBY 10400 SW GREENLEAF TERR 15371 SW 114TH CT #109 TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 AL ERICKSON MARGE DAVENPORT 15200 SW 109TH 15100 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 JACK POLANS WILLIAM R. LINDSAY 16000 SW QUEEN VICTORIA 15505 SW 109TH AVE. KING CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DOUGLAS J. COLEMAN LENORE SCHUSTER 15100 SW CROWN DR, #6 14962 SW 109TH AVE KING CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DIANE BARTON DOROTHY STERRETT 14915 SW 100TH 15495 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 SUE CARVER ROSS WOODS 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TIGARD, OR 97224 320 ANDOVER PARK EAST, #235 SEATTLE, WA 98188 MATT DRISCOLL, ARCHITECT PAM WIEDEMAN 114 VINE ST KAMPE & ASSOCIATES SEATTLE, WA 98121 3990 SW COLLINS WAY, S-309 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUMMERFIELD CIVIC ASSOCIATION CITY OF KING CITY 10650 SW SUMMERFIELD DR 15300 SW 116TH TIGARD, OR 97224 KING CITY, OR 97224 0 ROSS WOODS STEVEN PFEIFFER TRIAD DEVELOPMENT MATRIX DEVELOPMENT LUBA NO. 94-128 PO BOX 88070 900 SW 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98138 PORTLAND, OR 97204 Page Exhibit No. i Page No. -4-- J VINE WAYNE KITTELSON SW ALDERBROOK PLACE KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES ► A, D, OR 97224 610 SW ALDER S-700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 LENORE A SCHUSTER WALT MUNHALL 14962 SW 109TH AVENUE 14805 SW 103RD AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 JACQUELINE E. SWINT MIKE ROBINSON 9425 SW BRENTWOOD PLACE 900 SW 5TH, SUITE 2300 TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97204 JOHN RANKIN 22151 SW 55TH TUALATIN, OR 97062 H:\LOGlN\Jo\TRLAD•LBL LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. I- Page No. - Council Agenda Item 3 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Mayor John Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. - Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director; Mary Gruss; Accounting Supervisor; Jo Hayes, Administrative Secretary; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Liz Newton, Deputy City Recorder; Ed Wegner; Maintenance Services Director; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. Note: Janice Deardorff, Mary Gruss and Ed Wegner, City of Tigard staff, were present only for Executive Session. STUDY SESSION • City Administrator Reilly reported to Council he had cancelled the attendance of Paula Manley from MACC. Liz Newton is a MACC Alternate Commissioner, and could answer Council's questions. • City Administrator Reilly suggested the TCYS block grant issue be deferred to later in the meeting. • Regarding the Durham Park issue, City Administrator Reilly reported the City of Durham had solicited the City of Tigard's services in mowing the lawn at Durham Park every other week. Durham Park is located near the railroad tracks and the USA plant. Maintenance Services Director Wegner reported the City of Tigard would need to get permission from USA to gain access for a right-of-way to the park. Councilor Scheckla asked if that area was in the wetlands. Maintenance Services Director reported there are two portions of the park; the eastern portion of the park that abuts the residential area of Durham where the playground equipment and picnic shelter are located is on high ground, and the ball field is on low ground, which could get wet in the Spring. Council consensus was to proceed with an agreement with the City of Durham for mowing the lawn twice a month. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. 2 _ Page No. I- The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:36 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. Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m. • City Administrator Reilly urged Council to attend the Washington County Public Officials Caucus meeting to be held on June 30. The meeting pertains to the 2040 Plan. Councilors Rohlf and Hawley plan to attend. • City Administrator Reilly reminded Council of the Capital Improvements Projects tour, which will take place on June 29, 1994 at 3:30 p.m. Tour will take approximately two hours. • Mayor Schwartz and Councilor Hunt received a phone call from John Greene, ICng City, asking if Tigard City Council would be willing to meet with the ICng City Council. Subject would be ICng City coming in with the City of Tigard. Mayor Schwartz reported he said he couldn't speak for Council, but he would raise the subject. He advised that if Tigard Council is interested in pursuing this issue, the request should come from the ICng City Council. Council consensus was that they should listen to what the ICng City Council had to say. City Administrator Reilly was directed by Council to write a letter to John Greene, saying the Tigard City • Council has no interest in initiating talks with ICng City about coming into Tigard, but if there are to be discussions in the future, it would have to come through a request by the ICng City Council. • City Administrator Reilly advised the City of Lake Oswego Council would like a joint meeting with the City of Tigard Council regarding the 1-5/217 issue. City Administrator Reilly had discussed this item with Mayor Schwartz, and the suggestion is that a joint meeting is a good idea, but that Council defer the meeting until there is some sense of what Lake Oswego's long-term water issue is. This would allow a possible two-issue joint meeting. City Administrator Reilly advised the contract with Lake Oswego on the water issue expires the end of the calendar year. • Mayor Schwartz advised he felt it was important, during the search for a replacement City Administrator for the City of Tigard, that the person have extensive water systems background. • In response to Councilor Hawley's question regarding Consent Agenda Item 4.5 and where the fence would be located, City Engineer Wooley drew a diagram/map which depicted the area. • CITY COUNCIL MEE11NG MINUTES -JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. T- Council meeting recessed at 7:32 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING • Councilor Hawley recommended that Council appoint a new representative to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency. Action on this item will be taken at the July 5 Council meeting. • Mayor Schwartz announced the resignation of City Administrator Reilly, stating Mr. Reilly has resigned to take the position of Director of Business Affairs for the -Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon. He will be leaving sometime in August. Mr. Reilly was hired as Tigard's City Administrator in October, 1988. He came from Gladstone, Missouri, a suburb of Kansas City, where he served as City Administrator. During his tenure with the City, - a great deal has been accomplished. Ten million dollars in transportation road bond projects were completed; a parks improvement bond was passed and projects constructed; community policing was implemented; the City's citizen involvement program was expanded; and the City's fiscal health remained strong in the face of Measure 5. 2. Special Presentation - Recognition of Judy Fessler and her years of service as a . City Councilor and Planning Commissioner. Mayor Schwartz presented Ms. Fessler with a plaque and engraved clock, acknowledging her dedication to the City of Tigard. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: • Jack Polans, King City, Oregon, proposed the City of Tigard form a Volunteer Honorary Office of Past City of Tigard Council Members, herewith called °Office." He suggested this office of combined years of past Council member's experience, working under the elected Mayor's jurisdiction, or the Mayor-Council operations, would greatly benefit the City of Tigard's continued growth structure. The office would and can operate swiftly and successfully, including savings of Tigard money as that of a think tank, taking also much of the elected Council member's workload off their shoulder. The office can be similar to the CIT Facilitators and Resource members, CIP proprieties, and may also include Tigard Hearing Officer's contract. Mr. Polans proposed that Judy Fessler, past Councilor, become the starting head of this office. • Jack Schwab, 9355 SW Inez Street, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Schwab made a proposal regarding the sale of the Main Street property (Chamber of Commerce building). He mentioned Councilor Hunt proposed at a recent Council meeting that proceeds from the sale of this property be captured somehow and either be set aside for CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No.cQ_ Page No. 10 i future use or be used for some special purpose. Mr. Schwab suggested the City contribute the money to a new community foundation that would be developed in Tigard. With input from the Chamber of Commerce, other service and civic groups, Mr. Schwab felt a community foundation could be created, which would possibly be a great sum of money to jump-start that effort. A great deal of research would have to be done in selecting a Board of Directors; how the money would be invested and managed; and how distributions should be made. Mr. Schwab suggested they be made at least initially for purposes for which the City traditionally has not had a lot of money to spend, such as park and recreational programs, or art funding. He urged Council to consider a community foundation, and requested specifically that the monies captured be set aside until the opportunity arises for creating a foundation. Mayor Schwartz asked about the initial amount of funding. Mr. Schwab answered there could be two possibilities. The City of Tigard would have an endowment fund and this money would go into it and Council would operate as a Board of that endowment fund and could spend the money as they saw fit. In effect, it would be another source of income to be part of the budget process on an annual basis. Mr. Schwab said he would prefer to see a much more broadly-based foundation made up of board members, including members of City Council, as well as other citizens. • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. McAdams asked City Administrator Reilly if he was in favor of the 130th and Winterlake connection. Mr. Reilly advised the recommendation that went to Council last year with his budget proposal included the recommendation that the City do an engineering study of the connection of 130th and Winterlake Park. Subsequent to that, Council decided to defer the project, pending receipt of an engineering traffic study to determine the merits of that particular connection. Mr. McAdams noted Council in January asked for the CIT response regarding this particular project, and Council has received that response. Mr. McAdams asked if Council was ready to continue with this top priority project in this fiscal year. After lengthy discussion, Mayor Schwartz announced Council would be visiting the CIP projects on Wednesday, June 29, and would make an attempt to look at this proposed project. Mr. McAdams suggested Council look at Brittany Drive during this tour and consider barricading Brittany Drive and making a walkway to the park. Mayor Schwartz also encouraged Mr. McAdams to attend the July 26 Council meeting, when the issue will be heard by Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Jack Polans requested Consent Agenda Item 4.2 be pulled for further discussion. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-128 - Exhibit No- ,3L Page No. Regarding Item 4.9, Councilor Hawley asked for more information about Mark Cottle. Mayor Schwartz explained he is a Councilor from the City of Sherwood. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the exception of Item 4.2 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 7 and 14, 1994 4.3 Ratify Tigard Police Officer Two-Year Contract - Resolution No. 94-2,5Z 4.4 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for a 165-Square Foot Portion of Public Pedestrian Easement Along Lot No. 8, Hart's Landing Subdivision - Resolution No. 9426 4.5 Enter into a License Agreement with Property Owners in Cotswald Meadows Subdivision, Adjacent to Walnut. Street to Allow Temporary Private Use of Portions of Public Right-of-Way 4.6 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract - Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 942L_ 4.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract - Larry Epstein, PC 4.8 Approve Franchise Fee to Support Tualatin Valley Community Access - Resolution No. 94-2 4.9 Endorse Mark Cottle as the Eastern Washington County City Representative of the EMS Policy Board 4.10 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Construction of the • Main/Commercial Street Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to Eudaly Brothers Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda, minus Item 4.2. Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93- 0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges. Councilor Rohlf advised that as a result of being a new Councilor, he has not had an opportunity to go through the entire record to make a decision. Therefore, he will be involved in discussions and questions, but will not be involved in voting on this matter. Councilor Scheckla advised he would excuse himself from any discussions or questions, because he is a new Councilor and has not been involved in the past and would not be involved in voting on this matter. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. c3t Page No. I,-), • Councilor Hawley advised she will be voting on the issue because she is apprised of the record. However, she has not voted at any of the public meetings where she has read the record because-of lack of attendance at Planning Commission and two Council meetings. C. Staff report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized events leading up to tonight's public hearing. Council approved the Triad-348 unit apartment complex on October 26, 1993. That approval came after an appeal by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink of a Planning Commission decision in August, 1993. After Council's approval, Mrs. Davenport appealed Council's decision to LUBA. LUBA reviewed the decision and remanded the decision on May 19, 1994 back to Council on one issue. That issue is the width of the driveways of the conceptual development plan. Our ordinance requires driveways. shall be 24 feet wide with a sidewalk. The applicants have submitted a driveway and site plan, revised to indicate islands between double driveways which show 24 feet wide. Staff suggests, after reviewing with Engineering staff, an addition to the findings enclosed in the report, which states: 'The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands shall be determined during the detail design. City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately provides • for left turn movements to and from the driveways and that meets the adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain as a minimum driveway widths shown on the revised site plan.° d. Public testimony. Applicant: Michael C. Robinson, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300, Portland, Oregon, 97204. Mr. Robinson requested that a copy of the final decision by Council be mailed to him. He advised he agreed with the staff report prepared by City staff, and also agrees with the additional condition of approval. Mr. Robinson -noted the sole issue before Council tonight is whether the revised site plan applicant submitted complies with the Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (d), which is the provision LUBA said applicant did not meet the last time around. The site plan has been revised to show each of the eight driveways will have 24 feet in width which is required by the Code. He advised there is simply no other issue; in fact, since this is a remand hearing, under LUBA's case law, opponents or anyone else cannot raise old resolved issues nor can they raise new issues they could have raised in the last hearing. Mr. Robinson asked that Council approve the revised site plan. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 2 Page No. 13 • Opponent: John Rankin, 22151 SW 55th Avenue, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062. Mr. Rankin requested that a copy of the final decision by Council be mailed to him. Mr. Rankin advised he represents the two appellants in the LUBA appeal, plus the 600 petitioners who submitted a petition at one of the prior hearings on this matter. Mr. Rankin stated he felt the opponents to this project are not opposed to the development of the property, but they are opposed to the method and way in which it is proposed to be developed. The opponents liked the alternative plan that had been submitted, because it saved some of the Bull Mountain watershed and forest area. He stated the LUBA decision established the fact that both sides agree that eight is the number of driveway access points required for this development. The City has decided driveways can be counted by access points and that a median strip can be placed between two driveways; one in and one out; and call it two driveways, served by one interior driveway. He noted the opponents agree as to the number of access drives that should be required; they disagree as to how those access drives should be defined. Mr. Rankin advised he felt the City has failed to address the issue of why they have gone to the 24 foot standard, when Council initially stated the 24 foot standard was confusing and dangerous, which is why Council chose not to require it at the October 26, 1993 hearing. Mr. Rankin drew a typical access easement, in order to better explain opponent's concerns. He pointed out a vision clearance area problem based on TMC 18.102.030 - Computation - non-arterial street and access way 24 feet or more in width. Mr. Rankin referred to a transportation impact analysis report done by Kdelson & Associates, Inc. and offered it into record at this time. He quoted from Pages 18 and 23 and asked about the relationship between access point and the internal system we have. (Report is included with Council packet of June 28, 1994). Mr. Rankin stated he felt there was lack of substantial evidence in the record that Council has addressed the issues of the 24 foot wide access drive and the impacts it has on the development, and also failed to address the issue of the prior findings Council had in the prior order which addressed the confusing and dangerous issue relative to the 24 foot width. He stated the opponents would like to recommend Council deny this proposed development plan and allow the developer to submit a revised development plan which addresses these issues and also addresses some of the other issues opponents have been concerned about. He also asked to offer into record the alternative development plan proposal prepared about the developer and not considered by Council. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No.a Page No.-~1_-. • Mr. Rankin noted there seems to be a perception that the City of Tigard is overtly pro-development in a way that degrades the natural resources in the area, and in-this case, he urged Council to look again at the proposal. He stated the opponents are not looking to stop a development, but are looking to have a development that is compatible with the natural resources in the area. Mayor Schwartz stated Council would accept the evidence, but said it was not specific to this hearing. He noted Council will rule on whether or not it will be accepted at a later date. Councilor Hawley asked Mr. Rankin which document he had been quoting from. Mr. Rankin responded it was the final findings and order Council adopted on October 26, 1993 - Resolution No. 93-57, relating to Exhibit "A", Final Order 93-57. He also stated the LUBA opinion also cites the language. Councilor Hawley asked Mr. Rankin to read the wording he had been quoting from. Mr. Rankin responded that it was from Record 28 in the LUBA opinion, from the Final Order, "Council believes the intent of the Code is met because 24 foot one-way drives would be confusing and dangerous." Rebuttal: • Michael C. Robinson addressed the last two points Mr. Rankin made. Applicant had asked Council to reject the alternative development proposal; he stated it was not relevant to the issue before Council tonight; it is not relevant to the single issue on remand. He stated he appreciated Council's desire to accept it conditionally, but asked Council to reject it. Secondly, he responded to the issue Mr. Rankin raised that the City of Tigard is perceived by some as pro-development. He reminded Council the application is governed by the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Land Use regulations. Applicant submitted the proposal well over three years ago in a similar form. At the time it was submitted, applicant worked closely with staff to make sure they complied with all requirements of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Land Use regulations, which applicant is bound by. He noted the idea that somehow applicant is impinging on identified natural resources is nonsense; that has been litigated twice by LUBA, and each time LUBA has affirmed the City's determination that there are no significant natural resources on this site. However, the developer has done everything possible to maintain the trees on the site. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28,1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. I S' - • He noted Mr. Rankin is correct that City Council, in the prior decision that was remanded and resulted in this hearing did find that 24 foot wide driveways would be confusing and dangerous. However, LUBA stated the Code says they have to be 24 feet. LUBA said the Code must be complied with as it is'written on the date application is submitted. The way it is written is that for this size multi-family project, applicant is required to have 24 foot wide driveway entrances. The issue is simply a matter of compliance with the way the Code is written. Mr. Robinson stated there is no consistency between the prior finding and what Council is going to do tonight. Mr. Robinson referred to two other points raised by Mr. Rankin regarding .the vision clearance program and the traffic consultant study. Mr. Robinson stated they would comply with whatever the Code says, and noted he was not convinced by Mr. Rankin's drawing on the board that they do not comply with it. He said he would like to use a scale and see what the dimensions are. With respect to the traffic consultant study as a legal matter, applicant is bound by what is called law of the case doctrine. Opponent did not raise the issue the first time around, and they are not able to raise it now. He stated that if opponent raised it on appeal to LUBA, he feels LUBA would reject it. • e. Staff Recommendation. Senior Planner Bewersdorff suggested either approval with a condition that would require compliance with clear vision, or require continuation of the hearing to allow submittal of a revised site plan that shows compliance with clear vision. f. Council Questions or Comments. Councilor Hunt asked for Senior Planner BewersdorfPs version of the question regarding the median and creating more entrances onto 109th. Senior Planner Bewersdorff stated that at the last hearing it was concluded that it would be appropriate to consider joint driveways which would comply with the Community Development Code; they could have eight separate 24 foot driveways, and the driveway entrances could be separated by an island and go into one drive-through. LUBA upheld this. He stated the Code requirements probably requires too many driveway. Councilor Hawley asked if there was a possibility vision clearance was not needed. Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted it would be easy to move a garage or move parking back in order to comply. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. I • g. Public Hearing Closed. h. Council Consideration. Councilor Hawley stated Council's direction was very clear; that there was one issue, and one issue only to consider, and that is the driveway size. The statement that Council believes it to be dangerous and confusing is not strong enough to deny the whole project. She is concerned about safety and would be disappointed if vision clearances were not met. She noted she believed Council is limited on what they can consider right now, and she feels there is compliance in terms of the driveway. She stated she would recommend approval with the condition the vision clearance be met. Councilor Hunt noted he voted against this project originally. He stated he supports the applicant's recommendations; however, he would like to make sure we have the proper vision clearance. He asked that staff make sure this does meet those requirements. Mayor Schwartz agreed with Councilors Hawley and Hunt that this was a single issue hearing. He noted he was also concerned with the vision clearance, because he would not want to approve something within the Development Code, only to find out another portion of the Code is • insufficient. He recommended Council approve the resolution, ensuring the vision clearance is adequate. Mayor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel Beery if the resolution should be rewritten. Legal Counsel Beery stated she would like the opportunity to draft some additional findings, based on the testimony presented. Council consensus was the draft findings be completed this evening. She also stated that based on Council's comments, her proposal was to rule that the alternative site plan submitted would not be accepted as evidence, as it was not relevant to the issue tonight. Council agreed. The item will be finalized under Agenda Item No. 8. Council meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 6, PUBLIC HEARING - 199495 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Declarations or Challenges - there were none. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. a Page No. ~1- • C. Summation by Budget Officer Finance Director Lowry explained the process by which state revenue sharing funds are received. In order to receive the state revenue sharing funds, the City must hold a public hearing before the budget committee and before the City Council on the use of such funds. Revenue sharing funds are a resource to the general fund and are used to fund Police operations. In order to receive other state revenues, the City must certify that it provides four or more required services from a list of municipal services. The City provides six such services. d. Public Testimony - there was none. e. Staff Recommendation. Finance Director Lowry recommended -Council adopt both the ordinance and resolution. f. Council Questions - there were none. g. Public Hearing was closed. • h. Council Consideration: Council consensus was to adopt the ordinance and resolution. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution No. 94-30). Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes." i. ORDINANCE NO. 94-13 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES Ordinance passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted °yes.°). 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 1994-95 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges - there were none. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. I~ C. Summation by City Administrator. City Administrator Reilly noted the proposed budget is the recommendation of the Budget Committee, which has essentially followed the recommendation of the City Administrator, who by ordinance is designated the Budget Officer. He noted Finance Director Lowry would offer a great deal more detail; however, he made a few broad overview remarks regarding the proposed budget. City Administrator Reilly reported that what was being proposed tonight was quite consistent with what the City took to the voters in November, 1990. City Administrator Reilly noted there is a major policy question before Council, and that is how long should this tax base be extended? The decisions made today determine how long we can continue the tax base. When the tax base was put together, it was based on five years. If Council decides to extend it farther, City Administrator Reilly said he feels the City must be much more careful about how expenditures are planned. He advised staffing has become critical. There are three areas in the budget; (1) The total staffing level is increased in this budget; the additional • positions go to Police, Library, and Building Inspection. (2) This is the first time the City of Tigard has adopted a budget for water. The budget reflects a decrease from last year's water budget by about 10%, or $350,000. (3) The Planning Commission is working on a long term capital improvement program. The budget document reflects an appropriation for each of their various capital funding sources. The projects have not been defined, nor are they reflected in this document. Finance Director Lowry summarized the proposed budget for 1994-1995, and explained the recommended change due to the settlement with TPOA on June 7, 1994. d. Public Testimony Judy Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Fessler questioned the proposed shredder/chipper for the Water Department and Maintenance Services. Ms. Fessler suggested rather than purchasing two pieces of equipment, that one shredder/chipper be shared by both departments. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. I/ • She also questioned the cost of refinishing the Council conference table for $7,500, and refinishing the Council bench for $1,125, or a total of $8,625. Regarding the TCYS building as far as rent, etc., Ms. Fessler asked how much of this type of equipment could be transferred or used somewhere else, or if possibly TCYS could pick up a portion of the cost of $3,410. She noted she had looked at the parks projects, and mentioned the restroom at Summerlake, which requires a new door roof at a cost of $3,000. Ms. Fessler discussed the heritage tree inventory which had not been approved by the Budget Committee. Regarding the Broadway Rose's request for $5,000, she mentioned that funding was in jeopardy. Ms. Fessler suggested eliminating the Council bench and conference table refinishing, reducing the shredder\chipper to one, and reducing the restoration of the restroom roof, so that $13,900 to $18,000 might be used to fund the Broadway Rose and other community-oriented projects. She suggested contacting an arborist association or other tree groups who might donate time in lieu of services. Linda Sher, 13485 SW Genesis Loop, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Sher is affiliated with the Broadway Rose, and expressed her hope the City would support the Broadway Rose Theater. Bonnie Geil and Jennifer Hoffman signed up to testify, but had to leave in order to go to work. Leah Murray, 10475 SW Kellogg Drive, Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Murray urged Council to consider funding the Broadway Rose. Dana Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Murphy and her family have lived and worked in the community for several years. She is currently active in the Broadway -Rose. Ms. Murphy asked Council to please give financial support and show that local government is supportive and response to its citizens in a positive way. Edith Black, 13410 SW Village Glenn Court, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Black, along with her children, have been active in the Broadway Rose. She encouraged Council to support Broadway Rose this year. Michael Hintz, City Employee, and resident of the City of Tigard, supported the budget, and asked Council to consider increasing it with regard to funding more Police Officer positions. Mr. Hintz noted that as a Police officer, he feels there is a decline in the amount of service they are able to give the public. - There is an increase in sophisticated crime in Tigard, and an increase in gang activity, as well as homicides, shootings, and assaults. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. A_ Page No. -::)U _ I' Mr. Hintz encouraged Council to consider raising. the budget to include more police officers. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Hintz if he was aware this budget does include two more Police officers, and asked if Mr. Hintz felt that wasn't enough. Mr. Hintz responded he was aware, but feels there is a need for significantly more officers. Mayor Schwartz advised that Chief Goodpaster has kept Council informed on call loads, etc., and that Council is concerned with this problem, but also must live within the tax base. Funding different programs will be looked at very carefully in the future. Daniel Kraus, City Employee, Police Officer, apprised Council of some of his recent experiences as a Police Officer, namely with gangs, firearms and pipe bombs. He expressed concerns with lack of enough Police Officers to deal with the increasing levels of violence in the City of Tigard. Mr. Kraus urged Council to significantly increase the number of Police officers in the near future, including a Gang Officer who could handle gang intelligence and work with the inter-agency gang enforcement team. He stated this would assist in addressing the overall serious problems that now exist. James deSully, City Employee and Police Officer noted he was a proponent of the arts, which also brings a quality of life to the City of Tigard. He mentioned the decreasing level of service the Police Department is providing, due to lack of number of Police Officers, and encouraged Council to increase Police staffing. f. Recommendation by Budget Officer. City Administrator Reilly responded to issues raised by Ms. Judy Fessler in her previous testimony. He noted there is only one shredder, which he feels is a reasonable expense designed to save the City money. Regarding the refurbishing, City Administrator Reilly explained that would include both the conference table and chairs; but it is a discretionary expenditure. He noted the Summerlake Park restroom building modification is due to the vandalism experienced recently. These issues were raised at past Budget meetings. He advised the TCYS building is obviously a matter of negotiation between Council and the TCYS staff. He noted the tree inventory and Broadway Rose issues should be addressed by the policy makers. He noted he agreed with the Police Officers who testified, and the budget was not meant to reflect the Police Department and other departments are adequately staffed. He noted the Budget Officer's role is to balance resources with needs. City Administrator advised he feels it is CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 14 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. '41 - time to look at the tax base and determine what level of service we want to provide to the community. City Administrator recommended Council adopt the proposed budget. g. Council Questions or Comments Mayor Schwartz asked if any changes made to budget this evening would come out of contingencies. City Administrator Reilly stated Council could change the budget to reduce expenditures, and use those dollars for something else, or it could come out of contingencies. In answer to Councilor Rohlf s question regarding a recommendation for staffing level in the Police Department, City Administrator Reilly advised the Police Department had requested nine additional Police Officers. He noted about one-third of Police calls are directed to Washington Square. Council consensus was that later this year they should look at other alternatives to shift funds for additional staffing. Councilor Rohlf advised he would like to propose that Council approve providing Broadway Rose funds to assist them with meeting the $4,000 matching funds grant they have been requested. He also suggested • Council consider assisting the Broadway Rose under the proposed Arts Policy. Councilor Scheckla asked if there were any funds left over from the 1993-94 budget. City Administrator Reilly advised the carry-over was projected in the new budget. He noted if Council wanted to appropriate $3,000 to $4,000 to Broadway Rose, the funds would be available. Mayor Schwartz thanked everyone for showing up and testifying regarding the City budget. He noted that in the last eight years he has been on Council, very few people showed up to testify on the budget. He also noted that he has heard very favorable comments from the citizens regarding the Tigard Police Department. h. Public Hearing was closed. i. Consideration by Council. Councilor Scheckla noted he wanted to make sure the Broadway Rose is protected. He questioned the status of the TCYS. City Administrator Reilly responded the TCYS block grant is a separate item which will be brought up at a later date. Mayor Schwartz responded the amount in the budget is CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. a~_ to bring the TCYS building up to ADA compliance. Councilor Hawley noted she liked Councilor Rohlf s idea concerning the Broadway Rose. She advised she is a proponent of the Broadway Rose, and noted she was pleased with the way the Broadway Rose cooperated with Council in providing information requested from Council. She stated she agreed with Ms. Murray's comment about bringing spirit to the community. She advised she was in agreement that Council include the Broadway Rose in the funding, and recommended $4,000 now, with the rest of the funding to be included in the Arts Policy in the future. Councilor Hawley noted Police Chief Goodpaster has kept Council up to date on the Police Department budget needs, and that Council is considering that issue. Councilor Hunt advised he would be voting against the budget because of two items. He noted he is in favor of increased staffing for the Police Department and Library. He stated he is opposed to the two positions; one an Electrical Inspector, and the other a Plumbing Inspector. Councilor Hunt stated he feels the City is geared to and working on how fast it can grow. He stated he does not feel the City is spending enough time and effort on serving the taxpayers, and feels the City is trying to grow too fast. He questioned whether the two Building Department positions would pay for themselves. Councilor Hunt stated every time we increase our building, the City is increasing its assessed valuation, but feels we are not increasing our tax base; instead we are adding administrative expense. He advised he would like to see Council direction change to look more towards helping the taxpayer now and not on seeing how much the City can grow. Councilor Rohlf advised his primary concern when reviewing the budget numbers was the policing. He noted he admired the courage of the Police and stated he felt Council should addressed the Police staffing in the very near future. Councilor Rohlf stated other than that issue, he supports the budget as presented. Mayor Schwartz commended staff for the job they had done, not only for this budget, but previous budgets, in keeping within the five year plan Council had set up at the last tax base election. He also noted he had concerns with the Police Officer staffing issue. He noted he agreed with City Administrator Reilly that Council consider the long range financing and look at what the tax base is going to be in the future. He stated he feels Tigard enjoys one of the lowest tax rates in the Metro area. He noted the direction Council has taken in the past has created what people now call their livability; of Tigard being good. Mayor Schwartz stated he does not feel growth can be stopped. He noted he feels Council should look at what its funding source is going to be in the future. He stated he would support - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a. Page No. a.3 the budget, and also supports Councilor Rohlf's recommendation for Broadway Rose. j. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt the budget, with the addition of $4,000 to the Broadway Rose. RESOLUTION NO. 94-31 - A RESOLUTION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING THE BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, DECLARINGTHE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND CLASSIFYING THE LEVY AS PROVIDED BY ORS 310.060(2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95. Motion was approved by majority vote of Council. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Item 4.2 - Receive and File June 7 Memorandum from Chief Goodpaster Regarding Forfeited Funds. (Item was pulled from Consent Agenda at the request of Jack Polaris). Jack Polans, Icing City, noted he is concerned about purchase of a surveillance vehicle, and questioned use of such vehicle to spy on suspected criminals and possibly private citizens. He suggested Police Chief Goodpaster submit a written report to Council as to how this unmarked vehicle will be used on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week; its cost factor, maintenance, insurance, etc. He asked that any oral or written policies by the Police Department be presented to Councilmembers, which may or may not be approved by Council. Mr. Polaris commented that the City of Tigard's budget must be watched. He noted the_ City budget year of 1995 to 1996 and possibly 1997 may or may not be in the City of Tigard's best financial interest. He noted former Mayor Edwards stated he would not touch the City of Kng City annexation, as it is a hot potato. City Administrator Reilly reported the recommendation to purchase the surveillance vehicle reflects the concern of the Police Department, particularly for some of the parking lot activities that are taking place. The general intended use is for the Washington Square/Tigard Cinema areas which have experienced a good deal of automobile break-ins. City Administrator explained the vehicle is being purchased with forfeited funds, and under our Code, it is the Police Chief s discretion as to how those funds are expended. The Police Chief is required to apprise Council of what takes place, and he has the latitude to purchase such items. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 17 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit NO. a Page No. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt Item 4.2. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of Council present. Continuation of Item No. 5 Legal Counsel Beery read revised wording of Resolution 94-29. She reported applicant has been asked to review the document, and applicant concurred, with some minor changes to the wording. Proposed Changes: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED October 26, 1993, "with the added condition that the access points on the detailed development plan conform to TCDC 18.102.030 as determined by the City Engineer." Paragraph 5 of Exhibit A - "The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands should be determined during detailed design. The City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately provides for left-turn movements to and from the driveways and that meets adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain, as a minimum, the driveway widths shown on the revised site plan." Legal Counsel noted there are five other findings which have been concerns that might be appealed to LUBA: 'The petitioners/appellants raised an issue with respect to the number of driveways to be approved as part of this conceptual development plan, to the effect that two one-way drives separated by a median do not constitute two access points. LUBA has previously upheld the City Council's interpretation of the applicable code provision (TCDC 18.108.070(D) in its opinion dated May 19, 1994 on this point. This issue may not therefore be raised at this hearing and Council declines to consider it. The petitioners/appellants believe the approval of the current application would result in inconsistency with prior findings that 24-foot driveways would be 'confusing and dangerous.' There is no evidence in the record to support such a conclusion at this point. Moreover, the petitioners/appellants cite no TCDC provision concerning safety or any other provision which would apply. Council finds that LUBA, in its remand of the decision, required 24-foot driveways as shown on the current application. The Council therefore finds that the proposed 24-foot driveways conform to TCDC 18.108.070(D) and are consistent with LUBA's remand. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 18 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. ~ 5 The petitioners/appellants raised the possible lack of conformance of 24-foot driveways to the City's Visual Clearance Areas code provisions, TCDC 18.102.030. There were no precise calculations submitted to demonstrate the lack of conformity to TCDC 18.102.030 as the drawing was not to scale. However, the site plan as submitted appears to have some minor conflicts of garage structures with the required visual clearance area. Council concludes that such minor conflicts can be addressed and conformance with TCDC 18.102.030 can be assured through the final design process in approval of the detailed development plan. A condition of approval shall be added to the conceptual development approval requiring conformance to TCDC 18.102.030. Finally, petitioners/appellants raised the issue of the need for 80. feet of unobstructed distance at each entrance to the project. This is an issue which was not raised in the prior appeals and Council therefore declines to consider it. Council's review is limited to the issue on remand, namely driveway width. Nevertheless, Council finds: there was .no other evidence submitted on this point. Council finds that the statement describing 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each driveway from the traffic study was based on a prior site plan. Nothing in the study affirmatively requires such unobstructed distance nor does any City Code provision require it or provide such a standard. Council therefore concludes that there was insufficient evidence presented to determine that any traffic safety issue which Council is required to address results from the current site plan. Council rejects the submittal by petitioners/appellants of an alternative site plan as not relevant to the issue on remand which issue was the sole topic of the public hearing.° Councilor Hunt asked Legal Counsel if Council ever had an alternative plan presented to them? Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded there was no alternate development plan. When they were considering revising their plan to negotiate with the appellants, they provided another site plan which was similar to this, but no exactly the same. That site plan never came before Council. Councilor Hawley moved to adopt the resolution, with includes revisions made by Legal Counsel; Councilor Hunt seconded the motion. Motion was passed by majority vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, and Hunt voted °yes."; Councilor Scheckla and Councilor Rohlf abstained, because they had not reviewed the entire record.) RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28,1994 - PAGE 19 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. c). Page No. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:11 P.M. Attest: Jo Hay Admin strative Secretary 71, City of Tigard Date: 7~~UA? 7 =0=94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1 4 - PAGE 99 20 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. *COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INL. e~9 ,EfiT 7921 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 V( E C ~dtl• BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 9j jA1 Cz 0 ~yyC~ Legal Notice Advertising ~JV C13'( OV ~t1GAKu • • ❑ Tearshest Notice City of Tigard ' 13125 SW Hall Blvd. The folloivjngwilt be co6sidere ..by,the.Tigar4 City Council on June 2828, t • • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 1994, at 730 P'.M.' at Tigard Civic Center; Towel Ii~11 R,oorit;;13125 S.W ;R Tigard, Oregon 97223 ' Hall Boulevar4..Tigard, Oregon. Further information'may be, obtained'. • • 1 from the Community Devblbptneti`tiDirector orlCity Recorder at the same;; )oeation'or by calling 6394171.Y u.are invi4eii to submit written tes timony in advance of the public b . Ing; written' and oral testimony will ~ be. considered at tho hearing. The public hearing will'bd-conducted to ac I .y cordance with.the applicable Chapter,l8.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION and any iules of procedure adopted by the Council and available at City Hall: t 1,,rl,'~' STATE OF OREGON,n it I :iii.',.. lyi'iill Fil l:►`~ s COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ;1 ' ~'UBLIC HEARINGS = • _ ,i, 4 44. 1 KathY S Yd r Al, : tm pEVE[.OPiNTREVIEW S'D'R 93-00()9;x:•=~ being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising i`PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93"-0(XX TRIAD, i~ Director, or his principal clerk, of the. rd-T ua 1 at i n,--- imes )-OCATION:i11165,11185 SWINaeve' Street:JNorth, side of Naevei a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 t;S,treet~ west of S;W;~ 109th°Avertae~ south of•;Liftle Bnll~Mountain Apart-3. and 193.020• published at Tigard in the 'i,ttnents (WCTM 2S1, IODB.'Mx lots.100 and 2T'2$l TOAD, tax lot 9300, a h rtd'2S1 lOAC; taz lots 600; 700; 800`•ai►d 900)', kiii 4ue'st`f aforesaid coun or approval of., t fl~~ ie;1 at i Hea r i. n g s /ySDR sye- 0 U y 1PDR 9 3 - 0 0 0 6 TRIAD f.a revised site plan for conceptual planned •developmknt/site development Preview of '34$unif., bpil tng; multi-family residential; complex, on t< a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the : 6.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a'result of•a'remand of tha; entire Issue p p ONE successive and ects h1fi- venport'v.-City-of.Tiaard..gf of sari news a er for UBA;.(LUBA`o Q3 191~,-'Ma)019; 1994).•The sole matter foi'*i~egtsI in) stwhother.1h consecutive in the following issues: ~ ~revised-346 plan;submitted. by.the applicant complies with TCDt June 16 ,1994 18;108:070 (D),cpncernfrig the;width of the required access driveways; Only.'evidence and tesiiniotly related to this issue;Wlll'be•.taken by the City Council: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIAIr~omtnuntty Development rCode Section•..18308.07011)). ZONE: Rr;12i;(PD)"(Residential;:12 <imits/acre, Planned Development overlay) aqd 11*41 .(PD) (Residential; 25. j~ :units/acre, Planned Development overlay). :~.1i. .i,.~-1• :.`•hf. ;i h' •'i ;~l•J•R~ f l 7177921 H = Publish•June 16;:19 16th dof June, •:'G tiF1=.ClAL SEAL Subscribed and swo=zz;; ' S 3.• R08iN A. 6WIGESS NOTARY F(AWC - OREGON ` for Oregon CUAlIA&AON NO. 024552 LIY C0dMISSION EXNRE:S LIAY 13,1997. My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No.. - • COMMUNITY.. NEWSPAPERS, INC. P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 F G Noti 7 9 27 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising di _1\ *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 0'rigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit . • Iiilslrgb: :L AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION °cni oral Do h. ffii h-'.Um ,1dah 01 3' .2 STATE OF OREGON, )ss 2 nx11.I~d ~i.~q X01 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. ) aide ' 2ivGiT no mr* I Kathy Snyder i r ao' being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising 'r Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiaard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Business Mtg.6/28 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the , entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 23,1994 C Subscribed and sworn t afore me thi 2 3rd da of June, l r,..-,-„ i r ?SEAL -.A R'06,14 A. BURGESS y Not ublic for Oregon ~ GC• ".*%i>•=31vN NO. 0245=2 ' 97 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ LUBA NO. x-128 Exhibit No `t Page No. ZF_ • - The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full _ agendas may be obtained from tha :City, Recorder, 13125 S.W; Hall Boulevard, Tigard; Oregon 97223; of by call'uig 639-4171. ~ ~ i '•J~'.rn -CITY•COUNCII'BUSINESS MEETING - - y:::, . JUNE 28, 1994 - - • : TIG • ~C1TY HALL -TOWN HALL- ~ - . - - I .:ly~" ~L3 i2S S.~Y.II, BOUL ARD, TIGARD, OREGON ~ . . , _ , .Study Meeting (Town H 11 Conferee a Room) (6:30 P.M.) - AgendaReyiew.;• , : ` ._i~.:.~....1: ':'::.N= :4... r •.~i~:: tir.: I .Business Meeting ('I'own•Hall),(730 P.M.)~~3~• ~'"~i"• ~ ' -<JSpecial Presentation'='~~„"T`":-,`"~ . ~ ~~.;,.;ti:,i - ~ - - • ~-~~Recognition of Judy•Fessle~-for her_ycars of.seryice as..a City ' ConnseIor and Planning•Commis'sioner._ - - ~ - _ Public Hearings - • ~ . _ - • '199495 Uses•of.State Revenue•Shaiing.'~'"'. - • . • r.~ ~-~a,~:r,: :-:-.Y~`;~(.~'iF.i:' -~i?~:?'.~s:W Lam' :i.°: - ?+ti.: - :1994-95~Fiscal•YearBudget- Yy.4 --7. _-.,a' _ _ _ -;Triad -Site Developtaen Review'"=;•3DR.93-0009, Planned , _ :Development Reyiew~PDlt.93-0006.:Locaaoti:.1 1 165-1 1 185 - `"S.W 'Naeve Street:~North}side'of Naeve-Street; west of.S.W: ='109tti~Adenue; sotitli of Li[t1e.Bull'Motintaiti Apartments: This - - ~ hearing is~held-as'the insult of a remand of the recent LUBA i - • -_==''decision; testimony and•evidence will be liinited_ta whether_the__. - - revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with TMC ' Chapter 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required ac- cess driveways.: : _ . Local Contract Review Board Meeting. . , Executive Session: The Tigaid City Council may go into Ezeciitive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. - . - : . _ 'S :TT7927 -Publish June 23,1994? M LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. 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 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 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 684-2772 (TOD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -JUNE 28, 1994 -PAGE 1 LU6A NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 5 Page No..31_ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY MEETING: (6:30 p.m.) Durham Park Tigard Community Youth Services (TCYS) Building Agenda Review 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 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF JUDY FESSLER FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE AS A CITY COUNCILOR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER • Mayor Schwartz 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. 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: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 7 and 14, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: June 7 Memorandum from Chief Goodpaster Regarding Forfeited Funds 4.3 Ratify Tigard Police Officer Two-Year Contract - Resolution No. 94- % 5 4.4 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for a 165-Square Foot Portion of Public Pedestrian Easement Along Lot No. 8, Hart's Landing Subdivision - Resolution No. 947-L(-- 4.5 Enter into a License Agreement with Property Owners in Cotswald Meadows Subdivision, Adjacent to Walnut Street to Allow Temporary Private Use of Portions of Public Right-of-Way 4.6 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract - Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 94 4.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract - Lang Epstein, PC 4.8 Approve Franchise Fee to Support Tualatin Valley Community Access - Resolution No. 941a 4.9 Endorse Mark Cottle as the Eastern Washington County City Representative of the EMS Policy Board 4.10 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Construction of the Main/Commercial Street Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to Eudaly Brothers COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. ]LI, 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR • 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD Location: 11165 - 11185 S.W. Naeve Street North side of Naeve Street, west of S.W. 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10DB, Tax Lots 100 and 200, 2S1 10 AD, Tax Lot 9300, and 2S1 10 AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). A request for approval of a revised site plan for conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi- family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 unit/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). , (T Z- a. Open Public Hearing fU C r-~%~i S1 f V b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony • Applicant , • Proponents 0 C-1- 2 • Opponents 5 e. Staff Recommendation . f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94-L-9 6. PUBLIC HEARING - 1994-95 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING • Public Hearing Opened • Declarations or Challenges • Summation by Budget Officer • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation by Budget • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: a. RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY OF TIGARD PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING FOR STATE SHARED REVENUES b. ORDINANCE NO. 94- : AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES • COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. ci_ Page No. 33 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 199495 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET • Public Hearing Opened • Declarations or Challenges • Summation by Budget Officer Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents • Recommendation by Budget Officer • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 94- l 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT =OWS 94 • COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. c; Page No. pending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount 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:.:June 28-,-A 994 PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD Location: 11165 - 11185 S.W. Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of S.W. 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10DB, Tax Lots 100 and 200, 2S1 10 AD, Tax Lot 9300, and 2S1 10 AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). A request for approval of a revised site plan for conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA _ (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (D) • concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 unit/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS • LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. _[0 - Page No.~_ ~..._Y..... . PLEASE PRINT aENDA.ITEM_NO.: ~ -5 ~ Proponent (Speaking4. In. Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Againsty--:.. Name m 4. Am I Address Address 00 sw h Qo V--r~ `1120 aZ t 5 ( s cv Ss ` Tvc~ r 1--h A/ Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address e Name Tess Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. X3(0 AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Site Plan Review of Site Development/Planned Development (SDR 93-0009/PD 93-0006 proposed b Triad-Ti and Limited PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK- CITY ADMIN O ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the attached revised site plan, findings and final order approving the revised driveway plan to allow construction of a 348 unit multi-family development proposed by Triad for the southern slope of Little-Bull Mountain? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve final order, findings and revised site plan to uphold the Council'o October 26, 1993 approval and meet the requirements of the State Land Use Appeals Board (LUBA) remand. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council approved the Triad 348 unit multi- family _development on October 26, 1993. The approval came after review of an appeal by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink of the Planning Commission's August, 1993 approval. Marge Davenport appealed the City Council's approval of the development to LUBA. The LUBA opinion (93-191) was issued on May 19, 1994. LUBA remanded the decision to the City on only one issue. The one issue concerns the width of required access driveways. All other issues in the LUBA appeal were found in favor of Triad. Triad has submitted a revised site plan and findings for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding the driveway widths. Approval of the revised site plan, findings and final order should allow the development to proceed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1.- Revision of the Final Order and Findings. 2. Denial-of the Final Order and Findings. FISCAL NOTES None - T LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No.. 3_ t I ~ ~ ~.,a . ~ ~s-,n , i ram„ w, U 4 U Q / ~q °~Mx P ~ / P aYr 1 ~ - _ - _ ~ - '~as ~A~ . ~ ~ _ I , Y~ - 1 ~ ~ I 7~ y-'~_ ti i s ~i~~ . z ~J si `~T + ~ si ._t ._r r~ i 7~ t o-.~~ ~r '3~ ~ reg. r`~ '"f ~t ~ ~ i 7  u ~ s e~~ ~q~r ' I s s i /r ~ ~ ~ ' 9 I~ a s~ i ~ ~ % ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 1 S w NgF~F S ~ ~ RFFT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D T i i L s s s ti  PLAN: PRELIMINARY SITE ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 20 MAY 93P.D.RES AUGUST 16, 1991 REV. MAY 17, 1993 P.D. RESUBMITTAL aVIL ~ MATT L. DRISCOLL , `^"°%X&I"40 X121 First Avenue SCALE: 1"=so' Tigard, Oregon 0 REV. 6/11/93 ROAD ALIGNMENT NORTHWEST CORNER Q Suite 102 REV. 1/20/94 ADDED MEDIANS TO ENTRANCES Triad/Tigard Development KAMPE ASSOCIATES Seattle, WA 98121 REV. 5/27/94 WIDENED ENTRANCES TO 24' 2M *M PAW KADM NO OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE M w CCXJ , " My 206.441 X7705 VD EXCEPT TO COMPLY W/ T.C.D.C. 18.108.070 (D) (50Sj 635A291 • FAX (563).6363480.. LUBA NO. Exhibit No. KpMPE ~NC. Page No.. ~ X _ • ~ ~ i AJ 4 / ~ w ^ ~ o w o w a ~ ~ ° ' w .t, w Q O O 16"F ` \ + 2 F ! + " . + i r ~ + -'„i- I 4.F + ' 37 20 36"F 2 .F + + 0°F + ••F ~ ~ ` 18 F +'t0"F X28-t`, + ifi F + " + + F + + / + 1 ' 2 + " 10"F 1 "F 18" F + + F -i- , a" ? " ~ + 1 + 28 F ~~Q F + " + " 18 F : ~ F 7 6. F g"F i f + 37 F ~8 2 F , + 8" 18 F 1 \ \ ~ 13"F 6" 12' 18 F 14 2* 1 .,F 2.,F + " 4"F ~ + + "F 10"F 1 'F .189 + ~ ~ + V 4"~ 8.. ~ 20" \ f i "F + + 1 2 ..F ~ ~ ~ t , " + ~ ~ 12"1,~ , ~ t "F + „ 18 ~ ~ ~ + + " ~ 12"C " + 1 t ~,"F„ ~ v ~ 1 + 6" ~ 12 8 F fit. " + ~ + F _ 9 A \ { - r._.-~" ~ " 1 ~ 30"F ~ + + " ~ 1 1 F ~ ~ ~ " 12 , \ 13"F +2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 + ~ 20F 'M 2F V 1 ' f 14 ~ i ~ i ~ \ , 1 "F i''' + ~ ' ~ r°~ 2 "F ~ 2B' ~r' 2"F + 1°" a 2 "F t2 F 12'. + ~ 14f I 1, ~ ~ + + ~ + ~ 1 ~ 0'F ~ ~ ,a-F ~"i+2F + ~ ~ { ~ 1 'F li. ~ i 12"F .q ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~1 t ~ g° 8" 1 .,F »M ~ "b1 0, " I F V 1 ~ 1 + ~ ~ 1 ~ „F ~ "F ~ i ~ i 1 °F ~ 4 6" 4 y + ~ 1 1 ~ ~ + t~ \ \ \ i 1 i 18 F 14" 14~ 1" 2?'?`F 24 F \ 1 ` 1 ^ + ` + + 1 + 24 + 12 tr ~ 2 ~ + 12 \ 1 ~ ~ 8 M + ' - ' 18 \ ~ ~ 12'1 '15' ~ ~ + i q M+ + " \ ` \ \ + 77" ~~29~ + 2 ti + + n ~ F ~8'f" - ' + 10"F~12"F ~4 F + `--1 + ~ i 8 ~ ~ ~ A A ,F \ + 12 ~ + " D "F ~ 4 ,2~F ~ , 1, A p + ~ + ~ 15"F ~ ~ + " ~ l v 3~"P 1 ~ ~ ~1 14„~ + 181 f "F 2R~f'r ~ + + ~ 12" ~ ~ , ~ q 1 a" ~ ►4 36 i ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ + + I ~ ~ 6 ~p 12 M , 2 F I ~ ~ 4 F F ifi , M18 ~ + 10 ~ ~ t'~ \ 12 + t 8"F + " F ~ ~ + ~ + 1 °F ~ ~ F 10 „ 2 D + + i ~ 4: 7 F 1 F F ~ E ' • ~ +n 1 14 -v ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ + ? ~ . A/ ~ ~ ~ ^ 10 2 " ~ 16' + ~ 15 F + ~ I ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , F r"~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ 99 + ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ + C ~ 12 + +1 ~ i "F ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ „ ~ F , + ~ + + " ~ 7 ~ ~ 24 ~ f) ~ RS \ \ ~ ~ + „ ~ ~ 4 ~ A+ + 1 16 12" 1 z Eo ~ ~ s" ~ \ + G + 1 ~d~ \ \ ~ \ \ ~ ~ Z4"F Z ~ ~ t2" D '4 P~8 ~ 18 ~ ~ ~ ~~R ~ + C~ +12'M + 26 ~ ~ A ~ \ ~ q~ v + 5 9 ~ X ~ ~ S + ~ v ~ 1 w ~ ~ ~ + 9 R ~ V ~ v. + N l ~ , g r ~ ~ ~ ~ 14„M 4" l ~ J i ~ ~ ~ ~ 12"F S ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20., _ ~ 1 a ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 a ~ , 1 0 1 1 1 v l 1. 1 z / ~ ~ ' p - ~ ~ / ~ 9 ~ , P ~ f ~ „ ~ ~ ~ + 1 1 a,~ n u, p ~ ter.., ~ / p \ u ~._.Ar " 'C-_t~r o~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ fi ~ ~ \ J. 1 ~ ~ti A ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ y + k . / ~ ~ add + • , , , / ~ 1 ~ , 'R \ ~ y - I , A, , ~ ~ + ~ _ + ~ ~ ~ + "P~ ` ~ y p ` ~ ~ ~ s + ~ ~ + _ `1 - ~ ` F V ` "F B - + 9" ~ S tD \ ! \ F ~ o ~ \ , 1 r ~ 6 ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ' y. ~ j--.~_ ` Y J-It _ _ A ~ I ~ ~ P \ ' _ 1 ~ 6 1c~, 1 ~ ~ r S ~ ~ - ~i:^ ~ v~ ~ ~ k 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ 0"" ~0\ `e ~ ~ "4,1G~ ~R ~ ~ \ 13 ' ~ \6 ni~j~ ~ S ~ q ~ ~ ~R 10" ~ ~,psRj.\ ~ q~F, ~ Y 1. - A ~ ~ A ~ ~ 6 ~ i ~ ~ P ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ ~ c:4~~r l ~ r ~ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A ~s \ + \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a" T ~ 'P ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~2..F. ~ ~ ~ - 10 ~c~ i'0"P ~ ~ \ \ 'F! °~to\y ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~6'M 'v. ~ v 2a"CFO -tQ ~ - ~ vv ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ -v- A v ~ - ~ ~ ~ , - Q i + ~_a.~~~ \ ~r~ r, -I , .9~~" N `~~p _ ~ ~ ~ n 1 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~p \ ~ 10'' ~ ~ ~ ~V Q~ ~ ~ ~ • - ~ ~ ~ ~~.T ~ - s s  ti - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ \ • { ~ ~ ~ ~ i J ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ . t \ i _ / ~ _ ^1 a~ \ ~ ~ 1 j~ ~ '4 ~ _ ~ , . ~ F' ~ ~ v~ '~,Q 1 \ S ~ r" . \ ~ ~ ~ _ _ F A ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ v A. ~ ~ c.' . ,y , - , A ~ \ ~ ~ . \ / _ . ~ \ 36"SEQ A ~ ~ r ~ ~ `v ~ \ _ o i ~ ~ _ l _ ~ ~ ~ 1 \ ~'v _ ~ ~ ~.v ,l ~ \ ti .,q' ~ ~ a \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RED ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ` ~ 4 ~4"REO \ i ~ \ 24" '~v A + A. 8 SE ~ + 6 ~ ~ i 1 ~ A ~ 4DROWD ~ f~ ~ ~ ~g^ 1 ~ z~R D o 8RDwD ~ ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,o ~ - + ~V R`~~ ~ ~ ~ RS ~ ~ ~ -c=4 ~ ' ~ \ 5~REJ ~ ~ A ~ E~ ~ ~`o ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~v ~ + ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ y a o ~ V ,v A ~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ v, ~q + ~~'REo h~a _ ~ ~ 2a"REO ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ; ~ 4 ` ~ '~~.~s~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, 12 E~ 6"RED ~ - ~ ~ ~ 2 12"RE ~ w + ~ "RED ~ t ~ c ~ ,}^~q D t D \ ~ ~ \ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.6 l~~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ . \ \ _ ~ ,v ~ \ ~ may, ' ~ % ~ X i a `r } i. ~ 1 ~r i  AuUusI 10, iyyi ntV. v„ Z7 ZY %J Tigard, Oregon L` SCALE: 1"=60' A Seattle, WA 98121 206.44]•7705 REV. 2/04/94 MOVED NORTH ROAD/BUILDINGS @ NAEVE ADDED TREES PER CES TREE SURVEY OF 1989 Triad/Tigard Developmetiil' 206 °441°5373 (FAX) LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 8 Page Na L. U 6A q3 •!6i ( TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS TIGARD APARTMENTS Tigard, Oregon KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. February 1990 LUBA NO. 94-728 Exhibit No. Page No. 1= TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the TIGARD APARTMENTS Developer: Triad Development Inc. Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 512 SW Broadway, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 February 1990 Project No.: 322.00 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT STUDY AREA SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 SITE CONDITIONS Ai,,-D ADJACENT LAND USES TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TRANSIT SERVICE TRAFFIC SAFETY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 16 DEVELOPMENT PLANS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRIP DISTRIBUTION IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES • FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35 REFERENCES 36 -i- LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No.q Page No. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Vicinity Map 2 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes 7 3. Trip Distribution Pattern 19 4. Background Peak Hour Volumes 20 5. Site Generated Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 21 6. Site Generated Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 22 7. Background + Project Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 24 8. Background + Project Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 25 9. Site Generated Traffic Potential Additional Development 29 10. Background + Project + Potential Additional Traffic 30 • -ii- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. 4 • LIST OF TABLES 1. Accident History at NaevelPacific Highway 6 2. Level of Service Definitions: Signalized Intersections 9 3. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 10 4. Level of Service Definitions: Unsignalized Intersections 11 5. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 12- 6. Existing Level of Service Results 14 7. Gap Analysis Results 15 8. Trip Generation Characteristics: Proposed Development 18 9. Projected Level of Service Results (Background + Project) 26 10. Trip Generation Potential (Surrounding Properties) 28 11. Signal Warrant Analysis Results 32 12. Signal Progression Analysis Results 34 -iii- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. cl Page No. 44 ?Ygard Apartments INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to assess the likely traffic-related impacts on the surrounding street system of a proposed 364 unit multi-family residential development located east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W) and north of Naeve Street in Tigard, Oregon. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map. Specific traffic-related issues discussed in this report include: • Existing traffic conditions in the project area • Trip characteristic estimates for the proposed development. • Site access location and operations. • Traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. • Safety considerations including accident experience, appropriate traffic control devices, and sight distance analysis. • An analysis of the traffic impacts of potential future development surrounding the site. This report has been prepared following the guidelines set forth by the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report (Reference 1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The western boundary of the proposed 364 dwelling unit multi-family residential development lies approximately 300 feet east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W). SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue form the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, respectively. First construction on the site is intended to begin in 1990. The current site plan includes one site access on SW Naeve Street, a secondary emergency vehicle access on SW 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue, which intersects with Canterbury Lane to the north. For the purposes of the report, this access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the Naeve-109th Access Alternative. In accordance with ODOTs Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report a second site access alternative has also been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of site access onto SW - 1 - LYTRODLiCT10N LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. "I Page No. 4- ca; NORTH y~BL ~ Qp 1{ ~ P f • x e~ ~ t ¢ 4LJLTMOYAN AAOEM s: N C OfNNEY AO y GARDEN M4YE ` , i r~ty ` FEAA"f mO a `•OAS r W x o` t NAAT AO y S • FERRY RD AOT'~9 ?O a.Itt TA M y NuBEA P < Sr T AT Bf r'O POYO9 f r BAOGxYAN y ~eS. ST N T < 2•.~I K STEP" A X w = K DON: ~ A W IR AO W r' - VfAFiLE ^ 'YEAA A i DAXOTa T2 a4ffy ST O 9 1c 6 IDA rc P r. < . RO 9 C TEpA O s ~ TM,raifws o RD Q{ ► O~ T qO . t Q Q` " NV ERG AO q0 COVNIA. Ut OLLS Q~ ST IlrtfR a Q` S d ST ,FGY qfI tr0 `4S tW WALTLJ jgaf xRU$f wA o Lis m a 1 SAO Bull AOE YeOdNALD ST wlTa A GAA ~ O G Q. a• Mtn ST ..u i 'P 9 P tt `ems c RO < T J ~O w PO 8 YTM ATTLER is GAEE ALL S 1'~Pr ~ " ` ~ l~ O ~e R i! FO CODE 0"~O c ?O ; O fcACOOK OA O f~lrlg pUA~ 6E►~ city purnam o y ze BEEF SEA Z AD FI SPO C E. E TualaN» C„It05 C W 7L,ALATIN RD a 'veTIj `e T Z-A Tualatin 90ALANO Iyd{ n T AD ~•iU3 7 SAGA Fp AVERY ST O v'V C C ~'6 O Neaw OD ~ri _ 2 Y LOY RD DE KEA S cJ3 RD . t QO q T ia ` n YEAtOiAN 40 .t p N Cu TOFF '*r She pod `0 c H c o BLVD 9o z ~OOp AD G t `d TO' f~ C ! O DAT AD t - e1ZB NO. t z I.uB nn No•cl Exh a No. pag Ft9ure S~~E vicI~jTY 1 p gyp pRTmF T5 322 `2- T1GAR 1990 ebru~ry Tigard Apartments Naeve Street only. The second access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the Naeve Only Access Alternative. PROJECT STUDY AREA Based on the amount of traffic anticipated to be -generated by the proposed development, the project study area has been identified to include the following key intersections: • SW Naeve St/Pacific Highway • SW Beef Bend Road/Pacific-Highway • SW 109th Ave/Canterbury Lane SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS Based on the traffic impact analysis "described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable level of service limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under any of the access alternatives. 2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. 3) The Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) Full development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access similar to that described within this report would likely result in the - need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. 5) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. - 3 - INTRODUCTION LUBA NO. 9 128 Exhibit No. Page No. Tigard Apartments EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The proposed project site is currently vacant. Land uses in the immediately surrounding area consist of a mixture of single family and multi-family residential developments. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Pacific Highway is a primary north-south route in the project area and as such is designated by Washington County as. a major arterial (Reference 2). Pacific Highway is also a state highway and is maintained and operated by ODOT. Within the vicinity of the site, Pacific Highway is a four lane divided highway. The typical cross-section consists of two travel lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions, as well- as separate exclusive left-turn lanes at most major intersections. The posted speed within the vicinity of the site is 45 miles per hour. No on-street parking is allowed on either side of the roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, Beef Bend Road is designated a major collector (Reference 2) and is operated and maintained by Washington County. Beef Bend Road is an "Y shaped roadway connecting Pacific Highway to the south and Scholls Ferry Road (State Highway 210) to the north. The north-south section of Beef Bend Road connecting to Scholls Ferry Road is classified as a minor arterial by Washington County (Reference 2). The typical cross-section of Beef Bend Road consists of one twelve foot travel lane in each direction. The- posted speed. within the vicinity of Pacific Highway is 45 miles per hour. No on-street parking is allowed on either side of the roadway. SW Naeve Street is designated as a minor collector by Washington County (Reference 2). SW Naeve is currently a low volume two-lane roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, the pavement is in poor condition, with a number of potholes. Existing Traffic Control The intersection of Pacific Highway/Beef Bend Road is controlled by a fully actuated traffic signal. The signal is maintained and operated by ODOT. The traffic signal is part of a coordinated signal system on Pacific Highway. The intersection of SW Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is unsignalized with stop sign control on the minor street approach. - 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. page No. 4S - Tigard Apartments TRANSIT SERVICE Bus transit service is provided along Pacific Highway by Tri-Met Bus Route No. 12. Route No. 12 provides weekday and weekend service between Sherwood and downtown Portland. This service is provided at 15-30 minute headways on weekdays and 60 minute headways on weekends. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that none of the site-generated person trips are made by transit. TRAFFIC SAFETY Accident History In order to evaluate existing accident patterns near the Pacific Highway/Naeve Street intersection, a review was conducted of accident records maintained by ODOT. A detailed summary was - prepared of all reported accidents in the vicinity of the intersections for the time period between January 1986 through December 1988. Table 1 displays a summary of this review. As shown in the Table, a total of 5 accidents have occurred at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection during the three year time period. The review of the accident data did not reveal anything that might indicate a significant accident problem. Sight Distance Measurements As part of the traffic safety evaluation, field measurements of intersection sight distance were performed at all of the proposed access drives and key intersections. Based on these observations, it was found that more than adequate sight distance currently exists at the proposed access drive on Naeve Street as well as at all of the other key intersections within the study. area. Based upon a review of the accident data, and on the results of the field observations, it is concluded that no significant safety problems currently exist within the immediate site vicinity. It is not expected that development of this site will adversely affect the traffic safety characteristics of the surrounding street system. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR. OPERATIONS Current weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections within the study area were determined through manual counts conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. These counts were conducted during November 1989, and January 1990. The peak hour observations revealed that the morning peak hour occurs from 7:00-8:00 am. while the evening peak hour occurs from 4:30-5:30 p.m. The existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. - 5 - EXISTING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. L4V Page No. ?lgard Apartments TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT TYPES AT KEY INTERSECTIONS (January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988) Accident Tune mgt Naeve St/Pacific Hwy Rear End 4 Turning 1 Total 5 -6- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No Page No. 54- •m r 1 l 70-04 ;\c, Conterbu NORTH 95--x R QpG Q y O O O7 r . ~ e-~ 45--r .0-60 20 ~ ~ 5 Beef r Bend . . o W S ITE O M O 5 tn H o in N AM PEAK o p r 6 45-14 ``G COnierbUrV NORTH 75 R Qp~' Q h O ~ N Q 110-► 4- 45 45~ 10 Beef ............•.........•.....I Bend ':':':SITE N N O 1 ►1- 5 _ N r 5 doe o l Ile S 15 -i 1o-' 60 _ Z p N PM PEAK z =z EXISTING PEAK HOUR u'S a TRAFFIC VOLUMES _7_ Figure TIGARD APARTMENTS 2 ebruary 1990 322f002 Tigard Apartments LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of the LOS at a signalized intersection. As defined within the 3985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference . 3), six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these six grades are described qualitatively for . signalized intersections in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. For signalized intersections, LOS defines the quality of the traffic flow, but does not necessarily describe the overall design adequacy of the intersection to accommodate the traffic volumes being analyzed. As an example, a . good LOS can be achieved even when the volume/capacity ratio for the intersection exceeds 1.0. Similarly, there are conditions under which a poor LOS is achieved even though the volume/capacity ratio for the intersection is well below 1.0. Therefore, all signalized intersection summary tables contained in this report. provide both the calculated LOS and the calculated .volume/capacity ratio for each intersection. In this way, the reader is provided with a complete description of the expected operation conditions' for each signalized intersection that is analyzed. For unsignalized. intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized . intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve Capacity" (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A- qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 4. A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 5. The reserve capacity concept applies -only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an . overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. Past experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates that this. methodology is very conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems that might exist. Therefore, the. results of any unsignalized. inter- section analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Generally, LOS E is considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms can be reviewed upon request. In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case conditions, the weekday peak hour flow rates were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for two hours out of each average weekday. For the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic conditions within the study impact area are likely to be better than that described in this report. 8 - =STL 1G CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 94-28 Exhibit No. Page No..5;1- M 74gard Apartments TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volumetcapacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such high delay levels. Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. 9 " LUBA NO. 128 Exhibit No. Page No. -LI-L • Tigard Apartments TABLE 3 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Level of Service Vehicle (Sec) A 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.0 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Source: Reference 2 -10- LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. Page No. ?Ygard Apartments TABLE 4 GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS General Description A - Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue B - Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue C - Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue • - Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so D - Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue Drivers feel quite restricted E - Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement - There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue - Drivers find the delays to be approaching intolerable levels F - Forced flow - Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection -11- - LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. _ Page No. . Tigard Apartments TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA for LNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic. delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays * F • * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which ' may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual". Special Report 209 (1985) • -12- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. C_ Page No. • Tigard Apartments Table 6 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations for the key intersections within the study area. As this table indicates, all intersections are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service under existing weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. In an effort to better estimate the existing capacity for minor street left-turn movements at the unsignalized intersection of Pacific I ighway/Naeve Street a special gap study was conducted to determine the availability and distribution of acceptable gaps for left-turning movements. The gap study explicitly accounts for such factors as proximity of upstream and downstream traffic signals which effects whether or not the vehicles are arriving randomly, or in platoons. The results of the gap study reveal the number of critical time gaps available to drivers. Within the context of this report the . critical gap is defined to be the time gap, expressed in seconds, which is found to be acceptable by 50 percent of the drivers on the minor street approach and movement. Past experience on other roadway facilities possessing similar speed and cross-sectional characteristics show the critical gap for minor street left turning vehicles to be fairly consistent and at about 6.0 seconds. Another factor that needs to be considered when evaluating the operations of the Naeve St./Pacific Highway intersection is the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. This median provides a refuge for left-turn movements from the minor street and allows vehicles to cross one major street movement at a time. The result of this is the minor street left-turn movements do not have to wait for simultaneous gaps • in the northbound and southbound directions. Because of these factors, the gap analysis was analyzed for not only simultaneous gaps, but gaps in the individual northbound and southbound directions as well. Table 7 displays the results of the gap analysis for weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. As shown in the table, the existing available gaps are more than adequate to accommodate existing traffic volumes. PLANNED TRANTSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Discussion with officials at, Washington County, and the City of Tigard indicate that the only significant transportation improvement currently planned within the study area is at the intersection of Beef Bend Road/Pacific Highway. At this intersection, Washington County has plans to widen the eastbound Beef Bend approach to Pacific Highway to provide for a separate right turn lane. Final engineering for this project has not yet been completed, but discussions with Washington County indicate that the improvement will likely take place within the next two years. For the purposes of the analysis of future conditions at the Beef Bend/Pacific Highway intersection, it was assumed that the above mentioned improvement will be in place. - 13 - =STING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. _ Page No. S1 • Tigard Apartments TABLE 6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS Signalized Unsignalized Reserve Intersection Delay 3L \L Capacity LM Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 7 .55 B - PM 8 .70 B - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - Canterbury/109th AM - - - 805 A PM - - - 760 A . NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap analysis procedure. See discussion on page 13. • - 14- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. • Tigard Apartments TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS NAEVE STREET/PACIFIC HIGHWAY Number of Available Critical Cans Time Period Northbound Southbound Simultaneous AM Peak Hour 380 510 180 PM Peak Hour 350 305 135 • - 15 - LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. Page No. 5~ • Tigard Apartments TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The weekday peak hour impact of traffic generated by the proposed development was analyzed as follows: • The placement and size of the proposed multi-family housing development were confirmed. • The total number of future morning. and evening peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development were estimated for development of the site in 1990. • The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated based on information obtained from Washington County's regional travel * demand forecasting modeL • An estimate of projected weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the immediate site vicinity was obtained from Washington County staff. • The in-process traffic was added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain background traffic volumes for the future analysis condition. • Site-generated traffic predicted for the weekday am. and p.m. peak hours was assigned to the street system and added to the projected background traffic volumes. • Traffic demands on each roadway facility were analyzed to identify any capacity, level of service, and/or physical deficiencies under projected future conditions for the two access alternatives. A detailed discussion of this methodology and the analysis results is contained in the remainder of this section. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Current site plans are for a 364 unit multi-family housing development to be constructed on the site by 1990. The proposed access scheme for the development includes three access drives, consisting of an access drive on Naeve Street, a secondary access on 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue. It is intended that the access drive on Naeve Street will be designed such that left-turns out of the site on Naeve Street will be prohibited. This will force of the site's outbound traffic to Pacific Highway. • - 16 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 9-128 Exhibit No.~J Page No. Lo • Tigard Apartments In accordance with ODOTs Minimum Requirements . for a Traffic Report, a second access alternative has been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of an access drive on Naeve Street. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Because the assumed trip generation characteristics represent the basis for the entire traffic impact analysis that follows, special care has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the proposed multi-family housing development on the basis of empirical observations at similar developments located throughout the United States. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published by. the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 8 were estimated for development of the property in accordance with the proposed site plan. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated through examination of the origins and destinations of home-based work trips within the surrounding area that are contained • in Washington County's regional travel demand forecasting model. On the basis of the information provided by Washington County, the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3 was prepared. As this figure indicates, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the site-generated traffic will travel to and from the north via Pacific Highway. IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES In-Process traffic volumes consist of tra.fc projections from planned or committed developments. Estimates of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the study area were obtained from Washington County staff. These volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure 2, to obtain the background traffic volumes for the projected future conditions shown in Figure 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Using the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed multi-family housing development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area under the two access alternatives. These volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the respective access alternatives. - • - 17- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. _ Page No. 1 o I ?Tgard Apartments TABLE 8 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Generated Trips (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use ts) (A) D IIY otal In ~ TDtd -in Out Multi-Family 364 2420 190 40 150 230 150 80 Housing Oe~, IM3 F1114L 2000 !S-~ 33 124' 100 124- bL I I • Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. -18- LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. _ 2 Page No. (2 a NORTH ^O ~Q ,0 Camerbu ~ > Q~ Q rn o - B e ei Bend 1I T E N LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. i Page No. (o ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN -19- Figure p TIGARD APARTMENTS a e ruary 1990 3 322F003 1 + Canterbu 215 -*4 NORTH OG\~G Q 12S-w,4 R Q ~n o aS U1 ^ O 45--► r 60 20- 5 Beef ~ f Bend o S ITE o *1 5 No o_ to 1 r eIle S 15-0. oh N h N AM PEAK 1sa~ .10 Canterburv NORTH 95~ R QOG` Q L It 0o O -o O - N 110-y 45 45N 10 Be of Bend • SITE::: . s ,1 ~Y o0 5 o N oeVe S 15_. f- 1 o rC PM PEAK zZz t m BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR Co TRAFFIC VOLUMES -20_ Figure pA TIGARD APARTMENTS 4 ebruary 1990 322F004 vp 0 or r 11 CQnterburv NORTH 5 QOG\ Q ~t _ a N Q) n O Beef 10.x to ~ T j Bend o 0 W) :•:SITE h . C N N x.80 1 4o n/pe` 30•. I e S 0--► o t .n AM PEAK .p on r . 0~ ``G CQnterburv NORTH 10 -N QpG Q ~t r r o ~n C7 30~ 0 Beef fW Bend o :.SITE.-: l N 45 co 20 1201 r o r/` * M 1 T e S o o~ Ov n Z Z Z PM PEAKa mrrn PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC a NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE -21- Figure WC7 TIGARD APARTMENTS 5 February 1990 .~.22F005 o~ 1c, Canterbu NORTH 5-~ t QO~'\ Q t c N c M 0 r Beef Bend S ITE o n 1L s0.~ ao oeve . S ; o-► o tor O N AM PEAK N a ° r 'Eli 0 Can~erburv NORTH ate Qo° Q It W %.n C) 0 Beef Bend :-:SITE N . . . . . . . . 60 l QD N 20 ~oe 1500 T_ 0 r 0 41 t T e o; o Z:= Z6 PM PEAK PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC a NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE -22- Figure IKI TIGARD APARTMENTS 6 e ruory 1990 322F006 . Tigard Apartments The site-generated traffic shown in Figures 5 and 6 were combined with the projected weekday morning and evening peak hour background traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 to arrive at the projected total morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the two access alternatives. These volumes were used as the basis for analyzing the LOS at the intersections in the study under projected future weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for estimated future am. and p.m. peak hour conditions for the two access alternatives are presented in Table 9. As shown in the table, all key intersections within the study area are expected to experience acceptable service levels under either of the access alternatives. As mentioned previously, the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is different than typical unsignalized intersections due to the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. Because of this, future traffic operations this intersection were evaluated using the gap analysis results described previously and displayed in Table 7. The results • of the gap analysis revealed that approximately 180 and 135 critical simultaneous gaps currently exist during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively.. However, for the individual directions in excess of 300 critical gaps are available in both the morning and evening peak hours. With the relatively low projected left-turn demand there appears to be more than adequate capacity to accommodate projected demands if the vehicles make use of the center median for a refuge and cross one direction at a time.. Therefore, based on the results of the detailed gap analysis, it is concluded that more than adequate capacity will be available to accommodate left turn movements at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES - The analysis results indicate that either of the access alternatives will adequately accommodate the projected site-generated traffic volumes. The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in lower total traffic demands at the intersection of Naeve St/Pacific Highway than the Naeve Only Access Alternative. Therefore, the Naeve-109th Access Alternative would likely result in slightly better traffic operations at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacinc Highway. The Naeve-109th Access Alternative also provides better emergency vehicle access to the site via the connection to Canterbury Lane. INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION With regard to internal site circulation, the most important design feature from a traffic operations ersnective is the access drivewa , and t e re ati to the inte a sv Specifically, ingress and egress at the site driveways should not interfere wit parking/unparking maneuvers. If a conflict between these operations did exist, vehicle backups on the adjacent street system can occur. A review of the site plan reveals unobstructed access throats of at least 80 feet will be provided at the major access drives. Based on the volume of site-generated traffic that is expected at both of the access drives under any of the access alternatives, the depth • - 23 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. 12 a 30 m 21st ~~o Conterbu NORTH. 1 zs~ R Qo°~ Q' l~ L o v~ a1 1O~ O N r-- 45~► 60 30~ ~5 Beef 10, Bend o co ::SITE:•:- cn 4s NOeLe S 30..$ 10 tr . 00 N ~ N AM PEAK un m ~o m un N ~ r lso~ mac, Canterbury NORTH 105 R QOG` Q s w o C1 ~N O r 110-♦ .0-45 75- 10 Beef r Bend %n :::SITE ci in in 1 : 04L so c 1 2s Nye VA 1 15 ~ 10 O C t w S Zzz PM PEAK _ a BACKGROUND + PROJECTED TRAFFIC NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE - _24_ - Figure TIGARD APARTMENTS 7 ebruary 1990 322FOO7 N ~m r ' 21st °G`~G Canterbu NORTH 12s~ Q o N Q, i° N O Beef Bend ..SITE.:: t15 N ♦ / ~ V Ise S - 15 -i ~ 10 00 N N AM PEAK to W r- -A 1 j ~r ,sow~o Canterbury NORTH 95- °61 > 1 Q r! b N 1 -N O S e e Bent Q~ N N N T es C~ 25 Noe 150 f--10 C Ike tr S.. Z?Z o~ Q a ~ m ,c v~ PM PEAK i tu a BACKGROUND + PROJECT TRAFFIC NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE -25- Figure TIGARD APARTMENTS 8 ebruary 1990 32FOCS 7Ygard Apartments TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC Signalized Unsienalized Reserve Intersection Delay VAC LQa Capacity LDE Naeve-109th Alternative Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .57 B - PM 15 .80 C - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - _ Canterbury/109th AM - - - 763 A PM - - 723 A Naeve Only Alternative Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .58 B - PM 15 ~81 C - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - PM - Canterbury/109th AM - - - 806 A PM - 759 A NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap analysis procedure. See discussion on page 23. • -26- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. C( Page No. :(W Tigard Apartments • of the access throat will be adequate to minimi2e conflicts with parkinglunparking maneuvers. Thus, the internal circulation is expected to operate acceptably, and moreover, circulation internal to the site is not expected to adversely affect traffic operations on the adjacent street system- ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE The City of Tigard requested that the traffic analysis take into account the development potential of currently undeveloped parcels located immediately east and west of the site. The parcels that considered included an approximately 10 acre parcel located immediately west of the site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway, . and an approximately 40 acre parcel located immediately east of 109th Avenue. The 10 acre parcel is zoned R-25, which allows for the construction of approximately 250 multi-family housing units. For the purposes of the analysis,.it was assumed that no direct access to Pacific Highway would be provided, and therefore, all of the 250 units would access Naeve Street. The 40 acre parcel. is currently zoned R-3.5, which would allow for the construction of approximately 180 single family residential housing units. Discussion with City staff indicated that the 40 acre parcel would likely have access to 109th Avenue, Naeve Street, as well as a number of local streets located east of 109th Avenue. Based on a review of the likely internal street connections for the 40 acre parcel that was provided by City staff, it was estimated that approximately one third of the parcel, which represents approximately 60 single family housing units, would access Naeve Street. It is felt that this represents a conservatively high estimate, and therefore provides a reasonable worst-case estimate of future traffic operations on Naeve Street. Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the potential future development on the basis of the empirical observations summarized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 10 were estimated for development of the property as described above. Using the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the potential future development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area. It was assumed that the southern and nor-them sections of 109th Avenue remained severed, and therefore all of the traffic was added to Naeve Street. The projected site- generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9 for the weekday morning and evening peak hour time periods. In order to evaluate a worst-case condition for the intersection of Naeve Street(Pacific Highway, the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 9 was added to the projected total traffic volumes for the Naeve Only Access Alternative, shown in Figure 6. The resulting Background + Project + Potential Future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. • - 27- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 9428 Exhibit No. ~1 Page No. Tigard Apartments TABLE 10 TRIP GENERATION POTENTIAL FOR SURROUNDING UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES Gen rated Trinc (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total In Dut Total In Qut Multi-Family 250' 1650. 130 30 100 160 105 55 Housing Single Family 60 (C) 605 45 10 35 60 45 15 Housing Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. C. This represents only the portion of this future development that is expected to access Naeve Street. LUBA NO. 94-128 - 28 - Exhibit No. Page No. 1~ a° Conterbu NORTH Q°G\ t as 0 r- Beef Bend , . : SITE:::: N O H 115 35 wei t oN AM PEAK ~r Canterbury N=R7H Qo°~ s rn 0 Beef Send SITE: N o- 1 a 60 r ?P ZZZ n PM PEAK ca J LUa. SITE TRAFFIC POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -29- Figure TIGARD APARTMENTS 9 ebruary 1990 322F009 a0 r G\`G ' CanterbU NORTH QO Q t .O Beef Bend SITE.::- "o 130. Noe $0.80 I r vc o~ N ~ N AM PEAK a~ Can~erburv NORTH QOG~~ rn Q Beef Bend CA o ~Q N 1L 12s N T Noe% s St oz6 M^ z =Z PM PEAK 4. ZO m. BACKGROUND + PROJECT + POTENTIAL TRAFFIC -30- Figure C TIGARD APARTMENTS <J e ruary 1990 10 322FOOIC . 74gard Apartments The operational analysis of projected conditions with the potential future development focused on conditions at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Future traffic operations at this intersection were evaluated using the same procedures described previously. Based on the projected left-turning volumes during the evening peak hour, the combination of left-turns from Pacific Highway and left-turns from Naeve Street would be approaching the capacity of the unsignalized intersection to handle left-turns. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS As a part of this analysis, a special investigation was conducted to evaluate the need for installing a new traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. The warrant analysis was conducted for both of the access alternatives under. projected background + project traffic volumes, as well as for projected background + project + potential future development traffic volumes. The Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant (Warrant 1 as described in Reference 5) and the Interruption of Continuous Flow Warrant (Warrant 2) are both based on the eighth-highest hour conditions. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 11) was also examined. Based on previous work within Washington County, it is assumed that the eighth- highest hour on Pacific Highway is approximately 70 percent of the peak hour, and the eighth-highest hour on Naeve Street is approximately 60 percent of the peak hour. Additionally, only half of the minor street's projected right-turn volume is included for warrant evaluation purposes, because right turning vehicles would benefit little from a • traffic signal. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for Pacific Highway and Naeve Street are shown in Table 11. As shown in the table, under both of the access scenarios with background plus project traffic, the warrant requirements will not be met for Warrants 1, 2, or 11. When the traffic from the potential additional development is added to the background plus project traffic, it is projected that signal Warrants 2 and 11 would be met. Based on the results of the signal warrant analysis as well. as the operational analysis for the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, it is concluded that a traffic signal would not be warranted with the addition of the proposed project- traffic under either of the access alternatives. If however, the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to the full potential allowed under the current zoning, and access to these properties is as assumed in this analysis, it is likely that a traffic signal would be required to accommodate projected total traffic volumes. PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY With the potential for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection at some.time in the future, officials at ODOT requested that an analysis of the traffic signal progression characteristics be conducted to assess the impact of a traffic signal at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway on the progression of through traffic on Pacific Highway. • - 31 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit NoA _ Page No. 7Fgard Apartments TABLE 11 • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Warrant Volume Projected Volume Warrant Time Major Minor Pacific Naeve Met Name of Warrant Period Street Street may Street Naeve-109th Access Alternative (Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1550 53 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1550 53 No ` Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2215 105 2215 88 No Naeve-Only Access Alternative (Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1555 62 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1555 62 No • Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2225 105 2225 103 No (Background + Project + Potential Future Development) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1585 87 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1585 87 Yes Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2265 105 2265 145 Yes • - 32 - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. C _ Page No. 'l • Tigard Apartments The effects on traffic signal progression characteristics along Pacific Highway were analyzed using a standard computerized simulation and optimization program (PASSER U-87). Passer E-87 is a macroscopic computer model that is designed to evaluate a variety of signal strategies along an arterial. Although the program is capable of analyzing isolated intersections, its most common application is in evaluating and optimizing signal progression on an arterial street system. For this analysis, Passer H-87 was used to evaluate the relative effects, from a signal progression standpoint, of an additional signalized intersection at Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Since a traffic signal would likely only be required when all of the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to its potential, the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10 were used as the basis for the analysis. ODOT requested that the progression analysis include traffic signals at the following intersections on Pacific Highway: • Durham Road • Royalty Parkway • Naeve Street • Beef Bend Road • Bull Mountain Road • Canterbury Lane Based on discussions with ODOT, the analysis time periods that were evaluated were the weekday evening peak hour, and the weekday off-peak time period. For the purposes of the analysis, the traffic volumes during the off peak time period were assumed to be equivalent to 70 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour time period. Table 12 displays the measures of effectiveness (MOE's) typically used when evaluating signal progression. As shown in the table, the results of the analysis indicate that "Great Progression" can be attained with a traffic signal at Naeve Street Table 12 also displays the estimated green bandwidth (in seconds) both with and without a signal at Naeve Street. Based on the results of the signal operation and progression analysis, it is concluded that a traffic signal could eventually be installed at Naeve Street while maintaining excellent signal progression on Pacific Highway. - 33 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit NO. Q Page No. 22- 7Fgard Apartments TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF SIGNAL PROGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS Arterial Progression Measures of Effectiveness NB Bandwidth SB Bandwidth Efficiency (1) (seconds) (seconds) PM Peak Sour. Without Naeve Signal 0.45 52 73 With Naeve Signal 0.43 50 69. Off Peak Condition Without Naeve Signal 0.47 46 32 With Naeve Signal 0.48 46 35 • Notes: (1) Arterial Progression Evaluation Criteria is as Follows: Efficiency 0.00 - 0.12 Poor Progression 0.13- 0.24 Fair Progression 0.25 - 0.36 Good Progression 0.37- 1.00 Great Progression - 34 - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No.(-]- Page No. '7 g Tigard Apartments CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the traffic impact analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable LOS limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under.any of the access alternatives. .2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. 3) The Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) Full development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access similar to that described within this report would likely result in the need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. 5) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. • _ 35 _ CONCLUSIONS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. G _ Page No. _ 1 ~ • Tigard Apartments REFERENCES 1. Oregon Department of Transportation, Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report. 2. Washington County. Functional Classification System. (1988) 3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report No. 209 (1985). 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ?'rip Generation Manual: Fourth Edition (1988). 5. Federal Highway 'Administration. Manual on Traffic Control Devices (1984). - 36- REFERENCES LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. C Page No. 5Z CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on August 1. 1994- 1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94-128 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: August 1. 1994. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on August 1. 19941 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94-128 by first class mail on • the following persons: Beverly Swink Mike Robinson 15875 S.W. Greens Way Stoel, Rives, Boley, Tigard OR 97224 Jones & Gray 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Ste 2300 Marge Davenport Portland, OR 97204 15100 S.W. 109th Avenue Tigard, OR 97244 Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1272 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: August 1. 1994. ~&herine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON BEVERLY SWINK, ) MARGE DAVENPORT ) LUBA NO. 94-128 • Petitioners, ) Vs. ) Index and CITY OF TIGARD, ) Record Respondent, ) Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file (L08A record 614-119 By: City rc~, r City of Tg Date: ~ TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SITE PLAN REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SDR 93-0009/PD 93-0006) LUBA REMAND DAVENPORT V. CITY OF TIGARD, OR LUBA (LUBA NO. 93-191, MAY 19, 1994) CITY OF TIGARD RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 94-128) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. Catherine Wheatley, Tigard City Re der Date: V/ 19 y i • i TABLE OF CONTENTS - Paae Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii Exhibit No. 1 Affidavit of Mailing - Notice of Decision 1-7 Tigard City Council SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-006; Resolution" No. 94-29 2 Council Meeting Minutes for the June 28, 1994 Meeting 8-27 3 Affidavit of Publication - Public Hearing Notice for June 28, 1994 28 Tigard City Council Public Hearing 4 Affidavit of Publication - Council Meeting Agenda Highlights for the June 28, 1994 City Council Meeting 29 - 30 t 5 Council Meeting Agenda for the June 28, 1994 Council Meeting 31 - 34 • 6 Testimony Sign-in Sheet for June 28, 1994 Public Hearing 35 - 36 7 Tigard City Council Agenda Item Summary Sheet for the June 28, 1994 Council Meeting 37 8 Two large maps which were part of the June 28, 1994 Council packet for the hearing item - Agenda Item No. 5 38-39 9 Transportation Impact Analysis - Tigard Apartments (Krttelson & Associates Feb. 1990) 40-80 - Audio tapes of June 28, 1994, Tigard City Council meeting can be made available upon request ii AFFIDAVIT OF HAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) so. City of Tigard 'l ) I, M • 10 Ahti ~ A.14 being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say: (Please print)- That I am as Q rw• w: S"t R':t J!. 'Ea ex a for The City of Tigard, Oregon. That I served NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR: That I served NOTICE OF DECISION FOR: City of Tigard Planning Director Tigard Planning Commission Tigard Hearings Officer Tigard City Council A copy (Public Hearing Notice/Notice of Decision) of which is attached (Harked Exhibit "A") was mailed to each named ns at the address shown on the attached list marked exhibit 'B' on the pero day of 19 9'i , said notice NOTICE OF DECISION as here o attached, was pbbted on an appropriate bulletin board on the 36 m day of , 19 94 ; and deposited in the United States Mail. on the 3a day of 19-1 at_, postage prepaid. Prepare otice Sub c ibed and sworn/affirm to me on the ~Q day of , 19. OFFICIAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON CONNIE MARTIN Hy Commission Expires: NOTARY PUSUC • OREGON COMMISSION No. 015877 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 4,1996 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY CITY COUNCIL 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006 2. Name of Owner: Triad Tigard Limited Partnership Name of Applicant: Same 3. Address 320 Andover Park East #235 City Seattle State OR Zip 98188 4. Address of Property: 11165 - 11185 SW Naeve Street Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1ODB, tax lots 100 and 200, 2S1 LOAD, tax lot 9300, and 2S1 10AC, tax lots 600, 700, 800, and 900. North side of- Naeve Street, west of SW 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments. 5. Request: A request for approval of a revised site plan for conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building,. multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with.TCDC 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken.by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential,'25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). 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) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Citizen Involvement Team Representative X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION WAS SIGNED ON t. ~8 IQq AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON ~L.. 3a 11ty . The adopted findings of "act, 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. 94-128 Exhibit No. I Page No. Q, - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting of August 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to certain conditions of approval (Planning Commission Final Order 93- -14PC); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council by separate appeals filed by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink; and WHEREAS, the Triad application was approved by the City Council on October 26, 1993 with additional conditions of approval and modification of some of the Commission's conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Council's approval was.appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and LUBA remanded the plans back to the City Council for review of driveway widths on May 19, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed revised plans and findings at a public hearing on June 28, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the City Council upholds the Planning commission's decision approving Site, Development Review/Planned Development Review application (SDR 93-0009/ PDR 93-0006) with the additional conditions. of approval and modification of the conditions of approval as approved by the City Council on October 26, 1993, with the added condition that the access points on the detailed development plan conform to TCDC 18.102.030 as determined by the City Engineer. The Council adopted as findings the attached Exhibit "A". The site plan which is approved is the revised site plan addressing the LUBA-remand. PASSED: This day of 1994. i or - City of Tigard ATTEST: • `z P-JI / City Recor er - Cify/of Tigard LUBA NO. 94-128 RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. 1 Page 1 Page No. 3 • EXHIBIT A • CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS APPROVING REVISED PLANS PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) WITH RESPECT TO TCDC 18.108.070(D). The Tigard City Council has reviewed the above application at a public hearing on June 28, 1994. The Council has based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: This matter is before the City Council as a limited evidentiary hearing. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") remanded the city's prior approval of this application in Davenport v. City of Tigard, Or LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994. LUBA rejected all of petitioners' assignments of error, except their argument concerning the width of required access driveways. The purpose of this limited evidentiary hearing is to take testimony only on the issue of the site plan's compliance with TCDC 18.108.070(D). No other evidence or testimony is permitted. TCDC 18.108.070(D) establishes the minimal requirements for vehicular access and egress for multiple-family residential uses. For multiple- family residential projects with more than 100 dwelling units, the minimum access width for each driveway is 24 feet with a five-foot • walkway, or a public street. Triad's site plan proposes nonpublic streets, so the drives must be 24 feet wide with a five-foot walkway. In Davenport v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 93-191, LUBA upheld the City's interpretation that the site plan provided the required number of access driveways (eight). Slip op 13, 14. LUBA said, with respect to TCDC 18.108.070(D), that the minimum pavement width is 24 feet. The applicant has submitted the revised site plan which demonstrates that each of the eight access driveways is a minimum of 24 feet wide with a five-foot walkway. The driveways serving the multiple-family residential project are all a minimum of 24 feet. Further, the site plan indicates that there are no changes other than the width of the driveways from the site plan previously approved by the City. The City Council finds that it is necessary to determine whether the site plan conforms to TCDC 18.108.070(D). The ordinance's requirements are noted above. The City Council interprets this section to permit the driveways to be 24 feet wide on either side of the median, therefore meeting both the minimum number of access points required and the minimum pavement width. The City Council also interprets this section to allow all driveways to be a minimum of 24 feet wide. The City Council finds that these interpretations are necessary to demonstrate that the revised site plan conforms to the requirements of TCDC 18.108.070(D). The City Council hereby determines that the revised site plan meets requirements of this ordinance section. The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands should be determined during detailed design. The City Engineer shall approve a final design.that adequately LUBA NO. 94-128 Page 1 - EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. Page No. provides for left-turn movements to and from the driveways and that meets adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain, as a minimum, the driveway widths shown on the revised site plan. The petitioners/appellants raised an issue with respect to the number of driveways to be approved as part of this conceptual development plan, to the effect that two one-way drives separated by a median do not constitute two access points. LUBA has previously upheld the City Council's interpretation of the applicable code provision (TCDC 18.108.070(D)) in its opinion dated May 19, 1994 on this point. This issue may not therefore be raised at this hearing and Council declines to consider it. The petitioners/appellants believe the approval of the current application would result in inconsistency with prior findings that 24- foot driveways would be "confusing and dangerous." There is no evidence in the record to support such a conclusion at this point. Moreover, the petitioners/appellants cite no TCDC provision concerning safety or any other provision which would apply. Council finds that LUBA, in its remand of the decision, required 24-foot driveways as shown on the current application. The Council therefore finds that the proposed 24- foot driveways conform to TCDC 18.108.070(D) and are consistent with LUBA's remand. The petitioners/appellants raised the possible lack of conformance of 24-foot driveways to the City's Visual Clearance Areas code provisions, TCDC 18.102.030. There were no precise calculations submitted to demonstrate the lack of conformity to TCDC 18.102.030 as the drawing was not to scale. However, the site plan as submitted appears to have some minor conflicts of garage structures with the required visual clearance area. Council concludes that such minor conflicts can be addressed and conformance with TCDC 18.102.030 can be assured through the final design process in approval of the detailed development plan. A condition of approval shall be added to the conceptual development approval requiring conformance to TCDC 18.102.030. Finally, petitioners/ appellants raised the issue of the need for 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each entrance to the project. This is an issue which was not raised in the prior appeals and Council therefore declines to consider it. Council's review is limited to the issue on remand, namely driveway width. Nevertheless, Council finds: there was no other evidence submitted on this point. Council finds that the statement describing 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each driveway from the traffic study was based on a prior site plan. Nothing in the study affirmatively requires such unobstructed distance nor does any City code provision require it or provide such a standard. Council therefore concludes that there was insufficient evidence presented to determine that any traffic safety issue which Council is required to address results from the current site plan. Council rejects the submittal by petitioners/appellants of an alternative site plan as not relevant to the issue on remand which issue was the sole topic of the public hearing, i.e., driveway widths under TCDC 18.108.070(D). LUBA NO. 94128 Page 2 - EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-29 Exhibit No. L- Page No. 5 ARD BEVERLY SWINK SW r:= DR 15875 SW GREENS WAY T~_,.RD, TIGARD, OR 97224 GORDON F. RIES GEORGE WILLOUGHBY 10400 SW GREENLEAF TERR 15371 SW 114TH CT #109 TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 AL ERICKSON MARGE DAVENPORT 15200 SW 109TH 15100 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 JACK POLANS WILLIAM R. LINDSAY 16000 SW QUEEN VICTORIA 15505 SW 109TH AVE. KING CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DOUGLAS J. COLEMAN LENORE SCHUSTER 15100 SW CROWN DR, #6 14962 SW 109TH AVE v CITY, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 DIANE BARTON DOROTHY STERRETT 14915 SW 100TH 15495 SW 109TH TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 SUE CARVER ROSS WOODS 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR TRIAD TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TIGARD, OR 97224 320 ANDOVER PARK EAST, #235 SEATTLE, WA 98188 MATT DRISCOLL, ARCHITECT PAM WIEDEMAN 114 VINE ST KAMPE & ASSOCIATES SEATTLE, WA 98121 3990 SW COLLINS WAY, S-309 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035 CITY ADMINISTRATOR SUMMERFIELD CIVIC ASSOCIATION CITY OF KING CITY 10650 SW SUMMERFIELD DR 15300 SW 116TH TIGARD, OR 97224 KING CITY, OR 97224 0 ROSS WOODS STEVEN PFEIFFER TRIAD DEVELOPMENT MATRIX DEVELOPMENT LUBA NO. 94-128 PO BOX 88070 900 SW 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98138 PORTLAND, OR 97204 Page Exhibit No. I - Page No. -Li-_ VINE WAYNE K MLSON SW ALDERBROOK PLACE KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES T► AD, OR 97224 610 SW ALDER S-700 PORTLAND, OR 97205 LENORE A SCHUSTER WALT MUNHALL 14962 SW 109TH AVENUE 14805 SW 103RD AVENUE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 JACQUELINE E. SWINT MIKE ROBINSON 9425 SW BRENTWOOD PLACE 900 SW 5TH, SUITE 2300 TIGARD, OR 97224 PORTLAND, OR 97204 JOHN RANKIN 22151 SW 55TH TUALATIN, OR 97062 H:\LOGIN\JO\TRAD.LSL 0 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. T_ • Council Agenda Item ? l TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:33 p.m. by Mayor John Schwartz. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor John Schwartz; Councilors Wend! Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director; Mary Gruss; Accounting Supervisor; Jo Hayes, Administrative Secretary; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Liz Newton, Deputy City Recorder; Ed Wegner; Maintenance Services Director; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. Note: Janice Deardorff, Mary Gruss and Ed Wegner, City of Tigard staff, were present only for Executive Session. STUDY SESSION • City Administrator Reilly reported to Council he had cancelled the attendance of Paula Manley from MACC. Liz Newton is a MACC Alternate Commissioner, and could answer Council's questions. • City Administrator Reilly suggested the TCYS block grant issue be deferred to later in the meeting. • Regarding the Durham Park issue, City Administrator Reilly reported the City of Durham had solicited the City of Tiigard's services in mowing the lawn at Durham Park every other week. Durham Park is located near the railroad tracks and the USA plant. Maintenance Services Director Wegner reported the City of Tigard would need to get permission from USA to gain access for a right-of-way to the park. Councilor Scheckla asked if that area was in the wetlands. Maintenance Services Director reported there are two portions of the park; the eastern portion of the park that abuts the residential area of Durham where the playground equipment and picnic shelter are located is on high ground, and the ball field is on low ground, which could get wet in the Spring. Council consensus was to proceed with an agreement with the City of Durham for mowing the lawn twice a month. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No<2 Page No..~_ • The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:36 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. Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m. • City Administrator Reilly urged Council to attend the Washington County Public Officials Caucus meeting to be held on June 30. The meeting pertains to the 2040 Plan. Councilors Rohlf and Hawley plan to attend. • City Administrator Reilly reminded Council of the Capital Improvements Projects tour, which will take place on June 29, 1994 at 3:30 p.m. Tour will take approximately two hours. • Mayor Schwartz and Councilor Hunt received a phone call from John Greene, King City, asking if Tigard City Council would be willing to meet with the Fong City Council. Subject would be King City coming in with the City of Tigard. Mayor Schwartz reported he said he couldn't speak for Council, but he would raise the subject. He advised that if Tigard Council is interested in pursuing this issue, the request should come from the King City Council. Council consensus was that they should listen to what the Fling City Council had to say. City Administrator Reilly was directed by Council to write a letter to John Greene, saying the Tigard City . Council has no interest in initiating talks with Fling City about coming into Tigard, but if there are to be discussions in the future, it would have to come through a request by the Fling City Council. • City Administrator Reilly advised the City of Lake Oswego Council would like a joint meeting with the City of Tigard Council regarding the 1-5/217 issue. City Administrator Reilly had discussed this item with Mayor Schwartz, and the suggestion is that a joint meeting is a good idea, but that Council defer the meeting until there is some sense of what Lake Oswego's long-term water issue is. This would allow a possible two-issue joint meeting. City Administrator Reilly advised the contract with Lake Oswego on the water issue expires the end of the calendar year. • Mayor Schwartz advised he felt it was important, during the search for a replacement City Administrator for the City of Tigard, that the person have extensive water systems background. • In response to Councilor Hawley's question regarding Consent Agenda Item 4.5 and where the fence would be located, City Engineer Wooley drew a diagram/map which depicted the area. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. T Council meeting recessed at 7:32 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:40 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING • Councilor Hawley recommended that Council appoint a new representative to the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency. Action on this item will be taken at the July 5 Council meeting. • Mayor Schwartz announced the resignation of City Administrator Reilly, stating Mr. Reilly has resigned to take the position of Director of Business Affairs for the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon. He will be leaving sometime in August. Mr. Reilly was hired as Tiigard's City Administrator in October, 1988. He came from Gladstone, Missouri, a suburb of Kansas City, where he served as City Administrator. During his tenure with the City, a great deal has been accomplished. Ten million dollars in transportation road bond projects were completed; a parks improvement bond was passed and projects constructed; community policing was implemented; the City's citizen involvement program was expanded; and the City's fiscal health remained strong in the face of Measure 5. 2. Special Presentation - Recognition of Judy Fessler and her years of service as a City Councilor and Planning Commissioner. Mayor Schwartz presented Ms. Fessler with a plaque and engraved clock, acknowledging her dedication to the City of Tigard. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: • Jack Polans, King City, Oregon, proposed the City of Tigard form a Volunteer Honorary Office of Past City of Tigard Council Members, herewith called "Office." He suggested this office of combined years of past Council member's experience, working under the elected Mayor's jurisdiction, or the Mayor-Council operations, would greatly benefit the City of Tigard's continued growth structure. The office would and can operate swiftly and successfully, including savings of Tigard money as that of a think tank, taking also much of the elected Council member's workload off their shoulder. The office can be similar to the CIT Facilitators and Resource members, CIP proprieties, and may also include Tigard Hearing Officer's contract. Mr. Polans proposed that Judy Fessler, past Councilor, become the starting head of this office. • Jack Schwab, 9355 SW Inez Street, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Schwab made a proposal regarding the sale of the Main Street property (Chamber of Commerce building). He mentioned Councilor Hunt proposed at a recent Council meeting that proceeds from the sale of this property be captured somehow and either be set aside for CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit NO.~_ Page No. I- future use or be used for some special purpose. Mr. Schwab suggested the City contribute the money to a new community foundation that would be developed in Tigard. With input from the Chamber of Commerce, other service and civic groups, Mr. Schwab felt a community foundation could be created, which would possibly be a great sum of money to jump-start that effort A great deal of research would have to be done in selecting a Board of Directors; how the money would be invested and managed; and how distributions should be made. Mr. Schwab suggested they be made at least initially for purposes for which the City traditionally has not had a lot of money to spend, such as park and recreational programs, or art funding. He urged Council to consider a community foundation, and requested specifically that the monies captured be set aside until the opportunity arises for creating a foundation. Mayor Schwartz asked about the initial amount of funding. Mr. Schwab answered there could be two possibilities. The City of Tigard would have an endowment fund and this money would go into it and Council would operate as a Board of that endowment fund and could spend the money as they saw fit. In effect, it would be another source of income to be part of the budget process on an annual basis. Mr. Schwab said he would prefer to see a much more broadly-based foundation made up of board members, including members of City Council, as well as other citizens. • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. McAdams asked City Administrator Reilly if he was in favor of the 130th and Winterlake connection. Mr. Reilly advised the recommendation that went to Council last year with his budget proposal included the recommendation that the City do an engineering study of the connection of 130th and Winterlake Park. Subsequent to that, Council decided to defer the project, pending receipt of an engineering traffic study to determine the merits of that particular connection. Mr. McAdams noted Council in January asked for the CIT response regarding this particular project, and Council has received that response. Mr. McAdams asked if Council was ready to continue with this top priority project in this fiscal year. After lengthy discussion, Mayor Schwartz announced Council would be visiting the CIP projects on Wednesday, June 29, and would make an attempt to look at this proposed project. Mr. McAdams suggested Council look at Brittany Drive during this tour and consider barricading Brittany Drive and making a walkway to the park. Mayor Schwartz also encouraged Mr. McAdams to attend the July 26 Council meeting, when the issue will be heard by Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Jack Polans requested Consent Agenda Item 4.2 be pulled for further discussion. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-125 Exhibit No.,-A-- Page No. • Regarding Item 4.9, Councilor Hawley asked for more information about Mark Cottle. Mayor Schwartz explained he is a Councilor from the City of Sherwood. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the exception of Item 4.2 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 7 and 14, 1994 4.3 Ratify Tigard Police Officer Two-Year Contract - Resolution No. 94-25 4.4 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for a 165-Square Foot Portion of Public Pedestrian Easement Along Lot No. 8, Hart's Landing Subdivision - Resolution No. 9426 4.5 Enter into a License Agreement with Property Owners in Cotswald Meadows Subdivision, Adjacent to Walnut. Street to Allow Temporary Private Use of Portions of Public Right-of-Way 4.6 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract - Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 9427 4.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract - Larry Epstein, PC 4.8 Approve Franchise Fee to Support Tualatin Valley Community Access - Resolution No. 94-23_ 4.9 Endorse Mark Cottle as the Eastern Washington County City Representative of the EMS Policy Board 4.10 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Construction of the Main/Commercial Street Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to Eudaly Brothers Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda, . minus Item 4.2. Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93- 0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges. Councilor Rohlf advised that as a result of being a new Councilor, he has not had an opportunity to go through the entire record to make a decision. Therefore, he will be involved in discussions and questions, but will not be involved in voting on this matter. Councilor Scheckla advised he would excuse himself from any discussions or questions, because he is a new Councilor and has not been involved in the past and would not be involved in voting on this matter. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. I - . Councilor Hawley advised she will be voting on the issue because she is apprised of the record. However, she has not voted at any of the public meetings where she has read the record because of lack of attendance at Planning Commission and two Council meetings. C. Staff report. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized events leading up to tonight's public hearing. Council approved the Triad-348 unit apartment complex on October 26, 1993. That approval came after an appeal by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink of a Planning Commission decision in August, 1993. After Council's approval, Mrs. Davenport appealed Council's decision to L-UBA. LUBA reviewed the decision and remanded the decision on May 19, 1994 back to Council on one issue. That issue is the width of the driveways of the conceptual development plan. Our ordinance requires driveways shall be 24 feet wide with a sidewalk. The applicants have submitted a driveway and site plan, revised to indicate islands between double driveways which show 24 feet wide. Staff suggests, after reviewing with Engineering staff, an addition to the findings enclosed in the report, which states: 'The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands shall be determined during the detail design. City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately provides for left turn movements to and from the driveways and that meets the adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain as a minimum driveway widths shown on the revised site plan." d. Public testimony. Applicant: Michael C. Robinson, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2300, Portland, Oregon, 97204. Mr. Robinson requested that a copy of the final decision by Council* be mailed to him. He advised he agreed with the staff report prepared by City staff, and also agrees with the additional condition of approval. Mr. Robinson noted the sole issue before Council tonight is whether the revised site plan applicant submitted complies with the Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (d), which is the provision LUBA said applicant did not meet the last time around. The site plan has been revised to show each of the eight driveways will have 24 feet in width which is required by the Code. He advised there is simply no other issue; in fact, since this is a remand hearing, under LUBA's case law, opponents or anyone else cannot raise old resolved issues nor can they raise new issues they could have raised in the last hearing. Mr. Robinson asked that Council approve the revised site plan. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No.,, Page No. 11 S Opponent: John Rankin, 22151 SW 55th Avenue, Tualatin, Oregon, 97062. Mr. Rankin requested that a copy of the final decision by Council be mailed to him. Mr. Rankin advised he represents the two appellants in the LUBA appeal, plus the 600 petitioners who submitted a petition at one of the prior hearings on this matter. Mr. Rankin stated he felt the opponents to this project are not opposed to the development of the property, but they are opposed to the method and way in which it is proposed to be developed. The opponents liked the alternative plan that had been submitted, because it saved some of the Bull Mountain watershed and forest area. He stated the LUBA decision established the fact that both sides agree that eight is the number of driveway access points required for this development. The City has decided driveways can be counted by access points and that a median strip can be placed between two driveways; one in and one out; and call it two driveways, served by one interior driveway. He noted the opponents agree as to the number of access drives that should be required; they disagree as to how those access drives should be defined. Mr. Rankin advised he felt the City has failed to address the issue of why they have gone to the 24 foot standard, when Council initially stated the 24 foot standard was confusing and dangerous, which is why Council chose not to require it at the October 26, 1993 hearing. Mr. Rankin drew a typical access easement, in order to better explain opponent's concerns. He pointed out a vision clearance area problem based on TMC 18.102.030 - Computation - non-arterial street and access way 24 feet or more in width. Mr. Rankin referred to a transportation impact analysis report done by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and offered it into record at this time. He quoted from Pages 18 and 23 and asked about the relationship between access point and the internal system we have. (Report is included with Council packet of June 28, 1994). Mr: Rankin stated he felt there was lack of substantial evidence in the record that Council has addressed the issues of the 24 foot wide access drive and the impacts it has on the development, and also failed to address the issue of the prior findings Council had in the prior order which addressed the confusing and dangerous issue relative to the 24 foot width. He stated the opponents would like to recommend Council deny this proposed development plan and allow the developer to submit a revised development plan which addresses these issues and also addresses some of the other issues opponents have been concerned about. He also asked to offer into record the alternative development plan proposal prepared about the developer and not considered by Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28,1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No.a Page No. , _ Mr.-Rankin noted there seems to be a perception that the City of Tigard is overtly pro-development in a way that degrades the natural resources in the area, and in this case, he urged Council to look again at the proposal. He stated the opponents are not looking to stop a development, but are looking to have a development that is compatible with the natural resources in the area. Mayor Schwartz stated Council would accept the evidence, but said it was not specific to this hearing. He noted Council will rule on whether or not it will be accepted at a later date. Councilor Hawley asked Mr. Rankin which document he had been quoting from. Mr. Rankin responded it was the final findings and order Council adopted on October 26, 1993 - Resolution No. 93-57, relating to Exhibit "A", Final Order 93-57. He also stated the LUBA opinion also cites the language. Councilor Hawley asked Mr. Rankin to read the wording he had been quoting from. Mr. Rankin responded that it was from Record 28 in the LUBA opinion, from the Final Order, "Council believes the intent of the Code is met because 24 foot one-way drives would be confusing and dangerous." Rebuttal: Michael C. Robinson addressed the last two points Mr. Rankin made. Applicant had asked Council to reject the alternative development proposal; he stated it was not relevant to the issue before Council tonight; it is not relevant to the single issue on remand. He stated he appreciated Council's desire to accept it conditionally, but asked Council to reject it. Secondly, he responded to the issue Mr. Rankin raised that the City of Tigard is perceived by some as pro-development. He reminded Council the application is governed by the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Land Use regulations. Applicant submitted the proposal well over three years ago in a similar form. At the time it was submitted, applicant worked closely with staff to make sure they complied with all requirements of the acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Land Use regulations, which applicant is bound by. He noted the idea that somehow applicant is impinging on identified natural resources is nonsense; that has been litigated twice by LUBA, and each time LUBA has affirmed the City's determination that there are no significant natural resources on this site. However, the developer has done everything possible to maintain the trees on the site. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. -a Page No. I S,__ • He noted Mr. Rankin is correct that City Council, in the prior decision that was remanded and resulted in this hearing did find that 24 foot wide driveways would be confusing and dangerous. However, LUBA stated the Code says they have to be 24 feet. LUBA said the Code must be complied with as it is written on the date application is submitted. The way it is written is that for this size multi-family project, applicant is required to have 24 foot wide driveway entrances. The issue is simply a matter of compliance with the way the Code is written. Mr. Robinson stated there is no consistency between the prior finding and what Council is going to do tonight. Mr. Robinson referred to two other points raised by Mr. Rankin regarding the vision clearance program and the traffic consultant study. Mr. Robinson stated they would comply with whatever the Code says, and noted he was not convinced by Mr. Rankin's drawing on the board that they do not comply with it. He said he would like to use a scale and see what the dimensions are. With respect to the traffic consultant study as a legal matter, applicant is bound by what is called law of the case doctrine. Opponent did not raise the issue the first time around, and they are not able to raise it now. He stated that if opponent raised it on appeal to LUBA, he feels LUBA would reject it. • e. Staff Recommendation. Senior Planner Bewersdorff suggested either approval with a condition that would require compliance with clear vision, or require continuation of the hearing to allow submittal of a revised site plan that shows compliance with clear vision. f. Council Questions or Comments. Councilor Hunt asked for Senior Planner Bewersdorff s version of the question regarding the median and creating more entrances onto 109th. Senior Planner Bewersdorff stated that at the last hearing it was concluded that it would be appropriate to consider joint driveways which would comply with the Community Development Code; they could have eight separate 24 foot driveways, and the driveway entrances could be separated by an island and go into one drive-through. LUBA upheld this. He stated the Code requirements probably requires too many driveway. Councilor Hawley asked if there was a possibility vision clearance was not needed. Senior Planner Bewersdorff noted it would be easy to move a garage or move parking back in order to comply. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. a Page No. . g. Public Hearing Closed. h. Council Consideration. Councilor Hawley stated Council's direction was very clear; that there was one issue, and one issue only to consider, and that is the driveway size. The statement that Council believes it to be dangerous and confusing is not strong enough to deny the whole project. She is concerned about safety and would be disappointed N vision clearances were not met. She noted she believed Council is limited on what they can consider right now, and she feels there is compliance in terms of the driveway. She stated she would recommend approval with the condition the vision clearance be met. Councilor Hunt noted he voted against this project originally. He stated he supports the applicant's recommendations; however, he would like to make sure we have the proper vision clearance. He asked that staff make sure this does meet those requirements. Mayor Schwartz agreed with Councilors Hawley and Hunt that this was a single issue hearing. He noted he was also concerned with the vision clearance, because he would not want to approve something within the Development Code, only to find out another portion of the Code is • insufficient. He recommended Council approve the resolution, ensuring the vision clearance is adequate. Mayor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel Beery if the resolution should be rewritten. Legal Counsel Beery stated she would like the opportunity to draft some additional findings, based on the testimony presented. Council consensus was the draft findings be completed this evening. She also stated that based on Council's comments, her proposal was to rule that the alternative site plan submitted would not be accepted as evidence, as it was not relevant to the issue tonight. Council agreed. The item will be finalized under Agenda Item No. 8. Council meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 6, PUBLIC HEARING - 199495 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING a. Public Hearing Opened. b. Declarations or Challenges - there were none. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. • C. Summation by Budget Officer Finance Director Lowry explained the _ process by which state revenue sharing funds are received. In order to receive the state revenue sharing funds, the City must hold a public hearing before the budget committee and before the City Council on the use of such funds. Revenue sharing funds are a resource to the general fund and are used to fund Police operations. In order to receive other state revenues, the City must certify that it provides four or more required services from a list of municipal services. The City provides six such services. d. Public Testimony - there was none. e. Staff Recommendation. Finance Director Lowry recommended Council adopt both the ordinance and resolution. f. Council Questions - there were none. g. Public Hearing was closed. • h. Council Consideration: Council consensus was to adopt the ordinance and resolution. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohif, to adopt Resolution No. 94-30). Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes." i. ORDINANCE NO. 94-13 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES Ordinance passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes."). 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 1994-95 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges - there were none. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. .T&- • C. Summation by City Administrator. City Administrator Reilly noted the proposed budget is the recommendation of the Budget Committee, which has essentially followed the recommendation of the City Administrator, who by ordinance is designated the Budget Officer. He noted Finance Director Lowry would offer a great deal more detail; however, he made a few broad overview remarks regarding the proposed budget. City Administrator Reilly reported that what was being proposed tonight was quite consistent with what the City took to the voters in November, 1990. City Administrator Reilly noted there is a major policy question before Council, and that is how long should this tax base be extended? The decisions made today determine how long we can continue the tax base. When the tax base was put together, it was based on five years. If Council decides to extend it farther, City Administrator Reilly said he feels the City must be much more careful about how expenditures are planned. He advised staffing has become critical. There are three areas in the budget; (1) The total staffing level is increased in this budget; the additional • positions go to Police, Library, and Building Inspection. (2) This is the first time the City of Tigard has adopted a budget for water. The budget reflects a decrease from last year's water budget by about 10%, or $350,000. (3) The Planning Commission is working on a long term capital improvement program. The budget document reflects an appropriation for each of their various capital funding sources. The projects have not been defined, nor are they reflected in this document. Finance Director Lowry summarized the proposed budget for 1994-1995, and explained the recommended change due to the settlement with TPOA on June 7, 1994. d. Public Testimony Judy Fessler, 11180 SW Fonner, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Fessler questioned the proposed shredder/chipper for the Water Department and Maintenance Services. Ms. Fessler suggested rather than purchasing two pieces of equipment, that one shredder/chipper be shared by both departments. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. She also questioned the cost of refinishing the Council conference table for $7,500, and refinishing the Council bench for $1,125, or a total of $8,625. Regarding the TCYS building as far as rent, etc., Ms. Fessler asked how much of this type of equipment could be transferred or used somewhere else, or if possibly TCYS could pick up a portion of the cost of $3,410. She noted she had looked at the parks projects, and mentioned the restroom at Summerlake, which requires a new door roof at a cost of $3,000. Ms. Fessler discussed the heritage tree inventory which had not been approved by the Budget Committee. Regarding the Broadway Rose's request for $5,000, she mentioned that funding was in jeopardy. Ms. Fessler suggested eliminating the Council bench and conference table refinishing, reducing the shredder\chipper to one, and reducing the restoration of the restroom roof, so that $13,900 to $18,000 might be used to fund the Broadway Rose and other community-oriented projects. She suggested contacting an arborist association or other tree groups who might donate time in lieu of services. Linda Sher, 13485 SW Genesis Loop, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Sher is affiliated with the Broadway Rose, and expressed her hope the City would support the Broadway Rose Theater. • Bonnie Geil and Jennifer Hoffman signed up to testify, but had to leave in order to go to work. Leah Murray, 10475 SW Kellogg Drive, Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Murray urged Council to consider funding the Broadway Rose. Dana Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Murphy and her family have lived and worked in the community for several years. She is currently active in the Broadway Rose. Ms. Murphy asked Council to please give financial support and show that local government is supportive and response to its citizens in a positive way. Edith Black, 13410 SW Village Glenn Court, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Black, along with her children, have been active in the Broadway Rose. She encouraged Council to support Broadway Rose this year. Michael Hintz, City Employee, and resident of the City of Tigard, supported the budget, and asked Council to consider increasing it with regard to funding more Police Officer positions. Mr. Hintz noted that as a Police officer, he feels there is a decline in the amount of service they are able to give the public. - There is an increase in sophisticated crime in Tigard, and an increase in gang activity, as well as homicides, shootings, and assaults. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 13 - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. nZ Page No. ->Q • Mr. Hintz encouraged Council to consider raising the budget to include more police officers. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Hintz if he was aware this budget does include two more Police officers, and asked if Mr. Hintz felt that wasn't enough. Mr. Hintz responded he was aware, but feels there is a need for significantly more officers. Mayor Schwartz advised that Chief Goodpaster has kept Council informed on call loads, etc., and that Council is concerned with this problem, but also must live within the tax base. Funding different programs will be looked at very carefully in the future. Daniel Kraus, City Employee, Police Officer, apprised Council of some of his recent experiences as a Police Officer, namely with gangs, firearms and pipe bombs. He expressed concerns with lack of enough Police Officers to deal with the increasing levels of violence in the City of Tigard. Mr. Kraus urged Council to significantly increase the number of Police officers in the near future, including a Gang Officer who could handle gang intelligence and work with the inter-agency gang enforcement team. He stated this would assist in addressing the overall serious problems that now exist. • James deSully, City Employee and Police Officer noted he was a proponent of the arts, which also brings a quality of life to the City of Tigard. He mentioned the decreasing level of service the Police Department is providing, due to lack of number of Police Officers, and encouraged Council to increase Police staffing. f. Recommendation by Budget Officer. City Administrator Reilly responded to issues raised by Ms. Judy Fessler in her previous testimony. He noted there is only one shredder, which he feels is a reasonable expense designed to save the City money. Regarding the refurbishing, City Administrator Reilly explained that would include both the conference table and chairs; but it is a discretionary expenditure. He noted the Summerlake Park restroom building modification is due to the vandalism experienced recently. These issues were raised at past Budget meetings. He advised the TCYS building is obviously a matter of negotiation between Council and the TCYS staff. He noted the tree inventory and Broadway Rose issues should be addressed by the policy makers. He noted he agreed with the Police Officers who testified, and the budget was not meant to reflect the Police Department and other departments are adequately staffed. He noted the Budget Officer's role is to balance resources with needs. City Administrator advised he feels it is CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 14 - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. ~ Page No. '41 time to look at the tax base and determine what level of service we want to provide to the community. City Administrator recommended Council adopt the proposed budget. g. Council Questions or Comments Mayor Schwartz asked if any changes made to budget this evening would come out of contingencies. City Administrator Reilly stated Council could change the budget to reduce expenditures, and use those dollars for something else, or it could come out of contingencies. In answer to Councilor Rohlf s question regarding a recommendation for staffing level in the Police Department, City Administrator Reilly advised the Police Department had requested nine additional Police Officers. He noted about one-third of Police calls are directed to Washington Square. Council consensus was that later this year they should look at other alternatives to shift funds for additional staffing. Councilor Rohlf advised he would like to propose that Council approve providing Broadway Rose funds to assist them with meeting the $4,000 matching funds grant they have been requested. He also suggested • Council consider assisting the Broadway Rose under the proposed Arts Policy. Councilor Scheckla asked if there were any funds left over from the 1993-94 budget. City Administrator Reilly advised the carry-over was projected in the new budget. He noted if Council wanted to appropriate $3,000 to $4,000 to Broadway Rose, the funds would be available. Mayor Schwartz thanked everyone for showing up and testifying regarding the City budget. He noted that in the last eight years he has been on Council, very few people showed up to testify on the budget. He also noted that he has heard very favorable comments from the citizens regarding the Tigard Police Department. h. Public Hearing was closed. i. Consideration by Council. Councilor Scheckla noted he wanted to make sure the Broadway Rose is protected. He questioned the status of the TCYS. City Administrator Reilly responded the TCYS block grant is a separate item which will be brought up at a later date. Mayor Schwartz responded the amount in the budget is CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. 2.~_ to bring the TCYS building up to ADA compliance. Councilor Hawley noted she liked Councilor Rohlf's idea concerning the Broadway Rose. She advised she is a proponent of the Broadway Rose, and noted she was pleased with the way the Broadway Rose cooperated with Council in providing information requested from Council. She stated she agreed with Ms. Murray's comment about bringing spirit to the community. She advised she was in agreement that Council include the Broadway Rose in the funding, and recommended $4,000 now, with the rest of the funding to be included in the Arts Policy in the future. Councilor Hawley noted Police Chief Goodpaster has kept Council up to date on the Police Department budget needs, and that Council is considering that issue. Councilor Hunt advised he would be voting against the budget because of two items. He noted he is in favor of increased staffing for the Police Department and Library. He stated he is opposed to the two positions; one an Electrical Inspector, and the other a Plumbing Inspector. Councilor Hunt stated he feels the City is geared to and working on how fast it can grow. He stated he does not feel the City is spending enough time and effort on serving the taxpayers, and feels the City is trying to grow too fast. He questioned whether the two Building Department positions would pay for themselves. Councilor Hunt stated every time we increase our building, the • City is increasing its assessed valuation, but feels we are not increasing our tax base; instead we are adding administrative expense. He advised he would like to see Council direction change to look more towards helping the taxpayer now and not on seeing how much the City can grow. Councilor Rohlf advised his primary concern when reviewing the budget numbers was the policing. He noted he admired the courage of the Police and stated he felt Council should addressed the Police staffing in the very near future. Councilor Rohlf stated other- than that issue, he supports the budget as presented. Mayor Schwartz commended staff for the job they had done, not only for this budget, but previous budgets, in keeping within the five year plan Council had set up at the last tax base election. He also noted he had concerns with the Police Officer staffing issue. He noted he agreed with City Administrator Reilly that Council consider the long range financing and look at what the tax base is going to be in the future. He stated he feels Tigard enjoys one of the lowest tax rates in the Metro area. He noted the direction Council has taken in the past has created what people now call their livability; of.Tigard being good. Mayor Schwartz stated he does not feel growth can be stopped. He noted he feels Council should look at what its funding source is going to be in the future. He stated he would support • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Q Page No. a3 the budget, and also supports Councilor Rohlf s recommendation for Broadway Rose. j. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt the budget, with the addition of $4,000 to the Broadway Rose. RESOLUTION NO. 94-31 - A RESOLUTION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING THE BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, DECLARING THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND CLASSIFYING THE LEVY AS PROVIDED BY ORS 310.060(2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95. -Motion was approved by majority vote of Council. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Item 4.2 - Receive and File June 7 Memorandum from Chief Goodpaster Regarding Forfeited Funds. (Item was pulled from Consent Agenda at the request of Jack Polaris). Jack Polaris, Iing City, noted he is concerned about purchase of a surveillance • vehicle, and questioned use of such vehicle to spy on suspected criminals and possibly private citizens. He suggested Police Chief Goodpaster submit a written report to Council as to how this unmarked vehicle will be used on a 24 hour basis, seven days a week; its cost factor, maintenance, insurance, etc. He asked that any oral or written policies by the Police Department be presented to Councilmembers, which may or may not be approved by Council. Mr. Polaris commented that the City of Tigard's budget must be watched. He noted the- City budget year of 1995 to 1996 and possibly 1997 may or may not be in the City of Tigard's best financial interest. He noted former Mayor Edwards stated he would not touch the City of King City annexation, as it is a hot potato. City Administrator Reilly reported the recommendation to purchase the surveillance vehicle reflects the concern of the Police Department, particularly for some of the parking lot activities that are taking place. The general intended use is for the Washington Square/Tigard Cinema areas which have experienced a good deal of automobile break-ins. City Administrator explained the vehicle is being purchased with forfeited funds, and under our Code, it is the Police Chiefs discretion as to how those funds are expended. The Police Chief is required to apprise Council of what takes place, and he has the latitude to purchase such items. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 17 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. a Page No. ZQ - Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to adopt Item 4.2. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote of Council present. Continuation of Item No. 5 Legal Counsel Beery read revised wording of Resolution 94-29. She reported applicant has been asked to review the document, and applicant concurred, with some minor changes to the wording. Proposed Changes: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED October 26, 1993, "with the added condition that the access points on the detailed development plan conform to TCDC 18.102.030 as determined by the City Engineer." Paragraph 5 of Exhibit A - 'The median islands shown on the site plan are conceptual. The precise configuration of the islands should be determined during detailed design. The City Engineer shall approve a final design that adequately provides for left-turn movements to and from the driveways and that meets adopted standards for pedestrian crossings. The final design approved by the City Engineer shall maintain, as a minimum, the driveway widths shown on the revised site plan." Legal Counsel noted there are five other findings which have been concerns that might be appealed to LUBA: 'The petitioners/appellants raised an issue with respect to the number of driveways to be approved as part of this conceptual development plan, to the effect that two one-way drives separated by a median do not constitute two access points. LUBA has previously upheld the City Council's interpretation of the applicable code provision (fCDC 18.108.070(D) in its opinion dated May 19, 1994 on this point. This issue may not therefore be raised at this hearing and Council declines to consider it. The petitioners/appellants believe the approval of the current application would result in inconsistency with prior findings that 24-foot driveways would be 'confusing and dangerous.' There is no evidence in the record to support such a conclusion at this point. Moreover, the petitioners/appellants cite no TCDC provision concerning safety or any other provision which would apply. Council finds that LUBA, in its remand of the decision, required 24-foot driveways as shown on the current application. The Council therefore finds that the proposed 24-foot driveways conform to TCDC 18.108.070(D) and are consistent with LUBA's remand. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 18 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. _ Page No. 25 The petitioners/appellants raised the possible lack of conformance of 24-foot driveways to the City's Visual Clearance Areas code provisions, TCDC 18.102.030. There were no precise calculations submitted to demonstrate the lack of conformity to TCDC 18.102.030 as the drawing was not to scale. However, the site plan as submitted appears to have some minor conflicts of garage structures with the required visual clearance area. Council concludes that such minor conflicts can be addressed and conformance with TCDC 18.102.030 can be assured through the final design process in approval of the detailed development plan. A condition of approval shall be added to the conceptual development approval requiring conformance to TCDC 18.102.030. Finally, petitioners/appellants raised the issue of the need for 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each entrance to the project. This is an issue which was not raised in the prior appeals and Council therefore declines to consider it. Council's review is limited to the issue on remand, namely driveway width. Nevertheless, Council finds: there was no other evidence submitted on this point. Council finds that the statement describing 80 feet of unobstructed distance at each driveway from the traffic study was based on a prior site plan. Nothing in the study affirmatively requires such unobstructed distance nor does any City Code provision require it or provide such a standard. Council therefore concludes that there was insufficient evidence presented to determine that any traffic safety issue which Council is required to address results from the current site plan. • Council rejects the submittal by petitioners/appellants of an alternative site plan as not relevant to the issue on remand which issue was the sole topic of the public hearing." Councilor Hunt asked Legal Counsel if Council ever had an alternative plan presented to them? Senior Planner Bewersdorff responded there was no alternate development plan. When they were considering revising their plan to negotiate with the appellants, they provided another site plan which was similar to this, but no exactly the same. That site plan never came before Council. Councilor Hawley moved to adopt the resolution, with includes revisions made by Legal Counsel; Councilor Hunt seconded the motion. Motion was passed by majority vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes."; Councilor Scheckla and Councilor Rohlf abstained, because they had not reviewed the entire record.) RESOLUTION NO. 9429 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (SDR 93-0009/PDR 93-0006) PROPOSED BY TRIAD-TIGARD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 19 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. c)- Page No. g. ADJOURNMENT: 10:11 P.M. Attest: Jo Hay Admin strative Secretary M , City of Tigard Date: D&/17 • c=OM8.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 28,1994 - PAGE 20 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. ~L Page No. SCOMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INL u qs, _ l~ dtl e P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 7921 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 JIj ,z 19y~! Legal Notice Advertising Of. ~IGAKG • • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 2111 •City of Tigard . - ~i • 1312 5 SW Hall Blvd. The following pi11 be considered,by jhb Tigard City Council on June 2$,` f • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 1994, al 7:30 KW at Tigard Civic Center; To*4fi ih111~ooini-,13125 S.W Tigard, Oregon 97223 Hall Boulevartl,.Tigard, Oregon. Further information may bc-obtained .l • from the Community'Dev6Ib0nieri`trDir&tor or`iCity Recorder at the same;; u • 11oeaiioti'or by calling 639;4171:,:Aling; .ar , inv0d to submit written tes-.{ timony in advance of the public i'wri tien' and oral.testimon)r will be. considered at th6 hearing. The public hearing~will'bd'coriducted to flew cordance with he applicable Chapter,18.32 0(the;Tigard Municipal Code VwA AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION and any rules of proFedure adopted by, the Council and available at City, Hall: i ; STATE OF OREGON, )sa. ~ :i`a~ ,:,i. ; ~:~i~;:,..' . 'I}riijl~~rq•tu 1:,~1. •s•. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) :1 ~LTBGIG HEARD Q.: • I or D L~PMENT REVI W "DR 90009;;.1 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising AMD L REVIEW D Director, or his principal clerk, of theTt9ard_Tualai- i n `rimes ?LOCATION, 11165 -i ;11185 SWINneve' Street:jNorth.side of Naeva+ . a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 E:StJwCet west. of S,W; 1091EAvenue; south of,i:it'llBull~Mountain ApaA=i and 193.020; published at Tigard in the j'jhgntS (WCT1q 2S1, IODB, tax lots 100 and 200',2,,§l TOAD, tax lot 9300, ; e~oresaid count aid s R e; h i ,Od 2S1'IOAC; t" lots 600; 700,' and 900):~kf4ue'st for approval of.' ,a revised site tan for conceptual planned developmgnijsite development l He a r i n g s rSDR - ~ 011 POPDR 9 3 - 0 0 0 6 TRIAD '''review of 34A dnif41.7 brtiI4in'g, multi-family residential; complex on s.- a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the 6.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a'result of•a'remand of the: entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and ectst 1i1h7 vc Vgrt-v-Ci y-of.Tigard,. ~w gF{ UBA %.(LUBA'.blo::' consecutive in the following issues: f ,Q3=191`, .9; 1994),•The sole matter foirtl Isioiths~;ti+hether:th revised site plan.submitted.by,the applicant complies with TCDC June 16 ,1994 418;108:070 (D),cpnceraiog 4he;width of the required #ccess driveways; Only.evidence and testimony related to this issue:vy~11'be.taken by the City Council: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA;;Community Development Code Section :18.108-.070-(D). ZONE: R ;112 (PD)'-'(Residential;:12 anits/acre, Planned Development overlay) arldR';2 (PD) (Residential; 25 "uniWacre, Planned Development overlay). XzLvt ~TT7921'-Publish•June 16; 9 , i., ~ Subscribed and sworn t efore me this16th day of June, OFF!CIA.L SEAL R013IN A. BUNGESS ` NOTARY KULIC - OREGON of ublic for Oregon COAIIAIS!AON NO. 024552 l,tY COLOA18SION EWKS 1AAY 13, ]q97. My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. 722 COMMUNITY, NEWSPAPERS, INC. Es a° ! P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 ZF G Nafd 7927 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising di t~ 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tear-sheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 'Tigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit I YIIS11r(b: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION =1 3t 1lo b.. nit 1y^r um ,Jdgri 0~ 9 .2 ~ STATE OF OREGON. )ss ;z nxtt ,Iitd b<x.q no f COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) nidc ' 2rvctT no mir Kathy Snyder r . ~~...rt^.. na being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising • " 'r Director, or his principal clerk, of thellaard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as 9efined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigar in the aforesaid county and state;. that the City Council Business Mtg.6/28 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 23,1994 C Subscribed and sworn t afore me this23rd day of June, l ly n:F!CIAL SEA! S r~~l ROG:N A. BURGESS ' PUBU-C - OPEC-ON Not ubiic for Oregon NO. 024502 '1jy Cam nr! c:f=!!iES IdAY 18. IS97 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - LUBA NO. X4-128 Exhibit No.`f Page No. The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full . agendas may be obtained from the.City. Recorder, 13125 S.W.-Hall . Boulevard,. Tigard; Oregon 97223; or by call'uig 639-4171. CITY COUNt'.:IL'BUSINESS MEETING _ _ l, - i.. :'TUNE 28, 1994 TIG CITY HALL -TOWN HALL = ' :L3i2.5S.W: BOUL ARD,TIGARD~OREGON - .Study Meeting own Hall Conferende Room) (6:30 P.M.) ? . ' II Agendaa_Review. _ . • .,..:.::~N Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) _ .:rSpecal Presentation - r.- r.: ri . . :::._s_.~5 ,fit I ~'Recoinition of Judy.Fesslerl.for her,yesrs of. service as a.City ' t Counselor;and Planning'Commiskoner.::;=. Public Hearings - 1994-95 Uses of.State Revenue'SliaAg. ...7- , n*;r.: .i p'•e'.' ..-far ~1•~s.•.ft - ' _1994-95 Fiscal Year Budget' -M-•_ " ",Triad . -Site Developmen Review.- SDR.93-0009, Planned ..Development Revic,; PDR.93-0006.;Location-..1116S-11185 of;S.W: S.W:'Naeve Sireet:•North' side 'of Naive Street; wWest -'l09tli*-Aveaue', south of Liitle.Bu11'Mouniairi•Apaitments: This " hearing is held as'the &sult of a remand of the recent LUBAA 1 - - .=decision; testimony and. evidence. Will be limited-td.whether_the_-. revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with TMC Chapter 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required ac- cess driveways.: J Local Contract Review Board Meeting. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (h) to 'discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. ; fiTT927 - Publish June 23,1994: • LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. L _ Page No. ~d 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 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext 309 (voice) or 6842772 (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 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA 0 COUNCIL AGENDA -JUNE 28, 1994 -PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 3 I _ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY MEETING: (6:30 p.m.) Durham Park Tigard Community Youth Services (TCYS) Building Agenda Review 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 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. SPECIAL PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF JUDY FESSLER FOR HER YEARS OF SERVICE AS A CITY COUNCILOR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER • Mayor Schwartz 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 4. 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: 1l, t 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: June 7 and 14, 1994 ~1) u 4.2 Receive and File: June 7 Memorandum from Chief Goodpaster Regarding Forfeited Funds 4.3 Ratify Tigard Police Officer Two-Year Contract - Resolution No. 947 4.4 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for a 165-Square Foot Portion of Public Pedestrian Easement Along Lot No. 8, Hart's Landing Subdivision - Resolution No. 947-1-(- 4.5 Enter into a License Agreement with Property Owners in Cotswald Meadows Subdivision, Adjacent to Walnut Street to Allow Temporary Private Use of Portions of Public Right-of-Way 4.6 Approve Municipal Court Judge's Contract - Michael O'Brien - Resolution No. 94-_?--l 4.7 Approve Hearings Officer Contract - Larry Epstein, PC 4.8 Approve Franchise Fee to Support Tualatin Valley Community Access - Resolution No. 94-2:f 4.9 Endorse Mark Cottle as the Eastern Washington County City Representative of the EMS Policy Board 4.10 Local Contract Review Board: Award Contract for Construction of the Main/Commercial Street Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to Eudaly Brothers i COUNCIL AGENDA -JUNE 28, 1994 -PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. Ia. 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR • 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD Location: 11165 - 11185 S.W. Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of S.W. 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10DB, Tax Lots 100 and 200, 2S1 10 AD, Tax Lot 9300, and 2S1 10 AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). A request for approval of a revised site plan for-conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi- family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 unit/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). Z. a. Open Public Hearing U ~r J- {;~%i%"'► 5~. ti ` y' b. Declarations or Challenges I' C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony • Applicant • Proponents C C~ 2 • Opponents -5 e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94-~9 6. PUBLIC HEARING - 1994-95 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING • Public Hearing Opened • Declarations or Challenges • Summation by Budget Officer • Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination • Recommendation by Budget • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: a. RESOLUTION NO. 94-f A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY OF TIGARD PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING FOR STATE SHARED REVENUES b. ORDINANCE NO. 94- : AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES • COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. 3_ 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 1994-95 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET • Public Hearing Opened • Declarations or Challenges • Summation by Budget Officer Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents • Recommendation by Budget Officer • Council Questions or Comments • Public Hearing Closed • Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 94-_1 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City _Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT ocaO62&94 • COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 28, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. c Page No. 3 `T~ *pending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount 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:.. une 28,1994 a~ PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 93-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 93-0006 TRIAD Location: 11165 - 11185 S.W. Naeve Street. North side of Naeve Street, west of S.W. 109th Avenue, south of Little Bull Mountain Apartments (WCTM 2S1 10DB, Tax Lots 100 and 200, 2S1 10 AD, Tax Lot 9300, and 2S1 10 AC, Tax Lots 600, 700, 800, and 900). A request for approval of a revised site plan for conceptual planned development/site development review of a 348 unit, 17 building, multi-family residential complex on a 26.2 acre parcel. This hearing is being held as a result of a remand of the decision in Davenport v. City of Tigard, OR LUBA _ (LUBA No. 93-191, May 19, 1994). The sole matter for decision is whether the revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with Tigard Community Development Code 18.108.070 (D) concerning the width of the required access driveways. Only evidence and testimony related to this issue will be taken by the City Council. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 (D). ZONE: R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 unit/acre, Planned Development overlay) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development overlay). PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS • LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. L_ Page No. ~ENDA_lTEM.NO,: -5 ~ - PLEASE PRINT t Proponent ;:(Speaking-. In. Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against)Z_ _ Name _Nams:=5 M 1~ k r Al Address Address 00swh Po--ruo ~1720~ ? ~Z 5 t s cv ss'`- T~~ r f; Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Wame Name Fress dress Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Ca Page No. X3(0 AGENDA ITEM # _ S For Agenda of L CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Site Plan Review of Site Development/Planned Development (SQR 3-0009 PD 9 -0006 ro sed b Triad-Tigard Limited PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK- CITY ADMIN OF ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the attached revised site plan, findings and final order approving the revised driveway plan to allow construction of a 348 unit multi-family development proposed by Triad for the southern slope of Little-Bull Mountain? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve final order, findings and revised site plan to uphold the Council'o October 26, 1993 approval and meet the requirements of the State Land Use Appeals Board (LUBA) remand. INFORMATION SUMMARY .rhe City Council approved the Triad 348 unit multi- family -development on October 26, 1993. The approval came after review of an appeal by Marge Davenport and Beverly Swink of the Planning Commission's August, 1993 approval. Marge Davenport appealed the City Council's approval of the development to LUBA. The LUBA opinion (93-191) was issued on May 19, 1994. LUBA remanded the decision to the City on only one issue. The one issue concerns the width of required access driveways. All other issues in the LUBA appeal were found in favor of Triad. Triad has submitted a revised site plan and findings for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding the driveway widths. Approval of the revised site plan, findings and final order should allow the development to proceed. - OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1.. Revision of the Final Order and Findings. 2. Denial of the Final Order and Findings. FISCAL NOTES None T ~ LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. - 3~ ~ `"ac.. ~ j F~v~ cys U 4 °i U 4Q ~ wa„e ° r+n P~ i ~ i i ~ _ - ~ ~ , sI _ ~ z ~ ~ ` z E i i i ~ ~ 7 _ J z z s s / e / ti i 1 i_ t_~- I f _ ~ f m lmr ~C . rY ~ 1~ ~ .A a- I  v i i ~ j ~~r ~ ~ 1 ! S ~ O ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ a.„ S ~ ' S5 s % 1~~ ~ , f _3 ` ~ ° i s w ~ ~ ~ ~qF~F S\ \ ~ ~ RFFp ~ ~ ~o-- ~ ~ ~ ' } 'y € : i. - i a- 4 a~  i P.D. RESUBMtTTAI CWF~ MATT L. DRISCOLL 1 (4 2121 First Avenue PLAN: PRELIMINARY SITE ARBOR HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 20 MAY 93 P.D. RESU AUGUST 16, 1991 REV. MAY 17, 1993 SCALE: 1"=60' Tigard, Oregon ~ REV. 6/11/93 ROAD ALIGNMENT NORTHWEST CORNER Q Suite 102 REV. 1/20/94 ADDED MEDIANS TO ENTRANCES Triad/Tigard Development ' KAMPE ASSOClATEU Seattle, WA 98121 REV. 5/27/94 WIDENED ENTRANCES TO 24' .W% &W. coum MY 1AW OMM, MGM W= NO OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE 206.441.7705 EXCEPT TO COMPLY W/ T.C.D.C. 18.108.070 (D) LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. G•. Page No. 3 8 Kp,MP A" 1/~ ~ !f 1 ? ~ 1 ~ - ,.n. _ ..,~F~ / i N c~ p ~~o o w ~ o ~ / / to ~ ~ o v t ~ i ~ + • ~ 1 16^F I ~ 1 1~ ,"F 2F + " + ~ + i ~ , r ~ 1 1 F 8°F J ^ \ 4. ~ ~ ~ 14 F 2 F, t 12' + i I 1 2 "F 1+ 4 F 0.F 8"F ~ ~ ~ ~ 20 F 1 ~ + 1 s F ~ 1 1 + + '2e~. + F ~ ~ + 1 18 F ~ 2Q"F t°F ~ I 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 18' F 1 + 7 + " + 6°F l + + / 4.. I ~ 20 F 2 °F, 12 + S to r 1B^ I 10" 1 6 F 8 + i F 28°F ~'~Q F + + 8 2 'F + 8^F 18' + + 12„F 37 F 4 + + + \ ~ 13"F 6' +1 i F 14 12 + 2*F1 \ + + + + ^ F„ tO F + ^ 1 F ~ F + 2 r C' -C D + p„ 3 F +2 •F 1t 20 ' ^ ~ ~ 4°r ~ + \ '2 ~ B 26 ~ ,.F + ~ 1 Fes` 36 . " 4" 1 ,.F 2 .,F `t,.F 20 + " + 1 f ~ 1 ^ v 1B F 1 F 6•r + + \ ' ~ t4~ ~ t3 r ~'fi 18"F + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 "F 6 t ~ t ~ 8"F \ \ 1~F ~ - \ ~ i F 1 9 30 F~ 1 +2^ + ~ + \ + ~ Y2 ' 14 ~ ~ 13'F + ~ ~ ~ 20 F M 2 F 12 2 F ~ ~ 28~ ,1, i 1 F ~ + ' I 1 ~ I ^F ~ ~ ~ ~ + + 2"F 12"Ch'ERRK 2 + ~ - 12 F - + ~ + B" + ~ i F ~ ~ ~ 12' + ~ + 14 J I. 1 F F ~ g' 8^ 11 ..F i2°F ~ + 4"F ~.1 +2F + 1 + ~ ^F. ~ '~M ~ ,~F, i 6..F 6^ 4,.F '9 ~ .,F 0 24F i^ ~ 1 ~ „ ~ 2' \ F + ~ ~ F ib + "V ~ \ + ~ ~ 12' 10 ~ ti \ 1 1 1 ^F ' + 2 ~ ~ ~ + ~ + + _t s ~ 1 t 18 F 14 14 1 0"18 F ~ 26"F +12"F 1 ~ ~ - Zi"~F + + 1 ~f °F ~ + ~ + ~ / 24 F ~ „ + + J 1 ~ ~ 24 ~ + " 2 F 2 12' ~ + ~ + + y, A ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. A F ~ ~ r B M + ~ 't ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~`_`~J + + 2 ti i + + C> ~2 15 i ^F ? 4 F. + z ~ 4 12'F 1 ' t + p ~ ~ ~8 F + ~ t0"F 12"F ? 4,.F b + + 3 °P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3b^ 12" ~ ~ + ~ + 14^~ + ~ + + ^ 2 " ~ 15"F A ..1 ~ 181 F F ~ ~ ~ + 1 ~ + + ~ v ' + + 1D 14^F •F ~'E. 1 + i6"F s Rp 12"M18" +7 2,~F + „ \ o t °F 8'F` F + ~ 12 Mt8 2 D \ F 10 + + 1 ~ ~ \ 1 A ~ ~ + i14 ` - \ 7 F i ~ ` s ~ •F--~ ~ ~r ~ ~ 1 + ~ ~ ~ 4"F ~ 15F 10 ~ ~ ~ 14" ~ + ~ + 14°M "r' 12 + ~ \ 777 + ~ ~'1 7 v~ V tOF ~ + ~ ~ ~ 24 ~ V ~C1 > 'Q/~ 14 F 12"kf 3 ~ / 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ + 12 ED ~ , \ ~ ~ ~ 2 D ` i ~ 1 1 t4 P 8 \ ~ F \ ~ \ ~ t2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ A o ~ ~ q~ ` ~F 1rM ~ , + 9 RT ~ A ~ A ~ F• +z ,,~F 12°F 8 \ ~ 1 14~ 6 `V V A 6 \ C~ ter. ~-'_-rte \ ~ ~ t` + 3 ~ N ~ ~ ~ t ti ~ v ~ ~ 2c"F ~ i.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ gip., \ + 1 , ~ ~ s 1 ~ ~ 12^F t / k ~ ~ ~ t P ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N , $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 RA ~ •i a ~ ~ 6 ~ l I ~ o ~ ~ S + v A ~ °F E, ~ / , ~ r• 1 y + ~ ,.t, s ^M ~ 1 ~ ,i, ~ ~ ~ a _ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~5r _ ' _ ' 1 \ y ~ ~ ~ + 1 1' F \ V 'i, ~--~,~F-- y A iJ \ v _i 1 ~ _ + 9" ~ ~ ~ ~ i 6 y ~ n. ~ \ , 1 . ~ ~ ~ , ,r-"'~ „ ~ _ + 4"sE V ~ _ ~ _ ~ A~ 1P \ ~ lC ~ ~ y, 6 ~ fl ~ ~ ~ ti• ~ V A V ~ + n 1 ~ ' ~ R~~ 8"SEu ~ ~ ~ R~ ♦ ~ Z~` 5 , \ f.. 1~' ~ D ~ \ ' ~ D'I 1 + ~ Ep \ \ I 5. \ \ P ~ 18 p 6 CA 1 0 + ~ T 10" ~ \~'S~T ~ ,D,, ~ q ~R ~ A - ~ ''C~ ~ q~~, ~ t~,"~~ a ~ ~ ~ \ V ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ \ ~ + ~ , c~ 1 \ \ ~ ~ t 4° 'T V ~ _ ~ + ~E~ • _ ~ - \ p ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ F ~ w , \ } \ ~ I ~ ~ t + + 12r ~ ~ ` „p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iD + ~ + ~ b"M ~ ~ ~ \ 24"SEC \ ~"SEQ ~ ! ~ ~ A 4 A ~ 1 \ + ~ ~ ~ i ,41E \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' \ \ ~ V \ A C,`i _4..E9, i ~ ~ ~ ~ a C 0 n ~ , . 1 ~ +=4^~Fr ~ i ~ ~ .  y \ ~ 0,~ 6+ 1 \ ~ \ \ ~ L ~ ~ 16"~? ~ < ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~vv ~v 1 ~ ~ ~ S V ~ ~ \ ~ > ~s2 _ _ ~ y , ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ . ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ 14`1 v~~ ~ v ~~r \ I ~ ~ 26"f2EG.. " , 6"Pi ~d ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ,~f ~ \ 2a fi2FIRt ~ tG 1`R"~4" Y g~F ~wv ~ ~ y \ A F. _ ~ y v _ ~ A ~ _ ~ 9h' \ n' ,a"R~ u ~ . ` U Y' \ ~ e + ~ ^ ovo 1 ~ v _ ~M ~ ~1~ 14 Ax ~V V \ V ~ Jai, ~ ~ w., s ~p.,~~.,, ~4.. ~ ~ , \ ~ \ \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ I S"a_ ° . ~ A " F~_ ~ ~ , ~ ~ A ~ i ~ ~ ` "FI \ ~ ?77 { r'-.n. ~ - ~ ~ n ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 'CKD Y v ~ ~ \ . V . ~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ 4 \ \ ~9 F ~+2a ~ ~ ~ ~ V~ \ ~'2a + ~ d ~4"REDS ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ 2 _ _ ~ ~ ` V A~ \ 24" ~ 6~~E!R ~ + 8"SF ~ ~ + \ ~ ~ ~DRDVJD f 1+ ~ \ 12 R \ ~ 18" D ~ ~ \ ~ 27"R D C 4 ~ BRCWD V V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ A ~ A~ 6 ~ ~ 'PA \ x : y A 0~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~qR r ~"RE\ \ n~T ~ ~ V _ S ~ y V ~ _ A ~ i ~ " Eo ~ ~ A v 1 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ y ~ \ +`qz~~\ ~ i ~ s'.. T' _ Lam- ~ T ~ ~ ~a\ ~ R t " r. \ - q ~ R~~ ~ 4 fi' ~Vr~ C~, \ + ~ R D \ \ ~ ~ ~ \ 6 R 2»"REDS` \ ~ } j ~2,x;..~~~ ~ ~`~a - _ v \ '2; 5"RED i '7~__ \ ~ \ i C "PFD ~ ~ \ ~ r~ + ~ 1 a~ \ \ ~ ,~o J ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 D ~ ~y ~ R,q \ ~ GF. \s ~ . V ~ ~ ~ ~ ,J v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -,-.s/ 4 _ } _ .i t`- L 1 a  DAVENPORT ALTERNATIVE ARBOR HEIGHTS APAr,,'Ti'v1ENTS AUGUST 16, 1991 REV. MAY 17, 1993 MATT L. DRISCOLL 115 Bell Street SCALE: 1"=60' Tigard, Oregon D REV. 2/04/94 MOVED NORTH ROAD/BUILDINGS 0 NAEVE Seattle, WA 98121 ADDED TREES PER CES TREE SURVEY OF 1989 Triad/Tigard Development ~ 206=441°7705 206 .441.5373 (FAX) LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. B Page No. Lv6p 93•tCi( TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS TIGARD APARTMENTS • Tigard, Oregon f4 KC, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. February 1990 LUBA NO. 94-728 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the TIGARD APARTMENTS • Developer: Triad Development Inc. Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 512 SW Broadway, Suite 220 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 February 1990 Project No.: 322.00 LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. - TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT STUDY AREA SUNDIARY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS 3 , EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . 4 SITE CONDITIONS Ai D ADJACENT LAND USES TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TRANSIT SERVICE TRAFFIC SAFETY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS TRAFFIC HAPACT ANALYSIS 16 DEVELOPMENT PLANS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRIP DISTRIBUTION IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION ' ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35 REFERENCES 36 -i- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. I Page No. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Vicinity Map 2 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes 7 3. Trip Distribution Pattern 19 4. Background Peak Hour Volumes 20 5. Site Generated Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 21 6. Site Generated Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 22 7. Background + Project Traffic Naeve-109th Access Alternative 24 8. Background + Project Traffic Naeve Only Access Alternative 25 9. Site Generated Traffic Potential Additional Development 29 10. Background + Project + Potential Additional Traffic 30 -ii- - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No~ Page No. LIST OF TABLES 1. Accident History at NaevelPacific Highway 6 2. Level of Service Definitions: Signalized Intersections 9 3. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 10 4. Level of Service Definitions: Unsignalized Intersections 11 5. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections 12- 6. Existing Level of Service Results 14 7. Gap Analysis Results 15 8. Trip Generation Characteristics: Proposed Development 18 9. Projected Level of Service Results (Background + Project) 26 10. Trip Generation Potential (Surrounding Properties) • • • • • • ' ' ' 28 11. Signal Warrant- Analysis Results 32 12. Signal Progression Analysis Results 34 -iii- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. q' q Page No. 4 - Tigard Apartments INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to assess the likely traffic-related impacts on the surrounding street system of a proposed 364 unit multi-family residential development located east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W) and north of Naeve Street in Tigard, Oregon. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map. Specific traffic-related issues discussed in this report include: • Existing traffic conditions in the project area- 0 Trip characteristic estimates for the proposed development.. • Site access location and operations. Traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. 0 Safety considerations including accident experience, appropriate traffic control devices, and sight distance analysis. • An analysis of the traffic impacts of potential future development surrounding the site. This report has been prepared following the guidelines set forth by the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report (Reference 1). ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The western boundary of the proposed 364 dwelling unit multi-family residential development lies approximately 300 feet east of Pacific Highway (Highway 99W). SW Naeve Street and SW 109th Avenue form the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, respectively. First construction on the site is intended to begin in 1990. The current site plan includes one site access on SW Naeve Street, a secondary emergency vehicle access on SW 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue, which intersects with Canterbury Lane to the north. For the purposes of the report, this access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the Naeve-109th Access Alternative. In accordance with ODOT's Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report a second site access alternative has also been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of site access onto SW - 1 - LVTRODliCT10_N LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. Page No. 1-~5 - k-.®r NaRT14 -Qy7 BtV ► ' a r VO 2 4 JI+OYAN ARDEN f: ~.w .j O ~ O 2 ~r K m NpYE RD { R O .r AO EN , o. F£A!r! 't DE++NE y GARfl o ~ ti~ or r NAAT AO i y O S' FfAAY p0 pO ~-P eo M,4[t Tw >t N58TER r NT = ONA - YAN ST N N ! BA~KO 4 AK K w ' < ST yuE1R RO yFA RERA . IN < KOTA T a►EE ST O 9 4 O OR Ap 9 A•EpR 0 < p TyrAT- A Y i~AA p ~r { < O r r Ut F PP ¢ hUyZrK ERG AO ? COVN(RAO Oz's > r ST S7£ ~yBtr ~N LLD jgard ' KRUSE w• 4 ~ OS t'` wA` j A ` Oa' 0~,9 ST SU+ BUII E YcDONALO OKITA FN ~!G q{ A.v GAARO P~ 9 0 ~Ee `etr ~ ~ Mtn sT x y < * o e B ho AO - SATT A St Z eyotsj it ~n REE TREE ` G 2 W wd0 's ►'~'Pi r < ONriy 0y0 c Q ¢ O.1,A OOK OR FO ~ ~0 A0 141r%g OURNAY BEND - city QurhBttti ` xc Y C BEEF GI{Es z A0 FIS C Z, GN20S Tyaletin AD P a 'ver9rov y. TIJALATIN W Tualatin BORLAND F: - f { n SAC. ERT AO q o T aO AVERY ST O J J 9a " ~~4 D s^` p0 DeLKEA EDy a < V AD ~ O a ~Jr - PO n MERIDIAN G N ST $ a Z cuTOFF r~i 1 o c`► cr he ° 0 d c am rOhOG',Y NELE AO S ° N ~ '9p z ~OOP AO i ~ O BLVD -T 1 TONG c " AT A9 ~ e• r' O gQ.12a ~ LuBA No' G 1 3.hibn P'9 ► Ft9ure ~ TE VtG~N~TY Sl APARTMENTS ~ . -2' T~GAR© ~ gg0 f;bruo Tigard Apartments Naeve Street only. The second access alternative will hereafter be referred to as the Naeve Only Access Alternative. PROJECT STUDY AREA Based on the amount of traffic anticipated to be -generated by the proposed development, the project study area has been identified to include the following key intersections: • SW Naeve St/Pacific Highway • SW Beef Bend Road/Pacific Highway • SW 109th Ave/Canterbury Lane SAY OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS Based on the traffic impact analysis -described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable level of service limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under any of the access alternatives. 2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. 3) The Naeve. Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) Full development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access similar to that described within this report would likely result in the need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. 5) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. • - 3 - INTRODUCTION LUBA NO. 9 128 Exhibit No. Page No. L~ • Tigard Apartments EXISTING CONDI'T'IONS SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES The proposed project site is currently vacant. Land uses in the immediately surrounding area consist of a mixture of single family and multi-family residential developments. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Pacific Highway is a primary north-south route in the project area and as such is designated by Washington County as. a major arterial (Reference 2). Pacific Highway is also a state highway and is maintained and operated by ODOT. Within the vicinity of the site, Pacific Highway is a four lane divided highway. The typical cross-section consists of two travel lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions, as well- as separate exclusive left-turn lanes at most major intersections. The posted speed within the vicinity of the site is 45 miles per hour. No on-street parlang is allowed on either side of the roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, Beef Bend Road is designated a major collector (Reference 2) and is operated and maintained by Washington County. Beef Bend Road is an "Z" shaped roadway connecting Pacific Highway to the south and Scholls Ferry Road (State Highway 210) to the north. The north-south section of Beef Bend Road connecting to Scholls Ferry Road is classified as a minor arterial by Washington County (Reference 2). The typical cross-section of Beef Bend Road consists of one twelve foot travel lane in each direction. The- posted speed. within the vicinity of Pacific Highway is 45 miles per hour. No on-street parldng is allowed on either side of the roadway. SW Naeve Street is designated as a minor collector by Washington County (Reference 2). SW Naeve is currently a low volume two-lane roadway. Within the vicinity of Pacific Highway, the pavement is in poor condition, with a number of potholes. Existing Traffic Control The intersection of Pacific Highway/Beef Bend Road is controlled by a fully actuated traffic signal. The signal is maintained and operated by ODOT. The traffic signal is part of a coordinated signal system on Pacific Highway. The intersection of SW Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is unsignalized with stop sign control on the minor street approach. - 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. - Page No. 4S - Tigard Apartments TRANSIT SERVICE Bus transit service is provided along Pacific Highway by Tri-Met Bus Route No. 12. Route No. 12 provides weekday and weekend service between Sherwood and downtown Portland. This service is provided at 15-30 minute headways on weekdays and 60 minute headways on weekends. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that none of the site-generated person trips are made by transit. TRAFFIC SAFETY Accident History In order to evaluate existing accident patterns near the Pacific Highway/Naeve Street intersection, a review was conducted of accident records maintained by ODOT. A detailed summary was prepared of all reported accidents in the vicinity of the intersections for the time period between January 1986 through December 1988. Table 1 displays a summary of this review. As shown in the Table, a total of 5 accidents have occurred at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection during the three year time period. The review of the accident data did not reveal anything that might indicate a significant accident problem. Sight Distance Measurements As part of the traffic safety evaluation, field measurements of intersection sight distance were performed at all of the proposed access drives and key intersections. Based on these observations, it was found that more than adequate sight distance currently exists at the proposed access drive on Naeve Street as well as at all of the other key intersections within the study area. Based upon a review of the accident data, and on the results of the field observations, it is concluded that no significant safety problems currently exist within the immediate site vicinity. It is not expected that development of this site will adversely affect the traffic safety characteristics of the surrounding street system. TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS Current weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections within the study area were determined through manual counts conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. These counts were conducted during November 1989, and January 1990. The peak hour observations revealed that the morning peak hour occurs from 7:00-8:00 am. while the evening peak hour occurs from 4:30-5:30 p:m. The existing morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. - 5 - EXISTING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. ' r Page No. Tigard Apartments TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT TYPES AT KEY INTERSECTIONS (January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988) Accident Twe Number Naeve St/Pacific Hwy . Rear End 4 Turning 1 Total 5 -6- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No Page No. 5 o~ ♦m r 0 Oil 70,1 G\`G , CO n to rb U NORTH 95--x QO Q t 0 o Of O 45 ~f 60 20- 5 Beef ~ r Bend o %n :•:SITE M O Oar. 5 1 /s ~o~o~e S 15-.► Fto s~ Nh o~ N AM PEAK 0 0 a 45-14 CD COrllerbUfV NORTH 75 4 R QOG~ Q %n o G~ ro O N 1 t 0 •1 " 45 45~ 10 Beef '::::.•.'.'.'f M Bend SITE 5 1 N 5 Noe 0 t/e s 15 r 10- M tT c a _ Z p N PM PEAK J 0 z EXISTING PEAK HOUR a TRAFFIC VOLUMES _7_ Figure p~ TIGARD APARTMENTS 2 ebruary 1990 322F002 Tigard Apartments .LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. Recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of the LOS at a signalized intersection. As defined within the 2985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference . 3), six grades are used to denote the various LOS; these six grades are described qualitatively for . signalized intersections in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 identifies the relationship between level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition, a "D" LOS is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard. For signalized intersections, LOS defines the quality of the traffic flow, but does not necessarily describe the overall design adequacy of the intersection to accommodate the traffic volumes being analyzed. As an example, a good LOS can be achieved even when the volume./capacity ratio for the intersection exceeds 1.0. Similarly, there are conditions under which a poor LOS is achieved even though the volume/capacity ratio for the intersection is well below 1.0. Therefore, all signalized intersection summary tables contained in this report. provide both the calculated LOS and the calculated volume/capacity ratio for each intersection. In this way, the reader is provided with a complete description of the expected operation conditions for each signalized intersection that is analyzed. For unsignalized. intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized . intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve Capacity" (i.e., that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used). A- qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 4. A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 5. The reserve capacity concept applies -only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an. overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. Past experience with the unsignalized analysis procedure indicates that this. methodology is very conservative in that it tends to overestimate the magnitude of any potential problems that might exist. Therefore, the results of any unsignalized. inter- section analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. Generally, LOS E is considered to be acceptable for an unsignalized intersection, although it also indicates that the need for signalization should be investigated. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms can be reviewed upon request. In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case conditions, the weekday peak hour flow rates were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for two hours out of each average weekday. For the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic conditions within the study impact area are likely to be better than that described in this report. - 8 - MSTLVG CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 9428 Exhibit No. Page No. • Tigard Apartments TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS) Level of Service Traffic Flow Characteristics A Very low average stopped delay, less than five seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volumetcapacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation. It may also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may- also be major contributing causes to such high delay levels. Note: A signal cycle failure is considered to occur when one or more vehicles are forced to wait through more than one green signal indication for a particular approach. " 9 " LUBA NO. 128 Exhibit No. Page No. 7Ygard Apartments TABLE 3 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Level of Service Vehicle (Sec) A 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.0 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Source: Reference 2 -10- LUBA NO. 128 Exhibit No. Page No. Tigard Apartments TABLE 4 GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS General Description A - Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue B - Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue C - Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue . - Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so D - Often there is more than one vehicle in the queue - Drivers feel quite restricted E - Represents a condition in which the demand is near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement - There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue - Drivers find the delays to be approaching intolerable levels F - Forced flow - Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection -11- LUBA NO*9 128 Exhibit No. Page No. r Tigard Apartments TABLE 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA for UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to (pcph) Service Minor Street Traffic >400 A Little or no delay 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays * F • * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. Source: Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual". Special Report 209 (1985) -12- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. ~5D Tigard Apartments Table 6 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations for the key intersections within the study area. As this table indicates, all intersections are currently operating at acceptable Levels of Service under existing weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. In an effort to better estimate the existing capacity for minor street left-turn movements at the unsignalized intersection of Pacific Highway/Naeve Street a special gap study was conducted to determine the availability and distribution of acceptable gaps for left-turning movements. The gap study explicitly accounts for such factors as proximity of upstream and downstream traffic signals which effects whether or not the vehicles are arriving randomly, or in platoons. The results of the gap -study reveal the number of critical time gaps available to drivers. Within the context of this report the . critical gap is defined to be the time gap, expressed in seconds, which is found to be acceptable by 50 percent of the drivers on the minor street approach and movement. Past experience on other roadway facilities possessing similar speed and cross-sectional characteristics show the critical gap for minor street left turning vehicles to be fairly consistent and at about 6.0 seconds. Another factor that needs to be considered when evaluating the operations of the Naeve St.IPacific Highway intersection is the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. This median provides a refuge for left-turn movements from the minor street and allows vehicles to cross one major street movement at a time. The result of this is the minor street left-turn movements do not have to wait for simultaneous gaps in the northbound and southbound directions. Because of these factors, the gap analysis was analyzed for not only simultaneous gaps, but gaps in the individual northbound and southbound directions as well. Table 7 displays the results of the gap analysis for weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. As shown in the table, the existing available gaps are more than adequate to accommodate existing traffic volumes. PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Discussion with officials at, Washington County, and the City of Tigard indicate that the only significant transportation improvement currently planned within the study area is at the intersection of Beef Bend Road/Pacific Highway. At this intersection, Washington County has plans to widen the eastbound Beef Bend approach to Pacific Highway to provide for a separate right turn lane. Final engineering for this project has not yet been completed, but discussions with Washington County indicate that the improvement will likely take place within the next two years. For the purposes of the analysis of future conditions at the Beef Bend/Pacific Highway intersection, it was assumed that the above mentioned improvement will be in place. - 13 - EXISTING CONDITIONS LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. G Page No. 5`l • Tigard Apartments TABLE 6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS Sienalized Unsiemalized Reserve Intersection Delay VC IM Capacity L-Qa Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 7 .55 B - PM 8 .70 B Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - Canterbury/109th AM - - - 805 A PM - - - 760 A • NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap analysis procedure. See discussion on page 13. • -14- LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. • 75gard Apartments TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF GAP ANALYSIS RESULTS NAEVE STREET/PACIFIC HIGHWAY Number of Available Critical Cans Time Period Northbound Southbound Simultaneous AM Peak Hour 386 510 180 PM Peak Hour 350 305 135 • - 15 - LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. Page No. 3~ • Tigard Apartments TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The weekday peak hour impact of traffic generated by the proposed development was analyzed as follows: • The placement and size of the proposed multi-family housing development were confirmed. • The total number of future morning. and evening peak hour trips, both in and out of the proposed development were estimated for development of the site in 1990. • The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated based on information obtained from Washington County's regional travel demand forecasting model • An estimate of projected weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the immediate site vicinity was obtained from Washington • County staff. • The in-process traffic was added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain background traffic volumes for the future analysis condition. • Site-generated traffic predicted for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours was assigned to the street system and added to the projected background traffic volumes. • Traffic demands on each roadway facility were analyzed to identify any capacity, level of service, and/or physical deficiencies under projected future conditions for the two access alternatives. A detailed discussion of this methodology and the analysis results is contained in the remainder of this section. DEVELOPMENT PLANS Current site plans are for a 364 unit multi-family housing development to be constructed on the site by 1990. The proposed access scheme for the development includes three access drives, consisting of an access drive on Naeve Street, a secondary access on 109th Avenue, and an access that connects the site to the northern extension of SW 109th Avenue. It is intended that the access drive on Naeve Street will be designed such that left-turns out of the site on Naeve Street will be prohibited. This will force of the site's outbound traffic to Pacific Highway. - 16 - TRAFFIC IMPACT AXALYSIS LUBA NO. OA-128 Exhibit No.rl Page No. • TFgard Apartments In accordance with ODOTs Minimum Requirements . for a Traffic Report, a second access alternative has been evaluated as well. The second access alternative consists of an access drive on Naeve Street. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Because the assumed trip generation characteristics represent the basis for the entire traffic impact analysis that follows, special care has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the proposed multi-family housing development on the basis of empirical observations at similar developments located throughout the United States. These empirical observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 8 were estimated for development of the property in accordance with the proposed site plan. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of site-generated trips onto the existing roadway system within the immediate site vicinity was estimated through examination of the origins and destinations of home-based work trips within the surrounding area that are contained • in Washington County's regional travel demand forecasting model. On the basis of the information provided by Washington County, the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3 was prepared. As this figure indicates, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent of the site-generated traffic will travel to and from the north via Pacific Highway. IN-PROCESS TRAFFIC VOLUMES In-Process traffic volumes consist of traffic projections from planned or committed developments. Estimates of weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour in-process traffic within the study area were obtained from Washington County staff. These volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure 2, to obtain the background traffic volumes for the projected future conditions shown in Figure 4. FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Using the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed multi-family housing development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area under the two access alternatives. These volumes are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for the respective access alternatives. - 17- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. Page No. I o . ?lgard Apartments TABLE 8 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Generated Trans (B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use (Units) (A) DALLY Total in Qut Total lu Qut Multi-Family 364 2420 190 40 150 230 150 80 Housing 0~ • 1qq3 FIOAL~ 2000 Ise 33 12+ 00 • Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. -18- LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. Io NORTH ^O ~Q Can ierbur > QQ Q rn 0 Beef Bend alto ...SITE N LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. C Page No. ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN - -19- Figure pQ TIGARD APARTMENTS February 1990 3 322F003 4 1 z1s~ G`~o ' Canterbury NORTH 125 4 Q° Q ~t ~o 0) 45-f r 60 20~ ~ 5 Beef f Bend o V1 " :•:SITE::• . ~►%1 s ~Otoke S 15-0. t0 tr c sn N in N AM PEAK o ~ ,sow .Ia Conterburv NORTH 95 R Q°G` Q 1 t - - ~ N Q t 0-► 45 45-%4 10 Beef Bend o M :•:':SITE:': tv, co N eke S' t 5--0. .4-10 tr rc N %n a) W W) 0 PM PEAK z?Z BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR M _ 0 - TRAFFIC VOLUMES _j a _20_ Figure !VA 1GARD APARTMENTS 4 I'~~(~ -February 1990 J22FOO4 `o O N ° r Canterbu NORTH 10 L N ~A O low ~ o Beef T Bend 0 0 „ :•:SITE'- h 1 N 80 1 ~ 40 Noe`e S• 300 . I ~ ~o o .n AM PEAK .o o n .c f~. Canterbury NO low < ~t o ~n O - O 0 f•- 0 30~ ~ 0 Beef Bend . Ln ° SITE . . . . . . . . . . ' o~ 20 NQe 120..$ ti ` o .n O C ZZ O PM PEAK Z X m PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC w a NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE -21- Figure - TIGARD APARTMENTS 5 Fe ruary 1990 322FCO5 1 0 oJ~ oG\~r✓ > Canterbu NORTH 5 Q t e L ~o O Beef Bend :-:SITE'- o n . . ~ 110 ~ ao Noe~e ~ AO-.$ o tr S. . o~ AM PEAK o ~o 0-,4 `O CarterbuN NORTH 10 Q t Q s k!f N cr) O r - Beef Bend SITE 6o 1 ~ 20 Noe 150-** r t .0-0 d. .S O Z Z C PM PEAK Z PROJECT SITE TRAFFIC _ NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE J a -22 Fl9 f a 1GARD APARTMENTS 6 e ruary 1990 322FOO6 Tigard Apartments The site-generated traffic shown in Figures 5 and 6 were combined with the projected weekday morning and evening peak hour background traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 to arrive at the projected total morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes shown in Figures 7 and 8 for the two access alternatives. These volumes were used as the basis for analyzing the LOS at the intersections in the study under projected future weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions. The results of the LOS analysis for estimated future am. and p.m. peak hour conditions for the two access alternatives are presented in Table 9. As shown in the table, all key intersections within the study area are expected to experience acceptable service levels under either of the access alternatives. As mentioned previously, the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway is different than typical unsignalized intersections due to the presence of the wide median on Pacific Highway. Because of this, future traffic operations this intersection were evaluated using the gap analysis results described previously and displayed in Table 7. The results • of the gap analysis revealed that approximately 180 and 135 critical simultaneous gaps currently exist during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively.. However, for the individual directions in excess of 300 critical gaps are available in both the morning and evening peak hours. With the relatively low projected left-turn demand there appears to be more than adequate capacity to accommodate projected demands if the vehicles make use of the center median for a refuge and cross one direction at a time.. Therefore, based on the results of the detailed gap analysis, it is concluded that more than adequate capacity will be available to accommodate left turn movements at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. COMPARISON OF ACCESS ALTERNATIVES . The analysis results indicate that either of the access alternatives will adequately accommodate the projected site-generated traffic volumes. The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in lower total traffic demands at the intersection of Naeve St/Pacific Highway than the Naeve Only Access Alternative. Therefore, the Naeve-109th Access Alternative would likely result in ' slightly better traffic operations at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. The Naeve-109th Access Alternative also provides better emergency vehicle access to the site via the connection to Canterbury Lane. INTERNAL SITE CIRCULATION With regard to internal site circulation, the most important design feature from a traffic operations perspective is the access drivewa s and t Re re ations ' to the inte a sv _ Specifically, ingress and egress at the site driveways should not interfere with parking/unparking maneuvers. If a conflict between these operations did exist, vehicle back-ups on the adjacent street system can occur. A review of the site plan reveals unobstructed access throats of at least 80 feet will be provided at the major access drives. Based on the volume of site-generated traffic that is expected at both of the access drives under any of the access alternatives, the depth • - 23 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. Page No. %0 r 0 z1s1 Ganterbu NORTH. 1o 12S-.,4 R Qp~'\ Q It L o of 0) iO Y O N r 45--► *.-60 30~ ~ S Beef "IN W Bend • • a :SITE:•: cnr1 1 L : 85 I~ 45 NQek, S' 15 10 tr 00 N ~ N AM PEAK N N_ ~O r .411 .z` E 1so~ Canterbury TM 1c N 105 R QCP Q It L tff O M N O - - ' 1101 45 75-%X 10 Beef r Bend Y ::SITE:: ao r to all so 1 ~C zs Noeve S 'is~ to z Z Z ~r o~ m t Q1 PM PEAK 6 a BACKGROUND + PROJECTED TRAFFIC NAEVE - 109TH ALTERNATIVE _24_ Figure TIGARD APARTMENTS 7 IKI ebruary 1990 322FOOi .n vs ~O r Zts~ oG'o , _ Canterbu WORTH taste ~t Q L 0 W) a) Beef Bend SITE 0%n . a. 115 45 NQe* S 1 s 10 jr 00 N - N AM PEAK 1 j ~r lso-,4 Canterburv n+ 10 (D Q t Q -N O Seer Bend N N 1 m r 65 1 L 2s Aloe 150 O 1 T ~e S." 1 s f--1 o Z Z 6 * ~o ~Z PPEAK BACKGROUND + PROJECT TRAFFIC NAEVE ONLY ALTERNATIVE -25- Figure NZA TIGARD APARTMENTS 8 February 1990 32FCC8 7Ygard Apartments TABLE 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC Signalized Unsignalized Reserve Intersection Delay VAC LM Capacity Ma Naeve-109th Alternative Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .57 B - PM 15 .80 C - Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - - Canterbury/109th AM - - 763 A PM - - - 723 A Naeve Only Alternative Beef Bend/Pacific Hwy AM 9 .58 B - PM 15 .81 C - • Naeve/Pacific Hwy AM - - - PM - - - Canterbury/109th AM - 806 A PM 759 A NOTES: * Operational analysis of this intersection was conducted using a gap analysis procedure. See discussion on page 23. -26- LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No. a Page No. Tigard Apartments • of the access throat will be adequate to minimize conflicts with parking/unparking maneuvers. Thus, the internal circulation is expected to operate acceptably, and moreover, circulation internal to the site is not expected to adversely affect traffic operations on the adjacent street system. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL SURROUNDING THE SITE The City of Tigard requested that the traffic analysis take into account the development potential of currently undeveloped parcels located immediately east and west of the site. The parcels that considered included an approximately 10 acre parcel located immediately west of the site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway, . and an approximately 40 acre parcel located immediately east of 109th Avenue. The 10 acre parcel is zoned R-25, which allows for the construction of approximately 250 multi-family housing units. For the purposes of the analysis,. it was assumed that no direct access to Pacific Highway would be provided, and therefore, all of the 250 units would access Naeve Street. The 40 acre parcel. is currently zoned R-3.5, which would allow for the construction of approximately 180 single family residential housing units. Discussion with City staff indicated that the 40 acre parcel would likely have access to 109th Avenue, Naeve Street, as well as a number of local streets located east of 109th Avenue. Based on a review of the likely internal street connections for the 40 acre parcel that was provided by City staff, it was estimated that approximately one third of the parcel, which represents approximately 60 single family housing units, • would access Naeve Street. It is felt that this represents a conservatively high estimate, and therefore provides a reasonable worst-case estimate of future traffic operations on Naeve Street. Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes were calculated for the potential future development on the basis of the empirical observations summarized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 4). The trip generation characteristics shown in Table 10 were estimated for development of the property as described above. Using the estimated trip distribution pattern shown in Figure 3, the traffic anticipated to be generated by the potential future development during the weekday morning and evening peak hour was distributed onto the street system within the study area. It was assumed that the southern and northern sections of 109th Avenue remained severed, and therefore all of the traffic was added to Naeve Street. The projected site- generated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9 for the weekday morning and evening peak hour time periods. In order to evaluate a worst-case condition for the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway, the site-generated traffic shown in Figure 9 was added to the projected total traffic volumes for the Naeve Only Access Alternative, shown in Figure 6. The resulting Background + Project + Potential Future traffic volumes are shown in Figure 10 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. • - 27- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS - LUBA NO. 9128 Exhibit No. !I_ Page No. - ?Tgard Apartments • TABLE 10 TRIP GENERATION POTENTIAL FOR SURROUNDING UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES Generated Trips B) Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total In Dut Total in F)mi Multi-Family 250 1650- 130 30 100 160 105 55 Housing Single Family 60 (C) 605 45 10 35 60 45 15 Housing • Notes: A. Units = Dwelling Units B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips. C. This represents only the portion of this future development that is expected to access Naeve Street. • LUBA NO. 94128 - 28 - Exhibit No. Ci Page No. '1L aQ ~r oG~~o Q Canterbu 0- NORTH Q t DI 0 Beef Bend . :-:SITE:-:• O M . . Z L . „s 35 o~ AM PEAK •o~ ~r e ~V bUN N=a7H OG` ~ Q L a) O - r Beef C end :-:SIT_E N . . . . . . . . . . O 1 L ,'-sa N 20 e t o o~ z z c ,z • LP M PEAK SITE TRAFFIC -.1 a. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -29- TIGARD APARTMENTS Figure GAr ebruary 1990 9 3szroo4 r 1G Canterbu NORTH r a) O Beef Bend . ITE.:.:- N O Chm 1 L . : ' 30 r ~e s O N N ~ N AM PEAK a° iq-F G Can'terburv NORTH °G Q Q . O Beef Bend N ~o N v N 12s N r t r St o ~n Z?Z PM PEAK ca m BACKGROUND + PROJECT CL + POTENTIAL TRAFFIC -30- TIGARD APARTMENTS Figure e ruary 1990 10 322FOOIC • Tigard Apartments The operational analysis of projected conditions with the potential future development focused on conditions at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Future traffic operations at this intersection were evaluated using the same procedures described previously. Based on the projected left-turning volumes during the evening peak hour, the combination of left-turns from Pacific Highway and left-turns from Naeve Street would be approaching the capacity of the unsignalized intersection to handle left-turns. TRAFFIC SIGNAL. WARRANTS As a part of this analysis, a special investigation was conducted to evaluate the need for installing a new traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. The warrant analysis was conducted for both of the access alternatives under. projected background + project traffic volumes, as well as for projected background + project + potential future development traffic volumes. The Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant (Warrant 1 as described in Reference 5) and the Interruption of Continuous Flow Warrant (Warrant 2) are both based on the eighth-highest hour conditions. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 11) was also examined. Based on previous work within Washington County, it is assumed that the eighth- highest hour on Pacific Highway is approximately 70 percent of the peak hour, and the eighth-highest hour on Naeve Street is approximately 60 percent of the peak hour. Additionally, only half of the minor street's projected right-turn volume is included for warrant evaluation purposes, because right turning vehicles would benefit little from a • . traffic signal. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for Pacific Highway and Naeve Street are shown in Table 11. As shown in the table, under both of the access scenarios with background plus project traffic, the warrant requirements will not be met for Warrants 1, 2, or 11. When the traffic from the potential additional development is added to the background plus project traffic, it is projected that signal Warrants 2 and 11 would be met. Based on the results of the signal warrant analysis as well. as the operational analysis for the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, it is concluded that a traffic signal would not be warranted with the addition of the proposed project- traffic under either of the access alternatives. If however, the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to the full potential allowed under the current zoning, and access to these properties is as assumed in this analysis, it is likely that a traffic signal would be required to accommodate projected total traffic volumes. PROGRESSION OF TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY With the potential for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection at some.time in the future, officials at ODOT requested that an analysis of the traffic signal progression characteristics be conducted to assess the impact of a traffic signal at the intersection of Naeve Street/Pacific Highway on the progression of through traffic on Pacific Highway. • - 31 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. 61 Page No. 1Ygard Apartments TABLE 11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Warrant Volume Projected Volume Warrant Time Major Minor Pacific Naeve Met Name of Warrant Period Street Street Highway Street Naeve-109th Access Alternative (Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1550 53 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1550 53 No ` Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2215 105 2215 88 No Naeve-Only Access Alternative (Background + Project) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1555 62 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1555 62 No • Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2225 105 2225 103 No (Background + Project + Potential Future Development) Minimum Vehicular 420 140 1585 87 No Volume Interruption of 630 70 1585 87 Yes Continuous Flow Peak Hour P.M. 2265 105 2265 145 Yes • - 32 - LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. C_ Page No. I (o Tigard Apartments The effects on traffic signal progression characteristics along Pacific Highway were analyzed using a standard computerized simulation and optimization program (PASSER 11-87). Passer H-87 is a macroscopic computer model that is designed to evaluate a variety of signal strategies along an arterial. Although the program is capable of analyzing isolated intersections, its most common application is in evaluating and optimizing signal progression on an arterial street system. For this analysis, Passer U-87 was used to evaluate the relative effects, from a signal progression standpoint, of an additional signalized intersection at Naeve Street/Pacific Highway. Since a traffic signal would likely only be required when all of the undeveloped land surrounding the project site develops to its potential, the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10 were used as the basis for the analysis. ODOT requested that the progression analysis include traffic signals at the following intersections on Pacific Highway: • Durham Road • Royalty Parkway • Naeve Street • Beef Bend Road • Bull Mountain Road • Canterbury Lane • Based on discussions with ODOT, the analysis time periods that were evaluated were the weekday. evening peak hour, and the weekday off-peak time period. For the purposes of the analysis, the traffic volumes during the off- peak time period were assumed to be equivalent to 70 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour time period.- Table 12 displays the measures of effectiveness (MOE's) typically used when evaluating signal progression. As shown in the table, the results of the analysis indicate that "Great Progression" can be attained with a traffic signal at Naeve Street. Table 12 also displays the estimated green bandwidth (in seconds) both with and without a signal at Naeve Street. Based on the results of the signal operation and progression analysis, it is concluded that a traffic signal could eventually be installed at Naeve Street while maintaining excellent signal progression on Pacific Highway. • - 33 - TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No.CI Page No. ) Tigard Apartments TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF SIGNAL PROGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS Arterial Progression Measures of Effectiveness NB Bandwidth SB Bandwidth Efficiency (1) (seconds) (seconds) PM Peak Hour Without Naeve Signal 0.45 52 73 With Naeve Signal 0.43 50 69 Off Peak Condition ' Without Naeve Signal 0.47 46 32 With Naeve Signal 0.48 46 35 • Notes (1) Arterial Progression Evaluation Criteria is as Follows: Efficiency 0.00 - 0.12 Poor Progression 0.13 - 0.24 Fair Progression 0.25 - 0.36 Good Progression 0.37 - 1.00 Great Progression • - 34 - LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit Noe- Page No. g Tigard Apartments CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the traffic impact analysis described in this report, it is concluded that the proposed multi-family housing development can be built while still maintaining acceptable levels of safety and operations on the surrounding street system. The specific findings of the analysis are as follows: 1) All intersections within the study area are expected to operate within acceptable LOS limits under existing and projected weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions under.any of the access alternatives. .2) The Naeve-109th Access Alternative results in slightly lower traffic demands at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection, and provides better emergency vehicle access. 3) The Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection can remain unsignalized and still accommodate the projected background plus project traffic safely and efficiently under either of the access alternatives. 4) Full development of the surrounding undeveloped land, with access • similar to that described within this report would likely result in the need for a traffic signal at the Naeve Street/Pacific Highway intersection. 5) A traffic signal could be installed at Naeve Street without significantly impacting traffic signal progression on Pacific Highway. • 35 - CONCLUSIONS LUBA NO. 94-128 Exhibit No. G _ Page No. 7 ?Ygard Apartments REFERENCES 1. Oregon Department of Transportation, Minimum Requirements for a Traffic Report. 2. Washington County. Functional Classification System. (1988) 3. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report No. 209 (1985). 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual: Fourth Edition. (1988). 5. Federal Highway *Administration. Manual on Traffic Control Devices (1984). • - 36- REFERENCES LUBA NO. 94128 Exhibit No..C1._. Page No. 20 CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on August 1. 19941 1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94128 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: August 1. 1994. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on August 1. 19941 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94-128 by first class mail on the following persons: Beverly Swink Mike Robinson 15875 S.W. Greens Way Stoel, Rives, Boley, Tigard OR 97224 Jones & Gray 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Ste 2300 Marge Davenport Portland, OR 97204 15100 S.W. 109th Avenue Tigard, OR 97244 Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1272 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: August 1. 1994. atherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder s