Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
LUBA1994-110 - Petrie Company
1 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON 1 THE PETRIE COMPANY, ) Petitioner, ) V. ) LUBA No. 94-110 1 CITY OF TIGARD ) Respondent. ) 1 1 1 1 RESPONDENT'S BRIEF 1 1 Pamela J. Beery, OSB #80161 Ty K. Wyman, OSB #92508 O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach 1 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 (503) 222-4402 1 Attorneys for Respondent William C. Cox, OSB #76110 1 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, OR 97219 (503) 246-5499 Attorney for Petitioner 1 1 i 1 1 ' 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2 Z. PETITIONER'S STANDING . . 1 3 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. NATURE OF THE LAND USE DECISION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 1 5 1. Nature of Land Use Decision . . . . . . . . . 1 6 2. Relief Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 B. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 1 C. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 III. JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 A. THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION 4 11 B. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE . . . . 6 ' 12 C. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT A LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE 13 ADOPTED UNDER ORS 92.044 OR ORS 92.046 . . . . . . 6 1 14 D. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT SIMILAR TO A ZONING OR LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH STANDARDS 15 THAT IMPLEMENT THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . . . 7 16 1. Chapter 13.08 is not similar to Tigard's Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . 7 17 2. Chapter 13.08 does not establish standards for 18 implementing the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . 8 19 3. Chapter 13.08 does not implement the plan policies cited in Petitioner's Brief . . . . . 8 20 E. THE APPEALED DECISION WAS WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION 21 OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL STANDARDS . . . . . . . . 12 22 F. THE APPEALED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION 23 UNDER THE "SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TEST." . . . . . . . 13 ' 24 G. THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT REVIEWABLE BECAUSE IT IS A PURELY FINANCIAL MECHANISM . . . . . . . . . . 13 25 H. PETITIONER HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE 26 BOARD HAS JURISDICTION • • 15 ' OTONWMJ- RAMIS CREW OOMQAN & HAC UCH im KW. Hoy[ Sums 1 Pa shad, Oregm 47W9 rdeo-. (503) 2224402 Page i - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503) 243-2944 ' 1 IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 A. RESPONSE TO FIRST, SECOND AND FIFTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. 3 PETITIONER'S ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE 1 4 THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY 5 LAND USE PROCEDURES CITED IN THESE ASSIGNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 B. RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. 7 THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE RECORD ON WHICH THE 8 BOARD COULD DETERMINE THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE EQUAL 9 PROTECTION CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10 C. RESPONSE TO FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. ' 11 THE CITY'S ACTION IN REPEALING FORMATION OF THE DISTRICT DID NOT VIOLATE STATE OR FEDERAL 12 CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS REGARDING THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY . - 18 13 1. No Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14 2. No Unconstitutional Condition . . . . . . . . 19 15 3. No Exaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 16 4. The Public Use Requirement is Shrinking . . . 21 17 23 18 V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 26 OTONNEU RAMIS CREW coma" b HACHRACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Suw Portland. Orton 9720'9 Tdepho= (503) 2224402 Page ii - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503) 243.2944 I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PAGE 3 CASES 4 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 US 255 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . 19 5 Anderson Brothers v. City of Portland, 18 Or LUBA 462 (1989) . 12 r 6 Anderson v. Smith-Powers Logging Co., 71 Or 276 (1914) . . . . 22 ' 7 Billington v. Polk County, 299 Or 471, 703 P2d 232 (1985) . 6, 15 8 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . 21 9 Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Seaside, 23 Or LUBA 100 (1992) • • • . . 10 10 ' City of Eugene v. Crooks, 55 Or App 351, 637 P2d1350 (1981), 11 rev. den., 292 Or 722, 644 P2d 1131 (1982) • . 17 12 City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 294 Or 126, 653 P2d 992 (1982) 13-15 13 Davenport v. City of Tigard, 27 Or LUBA 243 (1994) . . . . . . 17 ' 14 Deschutes Development v. Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA218 (1982) • • • . . . 5, 17 15 ' Dodd v. Hood River Co., 317 Or 172, 855 P2d 608 (1993) . . . . 21 16 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 SCt 2309 (1994) . . . . . 19-21 1 17 Draganowski v. Curry County, 26 Or LUBA 420 (1994) . . . 17 18 Foeller v. Housing Authority of Portland, 198 Or 205 (1953) . 22 1 19 Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 US 229 (1984) . 23 20 Jackson v. City of Tillamook, 27 Or LUBA 704, 705 (1994) . . . 8 21 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV, 458 US 419 (1982) . . . 19 22 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 SCt 2886 (1992) 19 23 Medford Assembly of God v. City of Medford, 72 Or App 333, 24 695 P2d 1379 (1984), rev. den., 299 Or 203, 700 P2d 251 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 25 ' Melton v. Cottage Grove, LUBA No. 94-055, slip op.at 24 26 (September 1, 1994) . • • . 16 ' OMONNEU RAMIS CREW CORMCAN & SACCHBAACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Sure PmtFan4 Omg= gm Tdepbona i - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FA)L cs032 1 1 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987) 19-21 2 Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3 Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977) 13 4 Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968) . . . . . . 21 5 Port of Umatilla v. Richmond, 212 Or 596 (1958) . . . . 22 6 Portland Oil Service Co. v. City of Beaverton, 16 Or LUBA 255 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Price v. Clatsop County, 25 Or LUBA 341 (1993) . . . . . . . 15 7 8 Simmons v. Marion County, 22 Or LUBA 759 (1992) . . . . . . 2, 17 9 Smith v. Cameron, 106 Or 1 (1922) . . . . . . . . . 22 10 1 Spiering v. Yamhill Co., 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993) . . . . . . . . 18 11 Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992) . . . . . . 14 ' 12 State Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 13 617 P2d 655 (1980), rev. dismissed 291 Or 878, 635 P2d 647 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14 ' 14 Suess Builders Co. v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254, 656 P2d 15 306 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 23 16 Sunburst II Homeowners v. City of West Linn, 18 Or LUBA 695, aff'd, 101 Or App 458, rev. den., 310 Or 243 (1990) 8 17 Towry v. City of Lincoln City, 26 Or LUBA 554 (1994) . . . . 6 18 Wagner v. Marion Co., 15 Or LUBA 260, aff'd, 85 Or App 220, ' 19 736 P2d 230 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20 Waker Associates, Inc. v. Clackamas County, 21 Or LUBA 588 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies v. Beckwith, 449 US 155 (1980) . . . 21 22 Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 US 483 (1955) . . . . . . 17 23 i 24 OREGON REVISED STATUTES 25 ORS 92.044 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' 26 ORS 92.046 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 ODONNEU. RAMLS CREW COYMCAN & BACERACH 17n RW. Hoyt Swed ' Portland, Oregon 9W Telephone: ii - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF A(503) 243- 1 ORS 197.015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 ORS 197.015(10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 ' ORS 197. 015 10 a A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 ORS 197.015(11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 5 ORS 197.763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 ORS 197.825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' 7 ORS 197.825(l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12 8 ORS 197.830(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' 9 ORS 197.835 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16 10 ORS 227.173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11 ORS 227.173(l) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' 12 13 ' 14 15 ' 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 ' 26 OTONNELL RAMI3 CREW COWMAN & BAMULA.CH 17V N.W. Hoyt sneer ' Portland. Oregon 9W Tdgftcm (503) =2-44M Page iii -RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX (503) 241-294' 1 I. PETITIONER'S STANDING 2 Respondent, City of Tigard City"), disputes 3 Petitioner's standing in this matter. As detailed infra at 4-14, 4 the City's decision in this matter is not a land use decision or a 5 limited land use decision. Because the statute conferring standing 6 before this Board, ORS 197.830 (2) , refers to only such decisions, ' 7 Petitioner lacks the requisite status. 8 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ' 9 A. NATURE OF THE LAND USE DECISION AND RELIEF SOUGHT. 10 1. Nature of Land Use Decision. 11 Applicant disagrees with Petitioner's statement as to the 12 nature of the decision because this is not a land use decision. 13 (Please see discussion under Section III, Jurisdiction, below.) 14 The City decision on review was made in compliance with 15 Tigard Municipal Code ("TMC") Chapter 13.08. Chapter 13.08 provides 16 that any person who is required to finance the cost of a sewer 17 improvement on adjacent property may request that the city establish 18 a zone of benefit to reimburse the cost in certain circumstances. ' 19 §13.08.020(a). The code provides that an affected property owner 20 may petition the Council for a hearing at which the Council will 21. consider and rule upon objections to the zone of benefit. ' 22 §13.08.020(h). 23 In this case, the City approved Petitioner's request for 24 reimbursement by Resolution 94-11 on March 8, 1994, "Sanitary Sewer 25 Reimbursement District No. 5." Rec. at 129-130. The appellants ' 26 below filed objections on May 6, 1994 (Rec. at 37), within the 60- 1 ovoxxELI. RMIS CREW COMGAN & BACHRACH IM N.W. Hoyt Street Pordand. Oregon M" Page 1- RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Telephone: 503) 2 Z 3-2944 r . r 1 day period allowed by §13.08.020(i). The Council "has the sole ' 2 discretion to decide whether or not a zone of benefit (the 3 reimbursement district) is to be established. TMC §13.08.020(e). ' 4 After hearing the challenges on June 7, 1994, the Council voted to 5 deny the request for a reimbursement district. Rec. at 14. That 6 is the decision Petitioner has appealed. ' 7 2. Relief Sought. 8 Petitioner fails to request any relief, and the appeal 9 should be dismissed on that basis alone. Simmons v. Marion county, 10 22 Or LUBA 759, 764 (1992). r 11 B. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. ' 12 This Board does not have jurisdiction to review the 13 decision made by the Tigard City Council. It is not a land use ' 14 decision under either the statutory or "significant impact" test. 15 The reimbursement district provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code r 16 provide only a method to determine who will pay for improvements 17 constructed pursuant to separate land use approvals. Petitioner 18 has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that this Board has ' 19 jurisdiction. 20 Because the decision in question is not a land use 21 decision, Petitioner's first, second and fifth assignments of error. 22 must fail. The remaining arguments (the third and fourth 23 assignments of error) are equal protection and takings claims under ' 24 the state and federal constitutions. There is no evidence in the 25 record to support an equal protection claim where the clear r 26 requirement is that Petitioner must establish intentional or 1 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ' N.W. HoyL Stmt Portland, Oregon 4TL09 Telephone: 2224402 Page 2 - RESPONDENT' S BRIEF FAX: (503)243 ' 1 purposeful discrimination with no rational basis. 2 Finally, as to Petitioner's "taking" arguments,.there is 3 no property interest at stake here no exaction, no easement, no ' 4 dedication, no property interest of any kind. Petitioner completely 5 misses the mark with this eleven pages of argument. The only 6 interest at stake in this case is who will pay for sewer lines ' 7 constructed by Petitioner as part of a separate subdivision 8 approval. ' 9 C. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS. 10 Respondent accepts only the first page of Petitioner's 11 summary (PR at 3) as to the basic facts, except that the hearing on I 12 the reimbursement district was held on June 7, 1994. Rec. at 5. 13 Respondent agrees that the quoted section of TMC §13.08.020(e) is 14 a part of the pertinent authority. Respondent disagrees with the 15 remainder of Petitioner's summary, and would substitute the r 16 following. 17 TMC Chapter 13.08 is part of Title 13, relating to 18 financing mechanisms. Petitioner's subdivision approval was a ' 19 limited land use decision approved under Title 18, which embodies 20 the City's zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Title 18 is 21 designed to "set forth standards and procedures governing the 22 development and use of land and to implement the Comprehensive 23 Plan." TMC §18.02.010. Chapter 13.08, by contrast, does not ' 24 include any development standards and does not implement the 25 Comprehensive Plan. (Please see discussion under Section III, ' 26 Jurisdiction, below.) ' CiDONNEIL RAMIS CREW C01WGAN b BACHRACH 17V N.W. Hoyt Stmt ' Portland, OM= 9W Telephone: (SOLI) 222 4402 Page 3 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX (503) 243.2944 ' 1 In both approving and then repealing Resolution 94-11 2 (denying the reimbursement district), the City Council exercised the 3 discretion authorized by TMC 513.08.020(e). The code clearly grants ' 4 the Council authority to decide "whether or not" a requested 5 reimbursement district will be established. TMC §13.08.020(e). 6 Contrary to Petitioner's claim (PR at 4), there are provisions for ' 7 a "repeal" in Chapter 13.08. Notice of an adopted resolution is 8 sent to the affected property owners. §13.08.020(g). If there are 9 objections, §13.08.020(5) (h) requires the Council to hold a hearing 10 "at which Council will consider and rule upon any objections." In 11 this case the Council ruled on the objections, and decided not to ' 12 establish the requested reimbursement district. P e t i t i o n e r' s 13 history of other reimbursement districts approved by the Council is ' 14 irrelevant, as are Petitioner's claims that the Council members were 15 applying other standards "not found within the governing code." PR ' 16 at 6. The Council as a whole has the discretion to decide the fate 17 of a proposed reimbursement district under the authority granted by 18 §13.08.020(e). ' 19 III. JURISDICTION 20 Respondent does not agree with Petitioner's claim that the ' 21 Board has jurisdiction under ORS 197.825(1), and requests that the ' 22 Board dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Respondent's Motion to 23 Dismiss, for the following reasons. ' 24 A. THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION. 25 Under ORS 197.015(10)(a)(A), a land use decision is: ' 26 "a final decision or determination made-by a local government or special district that concerns the O'DONNELL RAMIE CREW C ORMGAN & HACHRA M IM N.W. Hays Saco ' Portland Oregon 9M Telephone. (503) 2224402 Page 4 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FAX- (503) 2412964 ' 1 adoption, amendment or application of: (i) the goals; (ii) a comprehensive plan provision; (iii) a 2 land use regulation; or (iv) a new land use regulation " 3 ' ORS 197.825 limits this Board's jurisdiction "to review [of] any 4 land use decision or limited land use decision Petitioner 5 ' must therefore show that the City's action in this matter 6 constituted a land use decision or limited land use decision in ' 7 order to establish this Board's jurisdiction. 8 ' Petitioner cites several of the City's Comprehensive Plan 9 policies, but nowhere argues how the decision falls within the above 10 ' definition. This Board should refuse to consider Petitioner's 11 arguments, since jurisdiction is the threshold question and ' 12 Petitioner has failed to adequately establish any legal theory 13 supporting the Board's jurisdiction. Deschutes Development v. 14 Deschutes County, 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 (1982). 15 ' In order to qualify for LUBA jurisdiction, the decision 16 in question must involve application of a comprehensive plan 17 provision or of a land use regulation. It is not obvious at all how 18 ' Petitioner believes this decision meets either of these tests. 19 Respondent therefore submits the following analysis. The "land use 20 regulation" definition will be discussed extensively below. First, 21, there is a need to dispose of any argument that this decision ' 22 involves application of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 23 ' It is important to note at the outset that the decision 24 in question was an individual application for reimbursement of sewer 25 construction costs made under a city code provision authorizing 26 same. This decision is thus two decisions removed from the o'noxl i i aAMis ceEw GOMCiMN & MCHRACH 1717 A.W. Hoyt Street ' Portland Omgm 97209 T Page 5 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Pnx 243-ZW 1 1 Comprehensive Plan itself; the decision implementing a plan policy, 2 if any, was made when TMC Chapter 13.08 was adopted. Subsequent 3 reimbursement decisions under that ordinance cannot individually be ' 4 bootstrapped into decisions which apply the Plan itself. 5 As this Board noted in Portland Oil Service Co. v. City ' 6 of Beaverton, 16 Or LUBA 255 (1987), in order to constitute ' 7 "application" of a comprehensive plan provision, . . it is not 8 sufficient that a decision may touch on some aspects of the ' 9 Comprehensive Plan, rather the Comprehensive Plan must contain 10 provisions intended as standards or criteria for making the appealed it decision." 16 Or LUBA at 260, citing Billington v. Polk County, 299 ' 12 Or 471, 703 P2d 232 (1985). 13 Here, the Petitioner points to no standards or criteria 14 in the Plan which are intended to apply to financing decisions under 15 TMC Chapter 13.08. Rather, as discussed extensively below, 16 decisions on reimbursement districts are completely independent of ' 17 the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does provide one policy calling 18 for the adoption of TMC Chapter 13.08; once that step was ' 19 accomplished, there is no basis for independent review of each 20 reimbursement district for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 21 The only other argument that can be inferred from ' 22 Petitioner's brief is that the ordinance at issue, TMC Chapter 23 13.08, is a land use regulation inasmuch as it is "any local ' 24 government zoning ordinance, land division ordinance adopted under 25 ORS 92.044 or ORS 92.046, or similar general ordinance establishing 26 standards for implementing a comprehensive plan." ORS 197.015(11). O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & HACHRACH ' IM7 N.W. Hoyt Saxt PonwA Oregm 97209 FAX: (503) 2432944 T Page 6 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF A~ 1 1 B. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT A ZONING ORDINANCE. 2 TMC Chapter 13.08 is appended to Petitioner's brief in 3 its entirety. It is readily apparent from a review of this code ' 4 provision that is not a zoning ordinance. No local interpretation 5 on this point is required. Towry v. City of Lincoln City, 26 Or 6 LUBA 554 (1994). 7 C. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT A LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE ADOPTED UNDER ORS 92.044 OR ORS 92.046. 8 Similarly, it is equally apparent that TMC Chapter 13.08 9 is not a land division ordinance. The only possible avenue of 10 ' argument to achieve LUBA jurisdiction is thus the third prong of 11 the ORS 197.015(11) definitional test. ' 12 D. TMC CHAPTER 13.08 IS NOT SIMILAR TO A ZONING OR LAND 13 DIVISION ORDINANCE AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH STANDARDS THAT IMPLEMENT THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 14 There are two distinct steps involved in applying the 15 ' definition in ORS 197.015(11) in this case. First, Petitioner must 16 show that Chapter 13.08 is a general ordinance similar to a zoning ' 17 or land division ordinance. Second, he must show that Chapter 13.08 18 establishes standards for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. ' 19 Petitioner fails to do either. 20 1. Chapter 13.08 is not similar to Tigard's Zoning or 21 Subdivision Ordinances. ' 22 In Tigard, both the zoning code and the subdivision code 23 are included in Title 18, Zoning, of the Tigard Municipal Code. ' 24 The ordinances codified in Title 18 are known as the Community 25 Development Code ("TCDC"). §18.01.010. The TCDC "is designed to 26 set forth the standards and procedures governing the development and C✓DONNELI. YAWS CREW CORMAN & HACHYACH 17D N.W. Hoyt Sweet ' Portland, Onegm 9rW Tdep6o= (503) Zn4402 Page 7 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX- (503) 243-2944 t 1 use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard Comprehensive 2 Plan." TCDC §18.02.010. There is no question that Title 18 is a 3 "land use regulation" under the statute. 4 Chapter 13.08 is included in Title 13, "Local 5 Improvements" of the Tigard Municipal Code. Title 13 authorizes 6 and regulates the financing of public facility improvements. The ' 7 Comprehensive Plan is not mentioned either in the chapter itself or 8 elsewhere in Title 13. The ordinance which adopted Chapter 13.08 ' 9 did not cite the Plan as its authority. (Appendix 1.)1 Chapter 10 13.08 is thus dissimilar from the regulations contained in the ' 11 Tigard Community Development Code which was adopted to implement 12 the Comprehensive Plan. (Appendix 2.)1 Its objectives are ' 13 dissimilar and it is substantially different in nature from the 14 TCDC. 15 2. Chapter 13.08 does not establish standards for ' implementing the Comprehensive Plan. 16 The standards implementing the Comprehensive Plan are laid ' 17 out in Title 18, as described above. Indeed, the definitions of 18 Chapter 13.08 apply only to "street improvement," "water 19 improvement," and "sewer improvement" which "conform[ing] with the 20 ' standards in the community development code." TCDC §13.08.010(4)- 21 (6). The standards for these improvements are set by the TCDC. As ' 22 noted above, the standards in Title 18 do help implement the 23 ' 24 1 The Board can take official notice of the ordinances in 25 ' question as lawfully adopted ordinances of the City of Tigard. 26 Jackson v. City of Tillamook, 27 Or LUBA 704, 705 (1994), citing Sunburst II Homeowners v. City of West Linn, 18 Or LUBA 695, aff'd, 101 Or App 458, rev. den., 310 Or 243 (1990). oMoxxEU. anhiis cam CORMC rr & BACHBACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Sma Pord&D , 0MV0 9M T Page 8 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FAX (503)2 r ' I Comprehensive Plan. By its own language, there are no standards in 2 Chapter 13.08, and Petitioner's apparent claim fails to establish 3 how the code provision in question meets this requirement. ' 4 3. Chapter 13.08 does not implement the plan policies cited in Petitioner's Brief. 5 Even if the Board accepts Petitioner's unstated assumption 6 that Chapter 13.08 is a "similar general ordinance that establishes standards," Petitioner's overall argument attempting to establish 1 7 8 LUBA jurisdiction fails because Chapter 13.08 does not implement the 9 Comprehensive Plan policies cited by Petitioner. 10 ' a. The following policies and strategies do not apply 11 to this case because by their terms they were part of the 12 13 subdivision approval process under Title 18, not part of the appealed decision under Chapter 13.08: Economic Goal, Implementation 14 Strategy 13; Public Facilities and Services Policies 7.1.2 and 15 7.4.4, and Policy 7.4.4 Implementing Strategy 8. PR at 7-9, n.2. 16 By their terms, they require construction of sewer facilities under ' 17 18 the subdivision process in Title 18. As Petitioner acknowledges, the purpose of District No. 5 was "reimbursement" for costs ' 19 associated with the installation of a sewer line that is now serving 20 ' Petitioner's subdivision and "up to seven adjoining lots." The 21 sewer line was required "as part of Petitioner's Pacific Ridge r 22 subdivision," and was already built when the City voted to repeal 23 District No. 5. PR at 2. Thus the requested reimbursement district ' 24 was a purely financial mechanism to defray some of Petitioner's 25 ' construction costs, after the fact of construction. The cited plan 26 policies and strategies were applied to the subdivision approval ' ODONNELL RAMIS CREW' CORRIGAN & RACHRACH 17D N.W. Hoyt Stmt ' poc kC4 omen 97!09 Tdephona (503) 7124402 Page 9 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FAX (503) 243-2944 r 1 that required the sewer service. That approval was a limited land 2 use decision; indeed, it was the only land use decision associated 3 with Petitioner's subdivision. Re c. at 56. ' 4 b. Chapter 13.08 does not implement the remaining 5 comprehensive plan provisions cited by Petitioner. ' 6 (1) Petitioner cites Economic Goal, Implementation 7 Strategy 21, which states the City "should not preclude any 8 financing mechanism for the implementation of its development 9 objectives." This strategy does not apply for three reasons. 10 First, "should" is not mandatory language, and does not require ' 11 implementation. Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Seaside, 12 23 Or LUBA 100, 110-11 (1992). 13 Second, the cited development objectives are not designed 14 to support residential development. In general, the city's economic 15 policies support the state's Goal 9, which is to "diversify and 16 improve the economy of the state." The policies more specifically ' 17 support commercial and industrial growth, as contrasted with the 18 residential development undertaken by Petitioner in this case. The ' 19 only Comprehensive Plan economic policy related directly to 20 financing is Policy 5.6, which states: ' 21 "The City shall consider private financing by private developers in coordination with available bonding ' 22 methods to provide public facilities to commercial and industrial land designated in the Comprehensive 23 Plan map." (Emphasis added.) 24 The majority of the property within the proposed 25 reimbursement district, west of 74th Avenue, is zoned for ' 26 residential use. Three lots east of 74th Avenue are zoned ' CeDONN t T BAMIS CREW CORRO" & sACEM&M 1717 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland. Oregon 97209 Telephone: (503) 1724402 Page 10 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503) 293.2944 1 1 1 Professional /Administrative Office Commercial (C-P). Rec. at 31 and ' 2 33. However, the sewer line was constructed to serve Petitioner's 3 residential subdivision. The potential commercial use of the line ' 4 is speculative at this point and not substantiated in the record 5 herein. Rec. at 31 and 142. Furthermore, the challenged denial has 6 the effect of decreasing the cost of commercial development on those ' 7 lots, because as a result of the denial, there will not be a sewer 8 connection charge for reimbursement. Rec. at 30. For these ' 9 reasons, Chapter 13.08 as it applies here is not related to the 10 city's economic development objectives, and does not implement 11 Strategy 21. ' 12 Finally, the City has not precluded a financing mechanism 13 here; in fact, it adopted TMC Chapter 13.08 as a financing 1.4 mechanism. Individual decisions under that scheme do riot preclude 15 the mechanism for implementing the City's development objectives. 16 (2) Petitioner cites Public Facilities and Services 17 Policy, Implementation Strategy 3, which requires the developer to 18 extend sewer services to a site that lacks sewers; i.e., the sewer ' 19 is required for approval of the development in the fist place. This 20 strategy is implemented through the Land Division Ordinance in Title 21 18 and was complied with in this case through the subdivision ' 22 approval process. Rec. at 56. The strategy also requires the City 23 to adopt an ordinance "providing' for partial cost as intervening 24 parcels are developed by the intervening land owners." The 25 implementation of this plan policy was completed when the City ' 26 adopted TMC Chapter 13.08 allowing applications for reimbursement t ODONNM.L RAMIS CREW copmGAN & BACHR&CH 1127 KW. Hoyt Screa ' POMW 4 Oiepa 9W Tefepbme: (503) 1124402 Page 11 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX. (503) 243-2944 ' 1 districts. An independent action required of the government is not 2 an approval standard for individual developments such as this one, ' 3 and subsequent financing schemes applied for under the resulting 4 ordinance do not "implement" the Comprehensive Plan. The strategy 5 does not require that partial cost reductions be granted, it merely ' 6 requires that an ordinance providing for partial cost be adopted. ' 7 The ordinance provides an option of granting partial cost relief, 8 but sets out no standards and leaves the decision wholly within the ' 9 discretion of the Council. The individual decisions under the 10 reimbursement district code sections are thus not linked to the ' 11 Comprehensive Plan as an implementing strategy. To decide otherwise ' 12 would elevate consideration of each request for shared financing to 13 a status not contemplated by the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. 14 The definition in 197.015(11) does not include city 15 ordinances that are only indirectly related to land use. In a ' 16 similar case involving a policy for naming city streets, the Board 17 held that a city resolution was not a land use regulation because ' 18 the resolution "makes no reference to the acknowledged plan or land ' 19 use regulations. The simple fact that street names have some 20 relation to the transportation system is an insufficient basis upon ' 21 which to conclude the city's street renaming procedure is a land ' 22 use regulation." Anderson Brothers v. City of Portland, 18 Or LUBA 23 462, 468 (1989) (emphasis in original). The same is true in this 24 case. Chapter 13.08 is not a land use regulation and the challenged 25 decision is not a land use or limited land use decision. ' 26 For these reasons, the appealed decision is not a land OMONNEIL RAMIE CREW CORRIOAN & BACEOUCH 1717 N.W. Hoyt Suva ' PortW 4 Oregon 7W Tel%*ooc (500) =124402 Page 12 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FAX: (503) 2412944 ' 1 use decision subject to the Board's jurisdiction under ORS 197.015 ' 2 and ORS 197.825(1). 3 E. THE APPEALED DECISION WAS WITHIN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR ' 4 APPROVAL STANDARDS. 5 The subject of this appeal proceeding is the City's Notice ' 6 of Repeal of the Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5. PR ' 7 at 2. The action taken by the Council was a motion denying the 8 reimbursement. Rec. at 14. Petitioner does not point to any code ' 9 section that the City applied in repealing the district. Respondent 10 submits that there were no standards applied because TMC Chapter 11 13.08 does not contain any approval standards; nor are any such 12 standards required where the decision in question is not a land use 13 decision as demonstrated extensively herein. ORS 227.173(1). (See ' 14 additional argument on this point in Section IV.A, infra.) 15 F. THE APPEALED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION UNDER ' THE "SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TEST." 16 Although Petitioner has not made a claim on this basis, ' 17 Respondent asserts that the appealed decision fails this test 18 because there can be little or no land use impact from the decision. 19 The sewer line is already installed. The decision involved denial 20 ' of an after-construction financing mechanism. 21 The basic significant impact test is set forth in City of r 22 Pendleton v. Kerns, 294 Or 126, 653 P2d 992 (1982), in a case 23 24 dealing with a city ordinance concerning street improvement work. ' The test is that the decision is "subject to LUBA review if, but 25 only if, it can be said that the street improvement work will have 26 a 'significant impact on present or future land uses' in the area." OMONNELL RAMIS CREW COR C" & BACBRAM 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon TW T(503) 2224402 Page 13 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FAX- (503) ' I Pendleton, 294 Or at 134 (quoting from Petersen v. Klamath Falls, 2 279 Or 249, 566 P2d 1193 (1977)). 3 Petitioner has made no showing of any impact on present 4 or future land uses. The sewer is in, and the only impact of the 5 appealed decision is that Petitioner's subdivision has to pay all ' 6 of the sewer costs. The decision involved a proposed financial ' 7 mechanism which would have no land use impact whether or not it was 8 approved. ' 9 For these reasons, the appealed decision is not a land use 10 decision under the significant impact test. 1 11 G. THE.CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT REVIEWABLE BECAUSE IT IS A PURELY FINANCIAL MECHANISM. 12 The Oregon Court of Appeals disposed of a claim much like 13 Petitioner's claim more than ten years ago. The case was State ' 14 _Housing Council v. City of Lake Oswego, 48 Or App 525, 617 P2d 655 15 (1980), rev. dismissed 291 Or 878, 635 P2d 647 (1981). In State 16 Housing council, the court listed several local government decisions ' 17 concerning such fiscal items as sewer and water rates, and paving 18 roads, and then pointed out that 11[a]11 of these decisions could 19 result in higher or lower fees and taxes, thereby increasing or 20 ' decreasing the cost of housing." As described in a later Court of 21 Appeals opinion: 1 22 "We held there that, notwithstanding the clear 23 potential effects of tax and fiscal measures on land use, local tax and fiscal legislation is not subject 24 to review for compliance with the land use planning goals." Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 267, 826 25 P2d 54 (1992) ' 26 By analogy, such decisions should not be considered land use ODONNEU RAMIS CREW CORRIC+AN E BACHRACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Suva ' PotttanQ Om3m 97109 Telepbone: (303) 7124402 Page 14 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX (503) 243.2944 ' I decisions under the current statutes in Chapter 197 that implement ' 2 the statewide planning goals. The challenged decision in this case 3 is the denial of the reimbursement for future sewer connection 4 charge to the affected properties. Rec. at 28. The only effect of 5 the denial is to increase the cost of Petitioner's subdivision; the 6 sewer was already installed at the time of the decision. 7 Chapter 13.08 is strictly a financing mechanism. In this 8 case, the Petitioner sought reimbursement for already-constructed 9 improvements which had been separately approved through a land use 10 process. Rec. at 56. Even in cases holding that decisions with ' 11 combined land use and financing aspects were subject to LUBA ' 12 jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that purely 13 financial decisions are not necessarily land use decisions. See ' 14 City of Pendleton v. Kerns, 294 Or 126, 131, 653 P2d 992 (1982). 15 H. PETITIONER HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION. 16 Petitioner does not develop his argument on the Board's 17 ' jurisdiction. However, beyond listing the statutory definitions 18 that control the Board's jurisdiction, Petitioner offers only a 19 footnote on this pivotal question. In the footnote, Petitioner 20 ' claims only that certain Comprehensive Plan policies "are 21 implemented by the subject Reimbursement District ordinance." PR 22 at 7, n.2. He makes no effort to explain, and the Board is left to 23 its own considerable devices. 1 24 The Board has held previously that the party seeking 25 ' review has the burden to establish that the appealed decision is a 26 land use decision. Price v. Clatsop County, 25 Or LUBA 341, 347 OMONNEU. RAMIS CUM CORMGAN & HACHBAM ' 17V N.W. Hoyt Stan Portbr4 Oregon VW T Page 15 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AX- (503) 243-2~944~ ' 1 (1993) (citing inter alia, Billington v. Polk County, 299 Or 471, 2 475, 703 P2d 232 (1985) ; City of Pendleton, supra, 294 Or at 134 3 n.7) Petitioner has failed to do so, while Respondent has shown ' 4 that the Board does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal 5 should be dismissed. r 6 IV. RESPONSE TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ' 7 A. RESPONSE TO FIRST, SECOND AND FIFTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. 8 PETITIONER'S ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS NOT A LAND USE 9 DECISION AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY LAND USE PROCEDURES CITED IN THESE ASSIGNMENTS. 10 ' ORS 197.763 and ORS 197.835 do not apply in this case 11 because the challenged decision is not a land use decision under ORS ' 12 197.015(10). (See argument above under Jurisdiction.) ORS 197.763 13 applies to hearings regarding "an application for a land use 14 decision." The Board's review under ORS 197.835 is limited to "land 15 use decision or limited land use decision." As discussed above, 16 Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that ' 17 the decision is a statutory or significant impact land use decision. 18 Petitioner's final assignment of error introduces ORS ' 19 227.173, but makes little argument to explain why the statute 20 ' applies. The challenged decision is neither an application for a 21 permit nor a limited land use decision, as required for this statute 22 to apply. The decision was not made pursuant to standards and 23 24 criteria "set forth in the development ordinance," as required by ' subsection (1). As noted earlier, TMC Title 18 includes the 25 ' development code and implements the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 26 13.08, under which the challenged decision was made, is not part of ' O'DONNEU RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 1717 N.W. Hoyt Saes ' Portland OmVn 97209 Telepbone. (503) 7224402 Page 16 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX (503) 243.2944 ' 1 the development code and does not implement the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Petitioner asks the Board to remand (Assignments One and 3 Two) and reverse (Assignment Five) the City's decision. The Board's 4 scope of review and authority to remand or reverse is set forth in 5 ORS 197.835. Because the challenged decision is not a land use 6 decision, the Board does not have the authority to remand or reverse ' 7 the decision under ORS 197.835. 8 In the alternative, if the Board does accept jurisdiction, ' 9 Petitioner has not established that any of these statutes are 10 applicable. The Board can grant relief "only if petitioners ' 11 demonstrate that an applicable legal standard is violated by the ' 12 challenged decision." Melton v. Cottage Grove, LUBA No. 94-055, 13 slip op. at 24 (September 1, 1994). These assignments must also be 14 denied because Petitioner has failed to: (1) sufficiently develop 15 his arguments to demonstrate the errors alleged (Davenport v. City t 16 of Tigard, 27 Or LUBA 243, 249 (1994); Draganowski v. Curry County, ' 17 26 Or LUBA 420, 422 (1994) ; Deschutes Development v. Deschutes 18 County, 5 Or LUBA 218, 220 (1982)), and (2) provide a basis upon 19 which the Board may grant relief (Simmons v. Marion County, 22 Or 20 LUBA 759, 764 (1992)). 21 B. RESPONSE TO THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. ' 22 THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE RECORD ON WHICH THE BOARD COULD DETERMINE THERE HAS BEEN A 23 VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL OR STATE EQUAL ' PROTECTION CLAUSES. 24 Petitioner's third assignment of error claims the City's 25 decision in this matter to be in violation of the "equal protection" 26 provision of the federal constitution, U.S. Constitution Amend. 14, ' OMONNEU. R&KM CREW CORMG" & BACHRACH 17V N.W. Hoyt Suvet ' Portland, Oregon 97209 Telepbone: (507) 7124402 Page 17 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503)743.2944 i r 1 and the parallel "equal privileges and immunities" provision of the 2 Oregon Constitution, Art. I, §18. This Board's prior discussion of 3 a similar claim puts this assignment of error in its proper context. 4 "Although the texts of the federal and state constitutional provisions differ, they do not differ 5 in scope. A single analysis will suffice. 1 6 7 [U]nequal application of the law is not by itself a constitutional violation. The complaining party 8 must establish intentional or purposeful discrimination, i.e., that he has been singled out ' 9 based on an unjustifiable standard, such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification. See 10 Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 US 483, 487-88 ' (1955). Unless such suspect classes are involved, 11 the equal protection clause is violated only if there is no rational basis to justify the selective ' 12 application of the ordinance." City of Eugene v. Crooks, 55 Or App 351, 354, 637 P2d 1350 (1981), rev. 13 den., 292 Or 722, 644 P2d 1131 (1982), Medford Assembly of God v. City of Medford, 72 Or App 333, ' 14 339, 695 P2d 1379 (1984), rev. den., 299 Or 203, 700 P2d 251 (1985). 15 t 16 "Petitioners have the burden of demonstrating the 17 unconstitutionality of the decision. They have not carried this heavy burden." Wagner v. Marion Co., 18 15 Or LUBA 260, 271-73, aff Id, 85 Or App 220, 736 P2d 230 (1987) (some citations omitted)." ' 19 Plaintiff likewise fails to carry this burden. He makes 20 no showing that denial of his request was based on any of the listed 21 factors. Instead, he quotes statements made by individual ' 22 councilors during deliberations. This Board has previously stated 23 24 that isolated statements by individual members of the decision- s making body do not prove that the body as a whole acted on that 25 r basis; such statements only provide a basis for reversal or remand 26 if they are adopted in the final written decision or findings r OMONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & SACH&AACH IM N.W. Hoyt Street ' Portland, Oregon 97M Tekpbone: (503) 2224402 Page 18 - RESPONDENT- S BRIEF PAX: (503) 7,43-2944 1 supporting that decision. Waker Associates, Inc. v. Clackamas 2 County, 21 Or LUBA 588 (1991). 3 Petitioner's argument on this. issue also seems intended 4 to claim bias in the decision-makers. This Board places on one 5 making such a challenge "the burden of showing the decision-maker 6 was biased, or pre-judged the application, and did not reach a 7 decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and 8 argument presented." Spiering v. Yamhill Co., 25 Or LUBA 695, 702 ' 9 (1993). Petitioner has not met this burden. 10 C. RESPONSE TO FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR. t 11 THE CITY'S ACTION IN REPEALING FORMATION OF THE DISTRICT DID NOT VIOLATE STATE OR FEDERAL ' 12 CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS REGARDING THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 13 In his fourth assignment of error, Petitioner claims two ' 14 bases for finding that the City's action violated state and federal 15 constitutional "takings" provisions; viz. either it took the 16 property for other than a public use or it took Petitioner's ' 17 property without just compensation. Petitioner correctly states 18 the basic requirements of the Takings Clause, that the government 19 may take private property only for a public use and only with just 20 ' compensation. However, the balance of Petitioner's argument 21.. - proceeds from a faulty premise. ' 22 1. No Taking. 23 By their terms, the requirements of the Takings Clause ' 24 apply only when property has indeed been taken. Petitioner cites 25 ' nothing in the record which indicates he has conveyed or otherwise 26 given over any previously held property interest to the City. He ' OMONNELL RAMM CREW COROGAN & BACHRAACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Sant ' Potttand, Oregon 97209 Tekphooe: (503) 1124402 Page 19 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX (503) 243.2944 ' 1 makes no attempt to claim that the City has condemned his property 2 through formal proceedings. The only remaining basis for argument, 3 then, is inverse condemnation, but that too tails. 4 "'Inverse condemnation' is a shorthand description of the 5 manner in which a landowner recovers just compensation for taking ' 6 of his property when condemnation proceedings have not been 7 instituted." Actins v. City of Tiburon, 447 US 255, 258 n:2 (1980) 8 (citation omitted). See also Suess Builders Co. v. City of ' 9 Beaverton, 294 Or 254, 656 P2d 306, 309 n.3 (1982). It has been 10 recognized in three general instances: "permanent physical ' 11 occupation of property . . Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan ' 12 CATV, 458 US 419, 441 (1982); "regulation that deprives land of all 13 economically beneficial use . . Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal ' 14 Council, 112 SCt 2886, 2899 (1992); and the lack of the "essential 15 nexus . . . between [a development] condition and the original ' 16 purpose of the [land-use] restriction . . Nollan v. California ' 17 Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, 837 (1987). 18 2. No Unconstitutional Condition. ' 19 Petitioner's reliance on Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 SCt 20 2309 (1994), which explained the specific nature of Nollan's ' 21 "essential nexus" requirement, is misplaced. To say that Dolan has ' 22 any application to this situation is to misconstrue that case .beyond 23 any recognition. Dolan set out a threshold to application of the ' 24 "essential nexus" requirement which Petitioner entirely fails to 25 recognize. ' 26 The Dolan Court distinguished valid land use regulation ' ODONNELL RAMIS CREW CORMAN & RACHRAM 17V N.W. Hoyt Suva Portland, Oregon 97209 Tekpbone: (503) 7124402 Page 20 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX- (503)243.2944 r ' I from the situation before it, which constituted a taking, on two 2 bases. Dolan, 114 SCt at 2316. One of these distinctions was that 3 the City's action was "not simply a limitation on the use petitioner ' 4 might make of her own parcel, but a requirement that she deed 5 portions of the property to the city." Id. The Court therefore 6 categorized the case as one of "unconstitutional conditions;" that r 7 is, Dolan was required to "give up a constitutional right here 8 the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for ' 9 public use in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by 10 the government . . ..If Id., at 2317. These threshold ' it considerations to a Dolan inquiry do not exist here. Petitioner was ' 12 not required to make any property dedication; or much less to do so 13 in exchange for a government benefit. ' 14 3. No Exaction. 15 Petitioner characterizes "repeal of a right to ' 16 reimbursement,"2 PR at 20, as the exaction in this case. However, ' 17 he makes no cognizable argument that he ever had a "property" 18 interest in reimbursement, or that whatever right he had in 19 reimbursement rises to the constitutional level envisioned in Dolan. 20 "'Property interests . . . are created and their dimensions are 21 defined by existing rules and understandings that stem from an r 22 23 2 Petitioner fails even to establish any "right" to ' 24 reimbursement. The code sets out a process for formation of the district. It implies no interest in the form of contract or 25 license. The process clearly includes the right of affected property owners to receive a hearing on district formation. 26 Petitioner was aware of this process from the start. Petitioner had no inherent right to formation of the district, nor did he have a right to expect it to survive challenge. ' C)'DONNELL RAMIS CREW COMGAN & BAC83UCH 1717 N.W. Hoyt Sheet Portland Oregon 47109 Telephone: (503) 7124402 Page 21 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Pax: (503) 243.2944 r ' 1 independent source such as state law."' Webb Is Fabulous Pharmacies r 2 v. Beckwith, 449 US 155, 161 (1980), auotinq Board of Regents v. 3 Roth, 408 US 564, 577 (1972). Petitioner here cites to no such rule ' 4 from any source. Both the Nollan and Dolan cases involved commonly 5 recognized interests in real property. Furthermore, both of the r 6 cases cited by the Dolan Court to support its unconstitutional 7 conditions holding involved core constitutional rights.3 Petitioner ' 8 can claim no such stake in the City's action. ' 9 Even if Petitioner could claim a property right in 10 reimbursement, he fails to show how he was required to give up that ' it right in exchange for a discretionary government benefit. ' 12 Petitioner merely had his attempt to receive a discretionary benefit 13 turned down.4 r 14 4. The Public Use Requirement is Shrinking. 15 Given that he suffered no taking, Petitioner's voluminous ' 16 argument on the "public use" requirement is irrelevant. However, 17 even if applicable, that argument is faulty. He relies extensively 18 on Smith v. Cameron, 106 Or 1 (1922), to contend that the City's 19 action effects a transfer of property interests from one private 20 party to another. However, his analysis belies critical ' 21 distinctions. First, Smith was a condemnation proceeding; the ' 22 23 3 The Court cited Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 (1972), and Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 US 563 (1968), both of ' 24 which involved the Free Speech Clause. Dolan, 114 SCt at 2317. 25 4 Petitioner presents overlapping arguments as to the Fifth r Amendment and Art. I, §18 taking clauses. Considering the court's 26 analysis of Art. I, §18 in Dodd v. Hood River Co., 317 Or 172, 855 P2d 608 (1993), any distinction between those provisions is not dispositive here. r ovoxNEU. RAM1s CREW CORMGAN & BACHRACH 17V N.W. Hoyt Sties ' Pwftnd, Oregon 97209 Tdepb- (503) 2714402 Page 22 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503) 243-2%4 r ' 1 taking was clear. Nowhere does Petitioner argue that this case is ' 2 a formal condemnation matter. Second, Smith's holding that "public 3 use" constitutes a more rigorous requirement than "public benefit," ' 4 discussed in Petitioner's Brief at p.17, was explicitly 5 distinguished in Port of Umatilla v. Richmond, 212 Or 596, 610-11 ' 6 (1958): "[W]here the more strict language has been employed, 1 7 8 the case has been one in which a private person or corporation, or at most, a public utility ' 9 corporation, engaged in business for profit has been the would-be condemnor. Smith v. Cameron; Anderson 10 v. Smith-Powers Logging Co., [71 Or 276 (1914)]. It ' may well be that public benefit accruing directly to 11 a governmental agency of the state should be given greater weight on the issue of public use than would ' 12 be true in the case of public benefit indirectly accruing to the public because of increased 13 prosperity incidental to private profit or expanding private business. The use by this court of the word 14 "benefit" at least indicates that though the ultimate test is public use, we are authorized to consider 15 public benefit as relevant to the issue when the ' taking is by an agency of the state having no private 16 interest whatever." Id., 212 Or at 610-11. 17 The Port of Umatilla opinion went on at length to cite 18 with approval cases holding that the public use requirement did not 19 mean that condemned property could not in the future be turned over 20 to another private party. See, e.g., Port of Umatilla, 212 Or at ' 21. 616,.quoting Foeller v. Housing Authority of Portland, 198 Or 205, ' 22 240 (1953) ("The fact that the [condemnation] plan . . . will 23 possibly provide that the property should be sold to private persons ' 24 does not in itself demand holding that the power of eminent domain 25 may not be employed for the acquisition of the property . . ' 26 Furthermore, the most recent cases support a continued ' O'DONNEU RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN N BACHRACH IM N.W. Hays Shea Portland, Oregon 97209 Telephone: (500) 222A402 Page 23 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAY (503) 2432944 r I loosening of the public use requirement. Under the federal 2 constitution, "[T]he 'public use' requirement is . . . coterminous 3 with the scope of the sovereign's police powers." Hawaii Housing ' 4 Authority v. Midkiff, 467 US 229,, 240 (1984) (unanimous decision). 5 The Court went on to term the role of courts in reviewing a 6 legislative body's judgment of what constitutes a public use as "an 7 extremely narrow one." Id. Midkiff was the first Supreme Court 8 case to explicat61 propound a doctrine under the name "Public Use / 9 Clause." J. Humbach, Constitutional Limits on the Power to Take 10 Private Property: Public Purpose and Public Use, 66 Or Law Rev. ' 11 5471, 555 n.41 (1988). While it is not yet known whether Oregon 12 courts will follow this lead, it has been noted that "the basic 13 thrust of the Fifth Amendment and Art. I, §18, is generally the same ' 14 . . Suess Builders Co. v. City of Beaverton, 294 Or 254, 656 15 P2d 306, 309 n.5 (1982). 16 In summary, Petitioner suffered no taking under the state ' 17 and federal constitutions because the City's actions did not condemn 18 his property in eminent domain, nor did it require dedication as a 19 condition of approval of a discretionary benefit. 20 V. CONCLUSION ' 21 Petitioner's case fails from the outset because the 22 decision in question is not reviewable by this.Board. Even should ' 23 the Board find a way to accept jurisdiction, Petitioner has failed 24 25 r 26 r O'DONNEU. RAMIS CREW CORRIC3AN & BACH.BAAM IM N.W. Hoyt Suva Pordand Oregon 97M Tekphone: (303) 2124402 Page 24 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAX: (503) 243.2944 ' I to demonstrate entitlement to any remedy. This case should be 2 dismissed. 3 DATED: December 12, 1994 ' 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 ' 6 Pamela J. eery, SB #80161 ' 7 Ty K. Wyman, OSB #92508 Of Attorneys for Respondent 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 26 ODON'NO-L RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN E EACHRACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Saxes ' Portland, Oregon 97209 T Page 25 - RESPONDENT'S BRIEF PAAXn(5m) 243-22W Appendix 1 App.1 CITY OF IGARD{ ORDINANCE NO. 3 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ADVANCE FINANCING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS, WATER LINE EXTENSIONS AND SEWER LINE EXTENSIONS ' WHEREAS, the City may require or agree that a property developer shall construct street, water and sewer improvements which benefit adjacent property owners and relieve those adjacent property owners of installing such improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it equitable to impose a connection charge on adjacent property owners who are benefited by such street, water and sewer improvements; and ' WHEREAS, the City Council finds that using such connection charges to provide reimbursement to the developer who installed street., water and sewer improvements encourages such improvements to be ' made in a uniform and planned manner; now, therefore: THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ' Section 1. The Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended by adding Chapter 13.08 to read as follows: ' 13.08.010 Definitions. (1) City Engineer or Engineer. The person holding the position of City Engineer or any officer or employee designated by that person to perform duties stated within this ordinance. ' (2) City. The City of Tigard. (3) Person. A natural person, the person's heirs, ' executors, administrators, or assigns; a firm, partnership, corporation, association or legal entity, its or their successors or assigns; and any agent ' employee or any representative thereof. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, person shall not mean the City of Tigard. (4) Street or Street Improvements. Conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development Code and including but not limited to streets, storm drains, ' curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike paths, traffic control devices, street trees, lights and signs and public right- of-way. Ordinance No. Page 1 ' App.2 ' (5) Water or Water Line Improvements. Conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development Code and including but not limited to extending a water line adjacent to property, other than property owned by the person, so that water service can be provided for such other property without further extension of the line. ' (6) Sewer or Sewer Line Improvements. Conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development Code and including but not limited to extending a sewer line adjacent to property, other than property owned by the person, so that sewer service can be provided for such other property without further extension of the line. ' (7) Zone of Benefit. The area which is determined by the City Council to derive a benefit from the construction of street, water or sewer improvements, ' which is financed in whole or in part by a person or the City and includes property, which abuts the street, water or sewer improvement, utilizes the street, water or sewer improvement or has the opportunity to utilize such an improvement. Street, water and sewer improvements must be greater than those which would otherwise ordinarily be required in connection with an application for permit ' approval in that they relieve adjacent property owners of installing such improvements. Examples include but shall not be limited to full street improvements instead ' of half street improvements, off site sidewalks, connection of street sections for continuity, extension of water lines and extension of sewer lines. It is anticipated that the zone of benefit for purpose of this ordinance will be different from the area of benefit as described under the City's local improvement assessment procedure. (8) Recovery Agreement Connection Charge or Connection Charge. The fee required to be paid by Council resolution and the recovery agreement. The Council resolution and recovery agreement shall determine the boundaries of the zone of benefit and shall determine the methodology for imposing a fee which considers the ' cost of reimbursing another person for financing the construction of a street, water line or sewer line within the zone of benefit. 13.08.020 Formation of the Zone of Benefit. (1) Any person who is required or chooses to finance some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement adjacent to property, other than property owned by the person, so that the owner of ' Ordinance No. C(L-a 3 Page 2 App:3 adjacent property is thereby relieved of such ' requirement, may, by written request filed with the City Engineer, request that the City establish a zone of benefit. The City may also initiate formation of a zone ' of benefit. (2) The City Engineer shall review a request for ' the establishment of a zone of benefit and evaluate whether a zone should be established. The Engineer may request the submittal of relevant information from the person making the request in order to assist in the ' evaluation. The Engineer shall prepare a written report, for the City Council considering and making recommendations concerning the following factors: ' (a) whether the person making the request has financed, or has been required to finance some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement and thereby provided an adjacent property with improvements which would otherwise be required of the adjacent property; (b) the area of the zone of benefit, the zone formation date, and the date when the right of reimbursement ends. The date when the right of reimbursement ends shall not extend beyond ten years from the zone ' formation date, except that the City Council may, by resolution, authorize up to two five-year extensions of said ' deadline, at the Council's option; (c) the actual cost of the street, water or sewer improvements within the area of the ' proposed zone of benefit and the portion of the cost for which the person making the request should be reimbursed; (d) a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit and ' where appropriate defining a "unit" for applying the connection charge to property which may with approval be partitioned, altered, modified, or subdivided at some ' future date. The methodology shall consider the cost of the improvements, prior contributions by adjacent property owners, the value of the unused capacity, rate-making principles employed to finance public improvements, and other relevant Ordinance No. Page 3 ' App.4 factors as deemed relevant by the city Engineer; ' (e) the annual percentage rate which shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement as a return on the investment ' for the person or the City. The percentage rate shall be fixed and determined by the Council and computed ' against the costs as spread among the parcels within the zone of benefit. Factors that the Council may consider in ' determining the percentage rate include, but are not limited to, the cost of any financing (including prepayment points, prepayment penalties and loan fees and the actual percentage of interest paid by the person who is carrying the cost of the improvement, and opportunity costs lost). ' (3) The cost to be reimbursed to the person making the request shall be limited to the cost of construction, including the acquisition and condemnation costs of ' acquiring additional right-of-way, the cost of permits, engineering and legal expenses, interest charges, administrative expenses and the annual percentage ' increase fixed and determined by the Council. (4) The portion of the cost to be refunded shall ' be computed by the City on all properties which abut or are adjacent to the improvements, including the property of the applicant for formation of a zone of benefit. The applicant for formation of the zone of benefit shall not ' be reimbursed for the amount of the improvement costs computed on the property developed by the applicant. (5) The Council shall approve, reject or modify the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report. The Council has the sole discretion to decide whether or ' not a zone of benefit is to be established. The Council's decision shall be embodied in a resolution. If a zone of benefit is established the resolution shall include the City Engineer's report as approved or modified, and specify that payment of the recovery agreement connection charge, as designated for each parcel, is a precondition of receiving City permits ' applicable to development of that parcel as provided for in Section 13.08.030. Ordinance No. 3 Page 4 ' App.5 ' (6) The City Recorder shall cause a copy of the resolution establishing a zone of benefit together with a description of all affected properties to be filed in the office of the County Recorder so as to provide notice to all affected property owners. Said recording shall not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording ' shall not affect the legality of the resolution or the obligation to pay the recovery agreement connection charge. ' (7) The City Recorder shall also notify all affected property owners by mailing to them at their last known address a copy of the resolution. (8) An affected property owner may petition the City Council for a hearing at which the Council will consider and ' rule upon any objections to the zone of benefit charge. (9) No petition or other legal action intended to contest the connection charge, including the amount of ' the charge designated for each parcel, shall be filed after 60 days following adoption of a resolution establishing a zone of benefit. ' 13.08.030 Obligation to Pay Recovery Agreement Connection Charge. (1) An owner of property within any zone of benefit shall pay to the City, in addition to any other applicable fees and charges, the recovery agreement connection charge established by the Council, together ' with the accrued interest rate, if within ten (10) years from the zone formation date or within the time specified in the resolution establishing the zone, the owner ' applies for and receives approval from the City for any of the following activities: (a) A building permit for a new building, (b) A building permit for any addition, modification, repair or alteration of a building, which exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the building within any 12-month period. The value of the building shall be the amount shown on the most current records of the County Department of Assessment and Taxation for the building's true cash value. This ' paragraph shall not apply to repairs made necessary due to damage or destruction by fire or other natural disaster, ordinance No. Page 5 App-6 (c) Any alteration, modification or change in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required under the Tigard Community Development Code in effect at the time of permit application, r (d) Connection to the water line, if the water line is subject to a recovery agreement connection charge, (e) Connection to the sewer line, if the sewer line is subject to a recovery agreement connection charge. (f) Connection to a street, if the street is ' subject to a recovery agreement connection charge. (2) The City's determination of who shall pay the ' recovery agreement connection charge is final. Neither the City nor any officer or employee of the City shall be liable for payment of any recovery agreement ' connection charge, accrued percentage rate, or portion thereof, except that the City will be responsible to pay any charge levied against property owned by the City and located within the zone of benefit. An applicant for the ' formation of a zone of benefit shall agree to defend and indemnify the City from any claims arising as a result of or related to the City's approval of the application, provided that the City has acted reasonably. (3) The right of reimbursement is assignable and transferable after written notice is delivered to the City, advising the City to whom future payments are to be made. (4) The City shall establish separate funds for each. zone of benefit. Upon receipt of a connection charge, the City shall cause a record to be made of that ' property's payment and remit the charge to the person who requested establishment of the zone of benefit or their assignee, less an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the charge for administration of the agreement by the City. The applicant may petition the City Council for a reduction in the administration fee on the basis that a five percent charge would be inequitable. ' ordinance No. Page 6 ' App.7 ( 5 ) No person shall be required to pay the recovery agreement connection charge on an application or upon property for which the connection charge has been previously paid, unless such payment was for a different type of improvement. No permit shall be issued for any of the activities listed in subsection 13.08.030(1) unless the recovery agreement connection charge, together with any accrued interest, has been paid in full. Where approval is given as specified in subsection 13.08.030(1), but no permit is requested or issued, then the requirement to pay the recovery agreement connection charge lapses if the underlying approval lapses. 13.08.040 Applicability. (1) Application for formation of a zone of benefit may be made at any time but shall be made no later than three months after completion and acceptance of the street, water or sewer improvements. ' (2) A person whose property is subject to payment of a recovery agreement connection charge receives a benefit from the construction of street improvements, ' regardless of whether access is taken or provided directly onto such street at any time. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to modify or limit the authority of the City to provide or require access management. ' (3) The recovery agreement connection charge is not intended to replace or limit, and is in addition to, any other existing fees or charges collected by the City. Ordinance No. Page 7 App-8 Section 2. Severability. The sections of this ordinance are severable. In the event any portion or provision is held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, ' the remainder of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated thereby. PASSED AND APPROVED this Q 147 ~ - da of , 1990. ' Gera It. v-dwards, Mayor ATTEST: ' Catherine Wheatley, City R order APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 1J Y rty Attorney Date mmd\tigard\reimburs.ord ' Ordinance No. Page 8 Appendix 2 App.9 Chapter 18.02 PURPOSE Sections: 18.02.010 Purpose 18.02.010 Purpose As' a means of promoting the general health, safety and welfare of the public, this title is designed to set forth the standards and procedures ' governing the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement the Tigard comprehensive plan. To these ends, it is the purpose of this title to: ' A. Ensure that the development of property within the City is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and in general, to promote and protect the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; B. Promote and diversify the economy of the City; C. Ensure the continued provision of an adequate type and supply of ' land for various uses sufficient to accommodate future growth; D. Encourage the provision of affordable housing in quantities adequate to allow all persons some reasonable choice in the selection of a place to live; E. Conserve all for-ns of energy through sound economical use of land and land uses developed on the land; F. Provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use; G. Afford an efficient and orderly development and arrangement of public services and facilities within the City; H. Provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system within the City; ' I. Protect the quality of air and water resources of the City; ' J. Protect life and property in areas subject to floods, landslides and other natural disasters and 'Hazards; ' K. Provide for the recreational needs of residents of Tigard and visitors to the City; 1 ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 2 App. 10 L. Provide the means for citizens to be involved in all aspects of the planning process; K. Conserve needed open space and protect historic, cultural, natural and scenic resources; and N. Provide for the review of those uses which may have a detrimental ' impact on the community. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) ' Revised 02/27/89 Page 3 r I CERTIFICATE OF FILING 2 I hereby certify that on December /cZ, 1994, I filed the 3 original and four certified true copies of the foregoing ' 4 RESPONDENT'S BRIEF with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State 5 Library Building, 250 Winter Street NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310, by ' 6 first class mail. 7 DATED this 4-,?~41 day of December, 1994. 1 8 ' 9 Pamela J. Bee , OSB #80161 10 Ty K. Wyman, OSB #92508 Of Attorneys for Respondent 11 ' 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 13 I hereby certify that on December /a , 1994 I served a true 14 and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S BRIEF by first class 15 mail on the following persons: 16 William C. Cox 17 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, OR 97219 18 Attorney for Petitioner ' 19 DATED this /02`h day of December, 1994 20 ' 21. Pamela J. Be y, OS #80161 ' 22 Ty K. Wyman, OSB #92508 Of Attorneys for Respondent 23 ' 24 90024/iih/PEIRM.MOT 25 r 26 r ODONNEU AAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRAM IM N.W. Hm Sued Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Td ~ ( Ompn 97209 02 FAX: (503) 2412944 OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA J. BEERY Canby, Oregon 97013 Portland, Oregon 97209 MARK L. BUSCH (503) 266-1149 DOMINIC G. COLLETTA** TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW GARY FIRESTONE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE G. FRANK HAMMOND* MALCOLM E. JOHNSON MALCOLM E. JOHNSON* First Independent Place WILLIAM A. MONAHAN 1220 Main Street, Suite 510 MARK P. O'DONNELL Vancouver, Washington 98660-2964 TIMOTHY V. RAMIS December 23, 1994 (206) 699-7287 WILLIAM J. STALNAKER FAX: (206) 696-2051 TY K. WYMAN JAMES M. COLEMAN ' ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON special cwu l ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ONLY Land Use Board of Appeals 306 State Library Building 250 Winter Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 Re: The Petrie Company v. City of Tigard, LUBA No. 94-110 Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to our discussion at oral argument on December 21, enclosed please find the following: 1. A complete copy of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Implementation Strategy 3, and related implementation strategies quoted in Mr. Cox's brief. Implementation Strategy 3 is highlighted and appears on page II-42 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Please note also Implementation Strategy 2, of which you can take official notice, which provides that the standards for public facilities will be included in the Community Development Code and the Land Division ordinance only. 2. A copy of the Final Order approving the subdivision in question in 1993. This corresponds to Record at page 56, which was the notice of this Final Order. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Pamela Jl Beer Y PJB/jh Enclosures cc: William C. Cox (w/enclosures) William A. Monahan, City of Tigard (w/enclosures) 90024/jih/PETRIELUB.LT4 ;.7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES The continued increased growth in population for the Tigard Planning area will require a corresponding expansion of public facilities and services. Policies concerning the manner in which public facilities are expanded can help direct the location and intensity of future housing, commercial and industrial development. Statewide Planning Goal #11 specifically speaks to this concern. It directs jurisdictions 'to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban development.' The findings, policies and implementation strategies of this chapter address general issues related to public facilities and services as well as issues concerning water, sewage disposal, police and fire protection, schools, health services and local government facilities to name a few. Detailed information related to public facilities and services is available in the 'Comprehensive Plan Report: Public Facilities and Services,' and a variety of facilities master plans and background reports developed by or for the City. 7.1 GENES-.I, Findincs • Community goals emphasize the desire to maintain the high quality of facilities and services within the city. • The cc-,^iunity's facilities and services are an important management tool in the conservation and development of land within the urban planning area. Plans and programs need to be developed for the expansion of urban services in a logical and orderly manner. This should include a funded and effective capital improvement program. • Phasing adequate public facilities and services to support residential development is necessary to meet community needs. • The City of Tigard and related service districts have the duty., within their means, to provide adequate services to meet the demand for all development within the planning area during the planning period. • Phasing the facilities expansion is necessary for orderly growth. • Formation of private utility districts (water, sewer) could create land management problems within the Urban Planning Area. • capital improvements nrocra_*a would facilitate the coordination and expansion for providing transportation, utilities and other public facilities. ~l II - 40 ,'POLICIES 7.1.1 THE CITY SHALL: a. PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE APPLICABLE SERVICE DISTRICTS; b. WORK WITH THE SERVICE DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE A COORDINATED SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SERVICES; C. PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE EXTENT OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES; d. USE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AS A MEANS FOR PROVIDING FOR ORDERLY GROWTH AND Tr.' EFFICIENT USE OF LAND; e. DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO THE LEVEL AND CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING SERVICES; AND f. ADOPT LOCATION.AL CRITERIA AS THE BASIS FOR MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE PROPER LOCATION FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES. 7 . 1 .2 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS = PRE-CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT: a. DEVELOPMENT COINCIDE WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE SERVICE CAPACITY INCLUDING: 1. PUBLIC WATER; 2. PUBLIC SEWER S-=7-L BE REQUIRED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY UNLESS THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IS OVER 300 FEET FROM A SEWER LINE A14D 6::.SHINGTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPAR IMIENT APPROVAL FOR A PRIVATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IS OBTAINED; AND 3. STORM DRAINAGE. b. THE FACILITIES AR E: 1. CAPABLE OF ?-.DEQU:.TELY SERVING ALL INTERVENING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSED D:'.'?LOPMENT; AND 2. DESIGNED TO CI STANDARDS. C. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. (Rev. Ord. 86-08) IMPLE2-;-ENT ATION STRATEGIES 1. As a part of the ongoing planning program, the City will prepare a capital improvements program; and a. The staging of facilities will be based on the availability of financial resources; II - 41 b. Priorities will be based on considerations of: • 1) Health and safety factors; 2) Cost-benefit factors; and 3) Social and economic needs. 2. As a part of the Community Development Code, standards will be included in: a. The Land Division Ordinance for the construction of services; and b. The Community Development Code which requires future subdivision plans in areas where allowed densities due to a lack of services are less than the plan densities. 3. Where sewer is not available'to site, the developer"shall be required to extend the services to the site at the developer's cost. The City shall adopt an ordinance providing for partial- cost as intervening parcels are developed by the intervening landowners. 4. The Tigard Community Development Code shall establish an ordinance which indicates: a. That services shall be extended from property line to property line, including services located in adjacent rights-of-way; except b. That the ordinance shall allow for the phasing of such services if a development proposal indicates such phasing. The intent of these policies is to develop a mechanism for an orderly and logical development and expansion of services to promote an efficient use of land and thus an efficient growth pattern. This mechanism will basically be concerned -with: Planning for public facilities in advance of need in a manner which will implement land use policy. This shall help direct the urban expansion and crowd:. 7 .2 STORM DRAINAGE Ati'D WASTEWATER '.-'_'-_NAGENENT Pindincs • The major drainage problem in Tigard is the storm-water runoff throughout the area. • he primary water quantity pre'ole:;i is overbank flooding that occurs when stor:l-water quantity exceeds channel capacity. • C -M -ill, Inc. developed a 'Master Drainage Plan' for the City in 1981, which incorporates existing stogy-water detention and subdivision procedures and standards with the reco„-ended changes to the existing floodplain manacement program. • There is an emphasis on the retention of a vegetation buffer along streams and drainageways to reduce runoffs and flood damage, and provide for erosion control. • Most of the following policies have been transformed into City regulations. iI - 42 6-no~LL O'DONNELL RAMIS CREN CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 1 . i 1 CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUE 93-00077"-l 2. Name of Owners: Grasco Investments and Raymond & Phyllis Ems Name of Applicant: Craig Petrie 3. Address 18262 SW Bryant Road City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97035 4. Address of Property: 13400 SW 76th Avenue, the northwest corner of SW 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive, and two lots in between. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1DC, tax lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601 5. Regpiest: The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 3.2 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 10,027 to 18,528 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. Zone: R-3.5 (Residental, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON May 26, 1993 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. May 26, 1993 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding a request by Craig Petrie for Grasco Investments ) FINAL ORDER and Raymond Ems for approval of a preliminary plat for an ) 11-lot land division in the R-3.5 zone at 13400 SW Cherry ) SUB 93-0009 Street in the City of Tigard, Oregon ) (Cherry Park) FINDINGS 1. The hearings officer hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings of the Tigard Community Development Department Staff Report dated May 3, 1993 (the "Staff Report"), including the summary, findings about the site and surroundings, applicable approval standards, NPO and agency comments, and evaluation of the request. 2. The hearings officer conducted a duly notice public hearing regarding the application on May 10, 1993. a. City Planner Ron Pomeroy summarized the Staff Report and corrected a reference to 74th Avenue in finding B.4 on page 11. b. Craig Petrie appeared on his own behalf. He accepted the Staff Report without objections or corrections and responded to public testimony. c. Six members of the public testified with questions or concerns: Anthony Maksym, Ed Gordon, Charles Lauck, Dennis Worzniak, James Walker and Harry Chick. All live adjoining or near the subject property. Several witnesses wanted information about the public sanitary sewer access. The Unified Sewerage Agency is the best source of such information. Mr. Petrie agreed to notify the witnesses who expressed interest when he has completed plans for the sewer construction. Witnesses asked questions about the proposed structure heights and locations, significant trees, road improvements, and private covenants and restrictions. Mr. Gordon urged the applicant to place the sidewalk adjoining the private street on the east side of that street and to preserve existing oak trees on the west side of that street. He submitted two photographs of the trees. Mr. Petrie observed that it may not be possible to preserve the trees given the limited area available for the street. CONCLUSION Based on the above findings, and the conclusions in section VI of the Staff Report. the applicant's request complies with the applicable standards of the City of Tigard Community Development Code and should be approved, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report. ORDER The applicant's requests, SUB 93-0009 (Cherry Park) is hereby approved, subject to the conditions in Section VI of the Staff Report. A this 11th d ay, 1 93. Larry Epst in, ICP City of Tig ea gs Officer AGENDA ITEM BEFORE THE LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Regarding an application by Craig Petrie on behalf STAFF REPORT of Grasco, Investments and Raymond Ems for Subdivision SUB 93-0009 preliminary plat approval. I. SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST CASE: Subdivision SUB 93-0009 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 3.2 acre site into 11 single-family lots ranging from 10,027 to 18,528 square feet in size. Six of these lots are proposed to be accessed by a private street. APPLICANT: Craig Petrie 18262 SW Bryant Road Lake Oswego, OR 97035 OWNERS: Grasco Investments 10300 SW Century Oak Drive Tigard, OR 97223 Raymond and Phyllis Ems 13400 SW Fir Street Tigard, OR 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density, Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre) LOCATION: 13400 SW 76th Avenue, The northwest corner of the intersection of SW 74th Avenue and SW Cherry Drive, and two additional lots in between. (WCTH 2S1 1DC, tax lots 3300, 3400, 3600 and 3601) APPLICABLE LAW: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, !8,108, 13,150, 18.160 and 18.164; and Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions. II. FINDINGS ABOUT SITE AND SURROUNDINGS A. Background Information: The existing lots were created through separate partition processes. The Rolling Hills No. 2 Subdivision, adjacent to the west and south of the site, was platted in October 1962. There have been no other Planning Division reviews for this site. The existing single family residence was built many years ago and did not require a planning review. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 1 B. Vicinity Information and Surrounding Land Uses: This 3.5 acre site is located on the west side of SW 74th Avenue and north of SW Cherry Drive. The northern portion of this site is adjacent to the intersection of SW Fir Street and SW 76th Avenue. The properties on all sides of this site are developed with single family homes. Lots to the east of this site, across SW 74th Avenue, are zoned C-P (Commercial Professional). The balance of the surrounding lots are zoned R-3.5 (Residential, 3.5 units per acre). C. Site Description: An existing single family residence is located at the northern end of the site. Access to this residence is gained from SW 76th Avenue. The site generally slopes toward the south with the majority of the slope near the SW Cherry Street right-of-way. Trees are located throughout the site and are primarily clustered in the northern and the southeast corners of the property. The majority of these trees are Cottonwood, Aspen and fruit trees. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL STANDARDS' A. Community Development Code. 1. Chapter 18.48.050 contains standards for the R-3.5 zone. A single-family detached residential unit is a permitted use in this zone and must comply with the following dimensional requirements: Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet Front setback 20 feet Garage setback 20 feet Interior sideyard setback 5 feet Corner sideyard setback 20 feet Rear setback 15 feet Maximum building height 30 feet 2. Chapter 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 110 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created lots meet or exceed this standard. 3. Chapter 18.92.020 contains standards for density. The number of dwelling units permitted is based on the net development area, excluding sensitive land areas and land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. This land area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. 4. Chapter 18.102.030 specifies vision clearance triangles adjacent to intersections in which the height of plantings, signs, etc. are limited to three feet in height to assure safe and adequate sight HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 2 distance at intersections to reduce potential hazards from vehicular turning movements. Alternatively, trees may be limbed up to eight feet in height. 5. Chapter 18.108.070 contains standards for single-family residential vehicular access. Private drives may provide access for a maximum of six residences. A common private accessway which serves between three to six residences must be a minimum of 30 feet wide with a minimum pavement width of at least 24 feet, curbs and a walkway. 6. Chapter 18.150.020(E) requires a permit for removal of trees having a trunk 6 inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground on undeveloped residential land. A permit for tree removal must comply with the following criteria as specified in Chapter 18.150.030(A): a. The trees are diseased, present a danger to property, or interfere with utility service or traffic safety; b. The trees have to be removed to construct proposed improvements or to otherwise utilize the applicant's property in a reasonable manner; C. The trees are not needed to prevent erosion, instability, or drainage problems; d. The trees are not needed to protect nearby trees as windbreaks or as a desirable balance between shade and open space; e. The aesthetic character in the area will not be visually adversely affected by the tree removal; and f. New vegetation planted by the applicant, if any, will replace the aesthetic value of trees to be cut. 7. Chapter 18.160.060(A) contains standards for the subdividing of parcels into 4 or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: a. The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations; b. The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; C. The streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern; and hrARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 3 d. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. 9. Chapter 18.164.060(A)(1)(b) states that the depth of all lots shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the average lot width. 10. Chapter 18.164 also contains standards for streets and utilities. The applicable standards are as follows: a. Section 18.164.030(A) requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. b. Section 18.164.030(E)(1)(a) requires local streets to be constructed with 34 feet of pavement within a 50 foot right-of-way. C. Section 18.164.060 prohibits lot depth from being more than 21 times the lot width, and requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on either public or private streets, other than an alley. d. Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. e. Section 18.164.090 requires sanitary sewer service. f. Section 18.164.100 requires adequate provisions for storm water runoff and dedication of easements for storm drainage facilities. B. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. 1. Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. 2. Policy 4.2.1 provides that all development within the Tigard urban planning area shall comply with applicable federal, state and regional water quality standards. 3. Policy 7.1.2 provides the City will require as a condition of development approval that public water, sewer, and storm drainage will be provided and designed to City standards and utilities placed underground. 4. Policy 7.3.1 provides the city will coordinate water services with water districts. 5. Policy 7.4.4 requires all new development to be connected to an approved sanitary sewer system. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 4 6. Policy 7.6.1 requires that the development be served by a water system having adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes and that the Fire District review all such applications. 7. Policy 8.1.1 provides the City will plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. 8. Policy 8.1.3 provides the City will require as a precondition of approval that: a. Development abut a dedicated street or have other adequate access; b. Street right-of-way shall be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; C. The developer shall commit to construction of the streets, curbs, sidewalks to City standards within the development. d. The developer shall participate in the improvement of existing streets, curbs, and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e. Street improvements shall be made and street signs or signals shall be provided when the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. IV. NPO & AGENCY COMMENTS 1. The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this application and has noted that any retaining wall over 4 feet in height, measured from the bottom of the footings to the top of the wall, requires a permit from the Building Division. No provisions have been made for storm drainage from lots 1 and 2, and possibly 4, 7 and 9. If the existing house on lot 1 is on a septic system and is to remain on such, the tank and drainfield must be within the lot perimeters. 2. Tigard-Tualatin School District 231 has reviewed this application and has noted that the proposed development is projected to generate 4 new students for Phil Lewis Elementary School, 2 new students at Fowler Middle School, and 1 new student at Tigard High School. The School District notes that the school capacity at the High School is already exceeded, although both Phil Lewis Elementary and Fowler Middle School are presently below capacity. The District notes that the core facility of the High School is insufficient to be able to consider portable additions. Additional school capacity may be provided by other options under consideration by the School District, including: grade level reconfiguration, rescheduled school year, boundary adjustments, double shifting, busing to under-utilized facilities, future bond measures leading to construction of new facilities and other school housing options. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 5 3. Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) fS has reviewed this proposal and has stated that they are concerned about the quality of the storm water runoff from this project and how this will affect septic systems on adjacent properties. 4. General.Telephone has reviewed this application and has commented that the developer should contact GTE 30 days prior to the opening of the utility trench. 5. Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this application and has commented that the Roadway must be publicly dedicated for water district access. Sewer and water lines should have at least 10 feet of separation. 6. The City of Tigard Public Works Division, Portland General Electric, and the Tualatin Valley Fire District have reviewed this proposal and have offered no comments or objections. V. EVALUATION OF REQUEST A. Analysis - Subdivision. 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the use standards of the R-3.5 zoning district (Section 18.48.050) because the lots are intended to be developed as single-family residences. Single family residences are listed as a permitted use in this zone. The 11 proposed lots, which range in size between 10,027 and 18,528 square feet, are all either equal to or larger than the minimum requirement for lot size in this zone (10,000 square feet for single family use). As shown on the preliminary plat dated 3-2-93, the existing residence encroached into the required setbacks on lot number one. In a letter from Mr. Petrie, which was received by the Planning Division on April 26, 1993, it is requested that the lot line between lots 1 and 2 be adjusted to the west to provide adequate setbacks for the residence on lot one. This adjustment would cause lot one to increase to 19,603 square feet in size. All proposed lots shall be subject to the setback standards of the R- 3.5 zone. Compliance with these standards will be reviewed as part of the building permit application process for residential structures. Lots 6 and 9 propose to include narrow pieces of land in their lots areas which run along each side of the proposed private street. These two areas measure 3.5 X 160 for lot 6 (560 square feet) and 7 X 122 for lot 9 (854 square feet). The City is recommending the following changes to the design of the private street which will make it less of a maintenance burden to all those concerned: A. The 7 foot strip along the east side of the private street (shown as part of Lot S) should be incorporated with the private street; HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 6 B. The 3.50 foot strip along the west side of the private street (shown as part of Lot 6) should be incorporated with the private street; and C. The strip of land on Lot 3 which is between the hammerhead and the adjacent property to the east (Tax Lot 3501) should be incorporated with the private street. Alternatively, the private street should be shifted to the east so as to cause this strip to be incorporated into the main body of lot three. This adjustment will cause lots 6 and 9 to be less than the 10,000 square foot lot minimum lot size which is required of parcels in the R-3.5 zone. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a revised plat which demonstrates that all lots shall continue to meet this code standard. During the adjustment of these lot lines, the applicant should monitor the lot depth to width ratio of lot number seven. It is recommended that a joint use and maintenance agreement be provided for the private street including the portions of land specified in A and B above. 2. Three of the lots (lots numbers 1, 2 and 5) meet the basic solar access requirements as specified in Code Section 18.88.040(C)(1). The front lot line orientation of these lots is within 30 degrees of true east-west (flag lots may choose which is the front lot line). These lots also provides a minimum north-south dimension of at least 90 feet. The balance of these lots either do not meet the front lot line orientation and\or the 90 foot north-south lot dimension requirement. Of the 11 proposed lots, two lots (specifically, 2.2 lots) may be counted as the standard 20% exemption from these solar lot requirements. Therefore, lots 3 and 4 are exempted from these standards. The six remaining lots (lots 6 through 11) are accepted by staff as exceptions to these standards as per Section 18.88.040(E)(1)(a). The north-south orientation of SW 74th Avenue causes lots 8, 10 and 11 to orient their front lot lines in a north-south alignment and therefore do not conform to the base requirements of this code section. The remaining lots (lots 6 and 7) are constrained from meeting the base requirements due to both the placement of the proposed private street and the configuration of the site. To require strict compliance with these standards would reduce the overall density on this site. It is recommended that these remaining two lots be exempted from the solar access requirements according to the above referenced adjustment to the design standards. Therefore, the requirements of the solar access portion of the Development Code have been met by this proposal. 3. The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards of Chapter 18.92.020 (Density). The net developable area of the site (after deduction of the public right-of-way) is approximately 127,994 square feet (2.94 acres); the gross site is approximately 3.2 acres. With a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet per lot, HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 7 this site yields an opportunity for 12 dwelling units under the R-3.5 zoning designation (specifically, 12.8 lots). The applicant has proposed the creation of 11 lots and thereby complies with this standard. 4. Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance) requires that adequate vision be provided at all road intersections. This standard shall be satisfied by adherence to the requirements regarding the height and placement of any future possible obstructions including a subdivision identification sign. Prior to the installation of any such sign, a sign permit from the Planning Department must be obtained. The sign permit review and approval process will require a finding that the sign will be consistent with the requirements of. Chapters 18.102 (Vision Clearance) and 18.114 (signs). 5. Section 18.108 (Access) and Section 18.164.060(8) (Lot Frontage) are satisfied. All lots are provided with at least 25 feet of either public or private roadway frontage as required by Section 18.164. The applicant proposes to continue to provide access to lots 1 and 2 from the intersection of SW Fir Street and SW 76th Avenue. Lots 8,10 and 11 are proposed to be served by SW 74th Avenue. The remaining six lots are proposed to be served by a private street heading northward from SW Cherry Drive. This proposal complies with the access provisions required by Section 18.108. Therefore, these code standards have been satisfied. 6. Section 18.164.060(A)(1)(b) (Lots) states that the maximum lot depth to width ratio is 2-1/2 to one. Lot 7 meets this standard with an average ratio of 2.48 to 1. All other lots are also in compliance with this code section. Therefore, all of the proposed lots are in conformance with this standard. 7. Section 18.150.020(E) (Tree Removal) requires that the applicant apply for, and receive approval for, a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any tree measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at a height of four feet above grade prior to the removal of any such tree from the site. A detailed tree survey has been submitted as part of this application. Prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit, the applicant shall specify the trees being requested for removal as they relate to: 1) public improvements, and 2) building envelopes. 8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision approval standards of Chapter 18.160.060(A) (Subdivisions) because: a. The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Maps Low-Density Residential density opportunity for the site as well as with the applicable plan policies, the regulations of the R-3.5 zone, and other applicable regulations; HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 8 b. The proposed name of the subdivision (Cherry Park) is not duplicative of any other plat recorded in Washington County; C. The improvements to SW 74th Avenue and the creation of the private street provide for both adequate and safe access to the lots in this proposed subdivision. 9. The City of Tigard Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and offers the following analysis with regard to streets, sanitary sewers and storm drainage: A. Streets: Southwest Cherry Drive and SW 74th Avenue are both classified as local streets. Local streets are required to meet the following standards (all distance are from centerline of right-of-way) : 25 feet of right-of-way, 17 feet of pavement, curb and sidewalk. Southwest Cherry Drive is fully improved along the frontage of the development except for the provision of a sidewalk. Therefore, the applicant should be required to install a sidewalk along the frontage of SW Cherry Drive and underground any overhead utilities. Southwest 74th Avenue is an unimproved local street between SW Cherry Drive and SW Fir Street. There is 20 feet of right-of-way on each side of the centerline. The applicant is proposing to provide two-thirds street improvements along with the 5 feet of additional right-of-way along the frontage of the development, thereby meeting local street standards. The applicant should also be required to provide a turn-around at the northern terminus which meets the requirements of the Tualatin Valley Fire District. The applicant is proposing to construct a private street which will serve six residences and provide access to SW Cherry Drive. The private street, as proposed, meets all applicable City standards. Lots one and two are provided access to the public right-of-way at the corner of SW Fir Street and SW 76th Avenue. These two streets are fully improved with the exception that there are no sidewalks. As development occurs, public improvements are typically installed to bring sub-standard situations into compliance. While the provision of a sidewalk is part of the existing City standard for a local street, the City contends that the requirement for the installation of a sidewalk should be waived. There is approximately 75 feet of street frontage along this portion of the site. The two proposed driveway approaches account for approximately 60 feet of this distance (maximum 30 feet per driveway apron) leaving only about 15 feet to be improved. The remaining portion of the existing neighborhood is not likely to acquire sidewalks in the near future. Therefore, the applicant should be required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement regarding the installation of sidewalks. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 9 2. Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer line located approximately 250 feet south of proposed development. The applicant is proposing to connect to and extend to sewer line to serve this development. The existing line has the capacity to accommodate this development. 3. Storm Drainage: The applicant is proposing to collect the storm water at various points within the subdivision. The storm water will be directed towards the existing storm sewer system which is located in SW Cherry Drive. The applicant should verify that the existing system has the capacity to accommodate this development. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established, and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and Order No. 91-47), Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction of on-site water quality facilities or the payment of fees in-lieu of construction. Section 7.10, of the above noted Resolution and order cites conditions under which a fee in-lieu may be accepted. Specifically, Section 7.10(b) states, "The site is small compared to the development plan, and the loss of area for the on-site facility would preclude the effective development." The City contends that the site is limited by the following factors: a) This subdivision is an in-fill situation; b) The minimum lot size in this zone is 10,000 square feet. The allocation of a portion of one or more lots for a water quality facility would mean the loss of one buildable lot; and c) To install a facility would require a re-configuration of the subdivision and an inefficient use of the land. Therefore, a fee in-lieu of the construction of such a facility is recommended. B. Compliance With Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. The subdivision is consistent with Policy 2.1.1 because notice of the application and the public hearing on this item was provided to the neighborhood planning organization (NPO #5) and to owners of property within the notification area of the site. An ad has been placed in Tigard Times which has advertised the time and place of the public hearing to be held on this application. 2. In order to comply with Policy 4.2.1, a condition is warranted to require the developer to prepare an erosion control plan ensuring compliance with erosion control standards for the Tualatin River Basin as part of the grading permit application. It is recommended that the developer shall pay a fee-in-lieu of the construction of an on-site water quality facility. HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 10 3. This subdivision proposal complies with Policies 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 because the applicant will extend public sewer and water systems to this site and will provide for underground installation of phone, electricity, and cable television lines. 4. The subdivision proposal complies with Policy 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 because the proposed extension and improvements to SW 74th Avenue and the creation of a private street within this infill subdivision will contribute to a safe and efficient street system in this area. The creation of an extension of SW Fanno Creek Drive, and the creation of the private drive, will be required to be improved consistent with the City of Tigard standards for public local and private streets, respectively. VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division concludes that the proposed subdivision, will promote the general welfare of the City and will not be significantly detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties provided that development which occurs after this decision complies with applicable local, state and federal laws. In recognition of the findings staff recommends APPROVAL of Subdivision proposal SUB 93-0009 for the proposed Cherry Park subdivision subject to the conditions which follow. ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED OR FINANCIALLY ASSURED PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE STAFF CONTACT FOR ALL RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IS CHRIS DAVIES IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 639-4171. 1. The applicant shall submit a revised plat which demonstrates that the 7 and 3.5 foot wide portions of land adjacent to the private street have been incorporated into the private access tract. A joint use and maintenance agreement shall be provided for the common access tract. The northern terminus of the private street shall be adjusted to the east so as to include the portion of lot 3 located between the hammerhead and Tax Lot 3501 into the main body of lot 3. 2. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW 74th Avenue frontage to increase the right-of-way to 25 feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. For additional information contact City of Tigard Engineering Department. 3. The applicant shall underground utilities and streetlights, and install a sidewalk, along the frontage of the site on SW Cherry Drive. 4. Standard two-thirds street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW 74th Avenue frontage. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards and shall conform to either the alignment of existing adjacent improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. NOTE: Two-third street improvements HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 11 include standard half-street improvements plus a driving lane in the opposite direction to ensure safe two-way traffic. 5. An agreement shall be executed by the applicant, on forms provided by the City, which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against a future Local Improvement District formed to install sidewalks along SW Fir Street and SW 76th Avenue. 6. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvement. plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Seven (7) sets of approved drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval. (NOTE: These plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements.) 7. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, November 1989. 8. The applicant shall pay the fees as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. NOTE: This is a two part fee which is paid at separate times. The first part is paid with any associated public improvements for that portion of the development which increases the impervious area within the public right- of-way. The second part is paid at the time of Building Permit issuance and is for each individual lot. 9. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainageways without significantly impacting properties downstream. 10. Storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 11. A grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours and typical finished floor elevations on each lot, including elevations at 4 different corners of the floor plan tied to the top of curb elevations as shown on the public improvement plans. 12. The applicant shall make an appointment for a pre-construction meeting with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after approval of the public improvement plans but before beginning work on the site. The applicant, the applicant's engineer and contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and permits. 13. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public improvements plans, a street opening permit or appropriate construction compliance agreements have been HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 12 executed, a developer-engineer agreement has been executed and all permit fees have been paid. 14. Prior to the plat being recorded with Washington County, the applicant shall provide either a 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment. As an alternative, the applicant may record the plat after the public improvements have been accepted by the City of Tigard and the applicant has posted the appropriate Maintenance Bond. 15. A tree removal permit shall be submitted which specifies those trees which are to be removed in connection with the construction of public improvements. This tree removal permit shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to the removal of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Victor Adonri, Planning Division. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 16. A tree removal permit shall be submitted which specifies those trees which are to be removed in connection with the construction of residences. A tree removal permit shall be applied for and approved by the Planning Division prior to the removal of any such trees on-site. STAFF CONTACT: Victor Adonri, Planning Division. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID ONLY IF THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBMITTED WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION. Prepared By: Ron Pomeroy / Date Assistant Plannef Appr ed By: Dick Be%a sdorff Date Senior/ Planner HEARINGS OFFICER - GRASCO\PETRIE SUB 93-0009 PAGE 13 c~ Y Kq 4 7 ~ a°°1 b~ N . z SW QrG\F~c - r. z s .-r •M r ~n W don r 7 S w a ar Iji N sw~1Nt1"oG"0 jpd -1'11 ~~k • ~C g W. ~ 8 t.1, S • Q~ . % ~ yo BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THE PETRIE COMPANY, ) LUBA NO. 94-110 Petitioner, ) vs. ) Index and • CITY OF TIGARD, j Record Respondent, ) Certified to be a True Co Origfinal pV of on file 4 ~ /V q t1, !!0 By. City R rd - Date: City of T►gar S I THE PETRIE COMPANY APPLICATION - REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION CITY OF TIGARD RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 94-110) 1, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. rine Wheatley, Tigard City R rder It ~y ~ q ~ ~qCt~ i . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii - iv Exhibit No. 1 Council Meeting Minutes - June 7, 1994 1-16 2 Council Agenda - June 7, 1994 17 - 19 3 Testimony Sign-In Sheet; Council Meeting of June 7, 1994 20 - 21 4 Staff Report and Supporting Information - June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 22 - 40 5 Material Submitted by Anthony Maksym as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 41 - 65 6 Material Submitted by Jeff Kleinman as part of his Testimony • during June 7, 1994 66 - 88 7 Material Submitted by Craig Petrie as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 88-a 8 Affidavit of Publication (June 7, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 89 9 Council Meeting Minutes - April 12, 1994 90 - 97 10 Council Agenda - April 12, 1994 98 - 100 11 April 7, 1994 Letter from Ty K. Wyman to Pat Reilly 101 12 Staff Report and Supporting Information - April 12, 1994 102-111 13 Affidavit of Publication (April 12, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis 112 ii Exhibit No. Page 14 Council Agenda - March 8, 1994 113-116 15 Council Meeting Minutes - March 8, 1994 116-a - 128 16 Tigard Resolution No. 94-11 Adopted March 8, 1994 129 - 136 17 Testimony Sign-In Sheet; Council Meeting of March 8, 1994 137 18 Staff Report and Supporting Information - March 8, 1994 138 - 152 19 Affidavit of Publication (March 8, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 153-154 20 Council Agenda - February 22, 1994 155 - 157 21 Council Meeting Minutes - February 22, 1994 158 - 168 22 Staff Report and Supporting Information - March 8, 1994 169 - 179 23 Affidavit of Publication (February 22, 1994 Council • Agenda Synopsis) 180 24 Council Meeting Minutes - February 8, 1994 181-189 25 Council Agenda - February 8, 1994 190 - 193 26 Testimony Sign-In Sheet; Council Meeting of February 8, 1994 194 - 195 27 Staff Report and Supporting Information - February 8, 1994 . 196 - 204 28 Material Submitted by Anthony Maksym as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 205 - 207 29 Affidavit of Publication (February 8, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 208 30 Council Meeting Minutes - December 14, 1993 209 - 216 31 Council Agenda - December 14, 1993 217 - 219 32 12/14/93 Letter to Randy Wooley from Craig Petrie 220 s iii Exhibit No. Pacts 33 Staff Report and Supporting Information - December 14, 1993 221 - 228 34 Affidavit of Publication (December 14, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 229 - 230 Original Photographs (See Exhibit 18, Page 152) are on file with the City records; copies can be made available upon request Audio tapes of Tigard City Council meetings can be made available upon request iv Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 Councilor-Elect Mayor Schwartz, Councilor-Elect Bob Rohlf and Councilor-Elect Ken Scheckla were sworn in by City Recorder Catherine Wheatley at 6:15 p.m. The oaths were administered at this time in order to allow the newly-elected officials to participate in the Study Session and Executive Session Meeting. During the Business Meeting, oaths were administered in a ceremony conducted by Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien. • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 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; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director (Executive session only); Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. (NOTE: Prior to going into Executive session, city Attorney Ramis . asked that it be noted for the record that there were no members from the newspaper media present). • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 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. Council meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. STUDY SESSION • Agenda Review: Councilor Hunt noted it would be his preference there be-no Study Session prior to the meeting in the Town Hall Conference Room; he would like to see this portion of the meeting conducted in the Town Hall. If that would occur, he questioned whether the cost of cable TV (Item 6.6) would be affected. City Administrator Reilly said he did not believe the cost would go up significantly since he monitors agendas; on those days the Business Meetings are likely to-be very short, cable coverage is cancelled. Councilor Scheckla noted preliminary concerns with the Study Session process as well. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i After brief discussion, Council consensus was to wait for about two months before reviewing changing the Council meeting format. • Items for review - City Administrator Reilly advised, for the benefit of the new Council members, that they received a Final order in their council mail from the Hearings Officer. He pointed out that there is a period of time in which Council can determine whether or not they want to review the issue. This deadline is stated within the Final Order. The deadline is set so there is at least one Council meeting that will occur to give Councilors an opportunity to decide whether to call up the issue to review the final decision. City Administrator advised there is a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation. Bill Moshofsky will be the guest speaker at the Sweetbriar Inn on June 9 at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Moshofsky is the attorney for the Dolan family in the Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregonians in Action. Council orientation meeting was scheduled for June 22 at 6:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING • The business meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor . Schwartz. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Mayor Schwartz advised that he attended a recent Washington County Transportation Communications Commission (WCTCC) meeting. Metro has been working with the County in putting together a $600 million transportation bond measure for vote= approval. He advised approximately $475 million of this measure would be for light rail. Additional dollars were available for a north-south light rail connection and for some bike and pedestrian ways. In addition, Mayor Schwartz noted a 2040 visioning project is under review by Metro and surrounding jurisdictions. Residents will-soon be receiving a questionnaire to complete and return with regard to the urban growth boundary and whether it should be extended. He urged citizens to complete the questionnaire. • Call to Council and staff for non-agenda items - City Administrator Reilly announced he would be updating Council on the Link agreement. Councilor Hunt advised he would like to bring up the issue of the Main Street Building that is for sale. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlblt No. Page No. 2. OATHS OF OFFICE Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien administered the oaths of Office as follows: • Mayor - John Schwartz • Council Position No. 3 - Bob Rohlf • Council Position No. 4 - Ken Scheckla 3. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1994 - Mayor Schwartz nominated Councilor Hawley to serve as Council President. - Councilor Scheckla nominated Councilor Hunt to serve as Council President. - Council cast their ballots on a written ballot as follows: Mayor Schwartz: Wendi Conover Hawley Councilor Hawley: Wendi Conover Hawley Councilor Hunt: Paul Hunt Councilor Rohlf: Paul Hunt Councilor Scheckla: Paul Hunt Councilor Hunt was elected to serve as Council President until • December 31, 1994. 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO INTERIM MAYOR JACK SCHWAB Mayor Schwartz presented Jack Schwab with a "Certificate of Appreciation," an engraved gavel, and City of Tigard glass mugs as a token of appreciation for his service as Interim Mayor of the City of Tigard from April 1 - June 7, 1994. 5. VISITOR*'S AGENDA • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to the 130th and Winterlake connection. Mr. McAdams noted that at a meeting of the West CIT West, there was a petition on a table to sign up against the 130th and Winterlake connection; Mr. McAdams protested this action. In addition, he noted that a Budget Committee meeting, the 130th and Winterlake connection was not discussed because of the quasi-judicial limitations of prior discussion. He advised that when Council, on January 25, 1994, chose to abort the process which would establish this connection, it • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. Page No. did so with no j ustif ication or fact finding. As a result of Council's action, he said he is being damaged daily. Damages include increased traffic on neighborhood streets, which is being turned into an arterial. He advised he wanted these issues on the record for future reference. • The following persons advised they wished to donate their two minutes of time for the Visitor's Agenda to Donna Milrany for aepresentation on the Arts Policy: Sharon Maroney, and Matthew Ryan. • Donna Milrany, Metropolitan Arts Commission, 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, testified in favor of establishing City of Tigard Arts Policy. She referred to the Arts Plan 2000 Plus effort conducted throughout the region. She urged financial support of the arts, including the Broadway Rose request for support; support of the Arts Commission of Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood; and consideration of development of an Arts Policy to assist in making decisions in investment of the arts. She advised she offered her assistance in helping develop this policy. She noted the Arts Commission is working towards becoming a private, non-profit organization. She stressed the importance of having regional representation. • Mary Simeone, 9708 SW London Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, also testified in support of the Arts Policy. Ms. Simeone outlined the work underway for the last five months by an ad • hoc committee involving the arts in many different areas. She also offered assistance to help Tigard Council as they look at developing a policy. A packet of information was distributed to City Council for their review. • Michael Gerking, 11149 SW Eschman, Tigard, Oregon read a letter on behalf of "Friends of Summer Creek. A copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet material. (Note: Greg Gerking relinquished her time on the Visitor's Agenda to Michael Gerking). • Cal Woolery, 12356 SW 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 - Mr. Woolery extended his congratulations to the new Council. Mr. Woolery referred to the 130th and Winterlake connection. He noted this issue had been studied and the Comprehensive Plan had been supported by the Planning Commission. He noted this was a well-thought-out process, and was created before development had occurred in the area. Mayor Schwartz asked staff to check on the soliciting petitions referenced during Visitor Agenda testimony. He noted that CIT meetings are for public information purposes. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94.110 Exhibit No. Page No. M 6. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented: 6.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: April 26 and May 10, 1994 6.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes - May 17, 1994 Election (Pending Receipt of Canvass of Votes from Washington County Elections Division) 6.3 Approve Contract with Washington County Department of Health and Human Services to Allow Receipt of $5,000 in Grant Funds for Anti-Gang Purposes 6.4 Adopt Community Policing Philosophy for the Tigard Police Department - Resolution No. 94-24. 6.5 Local Contract Review Board - a. Award Contract for the Construction of the 12-Inch Transmission Main on S.W. North Dakota St. to Golden Valley Construction, Inc. b. Award Contract for Construction of Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement to D & D Concrete & Utilities C. Award Bid for Copying Machine to Commercial Office Products 6.6 Authorize City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Business Meetings Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSMENT DISTRICT -PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION A. Public Hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report: (1) Legal Counsel Rami.s advised as Council deliberates, there are two issues to consider: (a) Is it appropriate under the circumstances to grant a reimbursement district? He noted a district has already been formed and Council is hearing an appeal of that formation. (b) What is the appropriate boundary and charges for the reimbursement district, if the district is granted? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBO, NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Mr. Ramis noted a number of legal issues had been raised. Council must decide the issues based on the facts. The issues raised include the following: (1) Is the Code is invalid because it allows the creation of a reimbursement district without a public bidding process? Legal Counsel advised that in order for this statement to be true, the courts would have to make a decision that the ordinance is invalid. At this time, State statute provides that the public bidding process is required when a public contract is involved in construction. (2) Is reimbursement district request is valid? He noted there was a withdrawal and then a reinstatement by the applicant to start the process again. Council needs to make a judgment if this action was sufficient. (3) Can certain improvements on the land of the applicant can be included for as a part of the cost when deciding the costs to be distributed under the reimbursement district? This would involve an interpretation of the Code to determine whether the improvement benefits only the applicant or was there a benefit to others. City Engineer Wooley advised this particular reimbursement district would be considered under the procedures prior to the adoption of the amendments to the reimbursement district ordinance made by Council on May 10, 1994. City Engineer reviewed map of the area (copy of the map is contained in the Council packet. - the overhead projector map outlined the subdivision area developed by the applicant). After review of the Staff Report, City Engineer recommended approval of the reimbursement district. He noted that Council had approved the reimbursement district by passing Resolution No. 94-11. City Engineer advised after review of the construction costs, he was comfortable with these costs. In response to Councilor Hunt, City Engineer Wooley reviewed some of the reasoning for including some lots in the zone of benefit and not others. He noted that different factors were considered, including topography and access to the laterals. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. • Councilor Rohlf posed a question about the process with regard to determining the zone of benefit. City Engineer responded staff requested the applicant to suggest a zone of benefit which is reviewed by staff. Ultimately, the Council decides the zone of benefit. D. Public Testimony - Appellants: • Jeffrey Kleinman, Attorney for Anthony Maksym, appellant, 1207 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204 testified. Mr. Kleinman distributed the following to City Council for their information: Transamerica Title Insurance Company property profile dated June 7, 1994 - Metroscan MD. - Map marked Exhibit B reimbursement district No. 5, noted as Kleinman testimony No. 7, June 6, 1994. - Transamerica Title Insurance Company property profile for the property located at 13400 SW 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 dated June 3, 1994. - Information from Unified Sewerage Agency, R & 0 91-48, and R & O 92-34. - Letter dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner." Mr. Kleinman testified at length. The following are highlights of concerns and areas of objection with regard to the establishment of reimbursement district No. 5: Reimbursement districts have the affect of an LID; however, citizens lose many of their protections, including the right to remonstrate and the scrutiny and protections provided by a public contracting/bidding process. A letter from Empire Pacific to the applicant appears to be insufficient and does not include backup documentation with regard to the costs of over $42,600. Supplemental documentation for costs were also unacceptable. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Letter from City Engineer's office (letter • dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, City of Tigard Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner" is on file with Council packet material). In this letter, the owner was advised the sewer will be installed and paid for by the developer of the subdivision. Notation that initially the engineer said citizens would save money if the reimbursement district was established because they would not be required to pay the surcharge fee. However, the surcharge fee was repealed and there was never anything that the property owners would have had to pay. Questioned the establishment of the zone of benefit. Suggested it was established for easy calculation; i.e., eleven lot subdivision and eleven other lots to be included. This would result in a fifty-fifty split of costs. Questioned why some areas were included in the zone of benefit, while others were excluded. He noted.that a large lot, Lot 3601, was not owned by the developer. The title insurance shows Ray and Phyllis Ems own this lot. If this large lot is excluded from the subdivision, then the calculation has been "thrown off." Mr. Kleinman questioned the transaction for another parcel of property, noting it*appeared there was not enough consideration for purchase of this lot. He suggested there should be questions as to "what's going on?" Most of the facts the City Engineer ralied on came from only one letter. There is an incentive to dump costs onto other people there is no control. Staff has "carried the ball" for the developer through to this point. This leaves the onus for challenging to the members of the public. Noted that it was always clear that laterals which were initially charged to the reimbursement district did not serve anyone but the developer's property. (See City Engineer Wooley's memorandum to Pat Reilly dated May 13, 1994). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I Page No. Requests for documentation were sent to the applicant, but no response was received. • Anthony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. The following items were submitted for council information: Three maps stapled together; one dated March 5, 1993; one dated March 29, 1993; and one dated August 20, 1993. - Letter dated May 4, 1994 from'Craig Petrie to city Engineer regarding reimbursement district. - Memo dated May 3, 1994 from Hassan A. Ibrahim, EIT of Land Development Consultants, Inc., regarding Pacific Ridge. - Handwritten page dated May 13, 1994 - revised calculation of reimbursement district fee. - Letter dated February 23, 1994 from Craig A. Petrie to Randy Wooley regarding zone of benefit district No. 5. - Copy of unsigned city of Tigard resolution - • establishing sanitary sewer reimbursement district No. 5. - Final Order by Hearings officer concerning Case No. SUB 93-0007 - name of owner is Grasco Investments and Raymond and Phyllis Ems - applicant Craig Petrie. - Memo dated March 28, 1994 from Harris Hyman, PE/PLS of Land Development Consultants, Inc. regarding excess charges on Pacific Ridge project No. 1498. - Letter dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner." - Petition dated February 23, 1994 from property owners, noting they reject the formation of a proposed Pacific Ridge sewer reimbursement district. - Letter dated November 1, 1993 to Craig Petrie from Lans Landis of Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 71 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. I Page No. Memorandum dated May 13, 1994 from Randy Wooley, City Engineer to Pat Reilly, City Administration. Mr. Maksym questioned the March 8, 1994 resolution. The resolution states that the formation date of the reimbursement district is February 22, 1994, which is the same date that the applicant withdrew the application. The applicant tried to reinstate the application by letter received on February 23, 1994 by the City of Tigard. Mr. Maksym noted the process of obtaining information. if an individual does not precisely know what to ask for, then they do not get the information. Mr. Maksym noted a letter from Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. dated November 1, 1993, stating that all underground utilities were installed by Empire. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific installed, the sanitary sewer total cost was $42,684. It was not until March 24, 1994 that the City came aware that charges were in error. Mr. Maksym reviewed a March 28, 1994 memorandum from Land Development Consultants, Inc. regarding excess charges on Pacific Ridge project No. 1498. Mr. Maksym also reviewed a letter from Craig Petrie to the City Engineer of Tigard dated May 4, 1994, regarding cost breakdown. Mr. Maksym related some of these costs back to other items. He noted he questioned these costs, especially the amount of $327.50 as it was his understanding this amount was to save a tree. Mr. Maksym referred to several maps, noting the calculations on lots 1 and 2 change on all three maps. He questioned whether this raised surveying costs and the total cost of the reimbursement district for which he would have to pay. He noted that lot 1 was owned by Ray and Phyllis Ems and not the developer. He noted the proposal was not fair and was only of benefit for the developer. The sewer was only built by the developer for the developer. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 71 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. _ID Mr. Maksym said he had to pay an attorney to bring information to Council; it was not a fair proposal. He referred to the letter from the City of Tigard which said the developer will install the sewers and the sewers should be paid by the developer. Council meeting recessed at 9:32 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. • Craig Petrie, 9600 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon, 97219. Accompanying Mr. Petrie was Mr. Lans Landis of Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Mr. Petrie distributed a copy of the State of Oregon Construction Contractor's Board registration certificate for Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Mr. Petrie noted there had been an error that had been corrected with regard to some of the costs. He advised he had followed the Code in applying for the reimbursement district. He noted the reasoning behind the figure as a total was to derive a cost as a percentage of the engineering. With regard to the question as to why there was an instance where it appeared a homeowner received a • small amount of consideration for some property, he noted there were several other parts of this transaction which valued approximately $85,000. Mr. Petrie referred to the method used to derive how many lots would be included in the reimbursement district;.this method was determined by logistics and topography. Mr. Petrie advised that he had followed the Code and other reimbursement districts have been granted in the past on the same basis for which he was requesting. In response to questions from Councilor Hawley concerning three different maps with three different lot sizes, Mr. Petrie advised the maps had been amended several times throughout the process of development. Engineering costs were on a lump sum basis; that is, each time the lot size numbers changed, the costs did not go up. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 71 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94=110 Exhibit No. Page No _ I Rebuttal: Mr. Kleinman noted that the record speaks f or itself and does not support the determination of the physical establishment of a zone of benefit or the allocation of the costs to the property owners. He advised the wrong method of calculation was used. Engineering costs were vague and there is not enough documentation. He advised this process shifts the burden to the wrong people. Rebuttal: Tony Maksym questioned the rationale of including some lots and not others. He stated there may have been other side deals with regard to inclusion of lots or not. • Council Questions/Comments Council asked clarifying questions with regard to sewer lines and potential for future development and \ establishment of sewer lines. City Engineer Wooley responded to these questions, noting locations along Cherry Street and Fir Street. In response to questions, Legal Counsel Ramis advised there is no restriction with • regard to subdivision ownership (i.e., more than one owner). Councilor Hunt referred to a section of the Code that states if there is a larger-than-necessary improvement constructed by the developer, then it would be eligible for reimbursement. It was noted the 8-inch line was the minimum that can serve a residential area. Time was spent reviewing this section of the Code with Legal Counsel. Mr. Ramis noted referred to the list of examples included in the Code and advised that this is an area for interpretation by Council. He stated that the language provides that improvements must be greater than those ordinarily required for the development and this is the fundamental judgment of Council. Councilor Hunt commented that if the resolution was approved, he would propose the reimbursement district be established for a period of fifteen years, with no extension. Councilor Scheckla noted he was not inclined to be in favor of the establishment of a reimbursement district. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. _1 - Page No. f ---S Discussion followed. Council members noted that the Code had recently been refined with regard provisions establishing reimbursement districts, based on problems brought forth by examples of this particular reimbursement district. With regard to questions raised during public testimony, councilor Hawley requested clarification as to whether 75th Court was public property and the sewer easement was public property. City Engineer Wooley explained the sewer is a public sewer easement; 75th Court is developed as a private street. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Legal Counsel Ramis advised the obligation for a reimbursement district would remain on the property if the property was sold. He further advised that reimbursement district provisions are triggered only when the property is developed (not by sale only). E. Public hearing was closed. F. Council consideration: • Councilor Hunt noted that according to his interpretation of the Code, this reimbursement district should not be established. • Councilor Rohlf expressed concerns with cost documentation. He noted developers should not be allowed to pass on charges to citizens without a clean, accurate and predictable process. • Councilor Scheckla said that he was bothered by the request for reimbursement district formation. He indicated he could not support the request. • Councilor Hawley said she thought reimbursement districts were a good idea and because they were a good idea, they were provided for in the Code. She noted property owners have a choice in whether or not to participate because the reimbursement district provisions are not triggered unless development occurs. Councilor Hawley said she would be in favor of establishment of the reimbursement district; however she supported further review of the costs. • Mayor Schwartz advised that originally he felt the reimbursement district application conformed to the ordinance provisions. He noted he now had some concerns, because he had assumed that 75th Court was a public street. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No*' I • Councilor Hawley noted this reimbursement district . should not be denied based on the fact that the ordinance had recently been amended by Council. She advised that she feels the reimbursement district provisions encourage economic development in the city of Tigard. • Mayor Schwartz disagreed that a component of the reasoning for reimbursement district code provisions was to provide for economic development. Rather, he felt reimbursement districts provided an opportunity for a property owner to recoup some costs when they had to oversize utilities in order to receive the service. • Councilor Hawley noted she sees this as an effective tool and it should be available for all applicants. G. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the reimbursement district. The motion was approved by majority vote of Council present (Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hawley voted "no"; Mayor Schwartz abstained. • 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY Chief of Police Goodpaster reviewed the staff report. The proposed amendment, modeled after similar ordinances in other cities, would give the Police Department an effective tool in dealing with chronic locations that are causing significant problems in neighborhoods in the community. Chief of Police Goodpaster reviewed significant provisions of the ordinance, noting the City of Portland had used this as an effective tool to relocate and resolve some chronic nuisance problems within the city. To his knowledge, he advised, the Portland authorities-have never actually boarded up a house. In response to a question from Mayor Schwartz, Chief Goodpaster noted the provisions of this ordinance may have been used once in the last year if it had been available to the Tigard Police Department. Primarily, the purpose of the ordinance is to use it as a tool to eliminate a problem in its early stages. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 14 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. JLU • Legal Counsel Ramis, noted the City Attorneys office placed several provisions within the ordinance as a balance to the property owners and as an enforcement tool for the Police Department. Ty Wyman of the City Attorney ' s office reviewed some of the elements of balance contained in the ordinance: • Notice will be provided to everyone involved, including the tenant and the property owner. Property owners and tenants will know of the potential penalties. A detailed notification process has been established. • Care was taken in how the complaint and summons should read. • A bond mechanism was placed within the provisions of the ordinance after a review of Oregon cases. Property owners will have an option of posting bond as a final stop gap to make a commitment toward resolving the problem. Discussion continued on elements of the ordinance. It was noted the City Administrator was named within the ordinance to bring the relevant staff together in order to assure process and proper protections had been followed. This would include a review by the City Attorney's office. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve ordinance No. 94-11. ORDINANCE NO. 94-11 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS, TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 7.42 PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz, and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • City Administrator Reilly noted Mr. and Mrs. Mark Link have fulfilled their obligations with regard to placing their property on the market for the last six months. All information has been submitted. City Administrator Reilly will authorize the City Attorney to implement the balance of the agreement toward property purchase. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I • Councilor Hunt noted he noticed the sale of the old City Hall building on Main Street would not be completed until the end of the year. The Chamber of commerce offices will remain in the building until the end of the year. Mike Marr was the successful bidder for this property and an agreement is being drawn up and placed into escrow with regard to responsibilities for the building during this interim time. He noted that, rather than having the dollars from the sale going to the General Fund, he would like the money earmarked for a specific item. After discussion, Council did not have any objection to this proposal by Councilor Hunt. City Administrator Reilly advised it would be possible to earmark those funds for a specific purpose at a later date. • Councilor Hawley expressed a concern about approving the budget on June 28, prior to having a policy on the distribution of arts funding. Through discussion, it was determined there is a contingency fund of approximately $300,000, thus allowing Council some discretion in determining an arts funding commitment, if they so desire. • Councilor Scheckla referred to "music in the park" for the summer. City Administrator Reilly-advised a portable stage would cost about $750 per event. Discussion followed, noting perhaps the "Cityscape" would be a good vehicle to let people know of the City's desire to provide music in the park and • solicit donations for this effort. After discussion, it was determined that Council would review this issue at an upcoming Study Session. The music in the parks issue can be resolved separately from the Arts Policy. As a starting point, Council will review the information given to them tonight by the Arts Commission and make suggestions for an Arts Policy to the City Administrator. In addition, City Administration Reilly advised he would research the Washington Park music activities to get an idea of how this successful program is accomplished. 10. ADJOURNMENT : 11:00 p.m. Ca erine Wheatley, City Re o der Attes rate r, City o Tigard : =0607.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ~ Page No. I 0 • CITY ji ix OF TIGARD OREGON , r b ' s n s 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 arty 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 (TOD - 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 Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. --)J _ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 7, 1994 AGENDA . STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 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. OATHS OF OFFICE (Pending Receipt of Certification of Election Results) • Administered by Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien 2.1 Mayor 2.2 City Council Position No. 3 2.3 City Council Position No. 4 3. ELECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1994 (Pending Receipt of Certification of Election Results) • Mayor 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO INTERIM MAYOR JACK SCHWAB • 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 6. 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: 6.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: April 26 and May 10, 1994 6.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes - May 17, 1994 Election (Pending Receipt of Canvass of Votes from Washington County Elections Division) 6.3 Approve Contract with Washington County Department of Health and Human Services to Allow Receipt of $5,000 in Grant Funds for Anti-Gang Purposes 6.4 Adopt Community Policing Philosophy for the Tigard Police Department - Resolution No. 94-_ 6.5 Local Contract Review Board - a. Award Contract for the Construction of the 12-Inch Transmission Main on S.W. North Dakota St. to Golden Valley Construction, Inc. b. Award Contract for Construction of Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement to D & D Concrete & Utilities C. Award Bid for Copying Machine to Commercial Office Products 6.6 Authorize City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Business Meetings COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-1 i o Exhibit No. Page No. I_ 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION . Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - City Engineer • Public Testimony Appellants Respondents Rebuttal • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE - ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY • Staff Report: Chief of Police • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94- 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT h:\recorder\cca\cca0607.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 3 L.UBA NO. W190 Exhibit No. 2-..: _ _ Page No. J,4_ Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount -if time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair ay further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council_ to tupplement oral testimony. 'If KOENEYK-ITEM`NO:~:"-7 `•r- _ DATE,' dune`_7.'_1994*v`;• APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 3- Page No. Q O - AGENDA ITEM NO. PLEASE PRINT peuants. / Respondents Name 2 Ac kok Name Pil Address r~✓ < ~ ~ Address Name Name 0 Ad / dress Name Nam. Address Address Name Nam Address Address Name Name Address Address Nams Name Address Address Name R7,- Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address 0 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 3 Page No. c- AGENDA ITEM # • For Agenda of Ma 4 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Anneal hearing on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consideration of an appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of -the attached resolution revising Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5. INFORMATION SUM1 ARY Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 was formed by Resolution No. 94- 11 passed on March 8, 1994: An appeal has been received. In accordance with TMC 13.08, the Council is-required.to hold a public hearing to consider and rule on any objections. riginally, a hearing was -scheduled for April 12, 1994. However, on April 12 ~he-hearing was continued to May 24, 1994, at the request of--the appealing parties. On May 6, 1994, a formal written appeal was received from the attorney representing the owners of two parcels within the reimbursement district. Attached are the following documents: Attachment #1: A copy of Resolution No. 94-11 forming the reimbursement district. Attachment #2: The formal appeal letter. Attachment #3: A memo from the City Engineer describing recommended revisions to the district. Also attached is a resolution which would adopt the recommendations of the City Engineer. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could: 1. - By motion, reaffirm Resolution No. 94-11 and leave the reimbursement district unchanged; or, Adopt the attached resolution making the changes recommended by staff; Or. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. as - Direct that additional revisions be made; or, 4. Repeal Resolution No. 94-11, thereby eliminating the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES • /petriel4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. qr Page No. _a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION` REVISING RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 AND REVISING THE TERMS. OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 was formed on March 8, 1994, by passage of Resolution No. 94-11; and, WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by the owners of two properties within the District as provided in TMC 13.08.020(h); and, WHEREAS, a hearing was held on May 24, 1994, to consider objections raised by the appellants; and, WHEREAS, additional cost documentation was filed by the applicant after .the adoption of Resolution No. 94-11; and, WHEREAS, based on the additional documentation filed by the applicant, the City Engineer has recommended revisions to Resolution No. 94-11; and, WHEREAS", the formation date shown.-in Resolution No. 94-11 does not correspond with the date that the resolution was actually adopted; and, WHEREAS, after hearing .the objections of- the appellants and the • recommendations of the City Engineer, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to revise Resolution No. 94-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: Resolution No. 94-11 is revised as follows: (a) The City Engineer's report shall be revised to show the total cost of the sanitary sewer system to be $44,389.15. (b) Exhibit D shall be replaced with the attached Exhibit D-1 (revised May 1994). (c) The zone formation date is March 8, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on March 8, 2004, unless extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . Section 2:' The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and 'shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address. Section 3: The Finance Director is hereby directed to refund the amount of $78.64 per unit to any property owner who has RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit N0.4 Page No. ,:DT- paid the reimbursement fee prior to adoption of this resolution. PASSED: This day of , 1994. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard • rw/petriell RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. c-~5 Exhibit D-1 (May 1994) Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charae** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,035.36 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,035.36 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,035.36 2S1 !DC 2700 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 .(Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 22,194.67 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,035.36 22 $44,389.15 0 *Note 1: Pacific. Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2:• If any--tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided,.the charge 'shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3:. The connection charge -shall- apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. - For commercial development, the connection charge shall be.for.the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit -is $2,017.68. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No- 4 Page No. a • CITY OF TIG-UD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- L A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT-NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS', formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among. the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. • NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title ."Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A,Js hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C.'. The zone of - benefit* • shall be known as-' -"Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5.91 Section 3: Payment of the recovery,*- agreement connection charge-as shown in.Exhibit D- is a precondition of receiving city permits applicabld to development of each parcel'within the zone. of bznefit - as provided for in*: TMC 13.08.030.. Section 4 An annual- percentage.•rate of. three percent (3%) shall be applied to the.. connection-- charge:.. Section The zone formation :date -*is February 22",',--1994. The' right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004;• unless extended by the Council* in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 0 RESOLUTION NO. 94- J LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 1 Exhibit No. P Page No. a8 • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). bh PASSED: This da f 1994. or - ity of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City ` Tigard dj/Aft:Pac-kid;e.SS i _ !'ter x."41. •.a. - - _ RESOLUTION NO. 94- L UBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhlbtt No. Page No. Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REINBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backarround A sanitary sewer.-line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer* line is nearing completion and the. developer's costs are known. - Financing -All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The -Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer. extension has potentially provided sewer service-to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent -property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. - This has-created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown' as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B) . . The proposed zone . formation .date for the sewer is:-the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district=:`:. It is recommended. that-: the =•reimbursement- district continue .-for ' ten- years. ' After-ten years;,.-; properties::.connecting to:- the' sewer would no longer be required to pay. the 'reimbursement .,fee f*-' finless the -time is extended by the - Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020. (b) (2). Cost - The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. Reimbursement Rate west of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.-5,• which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The. lots east of 7-4th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and -500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided. or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. -The applicant suggests that the lots with potential - for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller -lots that, cannot be subdivided. - This - seems to be a' reasonable basis for calculating * the connection charge, as.the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. • Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost-to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council-heard from property owners within the proposed -district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. -Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should -not be charged their full share of costs until such time as. they are, fully developed. Although some of the lots have. the potential .for more development, current. development consists of-:. one: residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides'':-that- connection- of one residential structure . would:. be charged::fo= -only: one.--. nit of cost.. Subsequent -development would pay any :rema=» *+g-: share ••of-. costs. k Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 b - (5) . pro'vides;thatsan "annual percentage rate shall be applied to' the' connection charge:ont-:the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement_ The applicant has requested that-"the -.finance charge be 3which is comparable to that currently..being= paid; to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the~~~financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is -recommended that the interest rate be set at 30. On each anniversary of the zone formation- date, the established connection ..charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhtb#t No. 4 Page NO. j • amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and" interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. 01 Randall R. Wooley City Engineer d~/RIf: peo-itidge .55 ail LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. 0 Page No. _~~a. a ~ • EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT' DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 I W 9 T 0 1 3 1 ~ n Ll • 2 1 00 a NEW SA I A 0 z N T 0 00 N W ANITARY SEWER 3 L ' 0 vi 4~ T 0 'ITL 3300 4 CHERRY STREET m - Z ~ 00 Q ROLUNO HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER A J O d EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the-SW 1/4 of Section 1,- Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows:- Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along the west:* line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 89° 57' 36" E, along the south Iine of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 88° •48' 00".E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast • corner of said. Fee Number; thence S 011 40' •00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet-to .the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88°• 48'00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner-of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 07' 53" W,: along said west: right of way,- a distance of .180.00 • feet to the southeast corner of- said lot 43 and the south line -of.the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2.;• thence S 880' 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line. of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the. property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022.-of Washington County Deed Records; - thence S 880. 48' 00".E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet.to the west right of way of SW 72nd.-Avenue; thence N 010 - 07' 53 E, along said west right of way, a distance of •396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; *thence N 88° 40'-15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, •a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner-of the property. described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington' county Deed Records;.'-- thence N 020 -02' 44"• E, along the east line of :-said Fee . Number; • a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right ' 'of ••-way 'of • -the: Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 :-pag,6- 293 -of* Washington County Deed Records; thence N 894. 51' 4 6 W, along said southerly right of way, a distance .of 140.00 feet ;to the,-east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence; along the boundary of said proposed plat- the following four' courses; -:.thence.. N 02° 02,1 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence. S 89° 51!:: 46° W. a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W 'a distance-of 25.-01 feet;. thence N 890=•'571f 36" W a distance of 50.02 :'.feet-1to..= the ' Northeast° corner of lot 49 -Rolling Hills No. 2; - thence•N 89* -.1 57' '36" W, along"the north line of said lot 49, a distance "of' 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. y Page No. 3 L Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charce** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 _ 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision,)* 11. 23,059.48 2S1 !DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The . reimbursement district•connection. charge is deemed to have been paid on these-lots. Note 2: If any. tax lot shown above -is- later subdivided, -the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in•accordance with the written - instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written 'instructions are provided,. the charge shall be- -,distributed. equally among the. new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties. which are connected directly. to the sewer. lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge. Subdivision: (the= sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties-.-within the zone of benefit are connected- directly. - to sealer lines . outside -the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential='structures.,- the connection charge shall be at the rate of. one'-unit - -for each residential structure connected to * the public- serer. For.:- commercial development, the connection ' charge shall; . be . for : the number of units shown in • . the table above:: - The charge 'per- unit- is S2, 096.32*:'• Over the life of the reimbursement-t.- district, - the - total charge. to any. tax lot shall not "exceed-- the number- of units shown in the table above. . LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Ll Page No. 35 M & [-9-9q JEFFREY L. KLEt<*ix&N ATTORNLY AT LAN Tae AxBAssADOS C, 1207 S.W. Sn= AvExue ( J ,J/ POETLAxD. OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE (803) 248-0808 , FAx (503) 228-4529 May 6, 1994 To: Tigard City Council Re: Zone of Benefit District #5--Reimbursement District For Pacific Ridge Subdivision.(Tigard City-Council Resolution No. 94-11) Pursuant to TMC § 13.08.020(h), M. H. Monson and Anthony J. Maksym ("Petitioners") hereby petition the Tigard City Council for a hearing of Petitioners'.objections to the establishment of the above Reimbursement District and the Zone of Benefit charge. herein.. Petitioners are affected property owners herein, as they are the owners of Tax Lots 300 and 400, respectively, in the proposed Reimbursement District. Petitioners' addresses and telephone numbers are as-follows: • M. H. Monson 13515 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 Telephone: 684-5777 Anthony J. Maksym - 13565 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 Telephone: 639-4552 Petitioners' specific objections are as follows: 1. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and denied Petitioners due process-and equal protection under the law by employing an ordinance.which makes certain property owners subject to reimbursement charges a upon the request of private developers, while other, similarly situated property owners.are not. 2. The City exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing- citizens for improvements, the cost of which was.not established through legally mandated bidding and contracting procedures. 3. The City exceeded its jurisdiction in approving an application for a Reimbursement District, which had been • withdrawn from consideration by the applicant and was not duly refiled. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. ~7 • Tigard City Council May 6, 1994 Page 2 4. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in forming a Reimbursement District where the City Engineer's Report failed to consider in its methodology for spreading costs, the prior contributions by adjacent property owners and value of the unused capacity, as required by TMC § 13.08.020(b)(4). 5. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in establishing-a zone formation date of February 22, 1994, in Section 5 of Resolution No. 94-11, in that the application in question was withdrawn on and as of said date. 6. The City violated TMC §13.080.020(d) by ordering reimbursement for the amount of improvement costs computed on the property developed by the applicant, to wit, one or more of the following: a. surface water drainage; b. lot preparation; c. road preparation; • d. manhole covers; e. eight-inch sewer line; and f. engineering costs with respect to the above items and the project, generally. 7. In the alternative, the-City ordered reimbursement for the items described in objection 5 without substantial and/or any evidence to show that said items were not charged substantially or in part with respect to the property. developed by the applicant. 8. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in assessing double connection charges against Tax Dots 300 and 400 in the sum of $4,192.64 (2 x $2,096.32). There is no basis in the record or in the ordinance for assuming the development of two commercial units on either or both of these two single tax lots. R ectfully submitted, ey Kleinman, • )A; y for Petitioners JLK:sb LUBA NO. 94-110 EXhIblt No. `4 Page No. • Attachment No. 3 i TUBA NO. 94410 Extiibit No. 14 Page No. 3~- MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator May 13, 1994 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Subsequent -to the formation of the reimbursement district in March, the applicant has filed additional information documenting costs of. constructing the sewer line. Additional documentation was received on March 28, April 12, and May 6, 1994. The additional documentation reveals errors in the original calculation of costs. First, the construction costs included-$1,446.10 of costs related to construction of sewer laterals. The laterals serve only the property of the applicant and the cost of laterals should not be charged to the district. Second, the total construction cost is greater than originally reported by $1,089.48. Finally, when the revised cost for sewer construction and total • construction are used, the sewer becomes 24.9% of the total cost (rather than 26% as previously used). Using the revised percentage reduces the share of engineering and permit costs charged to the district. Based on these revised figures, the total cost of the sewer mains is determined to be $44,389.15 as follows: Construction cost of sewer main $37,987.90 Engineering (24.9% of $19,000) 4,730.25 Permit fees (24.9% of $6,711.90) 1, 671.00 Total $44,389.15 I recommend that the reimbursement district be revised to reflect this revised calculation. The resulting unit cost is $2,017.68 which is $78.64 less than the previous calculation. A revised table of charges (Exhibit D-1) has been prepared. • rw/petriel3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhtbft No. 4 Page No. J-4 a i 14. t } t!j y 1 ~•A "xf \ ~ ~ ~ .t~ 1 'fit \ ~r1~.~~h~1sj}~; v0' 9. Oo L 'Qif' ~i,l•, ?'~.C t{'I~!i 1 .4 \ 3 ~ ~ :Y?,. l.~b- :I~'t'1 f\~.,~ s,~1 np': ~ \ \ 1 ~ IY'i . II• O 0 ..ii ••'i ~ ~ lr ,I ; Y'}:j.1•u:'. ~ :i. 11 TTT ? 1~,~' I t ~ T~ - '1 .-1~' ~'a. y A~ 1 gl Irr` I D d V' r r•Y.h7"•'4i.1 R,'(►lCr.i.'.rs.~.:ri/~ 'n+• 1 \ \ .I - r p Z \rL I y 7ti-Tj I .rte' e, o si oo ~,r~~ 6%•01 o•o f ~I rn sl\ I ~ W~ I 14 i t I I o 0 y 1.0 I ti --slloj/ 6r!l~slX~ ` 1 1 m I vl ,oott I ` •m 1~ I I ~ ~ I .1 o L \ I 1 r y I~ 1 I 1 1 I -VIP 7T lit 14 r FZ P/ J719 N. P7 1 H191MS \ s I ' , l1 ~ ( I I} nl~I`', I I I I f -g J r I I ~I I IV l I n I i I , ~ 11 y I ' I I S.W. 7t i 95.a 9300' ; let 7-4 - - fiN 'to A 1 1 ntV t0 1 ~ ! ~ Exisliny NouBe v ! .14 / l i ~ W S013 y 1 W~~ r' 3p•w$ tin~~ p~,, uy b ~ , " I . M~ (b 1 t ,I 46 W er i L~1.• \ \ ` 11 \ 4h I X11 _ Y 7r 1 -41 ~p ~ . ; 4t tip: £,!~u r' , A' ~:.N; ~1'~:(,.. E" ;µ,~•IW ' _ tk',. ~~i~ Sa`, ~`:f6'.`,~~J:.~?'t. ~-'JV1.R, i. • ~1. "~~,t~¢ (n. r 41 'Al ~~t' C J' ' 7~ BGO~' spa. ~ ~ oo ~~ti6 .00.1. ~ ~ ••'`~,,>;;z~ ,~w~; , 1 w•: r~j ~ f, ' "l;ll~:r ,f>' i ~.j,.l r•..yrii '1 VN }V ' i I'm., % .i,f a~• li ~r. ,,t'O~'A'. ;},1'v~\ ,.a -.1x1•tr •R O Q \ ' + !a►, 'dl g DI; ` N 1 " c~l~,..~,n~4!~ t ,X~.'''.i~f lss1w' ~,t~` .4 , ~ t: ~ i ~ Ih.Q 1' ~ I , ; .r~ is ,~1 3 0 ~'~':~`:~"J t.~. "+{',f ••e'• 'I ~f'' 1 ~1 . \ I 1~'tr'eQ •?i..V~;..•1Fi~ f:, r7,c~ ~J 1' ~ i .SI~>'1' ` . ~ • i 1 ~ lo° ~.:1 ~ Y,'' ; • ZZ r'' A-T Tali t woo - to Tall OF Jar .M.OaIaZOS sew, K. JOV91 W d ~ i 001 ; R s°! sedum. at err a.~ S 0{ t, v ` ,N•t ~~f~'- '.I~,ft .~°K '771 .1 . 'ks •.lr er :l7"'~_ at 7ffw ..~aRf nlar _ r wn ,y~ d 4°dugtr xy y` k¢ h a541324w b 7T 11 3:1 14 of r ~ b `s; $ ` , a r►a z a 24 Z Y` e " :1.~a~3 F h Gam~omsl cm act) ; y i`' Z S 3S e, ~g* ecs~on. ur,dor Ylll~AY 82tG •Y•g.9. - • . ZMW a~0 CAA 9i2YZ AI fSIG YM~ rT t,L b~ SQ~ ~ .w•u .a°w rnr y~ ~ j 1A . $ ^ a = Q r F a :^i A Sys "vr .m .total ~atlaaav 41. 0. g i l t to ttr w.ao jai= ' i .r b►fa7 }ttr n +►ew t6't6t M tstaZOS .1 r° eft n .,urK,i i7+*..~ urn a°m. ? An QaB~ •I6~+0 ~a Ki - - - y afj~~ *r°m'3i= aGO ,f~ ~~~-9~.LOQtat N , 3 a ~ ti v t :e .B. 10v& .Q~ A n tit ZE •Ai.A t-10S F,Q bas_ ~ • 3 y•~ L 3 33 I s 2 ur $ oll i a J e.ll~I it« a " ' : gh rid t~ ~ttBL ON "~hr `~y 9 3 h~ ►o'Y I 'TAY w ~irw.I Cevorut y659f ~r&91.tON [m"art , a~ ► G.bwU :R ~ CTro.U r fY ° .e h ri. l 0 t it•7d - STS°! 7M7X7Y k.t w = s~$~ ax .r: .a LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. RECEIVED 1 nE PETRIE COMPANY . COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MAY 0 s 199 4 (503) 246-7977 ~uMMuHIrY °Ey~OPMEur 1~1 a kso~~ • May 4, 1994 City Engineer f 172 /4fy TO. City of Tigard FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Reimbursement District Dear Randy, Attached is the information you requested. Previously you have in your file a breakdown of the sewer costs for Pacific Ridge. Attached is a copy of the construction contract, the street light contract, my copy of my check to Loy Clark which was for a power crossings which were required and outside the contract, a 3-28-94 memo from Harris Hyman which outlines additional construction costs of S 2,933.43 and $ 317.50, and a memo dated 5-3-94 from Hassan Ibrahim outlining additional costs to the project of $ 7,560.00. Previously you have in your file the engineering and permit costs. The total construction costs are: Contract S 135,933, Loy Clark Crossing $2,250, Street Lights S 3,592, Hyman memo--S 2933.43 and S 317.50, and Ibrahim Memo $ 7,560. The total construction cost is SS 152,585.93. Sincerely, % Craig P trie • 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND. OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5)._ Page No. L4 f' PiAt& ------*-■Y~~r IM ENGINEERING ~ISCt~•N~~ URYE•Y N 233 S.E WASHINGTON STREET, HILLSBORO. OREGON 97123 PHONE' (503) 648.A061 FAX (503) 685.7646 MEMO DATE: May 3, 1994 TO: Craig Petrie FROM: Hassan A. Ibrahim, EIT RE: Pacific Ridge During the construction process, an extra cost was created in addition to the original construction contract. • Cost breakdown as billed by Empire Pacific, Inc, is as follows: Item (a w. Unit Price Total 1. Rock Excavation 70 CY 100.00 $7,000.00 2. Oversize Catch Basin Adder 1 EA 200.00 200.00 3. Remove & Install Catch Basin Laborers & Supervisor 8 HRS 45.00 360.00 Total Extra Cost 57,560.00 The cost stated in this memo -is in addition to the cost shown on the memo dated March 28, 1994 by Harris Hyman, PE/PLS. If you have any questions, please call. i LUBA NO. 94-110 1882°' Exhibit No. Page No. L 5 cc,.~ ~ ~ v T'1 7 St ~I! 7l ~T ale Ice-. .40 . -__._._......__..............-.`t s/.. 317 Q 7 '0,00 _ _.._.__......5!'~'e~/r~~'9 _ _ 3592, oo _ oo 4P9~- a7 4c 37.r77...9..v LUBA NO. 94-110" - Exhibit No. 5 Page No. 4LP THE PETRIE COMPANY &171q( COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ! 7 (503) 246-7977- February 23, 1994 D v O , FEB 2 3 1994 TO: Randy SVooiey City of Tigard CITY OF T1GAR0 FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Zone of Benefit District # 5 Dear Randy, I-am requesting that you place the above mentioned request for the creation of a zone of benefit district on the council agenda for March 8th,1994. This zone will not only benefit me but it will benefit the owners of tax lots included in the zone in that without the zone a ' hookup will pay an additional S 3,000.00 and with the zone a hookup will pay a figure of S 2,096.32. 4 The zone of benefit exists in the City code, my request qualifies according to the code, the City has never denied a request for formation of a zone of benefit, and the formation of the requested zone is fair and equitable. The formation of the zone will also save others within the zone S 903.68 per hook up. You previously have on file the information that 7 am required by the code to submit and ask that you submit the information that you had prepared for the meeting February 22, 1994, i Sincerely yours, Craig A. e e LUBA NO. 94-110 • Exhibit No. 13 Page No. 4F= 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (5031244-0123 - W_M_ A 40 CITY OF_;;6T.IGARD .,OREGON-. RESOLUTION NO *94-"~,-''• - -rT7, = , s: .~;~s mss; _ _ - _ .mss -.~.~.°L"'^-"i?:~;RSi' «zw~ir'~;ti7-.._.~r~-• .._.-.....~..,~:y;.-.~ J;;~__ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY''.SEWER' REIMIDQRSEMENT. DISTRICT NQH IDEFZ 5. r WHEREAS/ sanitary sewer improvements. have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision*, and certain adjoining-properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of .said. sewer construction have be Petrie Com " - d . by ..,.The an an en ai : 2 . . - WEMMAS formation of a zone of benefit. has be en re ested b The Petrie Company i and .::~z.. : ~=:i:.'-_.,t.'.s•=:'.z: ^%~.rrY WE REAS/ 'the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements,: the zone of benefit..athodology~orsppreading the cost r• . among ' the, parcels= : witia ii ==t2ie "lone-0 71 refit interest:•rate-_ t.recommended..•... and/, u _ • e_ r.. . "'".S'--- •'2 _ t._. r•.•~r .:r3... -tea:'..'-^•..: ~W~REAS, the City Council' his~- determined that' .formation of a -zone of benefit as recommended- by. the -City :Engineer;•isi, appropriate.. In. r NOW,: • THEREFORE;=:gE'TIT`„RESOL4FD;;b igard> unC l that - - - X. !.7]s ~.}-'32Si%rR~r^~°`~. 3- i'eS:t.''.~L'Z?!; 4;~ w...i.r ' . ti~•~... _ • t.: ' • ~ r...•r➢fi:3rj`•Y's3+^:' r..d.T4iS~':.^:::`:3''~~'.-.''l:: 'y r.`• - - ' ''.i~.~«.i':..}}.•.•:~.]ii-~-+~t1~''r :r.. :ay~ u.. - yq :Y. •-••y.... ws •t _ • ' ^i:,'.: - . tio7~ ~!"`yL.-.lid '.r~~~.Y~Y '~c~ nT+~ ~ :z ~ • -{'b:~:..: .r _ - _ - . Section 1: The City;-:. ;nee.. : ,report -title.;."Sanitary ' Sewer Reimbursement -Distrct:No' ;5",'•: attached hereto as Exhibit A;" *is -hereby-~.app=owed'"a:~`:}r.;rh?Y< ' - Section 2: -x ~ ..:.=;.:.%::~~.;'.-.'~•e•y.:.+~:=- °e- 'i~•+::,._.5:.a-+t;';.°~.~.:,,~, . A,. zone `-of benefiV 6: hereby: established in accordance with TMC Chapter"13: 08 :g~The zone - of'benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit-B`and-described-on-Exhibit C. The zone of:'.benefit . shall... be • known as- "Sanitary Sewer ReiIDbtlrsemeIIt"::DiStriCt,~M0 Section 3: ^ ` : Payment of the - recovery agreement co ion charge"as shown in Exhibit D is a-precondition of receiving city permits applicable to.development of -each. parcel. within the zone:-of=benefit ;as iiovided for. -TMC'13.08.030. " . - ::~:r: ...a'%.'iii.Gv~~.oc;e•~.;~'_?:::::~:<r.{~:.y:~;=;~•';..:-:.• _ Section. 4: y - ,Aa,;aaauaLer~ceata eriat ` ' ercentt3CLjshalhbe: appliee-fo" a connect" oa Section 5: The zone fo e rmation:~ dat• :is ='Februar3~-Y22 ' .;:.1994. -The'right. ofj - r reimblltSptna ;air enc a eble ar; #~22; 2004 unless`.',,.... extended by--the Council in a~c.~corda_nc6, w.- ~•TKC--113.08: 020 (b) - (2) : :3,~ _';ti; ^~T•;r''••.'~``b"}T C'?. 'yr!'~'.-• °Av`. :'~'•`-v: = ' - • - •~:'eT ~f~~ `•:^iiJYt?,~"~~•~:_ -mss :~=:~iiyi%Y%a: _ I1S0_-LUTION NO. 94- ' : ° • ; . - y am. :t. { 4 *~u -Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 - n _ _ . Exhibit No. S Page No. Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of 1994. Mayor = City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dJ/RY:Pac-RSdge.Ss Y RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94410 Page 2 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. !jq Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain-adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing r Ah All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven 'adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08:010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B) . The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 - - Page No. 130 Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is - 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain -11 single-family lots, with no potential for further -subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision. should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as•they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current.-- development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the. connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. Tfe applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the •interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. amount. "M Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer d~/R1f:Pto-Rldq~.SS i LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. SD. EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 ` w 9 0 _ 3 A z T 00 1 b vii NEW SA 1 A N W ANI TARY S XN 0 44 T 0 L 3 0 Ln C CHERRY STREET - ao m D z 0 Z 0 ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER ~ U .,a O . I EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36° E. along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01* 461 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 -feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 481 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue -and .the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 07'. 53" W, along said west right of way,. a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 88°• 48-* 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 C feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 481 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 01° 07f 53" E. along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north 'line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 020 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance -of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44' E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 89° 57, 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner-. of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. • John-rMpaC.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 40,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 41192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 21096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision) * 11 23, 05J'.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to Have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in-accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties. which are connected directly to -the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone -of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public. sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in T the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. -55 C rIct tCS Y% (,+r7 - 4 /r, f a CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUB 93-0007 2. Name of Owners: Grasco Investments and Raymond & Phyllis Ems Name of Applicant: Craig Petrie 3. Address 18262 SW Bryant Road City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97035 4. Address of Property: 13400 SW 76th Avenue, the northwest corner of SW 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive, and two lots in between. Tax Map and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1DC, tax lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601 5. Request: Tha applicant recruezts Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 3.2 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 10,027 to 18,528 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. Zone: R-3.5 (Residental, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies Zinal yAN APPEAL IS FILED. _ UNLESS The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Avveal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. May 26, 1993 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. -9to y g,W. ~ 1 •Ms „i^►.Vlt-l-pdF ;1pg cON~OMINIVMS f \ , f , p~ i •c D x x 1 ~ n 7Aih AVE• ~ 1 . r oo o o Q Z i O aV x w N m~ 7 PLANNING 1V1 L;=ENG/NEER1 NG 233 S.E. WASHINGTON STREET. HILLS80R0. OREGON 07123 PHONE (S03) 648-4061 FAX; (503) 681.7641f MEMO DATE: March 28, 1994 TO: Craig Petrie, Lance Landis FROM: Harris Hyman PEIPLS RE: Excess charges on Pacific Ride Project, 149 We have analyzed some of the excess cost items, and detailed them. Please feel free to call me for clarification on any Item. A • 74th AVENUE On November 22, 2' of rock was laid on a proof-rolled base for 74th Avenue. In this condition the street was used to convey machinery during the next two weeks. We consider this a poor construction practice. Instead, the base rock should have been completely placed before there was traffic. While there may have been other circumstances,. the immediate use of the street precludes any evaluation. Therefore, we must conclude that all additional costs were caused by Empire Pacific's work and planning. 75th COURT On November 13, the subgrade was proof-roiled and then the base rock was graded in and compacted: Then it rained, and the street was no longer suitable, as shown by subsequent proof-rolling for curbs. Empire Pacific then dug up and replaced base rock as needed to achieve suitable proof-rolling. Had LDC been consulted on this, we would have recommended removing approximately 196 square yards of base rock at the hammerhead. overexcavating the subgrade by 4', laying fabric on the base, and then replacing sufficient rock for the base plus overexcavation. The cost of this should have been: Removal of contaminated base 1 hr @ $150.00 = $150.00 Overexcavation of subgrade 65 CY @ $4.15 = S269.75 Laying of fabric 587 SY @ S1.00 = 5587.00 0 ,Replacement of base 98 CY @ $19.66 = $1.926.68 v $2,933.43 0 O This amount should be borne by Petrie; any additional costs should be borne by Empire Pacific. Z =Z m ~rr ~ .J CL RETAINING WALL The top of the retaining wall around the tree was raised 18' to match grade at the base of the tree. This cost should be absorbed by Petrie. The additional concrete was 1.27 cubic yards. We will approve change order for approximately 1.27 CY Q S250 = 5317.50. ENGINEERING Hours expended by Land Development Consultants in dealing with the above items. Eric 1.5hr @ $45.00 = $67.50 Hassan 0.5hr @ $50.00 = $25.00 Harris 1.5hr @ $70.00 = $105.00 Survey 11.5hr @ $90.00 = i 035.00 $1,232.50 These costs were brought about by Empire Pacific's work and planning. LocJ49er.~1e LUBA NO. 94410 ExhRM No. r Page No. 5 1.-. - JLAY c: ' 93 10:Z0 FOOD ScE V i= F?ORT'LND --r . c JiAne '8', 1993 I CITY OF 71, . REG. P ON ...Dear Own e d subdivision 'deve?opmeet Of lots between" :S•..at. Fir. _ The ProPas Street and Chem Drive, -as:.sho•~n~.on.the attached' map, 'will.' reduire'• - ihe: extent-ic: of`a• *public• sanitary sewer"i'1Grt:h 'along v:"'~?rtii:.: = avenue- and. along Cherry- Drive; ° The sewer • will. be. .installed:'and paid - f or • by the developer of the subdivision . Several people : have expressed interest in 'continuing the. •sewe= :along $ :W. ?4th enue • , and: Cherry,: Drive to serve additional houses-"indluding. yours:.. 'Extending this: sewer. 'might cost each" "homeowner about, "•$5, 000 to. • S'8, 000 each. ' If' there' is. 'sufficient interest, a more:, detail ed :estimate' could. -be 'prepared: r Additional' expenses would ' include .a : • donnecti-on; fee`of• '$2.i 135:for houses',constructed after July- 1:.;!;3970'; . arid: *$335 ,for houses: •consti-uctea: earlier„ im addition, eachf- &fier would' havs= to abandon their existing septic system -and connect': to the :publi,cf.line at :an expense- ofperhaps - as much as $2, QO.O.i .~~-rs• •"~-=-'-,rte ! . ~:a K.:':"~.'~'s~ %.~''+u:::7~r.a:~sz~•r=,..~~.:rs:~:a:ia..w-s:•-n-;.4 :tsa••.,...~~_=cs.~='~-~_'~:~:. •1, ~,j•.. _'ri :.."~""r y 1 .~9v•acnu!i:e.s.±r~ ,~`~..y....~..+asa; •4.••s...:._'o''.~'• -i.r +r""~i~r~:aL J',~"~~ .r.:. -era- _ z. ~ au.. _ If :you -have any; interest i.n pursuin -#d pease not.fy men bi J' e'c1r• :•..~~~'s:.ta~ :..x22 ~~a~'• ' - ~n j ;,::1993. j„ If':triere ~is sufficient -interest, I : will =suggest,! we i st, ` Y chedule an: = evening.. -meeting :to•• more, fully .'explain the co procedures,-- and o tions.';::In the meantime, -if you have gttestions!•or reVire' ;additional intormat on; lease, 'call . - _ - ; • = Sincerel IWO Greg N. -:Bevy-rry gtilities Engineer I c . Randy ~loolev, City Engineer f LUBA NO. 94-110 - Exhlblt No. a Page No. (P D -2772 '13125 SIN Hail BMd., ilGard, OR 97223 (5Q3).'639-4171 TGD.(503)684 t -r;~ 7: t3 13276r► j~ f " j. t ; »L 133 • i'. : i 7.05 13315 J``'~~ 13333 - . _ 33:05• ~41~11 21 7 7C-. j j r ! 13397 :3 6 1334 jlpf~ ■ - ~ ' •iT .1:40 - •1 ' i{ 1 -t. 1 7 _ -13425..: AN& ' 7615 ~ 13453 . ' uitn..~'3":1~try {r r:.`.~ ~"~'~t..T ~u-. r V~ r ..~at~ ,•,~fi y ' ~ / .-v.. •t • G yr • r • •~~'Jal~~7Q ^•.♦,`'..y vr~'r•♦~••r•''• ~i~' •~-•T{`l}y„. •j :Ifi: a-laR7 •qr~~• ..vli••. ' •i r 3 ' . • . / r' ~ 1.3,'6.6'•3 + ,y '{.,,•.'w~'la 's.Ki~~~1' oZ 1` .tr,~•/Ma.~`/a .\~'d'1~T ~ ~ ' w . f1 is .t//A.., 5 Y ✓~r • i w: j.k Vil. ISM • ~ - 13775 • 1e-~1 a o o~ 1 •c: :tip 1r °i^~° _ Q~: r• _ . CE" EROR. 4 \ \ LUBA NO. 94-110 - Exhibit No. _5 Page No. CO t r I l f-c ( 1..~ m ~--t -bl-- -7 PETITION FEB. 3, 1994 • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER-THE YEARS, LAND,MOHEY AND OTHER GOOD VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS' TO THE AREA WHERE THE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED. THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE CONTRIBU- TIONS IS FAR MORE THA1J WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INVESTED IN HIS SEWER LINE. WE, THEREFORE, REQUEST OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REJECT THE FORMATION OF THE PROPOSED PACIFIC RIDGE SEWER RE-IMBURSEMENT DISTRICT. NAME ADDRESS LOT 0 . )15715- s•w, ?;Z = Sao snD ! 3c. 15SQ-22- Zl~l /f -7 4-7 Z Lj '5uj cam; e- S 35v l LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. Page No. ~2 Empire Pacific Construction Inc. P.O. Box 65.. West Linn. OR 97068 • 503-637-0260 '~C~RPOKp`~~O FAX 503-657-0304 November 1, 1993 i Craig Petrie The Petrie Company of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., Suite 2.00 Portland. OR 97219 ; Re: Pacific Ridge Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As the General Contractor for Pacific Ridge Subdivision, Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Is responsible for all underground utilities. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific has installed the sanitary sewer at a total cost of $42,684.00. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact.me. at' §57-0260. Best Regards, La4 ece Lads n i P:2sident Aim LU13A NO. 94-110 E7d lbit No.. 5 Page No. &3 .25!1374 x3:25 503-657-03u e-VIRE PACIFIC CON- PAGE 82 tstucryo'y Empire Pacific Construction inc. P.O.6ox 65, West Linn. OR 97068 503-657=0260 ~~coRPowk~o FAX 503-657-0304 March 24, 1994 Craig Petrie The Petrie Company 9600 SW Capitol HWY. Portland OR 97219 RE: Pacific Ridge Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As the general contractor for Pac'sflc Ridge, Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Is responsible for installation of all underground utilities. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific has Installed the sanitary sewer, with cost as follows: Protit en Total Bid Item Description Qty. Unit Unit Price Labor Matedels Equlpmart O/N Amount ;nary 7 8" PVC W/Rock BF 1`118 LF 523.4 S5245.6 411802.6 ;6567.0 $2622.8 $26228.0 3 8" PVC W/Native BF 82 LF $18. $298.4 $671.6 • $373.1 $149.2 $1492. 3 4" Lat. W/Rock Bacicfiil 254 LF 312. $635.0 $1428.7 $793.751 $317.16 $3175.0 10 4" Lat. W/Native BF 88 LF S14.0 $246-401 $554.4 $308.0 $123.2 $12320 I1 8X4 Tee and Plug 8 EA 535.0 $56.0 5126,0 $70.001 $28.0 $280.001 i2 8" Cap 2 EA $12.5 $5.0 $11.2 39:251 $2.5 $25.0 ~3• 4" Cap 3 EA $32 41.9 $4.3~ 441 $2. $0.98 $9.7 I4 Standard 48" Manhole 8 EA $1250.0 $1600.0 $3376.0 $1375.0 $760.0 $7500.0 ',5 Sanitary Break In 1 EA $500.0 $100.0 4226. $128.0 $60.0 $600.0 '8 Saw Cut A/C 990 LF S0.8 $117.3 $263.9 $145.6$58.6 $386.6 9 Trench Patch 345 LF $4.8 $331.25 _ $745.2 $414.0 $165.6 $1666.0 'otal SSS36.9 $19208.0 $10671.1 $4268.4 $42684.A If you have any additional questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at 657-0260. Best Regards, LUBA NO. 94-110 ` Exhibit No. 5 Lance Landis , T/, President Page No. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD . TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator ~ May 13, 1994 iJG. Zs FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer _jz~ SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Subsequent to the formation of the reimbursement district in March, the applicant has filed additional information documenting costs of constructing the sewer line.. Additional documentation was received on March 28, April 12, and May 6, 1994. The additional documentation reveals errors in the original calculation of costs. First, the construction costs included $1,446.10 of costs related to construction of sewer laterals. The laterals serve only the property of the applicant and the cost of laterals should not be charged to the district. Second, the total construction cost is greater than originally reported by $1,089.48. Finally, when the revised cost for sewer construction and total construction are used, the sewer becomes 24.9% of the total cost (rather than 26% as previously used). Using the revised percentage 7 reduces the share of engineering and permit costs charged to the1l / district Based on these revised figures, the total cost of the sewer mains. is determined to be $44,389.15 as follows: / Construction cost of sewer main $37,987.90 G~ Engineering (24.9% of $19,000) 4,730.25 Permit fees (24.9% of $6,711.90) 1..671.00 Total $44,389.15 h~' q I recommend that the reimbursement district be revised to reflect ! this revised calculation. The resulting unit cost is $2,017.68 /I which is $78.64 less than the previous calculation. A revised table of charges (Exhibit D-1) has been prepared. (t~~' / 1 t rw1petrie13 V r. 0 • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. 6 Page No. r/ 06/03/1994 14:40 aoioioK PRPFAX OF-400 K 02505396 P.01 1• • Transamerica Title Insurance Company 12360 San Bumdde Boa 16010 k7et riry\ aM Fankna. olt 9Tm6 Telephone 303 236.1160 Fu 303 256.5439 TONY MAXSON `'i M8W Rew der 503 256-1163 A PROPERTY PI~OFII.E FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AZ' 13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD 97223 PREPARED BY: KIMBERLY DATE: 06/03/94 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. C. 0 Page No. This title infonnation has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. 06/03/1994 14:40 ~op+oK PANAFAX OF--400 ~o+oK~K 02505396 P.02 a M E T R O S C:A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E Washington County #~rr##,Y*#*#**t,t**#,t*,t###*#*##*####*it***t*##*#t**wwwyrtw,r,e*##*,t#tt###~r*Irk###**#### * :aaoo~oaa=aat=aasaa~aa 7f * OWNERSHIP INFORMATION * :aaaoaaasaiaaaaa.5axsoa # * Reference Parcel #:2S101DC 03400 * Parcel Number :R0459729 * Owner :PETRIE CO OF OREGON THE * CoOwner Site Address :*NO SITE ADDRESS* * Mail Address :2554 NW 185TH AVE #3 PORTLAND OR 97229 * Telephone * aaaaaaaaaaaoas=soacaa:*a=aa * * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION * mnsaa=eas=aaecazaaaaas~aaaa ~ * * * Transferred:l0/01/93 Loan Amount: * Document # :81036 Lender * Sale Price :$29,000 Loan Type * Deed Type :WARRANTY * aaaaagassaaaoflmaaaaaaaaa~aosseae~tZ * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION aa=adaaa~aesaaaaaacp=av=3nao=ate * # • * Land :$4,000 Exempt Amount: * Structure: Exempt Type : * Other Levy Code :02381 * Total :$4,000 93-94 Taxes :$80.78 * Improved: * * aoacoaaa:aaaaaaaa~~e * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ===a====a=====__=_._ * * * Map Grid: Census :Tract Block * MillRate:20.1980 * Sub/Plat: * Land Use:1002.VACANT,RESIDENTIAL Legal :ACRES .90 ` a~=aaa-a=ea~c~aa:xaaxsaa= PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS # ~d==ocatae- -manna:tea== r * Bedrooms Lot Acres :.90 Year Built: Lot SgFt :39,204 Bldg SgFt # r,t~*#*#r*~,t*#t*#*,t,k~#•R##•*##:*#ytwi,r*t**11r*##~i#,ri*#!t*t1t##*##*#####t,t~t*##tt#*##*##wwt LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 40 Page No. I The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 06/03/1994 14:41 saaac PANAFAX UF-400 ~Iaaa~ 02505396 P.03 w,s«+tr WARRANTY DBED Nt► ' GRASCO VVESTMEN'TS, an Oregon partuenhlp consisting of Pad R. Warner and I.eaora A. Warner, as Grantor, hereby conveys and warnats to THE PETRIE Co. OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, as Grantee, the real property free of all attasmhraaoa, do- scribed as: Beglanit at the SE otxaer of the W.W.Gmham DLC in S I. T2S. R t W. W.M. in the City of Tigard, Wasidboan County. Oi+eBoo: thence N6'307. dons the Fast line of raid Graham DLC 811.70 feet; thence N$9*UV 3$0 Amt to the tnee point of beginning, this point bsieg in the were tine of a County Post them N0*30T &1= j t%• went line of Wd Canty Road. 1310 fact; thence N89'24V 294.67 (ear, thence SI *2yW 132.02 feet; ft",.* S=9'241E 296.78 Ret to the true point of beginning. Also (mown is Trot 10 of the unrecorded plat of pelson Trtlds. MM WSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF ?MB PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND RBOULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR AC- CLvI7NG THIS INTMU$4ENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING FtE TTII.l3 TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNINO DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY AP= PROVED USES.• The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $29,000. . • DATED: Z 1993. GRA.SCO nVESTMENTS. an Oregon partnersbip: by: Paul R. Warner, General Partner by: ore A. Warner, General Partner STATE OF OREGON Washington County ss The foregoin& instmnent was acknowledged before rue on 1993 by Paul R Warner and Lenore A. Warner, both as General Partners of Grasco Investments, an Ore- gon partnership. JUDITH 1.v7-:4 ` ` I NorMr pwi::ri:wf-orr, _ ' 0 9"Es ~ MN i? Wt for Oregon My commission expires: AFTER RECORDING RETURN To:) ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: A4op.5; rr TR.L'a=JUTY l:R tAx fltst Amsrkan Tflis lnsurona Compar4► b y~1 nX pun a:Tr 2354 N.W. ISS .'t Ave..:Sulty 3 \ - oZ n LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. le Page No. Wr-- 86/03/1994 14:41 PANAFAX OF-`00 g6 P.04 6 t STATE OF OREGON SS County of. %vowngton and Taj txa ftZi of A*Ydw sests Ant veyanoes : courrtY. do. cer* that ttie trfass2N»ont 'ot: was n~ceiw0 ,ham at of Ex- r... Otkb Doc 93081036 Rect: 109033 67.00 i0/01/1993 10:48:56AM • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. kl W/e3i1994 14:42 PANAFAX L F-400 '~D1o1ok 02SOMSS P-05 = M E T R 0 S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E Washington County k aasaasaa~cnocaaa~~ap~o * * OWNERSHIP INFORMATION * ~aasaa~aaocccoc~actaa * * Reference Parcel #:2S101DC 03600 * Parcel Number :R0459765 * Owner -PETRIE CO OF OREGON * CoOwner * Site Address :*NO SITE ADDRESS* * Mail Address :9600 SW CAPITOL HWY #200 PORTLAND OR 97219 * Telephone # :aaa~an~c=ac=aaaeanaa~asaa * * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION } =aa~assaao~=as=saa~eq~s~ocv * * Transferred:11/12/93 Loan Amount: * Document # :93918 MULTI-PARCEL Lender * Sale Price :$10,350 Loan Type :SELLER * Deed Type :WARRANTY } aenaaoa~a~eaaeaa=a=~esao~sac=co * * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION * aroaaass===naasaaa==ccaa~saa~aaa * * Land :$5,200 Exempt Amount: Structure: Exempt Type } Other Levy Code :02381 Total :$5,200 93-94 Taxes :$105.02 %Improved: * + aaa~a~a=a==QCaaeaa~e * t PROPERTY DESCRIPTION # n.~aaoc=c~=a=~ao~:zc * r Map Grid: Census :Tract Block MillRate:20.1980 # Sub/Plat: Land Use:1002 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL Legal :ACRES 1.02 # # PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS # naamaoccxaa==aaacv==aa~z= * Bedrooms Lot Acres :1.02 Year Built: Lot SgFt :44,431 Bldg SgFt : LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1,1 page No. The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 06/03/1994 14:43 iIorotolc PANAFAX OF-400 >wlolcrn 02505396 P.07 • Order ft 72s64s oo•nOR •A. PARML 1: 8e9atrft at the BouaheW Got W of the W.W. Ga ttm Donation Land warn to Seabn 1. To maW 2 80uft Rasp. a Wet of fife WEanut:. M41*1111 , In the City of Turd, County of wasi.pton and Stab of Orapon; VWM North 0030' ears along that Eat &p of aaM Graham Donation LxW Car+n em7o fast: thence North 88't4 West ssao feet to the taro port of beginning, no point berno in the Wet erne of a ecurq Road: tl0f North 003W east along the West line of sold County Road. 1320 feet: thence North W2a• West 2K74 foot; thence south 16W Went 139.02 feet thence south e9•z4• east Mm feu to the trt,a porn a beQinvNng. i XCEPW O THEREFROM that portion in SW Cherl Street. ALSO EMEPTiNG THEREFROM a VW of land In the Southwest quarter of Section 1. Township 2 Sorat+. Range 1 West of the WlWmeae Meridian, In 0» City of Tigard, county er wa trngm and also of 0mgm more benign" described as follows: 841*41rq t, the Southeast oomer at Lot 44. ROW N4 MLLS - PLAT 2: thence Easterly along the North ofd of SW Cherry Street 187.5 feat to the true point of boglnni ng; thence North 0.38' Past i f:3t to a poke on the 8" Um at that tract described in dead to Paul R. Wanner, at tare In Book 2M. papa 205. ald County Dw4 Records; gene North 88'24' Wag along the Sown Ono of said Warner tract 125 teat to a point; SotAh 0"A' 122 feet it, a mi't oil the North Ma of 610 Cherry Strer:• v~# P=wy along said North list 125 tact to the thtie port of beef MU* FASM l That part of the Wiliam W. Graham and wife Donation Land Claret No. A In Township 2 South, Range 1 West of the W kmNte Marklim in the Cry of Tlga4 tou* of Wahinngton and State at Oregon dascrMed as laOwR tb-cell: ' Coem+en>ci no at a stab on a South lino of said Dormthm Land Claim. 10.0 chains West of that most Easterly Southeast c9mar of sold Donation Land Halm: themp North 20 chains to a stake: thence ~Ot`t0 chains: Memo South 20 chart; thence East 10 chains to the place of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM tight of way of 8eawtW and WAtamsbw+g Railroad Company and of Oregon Electric Ramey Company. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM any piton lying within ROWNG HILLS - PLAT 2 in the City d Tigard. County of Washingt"and State n► Oregon. AND ALSO' EXCEFnNG THEREFROM a parcel of WO In the South halt of Section 1. Township 2 South. Range I W#M of dto Wtlamette Me kkM In the City of Tigard. County of Washington and Sias of Oregom belng men' paritculatlydwalind as folio m BeginfO ng it the Sotto ono-gAtty comer of said Section 1: Glance Noel W W West 298.82 teat to a point of intersection with the South Irta of the W.W. Graham Donation tend Claim No. W. thence Norte 0.57W East 24.02 feet to a polM thence North 8804230' East parallel with the Bald Donation Land Claim, South Ilne. 291.94 lost to a porst: thence North 0.69'60' eW 451.27 Isar to a point on the South line of ROLLING ML.LS - 2 Wag along the said subdNhlen Sohn Una 180.42 fat to an angle comer in said uftivfston South Una: thence North 410SS'40• Was chain iing along acid South Me 245.18 rest to a pant: thence South 1.14.20• fast Sti2.01 feet to a point of interaction with the Northeasterly right of way On of the Southern Pacfc Raatoad: thence South 42900' East anent the said e6hn at way uns. 7r7.0s toga to a point at 4tetsaeflan with the South line of said Section 1: thence North 89.3W East afwV the aid Suction Una, t 15,81 fast 6 the paint of beginning, i AND >:vxrl ER EXCEPTING THMWROM a portion of that tract of land In the William V. Graham and wife Daratan Land Claim No, 39. In Section 1. Townshrv 2 South Range 1 avast of the wasm.ae Marldtart, In the city of Tigard. County of Washington and State a Oregon conveyed to Raymond B. Ems. st tor, by deed roweled 0soatrtbar 2,1952;n Book 339. page 824. Washington County, Oregon Dead Rscwds...xP particularly deserted as foa".. r Beginning at a stale an the Southeast comet•of Lot 40. ROWNG FULLS - PLAT 2; thence Northerly wont the East One of saki Lot 49, a distance of 150 feet to the South line of SW fir street lheem Emarly along O U14 South me of SW Fir Streek a distance of S0 fast to the East itne of SW 78th Avwvw. thence Northerly atone the Esau line of SW 78th Avenue, a distanCa of 25 foot to the North line of Parcel i In one r aforementioned Ems tract; thence North f1VW least along tine North line of said tens tract a distance of 162-38 feet to a marked scene at the Northeast comO of said Ems trace thanes South 2001' West along ohs W • East One of said Ems tract a distance of 175 feet: *am* Westerly a durance of 210-8 teat, morn or last to m Z Z O e point of beQru+tng Z m Qt Lea 45. ROLUNG HILLS • PLAT 2. In the CRY of Tlpaotd. County of Washington and State, d Oregon J ~ a EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 148.33 to LrDj,~S, ROWNG HRLS . PLAT 2. 06/03/1994 14:42 ~IaoloK PAMAFAX OF-400 02.505396 P.06 y THIS DOW= 13 BUNG RERECORDED TO CORRECT 93081037 LEGAL DESCZt MOH nMOUSLY RECORDED AS FU /93081037 ft limp" WARRANTY D$BD RAYMOND)L EMS & PHYLLt3 G. EMS, both as Grantor, hereby convey and war. rmt to THZ PZ7= CO. OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, as Grantee. cerWo teal propaty in Wa hhigtoir County. Oregon, im of all encumbrances. described as spadfied in the attachod Exhibit A. 'IT•IIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR AC. CMMNO THIS 1NMUMBNT. MM PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TML9 TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VBRtPY AP- PROVED USES.* ~ 1 3~a of The ttne and actual eoaaid!lhtim for this conveyance WStS:9Qt AD tertas and eondidoos of the prior earaeu money aSreement between the parties dated 12B & 1219/92 are by thin reference included and inooeponftd berv- ia. Notwithstanding the oodme of the escrow and dodaS instructions accompanying this de4 exeartim, dtW. eryand accepanoe ofthis deed shW not be* waiver or release oreither party by the other otaay do%, calms or demands zdit out of Wd•earnest money agreemom DATED: .1993. /RAYMOND IL EMS PYLLIS GAMS ~ STATE OF OREGON, Wcshiagton County ss • The foregoing;instrument was acknowledged before me on .a -f 1993 by Raymond B. Ems dt Phyllis O. Ems. Jn DMH X LYNN NOTAWPM tp•p~aoN Notary Public for Oregon ►J1reo1AA►smflN£wc°~ t~? My commission expires: AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:) ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: ) The Petrie Co. of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., suite 200 Portland, OR 97219 _ LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 10 1 Page No. -7 a lq: qq i i i• •1 1 1 C olsoo" } ss C441ft at ate wos son of Sg qpt~ aid f d aid 16 t%~44 9309 1037 43.00 00 pJ19g3310'ga.S7W ~C CU2.-J.00 1 r-' 93093914 94AAO BA 00- R j~Z/1993 1°' S2 ~..U V.,dltbvL rio. 1 ` page N0. s+e•1 . 'rm r•. aal I sa I .~;r... g ouvolt ; - } sit$ ( ,lal ts m CON no swYa •..vr I ooy Y' I • 'Gtr A otu • - - - - ~-s~~ . ~sf• = DOW N-01 5(AiasnG M3 311.d 1431vs i x d s s 1• t N r s n g r 1 •n „ im "a 1 • • +wa ♦r ••Ir. j r war so ooze OM, em ~ `o I ,e t~~l +r ~ =f- as SO • r.i ~v am ~ • I It• fo w I Bit I Y la1 iW, 1 OOR M 30 ( W .►r wor Y► N lowl I won ..•r w •t I oac ann rP aow war v 3 L N 3 3'. a. , 7 O,R • ~ ~~r - ,olt • VON in own is Hu in t~ ma -wag - )G1 1 SZ rosmo .wl~•~ n"' 7'ISI INS SZl 1 NOILMS W17S M VM w • R 4•n m LUBA NO. 941-110 Exhibit No. (cQ Paae No. _~'7T Transamerica Title Insurance Company V 12360 Rut Butmido • ~C ~,e 1 Y1 n1 c-v% Box 16016 ?0AIN d. OR 97216 Wet+hone sob 216.1160 4-7 Fax 303 256.3439 JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN Night Rocotdor 503 236.1163 ATTORNEY L~ 1-7 FAX 228-4529 RE: 2S101DC T.L. 360103300 RECEIVED JUN - 71994 IMEUX Z; XLEINMAN amrsa 7G eT 7.W A PROPERTY PROFILE ENCLOSED: METROSCAN AND DIMD PREPARED BY: KIMBERLY DATE: 06/07/94 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Lo Page No title information has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregc Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultilaai.- insureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. ':RANSAMERICA 'rI,,LE INSURANCE COMPAvY 12360 East Burnside Portland, OR 97216 . Telephone: 503 2S6-1160 M E T R C S C A N P R O P E R T Y P 11 O F I L E_ Washington County ###***#t*###tex##*t*##t##t.t##xtt###ttt##t*#*t###tt#*ttt#t*t##*x*#tt###*#ttt##t .m.:~cs:aa=~a~ss~aao~~ t OWNERSHIP IN RMATION x CsasaS;ssaa ~~27a= Ref. Parcel 4:2S101DC 1636011 +Parcel No. :R045977 TRSQ:02S-01W-01-SE SW r Owner ;EMS RAYMOND 5 PHYLLIS G t CoOwner Site Address:13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD 97223 r Mail Address:13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 r Telephone :503-639-1258 R s s~ R s s s 1~ J s s 3~~ a a a L~ 3 i a C~_ * t SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION t s a s 0! P s a C 3~ a s!_ ? S~ i i A a C 3 # t Transferred: Loan Amount t Document # : Lender Sale Price : Loan Type * Deed Type Interest Race: * Owned Vesting Type : t * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION * ~ a0~L`~/saa=~~asaii~3~QTakfl'Z~.=G , * * Land :$45,500 Exempt Amount: * Structure:$129,330 Exempt Type * Other s Imo_roved :74 * Total 4174,830 Levy Code :02381 93-94 Taxes :$3,531.23 * wassaan==aa==aaasoCe * * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION * ~aaa~a~~aas~sa~a~=cam * Map Grid:655 G5 Class Code: * Census :Tract 307.00 Block 2 NbrhdCd :DMTG MillRa*_e :20.1980 Sub/Plat: t Land Use:1012 RES,IMPROVED Legal :.82AC • k s t R sasnaa=~ aaac~~~===~s13 =.:3 ' PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ' k Bedrooms :4 t Bathrooms :4.00 Lot Acres : Year Built :1968 Heat Method:HOT WATER Lot SgFt Effyearsit :1968 Pool BsmFin SF : Floor Cover:CARPET + Appliance BamUnfinSF^:700 Foundation :CONCRETE FT3 t Dishwasher :YES Bldg SgFt :2,700 Roof Shape :GABLE ood Fan :YES Porch ScFc: Roof Mati :WD SrikKE .4o' Deck Attic SgFt: :rterio=Mat:DRYWALL k Garage Type:UNIMPROV Deck SgFt : Paving Matl:CONCRETE r Garage SF :960 Ext Finish:HORIZONTAL WConsc Type :WD STUD\Sf.':G #*#tx#x##tt*#*tt**#ttt**#ttt#.t,FtRtitt#t****fwrrtt#ttextttx*#tt##*t##ttt*ttt*#t* The Infor;Zapion Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Noc LUBA NO. 110 Exhibit No. Page No. :RANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 12360 East Burnside Portland, OR 97216 Telephone: 503 256-1160 • = M E T R OS C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E- Washington County t###t,►*,r#rs:#*####***:***#ttt*t#!!t#**#:!###*#*R#r*t,►*tr*#t##*##r*,tt,tt###**t*#tt * airs.: es=aaasssaaCagak= ! OWNERSHIP INFORMATIDN 000000000 TOPORECON Ref. Parcel #:2S10Parcel No. :RC4597 TRSQ:02S-01W-0{-SE SW Owner :PETRIE * CoOwner * Site Address:*NO SITE ADDRESS* * Mail- Address:9600 SW CAPITOL HWY #200 PORTLAND 0 * Telephone * 0a30s::aa=0C0aa0a000Oa7doae3 * * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION * sa=aa.sa=aea-=tea:~:o~aac~a Transferred:11/12/93 Loan Amount * Document # :93918 MULTI-P Lender * Sale Price :$10,350 Loan Type :SELLER * Deed Type :WARRANTY Interest Rate: # Owned :100 Vesting Type :CORPORATION * aaaaaQi~a~x=Q=~saaC L~IISl. '.t '3 BLS t+tS^~ * * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION * .ts==s=Ly.oa¢aasa0a0ns=Ta as~-3 C~aa- * Land :$4,000 Exempt Amount: * Structure: Exempt Type * Other % Improved * Total :$4,000 Levy Code :02381 x 93-94 Taxes :$80.78 * ac^ns0as0SCoats=CaCO~= # * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ! aa7C -~tG~ as0a3oooa17C~o ! * Map Grid: Class Code: * Census :Tract Block NbrhdCd :DMTG MillRate :20.11080 * Sub/Plat: * Land Use:1002 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL ' * Legal :.49AC # ! • ~asaaa gaaaQ=T3a000~~R-Ct. f * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ' * BC:I~C'QiTiS r0oos=a,=-aasn=_caoae~ooa ' * Bathrooms Lot Acres : Year Built : * Heat Method: Lot SgFt . EffYearBlt . * Pool BamFin SF : Floor Cover: * Appliance BamUnfinSF: Foundation : * Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof Shape : Hood Fan Porch SgFt: Roof Matl Deck Attic SgFt: TnteriorMat: * Garage Type: Deck SgFc Paving Matl: * Garage SF Ext Finish: Corst Type #t*#1'*~#!t*#*tt#t**tt##***tttl4##tt*#*t#'e#***tt*#tt!##t!#*t#t#*rt#*##t**#tr*t#t The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not LUBA NO. 94-110 C. ~ Exhtb[t No. . Page No __7 TVIS DOCMW(r IS BEING RERECORDED TO CORRECT 93081037-1 WA - 11 19m, LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREVIOUSLY RECORDED AS FEE 193081031 WARRANTY DIED 10 hereby convey and war. RAYMOND B. EMS & PHYLI.IS G. EMS, bosh as Grantor. rant to THE PETRIL CO. OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, as OrantM attain real proparty in Washington County, Oregon, froo of all encumbrances, deaertbed as specified in the tN attachod Exhibit A. w "710 04SME MBNT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INST'RUMHM W VIOLAMON OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND RWULATIONS. BEFORH SION M OR ACr CEPTTNO TWS INSTRUN(ENI•. THE PERSON ACQUIMNO FEE TITLE To TTY PROPERTY SHOULD CHECX WITW TIDE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNINO DEPAMIE.NP TO VERIFY AP- PROV80 USES.' / eoo- ` 0) 550 rw true and actual consideration fbr this conveyance Is f, All terms Gad cooditlow of the prior earnest money apmocat between, the parties dated 12.1 & 12/9/92 are by this rcference included and incorporated hero. in,. Notwithstanding the contents of the esuow and closing instntctiou accompanying this decd, execution. deliv- ery end acceptance of this deed shall not be a waiver or release of either party by the other of any sights, claims or demands arising out of said earnest moasy agnument. DATED: X1993. 1 )RAYMOND B. EMS 1 ~RYLLIS G. EMS STATE OF OREGON, Washington Cminry), is . i The foregoing insmunent was acknowledged before me on f , 1993 by Raymond B. Ems & Phyllis G. Ems. OFF1CtAL0en Vomt K. -LYN" ORI Notary Public for Oregon NOTARY WeIIt:QRtnptl MY cOwulss oNEXPIAES m cm? ypr My commission expires: AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO-) ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: ) The Petrie Co. of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., suite 200 Portland, OR 91219 t LUBA NO. W10 Exhibit No. 1 Page No.~ . vbw No. 726M mleft •M • s•gUnino at the BouWesa cem•r of true W.W. Graham DwAtbn Later Calst in Seclhn I. Township 2 South. Range 1 West of the WV&m.tt. Mandan, In the City of Tigard. County of WawngWn and $MIS of Ort+ a thence North 0.30' East along the East One of Sato Orahom oonayon tend CWm 1179.70 teen. thence North AV 24' West 360.0 feet to the true point of beginNnO, this pmt bang in the Wed one of a County Road: 1henW North 0.30' EAR af" the west tine of Sold County Read. 132.0 tea: thence North tti 80'24' West 298.711 feet; thence Both 1.2S' Wag 132.02 toot Marc* Sown 89'24' Fast 208.110 feet to the tare point of bba t *4 EicczPTUd3 THEREFROM that portion fi ow cherry Btnst ALSO exermno THEREFROM a tract of land In the Swhweet quarter of Section 1. Town•hic 2 South. Range I WW of true wstamsets Martdlan. In too, City of Tigard. gamy of Waar lVan and sure of Oregon, nwre penwalty described as WOWS: 0"Imho at to Sosheost comer of to 44, ROLLING HILLS - PLAT 2; thence Easterly along the North Me of SW Cherry Street tRT.6 feet to to Into point of beginning; tine North 0.38' East 422 toot to o point on the South lino of Untt tract doscrtbod In deed to Paul R. Warner. st tot. In goon 263. page 303. serif County Deed Records; thence North 89124' West along fa South one of said Warner tract 125 lest to a poUtt; thence South 013W West 122 feet to a Pont on the North Oft of Sold Cheery Street thence Easterly along sold North lble $25 foot to the true point of begtnIng. PAACEL O That pan of the William W. Graham and wife Donation Land Calm No. 30. in TowmNp 2 South, Range 1 West at the w0ameae Mardian, in the City of Tigard, County of Washingm and Sive, of Oregon, described as f06owa, W Vit Commencing at a cake on a South the of said Donation LaM Chaim, 10.0 chains West of thit ~^QSt Easterly Southeast comer of sold Donation Lord Ciainr, thanes Noah 20 ctatns to a stake: thence I0 chauns: manes South 20 ChabW IjWCs East 10 chains to the pace or geglnning EXCEPTING THEREFROM right of way of Deawrion and Williamsburg Raaroad Company and of Oregon Electric Railway Company. • ! ' ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying within ROLLING HILLS - PW 2 in the Coy of Tigard. County of Washingtotlltnd State at Oregon. AND ALSO 1EXCEPTING THCREFROM a parcel of IoM In the South halt of Section 1. TownsNfp 2 South } Range 1 Wen of the Wdtamatte Meridian. In Me City of Tigard. 00unty of Washington sea State of Oregm being neon paaleweirty deacrfbed as follows: Segku*V at the Sotto one-quarter come of said Section t,1hsticv Noah 0'OS' West 398.112 test to a pour, of Intersection with to South the of Me W.W. Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39. thence North 0.59'50' East 24.02 lost to a point; thence North 88.42'30" East paral;ol with the said Oonatton Land Gaunt. South She, 291.84 foot to a point; thence North 0.59'50' East 451.27 te1fl to a point on tree South Mo of ROLLING HILLS - 2 West along the said subdivision South the 700.42 lost 16 an angle toner in said subdivision South .i. line, Monce North 41•S5'4W West continuing along said South line 245.18 feet to a point: trance South 1* 14.2W East $02.01 loot to a point of Intersection with the Noah•aaterly eight of way Ono of the Southern PacOtO Rs&oadt thence Soot 42.00' East along the said right of way fins. 771.08 loot to a point of tntenenton with the South tine of Sala S•ctlon 1; thence Northt 8439• East along the sags Section ans. i , 113.81 feel to the point W boq!nnlnq. :y AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM a portion of that tract of tend in the William V. G:anam and wde - Donation L trio Claim No. 39, In Secdon i, Township 2 Soran, Range I Weis of the eAltamete Ma4dlan, to the Chty or Tigstd, Courtly of Washington and State of Oregm conveyed to Rayw4nd S. Ems, R tan. %q 41040 reCOrd•d December 2,19S2 In Book 339. page 324. Washingtah Corny. Oregon Deed Records, mere particularly dosatbsd ere Ib9o*%: BogMIftg At a VAks on tine Southeast comer of Lot 40, ROLL1NQ HILLS - PUT 2; trance No.erty along the E131 Una of said Lot 49, a distance of ISo toot to LKS Swh Ono of SW Fir Street; theme Easterly along -q the South fine of SW Fir Street. a distance of So toot to the East ens a SIN 78M Avenue; thence Nw%herty f along tns fart tutu of SW lath Avem-e. a diiance of 25 lest to the Nean 2ne at Parcel I In the ' 'j afarer:nontioned EM3 SraC; thence North orc.W East along the North tins at said Em• tract a distance or 162.38 »et to a marked stone at the Northeast comer at said EMS user: Ih•nre Sour 2'31 • West along the ~ Le E111 Ono of Sala Ems tMet a dfate= of OS feet; thence westerly a distance Of 210.8 feet, more of less. to • the POW of bagiru ing , PARCEL Q i • Lot eS. ROLLING KILLS • PLAT 2, to the Cray of Tlgv4, Camty of Washington era State of Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 146.37 f~ to 4S, ROWNG HILLS - PLAT . WBA NO. 94.110 Page No. r` -ON eBEd j --ON 3141W3 0LL." 'ON V13M S~fSZ BLS ~OI L66IJZt/it i 661/10 t S95S[S 'S»8 OQCb0i ON 00`fZ 9I6E60f6 ~Oa /4EOIW g0Eb ~oPMW so 44 papiam P-6 DW*3*W MW ~'ts s~on -7 Nb { ~oP 10nQ'J =S ~ipp3tl0 30 3L1f3t ~M .10 UM i i!P S ED -:E; ;EP~-:E TO P. 01 UNIFIED Date `-3--~ SEWERAGE File Uff; ~ AGENCY • 155 N. FIRST AVENUE Project HIL LSBORO* OREGON 97124 (503) 648-8621 Subject s~• REnUVED- To ~T!r 2- w i(L9161M~- ti is 7 - 3 1994 FA-x. 2~8 - `~s 29 JUN j8FFR87C L XLEn4MAN ATT0= a'Y AT "W Item Copies Date Description ! ~ zS-9! cov~k-PAGE x Q~- o q, y8 2 SEC o v 2 . A, I gvI4 iNra/ SvacX 3 ~ PAM PP ~o q2-3 ~ s srt~W,~G svRrxE as you requested Remarks k9-0 9Z-3cf 404-fr-9D 2~0 ❑ for your information ql- ~qf OA) 17d- , BEST` ❑ for your approval /t'~oyvT~'r~J (i•~N~r"~••.1 mss ~~'rm ❑ far your review /N 2°-o g2-3~ ❑ return requested LUBA NO. 94-110 From S taC~ Exh[bft No. C0 Page No. _ 81-419 Jlri-3-3-11- 71 FZQM UPIiFtED ' &,EP*;GE TO RATES AND CHARGES R&O 91-48 (6-25-91) 1 IN THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY ri 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 In the Matter of Adopting a Revised) Schedule of Charges, Rates and Fees) 4 Relating to the Sanitary and Storm ) and Surface Water Management ) S Systems and Related Services of the) Agency; Adopting Administrative, ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 6 Provisions Applicable to all Fees; ) Providing for Interest and ) N0. 7 Delinquency Charges; Superseding ) Portions of Resolution and Order ) g 91-12; Pursuant to ordinances 22 ) and 25; and Declaring an Effective ) g Date. 10 The above-entitled matter came on regularly before the Board 11 at its meeting of June 25, 1991 having been continued from the meeting of June 18, 1991; and 13 It appearing to the Board that it did adopt Ordinances 22 and 14 25 A-Engrossed, on May 28 and June 11, respectively, which 15 authorize adoption of certain charges, rates, fees, and penalties 1g for the use of the Agency systems, and for services provided by 17 the Agency; and that certain of the existing USA charges contained r r 1g in Resolution and Order No. 91-12 are now in need of amendment; 19 and 20 It appearing to the Board that the proposed charges, rates - n2 21 fees, interest, penalties, and administrative provisions, 6 22 including amendments, are contained in Exhibit 111" attached hereto 0 23 and by this reference incorporated herein and that said amendments 24 carry out the standards and objectives contained in ordinance Nos. • 22 and 25 A-Engrossed; and 26 It appearing to the Board, that Exhibit "1" also contains a Page 1 o f 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. : __;i-► r , u Ur I I F I ED EEWEPk5E TO Jur+-u~-i~~r 11•_~ FPuM SECTION 2 RULES, REGULATIONS AND DEFINITION OF RATES AND CHARGES A. Fees in Lieu of Participation in a Local Improvement District The following are fees in lieu of participation in a local improvement district. These fees are applicable to property which makes connection to a sewer system line less than 12 inches in diameter, which was funded in whole or in part by a Local Improvement District, or for which a local fee is established in lieu of formation of a District. The fee is based upon the actual cost or-estimated cost of identified local facilities, not part of an Agency Master Plan or Facility Plan. 1. Bull Mountain West Pump Station Connection Fee Bull Mountain West pump station surcharge connection fees shall be charged in addition to the regular sewer connection charges for those properties benefited by the Bull Mountain Pump Stations, shown in Appendix H. The purpose of the surcharge is to help defray the cost of the construction of two large pump stations. The surcharge shall be applied and collected in the same manner as the regular sewer connection charges. Properties that participate in a local improvement district for the construction of one of the major pump stations, or which otherwise directly contribute funds towards the construction of one of the major pump stations, shall not be charged this surcharge. H. Line Tap Fees Line tap fees shall be charged for installation of a connection of a private lateral or side sewer to the public facilities of the Agency. The amount of these fees reflects the actual cost of installing and inspecting connections from private facilities to public facilities, based upon the average cost to the Agency of performing such work. Line tap fees are not charged when the connection is made as a part of a project for construction of public sewer line under Agency Construction Permit Agreement, in which the taps are shown on approved plans, and are subject to a performance assurance for the work. (See Construction Standards Resolution and Order.) These fees are not system.development charges. 1. Line Tap Fees a. Sanitary, $950.00 per tap b. Storm, $350.00 per tap C. Service Request Fees 0 The following are fees charged for services requested or r required to be performed by the Agency. In each case, the fee is established based upon the estimated actual cost, as defined in , o Ordinances 22 and 25, of performing the service or making the service O z,6 available. Z Z m 0z 1. Apportionment Processing Fees J a Apportionment processing fees shall be charged to cover the v Rates and Charges--page 5 qj_q F I ED _d.iEF TO F'. u FLED 92 im 30 AN 8 53 1 IN THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCYREMEDS 0EPARNEHT 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREG IEU SEIERAGE AGENCY 3 In the Matter of Adopting a Revised) 4 Schedule of Charges, Rates and Fees) Relating to the Sanitary and Storm ) 5 and Surface Water Management ) Systems and Related Services of the) 6 Agency; Adopting Administrative ) Provisions; Providing for Interest } RESOLUTION AND ORDER 7 and Delinquency Charges; ) Superseding Resolution and Order } NO.U_5 A 9,Q 8 Nos. 91-48, 91-61, and 91-69; ) Amending Resolution and Order Nos. ) z 9 91-42, 91-43 and 91-45 Pursuant to ) Ordinances 20, 22, 23 and 25; and } 10 Declaring an Effective Date. ) 11 The above-entitled matter came on regularly before the Board a 12 at its meeting of June 16, 1991; and 13 It appearing to the Board that it did adopt Ordinances 20, .l 14 22, 23, and 25 A-Engrossed, which authorize adoption of certain 15 charges, rates, fees, and penalties relating to the Agency 16 systems, and for services provided by the Agency; and that certain Z 17 of the existing USA charges contained in Resolution and Order Nos. w v 18 91-42, 91-43, 91-45, 91-48, 91-61 and 91-69, are now in need of 19 further amendment; and 20 It appearing to the Board that the proposed charges, rates 21 fees, interest, penalties, and administrative provisions, 22 including amendments, contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and 23 by this reference incorporated herein carry out the standards and 24 objectives contained in.the above-referenced Ordinances; and • 25 It appearing to the Board that the Plaa of Capital 26 Improvements for the Sanitary Sewerage System, described in Page 1 of 5 LUBA NO. WiO Exhibit Nor Page No. FZOOM utiIFIED :ct~E~t ~E TO F SECTION 2 RULES, REGULATIONS AND DEFINITION OF RATES AND CHARGES A. FEES FOR PUYSICAL CONNECTION TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Line tap fees shall be charged for installation of a connection of a private lateral or side sewer to the public facilities of the Agency. The amount of these fees reflects the actual cost of installing and inspecting connections from private facilities to public facilities, based upon the average cost to the Agency of performing such work. Line tap fees are not charged when the connection is made as a part of a project for construction of public sewer line under Agency Construction Permit Agreement, in which the taps are shown on approved plans, and are subject to a Construction Permit Agreement for the work. (See Construction Standards Resolution and Order.) These fees are not system development charges. B. SERVICE REQUEST FEES The following are fees charged for services requested or required to be performed by the Agency. In each case, the fee is established based upon the estimated actual cost, as defined in Ordinances 22 and 25, of performing the service or making the service available. 1. Apportionment Processing Fees Apportionment processing fees shall be charged to cover the cost to the Agency for processing apportionments. The fee is charged as part of the application unless the apportionment is initiated by the Agency where it is added to the apportioned amount. 2. Customer Assistance Charges Copies of Agency maps, publications and other documents provided by the Agency shall be charged at actual cost. Maps, publications and copy fees shall be waived for all governmental entities providing there is a reciprocal waiver of such fees. No charge shall be made for sewer availabilities and lateral location information. 3. Easement Vacation (Release) -and Consent to Release Fees Easement vacation and consent to release fees shall be charged for the investigation, review and preparation of the necessary documents; and approval and recording of the documents for the legal termination of an easement. Owners of properties that have been paid for an easement who request vacation of the same easement or a portion thereof shall pay to the Agency a like amount for the easement in addition to this fee. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. P Page No. V15 Rates and Charges --.Section 2 Page 5 q 2- 3~ I , ZUN e:, • -53 10: 59 FOOD SERVICE PCRTUND June • 8 1993 ' • . i _ CITY, OF TI OREGO .Dear. Owner:. I The, proposed- subdivision -development or lots between .S..i . Fir, ~ -.Street andCherr1r )rive, •as:.shownl.on.the attached aiap, ' wi~S~ r~equire,'•' - ++he:. extentic:T •of••-a. 'pufilic sari ary sewer" ~~Grth aiozig ' i~rh' ' i Avenue and. along Cherry- Drive: .!The sewer • kill b46. ;.nstalied.'and' , ail-for•by the developer of the 4supax-vision. Several- peop .e ave' . expressed interest in 'continuing the. -sewer :along S.R. 74th AAve~ue • _c • ' and: Cherry.; Drive to serve additional houses•'indluding. yours=,, • ' °.c~ . " Mktending this: sewer, might cost] each homeowner about:: 55, Q00 : tQ $000 each. If there' is. sufficient interest, a iaoice:;detailed estimate' could be 'prepared: .Additional' expenses would in...r. ;a • donnecti fee42.i.135: for, house's-,constructed after July, l:;1:1970=, ' arid: $335 for houses: -onstructed: earlier. In, addition, eagli j ner• • • would' have to abandon their existing::septic system and connOct'-to T ublic.line at. an expense. of "perhaps as_much _as -$2, 00.0. ."?^•aa.. ^T .;►P :J•`: -9.i'"~`a.,J:~i:ui.•.-: ~ .urSar~a'3~=a.s' a?~ •s - ""+t_~-~.....V..••' :+sojIf :you have` axly; interest `1S!' pursuing this, • please :notfp_ e bi•~J a , is sufficient '=intere st,I will sugggst, : we r schedule-,fan::'=eve- ing..-meet ing : to-• more," 'yexplain `=the cost;'"`'' fully Y ,procedures; and options the* meantime, • if you haveestns!•or' require`;addit.ional information/' lease 'call.- 3C=- ==7 - ~~-•_r1~~nr.' .ti~r.r•_: - .v. .~.:aJ~•i ..r ~ _.7• • r -i. - -Sincerely,— , 'r: _ > -1 i•.. Greg N Berry Utilities Engineer ~;icaperyAS:2as.Icr . - c I; Randy 'i~ooley, City Engineer a ' LUBA NO. 94-110 - Exhibit No. f 9 >f ; = Page No. <Q_ • ~f3?25 SW HcN Blvd.. Tlga cL OR 97223 (503)•639-4171 MD.(50,,) 684-2772 :..j7. a: -47 I W D 5 1 LL) 020 Z - Q ! T n 1 00 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER N 3 02 L 33 0 L 40 i L 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. EXHIBIT ."B" r REIMBURSEMENT' DISTRICT NO. S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 S 60 T 00 j EWSA I A Y ~O 0 " 44 CHERRY STREET ROLLING HILLS NO 2 I LUBA NO. Exhlbtt N. Lo 10 Page No. -2g STATE OF OREGON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD REGISTRATION 'CERTIFICATE This certifies that the person named hereon is registered as provided by law as a GEN CONTR/ALL STRUCTURES .Registradon NON-EXEMPT ;Number: [ 84736 . CORPORATION ` 1~ < Expires: [ 07/20/94 EMPIRE PACIFIC CONSTPUCtION INC PO 30X 65 O Z C WEST LINN OR 970680065 :t. Q a Z WRE OF REGISTRANT J O. ~ 1C~11C~1 IC ~ • 1C_~t 1~~11C'~i lC..'-N 1C'.~11C'~1 a M a V 0A t^A L1. ~ a35~ 'ON eBed 'ON 114IUX3 01.1.-b6 'ON V81711 lz E c E 1 v EPOMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7 9 01 MAy 311994 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 _ • The following meeting highlights are published for your information:•lull' agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall CITY Of TIGARD. Legal Notice Advertising Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. •Ci.ty of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 13125 SW hall Blvd. JUNE 7,1994 •;.;.y;;:;': •Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL '''°h'°`M•;r " 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON ri,, a•. • . • • Study Meeting ('Town Hall tonference Room) (6:30 P.M.). ,-*r Y ,Qa.n► . ! Agenda Review.. Business.Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) - laths of Office. • i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Mayor a=:z Council Position No. 3 STATE OF OREGON, ) • ; Council Position No. 4 x,:c COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' va.c ae~ r. Kathy Snyder Special Presentation being first duly sworn, depose and sa~~y that I am the Advertialn~ ~a :~;)tionoring Jack Schwab, Interim Mayor Director or his principal clerk of theTigard-Tualatin Times 1?tllic'Hearing . a newspaper of general circulation as defined In ORS 193.010 Oral ~ ftcimbursemcnt.District- Pacific Rid g Subdivision • • ~ • - and 193.020; published at Tigard In the Continued from•A nl 12 1994) g • a`."ip~c ' aforesaid county and state; that the j. p City Council Business Mtg. Council Consideration a printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was published In the • 'Elect Council President (to serve May 24 -December 31.1I9p.4, entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and ! Ordinance Amendment to Tigard Municipal Code M~salo, + :Chronic Nuisance Progeny: consecutive In the following Issues: ~"Ir L&c .fbontract Review Board Meeting ~.,.r May 26,1994 Executive S ssion: The Tigard City Council ma go into Executive Session undcr'the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (c), & (h) to.dis- cuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and,ii&ding litigation issues. < .',M,~de~'y!o, 777901'-,Publish May 26, 1994. r s='• Subscribed and sworn to b re me thla 2 6th day of May,19 9 4 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P c for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024502 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16. im My Commission Expires: ..t AFFIDAVIT _ G L 2~ c~ rZ~~rn.42c,~2.~.e,rr~.rtt Jr, cf - L 3 Council Agenda Item 3.1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jack Schwab. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jack Schwab; Councilors Judy Feeder, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Loreen Edin, Management Analyst; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 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. Council meeting reconvened into open session at 7:12 p.m. STUDY SESSION 130th Street Extension: CIT West met April 5 and discussed the 130th Street Extension. Citizens voiced opinions for and against the completion of the extension. In order for the project to be removed from the Transportation Plan, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be applied for and approved. City Administrator reported that there was great support for. the construction of the pedestrian bridge - this will be done as soon as possible. Agenda Review: Item 4.4 was pulled from the agenda. The Council meeting - scheduled for May 17 (Election Day) was cancelled. BUSINESS MEETING Council Liaison Reports: Councilor Fessler reported her appreciation for staff assistance in sending letters with regard to a current House Bill proposal to limit local government control along cable and telephone lines. T Councilor Fessler distributed a draft resolution from Metro regarding the 2040 growth concept recommendation for Council's information. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. CJQ 2. Proclamation: Mayor Schwab proclaimed April, 1994 as Fair Housing Month and read the Proclamation aloud. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon, expressed concerns with the proposed pedestrian bridge in Summerlake Park. He urged the That bridge not be built until the street connection was made. He reported on his understanding that the foot bridge would be constructed in a portion of the street connection right of way. He was concerned the foot bridge would interfere with the future street connection or used as justification to not build a street connection. City Engineer acknowledged that a portion of the foot bridge may be located in the same area as the street (now a gravel road) right-of-way. The materials for the bridge can be salvaged and could be relocated to another area when the street connection is made. No wetland mitigation would be required for the foot bridge. City Administrator advised staff would proceed with the construction of the foot bridge unless otherwise directed by City Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and Fie: Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution No. 94-j_~L 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TCYS) Pulled from agenda NOT APPROVED 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Stone Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units City Administrator Reilly noted the following changes: Item 4.2; it was requested that the Council Calendar be amended to show the May 17, 1994 Council meeting was cancelled. Item 4.3 had been requested to be withdrawn and would be considered under Non-Agenda as 7.a for separate discussion. -Item 4.4, the lease agreement with TCYS, would be deleted from this agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ~ Page No. a Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Consent Agenda items 4.1 and 4.5. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted yes.- Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to amend Consent Agenda 4.2 which would adopt the City Council Calendar with the deletion of the May 17, 1994 meeting. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted yes.j 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION a. Public hearing was opened. b. City Administrator advised the City Attorney had requested this item be set aside until May 24 to tlow the appellant to prepare for an appeal. Mr. Reilly advised that staff concurs with the request c. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to continue the Public Hearing to May 24, 1994. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 0-yes.1 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RECYCLING RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Schwartz advised he had participated - in several discussions with people on this issue. He also advised that there were several letters in the Council packet from residents on this agenda item. Mayor Schwab said he also had had discussions about this issue. He clarified that this was a legislative public hearing and as such, prior Council discussion and review of information would not present a problem for a Council hearing on the issue. C. Management Analyst Edin introduced the agenda item and summarized the elements of the staff report, including the process used for gathering public input to date. Consultant Rich McConaghy reviewed several overhead slides, which included the following information: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 --PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. • Presentation overview • Yard debris options • Comparative benefits • Relative monthly costs • Yard debris recommendations • Cost control opportunities • Scrap paper opportunities • Scrap paper considerations • Individual exemption use • Recommended class exemption (Copies of the presentation material used by Consultant McConaghy are on file with the Council packet material). in response to a question by Mayor Schwab, the consultant advised the haulers would not receive enough money from the sale oTscrap material to cover the cost. The scrap paper program would represent a fee increase of approximately 50 cents a month to customers. With regard to yard debris, special trucks would be needed. The consultant explained the City sets the rates and these rates are reviewed annually to determine whether they should be adjusted. Councilor Hunt noted the prices the haulers can get for recyclables are • erratic. For example, at one time milk jugs looked as-if they would be profitable, and then were not He also noted the price of newspaper print fluctuates. The consultant said the scrap paper market was very good because a Springfield, Oregon operation will be buying more scrap paper than can be collected in the adjacent region. In further discussions with Councilor Hunt, the consultant advised the rate assumptions were based on going to a fully automated solid waste curbside retrieval system. This had been taken as a policy direction of City Council at a previous meeting on this issue. Councilor Fessler referred to options available for customers to have control over some of their costs if they found they were able to reduce their non-recyclable trash and then utilize the on-call service. Management Analyst Edin reviewed some of the discussions that had been held with citizens with regard to their concerns. An exemption program was reviewed. She noted there would be a class exemption recommended for homeowners associations who have limited need and provide maintenance for their grounds. C17Y COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Ms. Edin described some of the elements that would be necessary for the class exemption for homeowner associations. Such exemption would require a vote of the homeowner association and a demonstration that someone would be providing service for fifteen or more homes within the association area before they would be able to vote for the exemption. Based on the assumptions made and with HLA's experience, City staff felt comfortable with the cost assumptions presented in the staff report d. Public Testimony: Jerry Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was opposed to the proposal because it did not provide for an exemption for those homeowners who compost and re-use their own yard debris. He noted the program does not promote home composting and is therefore flawed. Mr. Ott recommended the program should promote "true recycling" and that home composters be allowed an exemption. Bob Parsons, 10040 SW Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon, Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Summerfield Civic Association. (Mr. Parsons' entire written text of testimony has been filed with the Council meeting material). Mr. Parsons described the Summerfield Civic Association which was comprised of 391 units. In addition, the retirement community has an apartment complex of 175 units, and an assisted living facility of 157 units. He advised that all the town house and condo associations have contracts • with landscaping companies to take care of the year-round yard=- maintenance. The contractor hauls off yard debris to an approved collection station. Mr. Parsons advised Summerfield was very supportive about the class exemption offered for homeowner associations. Mr. Parsons advised everyone was interested and willing to recycle all of their refuse in an effort to conserve the landfills "just give us a feasible and workable opportunity to do so." Cece Dispenza, 11460 SW Downs Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted the information given by staff and the consultant was dear and concise. She advised she was in favor of the bi-weekly yard debris pickup, and noted the majority of people in the City of Tigard would use the service. She advised the yard debris program would make it possible for a tremendous amount of material to be removed from the waste stream. Council meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. - T Mr. Merle Pugh, 15685 SW Old Orchard Place, Tigard, Oregon (Mr. Pugh signed in to testify, but had left the meeting). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 5 WBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. Page No. Merrill Breshears, 15100 SW 98th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Breshears • expressed concerns over the additional costs to him. He noted he composted and chipped his yard debris and did not avail himself to many other recycling opportunities, because he recycled on his own. There was brief review of some of the rate options. Mayor Schwab noted there may be options for Mr. Breshears to save costs, and recommended that he contact Ms. Edin to determine what would be the most cost effective option for him. e. Council questions: Mayor Schwab questioned the 120 gallons of yard debris collected every month. He especially questioned the rationale for the winter months. The consultant responded it had been Portland's experience that the start and stop of yard debris pickup was not as effective, and there was quite a_ bit of 'missed diversion.' (That is, there was a significant amount of yard- - debris which would not be pulled from the waste stream if a seasonal pickup was used). The bi-weekly, monthly program appeared to be the most cost effective from the hauler's perspective, inasmuch as the investment in trucks must be made, regardless of the frequency of pickup. If the City opted to go to a monthly pickup only, then a depot system would also be required. • In response to questions from Councilor Schwartz with regard to larger, amounts of yard debris, such as tree limbs, the consultant advised that a larger bin service is available. Councilor Schwartz asked for clarification of what other cities were doing besides the City of Portland. The consultant explained what had been the experience of other cities, and referred to a matrix (see Council packet material, page 31). There was discussion regarding home composting and what incentives would be provided for people who do home composting at the present time. The consultant advised that customers would receive a home composting bin from their hauler. Councilor Hawley questioned what incentives could be offered to encourage people to compost Tom Miller, owner of Miller's Sanitary Service, clarified the rates were calculated to factor in the fact that approximately 40% of the people would not use the yard debris program. The $2.90 rate was based on the assumption that 60% of the customers would use the yard debris service that was funded by 100% of the customers. If an exemption for home composting was put into force, the rates would increase. _ f. Public hearing closed. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. .Page No. g. Council Consideration: • Councilor Schwartz advised he could not supportthe proposal as presented. He noted he felt there was a need to take people who compost their material into consideration in some way. He said he did not have a suggestion as to what could be done, but would recommend that an option be put together for costs for an on-call system for yard debris. Councilor Hawley advised she supported the recommendation but would like to see an amendment for individual exemptions. She was concerned about incentives for people who were taking care of their disposables through composting. She said that the data (from other cities' experience) indicated that only 10% of the customers would request an individual exemption. Councilor Hunt supported the staff and consultant recommendation. He noted he probably would not use the yard debris pickup more than approximately three times a year; however, he was against an exemption plan because it would be 'a can of worms.' He further explained that an exemption program would require administration and possibly additionl staff to monitor. He also noted that with the addition of being able to remove scrap paper from the garbage, this would take care of enough of the waste so many people could use a smaller can and save costs. • Councilor Fessler noted that in listening to the remarks of other Councilors, it appeared that all five Councilors would not use the yard debris service because they were already taking care of this waste. However, she also noted the need to make this service affordable. She said she supported the staff recommendation, and also supported the class exemption as proposed. She urged promotion of the program in order for it to be successful. Mayor Schwab said he, too, supported the program as presented by staff and the consultant As part of the reason for his decision, he noted that if there were individual exemptions the cost would rise. He pointed out that according to estimates, the majority of the households in Tigard would use the service. h. Motion by Councilor Hawley to direct staff to come back on April 26 with information to discuss individual exemption options. The motion died for lack of a second. Y • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 7 LU13A NO. 94-110 Exhlbf! No. 2 Page No. Q 0 i. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to • prepare the proper legislation to adopt Option A as proposed by staff and HLA, for Council consideration at the April 26, 1994 Council meeting. Motion was adopted by a majority vote of Council - 4 to 1 (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes'; Councilor Schwartz voted 'no.'s 7a. COUNCIL REVIEW: CONSENT AGENDA TTE 4.3 - APPROVE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FEE AGREEMENT. Councilor Hunt requested a clarification of wording within the agreement which gave him concern that the City may be losing control over where the TIF dollars would be spent City Administrator Reilly noted the language reflects current practice. City TIF dollars are used for the County road system. The City participates in discussions to determine how the dollars are to be spent. Mr. Reilly advised the City would have less influence over TIF funding expenditures N Council did not adopt the proposed-resolution. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Resolution No. 94-18: - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH • WASHINGTON COUNTY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 0yes.1 8. Executive Session: Cancelled. (Note: An Executive Session was held during the Study Meeting portion of the agenda.) 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. &W'L~ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City R er Ma or, City of Tigard v - W2675g ccff*4,294 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 0 Page No. Cl ~ • 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 Deaf). Upon request; the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualffled 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 Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 ' LUBA NO.94-110 Exhibit No. Z2 Page No. 145( - CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 1994 • AGENDA • STUDY MEETING • Agenda Review • 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. 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. PROCLAMATION - APRIL 1994 AS FAIR HOUSING MONTH • Mayor Schwab 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: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution NO. 94- 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TCYS) 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i • 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION • Staff recommends setting this public hearing over to a later date. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RECYCLING RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Consultant Report and Recommendation • Staff Summary and Recommendation - Management Analyst Loreen Edin • Public Testimony Proponents Opponents - - • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing Council Consideration: Motion directing staff to prepare necessary documents to ratify Council decision for consideration on April 26, 1994. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT =0412.94 • COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.0 Page No. l U U i O'DON NELL, RAIMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW • BAL LOW & WRIGHT BUILDING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street' Portland, Oregon 9:209 I~ of TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 APR 0 8 1994 ~i•ua.! DATE: April 7, 1994 TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Postponement-of Hearing on Reimbursement District No. 5 Last week our office received the attached letter from an attorney representing property owners affected by the above- referenced reimbursement district. You may recall that the Council set April 12th to hear objections to formation of the district. The letter requests that the City void its decision to call for this hearing, in lieu of a citizen petition calling for one. I subsequently discussed the matter with Mr. Kleinman and he agreed- to a simple postponement of the hearing. He asked for a hearing date in late may or June. • I talked to Randy earlier this week about this possibility. He said that he 'anticipated the Council would be hearing on that date, but could not yet be sure. -'Our suggestion is that staff advise the Council to postpone of the hearing until May 24th in consideration of the objections voiced by these affected property owners. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. LUBA NO. 94-110: Exhibit No. II_ Page No. 10 • AGENDA ITEM # 5 For Agenda of April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reimbursement District No. 5 Hearing PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK ~G CITY ADMIN OK ~V~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hearing on the formation of Reimbursement District No. 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's office has recommended that the hearing be continued to a later date. See attached memorandum. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 8, 1994, the Council:.approved .Resolution No. 94-11 forming Reimbursement District No. 5. A copy of the resolution is attached. At the time that the resolution was passed, the Council directed that a formal hearing be scheduled. The hearing has been scheduled for the April W_2th meeting. Notice of the hearing and a copy of Resolution No. 94-11 has been mailed to the owners of property within the reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Following the hearing, the Council could • By motion, reaffirm Resolution No. 94-11; or, • Direct staff to prepare a resolution amending Resolution No. 94-11; or, • Direct staff to prepare a resolution repealing Resolution No..94-11, thereby eliminating the reimbursement district. FISCAL-NOTES *w/petrie8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. je Page No. I D;L ODONNELL P.AMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4.94 12:26 No.008 P.02/04 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN • ATI'OriNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WlUGHT AUIMING 1727 N.W. Hoy[ Sm-14 Portland, Omgun 97209 IUMPHONE: (503) 222.4402 FAX: (503) 243.2944 DATE: April 4, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer VIA FACSIMILE FROM: Ty. K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Bearing on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 On March 31, 1994, our office received the attached letter from an attorney representing the owners of Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500 in the above-referenced reimbursement district. Objections to establishment of the district were set to be heard on April 12, a date well within 60 days of the date of establishment of the district. The Code gives affected persons 60 days from the date of establishment of the district to file a • petition for hearing of such objections. This letter objects to the Council having set the hearing without a petition, and calls for its postponement. In order to provide for a resolution of this issue, we are suggesting that the hearing called by the Council for April 12, 1994, be set over. In so doing, the City will assure itself that the hearing when held will not be subject to challenge. If you have any further questions on this matter, please- feel free to contact me. TKW/jh , Attachment (March 30 Letter from Jeffrey L. Kleinman) CA0MVVkw\dvard\+woky.mem LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I-)-- Page No. 103 - ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:27 No.008 P.03/04 O'DONNEII, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN • JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN MAR 3 1 1994 ATTODXCY At "w THE AKaAssAwR 1207 S.W. Stx: H Avrxuz PomAx% Onzow 07204 TF.LUMC I (503) 248-0808 FAx (503) 28&4529 March 30, 1994 Timothy V. Ramis Attorney at Law 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard Resolution No. 94-11, Establishing Sanitary Sewer Reimbursertnen District No. 5 Dear Tim: I represent Anthony J. Maksym, M. H. Monson, and Steve • wilmarth, owners of Tax Lots 300, 400 and 500 in the above Reimbursement District. I am trying to come up to speed in this matter, and would request copies of the relevant portions of both minutes and audio tapes of the Tigard City council hearings conducted on February. 8, February 22, and March 8, 1994. Based upon the information available to me, I have a number of concerns about the proceedings to date with respect to the application or applications in question, and the hearing called by the City Council for April 12, 1994. The only issue I am prepared to address at this time is the scheduling of that hearing. Resolution No. 94-11 was adopted on March 8, 1994. TMC §13.08.020 gives affected persons 60 days from the date of adoption of the resolution to file a "petition or other legal action intended to contest the connection charge * + This would give potential appellants until May 9 to file the appropriate petition with the City. There is no provision whatsoever for the City commencing an "appeal„ hearing of its own. On behalf of my clients, I would assert that the conduct of any such hearing would comprise an entirely ultra yires act of the City and its elected council., Moreover, the limited time allotted for preparation of a competent appeal has given rise to manifest unfairness to the citizens of Tigard, and at least the LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. L page No. 1(r ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:27 No.008 P.04/04 • Timothy V. Ramis March 30, 1994 Page 2 appearance of favoritism with respect to the application and the applicant in question. I hope the City will proceed in this matter in strict accordance with its own code provisions, and that there will be no need to commence separate legal action. Ve truly s, of r y L. Kleinman JLK: slb cc: Anthony J. Maksym M. H. Monson Steve Hilmarth • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. 1-4- Page No. 105 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94 -_Ll- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS,. all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 50, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C.. The zone of - benefit ' shall -be, known as ' "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No.- 5. Section 3: Payment of the recovery -agreement-- connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving -city permits applicable to development-of each parcel within the zone-of benefit as provided for in--TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate-of three percent (3a) shall be applied. to the;.. connection--. charge Section 5: The zone formations"daie'.A s. February- 22,-:-19.94. The' right of reimbursement-shall end on February 22, 2004; unless • extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 - (b) (2) . . LUBA NO. 94-110 RESOLUTION NO. 94- Exhlbit 140'. /a= Page 1 Page NO. LD(~ l solrtion s re and ause a cop io,IntYlreco affected rder sha ffi e of oiutlon to address in The Ci Y, RedCO in the of this relast known . t cop Section 6: to all mail 3. y at tp81p20 (f) and s roperty oWith T14C 1S accordance lggq. bh da f This " y/` and T g PA5 SSD: 1 Y o ATTEST 1 7 Ut~~ Tigard City City Recorder . ~~es55 d~l~'ea yq,.110 LUBA O jurt 140. J,; page NQ. ~gOLUTID~ ND . ga . - page 2 • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT` DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service-to seven adjacent properties.. thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements: in the future.. This has, created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit - The zone of benefit is the ' properties shown' as - the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B): The proposed zone- .formation" date`:.for the -sewer .is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement districfi~: It is recommended . that-- :the ~ reimburseii ent--:distriet continue for ter years. After . ten. years; :properties connecting " to : the>;-sewer would nc o longer be required. to'-pay^=-.the_-=-reimbursement,-.- unless the time is extended by the-Council as:=provided in"-TMC 13.08.0.20 (b) (2) Cost ZZ o r- Z The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction,-including design and m a tM inspection costs is $46,119.00. .All of this cost has been paid by The J D. Petrie Company. . Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the_lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided.- This seems to be -a -reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than . one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should'not be charged their full share of costs until such time as. they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of.. one-.,--- residential, -.structure:- on. . each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides:.: that= connection of.:. one..., - residential structure. would:. be."%, charged :.fore- only one. -.unit of cost.:-,--. Subsequent -development would pay any remaining:: share of°:-costs . - Interest Rate > - _ - K-Y TMC 13.08.020 (b). (5) provides _that,'.4n annual percentage rate, shall be - applied to the - connection ct arge::=.on:= the : - anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement . - = The applicant- has requested tlia -_~the- :finance charge be -3$; which is comparable to that currently -being;paid:to-finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the--financing costs for private development C • are usually somewhat higher..-"`--:'.-- Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation • o date, the established connection--.-charges shall be increased by-this Z Z c m :e j Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charae** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 _ 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided,-..the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision. (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties--within -the zone of benefit are connected directly -to sewer lines:." outside -the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. "Note 4: For residential- structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one-.unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For::. commercial development, the connection charge shall;:: be :for: the number of units shown in_ - the table above:? Theycharge- per.unit: is $2,096.32. Over the.-. life of the reimbursement:-district, the- total charge to any. tax lot shall not exceed.- the. number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlblt No. 1 _ Page No. 10 EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south'line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 01° 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner:of.lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of-way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of.. said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the . southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, alont3 said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to -the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records;..--- thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the, east line of said Fee Number; -a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of . -way of - thee-.Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149--page..293' of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 89°.-51' 46",W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet :to the;--east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four' courses; .:thence. N 02° 02' 440 E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890--:51!:= 4691. W. a distance of 162.15 -feet; thence S 01° 28' 24" W a distance "of 25:-01 feet;. thence N 89°= 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet,i..to. =the` Northeast` corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence -N 890.* 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance- - of:. 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. John:!: I.Pe C. been LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 664-0360 Notice TT 7 8 5 0 BEAVVTON, OREGON 97076 O 4- R E C ~,gaVV 9Nptice Advertising *City of Tigard QQ~~' • O Tearshest Notice 0z C 3125 SW Hall Blvd. of VGA Z s: Z Tigard,Oregon 97223 011• • O Duplicate Affidavit m Q C Th t>1 hli ti Wcii published for.Yqur Information. Full m 1 i i ~4 t 1 u~8 11 i8 g '4P ago. ibe o I POO from tho City Recorder 13125 S:W..Hall gard;; (0i' ' 9,7223 - or by Calling V9-4X7,1, .a~-nee4 , r ,,Ii;: Fxq. Bo. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, -f "r`J"~'p~~ Ci'~C~CDUNCII $1SINESS IviEETINO ; ' ! 14 I`,; a'a'' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )ss. APRIL;12,.19941 : -.TIGARD CITY HAIL TOtWN'HALL I, Kathy Snyder -131i5.$.W:~NALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertiein , s - 1 ' Director, or his principal clerk, of the Bard-Tualatin ~ mes Study$Wafi (7bwn Hal(CprtfCrenca Room) 26:30 P.M.) I , o v Agena Review ; a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T Bard in the T.Jpdate from Meetin~'wilh Council/Sch~ool Board Subcommittee o esaid County d slaty+,~,: r~ , r r c Y~. , at 1;~,.,. City Cou e; that the .P : ne t Business Mtg. Busines 1 eeA (1r6wn`I all)(7:30I?.1VI;) Public~tearing:t.Y a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the , Re1fn , . buit0ilhdnt Distri6i-"'Patific•Ridge Subdi'vision• entire-issue of said newspaper for nNF :';Yard Debris'Pro m'Implem n tf n u'~' y:,." : ; k`'" successive and gra a to o ,;,:a=; consecutive In the follOwi C `i~f1aC • H t DNS 1' t' i'+ ' nQ Issues: ~4 ,,I!t.:.• If: s:",i t,-''~.I;1,5 ;?iA.,'~ ~ ,c I:ocal. Contract Re:Vlew, Ooard.Moeting:,; -April 7.1994 s ~t.~t~i~s~•;ri~:i~~r ~ ~s.. _ ` •f~:I~a,.~h: `I ;CI ~.fizeq,ve. Ses"Cio~; '~IiajTigAr~:City Council.ma go Jnto lixecuftve'' : t ~ Session under the.prpvisions.ol,ORS 192,660 (1) .~d); (o) & (h) iq.di ' ;,:pus: lAbQr• &~a4iQirls, real prpperty trtinsactions curront~aitd,pe diri{Q~.k" ticig> 1on:iue$. .•F:r~iLJ: l., ,••„i.:. S . 'Y:••1~ 1 ' ''t.l i~11W;f~l~l.i ~d~•.~• I` M8501=Publish'Apki'7 1994, Subscribed and sworn efore me t11js7th day of April,19 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS % NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Not Public for Oregon COMMIS31ON NO. 024552 MY COMMISSION PIRES MAY 16, 1997 My Commission Expires: AFF1VIT _ Revised... • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON f 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 Deao. 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 • COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. H Page No. 1T- MARCH 8, 1994 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING • AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) Annexation Policy Discussion 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 • 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (This agenda item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994, City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the Council review district formation.) • Staff Report - Randy Wooley • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 937_ COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Page No. I -t 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) -ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93- 0004 BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL LOCATION: North of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue, and 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 9AD, • tax lots 1100 and 1000). A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential 7 units/acre). The applicants are requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcels to the city sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 10.3.2,; Community Development Code Chapters and Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) The R-7 zoning designation allows single-family detached/attached residential units, duplexes, public support facilities, mobile home parks, and subdivisions, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents (In favor of the annexation.) Opponents (Opposed to the annexation.) Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation • f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION LOCATION: Affects residential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. A request to amend Community Development Code Section 18.84.026 (1) to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family structures, other than manufactured homes, to be one foot above the elevation of a 100-year floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.30.120 (Standards for Legislative Decision-Making). a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents (In favor of the proposed Code amendment.) Opponents (Opposed to the proposed Code amendment.) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 I _ 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR • THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.44) a. Staff Report: Finance Department 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - ARLINGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director (Note: Staff report for this item will be available Thursday, March 3, 1994. Council will receive this report in this week's mailing.) 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SELECTION OF INTERIM MAYOR a. Staff Report: City Administrator 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Tigard Triangle - Update by Consultants 11. 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT ao803W.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. II & a c4 R\ age- D)s kr C-f- - -r4--e m 1:6 Ph 5 - S Council Agenda Item 41 • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING M WTES - MARCH 8, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at 9:05 p.m.); Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Annexation Policy Discussion: City Administrator Reilly advised staff was presenting information on annexation to help determine what Council desired to achieve through the development of an annexation policy. Associate Planner Acker distributed the "official policy" from the Comprehensive Plan (this information has been placed on file with the Council packet material). Urban services, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, were reviewed briefly. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the areas of annexation which include the following: • Walnut Island • Fern Street/Bull Mountain North • Pockets on the Tualatin River • Bull Mountain South • Bull Mountain West • Metzger For each of these areas, Associate Planner Acker facilitated the Council discussion with regard to assigning importance between annexation and the following elements: • Growth management • Eliminate subsidies • Financial gain • Critical mass _ • Irregular boundaries. • Defensive measure • Eliminate problems: • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. ► l I Council discussed the term "financial gain" as it would apply to an • annexation. There was discussion on the cost to annex, what dollars would come to Tigard, and whether there would be any "financial gain." A gentleman in the audience indicated he was a developer who had bought some property in the Walnut Island area. He inquired if he should wait to see if the property would be annexed and work with the City of Tigard, or if annexation of this area was a distance away. After discussion, the developer was advised that Council was reviewing their policy and it would be expected that within thirty to sixty days some policy direction would be in place. The developer was advised that if he wished to proceed, it would probably be best to go ahead and work with the County. Mayor Edwards advised that with regard to the policy discussion, the City should annex out to the urban growth boundary. He noted past history, the method of annexation, and the current situation where there are erratic boundaries, islands and pockets of areas within the urban growth boundary which are not currently in the City. Growth management, he advised, should be a consideration for annexing each of the areas not presently in the City but within the urban growth boundary. He advised the total package should be looked at for the long-term benefit of the City. Councilor Schwartz advised he agreed with Mayor Edwards with regard • to the growth-management concept as it would apply to annexation. Councilor Hawley also noted the importance of-managing growth and that annexation could be used as a tool for this. Mayor Edwards advised that in addition, the added population from annexation would provide more "governance clout." He noted Tigard would probably be at about 45,000. people if all UGB areas were annexed. Associate Planner Acker noted other growth management tools were available and referred to modification of the UPAA agreement. (-A copy of the UPAA agreement was submitted to Council in the council packet; it is on file with the meeting materials). Mayor Edwards advised he felt it was a different scenario today with regard to annexation than it had been prior to setting the urban growth boundary. The urban growth boundary assumes the area will be urbanized. Those areas, under development and within the urban growth boundary but not within the City, are taking advantage of City services and, thus, are placing an unfair burden on the City taxpayers. He advised development within the urban growth boundary should be controlled. Also, the City should receive the taxes generated in that area. He noted open communication was important when talking to citizens in areas which may be annexed. These people should be shown how much the City would receive in taxes and what it would cost the City to provide services to them. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i 1 rl • Councilor Hunt noted his position has been for "forced annexation." He stated he would consider bringing any islands into the City boundaries. Councilor Hawley agreed the City should initiate proceedings to bring the island areas into the City limits. Councilor Fessler advised she would prefer to specify a future date which would be announced so those people living in the island areas would know when the City plans to bring them into the City limits. City Administrator Reilly advised timing of the annexation would be important, so the services provided and the taxes received would occur together. Council consensus was to stress to staff that as much information as possible about pros, cons, and the financial information should be available to give to the citizens who would be affected. It was noted this would not be a financial windfall for the City, but it would be a good management opportunity. City Administrator Reilly advised staff will outline a more aggressive annexation policy, in skeletal form, for council review. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:10 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 7:25 p.m. Business Meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Council Fessler announced the Third Annual Fanno Creek Friends of Trees effort had been held recently. She reported 800 volunteers planted 10,000 trees in the Englewood area. City Administrator Reilly announced the Tigard Triangle update by the consultant would be placed on the agenda under Non-Agenda items. City Administrator Reilly advised Item No. 8 was to be deleted from the Agenda; no action or discussion was required by council at this time. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I Page No.. 1 IS 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Louise Shaw presented a hand-out to the City Council (on file with the Council packet). Ms. Shaw noted her concerns with the interpretation of the Oregon Constitution which says that the free speech clause may not be read to ban laws against obscenity, including child pornography. She noted it was important this stance be reviewed in order to preserve the quality of life. She announced that Tigard is in a State which protects obscenity. She noted she was associated with a number of citizens who felt there was a need to change Oregon's Constitution. They are organizing to attempt to effect this change. She requested Council consider taking the following steps: A. Sign a petftion to*move this effort along. B. Gather signatures on petitions. C. Come out in support of this effort. • Hank Miggins addressed the Council, advising he was a candidate to the newly-created (by Metro Charter) position of Auditor. He advised he was present to introduce himself to the City Council. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Councilor Hunt noted that the Council Calendar should be corrected to indicate the Mayor's Reception would be held March 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. City Engineer Wooley clarified that the project in Item 3.4 would be funded by Transportation Impact Fees (TIF). Councilor Hawley questioned Item 3.5, asking how the lowest qualified bidder was determined. She noted there was substantial difference between the lowest bidder and the next bid. City Engineer Wooley explained the firm is reviewed by staff to determine. whether they are registered with the Contractor's Board and whether they have obtained the • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Ext0it No. ~5 Page No. 111_l . necessary bonding. He advised they also do a check on the • contractor to determine their ability to perform the type of work required. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the Council Calendar corrected as noted. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes"). 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSMCKNT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION: (This Agenda Item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994 City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the Council review district formation). City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report, noting this issue had been before the Council twice before. He advised the staff report is the same as presented on February 22, 1994. City Engineer Wooley reviewed on overhead slides the connection charges, and what was done to reflect Council direction and concerns by the developer. He noted on February 22, 1994 there had been discussion about a surcharge which the City had been collecting on sewer hookups. At this time the City Attorney's office has advised the City should cease collecting the surcharge until further review can be made regarding whether this charge should be collected. There were questions by Council regarding the developer's costs. City Engineer Wooley reviewed how these costs were derived. Testimony: Mr. Craig Petrie expressed concerns with past dealings with the City of Tigard as well as this one now before the City Council. He said that when he bought this property, he also received the historical perspective on the property. He brought up several concerns dealing with the presentation of information by Mr. Maksym, including the declaration that there was a dedication of the right-of-way on 74th Street. Mr. Petrie advised that as a-developer, he made an investment in the property with the hopes of return on capital. Mr. Petrie submitted pictures showing sewage flowing in ditches, to illustrate his point that sewer connections were needed. Mr. Petrie said the Code language was fair and that he should be able to take advantage- of the reimbursement district provisions as would-:any other person. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 9"10 Exhlblt No. Page No. C Anthony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, responded to Mr. • Petrie's claims that he had not been factual with regard to the 20 foot right-of-way dedication on 74th Street. He asserted this was a proper claim by him that the street had been dedicated for public use by him. He referred to 200 feet of land vacated by Council at the back of Cherry Street, which was under private ownership and now has sewers installed. He noted he had placed some papers on the Council desk with the purpose of clarifying his points of testimony. Mr. Maksym advised he thought the agenda was in error. He said there is no valid application before the Council at this time. Mr. Maksym questioned the calculation of costs for construction of the sewer, and asked whether there was adequate proof of these costs. He noted the City must go out to competitive bidding and that Mr. Petrie was not required to do this. He.noted that if people are to participate in a reimbursement district, then they should also be afforded the right to have the costs be at the lowest possible price. He requested clarification information from the City Engineer, including the number of lots on the Petrie property. He also questioned the City Engineer on the cost verification of the construction. Mr. Maksym urged Council to revise the ordinance with safeguards normally available to citizens. He noted the zone of benefit was only for Mr. Petrie. He noted that if the • ordinance is accepted as prepared, then this would be in error. Mr. Petrie responded to Mr. Maksym's concerns, noting "Mr. Maksym wants something for nothing." Mr. Petrie advised he thought Mr. Maksym was leaving out relevant f acts, and advised he withdrew his application on February 22, 1994 because he wanted this issue to be heard before the entire council. He advised he had provided corroborating evidence with regard to sewer costs. Councilor Hawley asked some questions about documentation for engineering costs. She advised that if the City Engineer had gone over the reports and accepted the f igures, then she would be accept this information as being satisfactory. Councilor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel to respond to the issue of whether or not this was starting over, or if the application should be accepted. Legal Counsel Ramis responded he had not listened to the tapes, and if it is Council's recollection that Mr. Petrie withdrew the application for decision by full Council., then Council should proceed with a decision on the issue. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 9"10 Exhlbft No. ) ~1 Page No. 1'80 There was a letter submitted in the Council packet from Mr. • Craig Petrie, requesting that City Engineer place the request for creation of a zone of benefit district on the Council Agenda for March 8, 1994. Councilor Hawley concurred that Mr. Petrie advised he wished to have this issue be heard before a full Council. After discussion, Council consensus was to review the application. City Administrator Reilly noted the public hearing nature of this issue tonight was premature. Once formed, there will be an opportunity for public hearing. The item for Council to consider tonight is: Does this request meet the threshold test for a reimbursement district? If yes, then Council should review to determine whether or not to 'approve the formation of_a reimbursement district. Any affected party can appeal this approval, and then a public hearing is held. At that time, Council can uphold, reverse, or modify the reimbursement district formation. Councilor Fessler asked questions about the computation of the per-unit allowance on the costs of a sewer hook-up. Councilor Schwartz advised that when the ordinance was approved about four years ago, he believed the intent was to allow the person who had to install the line to be reimbursed • if other property owners wished to connect. This way, the initial property owner or developer would have the opportunity to receive some reimbursement for the up-front costs. He noted that people would not be charged in advance for connections they are not using. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the costs claimed for reimbursement and how approval of the amount was obtained. Councilor Hunt noted he felt a different set of circumstances was before him if the $3,000 surcharge was no longer collectible. Councilor Hawley noted the Code now allows for a reimbursement district. This opportunity is offered with no means of distinguishing between a developer or private landowner. She noted staff had done a good job; Council should determine whether this application met all criteria. If so, Council should approve formation of the reimbursement district and then the formal public hearing process can be implemented. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. ! as Mayor Edwards agreed with Councilor Hawley. He said that the • only way to resolve the concerns raised would be to form the reimbursement district and allow the public hearing process to follow. He supported the resolution in order to "get the process going." Councilor Schwartz agreed that the intent of the reimbursement district had been satisfied and said the district should be formed. He noted the concerns of Mr. Maksym with regard to cost allocations had not been supported. During Council discussion, it was noted there were concerns that the public hearing process should commence as soon as possible. Legal Counsel Ramis advised that property owners are asked to trigger the hearings. However, he advised that the City Council could require the hearing. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, that if the resolution is approved, the public hearing process would automatically be triggered and staff would start the process for formal notification. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Resolution No. 94-11: RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes", Councilor Hunt voted "no"). Council meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at this time). Council meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. 5. PUBLIC MUUUNG (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93-0004 BROWN/EUSTIS/BAIL a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. 5 Page "No. 1 a C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy • reviewed the staff report. During the staff report, Community Development Director Murphy advised that an island area would be created if this annexation was approved. Councilor Hunt questioned whether the island created could be annexed now. Community Development Director Murphy advised staff would return at a later date with the island annexation proposal. It was noted the Bull Mountain Road portion which was annexed into the area would still remain a responsibility of the County with regard to maintenance. d. Public Testimony: Larry Altendorf, 14472 SW 130th Avenue, Tigard,.OregoA, _ had questions about what the zoning change from R-6 to R- 7 would mean. He asked for a better idea of what would be planned for the area. The decision on the type of development planned for this property was not before Council at this time. It was explained to Mr. Altendorf that the development approval would come before the Planning Commission at the time the development was to occur. Mr. Milford Pond, 14335 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, questioned whether or not the area that was now an island would automatically be annexed into the City. Council President Schwartz responded the City of Tigard would not automatically annex the area, but would be looking for annexation in the future. e. Staff Recommendation: Approve the resolution and ordinance. f. Councilor Fessler noted the staff report referenced an official letter which had not been received from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ball. Community Development Director Murphy advised the Balls were notified and had indicated by telephone that they had no objections to the annexation. An official letter is not required. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Resolution No. 94-12. RESOLUTION NO. 94-12 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUT LINED IN EXHIBIT "A", AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I Page No. )AU i. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council • present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") j. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to amend Resolution 94-12 to note that in Section 3, the City Council hereby declares its intent to annex the island in the short-term future. The City Council directs that proceedings be started for annexation no later than March 31, 1995. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") k. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt ordinance No. 94-04: _ ORDINANCE NO. 94-04 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONE CHANGES (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes"). • 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. Councilor Hawley questioned what was meant by "substantial improvement" in the language of the ordinance. Community Development Director Murphy noted he did not have a definition for "substantial improvement" and this would need review at the staff level. He clarified that houses would not be allowed to be built in the floodplain. d. Public Testimony: None. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Motion by Councilor, Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to approve ordinance No. 94-05. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Page No. i 5 • ORDINANCE NO. 94-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN, CODE SECTION 18.84.026 (I). Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.44) Finance Director Lowry reviewed the staff report on this issue. The ordinance, if approved, will allow Council to change the sale terms for sale of property and if a sale is unsuccessful, try a sealed bid again, or list with a broker. Proposed amendments will also simplify the sale of substandard parcels such as those resulting from the Gaarde improvements. Staff noted these changes will greatly improve the sale process and make it more reasonable and flexible. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Ordinance No. 94-06. ORDINANCE NO. 94-06 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.44, SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICTS HEREWITH. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET E%TENSION - ARLINGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT This item was deleted from the agenda. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SELECTION'OF INTERIM MAYOR City Administrator Reilly summarized this issue, noting Council had planned to interview interested applicants. Two applications had been received; however, one candidate had withdrawn his name. Councilor Fessler advised Council needed to move on this process. She said she supported the appointment of the candidate who had submitted an interest letter, Mr. Jack Schwab. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94V 10 Exhibit No. Page No. ! to . Councilor Hunt noted he thought the City was fortunate that a candidate had expressed interest who had experience, could step in and be productive for the City. He added the City had been criticized that this process had not been well publicized, but advised it had been advertised in the Oregonian, Tigard Times, and Cityscape. Council President Schwartz noted Mr. Schwab had served as an appointed Councilor in the past, and appreciated the fact that Mr. Schwab was stepping forward to assist once again. He also noted Mr. Schwab was a past First Citizen for the City of Tigard. Councilor Hawley noted she was ready to "get going" with this appointment. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to appoint Jack Schwab as Interim Mayor to be effective April 1, 1994. Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") Mr. Jack Schwab, who was present in the audience, advised he' would accept the appointment and he said he hopes to "keep the Council running in good shape." 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Tigard Triangle - Update by Consultants Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the Tigard Triangle report. A recent open house devoted to the Triangle planning effort was well attended. During the open house citizens had the opportunity to review and ask questions about different ideas being proposed for the Triangle area. Mr. Ralph Terran from OTAK and Mr. Randy McCord from DRS were present to review the Tigard master plan with City Council. There was an adjustment',-In density from 165 residential units to 900 units in the area. Areas along 68th and 70th (which were not viable for residential use) were recommended to change to office-park use. Land uses as well as the site relationships to each other were reviewed. Mr. McCord reviewed the transportation element in the proposed Triangle plan. An inventory of the system was done and guidelines were developed to plan for transportation which would compliment the land use plans. There was reference to the I-5/Kruse Way connections, as well as addressing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I a-1 • pedestrian traffic and connectivity between mixed use areas. Associate Planner Acker advised the City has been going through a process of developing the plan. Now, implementation of the plan must begin. He noted that a specific area plan should be adopted; this would be accomplished through a series of proposals for Council consideration. This process of hearings should be completed by the end of the summer. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:22 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:14 p.m. C Attest: Catherine Wheatley,'City R co der Mayor, ity of Tigard at Lj 11 a l Cl cOOM.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO.94- 7 ~ Exhibit No. r _ Page No. 1 a`~ 7;~25o • 4 y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON to h 1 RESOLUTION NO. 94-.1.L_ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer .Reimbursement District No. 511, attached hereto as Exhibit' A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development.of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by'the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) RESOLUTION NO. 94- I I LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 1 Exhibit No. Ap Page No. IaQ - • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). &h PASSED: This - da f , 1994. Nr or - icy o Tigard ATTEST: l.t/4t gwu/ ~~v City Recorder -City Tigard dj/RW:Pae-;idge.SS • RESOLUTION NO. 94- I LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. 112 Page No. 13d - Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer-line--al-s-o-•provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. • Financing _ A11 costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of-benefit is the properties shown.as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B) . The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LVBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit 100. L_ Page N0. 131 • Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than 0 one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost-, to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge. on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 30. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. L,(2_ Page No. a • amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS • LUBA NO.' 94-110 Exhibit No. -J(Q- 3 Page No. 1:3 a EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 I S.W. FIR STREET ' 7 0 I 9 T 60 a - - iL 35 I ~ W 2 T 00 3 a vi NEW SA IA YS WE' ' o • 7_ N T 00 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER 3 L320 (A 44 T 3 02 TL 3300 L 40 m w (D CT D CHERRY STREET Z:XZ - P z0 0 • L 00 i- ~ G ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER • EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling. Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88° 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, -a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 • feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 89° 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. johns!Apec.ten LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. im__ Page No. /35 • Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone 'of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any. tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i • PLEASE PRINT l S~r I- Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) ame Name N T Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address h:\iogin\jo\Les* • LUBA NO. 94410 Exhtbft No. Page No. AGENDA ITEM # • For Agenda of March 8, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacifid Ridge Subdivision i PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council previously discussed this item at the meetings on February 8th and 22nd. However, during the February. 22nd meeting, the applicant (Mr. Petrie) withdrew the application. Therefore, Council made no decision on the matter. On February 23rd, Mr. Petrie requested that the application be reinstated. (See attached letter.) ettached is a copy of the previous staff report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/petrie6 • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1-9_ 1 Page No. THE PURIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 February 23, 1994 D FEB 2 3 1994 TO: Randy Wooley City of Tigard CITY OF TIGARO FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Zone of Benefit District # 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you place the above mentioned request for the creation of it zone of benefit district on the council agenda for March 8th, 1994. This zone will not only benefit me but it will benefit the owners of tax lots included in the zone in that without the zone a hookup will pay an additional S 3,000.00 and with the zone a.hookup will pay a figure of S2,096.32. The zone of benefit exists in the City code, my request qualifies according to the code, the City has never denied a request for formation of a zone of benefit, and the formation of the • requested zone is fair and equitable. The formation of the zone will also save others within the zone S 903.68 per hook up. You previously have on file the information that I am required by the code to submit and ask that you submit the information that you had prepared for the meeting February 22, 1994. i Sincerely yours, ' Craig A. e e ' LUBA No. 94-11o Exhibit No. 18 Page No. 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 ' AGENDA ITEM # L) • For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT'HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 - - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a- proposed reimbursement district for sanitary sewer to Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the--Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February.10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). he engineer's report has been amended. Exhibit A has been revised to eflect the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised by adding Note 4. Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district. Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of-the option of requesting a hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Page No. I UD Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the OF ttached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 0 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbtt No.1.5~ _ Page No. ► 4! THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 D February 9, 1994 0 1994 TO: Randy Wooley OF TIGARD City Engineer C~ Tigard Oregon FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I am requesting that for tax lots 300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development of those sites that the hook up fee be S 4,192.64. So in other words if an office building/or development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be S 4,192.64 even if there is only one hook up. On the other hand if an existing structure is hooked up and there is still land which is developable the current hook up fee should be S 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of S 2,096.32 would be paid This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full development of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. Today I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your time, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, Craig A. Petrie 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY PORTLAND. OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-110 FAX: (503 244-0123 Exhibit N0.16 _ Page No;,' • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by the Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the -zone of benefit, and* the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a- zone of benefit as recommended by the.City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as _ shown.in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage-rate of three percent (3$) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement- shall end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by"the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I$_ Page No. IJ Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution 40 to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1994. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit NO. I,7) Page No. IV Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be-formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown:as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. / if Page No. Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the.larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost" to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on-February 81 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development-would pay any remaining share of. costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing-costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. -On each anniversary of the zone formation . date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ,6_ Page No. 1,40 amount. • Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RK:Pac-Ridge.SS LUBA NO..94-170 Exhibit No. _ Page No. --L'41- -EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 W a9 T 60 a L 3 1 v ~ W • z T 00 3 a NEW SA I A Y 0 z N T 0 ~ NEW SANITARY SEWER 3 L320 44 T 02 FL 3300 L 40 m ~C Z pQ~ CHERRY STREET Z • z0 O • • L 00 l~ ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT "C" • REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E. along the south line of said lot- 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the -northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88° 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of-way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 071 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington .county Deed Records; thence N 020 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right. of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 89° 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. . Johns_h\pee.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer -lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. L_ Page No. 150 03/06/1994 1?:18 TSS 503 692 058? P.01 February 28, 1984 T0: Tigard City Council RE: City Council meeting, !Barth 8th, Reimbursement District. Council Members, Since I will be out of town for the City Council meeting on March 8th, I decided to write a note regarding some concerns I had after the February 22nd Council meeting. During the discussion between the Council Members on the merits of allowing the developer to form a reimbursement distirct it was pointed out to the Council that if there vas not a reimbursement district the City could collect $3,000 per hookup from the property owners. This is $1,000 more then the homeowners would be required to pay under the reimbursement district and I don't feel this is equitable. Instead of trying to help the homeowners it appears the City is eager to increase our costs if it benefits the City. I would hope your decision is fair for those concerned, especially the homeowners who it appears will be paying some of the costs. Sincer ly Steve Wilmarth Lot 0500 72 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I6 Page No. 1 s ~ho~os SUbM 1~raQ e,+ rie J Q geru~a Z~erJ 3~8~qI LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I Page No. r, I: c E I v E COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7 811 MAP BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 °IS OF TIGAttt: Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW HA11•Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as. I-Kath}r cnmder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advectisin y Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin qimes a newspaper of general circYation a defined in ORS 193.010 t and 193.020; published at lgar In the aforesaid county and state; That the City Council Business Mtg. 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: March 3.1994 Subscribed and swornto a ore me this3rd day of March, l9 OFF:C;AL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON ~1 Z40K2 Notary P lic for Oregon COMMIS3;01N NO. 024552 MY CO!NMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18.1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT = LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1G Page No. i ~5-3 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 calling 639-4171. j > CITY-COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 8,1994 : TIGARD CITY HALL = TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL,BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON StudyMeeting (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.) ! Annexation PblicrDiscussion Business Meeting (Tkiwn`Hall).(7:30 P.M.) • Council Consideration: Formation oUa Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge thdcawn;at February 22, 1994, Council meeting; applicant -bas requested the Council review district-formation on the Mat+e"lt$;199* agenda) Consider ordinance amending municipal code provisions concerning the sale of surplus real property Public Hearings:'-' ' • Annexation `Hearing.- ZCA 93-0004 Brown/Eustis/Ball.. Location: Nort"f S.W. Bull Mountain Road; east of S.W. 129th Avenue, and 12765 S.W; Bult Mountain Road. A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City_.of..Tigard and to change the lone from Washington County R-C(Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7, (Residential Tunits/acre.) Zone Ordinance Amendment - ZCA 93-0007 Floodplain Floor Elevation = affects-residential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. This request, if approved, would require the lowest flogs elevation of one and two t`amily structures (other-. than manufactured homes) to be one foot above the elevation.of a 100-year Aoodplain. Local Contract Review Board Meeting Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive :Session undcrihe`provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations. real property transactions, current and pending litigation isstics. M811- Publish March 3. 1994. Y LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ~1q Page No. 1~ Revised 2/17/94 • 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 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ,D.0 Page No. I ~S TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1994 AGENDA (PLEASE NOTE: ALL AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE 2/15/94 MEETING HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING AGENDA) • STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.) 5:30 - 6 p.m. - METRO TRANSFER TAX REVIEW AND UPDATE • Representatives from Metro 6 - 7:30 p.m. - YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM DESIGN • Risk Manager 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Collson - Resolution No. 94- 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94- 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Water Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94- COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110- Exhibit No. aQ Page No. 1_co 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT • DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (This agenda item is continued from the February 8, 1994, City Council meeting.) a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94- 5. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents • Rebuttal e. Council Questions/Comments f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94-- 6. ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION • Staff Update: Community Development Director 7. DISCUSSION - INTERIM MAYOR SELECTION PROCEDURES • Staff Update: City Administrator 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 wao=94 • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. :9,PY Page No. Council Agenda Item • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Judy Fessler. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Pro Tem Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, and Paul Hunt. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Loreen Edin, Management Analyst; Bill Monahan, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • METRO TRANSFER TAX REVIEW AND UPDATE Metro representatives Craig Prosser and Rob Monroe were present to review this agenda item with Council. • Mr. Prosser advised that approval of the Metro Charter changed the priorities of operation for Metro. He said the that the Charter stipulates that Metro must:. 1) Adopt a future vision for the region. 2) Establish a regional framework which addresses nine areas (listed on-Page 2 of the Charter). (Note: A copy of the Charter has been filed with the Council packet materials.) Mr. Prosser reported that the Charter did not give a source of funding, but prescribed the mechanics to develop financing. He reviewed the financing options available to Metro. Some taxes must be referred to the voters; some can be adopted by Metro Council (but can -be: referred to the voters). The current Metro tax structure was described. The Metro Tax Study Committee must review Metro-imposed taxes prior to implementation:- -(See packet for a copy of the "Metro Tax Study Committee* -..Report - and Recommendations to the Metro Council - November 15, .1993,.-)- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Q_ Page No. ,Sg The Tax Study Committee has developed a recommendation; two • components of the recommendation include a construction excise tax for new construction and a real estate transfer tax. There appears to be more support for the construction excise tax than the real estate transfer tax. It was noted that the real estate transfer tax is now a funding source for other entities. The Tax Committee hearing process was described (see pages 8 and 9 of the Committee report.) Discussion followed on ramifications of different types of taxes, excise fee increases, voluntary dues (for which some cities cannot pay), etc. Mr. Monroe advised that planning must be done for the region to protect livability. Millions of Federal dollars will be lost if the required planning is not done. Mr. Monroe noted that the 2040 Plan should be in place by early Fall 1994. There was discussion of the review of the Urban Growth Boundary and the pressure to expand Mr. Monroe informed Council that Metro would be asking for continued.input as time goes by. • YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM • Management Analyst Loreen Edin reviewed her February 2, 1994, memorandum to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (A copy of this memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) This memo highlighted areas of three attached technical memos: Technical Memo 1 - History of Yard Debris requirements by EQC and EDQ. The City is required to offer yard debris collection at curbside as a recyclable no less than.monthly. Technical Memo 2 - Assesses the yard debris program alternatives. Technical Memo 3 - Details a model to assess costs of program options. Ms. Edin reviewed the process timeline (see Page 2 of above- mentioned memorandum.) Rich McConaghy of Harding Lawson Associates reviewed the following overhead frames with City Council. (A copy of this material is on file with the Council packet.): CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.al_ _ Page No. 159. > List of Study Session Objectives Review Yard Debris Program Background • Summarize Rey Collection Alternatives • Review Supplemental (Non-Collection) Alternatives • Receive Council Direction/Input on Alternatives/Options > Yard Debris Diversion Goals > Program Requirements > List of Rejected Options > Primary Alternatives > Comparative Benefits > Relative Monthly Cost > Supplemental Alternatives There was Council discussion on the program in general, how possibly to structure fees, and a discussion of the alternatives. Also discussed was the type of equipment needed by the haulers. Ms. Edin advised that all the CIT's would receive information and an opportunity to comment on the yard debris program. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Summerfield Civics Association also receive the program information. Council discussed the program options.including frequency of pickup, what is required now (monthly pickup) and the possibility of a weekly pickup requirement some time in the future. Council members expressed interest in hearing what the reaction is from the CIT's and Summerfield Association. Ms. Edin advised she will communicate comments received from these groups back to the Council. Council meeting recessed - 7:40 p.m. Council meeting reconvened - 7:50 p.m. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 ExNblt No. Page No. I l~0 • BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to approve the following Consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Collson - Resolution No. 94707 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-08 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Water Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-09 Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; 3-0. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIM3UR.SEIKNT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION Mayor Pro Ten - noted the Council had the prerogative of addressing this issue or turning it. down at this time. Sher referred to questions raised with regard to methodology for a reimbursement district.- City Administrator Reilly advised the first question to resolve is whether or not the Council wants to have a reimbursement district formed under this particular set of circumstances. If yes, then the Council may want to take more comment and discuss the apportionment of the costs. There has been interest expressed in reviewing the reimbursement district ordinance, including the philosophy behind it as well as procedural matters. Councilor Hunt advised he, at present, was leaning toward voting to refuse the reimbursement district request. He noted concerns with individual rights being subjugated, especially in this instance. Developers and builders appear to receive preference many times over individual citizens. Councilor Hunt said he is not in favor of a developer building a subdivision and then requesting individuals to pay for. the sewer. He said there are subdivisions being developed and the developers are not asking for reimbursement district formation. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I (o~ • Councilor Hunt said the reimbursement district provisions are not well defined in the Code. He added, however, that he is not against the concept entirely. Councilor Hawley said the reimbursement district concept was a good economic development policy. The reimbursement district ordinance allows a developer to spread his cost and move his product. She said, perhaps, the Code provisions do need reworking. Councilor Hawley supported a review of this application at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler recalled an earlier reimbursement district request which had benefitted a smaller landowner. She said the way she envisions a reimbursement district is that it would be for smaller landowners, who have to hook up to the sewer because of a failed septic tank or because they want to develop one part of their land. She questioned whether the same parameters. should apply to smaller landowners and a development project (i.e., above three or four parcels). Councilor Hawley said that she did not think this was really "relief," but rather, a financing process. Legal Counsel Monahan said the City would be providing a collection mechanism. • Councilor Hawley said that whether the reimbursement is collected from the developer or individual people and disburse it back to the developer, it is simply a difference in the process the paperwork and the timing. r Mayor Pro Tem Fessler advised she had methodology concerns, especially in this instance. She said would like review of criteria and discussion of what the intent was of the reimbursement district provisions of the Code. City Administrator Reilly noted that this proposal must be reviewed on the basis of the current ordinance. Once a decision has been made on this issue, the ordinance may be reformatted. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Mr. Reilly advised that Legal Counsel Coleman had advised this application was consistent with the ordinance. It is Council's discretion whether to authorize this reimbursement district. Legal Counsel Monahan agreed the formation of the reimbursement district was at the discretion of City Council. City Administrator clarified that the first question to be determined by Council. was whether this was a legitimate reimbursement district before deciding how the costs should be apportioned. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhPJft No. 2 . Page No. 1 (oa • Motion was offered by Councilor Hunt to disapprove formation of a reimbursement district as requested. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler called for a second. Councilor Hawley noted no discussion or testimony had been heard on this issue. After brief discussion on process, Legal Council Monahan advised that since Council requested new information from staff at the last meeting that reaction to this information should be heard from the public. Councilor Hunt withdrew his motion. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. At the last meeting, Council determined that the connection charges should be based on the number of units and not the size of the lot. A letter from Mr. Petrie was received (filed in the Council packet) concerning how to determine commercial development with regard to the number of unit connections. Staff prepared language which should reflect the Council's direction and still reacts to Mr. Petrie's concerns. The language provides that if a single family dwelling connects, it would pay for one unit. Later, if the lot is subdivided and another house is connected, they would pay for the second unit. If a lot is zoned commercial and has a house on it requesting connection, then it would pay for a single unit; however, if this house is torn down and the lot was developed for commercial use, then it would pay for the full number of units assigned to the lot. Over the term of the reimbursement district, no lot would pay for more than two units. (The above changes were made by adding Note 4 to Exhibit D and also has been reflected in the Engineer's Report.) Councilor Hunt asked how much of an audit is done to arrive at the total number of dollars eligible for reimbursement. City Engineer responded that, in all cases, the applicant is asked to show some evidence of what their costs actually were. Usually, a billing is submitted from their contractor or a copy-of their contract.:.,.. In this case, Mr. Petrie submitted a letter from his contractor saying how-much the Petrie Company was charged for the sewer portion of the development. Also there were engineering costs •and fees charged by the City. Staff reviews and'asks for evidence that these expenses were actually paid. Also, staff reviews to determine whether the costs appear to be reasonable; that is, what would be expected for this type of development: In--this case, staff reviewed the costs and made some-changes downward because it appeared there were some items included (side sewer stub outs for the new subdivision) which should be removed. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES'- FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 6 LIMA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No...1 Page No. 169 3 Mayor Pro Tem Fessler asked about the cost for a current sewer . hookup for property not in a reimbursement district. City Engineer advised there are sewer connection charges established by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) which must be paid whether or not the property is in a reimbursement district. A connection charge for a single family dwelling is $2,200 plus a $35 inspection fee (total = $2,235). Currently, in Tigard if the property has not participated in building the sewer, they are also subject to a surcharge of $3',000 per-_ connection. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification: If part of the reimbursement district, then a property owner would not have to pay $3,000? City Engineer Wooley responded yes, but cautioned there has been some question raised about the current ordinances (regarding the surcharge). This question is in the attorney's office and is under review to determine if in compliance with USA agreements. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler asked if there was any difference in charges between single family and commercial. City Engineer advised that for multi-family, the charge is still $2,200 per unit. Fees for commercial is based on the number and type of plumbing fixtures. Councilor Hunt said the $3,000 surcharge makes a difference, as far as he is concerned, about this reimbursement district formation. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt,,- Legal Counsel Monahan advised that participating in the reimbursement district would be evidence in the property's participation in the sewer construction and the surcharge would not be assessed. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler questioned the difference in the commercial and residential connection charges. City Engineer advised that the USA connection charge is based on the plumbing fixtures; however, the reimbursement district charge is a separate calculation. Councilor Hunt asked for further' clarification on the surcharge. City Engineer advised that the surcharge of $3,000 is charged per connection. Councilor Hunt noted that it would be less expensive for property owners to participate in the • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 7 WBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Q Page No. U ` reimbursement district. City Engineer said that it would be • less expensive assuming that the surcharge "stays on the books." In response to a request for clarification from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer advised that USA charges $2,200, which is independent of the reimbursement district charge. The $3,000 is a surcharge, collected by the City (into the sewer fund) to those persons who did not participate in extending the sewer. Discussion followed on the City sewer fund, equity issues of those who did and did not participate and the role of the reimbursement district. Mr. Craig Petrie said: (transcription of tape follows for Mr. Petrie's comments) "I'm going to ask to withdraw this right now...because of philosophical differences. Councilor Hunt, I heard you say that you had a problem with reimbursement the whole issue. Then, when it became money ...you flopped the other way. I don't think I'm getting a fair shake here, a fair hearing. I think before we started here, at least two out of three voiced what your concerns were. I point out, Mayor, that the lady who developed her property developed her property... You know, developers you folks always think...(we've) just got a pot full money sitting somewhere. That's not the case. So, I am asking to withdraw this another meeting, hopefully when there's a lot more Councilors here. I don't feel like I'm getting a ,fair shake the decisions were already made like I said, philosophical, Councilor Hunt the issue of reimbursement, whether it is fair or not...can develop something, and I have a real hard time with that. I am asking to withdraw this."* Legal Counsel advised the Council was bound to accept the withdrawal. Tony Maksym, resident of Tigard, said that if Council voted to deny this request that this.would provide the opportunity to put protection in anew ordinance. , Mr. Petrie, advised Mr. Maksym, would then have to apply under the new ordinance. He said there is a need for safeguards In the ordinance and urged that work begin on this issue. City Administrator Reilly advised that staff will be coming. back to the Council for review of this ordinance. The review would focus on improvements. to-:the process. Also, the philosophical purposes of the ordinance should also be worked through..- The reimbursement district concept is a useful tool for a variety of reasons. , This will be set on a future Council work session agenda. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No 1(05 5. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) • METHODOLOGY a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report: Associate Planner Acker reviewed the Staff report which is on file in the Council packet. The methodology is unchanged from the methodology which was used by the Tigard Water District. There was brief discussion. City Administrator Reilly advised further analysis of the SDC would be needed after the Capital Improvement Program is updated. d. Public Testimony - None. f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, STATING THE METHODOLOGY AND SETTING THE AMOUNT FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICES. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 94-10. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 6. ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Associate Planner John Acker reviewed this agenda item. Staff referred to a current annexation map as well as a memorandum dated February 7, 1994, from Ed Murphy, Community Development Director to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) Senate Bill 122 requires urban services agreements to be developed for the areas within urban growth boundaries. These agreements can then be used to develop an annexation plan. Councilor Hunt suggested further review of the annexation policy be deferred until January 1995 after Council elections are completed. After brief discussion, there were no objections raised to continuing the annexation policy discussion. It was noted that growth was continuing in areas (such as Bull Mountain) - and to defer action would mean that any problems identified would-become more critical. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 E)dlibn No. Page No. 10 City staff advised that annexation is only one method to . attain the goal of growth management. Management could be achieved through amendment of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County by dealing with urban services planning in that document. City Administrator Reilly suggested that a goal statement with regard to the UPAA be developed prior to approaching the County for amendment. Councilor Fessler requested a copy of the UPAA for review. This item will be on the March 8, 1994, Council agenda for further discussion. 7. DISCUSSION - INTER334 MAYOR SELECTION PROCEDURES City Administrator advised that two letters of interest were received Mr. Michael Brewin and Mr. Jack Schwab asked that they be considered for the Interim Mayor appointment. After discussion by council with the City Administrator about process, council consensus was for all Council members to develop two questions to ask the interim candidates. The candidates would be asked to give a two to three minute statement at the beginning of the interview process outlining why they would like to serve as interim Mayor. The interviews will be conducted at a special Council meeting, March 1, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.; the meeting will be called to order at 7:00 p.m. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • City Administrator Reilly announced that the joint School Board/Council meeting has been rescheduled to March 16, 1994 at 6 p.m. • City Administrator Reilly advised that Westwood Corporation has asked for approval to construct another "pad" next to the Key. Bank at the Tigard Towne Square site. There has been an issue of noise and buffering efforts between this commercial* -site and the adjacent mobile home park. Efforts will be made to get cooperation from the developer to mitigate the residents' concerns. Councilor Hunt noted pedestrian access problems at this site. For example, the sidewalk in front of Albertson's cannot be used because .there is inventory for sale on the sidewalk. Staff. will • review the code to determine if something can be done.- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 10 - LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. _cA Page No. lb-7 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:35 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. i, ~ Attest: datherine Wheatley, City ecorder mar, Ci of igard C~~'1CiL Date : ccmDU2.44 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. e;i Page No. I AGENDA ITEM # ! • For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision 41 PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a proposed reimbursement district for sanitary. sewer to- Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February 10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). the engineer's report has been amended.. Exhibit A has been revised to reflect the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised.by adding Note 4. Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection-charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district. Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of the option of requesting a hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Of the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that LUBA NO. 94-110 ExIgbit No. 3-._ Page No. I G Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the Oattached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a~ Page No THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 ~ D February 9, 1994 n 1B 1 0 1994 TO: Randy Wooley OF TIGARD City Engineer CIT`~ Tigard Oregon FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I am requesting that for tax lots 300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development of those sites that the hook up fee be S 4,192.64. So in other words if an office building/or development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be S 4,192.64 even if there is only one hook up. On the other hand if an existing structure is hooked up and there is still land which is developable the current hook up fee should be S 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of S 2,096.32 would be paid. This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full development of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. Today I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your time, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, Craig A. Petrie 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY PORTLAND, OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-110 FAX: (503) 244-0123 - Exhibit No. cDaZ Page No. ; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been "paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the'-parcels- within the. zone-of benefit; .and the recommended interest 'rate; and, WHEREAS; the `Cit Council' has 'determined that : formation = of a • zone: of Y /.4.. . benefit'. as 'recommended _by.,.the City Engineer is -appropriate-." . NOW, THEREFORE,'BE ITRESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section: 1:' ection :1:' ;r..;.. The ,i.-City -;,Engineer's 'report title "Sanitary:Sewer`.:::' : r Reimbursement District. No. 5", -attached hereto as Exhibit` A/ is hereby approved. Section•2: A zone of. benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and.described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be. known' as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5. Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement- connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the.zone.of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by -the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020, (b) (2) . SOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. SL;- Page No. i " a. • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1994. Mayor = City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pao-RLdge.ss • RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 2 LU13A NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ;:;);4, Page No. i . Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost • The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. L ) 14 Reimbursement Rate 40 West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain-11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. • Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as'they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development-would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the- connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 30. On each anniversary of the zone formation • date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. 6~Z~ A6~ Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.ss LUBA NO. 94-110: Exhibit No. Page No. i ; Cy s ~ s EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 W 9 ~ T 60 L 3 1 v n W z T 00 NEW SAIII I A Y 0 z N T 0 L\\\ n NEW SANITARY SEWER 3 XN 2 0 44 T 02 L 3300 4 d C W CHERRY STREET Z Z O ' o 0 ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER i EXHIBIT "C" M REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 89° 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No: 2; thence S 01° 071. 53" W, along said west right of way,.a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 88° 48'00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to. the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 071 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255.; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north'*line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 020 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 01° 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 89° 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. John_h%pac.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. ~~r' Exhibit D M Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge.Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have • been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in - accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties. which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone -of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. Page No. M4 p 7' *ON e6ed COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. 'oN 31414x3 Legal ow" •oN dem P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 E 1f~>tgq TT 7797 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 C E Legal Notice Advertising ~Eg.2 z 199 114tollf6ia 1 Cgtpe6ting highlights are published for you n. Full ag61 61fi ~y 'bd` litained from the City. Recor&r'-Ni Hall •Cit of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Notice of tIGp,Rp Boulevard,.'1`1A1 1.0iij0n97223j:&.bycalling,6~3~ Y !~•;+3j,:~'~~~iii3itt:.l;;; N. ;"rt~. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. CITYCC0UN&, tUS SS $v[ • • 13 Duplicate Affidavit` $RU )l ZZi''1994~. Tigard, Oregon 97223 T1 DC I L • • 13125 S.W.' UL :,'~'I Siudy Meedng (lbwn H' i Confe' ;:6 R • Update to:Couticil -1 C t Bven C ew < AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION '>af Business Mowing ('ltiivn' Hail)'(7:30 STATE OF OREGON, 4' COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ss. ~ouricil Consideration: 1, Kathy Snyder y'' . / ;..:•1 . 1~i~ ~1i~rlt. Formation of •aReimbursempnl; District fo c idge being first duly sworn, depose ands that 1 the AAd ertisi ! Subdivision f,'';'' a. Director, or his principal clerk, of the igarc - uala in rfimes (Continued from the February 8, 1994,Council'm tin g) a newspaper of general circu~gUon as defined in ORS 193.010 . ' . ~ ° t• G... ' is and 193.020 published at Tigard in the " ' • y'e'a! . Public Hearings:.:; , . ►(lk,,' : .t oCQfresaid ounty sj t te; thhat the . ity CFounci g. F ebruary 22 Consider adoption of a':Systems Dove'lopplent Charge Methodology for the Water System. ,:h G' 3'~.y~{~q~ ~x,., r. a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the n entire issue of said newspaper for ONE Local Contract Review Board Meedg successive and ' - consecutive In the following Issues: Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may g0.1nto Axecutive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (h) to February 17 ,19 9 4 discuss labor relations, real property transactions, cument'And *"riding :`Utigation issues.'; r, M791- Publish February 17, 1994. g Subscribed and sworn to ;be me thial7th day of Februa y 4 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN' A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary Pu for regon COMMISSION NO. 024552 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT ---~~Is4 - ~2 Council Agenda Item -3•~ M T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. • Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • Gana Activity Update by Police Chief Goodpaster - About two weeks ago, there was a gang-related shooting in Tualatin. _ Rival gang members live in Tigard; there is concern that there may be retaliation. The Tigard Police Department is implementing several strategies to diffuse the situation. • Next week, the Police Department, next week, will be filming a segment in cooperation with Tualatin Valley Community Access on gang awareness. Playback will occur primarily on Channel 9 and will be aired .several times. As soon as scheduling information for playback is known, efforts will be made to let people know. • Transportation System Study - Community Development Director Murphy presented two pages of information on the Transportation System Study. (This information has been filed with the meeting packet material.) The City of Tigard will seek a consultant to evaluate Tigard-'s existing and proposed street system as input to a redrafting of the transportation plan. The City is also seeking funding to improve its transportation system connectivity through two different projects. There were no Council objections raised; staff will continue to pursue the Transportation Study and seek grant funds. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the Tigard Greenway Path System where it is already constructed and those areas which are high priority. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 g 1 • Tigard Water Department - City Administrator Reilly advised the Water employees recently voted on whether to join the union (OPEU). The employees voted not to join. • Washington County Jail Levy - City Administrator advised the jail levy is now scheduled for the September ballot. • Agenda Review Item 3.6: Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension. After brief discussion, Councilor Fessler advised she would request this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda to give any audience members an opportunity to comment on this issue. Legal Counsel Coleman advised that ordinance language changes concerning the formation of reimbursement districts are planned for submittal to the Council during March. Item 3 7a Authorize Request for Bids-- Improvements to Maintenance Services Yard. In response to questions from Council, City Administrator advised he did not think the City would be leaving the current Maintenance Services location in the near future. There are no dollars available for relocation and the City should fix up the property. BUSINESS MEETING 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call - All Council was present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Councilor Hawley reported on a recent WCCCA budget committee meeting. After February 28, more information will be available; however, preliminary figures indicate that fees.will be going up 30%. Councilor Fessler announced "Christmas in April" a charitable home weatherizing endeavor sponsored by the Home Depot. Volunteers are being sought; for more information, call 693-4760. Councilor Schwartz reported that the Washington County Transportation Committee will be reviewing process and potential projects for a MSTIP III road improvement effort (effective 1996, if approved by voters). Funds for MSTIP II will run out in 1994. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. 44 Page No. lga- • 1.5• Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Larry Westerman, 13665 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 offered suggestions to preclude notification problems (reference recent Albertson's land use issue.) Mr. Westerman suggested that every address of record within the 250-foot notification area be used to supplement the required notification of property owners (per Washington County records) within that same area. In addition, he suggested that a property owner be required, upon sale of the property, to disclose any pending public notifications. Mayor Edwards requested that staff look into Mr. Westerman's suggestions. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt to approve the following Consent Agenda items with Item 3.6 removed for separate discussion: 3.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: January.ll, 18 and 25, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded (Cook Park)- Res.No. 94-03 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded for a Wetlands Attributes Assessment and Planning Program - Resolution No. 94-04 3.5 Approve Encroachment Agreement for a Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lola Lane - Resolution No. 94-05 3.6 Discussed separately see below. 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: a. Authorize Request for Bids-Improvements to Maintenance Svcs. Yard b. Approve the Purchase of Five Police Vehicles Through the City of Portland Bid Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 3.6 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension City Engineer Wooley reviewed Item 3.6. There was no one in the audience to testify on this issue. If approved, affected individuals are notified and they have 60 days to petition for a hearing to reconsider reimbursement district formation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a Page No. , Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 94-06: RESOLUTION NO. 94-06 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 4. VACATION OF A PORTION OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AND TBE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OARS LANE. The request was initiated by the City of Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf of Hal Keever of W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was scheduled for January 25, 1994 at which time the hearing was rescheduled to February 8, 1994. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. d:---public Testimony Proponents • Mr. Jack Frank, 14040 221st Avenue, Woodinville, Washington advised he was available to answer questions on the requested vacation of right of way. • Mary Croom, 11720 S.W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 advised she was in favor of the vacation request noting she was anxious to have this issue resolved. • Helen Ausmann, 11965 S. W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised she was in favor of the vacation request. • Mayor Edwards read a letter submitted by Lou W. Christen (on file with the Council packet material). Mr. Christen asked for assurances that the property description would be specific that the 20-foot road- way right of way (referred to as the "unnamed 20-foot wide right-of-way east of 79th Avenue") is a definite part of 5 lots of Palmer Acres. After consulting with staff, Mayor Edwards advised that the property description would be prepared in accordance with Mr. Christen's request. e. Staff recommendation was for approval of the proposed vacation as requested. f. Public hearing was-closed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. g. ORDINANCE NO. 94-02 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE • VACATION OF 1) A PORTION OF SW 79TH AVENUE, BEGINNING WITH THE INTERSECTION OF SW 79TH AVENUE AND SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND CONTINUING TO THE SOUTHEAST TERMINUS OF SW 79TH AVENUE, 2) THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OAKS LANE RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12 PAGE 18, WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS, AND 3) AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF SW 79TH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance No. 94-02. The motion was approved by a majority vote, 4-0-1. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Schwartz voted yes; Councilor Fessler abstained.) Councilor Fessler advised she was abstaining from voting as a "protest vote" and referenced previous issues pertaining to the right of way. *-5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Note: Testimony sign-in sheets were available for those persons wishing to comment on this agenda item.) a. City Engineer Wooley'summarized the staff report which is on file with the Council packet material. • b. Public Comment - Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon asked for an opportunity to respond to public comments. - Anthony Maksym, 13565 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Maksym thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Mr. Maksym outlined several concerns with the formation 'of the reimbursement district. Among these concerns, he advised that he received the notification letter several days after the date appearing on the letter from Mr. Petrie advising of the sewer reimbursement request. (A copy of the letter is on file with the Council packet material.) The original date for Council consideration of this item was set for December 14, 1993. Subsequently, the reimbursement district formation request was set over to tonight's meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. P,4 Page No. ITS Mr. Maksym questioned the language of the • reimbursement district formation and its application in this instance. There was question over the methodology for the cost of the improvements and the per unit charge for the different tax lots. Mr. Maksym presented a petition with the signature of five residents which requested the Tigard City Council reject the formation of the proposed Pacific Ridge sewer reimbursement district. The petition cited that the undersigned property owners had contributed over the years land, money and other good valuable consideration to the area where the sewer reimbursement district is proposed. The dollar value of those contributions were alleged to be far more than what the developer had invested in his sewer line. (The petition is on file with the. Council packet material.) Mr. Maksym discussed in more detail what he believed his individual contribution has been to. 1--h,e_avera1_3._., improvements to the surrounding area over the years. Mr. Maksym referred to outstanding nonremonstrances along 72nd Avenue and advised that the City should call in these nonremonstrances. He noted the need for a traffic light at Fir Street. - M.H.- Lefty Monsen, 13515 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Monsen advised that he was the owner of Tax Lot 300. He urged the Council to make a decision in a fair manner. He said it appeared to him that more research was needed before the reimbursement was formed. Elizabeth Lauck, 7472 S.W. Fir Street, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Lauck advised that Mr. Maksym's arguments were valid. She said the previous contributions toward improvements of the area should be taken into account when considering the reimbursement district. She advised that she was not totally opposed the reimbursement district, but had some concerns as to the way it was now drafted. Ms. Lauck said that her lot, Tax Lot 3501, was assigned 2 units. She noted that this would be unfair because. she would be required to pay for two units even if she only made one sewer connection. Ms. Lauck also advised that she had not been notified by Mr. Petrie prior to.the previous Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. -*0 • - Mr. Craig Petrie responded that he had had many conversations regarding the sewer issue with Ms. Lauck. In addition, Mr. Petrie referred to testimony by Mr. Maksym with regard to issues brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Petrie advised this issue was not heard by the Planning Commission but was heard before the hearings officer. Mr. Petrie said that if the residents do not want to hook up to the sewer line, then they would not be obligated to pay for anything. He described a "reasonableness test" which should be applied to this request and he asked that the reimbursement district be approved. C. Councilor Schwartz asked for clarification of the number units Mr. Petrie would be building. Mr. Petrie advised that it was an 11-lot subdivision. One lot includes a pre-existing house and another structure....--Zleven houses, in total, would be within Mr. Petrie's proposed subdivision. Councilor Fessler asked Mr. Petrie how long Mr. Petrie had owned the property. Mr. Petrie responded that he purchased the property in the fall of 1993 with the i intention of developing the property. Mayor Edwards noted that the reimbursement district question before the Council should be separated from several other issues brought up during the public comment. Prior street improvements and other issues did have a bearing on this proposal. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, City Engineer Wooley clarified that approximately half of the cost of the sewer installation could be recovered by the developer if all other connections were made. The proposed subdivision would have 11 connections; there are 11 additional connections coming from the other adjacent 6 lots. In response to Councilor Hunt's question on why some properties were shown to be liable for 2 hook ups if they chose to participate, City Engineer Wooley explained the historical philosophy behind the calculation. Some lots are larger and could potentially have more than one sewer connection. At the time one of the larger lots develop and a hook-up is made, the property owner would pay for all hook-ups (i.e., two units). Later, if a second hook- up is made, no further charges would be due. In the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a q Page No. I Y,l past, it has been a requirement that all hook-up charges • be paid for at the time any of the hook-ups are requested. Council discussion followed on the computation of the hook-ups and the charges made to the different lots. Councilor Schwartz advised that he had participated in a reimbursement district for water services. He noted that a reimbursement district should have a 10-year limitation with no extensions. He advised that reimbursement districts served a good purpose and he was in favor of the concept of reimbursement districts. He noted that if a person does not want to utilize the sewer connection, they are not required to do so. Councilor Schwartz questioned the charge for two connections when only one connection may be wanted. Councilor Hunt also agreed with Councilor Schwartz' concerns about the unit costs. Councilor Hawley noted she agreed with the concerns about the way that the per unit charges were derived and the requirement that all units be paid for even if only one unit is wanted. She disagreed, however, that the reimbursement-term be limited to 10 years since this may _ not be long enough. After Council discussion, it was determined that staff would-review the unit connection charge methodology and propose amendments (to address Council concerns for residential hook-up costs for larger lots) for Council consideration at their February 22, 1994 meeting. Legal Counsel Coleman advised that with regard to question of the life of the reimbursement district, a request for an extension must be acted upon by Council before it can be extended. Council meeting recessed: 9:12 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 9:24 p.m. 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED `ORD32U NCE TO PROHIBIT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O--MARA STREET, FREWING STREET, AND ASH AVENUE a. The staff report was reviewed by City Engineer Wooley. b. Mr. Bill Mitchell,-13380 S.W. Ash Avenue, homeowner and CIT member noted he f avored the ordinance which would add Ash Avenue as one of the truck-restricted streets. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a~ Page No. i_ C. Council consideration After brief discussion, Council considered the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 94-03 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.16.051 AND PROHIBITING THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O'MARA STREET, FREWING STREET AND ASH AVENUE. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler to adopt Ordinance No. 94-03. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt and Schwartz voted yes.) 7. UPDATE ON TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN • Community Development Director Murphy distributed a copy of the Tigard Triangle Plan to the Council. Mr. Murphy described advised that on March 1, there will be an open house with the consultants available to respond to questions by the community. Subsequently, there will be hearings by the Planning Commission and city council. There was discussion on what this would mean to the rest of the City if multi-family zoning were included in the Triangle area. Community Development Director Murphy ' advised this would give flexibility with regard to density requirements. • In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that this decision is considered to be "legislative." Therefore, it would be appropriate for Council members to attend the open house. Because this decision is legislative, this frees up the Council from the concerns of ex parte contacts. 8. OVERVIEW OF THE LANG-TERM CAPITAL IlWROVffiRENT PLANNING EFFORT • City Engineer Wooley reviewed the process for developing a long-term capital improvement program. (See listing filed in the Council packet.) This process was also reviewed with the Planning commission. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS None 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:46 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (i) discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and performance evaluations of public officers and employees. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. W110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 6~ 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. • Atte/;t / Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder Mayor, City of Tigard Date : 3 l s I ciccm02M.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 81 1994 -PAGE 10 S.UBA NO. J4-7 ~ . txhlblt No. ~4_ . Page No. - Kg' - • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON n S .j 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 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LU BA NO. 94-1 1 0 Exhibit Nu. Page No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 8, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) Discussion: Study of Local Transportation System 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: • 3.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: January 11, 18 and 25, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded (Cook Park)-Res.No. 94-_ 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded for a Wetlands Attributes Assessment and Planning Program - Resolution No. 947-- 3.5 Approve Encroachment Agreement for a Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lola Lane - Resolution No. 947_ 3.6 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension - Resolution No. 94- 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: a. Authorize Request for Bids-Improvements to Maintenance Svcs. Yard b. Approve the Purchase of Five Police Vehicles Through the City of Portland Bid COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-1V Exhibit No. A Page No. 1 4. VACATION OF A PORTION OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT • WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OAKS LANE. The request was initiated by the City of Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf of Hal Keever of W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was scheduled for January 25, 1994 at which time the hearing was rescheduled to February 8, 1994. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony - Proponents (In favor of the requested vacation.) - Opponents (Opposed to the requested vacation.) - Rebuttal (Opponents/ Proponents) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 937-- 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Note: Testimony sign-in sheets will be available for those persons wishing to comment on this agenda item.) a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Public Comment C. Council Discussion d. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94- 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O'MARA STREET, FREWING STREET, AND ASH AVENUE a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94- 7. UPDATE ON TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN • Community Development Staff 8. OVERVIEW OF THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING EFFORT • Engineering Staff 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. of Page No. _G a • 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real properly transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT ccaom.94 • • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. (3<5 Page No. -IZT 5- Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount m•f 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: February 8, 1994 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION • PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a (D Page No. I_ AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Oroponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name Address A7;~, Name Name Address Address )v v ` 135 (S S L~ ~ ~d-Jl}v~ ~ y Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name AOL 14 dress Address Name Name Address Address Nam Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. D6 Page No. AGENDA ITEM For Agenda of February 8, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On December 14, 1993, this issue came before the Council. However, at the request of the applicant, the Council took no action at that meeting. Now the applicant has requested that the application be brought back for Council consideration. The December 14 staff report is attached. Mr. Tony Maksym, an owner of property within the proposed district, has indicated that he has issues to bring before the Council regarding this application. Therefore, this item has been scheduled on the regular Council agenda to allow for public input. Although no formal hearing is required, the City Attorney has indicated that the Council may receive and consider public input prior to taking action on the proposed resolution forming the district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/petrie2 WBA N0.94-910 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 is AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of December 14, 1993 P, Aej4- - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Sr--J*- u.led Lty,,n- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY '2111CIq ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed for the Pacific Ridge Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by The Petrie Company to serve a subdivision they are developing at S.W. 74th and Cherry. The sewer line also provides service to seven adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Petrie Company has requested that a district be formed. .The engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. to public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of .60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council.for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office has drafted revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owner, Mr. Petrie has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to form a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by The Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. 16 RW:Pae-Ridge.ss LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. a Page No. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading. the cost among.:.the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended- interest'. rate; and, WHEREAS, ,7. the.: City.. Council :has determined that formation . of. a' zone. of: `,-:benefit. as-recommended.by the City Engineer. is appropriate. NOW,-THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: " Section The City `.,Engineers report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A;*is hereby approved. Section 2: A'zone of benefit is hereby.established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is December 14, 1993. The right of reimbursement shall end on December 14, 2003, unless extended by- the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 1 Exdlibit No. ,"Z Page No. Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution • to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g) . PASSED: This day of , 1993. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.SS RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94410 Page 2 Exhibit No. arl_ Page No. Exhibit A • City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financina All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of • installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed-zone formation date for the'sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by-the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020-(b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development • and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. - LUBA NO. WHO Exhibit No. a.9 Page No. ;aDD The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) • occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems-to be a reasonable request, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be . applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at.3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted December 3, 1993. q all R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. gn Page No. eA D ! EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET \2 0 ~ W 9 T 60 Q - - TL 35 1 W m 2 T 3 00 3 a NEW SA I A Y 0 Z N 0 n NEW ANITARY SEWER 3 L 32 0 N 44 1 30 IL 30 L 4 to C 0 cr m CHERRY STREET Z=Z 0 o O L 00 ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT "C" • REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 89° 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast- corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88' 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee .Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 02° 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 89° 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. johnrh\pae.ben "LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. e4 9 Exhibit D • Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units Charge 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.ss LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 7 Page No. ;I Q u meal PETITION a~~j Cl q FEB. 3, 1994 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER THE YEARS, LAND,MONEY AND OTHER GOOD VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS TO THE AREA WHERE THE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED. THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE CONTRIBU- TIONS IS FAR MORE THAN WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INVESTED IN HIS SEWER LINE. WE, THEREFORE, REQUEST OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REJECT THE FORMATION OF THE PROPOSED PACIFIC RIDGE SEWER RE-IMBURSEMENT DISTRICT. NAME ADDRESS LOT 0 1357] s -79= Sao -7 q-?Z Sci ~ir ~fi 3SO~ ~ 2 Sw r, r S 350 LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhibK No. Page No. - cn;t u5 THE PETRIHOMPANY .9 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE al~l~ y 2 -797 (503) 467 December 4, 1993 TO: 13565 SW 72nd Tigard Oregon Tax Lot 400 FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Sewer reimbursement District Greetings, I have recently installed sanitary sewer mains adjacent to the above mentioned tax lot and have requested the formation of a sewer reimbursement district (as provided for in the Tigard Code) which would include the above mentioned tax lot. My calculations following the formula in the Code indicate that the per hookup fee would be approx. S 21,119.55. Some of the tax lots have a potential for greater than one book up. I believe that the City Engineer is adjusting that figure downward slightly. Should you decide to take advantage of utilizing the sanitary main you won't have to construct any of it since it is already installed. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Craig tAetrie -0 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Page No. - at-)~ 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 r NO . v4. 299 THE PETRIE COMPANY ESTATE COMMERCIAL REAL P 9 c 1: V J ..~------L~. 00 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTL.ANO, OR 97219 ' •i t~ f LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 2 Page No. a 0 1 •oN e6ed 6!!'oN 3l4iyx3 h COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal 0 L L-WON t/8Rl ~b P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 7 7 8 3 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076 { l 1 t eLpe,I NQtics Advertisin The following meeting highlights are.ptlbllW',d,f,Qfr"y 't i Ful 4tE r V E d g agendas may bo: obtained;fram the'City'Re~otQy 1~~Wi Hal Boulevard, Tigard; Oregon 97223, or by callin'g 63 Hrta> • Cf ty of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice " ~`fAiiie+"f~ ';e.;: FR (171994 crr~r cotnvclL avsnvESS IvIEE~' 1312 5 SW Hall Blvd. FEBRUARY 8,1994 •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit TIGARDCITYHALL-TOWN HALL.%' ::il'Y OF TIGAkD. 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD,- ~.R$00 . Stud Meeting wn Half Conference Room) 6:30 P.M Discussion - Study of Local Transportation System - NOW 1.4 Bgsiness Meeting (Toym Hall).(7:30 P.M.)'' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Public Hearings: STATE OF OREGON, ) C ; . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' • Vacation of a portion of S.W. 79th Avenue, an unnamed 20400 I,1{athir Sn~~der wide right-of-way east of S.W. 79th Avenue, and the•suboivisios plat Twin Oaks Lane. The request was initiated by the City o being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf 6f Hal Keever o Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tua 1 at i n Times W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was schedules a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 for January 25, 1994. On January 25, 1994, the hearing was se and 193.020; published it Tigard in the = over to February 8, 1994. aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Bus. Mtg . Council Consideration: a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published In the • Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Sub entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and division ' , ' . (Note: Testimony_sig!!-in shects'will be available for those person consecutive in the following Issues: wishing-i6 comment on this agenda item at Ihe,rWd6g.). February 3 ,19 9 4 !„,;Proposed Ordinance - Prohibiting through trucks on portions.o O'Mara Street, Frewing Street, and Ash Avenue.. Council Review: KaU-q 1. 0 • Update on the Tigard Triangle Plan • Overview of the Long•Term Capital Improvement Planning Effort Subscribed and sworn afore me'this 3r day of Februar, , Local Contract Review Board Meeting OFFICIAL SEAL A. BURGESS `4&)L, Az4 Executive Session: The Tigard Cit Council ma nt•, x ytiv TARY PUBLIC - OREGON MMISSION N0.024552 Session under the provisions of OR 192.660 (1)'~~);, ~o di. Notary Publi r Oregon cuss labor relations, real property transactions;tcyrrg;peitdin MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 1997 litigation Issues.- My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT M783 - Publish February 3, 1994. . _ ~-~►mbursevY,e~t-~ ~,P~v~dS Se e P5. 2 4-1- Council Agenda Item `3•~ • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel (present for Executive Session only); Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:31 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: 7:21 p.m. • Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) - Council consensus was for approval of appointment of Councilor Hawley as representative, replacing Mayor Edwards, to WCCCA. BUSINESS MEETING 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE LIONS a. Council President Schwartz presented the team with a small gift and congratulated them on their achievement. The team has won this title three years in a row. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Cal Woolery, 12536 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted concerns with the Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) process with regard to land use issues. He advised he had requested that a land use issue be placed on the December agenda and it was not done. City Administrator Reilly responded he would consult with Community Relations Coordinator Liz Newton. He noted that Ms. Newton contacts the facilitators after meetings and the concerns noted by Mr. Woolery had not been expressed (by the facilitators) to City staff prior to this time. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No.aC> Page No. a D q r• 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilor Fessler requested Item 4.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent Agenda, less Item 4.5: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to Enter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve Strips as Right-of-Way - Resolution No. 93- 61 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Subdivision (This item was removed from the agenda - see Council packet file for letter dated December 14, 1993, from Craig A. Petrie, requesting withdrawal of the issue.) 4.6 Approve Dartmouth. Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes - Resolution No. 93-62 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "Aye.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/NW 93-0013 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate. approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land. Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street.. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200) a. Public hearing was opened by-Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or Challenges: Council President Schwartz asked the following questions: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94.110 Exhibit No., 30 Page No. a i u Councilor Fessler reported she visited the site. - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Councilors advised they had familiarized themselves with the application. Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the council? There were no challenges. C. Staff Report Council President Schwartz advised the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Senior Planner Bewersdorff and City Engineer Wooley summarized the staff report. d. Public Testimony Legal Counsel Ramis advised Council on process relating to testimony noting the Council must determine during deliberation what parts of the record were to be considered. In addition, he outlined the rebuttal procedure available to the parties participating in the hearing. Proponents (In favor of the requested development approvals): • John Shonkwiler, 13425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, gave testimony as a representative of the applicant. Mr. Shonkwiler summarized the NPO process and, after the NPO's disbanded, the process with the neighbors to date. He described the attempts to provide notice to the neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit Nom Page No. l\ .m Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the site plan (see slides contained in the Council packet material as well as exhibits used by Mr. Shonkwiler during his Council presentation.) He addressed the access points for vehicle traffic as well as the pedestrian access. Mr. Shonkwiler review the application and answered questions about site elevations, noise abatement . (i.e., screening from air conditioners, fans, etc.). A representative from the traffic engineering firm, Rittleson & Associates, reviewed the traffic analysis and conclusions which resulted in the proposed access and traffic flow to and from the site. Mr. Shonkwiler, at the conclusion of his presentation noted he was reserving his rights with regard to rebuttal and examination of the testimony offered for the record. • Mr. Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Creek, Scapoose, OR 97056 advised he owns the subject property as well as some adjacent land. Mr. Russell advised he has been involved with the land use and development of this property for a number of years. He supported approval of the application. • Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon 97219 recounted the length of time he has been involved in this real estate development proposal. He reported that land use notification signs on the subject property had been removed without permission. He said spreading the number and location of shopping areas would help alleviate problems (i.e., traffic/congestion) by dispersing people. He encouraged support of the application. • Garry P. McMurry, Benjamin Franklin Building, Suite 435, One S.W. Columbia, Portland, Oregon noted the citizen involvement process including the NPO's and meetings with citizens and staff. He commended the City's involvement throughout the process. Mr. McMurry cited the City's and owner's efforts to \ accommodate the concerns. He noted this development would ideally suit the land for the next 25 years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit N0.3 O Page No. a~~ Opponents (Opposed to the requested development approvals) • Edward J. Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, No. 3200, Portland, OR 97204 distributed information to Council (see Council packet for pages titled "Before the City Council of the City of Tigard..." and packet which begins with the Staff Report, dated July 12, 1983). Mr. Sullivan advised he had not been notified of the hearing. Mr. Sullivan submitted testimony to support his concern that this was not a neighborhood-oriented site. • Greg Wintrowd, Planner, Wintrowd Planning Services, Suite 210, Office Courts Building, 700 North Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR 97217 presented a packet of information to the Council. (See Council packet material for the information containing Mr. Wintrowd~s "Land Use Report and Appeal.") Mr. Wintrowd gave lengthy testimony, summarizing from the submitted report which was offered as support to his concern that the proposed land use request did not conform substantially to the guidelines and standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, Chapter 18.61. Mr. Wintrowd contended that the proposed development was a "basic strip mall design." Council discussion followed on the site development review process. Legal Counsel Ramis noted Council deliberation of Code interpretation can be conducted at the end of the process. 9:40 p.m. Council meeting recessed. 9:57 p.m. Council meeting reconvened. (Public testimony continued - opponents): • Pam Garcia, 14550 S.W. Teal Boulevard, Beaverton, OR 97005, (representing interests of the Murray Hill Thriftway store) testified that there had been a communication breakdown with the neighbors and there were residents who opposed the proposed development. Ms. Garcia advised that it appeared there was a problem with communication because of the NPO and CIT transition. She advised she did not feel all input for the issue had been received. Ms. Garcia registered her concern with the notification process; advising that the lack of testimony at the Planning commission should have been indicative that something went wrong with the communication process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 141 1993 - PAGE 5 WBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. =I- Page No. .a Ms. Garcia submitted photographs and referred to a map (see photos and Columbia Research Associates map which has been filed with the Council packet) to support her claim that the development was neither suitable for this area nor met the criteria of the Code. She noted her concerns with the impact that this development would have on two, nearby family-owned business (Murray Hill Thriftway and Howard's). She said the proposed development was a regional shopping strip mall and not a neighborhood-oriented development. She also noted concerns with noise. In response to a question by Councilor Schwartz, Ms. Garcia advised she would be opposed to any grocery store in the area. She questioned whether the proposal was in keeping with the "vision" of a Community Commercial zone. (Note: Testimony sheet indicates several people who signed in to speak, but did not stay to testify.) • Chris Rullan, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified in opposition to the proposed development. He referenced lack of notification to the neighbors about the proposed development. There are new homeowners in the neighborhood. • Scott Van Dyke, 14111 S.W. Northfield, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised he was opposed to the development. He said the proposed application was not intended to serve the surrounding community but would draw from a five- to seven-mile radius. The sign he saw notifying of the development said it would be a "community grocery store." • Shannon Rullman, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that the neighbors do not want this development. • Bruce Tilley, 14189 S.W. Stardust Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised this would impact his residence. He said property values would go down and cited the 24-hour use of the commercial property as an adverse impact. Mr. Tilley said there could be more compromise. • Ted and Tiffani Trecker, 14061 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ms. Trecker testified as to • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlblt No. 3 D Page No. her concerns with the notification process advising • they had not been informed about the development and the process has been unfair. She reviewed her issues with the traffic pattern and access to the shopping center (in particular the Northview Drive entrance which she said should not be there.) Ms. Trecker questioned whether emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood would be adequate for the residential area. She also noted concerns with the congestion to Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Trecker said a grocery store as large as the one being proposed "...doesn't fit." Ms. Trecker advised that a "Charboneau-type of development" would fit in more with the neighborhood. • Larry Westerman, 13665 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 testified that he was generally in favor of the development; however, he advised he was concerned about the site design with regard to pedestrian access. • Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, OR 97223, submitted to Council a letter dated December 14, 1993, outlining his concerns with the citizen- input process. He requested additional time for ' citizen review and for the CIT to set this on an agenda. CIT agenda items are set by CIT members; Council policy is still formative, but consensus by the Council was not to place issues on a CIT agenda. • Marlin Hopfer, 8924 S.E. Alder, Portland, Oregon noted he owns 4.5 acres to the north of the subject property. He suggested this property, now zoned Neighborhood Commercial, be rezoned to Community Commercial. Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) After discussion, it was the consensus of Council and representatives of the applicant and opponents that the hearing will be continued to January 25, 1994. All evidence and rebuttal remarks are to be submitted to the City by 5 p.m., January 14. 11:20 p.m. Council meeting recessed 11:29 p.m. Council meeting reconvened • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a.Q- Page No. P 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to • the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz b. Declarations or Challenges - None C. Staff Report was summarized by City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: None d. Public hearing was closed by Council President Schwartz e. Council Consideration: • RESOLUTION NO. 93-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 17, 1994. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Resolution No. 93-63. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley and Hunt voted "Aye.") 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Mega Foods Director's decision - Councilor Fessler requested discussion on the recently issued Director's' decision for the Mega Foods development in the Triangle area. Of concern to Councilor Fessler was the tree removal and traffic. After brief discussion, there was no motion for Council call-up of this issue. 8. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. IJ~J Attest: Ca erine Wheatley, Cit ecorder Cityof Ti and unoil esfcle.r~- Date: i~lk~S y c=1214.93 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE-8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. ,ao Page No. ; IV • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON f 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 Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94.114 Exhibit No. ~L Page No. i A G E N D A • STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. • 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE CHAMPIONS - Mayor Edwards 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: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to Enter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve Strips as Right-of-Way-Res. #93- 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Subdivision - Resolution No. 93- 4.6 Approve Dartmouth Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes Resolution No. 93- 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-00136 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200) (Item 5 Continued to Next Page) COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 t LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. , EU _ Page No. Q-~)% i (Agenda Item 5 Continued) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony - Proponents (In favor the requested development approvals) - Opponents (Opposed to the requested development approvals) - Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93- 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments, to the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: • Proponents (Favoring Amendments) • Opponents (Opposing Amendments) C. Council Questions/Comments d. Close Public Hearing e. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93- 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT =1214.93 • COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. Page No. a 1 THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 December 14, 1993 TO: Randy Wooley FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Reimbursement District No. 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you withdraw the above issue from the City Council agenda at this time so that I may have more time to discuss the district with some of the owners of the tax lots within the district Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, 4 Q pct Craig A. 'e • 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-410 FAX: (503) 244-0123 Exhlbit No~ Page No. as ~a AGENDA ITEM # y-J For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed for the Pacific Ridge Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by The Petrie Company to serve a subdivision they are developing at S.W. 74th and Cherry. The sewer line also provides service to seven adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Petrie Company has requested that a district be formed. he engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. No public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office has drafted revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owner, Mr. Petrie has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to form a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES. All costs are borne by The Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. /PN: Pa c-R1dge . ss LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. aal CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels. within. the zone of benefit, and the recommended `.interest rate;. and,`,',--'... WHEREAS; the ..City:: .Council :has.. determined .that.. formation of a zone of benefit "as recommended:: by,; the . City:. Engineer is appropriate. NOW,"THEREFORE,.BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City"Council that: Section 1 i The = ;.City, Engineer's ` repor t title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No 5", attached hereto as Exhibit. A, "is: hereby approved: . Section 2: A-zone of benefit is hereby.established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit Band described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection'charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. -:'-Section 5: 'The zone formation date is December'-14", 1993. The right of-reimbursement shall end on December 14, 2003, unless extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . 0 RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. aaa- • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1993. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pao-Ridge.SS • f. RESOLUTION NO. 93- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. -3 Page No. as 3 • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSMMNT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving. -adjacent --p-roperZy ...owners of installing sewer improvement-s--in the future..- T-h~6s has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by-the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all • zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in'the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. as • The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable request, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted December 3, 1993. RWooley City Engineer dj/Rid:Pac-Ridge.SS t. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Z- Page No.~ EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 I w 9 T 60 35 W 2 T 3 00 a 3 NEW SA I A Y S • T 0 pp\ N W A T Y S WER L 32 0 N 44 T 3 0 L 300 4 CHERRY STREET L 00 ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANI TARY SEWER m ~ r a Z z C bk, 0 6f ~a • EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street;- thence S 88° 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said-south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property. described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 02° 02!•44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. johazh\pae.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Z3-- Page No. Dal • Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units Charge 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The -reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have • been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. dj/RW:Pao--Ridga.SS LUBA NU. 44-110 Exhibit No. Page No., ~a, COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. L P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 No'UceTT 7734 •BEAVERTON.OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • (3 Tearshest Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ` _ • Xal-hjE RntYr3er , 'EA 14 being first duly sworn. depose and say that I ami the Advertising t, Director, or his principal clerk, of the TigB rr1= i a 1 a i n Times ,o* a newspaper of general circ ation a~ defined- in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Marl n the aforesaid county and state; that the ri f-3z rounci 1 Rnc mtg 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: December 9,1993 Subscribed and sworn t ore me this 9th day of December, OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P is for Oregon :r COMMISSION 140.024552 MY COMMISSION O(PiRES WIY18.199T My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT - T LUBA NO. q4-110 Exhibit No. 3y a 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 calling 639-4171. CPTY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 14.1993 TIGARD-CMCHALL-- TOWN HALL 13125 S.W; HALL BOULEVARD. TTGARD. OREGON Study session Crown-Hall Conference Room) - 6:30 P.M. . Business Meeting - 7:30 P.M. ' Public-Hearings:- • Comprehensive Plan Amendment- C-PA 93-0009/ZON 93-00031SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's. Inc./Duncombe. A; regn~st for the following development:' approvals: 1~Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to: . redesignate.approximately eighracres.of a 12 acre parcel from' _ - Medmm=High Density:Residential-to Community Commercial on tacj&.2W and to cedesignace.an_approximately 6.93 acre parcel;. fiom Neighborhood-Commerciat:to'Medium-High Density: Residei Q on;[aut'~ of I00.'Zone changes accompanying-the above plan i:harigm. includes a zone :change from 1t-25 (PD) (Residentiale, . 25 uilidtiere; _Planned Development} tg'C-C;.(Comiannity;. ` Commercial).and C N-(Nei ghborhood:Commercial)'to R=25 (Res~deritiaat 2S:units/acre)~2) Site Development Review approval ` .to-allow-ilieiconstruction.of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use- - commeicia ietail-building; t Conditional Use approval to allow: . _ the constitiction of. a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor' r I;and Partition; pprrval to divide.the 12 acre parcel into,. two c:: . parcels ofj approximately, eight'acreeand four'acres each::: • LOC~►TION: `Southe_as't~and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW-Scholls Ferry RoZ a i SW-•Walnut-Sireet:'(WCTM 2S1° 4BB,taxlotslOO and 200). av, _Pioposed'amendments to the Tigard City Charter. Eliminat'the. requirement that the,Council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate.the requitement which prohibits an interim appointee from4unning for that position. Local Contract Review. Board Mecting. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) -(d), (e), & (h)40 discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. =34 - Publish December 9,1993. LUBA: W4). i*-1 i0 Exhibit NO. 3-4 _ Page NO. Rb_ CERTIFICATE OF RUNG 1, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on July 19.1994 .1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94110 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: July 19. 1994. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on July 19. 1994 1 served a true and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94110 by first class mail on ~ the following persons: The Petrie Company c/o Mr. Craig Petrie 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway Portland, OR 97219 Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: July 19. 1994. C&erine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder y I USIZ B(jARO OF APPEALS ftC 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OCT F/1-1 2 OF THE STATE OF OREG® 2b 5~ i 0 `5 y 8~p 3 The Petrie Company, 4 Petitioner, ) LUBA No. 94-110 5 v. ) STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 6 City of Tigard, ) 7 Respondent. ) 8 Pursuant to OAR 661-10-067(3), the Respondent, City of Tigard, 9 moves for an order extending the time for preparation of the record 10 in this proceeding until November 9, 1994. The reason that this 11 extension is requested is that the City needs additional time to. 12 prepare the partial transcript ordered by the Board. Petitioner's 13 attorney, William C. Cox, has been consulted and has agreed to the 14 extension. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 1994. 16 17 18 Referee 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED: 20 21 By: lG.cc o 22 Pamela J. eery, OSB #80161 Attorney for Respondent 23 24 25 26 Page 1 - STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR OMONNFU. RAMIS CREW EXTENSION OF TIME CORRIGAN B BAC HRACH lm N.W. Hoyt Street Ponland, Oregon 97209 Telephone: (503) 2224402 FAX- (500) 243.2944 ;7' T CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Stipulated Motion 3 and order for Extension of Time for LUBA 94-110, on October, Y '4 1994, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy 5 thereof contained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid, 6 addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: 7 William C. Cox 0244 SW California Street 8 Portland, OR 97219 9 Pamela J. Beery O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan 10 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 12 Dated this of October, 1994. 14 Turner 15 ministrative Specialist 16 17 90024/j Ih/PEnUE2.MOT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - • 25 26 Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 07DONN L RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland Oregon 97209 Telepbone- (503) 2724402 FAX. (503) 243-2944 i LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WILIAM C COX ESQ 306 STATE LIBRARY BUILDING 0244 SW CALIFORNIA 250 WINTER STREET, NE PORTLAND OR 97219 SALEM OR 97310 TIMOTHY V RAMIS O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN 1727 NW HOYT STREET PORTLAND OR 97204 ODONNELL RAMIS'SET;AL 503-243-2944 Oct 25,94 14:43 No.020 P.01 O'DONNaI,T. RAMIE CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATMRNEYS AT IAW 1729 N.W. Hoyt Sheet PoNane, Oregon 97209 TFlYTHONEt (503) 222.4403 PAX: (803) 243.2944 PLFASB REPLY TO PORTLAND OFPICR FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION-COVER SHEET THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE 18 NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU AIDE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION. DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THANK YOU. DATE: October 25, 1994 CLIENT NO.: 90054-01 TO: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, City of Tigard FAX: 684-7297; Phone # 639-4171 FROM: Pam Beery, City Attorney's office FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: LUBA rules re Record; Petrie case COMMENTS: Cathy, I'm having trouble reaching you by telephone so thought I' d fax the LUBA rule on the tapes to you. You do = have to serve copies of the tape on everyone; only on those parties who specifioally request it and then only if they pay for them. PLEASE NOTE too that LUBA recently changed their -rules to require delivery to the Board on or before the due date; you will have to have the supplemental record messengered to the Board on Wednesday, instead of dropping it in the mail. LUBA's phone number is 373- 1265 if you have any questions. Under the rule you can also retain the tapes if you gay you are going to in the amended table of contents. Call me if you need more help! Thanks. TWO PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Pam Beery AN ORIGINAL TO NF.ING MAIIED: no AN ORIGINAL IS AVATIABTR UPON REQUWr- yet ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 25,94 14:44 N0.020 P.02 1 Record 2 661-10-1025 (1) Contents of Records Unless the Board 3 otherwise orders, or the parties otherwise agree in writing, the 4 record shall include at least the following: 5 -(a) The final decision including any findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law; 7 (b) All written testimony -and all exhibits, maps, 8 documents or other written materials included as part of the 9 record during the course of the governing body's proceeding. 10 (c) Minutes zn' d ta~~-,.reeerdinas of the meetings it conducted by, the governing body as required by law. A verbatim 12 transcript of audiotape er videctapa recordings shall not be 13 required, but if a transcript has, been prepared, it shall be 14 included. To a verbatim tranaeri~, is included in the 15 record;_,,, lsa taR a raoerdingj _ I_r0W which that tranaeri3jti 16 ~►aa ~rwbwrad Head not bneluded in the zaeord~ 17 (2) Transmittal of Record: The governing body shall, 18 within 21 days after service of the Notice on the governing 19 body, transmit to the Board the original or a certified copy of 20 the record of the proceeding under review. The governing body 21 may, however, retain any large maps, tie- or documents which 22 are difficult to duplicate, until the date of oral argument. 23 franamittai of the raeavd is aeeemolished by dAliyarX e4 24 the recesd to the Beard, ar hv, r~,eeaiftt of the raeord by 25 gi-. 26 (3) Service of Record: Contemporaneously with 1 Page 10 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Oct 25,94 14:44 No.020 P.03 l transmittal, the governing body shall serve a copy of the 2 record, exclusive of large maps [and other] =area s~A 3 documents which are difficult to duplicate, on the petitioner or 4 the lead petitioner, if one is designated. The governing body 5 shall, also serve a copy of the record on any other party,„ 6 313e1udina -into ~er~ requesting a copy 7 provided such other party reimburses the governing body for the 8 reasonable expense incurred in copying the record. T.L4 9 ao9"rniro hedv shall a ^sarvs a 9!Deyof Any 24" 10 ire2udedin the,+so~ frQ 2 wh Lab--A 11 tsanst~eipt inelud~s~rk~t~h~~l A wwa`^m-ndred an anv 12 41=t~ ~A a&C^, sueh, A eenY. afavidad OR i AX.L 13 raimbursag the gQygrniag kodX for the, r`_~B e~ oXVjkA" 14 i ncLrgSd in ao2gi 15 (4) Specifications of Record; 16 (a) The record shall; 17 (A) Be filed in a suitable folders the cover shall beer 18 the title of the case as it appears in the Notice, and the 19 Board's numerical designation for the case, and shall indicate 20 the numerical designation given the land use decision or limited 21 land use decision by the governing bodyl 22 (B) Begin with a table of contents, listing each item 23 contained therein, and the page of the record where the item 24 begins (see Exhibit 2), and listing each large map or document 25 retained by the governing body under subsection (2) of this 26 rule; ' Page 11 OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-0402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 DATE: October 20, 1994 TO: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office RP RE: City of Tigard v. Petrie Company Supplemental Record Due October 26, 1994 I was unable to connect with Bill Cox despite having called him twice and written him a letter concerning his preference for handling the record in this matter. Therefore, I think we should just do what is easiest for the City. Of the two options given to us by LUBA in their order, I think we should do the first option which is the audio tapes of the June 7, 1994 hearing and the partial transcript for the minutes at Record 12 beginning with Council questions and comments through Council consideration ending on Record 14. You will also need to submit an amended table of contents pursuant to LUBA's rules. The briefing schedule will start following the filing of this supplemental record no later than October 26, 1994. You should also serve a copy of the supplemental record on everyone who received the original record. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this. cc: Maggie Daly 90024/j1h/WHEATLEY.MM 1 `P~a l olaq lq OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 PAMELA BEERY Portland, Oregon 97209 Canby, Oregon 97013 MARK L B USCH (S03) 266-1149 DOMIMC G. COLLETTA** _ TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402, CHARI.ES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944 STEPHEN F. CREW GARY FIRESTONE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE JAMES M. COLEMAN G. FRANK HAMMOND* Special Counsel WILLIAM A. MONAHAN MARK P. O'DONNELL TIMOTHY V. RAMIS WILLIAM J. STALNAKER October 10, 1994 (t TY K. LAYMAN (`C~ _U 12 of ALSO ADMn7FD A TO MAC= CW W WASHINGTON 0 - ` ADMfl7FD TO PIUCnCE CE IN IN GFOIWIA ONLY 6'~O ! iMI U l William C. Cox, Esq. Vl,c) 0244 SW California Street Portland, OR 97219 RE: The Petrie Company v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 94-110 Cv" Dear Bill: I am in receipt of LUBA's Order on Record objections in the above- referenced matter. On Page 2 of LUBA's Order; -the -Board essentially gives us the option of resolving which way we are -going to handle your record objection; either by submission of a supplemental record consisting of the audio tapes together with a partial transcript which the City would provide, or a submission of the audio tapes together with a complete transcript at your expense. Please advise which way you would like to proceed. Since the supplemental record is due October 26, I would appreciate hearing from you by Monday, October 17, so that the City can have adequate time to respond. Thank you for courtesy. Sincerely, e4~ Pamela J. Beery PJB/jh cc: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, with LUBA's Order 90054/jlh/COX.LT2 1 BEFORE THE LAND USE-BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 THE PETRIE COMPANY, ) 5 • 6 - Petitioner, ) LUBA No. 94-110 7 ) 8 vs. ) ORDER ON 9 ) RECORD OBJECTIONS 10 CITY OF TIGARD, ) 11 ) 12 Respondent. ) 13 14 Petitioner objects that the local record submitted by the 15 city should include a complete transcript of the June 7, 1994 16 city council hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends the 17 minutes of.that meeting contained in the record are inadequate: 18 "[T]he minutes fail to reflect important statements by 19 the decision makers. Specifically, but not by way of 20 limitation, the minutes fail to reflect deliberations 21 expressed by City Commission [sic] member Hunt and 22 leave out comments by Council Member Rolf (see page 12 23 of record). Those deliberations and comments go to 24 the basis for the vote and are key elements of 25 Petitioner's case." (Record reference in original.) 26 Objection to the Record 1. 27 LUBA's rules do not require that respondent include a 28 complete transcript of all hearings leading to adoption of a 29 land use decision challenged at LUBA.' Although 30 OAR 661-10-026(3) provides that LUBA may require that a 31 transcript be prepared in certain circumstances, respondent 32 contends petitioner's allegations are insufficient to 10AR 661-10-025(1) specifies that the' local government record in a LUBA proceeding shall include "[m]inutes and tape recordings of the meetings conducted by the governing body as required by law." OAR 661-10-025 (1) also provides that a verbatim transcript of such tapes is not required. Page 1 I "demonstrate with particularity how the minutes * * * are 2 defective and * * * [to] demonstrate with particularity why the 3 defect is material," as-required by OAR 661-10-026(3). We agree, 4 with respondent.. 5 Nevertheless, respondent agrees to file a supplemental 6 record consisting of a complete transcript of the June 7, 1994 7 city council hearing, if petitioner pays the cost of preparing 8 that transcript. Alternatively, if petitioner is not willing to 9 pay such costs, respondent proposes to submit a supplemental 10 record consisting of the audiotapes of the June 7, 1994 hearing 11 and a partial transcript of the portion of that hearing 12 reflected in the minutes at Record 12 through 14 beginning with 13 "Council Questions /Comments" (Record 12) through "Council 14 Consideration" (beginning on Record 13 and ending on Record 14). 15 The record in this matter shall be considered settled upon 16 receipt of a -suppl"emental record ori s sting, of_: the aud iotapes-- of _ .._~~e..~._~ 17 `the Juries 7,z1994~; hearing: and the above- described` partial L%2Jtif £'+sc 1 r Spa.' . ki 4 1 5 `~t r .e e: << 18 £ranscript, Alternatively, respondent shall submit a 19 supplemental record consisting of the audiotapes of the June 7, 20 1994 hearing and a complete transcript of the June 7, 1994 21 hearing, provided efi€orier'n-a per„ ~geesA°toy:pay.;the~..costT°'ofxzsuch` 22 .,t anscr- pt'.$ The• supplemental record shall be submitted not 20AR 661-10-025(2) provides, in part, that the governing body may "retain any * * * tapes * * * until the date of oral argument." Where the local government retains tapes until the date of oral argument under OAR 661-10-025(2), OAR 661-10-025 (4) (a) (B) requires that the'•:"table~> Me is<for the local government record list such tapes as exhibits. Page 2 i 1 I later than 21 days from the date of this order. 2 Dated this 5th day of October, 1994. 3 6 = - _ 9 Michael A..Holstun 10 Referee Page 3 • 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 3 - 4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Order on 5 Record Objections for LUBA No. 94-110, on October 5, 1994, by 6 mailing to 'said parties _or their. attorney a true -copy_ thereof. 7 contained in a. sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to 8 said parties or their attorney as follows: 9 .10 William C. Cox 11 Attorney at Law 12 0244 SW California Street 13 Portland, OR 97219 14 15 Timothy V. Ramis 16 O'Donnell, Ramis, et al 17 1727 NW Hoyt Street 18 Portland, OR 97209 19 20 21 Dated this 5th day of October, 1994. 22 23 24 25 26 - 27 dn . Zwe e 28 fice ' anager 29 OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH JEFF H. BACHRACH CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE PAMELA J. BEERY - ATTORNEYS AT LAW 181 N. Grant, Suite 202 MARK L. BUSCH" 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Canby, Oregon 97013 CHARLES E. CORRIGAN' - • - Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 266-1149 STEPHEN F.'CREW•-- GARY FIRESTONE TELEPHONE: -.(503) 222-4402 _ G. FRANK.HAMMOND* - FAX: (503) 243-2944 - - WILLIAM A. MONAHAN JAMES M. COLEMAN MARK P. O'DONNELL PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE Special Counsel TIMOTHY V. RAMIS WILLIAM J. STALNAKER TY K. WYMAN July 26, 1994 •A150 ADMMED TO PRACnCE IN WASHINGTON J U L 2 7 199 G ~~MLJ LJ L5U William C. Cox, Esq. 0244 SW California Street Portland, OR 97219 RE: The Petrie Company v. City of Tigard LUBA No. 94-110 Dear Bill: This will confirm my voice mail message to you of July 25, 1994, relative to the captioned appeal and your desire on behalf of your client to have another City Council hearing in the matter of your client's application for a reimbursement district. You indicated that if your client was granted another Council hearing you would drop your LUBA appeal. The place to make a request for an additional hearing is at a City council meeting, as only the Council has the authority to direct that the City Engineer waive the filing deadline pursuant to Section 13.09.020(3) of the Tigard Code. The City Engineer has already determined that he cannot waive the applicable filing deadline. As I mentioned, the Tigard City Council meets every Tuesday, but the meeting of August 2, 1994 is a work-session on the new tree ordinance. Therefore, the first regular Council meeting will be August 9. In the meantime, I have asked that you be provided an additional copy of the Record in the LUBA appeal. As I mentioned, I do not believe at this point that the decision in question is a land use decision, but do not want to move to transfer the appeal to Circuit Court, if at all, at least until I see your opening brief establishing what you believe to be the basis of LUBA's jurisdiction. In view of the fact that you cannot get your request for another hearing before the City until August 9, I would be willing to sign a stipulation granting you an additional two weeks O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW -CORRIGAN & BACHRACH William C. Cox, Esq. July 26, 1994 Page 2 for the filing of your opening brief if that is the course of action you decide on. Please let me know when you have decided how you wish to proceed. Thank you. Sincerely, '-7g~t7 Pamela J. Beery PJB/jh cc: Randy Wooley, City Engineer Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder Bill Monahan, Interim City Manager 90054/jlh/COX.LTI .y CITY OF TIGARD OREGON July 26, 1994 Mr. William Cox Attorney at Law 6244 S.W. California Portland, OR 97219 Dear Mr. Cox: As requested via our City Attorney's office, please find enclosed a copy of the City's record with regard to LUBA No. 94-110, Petrie vs. City of Tigard. A certified copy was mailed to the Petrie Company, c/o Mr. Craig Petrie at the time the filing was mailed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (July 19, 1994). Sincerely, a, c~ ~ Catherine Wheatley City Recorder c : Pam Beery, City Attorney's Office awc0725.943 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW ff ~ ter-, 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street i 1 r !1 ^ Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 JUL 0 7 1994 ~~y J } uutJ ~v ~r1.J U DATE: July 5, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office RE: The Petrie Company v. The City of Tigard LUBA No. 94-110 We discussed a few days ago the fact that the captioned appeal was filed. I'm now doing the initial work on the matter. (Yes, it appears I got lucky and got the assignment.) As you know, the first step in a LUBA appeal is the filing of the Record by the City. By my calculation, it is due on Tuesday, July 19, 1994. That means it has to be in the mail postmarked by that date. Because I intend to raise some technical defenses in the case early on, the content of the Record may be important. I'd appreciate the opportunity to get together with you and Cathy Wheatley (or whomever Cathy may designate to get this done) to go over whatever materials you assemble initially. When the materials are assembled, our office would also be happy to assist you with preparing the Record in the proper format for LUBA. Once you have the initial "cut" at putting together the record completed, give me a call and we can review it. We'll need to allow enough time after we meet to assemble any additional materials we identify, and to put together a table of contents and print covers for the document for LUBA. Thanks for your assistance on this. cc: Cathy Wheatley Pat Reilly 90024/j1h/WOO1EY.MM 6 OTONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW f ~7 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 TELEPHONE: (503) 2224402 FAX: (503) 243-2944 DATE: July 5, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office RE: The Petrie Company v. The City of Tigard LUBA No. 94-110 We discussed a few days ago the fact that the captioned appeal was filed. I'm now doing the initial work on the matter. (Yes, it appears I got lucky and got the assignment.) As you know, the first step in a LUBA appeal is the filing of the Record by the City. By my calculation, it is due on Tuesday, July 19, 1994. That means it has to be in the mail postmarked by that date. Because I intend to raise some technical defenses in the case early on, the content of the Record may be important. I'd appreciate the opportunity to get together with you and Cathy Wheatley (or whomever Cathy may designate to get this done) to go over whatever materials you assemble initially. When the materials are assembled, our office would also be happy to assist you with preparing the Record in the proper format for LUBA. Once you have the initial "cut" at putting together the record completed, give me a call and we can review it. We'll need to allow enough time after we meet to assemble any additional materials we identify, and to put together a table of contents and print covers for the document for LUBA. Thanks for your assistance on this. cc: Cathy Wheatley Pat Reilly 90024/jUVWOOLEY.MM6 ! " f t.J.~1 ' ~l L f q3 ~ r,67- LA VIN C~v cr~ (At Ill off C c- 0-~ P_4.,kk7 l CG - n • - -2 Alt 0 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jul 5,94 13:52 No.011 P.01 1 ~ O'DONNHI.I, RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209 773APHONP: (508) 222.4402 FAX: (503) 249.2944 PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICR FACSIMILE TRANSNjAALQN-Q00M-H= THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE 19 NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU AIIE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION 18 STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU, DATE: July 5, 1994 CLIENT NO.: 90024-04 TOz Randy Wooley, City Engineer FAX 684-7297 Phone 639-4171 x354 FROM: Pamela J. Seery, City Attorney's Office FAX # (503) 243-2944 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Memo re The Patric Company v. City of Tigard COMMENTS: 1 PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU. SIGNED: Jan Hallett AN ORiGINA61s BRING MAIMM. No AN ORIGINAL IS AVAILABIB UPON REQUEST: YcA ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Jul 5,94 13:52 No.011 P.02 O'DONN4LT. RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT TAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt 8trm Portland, Oregon 97209 TEI EPHONE: (603) 2124401 FAX: (603) 213.2944 DATE: July 5, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's offic4~, RE: The Petrie Company v. The City of Tigard LUBA No. 94-110 We discussed a few days ago the fact that the captioned appeal was filed. I'm now doing the initial work on the matter. (Yes, it appears I got lucky and got the assignment.) As you know, the first step in a LUBA appeal is the filing of the Record by the City. By my calculation, it is due on Tuesday, July 19, 1994. That means it has to be in the mail postmarked by that date. Because I intend to raise some technical defenses in the case early on, the content of the Record may be important. I'd appreciate the opportunity to get together with you and Cathy Wheatley (or whomever Cathy may designate to get this done) to go over whatever materials you assemble initially. When the materials are assembled, our office would also be happy to assist you with preparing the Record in the proper format for LUBA. Once you have the initial "cut" at putting together the record completed, give me a call and we can review it. We'll need to allow enough time after we meet to assemble any additional materials we identify, and to put together a table of contents and print covers for the document for LUBA. Thanks for your assistance on this. cc: Cathy Wheatley Pat Reilly 90024/j1h/WOOLF{Y.MM6 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THE PETRIE COMPANY ) Petitioner, ) LUBA NO. 94-110 S VS. ) Supplemental Index and CITY OF TIGARD, ) Record Respondent, ) Certified to be a True Copy of Original on file L l ~b - t"°• 9L( I!O . By: City Recorder - C' of Tig d Date: (0 (a, $14 7 i i Supplement to the Record THE PETRIE COMPANY APPLICATION - REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION CITY OF TIGARD RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA 94-110) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. (~t&'Uw 4) wxtatl Catherine Wheatley, igard C' Recorder Date: 1 has I i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii Exhibit No. S-1 Partial Transcript - Council Meeting Proceedings - June 7, 1994 Item No. 7 - Appeal Public Hearing - Establishment of Reimbursement District - Pacific Ridge Subdivision S1-15 Audio tapes of June 7, 1994, Tigard City Council meeting are on file with City of Tigard records and will be available on the date of oral argument. ii Partial Transcript - Council Meeting Proceedings June 7, 1994 - Item No. 7 Appeal Public Bearing - Establ sbnent of Rai t District - Pacific Ridge Subdivision ....Council Questions/Comments.... Mayor Schwartz: I'll lead off, I've got a couple. Randy, Fir Street is on the top Part of the map? The rest of Fir Street, whenever that goes into sewer, where is the logical or probable place that there is going to be a sewer line to serve all the residents on Fir Street? City Engineer Wooley: More than likely the line will continue up Cherry Street and then serve Fir. I believe as topography runs that the line could come from a different direction to serve this line off Fir. I guess that's the most likely route. Mayor Schwartz: Ok, then that comes to another question. A point was made out that the lot down on the • lower left, that the sewer doesn't extend across the front of the property and I know in past LIDS and sewer extensions the only requirement is that it extends past the front of their property. Now, why doesn't it extend past the front of the property there on Cherry Street the same as it does on 72nd? City Engineer Wooley: It does extend along this frontage. There is a public easement here so they can access directly. You're saying why wasn't he also stubbed up here? Mayor Schwartz: uh-hmm City Engineer Wooley: I guess because it was not an LID and this was not part of the subdivision. We couldn't require it to be stubbed up there. That would have been our preference. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 PAGE NO. S-1 Mayor Schwartz: Ok. One other question then. A comment was • made that property on Lot 1, I guess it is up there, is under separate ownership from the development. I guess legally - can there be a development with a separate ownership on that? I guess that a question for Tim. Legal Counsel Ramis: The answer is yes. There is no restriction in the subdivision law or in the City code that would prevent someone from subdividing land in two ownerships. Mayor Schwartz: So, the original owner partitioning off that lot at the top as being part of the original - or the part that is the development - that is a legal mechanism to do that. Legal Counsel Ramis: Yeah, there's no bar to doing that. Mayor Schwartz: Ok, I would have thought there was talk about it being improper, but ok. Any other questions? Councilor Hunt: Yeah, I - according to Code 13.08.20, it says • improvements must be greater than those which would otherwise ordinarily be required in connection with an application to permit approval in that they relieve adjacent property owners of installing such improvements. The way I read that, if the sewer line that was put in here was larger than what was needed for this development, then it meets the requirements of the Code. But if it is not larger than what was required for that, uh it seems to me like that it does not. Now, was this sewer line put in larger than what was required by just to serve that and, if so, did you order it or was it at the developer's option? City Engineer Wooley: ...it was an eight-inch line, and that's the minimum size throughout the City, so it's not larger than would be required. An eight-inch line can serve quite a few, quite a large residential area. It is the minimum size to allow for cleaning. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 PAGE NO. S-2 Councilor Hunt: Well, the first, the first thing on this Code, 13.08.020 it says - and it goes on to say that as an example that if you could put in a half street but you put in a full street that you could form a reimbursement district and all through the first part of it, the way I read it, it says you can form a reimbursement district if you have to spend more money than you would have had to spend otherwise for your own benefit. So, I would like some explanation of that, please. City Engineer Wooley: I was looking for my copy of that Code section. I thought there was additional language in there, but the interpretation, at least my understanding of it in the past, has been that the lines serve more than just the property being developed that it provides a service that wasn't there for other properties, and tape ended, turned over to other side of tape... Legal Counsel Ramis Well this Code section has a list of examples, and I think that is probably most instructive part of it because it refers to things like half streets and off-street sidewalks and extension of water and sewer lines, and I'm not sure that that list is complete enough to give you a complete and clear picture. It leaves some room for interpretation. And, it is the prior sentence that really is the critical one, the one you read about, let's see, let me get it here. Must be greater than those which would otherwise ordinarily be required, and so, in terms of the very first question, I said you need to address the threshold question, Should you form it or not?, that is, I think the fundamental inquiry. Did somebody have to oversize something, did someone provide additional capacity? And, I'm not sure that there's a clear arithmetic solution to that, but it's the fundamental judgment you have to make. I'm not going to decide that question for you. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. S-3 Mayor Schwartz: However, Paul, I understand what you're saying. I guess the question, I guess, which goes back to me is the previous sewer easement, I can't remember where that was located at that we get it was not for a development it was for an individual property owner that wanted a sewer that extended a sewer line up, which I believe that was an eight-inch. Councilor Hunt: That was on McDonald wasn't it? Mayor Schwartz: Yeah, it extended a sewer line up to get to their property, you know, which is eight- inches is the minimum size. So, I think along those lines, it's, you know hum, I would say what were talking about here is not much different from that as far as that perspective of it. I'm not talking about the rest of the that's been brought up about the question of this. Councilor Hunt: I guess my thing though, John, is that according to the Code you have to spend more money than what you would have for your own development. And, maybe the interpretation that the previous Council made on McDonald was incorrect. I don't know whether it was correct or incorrect, I wasn't here. But, it just appears to me that according to what the Code says you have to spend more money than what you would to develop your own property and Randy tells us that you have to in an eight-inch regardless, so they did not expend additional money. Councilor Hawley: Just to clarify, Councilor Hunt, are you reading from the ordinance that applies to this particular reimbursement district, not the new that we just passed? Councilor Hunt: The old one, yes. Councilor Hawley: Thank you. Legal Counsel Ramis: Yes, that's language from the old Code. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT N0. S-1 PAGE NO. S-4 Councilor Scheckla: I have a question John referring back to the one on McDonald. How many lots were serviced on that money. Do you know Randy, or... Mayor Schwartz: Uh, yeah, Ken, I don't recall Councilor Scheckla: One or two lots? Councilor Hawley: Three... Mayor Schwartz: Yeah there was three lots. Councilor Scheckla: There's quite a bit more involved here. Mayor Schwartz: Well, I understand what I'm saying is that it is the same concept, there is an eight-inch line put up there, we allowed a reimbursement district under the old code, you know, because obviously one lot you could probably get by with less than an eight-inch line to serve their lot, but the minimum was an eight-inch and we allowed a reimbursement district so if any of those other lots would eventually hook • up to the sewer I think some might have done that already that they were able to pay part of the cost of the one property owner. The difference there was this was a developer; that was a one property owner there that had put the money up that's sort of the difference there it wasn't a development. Councilor Hunt: I have one other comment while I have the floor, and that is, if it is approved, on Page 1 the third page actually on here, but it is numbered Page 1 where they're saying "C" the formation of the district and unless the Council decides to extend it, I would suggest that if we do approve this, that we make it consistent with our current Code of 15 years because we have a new Council and everything else there isn't anyplace they can refer back to and see that it is a 10 year thing with a possible extension on it. I would suggest that if it is approved, that be LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. S-5 changed to 15 years with no extension on it, so that I think it would make it a lot easier for Council 10 years from now. Mayor Schwartz: Okay, any other questions or comments? Councilor Scheckla: The only thing, I am finding myself leaning to not being in favor of this and killing it right now, because in the future, we're going to have a lot more of these to amend, and we're not going to be prepared to handle this thing and go through all these deliberations time and again. Mayor Schwartz: Well in the future it will be operated under a different Code. Councilor Scheckla: I realize that but Mayor Schwartz: The Code was refined based on the problems that this particular district has caused and make it more clear and what the guidelines are in the future. . Councilor Scheckla: Well even after we went through this tonight I can see a lot of flaws in the whole setup and I'm disappointed I would like to support something, but I'm finding myself leaning the other way. Councilor Hawley: But understand that at our last Council meeting we passed a resolution that totally revised the method in which you determine the boundaries, the method in which you determine the charges, and all that kind of stuff, and we're just kind of at the tail end of the old ordinance, and it will be different when we get to the new ordinance. Any other reimbursement district that applies from this point out will go through a totally different process. Councilor Scheckla: Maybe in the future from day one we can begin anew, but under the old one I will not support LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 . PAGE NO. S-6 Mayor Schwartz: Excuse me, I would like to get back to the questions and comments relating to this particular issue, and then we'll get into deliberation after we close the public hearing. Is there any other questions or comments? Councilor Hawley: I do have a question of Randy Wooley. Just as a point of clarification, I suppose, Mr. Kleinman or Mr. Maxym, either one or both, suggested that this 75th Court would not be public property. Will it eventually be public property, and will the sewer easement be public property? I mean, tell me how public this will eventually get. Randy Wooley: The street itself is private, and will remain private property. However, there is a public utility easement across that street, so that the sewer is actually in a public utility easement. It is a public sewer; the City has the right and obligation to maintain that sewer. • Mayor Schwartz: But it is a private street; it's not developed to full street standards? Randy Wooley: That's right, it's developed as a private street. Mayor Schwartz: Good question. I thought of that earlier, and forgot. Councilor Scheckla: I have a question of either Randy or Tim. Now if some of these people don't develop and they go on eight years from now; - five years from now, and they sell their house; it is possible that there could be a lien put on their property when they sell it as a direct charge against the development? I'm going to ask Tim and I want you to answer that, Tim. Tim Ramis: Well, the obligation remains. I mean the imposition of the district creates an obligation that goes on, regardless of who owns LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. S-7 Mayor Schwartz: The new owner would have to reimburse. • Councilor Hawley: But remember, it's only triggered by development. Tim Ramis: That's right. Councilor Hawley: They don't ever have to pay it. And if nobody develops that property past the end of the reimbursement district's time allotment, be it ten years or five years, then the reimbursement never occurs. So it's totally contingent and triggered by the development of the property. Councilor Scheckla: Maybe fifteen years is too long; it should be more like eight years. Councilor Hunt: The only reason I suggested fifteen years is that's what we have in our new ordinance, so I just wanted to have Councilor Scheckla: Yeah, we could delete that out just as easy as not. Because if you're there eight years you're just like everybody on the board, you can only be on here eight years and then your time is up, no matter who develops after that. If they don't have the money by then, the City Hall is having to figure who's paying what, and there's a lot of energy being put out by of f ice people to keep track of all this, and we shouldn't be in that realm of determining who pays what at City Hall unless the developers and the USA that ought to be doing that with the sewer hookup. Councilor Hawley: There won't be any recalculation of this, because we determine what that will be. Mayor Schwartz: The City gets an administrative fee for handling it. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. S-8 • Councilor Hawley: Yeah, it's like what, is it 10%? Mayor Schwartz: Is there any other questions? Councilor Rohlf: John, are you procedurally going to work with the first question that Ken gave us which is Mayor Schwartz: After we close the public hearing. Are there any other comments or questions? The public hearing is closed. Now we will have Council consideration. Now we need to discuss two issues that the City Attorney has brought forth earlier this evening. One is, is it appropriate to create the district? Is it appropriate to create the district, not who pays what, or how big the district is, or anything else, just should we consider a district being considered? That's the first question. Councilor Hunt: I've already given my interpretation. I think according to the Code, it should not, cannot be. Councilor Rohlf: My comment is that I don't like these districts in the first place, because I think that it allows private developers to put their hands in the pockets of citizens, without the citizens having a lot of input into that process. So if we are going to allow that process, it's incumbent on us to have the cleanest process, the most accurate process, and a predictable process, and I think it hasn't happened in this case. And so I'm going to have a lot of trouble supporting this district. Councilor Scheckla: I feel the same way as Bob, so I won't say anymore. Councilor Hawley: Well, I've always been in favor of reimbursement districts; I think it is a good LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 PAGE NO. S-9 • idea; I think it encourages economic development; it encourages, when properly administrated, fair payment for services rendered. I believe that while there is an assessment made on the lots, it's not triggered until people who want to develop their lots. I believe they thereby have the choice whether they wish to pay or not. I also feel that while there have been some significant issues clouding this particular reimbursement district, I would like to see it; I would like to answer the threshold question that yes, we should form this reimbursement district, because I believe there was a perception at the outset that this was a viable reimbursement district. Otherwise, this Council would not have formed it in the first place. There were arguments on both sides, no doubt. But the fact is the Council decided to vote in favor of forming the reimbursement district, so I think we should stay the course and vote in favor of forming the reimbursement district. I will add, however, though, that we should as a Council make the effort to go through and really closely examine which lots should be • included, what those fees should include, see if we can't try to ferret out, for instance, I'm concerned about . I know that Mr. Petrie saved the tree at the request of the neighborhood. I know that he did that. That was presented in evidence at some previous deliberation. But I don't think it belongs in reimbursement district fees. Perhaps that should be removed. There are other things in here that I think should be discussed in terms of details, and I would like to do that. So that's why I would be voting in favor of the formation again of this reimbursement district, even though we have already voted to do that. Mayor Schwartz: Okay, I'll give my comments. I think originally when we looked at this we felt that it conformed to the ordinance in consideration for a reimbursement district, and I voted for it under that content. I do have some concerns in it being a reimbursement district in exactly the same way as proposed, because LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. 5-10 it was my understanding that was a public type • street, not a private road, and whether that... and I have concerns that that portion of that would be within a reimbursement district. The portions along Cherry Street and 72nd Street certainly is going to be a benefit to other people; to have a reimbursement district with a better-defined district, I would be in favor of it, but not as currently proposed. But I think it met the qualifications as a reimbursement district according to our code and our ordinance when it was first set up. As Councilor Hawley mentioned, there are questions as to there are a lot of areas that need to be cleaned up. But I think a portion of it does meet the code or the ordinance as it was written. Councilor Hawley: May I make one more comment? I would hope, and it's been difficult for me, as I'm sure as it has for everybody sitting here, that because we have this idea of how we want a reimbursement district to work, and we tried to manipulate the ordinance that is now in place to accommodate those concerns, that we • wouldn't simply deny this reimbursement district, based on the fact that we changed the ordinance now. That one started out with an ordinance that was vague, but let's not deny it on the basis of the fact that the ordinance was vague, if you're following my reasoning. Um, we've saved well, anyway, that's my point; let's try not to confuse the fact that it was applied for under one particular ordinance that had significant problems. Let's not deny it simply because those significant problems were created by the vagueness of the ordinance. The ordinance was put in place because it was believe that this would be a proper vehicle to encourage economic development in the City of Tigard. Mayor Schwartz: I don't think that's I would disagree with what you said the purpose of the the reason the ordinance was put in. The reason the ordinance was put in initially was McDonald Street was a great example. We have one property owner needing a service and LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 . PAGE NO. S-11 • couldn't afford $30,000 I don't know what the exact amount was...couldn't afford to put out $30,000 just to hook up a sewer, but they did put that up, knowing that they would get a portion of that back at some point, as other people connected up to the sewer, they would get part of that back. The way the ordinance was written did not exclude, whether it wasn't intentionally to include or exclude development. Councilor Hawley: And I'll agree with you on that, Mayor Schwartz, because Mayor Schwartz: But it wasn't for economic development; it was not the purpose Councilor Hawley: Anyway, I don't begin to presume what the motivation was that the Council who put this ordinance in place in the first place, but I do see it as an effective tool. And it should be there for all citizens to use, and I include developers as citizens. So anyway, I • Councilor Hunt: I'd like to say that just because we said we were going to hear this, isn't any reason we should approve it. When we originally decided that we were going to bring this up for review, I wasn't sure at that time whether I was for or against it, because I didn't have any information. So I think that you had suggested we were not staying the course if we disapprove it. Councilor Hawley: The district's been formed, Councilor Hunt. Councilor Hunt: I agree it's been formed but the only reason so we could talk about and review it, not so we necessarily approve it. Councilor Hawley: It's been approved; it's a matter of record that the reimbursement district has been LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 • PAGE NO. S-12 • formed, and now we're listening to an appeal. We didn't decide to call it up. It's been appealed by Mayor Schwartz: ...the decision was made. Councilor Rohlf: I would like to say one thing more. It seems to me like it's really getting down to a process of basic fairness. We know the old ordinance was not good and we had to fix it, but here we have a situation that arose under that old ordinance, and we have two parties who are going to be hurt, one way or the other. In this case we have a landowner or a few landowners who basically got together and paid a price for something that wasn't working earlier, and when I look at the two parties and who can better absorb that unfairness, it seems to me that the developer is better able to recoup his cost in the charge for his loss than the landowner is in terms of being able to recover any costs he has put out. Councilor Hawley: Well the argument can be made that since the • charges are only triggered when development occurs, that that citizen becomes a developer when those charges become payable. Councilor Rohlf: He's already incurred those charges. Councilor Hawley: No, there aren't well, in terms of lawyer's fees, that's his choice. But in terms of what we are considering here tonight which is the reimbursement district and those charges, once the reimbursement fee becomes due and payable, he is already a developer by developing his lot. And face it, if you look at the economics of developing property, regardless of who pays the initial cost, whether you're a developer or a landowner developing your own little piece of property the way you want it to be, which is still a developer in my book, that gets passed on to the next buyer. It gets passed on to the next buyer, and whether we form a reimbursement LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 PAGE NO. S-13 district or not for Mr. Petrie, he will • eventually have to recover his cost or not stay in business. This is just simply an opportunity for the costs to be distributed in a different way, and it's important to recognize that when the people who are individual property owners develop their property and end up hooking to the sewer, when they sell that property because they've developed it, they will recoup those reimbursement district fees as well. They should. So, when you get the sale of the piece of property, eventually everyone who has property in this district will be reimbursed. Hopefully, if their property is evaluated and developed properly, then they should get those costs back. They should be recouped in one way or another. So, I honestly don't see granted, this particular reimbursement district has some bugs that need to be worked out of it; I'll be the first one to say that while I'm in favor of forming a reimbursement district, I want to qualify that. I think I said that clearly before. But, once those charges become due and payable, that little citizen who has decided to spend lawyer fees • or whatever, should be recouping those costs from the sale price of the property he has developed that triggers the payment of those charges. Mayor Schwartz: Well, is there a motion to approve or deny this reimbursement district? Councilor Hunt: Well, I'll move that we deny the reimbursement district. Councilor Scheckla: Second. Councilor Hawley: Wouldn't it be better if we moved for approval, and then vote it down? I don't know. Mayor Schwartz: It's going to work either way. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 . PAGE NO. S-14 • Councilor Hawley: Is it? Tim Ramis: Yeah. It doesn't matter. Councilor Hawley: O.R. Mayor Schwartz: O.R. We have a motion and a second to disapprove the reimbursement district. All those in favor say "aye." (Mayor Schwartz abstained, and Councilors Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes", Councilor Hawley voted "no.") Mayor Schwartz: O.K., Agenda Item No. 8. Council Consideration to amend the Tigard Municipal Code; ordinance pertaining to chronic nuisance property. And we have a staff report by the Chief of Police, if he's still here. Jack Polans: Excuse me, may I interrupt for one minute. The only reason; I want to say in the reimbursement district. Mrs. Hawley keeps saying that the development and what triggers it no, an emergency is what triggers it... • in connection to the sewer, and that's why Lot 32 that is having troubles has already connected... thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXHIBIT NO. S-1 PAGE NO. S-15 CERTIFICATE OF FILING I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 28. 1994. 1 filed the original of this SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94110 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: October 28. 1994. l.J Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on October 28. 1994 1 served a true and correct copy of this SUPPLEMENTAL INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94-110 • by first class mail on the following persons: William C. Cox, Esq. 0244 S.W. California Street Portland, OR 97219 Timothy V. Ramis O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: October 28. 1994. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder • BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON THE PETRIE COMPANY, ) LUBA NO. 94-110 Petitioner, ) vs. ) Index and CITY OF TIGARD, ) Record Respondent, ) Certified to be a True Copy of , f Origin on file 1V u. By: u) • City r er- ity of Tigard Date: THE PETRIE COMPANY APPLICATION - REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FORMATION PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION CITY OF TIGARD RECORD FOR LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA NO. 94-110) I, Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder for the City of Tigard, certify that the contents within are a true copy of the record. i3aftrine Wheatley, Tigard City R rder i TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae Statement Certifying the Record of Proceeding i Table of Contents ii - iv Exhibit No- 1 Council Meeting Minutes - June 7, 1994 1 - 16 2 Council Agenda - June 7, 1994 17 - 19 3 Testimony Sign-In Sheet; Council Meeting of June 7, 1994 20 - 21 4 Staff Report and Supporting Information - June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 22 - 40 5 Material Submitted by Anthony Maksym as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 41 - 65 6 Material Submitted by Jeff Kleinman as part of his Testimony • during June 7, 1994 66 - 88 7 Material Submitted by Craig Petrie as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 88-a 8 Affidavit of Publication (June 7, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 89 9 Council Meeting Minutes - April 12, 1994 90 - 97 10 Council Agenda - April 12, 1994 98 - 100 11 April 7, 1994 Letter from Ty K. Wyman to Pat Reilly 101 12 Staff Report and Supporting Information - April 12, 1994 102-111 13 Affidavit of Publication (April 12, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis 112 ii i Exhibit No. Page • 14 Council Agenda - March 8, 1994 113-116 15 Council Meeting Minutes - March 8, 1994 116-a - 128 16 Tigard Resolution No. 94-11 Adopted March 8, 1994 129 - 136 17 Testimony Sign-In Sheet; Council Meeting of March 8, 1994 137 18 Staff Report and Supporting Information - March 8, 1994 138 - 152 19 Affidavit of Publication (March 8, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 153 - 154 20 Council Agenda - February 22, 1994 155 - 157 21 Council Meeting Minutes - February 22, 1994 158 - 168 22 Staff Report and Supporting Information - March 8, 1994 169 - 179 23 Affidavit of Publication (February 22, 1994 Council • Agenda Synopsis) 180 24 Council Meeting Minutes - February 8, 1994 181-189 25 Council Agenda - February 8, 1994 190 - 193 26 Testimony Sign-in Sheet; Council Meeting of February 8, 1994 194 - 195 27 Staff Report and Supporting Information - February 8, 1994 . 196 - 204 28 Material Submitted by Anthony Maksym as part of his Testimony during June 7, 1994 Council Meeting 205 - 207 29 Affidavit of Publication (February 8, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 208 30 Council Meeting Minutes - December 14, 1993 209 - 216 31 Council Agenda - December 14, 1993 217 - 219 32 12/14/93 Letter to Randy Wooley from Craig Petrie 220 • iii Exhibit No. Paae 33 Staff Report and Supporting Information - December 14, 1993 221 - 228 34 Affidavit of Publication (December 14, 1994 Council Agenda Synopsis) 229 - 230 Original Photographs (See Exhibit 18, Page 152) are on file with the City records; copies can be made available upon request Audio tapes of Tigard City Council meetings can be made available upon request iv rm ~_c.a iZ c c 1_~Iql C, Council Agenda Item 4'1 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING KnWTES - JUNE 7, 1994 Councilor-Elect Mayor Schwartz, Councilor-Elect Bob Rohlf and Councilor-Elect Ken Scheckla were sworn in by City Recorder Catherine Wheatley at 6:15 p.m. The oaths were administered at this time in order to allow the newly-elected officials to participate in the Study Session and Executive Session Meeting. During the Business Meeting, oaths were administered in a ceremony conducted by Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien. • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 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; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director (Executive Session only); Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. (NOTE: Prior to going into Executive Session, City Attorney Ramis asked that it be noted for the record that there were no members from the newspaper media present). • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 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. Council meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. STUDY SESSION • Agenda Review: Councilor Hunt noted it would be his preference there be-no Study Session prior to the meeting in the Town Hall Conference Room; he would like to see this portion of the meeting conducted in the Town Hall. If that would occur, he questioned whether the cost of cable TV (Item 6.6) would be affected. City Administrator Reilly said he did not believe the cost would go up significantly since he monitors agendas; on those days the Business Meetings are likely to be very short, cable coverage is cancelled. Councilor Scheckla noted preliminary concerns with the Study Session process as well. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 1 LU BA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No..~_ Page No. i After brief discussion, Council consensus was to wait for about two months before reviewing changing the Council meeting format. • Items for review - City Administrator Reilly advised, for the benefit of the new Council members, that they received a Final Order in their Council mail from the Hearings Officer. He pointed out that there is a period of time in which Council can determine whether or not they want to review the issue. This deadline is stated within the Final Order. The deadline is set so there is at least one Council meeting that will occur to give Councilors an opportunity to decide whether to call up the issue to review the final decision. City Administrator advised there is a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation. Bill Moshofsky will be the guest speaker at the Sweetbriar Inn on June 9 at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Moshofsky is the attorney for the Dolan family in the Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregonians in Action. Council orientation meeting was scheduled for June 22 at 6:30 p.m. BUS32MSS MEETING • The business meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Schwartz. • Council communications/Liaison Reports: Mayor Schwartz advised that he attended a recent Washington County Transportation Communications Commission (WCTCC) meeting. Metro has been working with the County in putting together a $600 million transportation bond measure for vote= approval. He advised approximately $475 million of this measure would be for light rail. Additional dollars were available for a north-south light rail connection and for some bike and pedestrian ways. In addition, Mayor Schwartz noted a 2040 visioning project is under -review by Metro and surrounding jurisdictions. Residents will-soon be receiving a questionnaire to complete and return with regard to the urban growth boundary and whether it should be extended. He urged citizens to complete the questionnaire. • Call to Council and staff for non-agenda items - City Administrator Reilly announced he would be updating Council on the Link agreement. Councilor Hunt advised he would like to bring up the issue of the Main Street Building that is for sale. . CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. Page No. i 2. OATHS OF OFFICE Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien administered the Oaths of office as follows: • Mayor - John Schwartz • Council Position No. 3 - Bob Rohlf • Council Position No. 4 - Ken Scheckla 3. ELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1994 - Mayor Schwartz nominated Councilor Hawley to serve as Council President. - Councilor Scheckla nominated Councilor Hunt to serve as Council President. - Council cast their ballots on a written ballot as follows: Mayor Schwartz: Wendi Conover Hawley Councilor Hawley: Wendi Conover Hawley Councilor Hunt: Paul Hunt Councilor Rohlf: Paul Hunt Councilor Scheckla: Paul Hunt Councilor Hunt was elected to serve as Council President until December 31, 1994. 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO INTERIM MAYOR JACK SCHWAB Mayor Schwartz presented Jack Schwab with a "Certificate of Appreciation," an engraved gavel, and City of Tigard glass mugs as a token of appreciation for his service as Interim Mayor of the City of Tigard from April 1 - June 7, 1994. 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified with regard to the 130th and Winterlake connection. Mr. McAdams noted that at a meeting of the West CIT West, there was a petition on a table to sign up against the 130th and Winterlake connection; Mr. McAdams protested this action. In addition, he noted that a Budget Committee meeting, the 130th and Winterlake connection was not discussed because of the quasi-judicial limitations of prior discussion. He advised that when Council, on January 25, 1994, chose to abort the process which would establish this connection, it • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. Page No. did so with no j ustif ication or f act f finding. As a result of Council's action, he said he is being damaged daily. Damages include increased traffic on neighborhood streets, which is being turned into an arterial. He advised he wanted these issues on the record for future reference. • The following persons advised they wished to donate their two minutes of time for the Visitor's Agenda to Donna Milrany for aepresentation on the Arts Policy: Sharon Maroney, and Matthew Ryan. • Donna Milrany, Metropolitan Arts Commission, 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, testified in favor of establishing City of Tigard Arts Policy. She referred to the Arts Plan 2000 Plus effort conducted throughout the region. She urged financial support of the arts, including the Broadway Rose request for support; support of the Arts Commission of Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood; and consideration of development of an Arts Policy to assist in making decisions in investment of the arts. She advised she offered her assistance in helping develop this policy. She noted the Arts Commission is working towards becoming a private, non-profit organization. She stressed the importance of having regional representation. • Mary Simeon, 9708 SW London Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, also testified in support of the Arts Policy. Ms. Simeone outlined the work underway for the last five months by an ad hoc committee involving the arts in many different areas. She also offered assistance to help Tigard Council as they look at developing a policy. A packet of information was distributed to City Council for their review. • Michael Gerking, 11149 SW Eschman, Tigard, Oregon read a letter on behalf of "Friends of Summer Creek. A copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet material. (Note: Greg Gerking relinquished her time on the Visitor's Agenda to Michael Gerking). • Cal Woolery, 12356 SW 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 - Mr. Woolery extended his congratulations to the new Council. Mr. Woolery referred to the 130th and Winterlake connection. He noted this issue had been studied and the Comprehensive Plan had been supported by the Planning Commission. He noted this was a well-thought-out process, and was created before development had occurred in the area. Mayor Schwartz asked staff to check on the soliciting petitions referenced during Visitor Agenda testimony. He noted that CIT meetings are for public information purposes. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 6. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented: 6.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: April 26 and May 10, 1994 6.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes - May 17, 1994 Election (Pending Receipt of Canvass of votes from Washington County Elections Division) 6.3 Approve Contract with Washington County Department of Health and Human Services to Allow Receipt of $5,000 in Grant Funds for Anti-Gang Purposes 6.4 Adopt Community Policing Philosophy for the Tigard Police Department - Resolution No. 94-24. 6.5 Local Contract Review Board - a. Award Contract for the Construction of the 12-Inch Transmission Main on S.W. North Dakota St. to Golden Valley Construction, Inc. b. Award Contract for Construction of Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement to D & D Concrete & utilities c. Award Bid for Copying Machine to Commercial Office Products 6.6 Authorize City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Business Meetings Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF RE DISTRICT -PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION A. Public Hearing was opened. B. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff report: (1) Legal Counsel Ramis advised as council deliberates, there are two issues to consider: (a) Is it appropriate under the circumstances to grant a reimbursement district? He noted a district has already been formed and Council is hearing an appeal of that formation. (b) What is the appropriate boundary and charges for the reimbursement district, if the district is granted? CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.., I Page No. Mr. Ramis noted a number of legal issues had been raised. Council must decide the issues based on the facts. The issues raised include the following: (1) Is the Code is invalid because it allows the creation of a reimbursement district without a public bidding process? Legal Counsel advised that in order for this statement to be true, the courts would have to make a decision that the ordinance is invalid. At this time, State statute provides that the public bidding process is required when a public contract is involved in construction. (2) Is reimbursement district request is valid? He noted there was a withdrawal and then a reinstatement by the applicant to start the process again. Council needs to make a judgment if this action was sufficient. (3) Can certain improvements on the land of the applicant can be included for as a part of the cost when deciding the costs to be distributed under the reimbursement district? This would involve an interpretation of the Code to determine whether the improvement benefits only the applicant or was there a benefit to others. City Engineer Wooley advised this particular reimbursement district would be considered under the procedures prior to the adoption of the amendments to the reimbursement district ordinance made by council on May 10, 1994. City Engineer reviewed map of the area (copy of the map is contained in the Council packet. - the overhead projector map outlined the subdivision area developed by the applicant). After review of the Staff Report, City Engineer recommended approval of the reimbursement district. He noted that Council had approved the reimbursement district by passing Resolution No. 94-11. City Engineer advised after review of the construction costs, he was comfortable with these costs. In response to Councilor Hunt, City Engineer Wooley reviewed some of the reasoning for including some lots in the zone of benefit and not others. He noted that different factors were considered, including topography and access to the laterals. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. _I Page No. • Councilor Rohlf posed a question about the process with regard to determining the zone of benefit. City Engineer responded staff requested the applicant to suggest a zone of benefit which is reviewed by staff. Ultimately, the Council decides the zone of benefit. D. Public Testimony - Appellants: • Jeffrey Kleinman, Attorney for Anthony Maksym, appellant, 1207 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97204 testified. Mr. Kleinman distributed the following to City Council for their information: Transamerica Title Insurance Company property profile dated June 7, 1994 - Metroscan MD. - Map marked Exhibit B reimbursement district No. 5, noted as Kleinman testimony No. 7, June 6, 1994. - Transamerica Title Insurance Company property profile for the property located at 13400 SW 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223 dated June 3, 1994. - Information from Unified Sewerage Agency, R & 0 91-48, and R & 0 92-34. - Letter dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner." Mr. Kleinman testified at length. The following are highlights of concerns and areas of objection with regard to the establishment of reimbursement district No. 5: - Reimbursement districts have the affect of an LID; however, citizens lose many of their protections, including the right to remonstrate and the scrutiny and protections provided by a public contracting/bidding process. - A letter from Empire Pacific to the applicant appears to be insufficient and does not include backup documentation with regard to the costs of over $42,600. - Supplemental documentation for costs were also unacceptable. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. _Z Letter from City Engineer's office (letter • dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, city of Tigard Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner is on file with council packet material). In this letter, the owner was advised the sewer will be installed and paid for by the developer of the subdivision. Notation. that initially the engineer said citizens would save money if the reimbursement district was established because they would not be required to pay the surcharge fee. However, the surcharge fee was repealed and there was never anything that the property owners would have had to pay. Questioned the establishment of the zone of benefit. Suggested it was established for easy calculation; i.e., eleven lot subdivision and eleven other lots to be included. This would result in a fifty-fifty split of costs. Questioned why some areas were included in the zone of benefit, while others were excluded. He noted.that a large lot, Lot 3601, was not owned by the developer. The title insurance shows Ray and Phyllis Ems own this lot. If this large lot is excluded from the subdivision, then the calculation has been "thrown off." Mr. Kleinman questioned the transaction for another parcel of property, noting it*appeared there was not enough consideration for purchase of this lot. He suggested there should be questions as to "what's going on?" Most of the facts the City Engineer relied on came from only one letter. There is an incentive to dump costs onto other people there is no control. Staff has "carried the ball" for the developer through to this point. This leaves the onus for challenging to the members of the public. Noted that it was always clear that laterals which were initially charged to the reimbursement district did not serve anyone but the developer's property. (See City Engineer Wooley's memorandum to Pat Reilly dated May 13, 1994). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. -9,,_ Requests for documentation were sent to the • applicant, but no response was received. • Anthony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, 97223. The following items were submitted for Council information: Three maps stapled together; one dated March 5, 1993; one dated March 29, 1993; and one dated August 20, 1993. - Letter dated May 4, 1994 from Craig Petrie to city Engineer regarding reimbursement district. - Memo dated May 3, 1994 from Hassan A. Ibrahim, EIT of Land Development Consultants, Inc., regarding Pacific Ridge. - Handwritten page dated May 13, 1994 - revised calculation of reimbursement district fee. - Letter dated February 23, 1994 from Craig A. Petrie to Randy Wooley regarding zone of benefit district No. 5. - Copy of unsigned City of Tigard resolution - establishing sanitary sewer reimbursement district No. 5. - Final Order by Hearings officer concerning Case No. SUB 93-0007 - name of owner is Grasco Investments and Raymond and Phyllis Ems - applicant Craig Petrie. - Memo dated March 28, 1994 from Harris Hyman, PE/PLS of Land Development Consultants, Inc. regarding excess charges on Pacific Ridge project No. 1498. - Letter dated June 8, 1993 from Greg Berry, Utilities Engineer to "Dear Owner." - Petition dated February 23, 1994 from property owners, noting they reject the formation of a proposed Pacific Ridge sewer reimbursement district. - Letter dated November 1, 1993 to Craig Petrie from Lans Landis of Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. Memorandum dated may 13, 1994 from Randy • Wooley, City Engineer to Pat Reilly, City Administration. Mr. Maksym questioned the March 8, 1994 resolution. The resolution states that the formation date of the reimbursement district is February 22, 1994, which is the same date that the applicant withdrew the application. The applicant tried to reinstate the application by letter received on February 23, 1994 by the City of Tigard. Mr. Maksym noted the process of obtaining information. If an individual does not precisely know what to ask for, then they do not get the information. Mr. Maksym noted a letter from Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. dated November 1, 1993, stating that all underground utilities were installed by Empire. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific installed, the sanitary sewer total cost was $42,684. It was not until March 24, 1994 that the City came aware that charges were in error. Mr. Maksym reviewed a March 28, 1994 memorandum from Land Development Consultants, Inc. regarding excess charges on Pacific Ridge project No. 1498. Mr. Maksym also reviewed a letter from Craig Petrie to the City Engineer of Tigard dated May 4, 1994, regarding cost breakdown. Mr. Maksym related some of these costs back to other items. He noted he questioned these costs, especially the amount of $327.50 as it was his understanding this amount was to save a tree. Mr. Maksym referred to several maps, noting the calculations on lots 1 and 2 change on all three maps. He questioned whether this raised surveying costs and the total cost of the reimbursement district for which he would have to pay. He noted that lot 1 was owned by Ray and Phyllis Ems and not the developer. He noted the proposal was not fair and was only of benefit for the developer. The sewer was only built by the developer for the developer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. _Q- Mr. Maksym said he had to pay an attorney to bring information to Council; it was not a fair proposal. He referred to the letter from the City of Tigard which said the developer will install the sewers and the sewers should be paid by the developer. Council meeting recessed at 9:32 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:40 p.m. • Craig Petrie, 9600 SW Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon, 97219. Accompanying Mr. Petrie was Mr. Lans Landis of Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Mr. Petrie distributed a copy of the State of Oregon Construction Contractor's Board registration certificate for Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Mr. Petrie noted there had been an error that had been corrected with regard to some of the costs. He advised he had followed the Code in applying for the reimbursement district. He noted the reasoning behind the figure as a total was to derive a cost as a percentage of the engineering. With regard to the question as to why there was an instance where it appeared a homeowner received a small amount of consideration for some property, he noted there were several other parts of this transaction which valued approximately $85,000. Mr. Petrie referred to the method used to derive how many lots would be included in the reimbursement district;.this method was determined by logistics and topography. Mr. Petrie advised that he had followed the Code and other reimbursement districts have been granted in the past on the same basis for which he was requesting. In response to questions from Councilor Hawley concerning three different maps with three different lot sizes, Mr. Petrie advised the maps had been amended several times throughout the process of development. Engineering costs were on a lump sum basis; that is, each time the lot size numbers changed, the costs did not go up. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94410 Exhlbft No. Page No __I L- • Rebuttal: Mr. Kleinman noted that the record speaks for itself and does not support the determination of the physical establishment of a zone of benefit or the allocation of the costs to the property owners. He advised the wrong method of calculation was used. Engineering costs were vague and there is not enough documentation. He advised this process shifts the burden to the wrong people. Rebuttal: Tony Maksym questioned the rationale of including some lots and not others. He stated there may have been other side deals with regard to inclusion of lots or not. • Council Questions/Comments Council asked clarifying questions with regard to sewer lines and potential for future development and establishment of sewer lines. City Engineer Wooley responded to these questions, noting locations along Cherry Street and Fir Street. In response to questions, Legal Counsel Ramis advised there is no restriction with regard to subdivision ownership (i.e., more than one owner). Councilor Hunt referred to a section of the Code that states if there is a larger-than-necessary improvement constructed by the developer, then it would be eligible for reimbursement. It was noted the 8-inch line was the minimum that can serve a residential area. Time was spent reviewing this section of the Code with Legal Counsel. Mr. Ramis noted referred to the list of examples included in the Code and advised that this is an area for interpretation by Council. He stated that the language provides that improvements must be greater than those ordinarily required for the development and this is the fundamental judgment of Council. Councilor Hunt commented that if the resolution was approved, he would propose the reimbursement district be established for a period of fifteen years, with no extension. Councilor Scheckla noted he was not inclined to be in favor of the establishment of a reimbursement district. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Discussion followed. Council members noted that the Code had recently been refined with regard provisions establishing reimbursement districts, based on problems brought forth by examples of this particular reimbursement district. With regard to questions raised during public testimony, Councilor Hawley requested clarification as to whether 75th Court was public property and the sewer easement was public property. City Engineer Wooley explained the sewer is a public sewer easement; 75th Court is developed as a private street. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Legal Counsel Ramis advised the obligation for a reimbursement district would remain on the property if the property was sold. He further advised that reimbursement district provisions are triggered only when the property is developed (not by sale only). E. Public hearing was closed. F. Council consideration: • Councilor Hunt noted that according to his interpretation of the Code, this reimbursement district should not be established. • Councilor Rohlf expressed concerns with cost documentation. He noted developers should not be allowed to pass on charges to citizens without a clean, accurate and predictable process. • Councilor Scheckla said that he was bothered by the request for reimbursement district formation. He indicated he could not support the request. • Councilor Hawley said she thought reimbursement districts were a good idea and because they were a good idea, they were provided for in the Code. She noted property owners have a choice in whether or not to participate because the reimbursement district provisions are not triggered unless development occurs. Councilor Hawley said she would be in favor of establishment of the reimbursement district; however she supported further review of the costs. • Mayor Schwartz advised that originally he felt the reimbursement district application conformed to the ordinance provisions. He noted he now had some concerns, because he had assumed that 75th Court was a public street. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. J. Page No J3. • Councilor Hawley noted this reimbursement district • should not be denied based on the fact that the ordinance had recently been amended by Council. She advised that she feels the reimbursement district provisions encourage economic development in the City of Tigard. • Mayor Schwartz disagreed that a component of the reasoning for reimbursement district code provisions was to provide for economic development. Rather, he felt reimbursement districts provided an opportunity for a property owner to recoup some costs when they had to oversize utilities in order to receive the service. • Councilor Hawley noted she sees this as an effective tool and it should be available for all applicants. G. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to deny the reimbursement district. The motion was approved by majority vote of Council present (Councilors Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilor Hawley voted "no"; Mayor Schwartz abstained. • 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE - ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY Chief of Police Goodpaster reviewed the staff report. The proposed amendment, modeled after similar ordinances in other cities, would give the Police Department an effective tool in dealing with chronic locations that are causing significant problems in neighborhoods in the community. Chief of Police Goodpaster reviewed significant provisions of the ordinance, noting the City of Portland had used this as an effective tool to relocate and resolve some chronic nuisance problems within the city. To his knowledge, he advised, the Portland authorities have never actually boarded up a house. In response to a question from Mayor Schwartz, Chief Goodpaster noted the provisions of this ordinance may have been used once in the last year if it had been available to the Tigard Police Department. Primarily, the purpose of the ordinance is to use it as a tool to eliminate a problem in its early stages. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 14 LUBA NO. 94-1110 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. _LL- Legal Counsel Ramis, noted the City Attorney's office placed • several provisions within the ordinance as a balance to the property owners and as an enforcement tool for the Police Department. Ty Wyman of the City Attorney's office reviewed some of the. elements of balance contained in the ordinance: • Notice will be provided to everyone involved, including the tenant and the property owner. Property owners and tenants will know of the potential penalties. A detailed notification process has been established. • Care was taken in how the complaint and summons should read. • A bond mechanism was placed within the provisions of the ordinance after a review of Oregon cases. Property owners will have an option of posting bond as a final stop gap to make a commitment toward resolving the problem. Discussion continued on elements of the ordinance. It was noted the City Administrator was named within the ordinance to bring the relevant staff together in order to assure process and proper protections had been followed. This would include • a review by the City Attorney's office. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve ordinance No. 94-11. ORDINANCE NO. 94-11 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE, PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS, TO INCLUDE CHAPTER 7.42 PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwartz, and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • City Administrator Reilly noted Mr. and Mrs. Mark Link have fulfilled their obligations with regard to placing their property on the market for the last six months. All information has been submitted. City Administrator Reilly will authorize the City Attorney to implement the balance of the agreement toward property purchase. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 15 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I • Councilor Hunt noted he noticed the sale of the old City Hall building on Main Street would not be completed until the end of the year. The Chamber of Commerce offices will remain in the building until the end of the year. Mike Marr was the successful bidder for this property and an agreement is being drawn up and placed into escrow with regard to responsibilities for the building during this interim time. He noted that, rather than having the dollars from the sale going to the General Fund, he would like the money earmarked for a specific item. After discussion, council did not have any objection to this proposal by Councilor Hunt. City Administrator Reilly advised it would be possible to earmark those funds for a specific purpose at a later date. • Councilor Hawley expressed a concern about approving the budget on June 28, prior to having a policy on the distribution of arts funding. Through discussion, it was determined there is a contingency fund of approximately $300,000, thus allowing Council some discretion in determining an arts funding commitment, if they so desire. • Councilor Scheckla referred to "music in the park" for the summer. City Administrator Reilly-advised a portable stage would cost about $750 per event. Discussion followed, noting perhaps the "Cityscape" would be a good vehicle to let people know of the City's desire to provide music in the park and • solicit donations for this effort. After discussion, it was determined that Council would review this issue at an upcoming Study Session. The music in the parks issue can be resolved separately from the Arts Policy. As a starting point, Council will review the information given to them tonight by the Arts Commission and make suggestions for an Arts Policy to the City Administrator. In addition, City Administration Reilly advised he would research the Washington Park music activities to get an idea of how this successful program is accomplished. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 p.m. Ca erine Wheatley, City Re o der Attes M r, City o Tigard ate: =0607.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 16 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. I Page No. I U • 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 &W 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 (TOD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. 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 Ciiy 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 COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No._t Page No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 7, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY SESSION (6:30 P.M.) 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. OATHS OF OFFICE (Pending Receipt of Certification of Election Results) • Administered by Municipal Court Judge Michael O'Brien 2.1 Mayor 2.2 City Council Position No. 3 2.3 City Council Position No. 4 3. ELECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1994 (Pending Receipt of Certification of Election Results) • Mayor 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO INTERIM MAYOR JACK SCHWAB • 5. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 6. 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: 6.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: April 26 and May 10, 1994 6.2 Receive and File: Canvass of Votes - May 17, 1994 Election (Pending Receipt of Canvass of Votes from Washington County Elections Division) 6.3 Approve Contract with Washington County Department of Health and Human Services to Allow Receipt of $5,000 in Grant Funds for Anti-Gang Purposes 6.4 Adopt Community Policing Philosophy for the Tigard Police Department - Resolution No. 94- 6.5 Local Contract Review Board - a. Award Contract for the Construction of the 12-Inch Transmission Main on S.W. North Dakota St. to Golden Valley Construction, Inc. b. Award Contract for Construction of Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement to D & D Concrete & Utilities C. Award Bid for Copying Machine to Commercial Office Products 6.6 Authorize City Administrator to Sign Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Contract for Cable Coverage of Council Business Meetings • COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. ~I S _ 7. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION . Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Staff Report - City Engineer • Public Testimony Appellants Respondents Rebuttal • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing • Council Consideration 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: AMENDMENT TO TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE - ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO CHRONIC NUISANCE PROPERTY • Staff Report: Chief of Police • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 947_ 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT • h:\rewrder\cca\ccaOW7.94 COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 7, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. W110 Exhibit No. Z- Page No. J _ Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount -if time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair 'qay further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council. to upplement oral testimony. AGENDKI TEMP DATE. June :7.; _1994 APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 3 " _ Page No. 00 - cage PRINT NDA rMM NO. .GE RaspondenLs Name St^I ► ~L Nam• 9606 Neme eaa Na" Name pddresa Add Me" Na" pddre" Address Neme dame Addross Adder Marne Marne Address A Name Nerve Address Address Na" Address Na" Address Name Name Address Name Name dress Address Marne Na" Address Address LUBA NO- 94-110 Exhibit NO- page No. a~- AGENDA ITEM # ~I • For Agenda of May 4, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal hearing on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consideration of an appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of -the attached resolution revising Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5. INFORMATION SUN-MARY Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 was formed by.Resolution No. 94- 11 passed on March 8, 1994: An appeal has been received. In accordance with TMC 13.08, the Council is-required.to hold a public hearing to consider and rule on any objections. riginally, a hearing was scheduled for April 12, 1994. However, on April 12 40.he-hearing was continued to May 24, 1994, at the request of.the appealing parties. On May 6, 1994, a formal written appeal was received from the attorney representing the owners of two parcels within the reimbursement district. Attached are the following documents: Attachment #1: A copy of Resolution No. 94-11 forming the reimbursement district. Attachment #2: The formal appeal letter. Attachment #3: A memo from the City Engineer describing recommended revisions to the district. Also attached is a resolution which would adopt the recommendations of the City Engineer. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could: 1. By motion, reaffirm Resolution No. 94-11 and leave the reimbursement district unchanged; or, Adopt the attached resolution making the changes recommended by staff; r, LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. as - Direct that additional revisions be made; or, 4. Repeal Resolution No. 94-11, thereby eliminating the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES /petriel4 LUBA No. 94-11o Exhibit No. Page No. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION* REVISING RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 AND REVISING THE TERMS. OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 was formed on March 8, 1994, by passage of Resolution No. 94-11; and, WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by the owners of two properties within the District as provided in TMC 13.08.020(h); and, WHEREAS, a hearing was held on May 24, 1994, to consider objections raised by the appellants; and, WHEREAS, additional cost documentation was filed by the applicant after .the adoption of Resolution No. 94-11; and,- WHEREAS, based on the additional documentation filed by the applicant, the City Engineer has recommended revisions to Resolution No. 94-11; and, WHEREAS', the formation date shown.-in Resolution No. 94-11 does not correspond with the date that the resolution was actually adopted; and, WHEREAS, after hearing .the objections of- the appellants and the recommendations of the City Engineer, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to revise Resolution No. 94-11. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: Resolution No. 94-11 is revised as follows: (a) The City Engineer's report shall be revised to show the total cost of the sanitary sewer system to be $44,389.15. (b) Exhibit D shall be replaced with the attached Exhibit D-1 (revised May 1994). (c) The zone formation date is March 8, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on March 8, 2004, unless extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . Section 2:' The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and *shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address. Section 3: The Finance Director is hereby directed to refund the • amount of $78.64 per unit to any property owner who has RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. c, paid the reimbursement fee prior to adoption of this resolution. PASSED: This day of , 1994. • Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard rw/petriell • RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4_ Page No. &5 Exhibit D-1 (May 1994) Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charae** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,035.36 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,035.36 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,035.36 2S1 !DC 2700 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,017.68 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 .(Pacific Ridge Subdivision) * 11 22, 194.67 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,035.36 22 $44,389.15 ~.*Note 1: Pacific. Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The -reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2:- If any--tax, lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the•written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no 'written instructions are provided,-.the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3:. The connection•charge -shall- apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. - For commercial development, the connection charge shall be-for.the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit -is $2,017.68. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. ~n • CITY OF TIG.XRD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- L A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT-NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS; formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie . Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among. the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title ."Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A,Js hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C.'-.The zone of . benefit* .shall.:* be known as-* ."Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery.'. agreement connection charge-as shown in.Exhibit D- is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable=to development of each parcel•within the zone- of befit- as provided for iri : TMC 13.08.030.. Section 4 An annual- percentage.-rate of. three percent: (3%) shall be applied.to the.. connectio'. charge..:-. Section 5: The zone formation date 'is February 22,.1994. The* right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004;•-unless extended by the Council* in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 0 RESOLUTION NO. 94- 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 1 Exhibit No. 14 Page No. a8 • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). bh PASSED: This da f 1994. or - i y of" Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City ` Tigard dJ/Rit:Pae-4tC.re.55 1n •it ircT1~ ~-i ' RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. _ Page No. ~,9 . Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer-line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer, line is nearing completion and the. developer's costs are known. - Financing 0 -All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer. extension has. potentially provided sewer -service -to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent -property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7) . Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown' as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B) . - The proposed zone formation.date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district:: It is recommended. that-: the' --reimbursement district continue --for ' ten- years. ' After • ten years;•:~ properties::.connecting to* yuthe- sewer would no longer be required to -pay.-: the--'reimbursement;;fee;- ; nless --the -time is extended by the - Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020_ (b) (2). Cost • The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00: All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXIMM No. ,4 Page No.r~ • Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.•5,- which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, -3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The. lots east of 7-4th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided. or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. -The applicant suggests that the lots with potential - for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that, cannot be subdivided.- This-seems to be a'reasonable basis for calculating•the connection charge, as-the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in-the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost-to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At. a meeting on February 8; 1994, the City Council -heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. -Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should•not be charged their full share of costs until such time as. they are* fully developed. Although some of the lots have- the poteritial.for more development, current. development consists of--. one;_: residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides;': that- connection- of one residential structure . would:. be : charged: for • only;- one.,- unit of cost..'- Subsequent -development would pay any :remaining-:shase.•of°.dosts. Interest Rate °=f " 1s'•rf I •l'~M... TMC 13.08.020 (b),.• . { 'h- -:ats-:. - (5) provides;: tan'annual percentage rate shall be applied to* the •connection cliaige ~:on the - anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement "r-_•_- ~1~:.;<< The applicant has requested' ' that' the finance charge be 3 0, " which is comparable to that currently_beingpaid; to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the-~financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is-recommended that the = interest rate be set at 30. On each anniversary of the zone formation, date, the established connection:- charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 EXMbit No. '-r Page No. • amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and" interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer d J /Ril: Pnc-R1dye . SS ZC ' • 1, _ LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhib[t No. L4 .Page No. , ~?a_ EXHIBIT "B" ► REIMBURSEMENT' DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 I W 9 0 2 • 4 iL 3 1 v . z T 00 NEW SA i A 0 N T 0 10, SEWER 3 L '3 0 44 T 0 l 3 0 4 CHERRY STREET co - - Fr 0 = Q 00 ROLLINO HILLS NO 2 L Q . NEW SANITARY SEWER j a P , EXHIBIT "C" • REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the -SW 1/4 of Section 1,- Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows:- Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 89° 57' 36" E, along the south *line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 .48' 00"•E along the north line of said Fee Nu=er a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast . corner of said- Fee Number; -thence S 010 40' '00° W, along the east line of said fee dumber and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet-.to .the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88°• 48" *00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner-of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 019 07' 53" W,-.along said west- right of way,-a distance of.180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line -of.the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2.;• -thence S 880" 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner, of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line, of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the. property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022.-of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 88°. 48' 00".E, along the south line of said Fee- Number, a distance of 290.00 feet.to the west right of way of SW 72nd.. Avenue; thence N 01° 07' 53' E, along said west right of way, a distance of •396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 401•15"• W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, - a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner-of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington" county Deed Records;. thence N 02° 02' 44"' E, along the east line of :-said Fee. Number, • a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right 'of --way 'of - -the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149;•page-•-293'-of• Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890. 51' 46".:W, along.said southerly right of way, a distance • of 140.00 :-feet :to the..-east - line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence; along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four' courses; -..thence.. N 02° 02' 4410 E a distance of 20.00. feet; thence. S 899z 51'- 460 W. a distance of 162.15-feet; thence S 010 28' 24a •W •a distance Hof •25.-01 feet;.. thence N 890=••57' 36" W a distance of 50.02. feet-=,to-: the:-Northeast'. corner of lot- 49 .Rolling Hills No. 2; thence •N 89057' :.36"* W, along-the north line of said lot 49, a d i;tance ' of' 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. _ = LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. q._ Page No. 3 . Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charce** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 _ 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11. 23, 059.48 2S1 !DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1-: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district.connection. charge is deemed to have been paid on these-lots. Note 2: If any. tax lot shown 'above -is- later subdivided, .the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in. accordance with the written -instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written-instructions are provided,. the charge shall be--.distributed. equally among the. new lots-created. Note 3: The connection charge shall -apply only to properties. which are connected directly to the sewer. lines -constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge. Subdivision: (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to - sewer - lines . outside 'the zone of benefit, the connection char-ge.shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential-` structures.,. the connection charge shall be at the rate* of. one'-unit-for each residential structure connected to' the public- sewer. For.:- commercial development, the connection -charge shall;; be .for the number of units shown in • - the table above:: They charge 'per- unit- is $2, 096.32*:-- Over the'. life of the reimbursement district,- the- total charge. to any. tax lot shall not -exceeds the number- of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 EMIbit No. q Page No. S 13 -9 • JEFFREY L. KLEn*lMAN f ATTOaFLY AT Lww ~I, THE AxBessAmos C, 1207 S.W. S=TH AvExuE -A✓L Poirm im. OREGON 97204 TELEPHONE (803) 248.0808 FAx (503) 228,4529 May 6, 1994 To: Tigard City Council Re: Zone of Benefit District #5--Reimbursement District For Pacific Ridge Subdivision.(Tigard City-Council Resolution No. 94-11) Pursuant to TMC § 13.08.020(h), M. H. Monson and Anthony J. Maksym ("Petitioners") hereby petition the Tigard City Council for a hearing of Petitioners'. objections to the establishment of the above Reimbursement District and the Zone of Benefit charge herein.. Petitioners are affected property owners herein, as they are the owners of Tax Lots 300 and 400, respectively, in the proposed Reimbursement District. Petitioners' addresses and telephone numbers are as-follows: • M. H. Monson 13515 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 Telephone: 684-5777 Anthony J. Maksym - 13565 SW 72nd Tigard, OR 97223 Telephone: 639-4552 Petitioners' specific objections are as follows: 1. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and denied Petitioners due process-and equal protection under the law by employing an ordinance.which makes certain property owners subject to reimbursement charges a upon the request of private developers, while other, similarly situated property owners.are not. 2. The City exceeded its jurisdiction in assessing- citizens for improvements, the copt of which was.not established through legally mandated bidding and contracting procedures. 3. The City exceeded its jurisdiction in approving an application for a Reimbursement District, which had been withdrawn from consideration by the applicant and was not duly refiled. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 2 • Tigard City Council May 6, 1994 Page 2 4. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in forming a Reimbursement District where the City Engineer's Report failed to consider in its methodology for spreading costs, the prior contributions by adjacent property owners and value of the unused capacity, as required by TMC § 13.08.020(b)(4). 5. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in establishing a zone formation date of February 22, 1994, in Section 5 of Resolution No. 94-11, in that the application in question was withdrawn on and as of said date. 6. The City violated TMC §13.080.020(d) by ordering reimbursement for the amount of improvement costs computed on the property developed by the applicant, to wit, one or more of the following: a. surface water drainage; b. lot preparation; c. road preparation; • d. manhole covers; e. eight-inch sewer line; and f. engineering costs with respect to the above items and the project, generally. 7. In the alternative, the-City ordered reimbursement for the items described in objection 5 without substantial and/or any evidence to show that said items were not charged substantially or in part with respect to the property. developed by the applicant. 8. The City exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in assessing double connection charges against Tax Lots 300 and 400 in the sum of $4,192.64 (2 x $2,096.32). There is no basis in the record or in the ordinance for assuming the development of two commercial units on either or both of these two single tax lots. R ectfully submitted, G ey Kleinman, A y for Petitioners JLR:sb LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No, L4 Page No. 39 MEMORANDUM • CITY OF TIGARD TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator May 13, 1994 FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer'/C.. SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Subsequent-to the formation of the reimbursement district in March, the applicant has filed additional information documenting costs of. constructing the sewer line. Additional documentation was received on March 28, April 12, and May 6, 1994. The additional documentation reveals errors in the original calculation of costs. First, the construction costs included.$1,446.10 of costs related to construction of sewer laterals. The laterals serve only the property of the applicant and the cost of laterals should not be charged to the district. Second, the total construction cost is greater than originally reported by $1,089.48. Finally, when the revised cost for sewer construction and total • construction are used, the sewer becomes 24.9% of the total cost (rather than 26% as previously used). Using the revised percentage reduces the share of engineering and permit costs charged to the district. Based on these revised figures, the total cost of the sewer mains is determined to be $44,389.15 as follows: Construction cost of sewer main $37,987.90 Engineering (24.90 of $19,000) 41730.25 Permit fees (24.9% of $6,711.90) 1,671.00 Total $44,389.15 I recommend that the reimbursement district be revised to reflect this revised calculation. The resulting unit cost is $2,017.68 which is $78.64 less than the previous calculation. A revised table of charges (Exhibit D-1) has been prepared. rw/petriel3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 Page No. 0 - JL-jW, I I I I I { I I I~ I ( I I ; I I I S\ S. W. 76TH. It f ~ b ® o , I I I • ' ai I ~ o r ~o ~ ~ ~9 • , 14 I so I~ I 1 1 , ~ 10 (N e I 1 ->c•- I ` ~ ~ lord ~ 1 I 7?,DO' 1* ~ ~ ' I ~ I ~+t ~ 1 ~v ~p o 1 W 1 Exisliny Noosc ly I Q\4y\ N ~1r f ` I JIM N Vow t. 1. lot,- N't 26 O Z ~ ~ _ ~ . r. .\~ii: rZ~i1',C/1~''v . 57:.lMit .1„ 1 114 1 1 \ ` \ Y,'.. 1 „1 ' •'I~a ~r+ 4(is t? Al .u.;; Y.., 1 'I. \ },1 1 1 7 y. •l'MIt7~' Mg Y ;3 ~k~! a• ~i ''t 1.O/' .fra. 1•. ? op 6 '.c0 ~,r;s ~u:~;~,1' ~1•~~ ~ ~J• ~ ,Ati~ • P :h: {9',~~. ~L1 ~ ~ ` 1 ` M.1":''{;I,YI,i, 1t"ai1 ht..~ 1(.'41 + I J S.W 71 OT _ 95.0 93 00' 46 7:5 IkA_ fiN ! ~ ~ ' ,a;1-!j ~ ' ~0~ i ol` ~ by a (s 'jj tit CJ I 1 ~ o ru A a' . i ~ - ~ ► . , , o , ; Sul ~y ' o ~ ~ I ~y ~v~~ 50' 1 1, 3`'~y o°Brr~ ° i v L ~a ~v ~ 0 o y ~ E.ristiny Nouse y i oft'i V / ! a ~ ~ I y tin W' P ti b OVo' 0's C% 8 ADU 1 1 Ira, I I i \ ° -r'" =G, , j is¢.92, ..s,~`~ ' ~ ~ 0~9~ P~ ay•' .oo' iy~o¢I ~f.~4.g~`~ C" n{ - - - W B•"Pry . ar.~!_ Mme' 9?•~1 ; \ E4, ~ 1 \ ~ 95.4 1 1~~ I ~ ~ : C I; •i .I~'I 1 •1 ~ p•• \+1.•.t~•Je1, r I -1 } \ C • +,;~t ,I• °:fyi Ord j:Y H~i•~ ti~° •1 r~: \'r .•p {7J~; r' a a~ u G W f . !,':I•~,~ ; ~yj 8i.ol' 4a. 00 ~ ~ ~6 .vo,'1• ~ •tf~~"1'~(~aY•4 ; ' ~ ••':t . t~j ~j Q~ ~J~ 1' I { :.1. .%1.. ~c ...f.l.l~.itirka;•1c~J.. .~~5'I,;,~•~1,; 1 •L'~r~,.:~i:•..y' .1 r Z iti I ~ Q'r1{~ ~.t :+j ~ • ~II I • 'i' 'P! t.~ ' A ::1'1.'. ; I,~,i.:`dte, :~"100 °I:•, f! (y~/;+1.'l fib' i` ~ 'Y~:;i ~~'3:.''.:;~~' 1 ',1 . z 0 ` A. K,. p g., .I .t'4{'1' ?1•v~=` 'S: ir.\•7' 1 IZ.:.:4: \ ~ ~ 1r' If~ ~ 01~~ I: ~ 1 ~ • 1 a . , ~ • ~ • . ,N~~.;~vr 4 ~~51~ ,!Cji• :e'r, . ~i' i.. Q \ i a I,•:.}.✓ h.7i.• !i.`~`4 1..; tIJl r... r !i~ 1 r t{TAl •4~,1 1{ t °'~i f y' J ' l': ~ 'r:;'~i!? kA! ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ;1,r?l ,i • i '1 1 ~ '0 1', .a ~ Y ...tii~f r.ha " 1 ~ ~ ''•33 •;;,~r ; ~ .Q1 1'''' :r.,'.1;:': •1~i'.:r'a~1''%~!,~ r:,~:~. 11 i 1~~; ~ h ~Y to TV M_0alalOS I a ~ 1 2 s~ ° ".a lorat ya " i=tam. W F 6 ep d W'•~ A tro,i n• ~M,• tafivmvtq~ A i t y p' P r,tT coo :aK ►Y+ii:,`~ .'c~s'.QK:l1:3iT~~ i ? ron : rI . T6~ a,aam rt». aon.ato. - +"A } b~ S'~ t ~'a~~r t L r, .DOU9t TMl ~LAq tCtION ¢yy Ate. .,yd• •'T; ~ S~ ,3 ~P• g + ortr -1 Jose it 10 14 ' ~ , Zaf t[1V ~ : V RMUT Y k i M 2rz fsLd los J I a ~o~i ~ ~ 3~' Sp$ a .xo 9r Ari. y ~ 1 3 C~ a 3 a tj t9 DINA : aon 4' "ate "vr ,rnr I'• .usia.ar love! 3.oatazw.n $ eE S~ asp « ~vt=~ ~ ~ c ' ' L'~ ~ ~ppp+ .~v i.Rta,~ .!O'ee/ M.QalaLOS Wide M "4MZOS E -1 Wo,',tt 'o'•r d .~an• ~rr..,7 ' b~xt'~i-~ '~1 A,sn •aaau ♦r } .,air •g o~ 16tG _--',►,a WT "In d 3 ra -Q. 19YX1 r KmY sir 8~ qS Aio7l . v L . ~ A ~ b ~ ~ 192! it M-oaot-.ios . tarn Es3~a '°s 3 « 8~ i s II .zAroz/oN kk =i4 a hk ip h! y • q~ 'YAY 8&LYL 'Y s C S » ` 2 + ` I ~sg`~ Couaru .y669f ~L>•1.91.1ON Lma.u f•'.~y! •.Q'oir~ tiKJ~i~ Lt R • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No.. 3 1 ri E P ETR I E COMPANY RECEIVER. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MAY U S 1994 503 246-7977 ~U'"MUNITY DEVELOPMENT, May 4 1994 Q /L `sy~ 70S~ . J TO: City Engineer 7r City of Tigard FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Reimbursement District Dear Randy, Attached is the information you requested. Previously you have in your file a breakdown of the sewer costs for Pacific Ridge. Attached is a copy of the construction contract, the street light contract, my copy of my check to Loy Clark which was for a power crossings which were required and outside the contract, a 3-28-94 memo from Harris Hyman which outlines additional construction costs of S 2,933.43 and $ 317.50, and a memo dated 5-3-94 from Hassan Ibrahim outlining additional costs to the project of $ 7,560.00. Previously you have in your file the engineering and permit costs. The total construction costs are: Contract S 135,933, Loy Clark Crossing $2,250, Street Lights S 3,592, Hyman memo--S 2933.43 and S 317.50, and Ibrahim Memo S 7,560. The total construction cost is SS 152,585.93. Sincerely, Craig P trie • 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ~5 Page No. 4 4 PiANN/NG NJ=ENGINEERING NSC~~T~N~ RVPY N 233 S.E. WASHINGTON STREET, HILLSBORO. OREGON 97123 PHONE. (503) 648-e06t FAX. (s03) 681.7646 MEMO DATE: May 3, 1994 TO: Craig Petrie FROM: Hassan A. Ibrahim, EIT RE: Pacific Ridge During the construction process, an extra cost was created in addition to the original construction contract Cost breakdown as billed by Empire Pacific. Inc. Is as follows: Item ON. Unit Price Total 1. Rock Excavation 70 CY 100.00 $7,000.00 2. Oversize Catch Basin Adder 1 EA 200.00 2b0.00 3. Remove & Install Catch Basin Laborers & Supervisor 8 HRS 45.00 360.00 Total Extra Cost S7,560.00 The cost stated in this memo-is in addition to the cost shown on the memo dated March 28, 1994 by Harris Hyman, PE/PLS. It you have any questions, please call. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. L 5 Ae7 ..9~3..a0 - -71 o ...S~~~e~ /y.1.~_~~9....._ _ 5.92, ov . - oo 4094- Q - - - _ . lie x 700. z,' Rerl~.~ o0 Cof = Z2 = 2 of ~jp LUBA NO. 94-110: - ExlUbit No. 5 Page No. y lv r. • • I~~,~~ / 4 /lam I' THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 7 (503) 246-7977 February 23,1994 D ~ . TO: Randy Wooley FEB 2 3 1994 City of Tigard CITY OF TIGARO FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Zone of Benefit District # 5 Dear Randy, i Isam requesting that you place the above mentioned request for the creation of a zone of benefit district on the council agenda for March 8th,1994. This zone will not only benefit me but it will benefit the owners of tax lots included in the zone in that without the zone a hookup will pay an additional S 3,000.00 and with the zone a hookup will pay a figure of S 2,096.32. The zone of benefit exists in the City code, my request qualifies according to the code, the City has never denied a request for formation of a zone of benefit, and the formation of the requested zone is fair and equitable. The formation of the zone will also save others within the zone S 903.68 per hook up. i You previously have on file the information that I am required by the code to submit and ask that you submit the information that you had prepared for the meeting February 22, 1994. i Sincerely yours, Craig A. erne LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -5 Page No. E___ - 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 t FAX: (503) 244-0123 53:::'!: ti7.r:a « . i. . .+1'y.•. `4:a•.. r•~•~"~•~'~•~''':wc.~Tynr+.. - CITY OF;;.TSGARD • ,OREGON. RESOLUTION NO;194= S~M'~'~R'~'~~3. ~ ~srf9.+s.AY.~•`;`~e:!•7..+ri~-r..• - j.:,c~_':. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING- SANITARY'.:SEWER~REIIrIDURSEMENT: DISTRICT; WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements. have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision 'and certain adjoining properties; and - WHEREAS, all costs ;,of said sewer construction have ..beam,.: aid : by.., The Petrie Company;.,, and WHEREAS, formation of .a zone of benefit has. been ,requested •by The Petrie Company; and = a ^ <>Y WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements,: the _zone of benefit ~a methodology=-f=~ reading -the cost among the '.parcels.:-.'-: within -ttie"zoae--o ff ' `•'efit an ecommended... • interest rate; _iiid;: the City Council" hazy determined 'that `formation 'of a • zone of benefit as recommended- by. the City Engineer;is~:.appropriate. . iQ;+y~:~::d+`.•'::^:~:'~:'S,r.~r} - ..''...~;er•. ~i ~S• '"..i'ce''::... ;4-c '01 NOW, THEREFORE= <BE:TITMSOLVED until that . ~.!Spa J - . ;~:'~•iy r.d • :tt r .s•y..~ -4s..u, ,~..,•,.Y.E••- Section 1. - . • The 'City:.-. .-Engineer's . report- ^title.,.,-.-Sanitary • Sewer. Reimbursement •Distr ct:No'. '510 ,-`attached"hereto as Exhibit A; ~•is •hereby~~•approded`~' '•}a::,.~..:~.:~,-f;,~=,::: s Section 2: • L:: -t .~..=-a{,-~:~.:: r~~•:'":.,:, A zone -of benefit is `hereby' established in accordance with TMC Chapter"13:08 The zone • of-ID4nefit shall be the area shown-on Exhibit -B *`and- described -on - Exhibit C. The zone of .benefit shall • be -.known as .."Sanitary Sewer r.•i ¢~~5.: it inY Z:"+.•ia .z•'` j,.X•. `!~•:J'T _ : Section "Payment 'of the recovery agreement connection charge"as' shown in Exhibit -D is a.precondition of receiving city permits applicable to.developmeat.,•of each. parcel within the zone:. of :benefi,r 4 t as provzaed for' a TMCT13.08.030. y- - `may ~/rr~-n:;::=~.. . . A:y •'arL.'.:r::: - _ ~:.C.:rr :.y•..:>.ri'1t.~•: :•JCf a!A~~Je~•?y ~Z :y '+:.ic3t :;sS:il:~a:£•?[AIT:^:it. 73M Section. 4: ,A L. annual-- ~ge~rat ~ yree~perceatQ{3~j,•shall be- appliedyto"ecvnaect`orc1e°-• ~~.:~w::_.:: ; Section 5: The zone ey formation ~ to is- Februaryy:,22;:11994 . -The'- right, rGi.1+WY.L~P7~IPTf1"- end~100,* O .20044mnless.. extended by-'•the'_Council 3a accoid_anceswith-.TMC-.-.13.08:020 - \-+l' (2) .3+:l~.rf9~ ~~ova w Via: 004. OLUTION NO.--94 LUBA NO. 94-110 Page Exhibft No. 5 Page No.4_ Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of 1994. Mayor = City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RY:Pae-R1dge.3S Y RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhlblt No. S Page No. c f q Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIM M DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain-adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08:010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 . - Page No. 15 0 Reimbursement Rate • West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is - 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain • 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further -subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision, should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection'charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, 'it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and diseussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as* they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current- development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development-would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the. connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. Tfe applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. F Page No. / amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pao-Ridge.55 / J• LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5 Page No. Sa s EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET t W Z 0 9 0 3 ~ 1 0 I I~ ~ NEW SA A Y Qi L 00 N \~`Y S 3 ISSIN 0 44 0 3 0 4 CHERRY STREET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Z Z tt .c0 O O ROllINO HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER ,.a ..a O EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 • A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S Ole 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said' lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E. along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along-the east libe of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue -and.the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 071. 53" W, along said west right of way,.a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48''00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 C feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 019 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N-O1° 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255:; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north *.line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance *of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44' E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 89° 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner- of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. Johnz!%\pec.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 21096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision) * 11 23,05t.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The , reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to Piave been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in - accorda.nce with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties. which are connected directly to-the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties 'within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone -of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public. sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in T the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 5_ Page No. r rl~i Ks~ hA 7 a CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - BY BEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SUB 93-0007 2. Name of Owners: _Grasco Investments and Raymond & Phyllis Ems Name of Applicant: Craig Petrie 3. Address 18262 SW Bryant Road City Lake Oswego State OR Zip 97035 4. Address of Property: 13400 SW 76th Avenue, the northwest corner of SW 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive, and two lots in between. Tax Hap and Lot No(s).: 2S1 1DC.tax lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601 5. Requeat: The applicant recruects Subdivision preliminary plat approval to divide a 3.2 acre site into 11 lots ranging in size from 10,027 to 18,528 square feet. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.48, 18.88, 18.92, 18.102, 18.108, 18.150, 18.160, and 18.164; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 4.2.1, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, and 8.1.3. Zone: R-3.5 (Residental, 3.5 units/acre) The R-3.5 zone allows single-family detached residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. 6. Action: Approval as requested X Approval with conditions Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall, and mailed to: X The applicant and owner(s) X Owners of record within the required distance X The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization X Affected governmental agencies v • L ~.,y.y 26 !993 Dinar Mcc+rj c THE Y.rrrrrr~ ..ECISI 1 • SHALL BE FINAL ON Na, UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of conditions can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(B) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The appeal may be submitted on City forms and must be accompanied by the appeal fee ($315.00) and transcript costs (varies up to a maximum of $500.00). The deadline for filing of an appeal is 3:30 p.m. May 26, 1993 10. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard • Planning Department, 639-4171. LUBA NO. 94-110 EXhibR No. 5 Page No. 969 x J ca ~ a O to Q ~ dool a'r J OZ C ~ x z m r 0• ~ a N r { gL M 8 ~y • • • x V a j • A • • ♦ 3-j swniN~W°cNOo Sul a ` ~Qd 1'11 ~ ~W S \q. 9 MS hQ 7 PLANNING = CIVIL;=ENGINEERING -SURVEYMN •st~ N 233 S.F. WASHp4GTON STREET. KUSWAO. OREGON 97123 PHONE (503) 6464061 FAX: j503) 681.7648 MEMO DATE: March 28, 1994 TO: Craig Petrie, Lance Landis FROM: Harris Hyman PEIPLS RE: Excess charges an Pacific Rlde Project, 149 We have analyzed some of the excess cost items, and detailed them. Please feel free to call me for clarification on any item. 74th AVENUE On November 22, 2' +1- of rock was laid on a proof-rolled base for 74th Avenue. In this condition the street was used to convey machinery during the next two weeks. We consider this a poor construction practice. Instead, the base rock should have been completely placed before there was traffic. While there may have been other circumstances,. the immediate use of the street precludes any evaluation. Therefore, we must conclude that all additional costs were caused by Empire Pacific's work and planning. 75th COURT On November 13, the subgrade was proof-rolled and then the base rock was graded in and compacted: Then it rained, and the street was no longer suitable, as shown by subsequent proof-rolling for curbs. Empire Pacific then dug up and replaced base rock as needed to achieve suitable proof-rolling. Had LDC been consulted on this, we would have recommended removing approxlmately 196 square yards of base rock at the hammerhead. overexcavating the subgrade by 4', laying fabric on the base, and then replacing sufficient rock for the base plus overexcavation, The cost of this should have been: Removal of contaminated base 1hr @ $150.00 = $150.00 Overexcavation of subgrade 65 CY @ $4.15 = S269.75 Laying of fabric 587 SY @ S1.00 = 5587.00 0 Replacement of base 98 CY @ $19.66 = $1.926.68 v • $2,933.43 p 2 O This amount should be borne by Petrie; any additional costs should be borne by Empire Pacific. Z Z ca a RETAINING WALL The top of the retaining wall around the tree was raised 18" to match grade at the base of the tree. This cost should be absorbed by Petrie. The additional concrete was 1.27 cubic yards. We will approve change order for approximately 1.27 CY @ 5250 = 5317.50. ENGINEERING Hours expended by Land Development Consultants in dealing with the above items. Eric 1.5hr @ $45.00 = $67.50 Hassan 0.5hr @ $50.00 - $25.00 Harris 1.5hr @ $70.00 = $105.00 Survey 11.5hr @ $90,00 = 1$ •035.00 $1,232.50 These costs were brought about by Empire Pacific's work and planning. • LOC.149&2316 LUBA NO. 94-110 EXhM No. r Page No. 59 - . ' Tl A`I ZZ • 93 3.12): 59 FOOD SERV ICE PORTL ND -'r C e5 .7 16 Y Wae '81993 - I r. I CITY OF 71;' . . PRE. .D Dar . owner:. • • , ' . The' proposed subdivision 'development of lots between .S•..U.- Fir. r -,Street and Cherry Drive, •as%shown •on.the attached' map,'will' require' ' - the: extenticn of"a• 'publia• sanitary sewer" ~Z -rth aiozsg tiz' Avenue and. along Cherry- Drive : ' The sewer • dill be- installed .'and paid - f or- by the developer of the ubdivision Severa3'people : have- ' expressed interest in "continuing the. sealer :along $:W', 74th h!~euue , and Cherry,: Drive-to serve additional houses -'indluding. yours., 'Extending this: sewer. 'might cost. each homeowner about -`$5, 000 to • $'8, 000 each. :-If' there' -is. sufficient interest, a inore.. detai? ed • estimate' could-beAdditional' expenses would ' include ;a : : connecti•'o4* fee`of• •$2.i135:for houses' constructed after July 1;!;1970; : • and $335 for houses consti-uctea earlier. in addition, each'jowner .would' have to abandon their, existing septic system Wand donnect': to - the :pulaliei'.lne at .'an expense of j perhaps as much as ;$2, 00.0.E - - r.-:::~r`.i~• -~r~' w.To.~~~•'tvi'l.a~'.•A'i~_^:•.is-+:~: c•::4.w.r.:,a.~,.¢ irriJSSta~a. _ :a:.:.-~:-3.;~- - .k ~ J/~• .,,.7~•.sx. t!~.~.+. t~~•~'~!.wr~+a;. •I.•4...••vr..L-•+.~.,.'..~ _ +~~++L ~y ~.r^.~y ' .you.. any, interest u:" pursuing this • please not fy mob 'J e 22 1993.:x, - ewe - ;.ed_ . j~,y,If - :'t~iere -is- • sufficient -i7at.erest; Z;71 :will =suggest we w_ ! A chule-Tan: reverting.,-meeting ::to • mare, fully =explain the cost, procedures,"- and options ::.In t1ie: meantime, ► if you have questi'ons!•cr+ - equir-e'',additional jr;fortaation~ lease 'call.- - - - _ i•.-.- - - _ • t • I - A ~ - -mow -Sincerely, Greg N. Zerry Ptilities Engineer • .r• dS%ca;cYezrya112Ds:2cz• • • . ~ • ~ a - c . Randy Woolev, City Engineer S4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -j _ • ; Page No. (p D ' ' _ ; .'!3125 SW Hail -Blvd., Tlgard. -OR 97223 -(5W). 639-4T/1 -TGD .(50.?) 684-2772 l73U 1321 r 1 -r;~ is tz 13275 i3~Zv'- j~ , ~L _ 1. .••q • 7 • 77.05 t33t$ ' > L 13333 10 Wa2 t.- r i J % ~ t•:r' •r339T :3~+ 33~t ' F10 c 1i1 t ' .!t.- 1340 - t•:. ` ' r: 4'3'.rr ! 13424o,: 7530... ~ 13453 ~~rYr__y~i"• • ..•~e•':. ~~c•s , . : . tea. w • :l,y • 13515 , ~ ,ui-:: 1'}Y7: r,i• ~r irS~'.:Y e_. t~'' j• •t~••' :tom; • '±.`'•t, 7 "•el~7V~~•"'K J'"~~~'.i. y~,~it~.. •l ! :'rw: ~`7~ : .ma`r' ? 'L_ ~ 'i . ~4 r~ r`,tia~' , ,•'r '~~~f s'1• 1i`~. ar~ '+~J r;lJ •~'t 4{.,• r. ~t ~ ~ Ole y • •0613; •t.. ~ 1365 .r~.r•i", •..~'fa •r ~~rr_•a .i• ~x~~ •'~4•'F~ i. Ham.. t. t~ +i+ -.y.' _ { .l"• t. T',••a4 ri .'w~ rs• '~Yr. ari, r. .~r•~ 1 • .ice rr '•!3•. t. itr' :'ri •ir~j;, ':i- . ~ i. • J •a~ ; ~ ;.:J,~ ~..f _ X751 • =,J.. ~ p,. • 13775 'Oor % \ \ LUBA NO. 94-110 - Exhibit No. _r Page No. (,,P I PETITION FEB. 3, 1994 • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER-THE YEARS, LAND,MOMEY AND OTHER GOOD VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS' TO THE AREA WHERE THE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED. THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE CONTRIBU- TIONS IS FAR MORE THA14 WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INVESTED IN HIS SEWER LINE. WE, THEREFORE, REQUEST OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REJECT THE r FORMATION OF THE PROPOSED PACIFIC RIDGE SEWER RE-IMBURSEMENT DISTRICT. NAME -ADDRESS ~y LOT . ~ 3s~s S• 3 ~ ~tmo ~ 13c. S ~ 7L 4-7Z SLj F'tr 4fi 3 rjLj'lZ S~1 r,-r` Sf, 35o j • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. .Page No. ~2 ~Q~Syrn ~k o~~xucro ~ `7 l1 l"1 f Cl L~ Empire PadBc Construction Inc. P O. Box 65.. West Linn, OR 97068 i FA 503-657-0260 0 coaroN*~~' . FAX 503-657-0304 November 1, 1993 i Craig Petrie { The Petrie Company of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., Suite 200 Portland. OR 97Z 19 Re: Pacific Ridge Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As the General Contractor for Pacific Ridge Subdivision, Empire Pacific Construction, Inc. Is responsible for all underground utilities. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific has Installed the sanitary sewer at a total cost of 542.684.00. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact.me at, 057-0260. Best Regards, L~} s ice Lad n i I -esident Alm LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. S Page No. L,3 .2511°?4 09: 25 5©3-b5?-©3~ E FIRE PACIFIC CON-i PAGE 82 `o~StRtrcr~o~ Empire Pactflc Construction Inc. P.O. Sox 65. West Linn. OR 97068 503-657-OZ60 ~~coRpoo-N FAX 503-657-0304 March 24. 1994 Craig Petrie The Petrie Company 9600 SW Capitol Hwy. Portland OR 97219 RE: Pacific Ridge Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: As the general contractor for Paclflc Ridge, Empire Pacific Construction. Inc. Is responsible for installation of all underground utilities. As part of the utilities Empire Pacific has installed the sanitary sewer, with cost as follows: Profit arr Total Bid item Description oty. Unit Unit Price Labor Materials Equlpmori ON Amount ftary t 8" PVC W/Rock 612 1118 LF S23.4 S5246.6 $11802.6 $6567.0 42622.8 $26728.0 1 8" PVC W/Native BF 62 LF $18.2 ZI $298.4 $671.5 $373.1 $149.2 $1492.44 } 4" Lat. W/Rock Backtill 254 LF $12.50 $838.0 $1428.7 $783.7 $317.6 $3176.0 {O 4" Lat. W/Native BF 88 LF 514.0 $246.4 $554.4 $308.0 $123.2 $12320 'A 8X4 Tee and Plug 8 EA $35.0 158.0 5116.0 $70.0 $28.0 $280.001 2 8" Cap 2 EA $12.51 - $6.0 $11.2 $8.2 $2.5 $26.0 1 4" Cap 3 EA $32 $1.9 $4.3 $2,441 10.9E $9.761 4 Standard 48" Manhole 8 EA. $1250.0 $1800.0 $3375.0 $1379.0 $760.0 $7600.0 5 Sanitary Break In 1 EA $500.0 $100.0 422S. 00 $128.0 560.0 $500.001 8 Saw Gut AIC 890 LF $0.8 !117.301 $263.9 $148.6 $68.6 $58616 9 Trench Patch 345 LF 54.8 X331.2 5748.2$414.01 ;185.6 11866.0 eta{ 58536.9 519208.0 510671.1 $4268.4 562684.6 , If you have any additional questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me at 657-0260. Best Regards, LUBA NO. 94-110 ` Exhibit No. 5 Lance Landis Page No. President , MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD r TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator ~ May 13, 1994 (r~.. G~s FROM: Randall R. Wooley, City Engineer SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Subsequent to the formation of the reimbursement district in March, the applicant has filed additional information documenting costs of constructing the sewer line.- Additional documentation was received on March 28, April 12, and May 6, 1994. The additional documentation reveals errors in the original calculation of costs. First, the construction costs included $1,446.10 of costs related to construction of sewer laterals. The laterals serve only the property of the applicant and the cost of laterals should not be charged to the district. Second, the total construction cost is greater than originally reported by.$1,089.48. Finally, when the revised cost for sewer construction and total construction are used, the sewer becomes 24.9% of the total cost (rather than 26% as previously used). Using the revised percentage 1 reduces the share of engineering and permit costs charged to the1j / district Based on these revised figures, the total cost of the sewer mains. Alt is determined to be $44,389.15 as follows: Construction cost of sewer main $37,987.90 Engineering (24.9% of $19,000) 4,730.25 Permit fees (24.9% of $6,711.90) 1,671.00 Total $44,389.15 I recommend that the reimbursement district be revised to reflect this revised calculation. The resulting unit cost is $2,017.68 which is $78.64 less than the previous calculation. A revised 1 table of charges (Exhibit D-1) has been prepared. 77) ! rw/petriel3 i vj 1 • LUBA N0.94-110 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. OS/10/1994 1440 PANAFAX OF-400 02505396 P.01 I• Transamerica Title Insurance Company . 12360 ~ Bueaslde Boa 16016 ~Lr l~rn CtM p0"I&+a. OR 97216 t _ Telephone 503 236.1160 Fu 303 256-,439 TONY MAXSON N1glu der M 236.1163 A PROPERTY PROFILE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD 97223 PREPARED BY: KIMBERLY DATE: 06/03/94 LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhibK No. Page No. 1 This title information has been furnished, without charge. in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. e6i03i1994 14:46 ~oaioK PR PFAX L F-400 ~aowK 025e5396 P. 02 M E T R O S C.A N P R O P E R T Y P R. O F I L E- Washington County 4~#**itktk#tArtk#*f#***#####'R1t*##*F*######*#7t#****7ktk!*tk*yt##k#tF#*#**~t##*htlttlr#tk*#1F**** R ` =asoosaasssxaasaaase== 1F * OWNERSHIP INFORMATION ! ;asssssssasa~aa>asxrsas * * Reference Parcel #:2S101DC 03400 * Parcel Number :R0459729 * Owner :PETRIE CO OF OREGON THE * CoOwner * Site Address :*NO SITE ADDRESS* Mail Address :2554 NW 185TH AVE #3 PORTLAND OR 97229 Telephone * # * sai=sa==sp.eosassscas=*=t=a * * SAFES AND LOAN INFORMATION # * com=as=assaasvsazaaaa=x~e=eaa * * * * Transferred:10/01/93 Loan Amount: * Document # :87:036 Lender * Sale Price :$29,000 Loan Type * Deed Type :WARRANTY * out=== MW * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION * =a~vdvzasaet===sa~csaass3sas.=~ * # • # * Land :$4,000 Exempt Amount: * Structure: Exempt Type * Other Levy Code :02381 Total :$4,000 93-94 Taxes :$80.78 * tImproved: k R aoscsass=saaaaannoao ~ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION k o=¢==a.sasssasaaac=a= * Map Grid: Census :Tract Block t MillRate:20.1980 r Sub/Plat: Land Use:1002' VACANT,RESIDENTIAL Legal :ACRES .90 * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS =dssssas=~- -.n==a=de== Bedrooms Lot Acres :.90 Year Built: . Lot SgFt :39,204 Bldg SgFt #~#tk*'k#######~r#tktFtktk######:*#*fe#*###*#*#tttktk#*###**###ir*#tktk##########*#*****#!Y# LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. The information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 06/03/1994 14:41 kaaac PANAFAX LF-400 K 02585396 P.03 9w.30~8i10o 36 ~erstr C. WARRANTY DEED GRASCO WVESTMENTS, an Oregon partnership consisting of Pad x Warner and Leaon A. Warner, as Grantor, hereby conveys and warrants to TIM PETRIB Co. OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, as Grantee, the real property free of all encambraaoes, do- : scribed as: Bc2h3 erg at the SE ooraa of the W.W.Oraham DLC in SI. T2S. RIW. W.K. In the City ofr*wd. Washington County. Orma; thence Nd'30'E along the East line of said Cuahattt DLC 811.70 feet; thence N89'24V 3$0 Nd to the tine point of tinning, this point being In the Weser line of a County Road: thence N0.34B sloei rh• west J line of said Comfy Road. 132.0 beet; thence N89"24 W 294.67 feet,, thence 31 '25V 132.02 beet; they:s S89.241E 296.78 Poet to die true point of beSioaing. Alm lmown as 7hot 10 of the unrecorded plat otpelson Tle tt. 7IiiIS WSTRUMENI WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMEM IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND RBOULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR AC- CBFT1140 THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRING ft TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CIMCK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CrrY OR COUNTY PLANNINO DEPARTMBNI TO VERIFY AN PROVED USES., The true and actual consideration for this conveyance is $29,000. DATED: ~p• t . 1993. GRA.SCO , an Oregon partnership: bYaz 2 Paul R. Wainer, General Partner b ore A. Warner, General Partner Srf TE OF OREGON Washington County), ss The foregoing instrwnent was acknowledged before tae on 1993 by Paul R Warner and LDnore A. Warner. both as General Partners of Grasco Investments, an Ore- gon partnership. e!/ • p NOTMt..::f . i . n 1 Arts' m jCM 1.. IM ~ No Public for Oregon My commission expires: AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:) a'arV«i1V11CNe.^'JtiT7 ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: F_.r[ f.4oRanTt' TRL':SI:R fitX FW Amtriean Tide Insurance company ru pun a:Ta • 2554 N.W. 188rt Avo.,;Suite 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 4 page No. 6" 396 P. 04 . 06/03/1994 1441 *"M P~~ 02505 STATE OF OREGON } SS county of. Waahlw" 1 and Tnxa R.iD= d awes rant mpondwm eve to s: CotmY, do'. mw Car rtffy receiwo ice` bcok Of of eafd .xxty: a tfineon. Of ~ y. ft Ex - IV •n. Doc 9)081036 Rect: 149033 67,00 10/01/1993 10:48:56AM CUBA NO. 94-110 EXhlb[t No. _L-- Page No. kI 06/03/1994 14 : 42 PANAFPX L F-400 *'1o1o1t 02505396 P-05 = M E T R 0 S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E Washington County r* *#~t,r*yt,tF,r********#**,t~**,t~r*,t*~1r,r**,t#1t***tM******,k***,r****tF**~r***k****F***,t**#* a s a~ a :is s Qo a s a as a a a O me OWNERSHIP INFORMATION t scaansaaaoevaossac*taa k Reference Parcel #:2S101DC 03600 Parcel Number :R0459765 r Owner :PETRIE CO OF OREGON r CoOwner r Site Address :*NO SITE ADDRESS* r Mail Address :9600 SW CAPITOL HWY #200 PORTLAND OR 97219 r Telephone f scaaana=saaaavcaaaaanasaawa SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION r :aas~aanssss~asnaaaassonss * F * F Transferredi13./12/93 Loan Amount: r Document # :93918 MULTI-PARCEL Lender- Sale Price :$10,350 Loan Type :SELLER r Deed Type : WAR.E2ANTY t t aaaeasaaooce=~aaaaaomacsas.:oss * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION t aooca~assaaaQa~aasacannaaaaaaa * ~ Land :$5,200 Exempt Amount: t Structure: Exempt Type Other Levy Code :02381 Total :$5,200 93-94 Taxes :$105.02 %Improved: * r =°===socsoosxa:=asaa PROPERTY DESCRIPTION a s ^O . oc s a a a as a a O p C~ s Map Grid: Census :Tract Block MillRate:20.1980 Sub/Plat: Land U6e:1002 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL Legal :ACRES 1.02 * * * =a..aovo~c~an=nnesac3~co * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS * nnecccacxaaaaas3QOOCaasa== Bedrooms Lot Acres :1.02 Year Built: Lot SgFt :44,431 Bldg SgFt LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 06/03/1994 14:43 »chac PANAFAX OF-400 ~aaar 0250Si96 P.07 • . Order Nm 720848 oaa4tr •A• ' PARCEL 1, B*Om*g at the southeast owner of to W.W. Graham Donation Land CWm In Section 1. Taarnship 2 Sorah, RanQa 1 Want of to Mkmsae MwWkm in dw Cuy d Tlgsrd, County of Washington and State of ofeporC theehc North 0110' East Wang the East "d said Graham Donation Land Claim d79.7o tear Ownce Nand. 8rIN West 160.0 fast to the bw p0d of beg►hning. Oft point brag in the Wwt the d a Couray hload: thanes North O-sa East along the Wrist line of sold County Rood, 1=1 het; chance North er24' Weal 200.7. test thane South 1.2ti West 114.02 fast; thence South er24• Past 208.60 bet to the true point of bid W*q. E C P71N0 THEREFROM that portion in SW Cherry Street At,sO MCCEPTING THEREFROM a tract of land In ttw Southwest quarter of Section 1. Townah ip 2 South, Range 1 West d the W&L-neae Maddh n, In the City of Tigard. County d Washington and Sate or Oregon, more partiNarly described at Mile : 8e*Jft d the Sottthast confer d Lot 44. ROWNG hILLS • PLAT t tfwnes Exatorty along to North tlna of SW Cho" SitesL 167.5 fact to the Ma point of boglmlhg; thence North 0018• Emu IV !:3t to a point on the So" One of that tact daserOM in deed to Pad R. Wartwr, at hoc In Book 262, paps 105. aid Comity Doo Reeotda; thence North W2C Weat along the South One of said Warner tract 12s tsar to a point: South 0•'w" •r~' 122 feat Ic a poi••ht od Ow Noel am of aald harry Street' thonr o s:,:cbrfy along Bald North One 125 test to the bw point of b9$Irtn1r* MAHM 1 That part of the Wrath W. Graham and wife Donation Land CtNrm No. 39, In Twwnshtp 2 South. Range I West at the Wlamette Merldlam In the City of Tic" Oaunty of Wwotgton and Sine of Ongm desalbad as folows, tA•wic . Comunernelno at a stab on a South Ana of said Donation Land Claim. 10.0 chains Wet of this Easterly Southma comer of said Donation Land Chaim: thenop North 20 chains to a stake: therm UN4 Ohai ns: thsnea South 20 chaknk thence East 10 chains to ft piece Of baghnbg. EXCEPTING THEREFROM right of way of Beaverton and Williamsburg Raboad Company and d Oregon Electric RaW ay Company. ALSO 4tCtePTING THEREFROM any portion lying %thhin ROLLING KLLS - PLAT 2 In the City d TiCand. County d W hingto4and State st OrOWL AND ALSO' EXCEPTING THEREFROM a parcel of ILnd In the South halt d Section 1. Township 2 South, Range 1 W#A of the Willamette Merldian, In the Coy of Tigard, County of Washington and gab of Oregm bebv races periletlarty described as follows: SaglrWng at the South ono•quarisr corner of said Section 1: trance North 040V west 308.82 feet to s point of intersection with the South line at rho W.W. Graham Oonation Land Claim Nei W. thence North 0' 39x30' East 24.02 feet to a pohst thanes North 88042'30' East parallel with the said Donation Lud Claim. South One. 291.84 teat to a point: thence North 0069'50' LW 451.27 feet to a point on the South 9" of RULING HALLS - 2 west along the said subdtvlsbn South Ms 180.42 feet to an angle comer In said wbdlvistwn south Ono: Lherncsi North 41.55'40• Wass eont6ft along said South be 245.10 rest to a point thence South t• 14*W East =01 feat to a point of intsnaction W M the Northeasterly right of way On of the Southern Paeft RaOtcad: thence South 42900• East along Qw said tight of way be. 717.46 bat to a point of Iraersse Lion with the South One of sold Section 1; thence Noel W3W East along the said Section be. 11341 bat 6 the paint of baglnnbtg. AND FURTMER EXCEPTING THEREFROM a portion d that tract of kind In the William V. Graham and wle Donation Lind Claim No. 39, h Section I. Terwnstsiy 2 SoWL Range 1 Wass of the Wasmwus Msridlm In the City at Tigard. Coun ly of Washington anti Slate hit Oregon corn ayed to Raymond S. Ems, at tic by dead recorded Dacamber 2,1952 H Book 319, page 524. Washington County, Oregon Deed Records, more partlctt" deter2nd ass fdIow& r Seghnkng d a sake on the Southeast cornmr•of Lot 49. ROLLNG MLLS • PLAT 2: thence Northerly awl it's East line of UW Lot 49. a distance of ISO feet to Ow South One of SW Far Swat: thence Eswedy strong O U%4 South Nee of SW Fir Streac a distance of SO last to the East One of SW 7eih Avenue: thence Nertherly along the Bast Ona of SW 78th Avenue, a distance of 25 fen to the Noah One of Paral 1 In ulna siaremualonsd Em tract; Owma North Or $W feast along tine North line of saki &M track a distance of 162.38 fact to a marked stone at the North ant comer d said Ems tract: thoncs South 2001' west alanp the ~ • East Ores of said Ems tact a dtssance of 175 feet thence westerly a distance of 210.6 tvK more or less. to Z Z the point of begin'nin'g z Z Egg% its Q a tD m " CA Lot 45• ROL UNG MILLS • PLAT 2 h the CRY Of Tlgantl. 0=1Y of Washhgtoa and Sate of Oregon. J M EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 140.3>~ to Lis, ROLLING HILLS. PLAT L 06/03/1994 14:42 Maclc* PANAFAX L F-400 '~v1o1oK 02505396 P . 06 y THIS DOC1l1!M-x 1S BRING RERBCORnRD To CORUCT 9w 3 1037 LEGAL DES = MON nMOUSLY RECORDED AS BEE $93081037 One WARRANTY DI3ED • RAYMOND:. EMS St PHYLLIS G. EMS, both as Grantor, hereby convey sad war. runt to TRZ PETRIZ CO. OF OREGON, sn Oregon corporation, as Grantee, certain real property in Washington County, Oregon, five of all encumbrances. dewribod as specified in the N attached Rxhit A. 'THIS iNsTRumod WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRtBEO IN THIS INSIRtwxr IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR AC. CRPPM0 THIS INSTRUMENT. THE PERSON ACQUIRINO FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANMNG DP-PAR7WMNT TO VERIFY AP- PROVED uSES.• ~ jai The uve and actual mottkation for this mnveyaue Is I S. AD tenors ad conditloes of the prior mud money ssreemmat betwoaa the parties dated 1218 dt 1219/92 are by this reference included Bad Wmpwsftd beer- ix. Notwitbstandias the coweab of the esuaw and doff lnsanctions accompanyins this deed. exeattim dt&- ery and accepwoe or this deed shall not be a waiver or release of either patty by the adwr of any asts• claim or demsa& arldeg ad of s" earmst mew apeaneat. DATED: .1993. /OAYMOND B. EMS %rC./~f~.i v ~HYLLIS G. EMS ~ STATE OF OREGON, Wcshington County .u The foregoing;instrument was acknowledged before me on •f, . 1993 by Raymond B. Ems & Phyllis G. Erns. =~NU0.Notary Public for Oregon ° i tv~ My commission expires: AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:) ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: ) The Petrie Co. of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., suite 200 Portland, OR 97219 _ LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Eo 1 Page No. -7Z .1594 l4:aa i , t 5 ,i i • 1 Of Of%WN SS Sg FL d doar~Y Sias COO" and R 0Y ,COOt1 4 Doe. 193081 0903337 4~ • GO fLe al11993 lo:46:57i►14 1 7.3-00 430g9410 .1i0 Di1199S 101 Sx' =sj r+ A NO. gq F-idllbVt NO' Page No•-.-' ^ M • MI.1 .i 4" ,i, . ; JQ' t .7(i .Ar.• yw~r. ~w Yw ww ~ Y~w. 11 OtlV9il ; i L • i I S E iol l A "aft As a °0011 1 J = Max www oc" 1 0101 • horsrnroens ~s 3nie0 - ~VUN33 H i N d s S S N r S n g t 1 N cap COME Most a IMP -LUMP" in at t + ' i ai we O S 1 ? J 1 aim GONE am JAM 1 1 1 b 1 wr anal 1 Q 1 . w. vo, , wr apt ' s a 1 an 10 on Me 1 ~ ~ •.rr ~ K 1 ,ott cos .ww"w N tl~ Wsr • ax 3 S . ova t w i Boa N s n, ,.,g~ r Wr oo« 4001. !!Li 1 hnsr - ~p u 3Z +w AIM A is Hu ills , s will /OIt » .mowAs. + ` d0fi ...HL- ..roll ~•t~$t - )Qt I .S•a .+..r. ■OIdID AINP$ . YIy M mia sal 1 NOUMS M7S M US .a 1 s1 4110 s LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. "1 Pane No. I Transamerica Title Insurance Company 12360 But Butwide n1 C6--A Box 16016 Pordand.OR 97216 Telcphone 503 256-1160 4 -7 Fur 503 236.3430 JEFFREY L. KLEINMAN Night Recordor 503 236.1163 ATTORNEY L 1-7 l ~lc~ FAX 228-4529 RE: 2S101DC T.L. 3601.3300 RECEIVED JUN - 71994 JEOUX L =&INMAN %IXQA 13.70 ex 1AW- A PROPERTY PROFILE ENCLOSED: METROSCAN AND DMD PREPARED BY: KIMBERLY DATE: 06/07/94 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. L.P Page No title information has been furnished without charge, in eonformalice with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregc Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division caul ns intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. ':RANSA,MERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPAJLN 12360 East Burnside Portland, OR 97216 Telephone: 503 256-1160 = M E T R 0 S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E= Washington County rr*,r****r*,►*~ra**#:**,tt:***.***,te*t,k*r********+,t*#.t**,try*irr***,r.,r*,Fal,t**t******* R aaaaC=:aa~assssa3=~=a t • OWNERSHIP INF 6~rR TION * 6 a S II s a= a` a a s a a a * * Ref. Parcel #:2S101DC 3601 * Parcel No. :R045977 TRSQ:02S-01W-01-SE SW * Owner :EMS RAYMOND S PHYLLIS G + * CoOwner * Site Address:13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD 97223 * Mail Address:13400 SW 76TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 * Telephone :503-639-1258 * =aIICisaa~IIalQ~3IIa}5.73'i i'G?= * * SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION * saga:aaara~aaa:==aaa:spa.. * • Transterred: Loan Amount * Document # Lender * Sale Price Loan Type * Deed Type Interest Race: * Owned Vesting Type . * Q!a•a/~aat:~~~la a'1t~Di~'3 Ra a*SCC?. * * ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION a}IIGf 07.sa~=~aaa Ai :3'3}7a}D}G~3= * Nand :545,500 Exempt Amount: * Structure:$129,330 Exempt Type * Other % Improved :74 * Total :$174,830 Levy Code :02381 f * 93-94 Taxes :53,531.23 * PROPERTY DESCRIPTION = * aaaaaa==saga=a~aa=c= * * Map Grid:65S G5 Class Code: * Census :Tract 307.00 Block 2 * NbrhdCd :DMTG MillRate :20.1980 ' Sub/Plat: * Land Use:1012 RES,IMPROVED ' * Legal :.82AC r * ~ sCtaa.=~ aas32~=IIL'~~i3 ~'3-IIII • * PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ' * Bedrooms .4 * Bathrooms :4.00 Lot Acres : Year Built :1968 * Heat Method:HOT WATER Lot SgFt BffYearSit :1968 * Pool BsmFin SP : Floor Cover:CARPE': * Appliance BamUnfinSF:700 Foundation :CONCRETE FTG * Dishwasher :YES Bldg SgFt :2,700 Roof Shape :GABLE Hood Fan :YES Porch Sq t: Roof Mat! :WD SHAKE Deck Attic SgFt: ?rteriorMac:DRYWALL * Garage Type:UNIMPROV Deck SgFt : Paving Mat1:CONCRETE * Garage SF :960 Ext Finish:HORIZONTAL wConst Type :WD STUD\SHTG :**#rr**r*rr*rir,erir*iri**#r#**r,t#*t*t#*rtt**+t*44*r:***t***rt**re*F*:**#*t*1r****e* The Inforapion Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Noc LUBA NO. 110 Exhibit No. Page NO.. RANSAMERICA TIT-.,E INSURANCE COMPANY 12360 East Burnside Portland, OR 97216 Telephone: 503 256-1160 M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E- Washington County, *###tt###tt:##,I###*#!t#*##!!t*#*#tt*#*#t!###tt#M##t##!tr*####*#####*#tt##*!t##tt # rsrrT. rir rr~=~saa~sc7ts= # OWNERSHIP INFORMATION * * saa3OSaar asaClrt= * Ref. Parcel #:2S101DC 0330 # Parcel No. :RC4597 TRSQ:02--01W-01-SF Sw # # Owner :PETRIE OF OREGON # t CoOwner * Site Address:*NO SITE ADDRESS* t t Mail Address:9600 SW CAPITOL HWY #200 PORTLAND 0 * Telephone # aa3rsaaa_a6aaaaS~~3>a7a3+~= . t SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION ! # rras rrasraaa~rara3~~3 Transferred:11/12/93 Loan Amount # * Document # :93918 MULTI-P Lender * Sale Price :$10,350 Loan Type :SELLER * Deed Type :WARRANTY Interest Rate: * Owned :100 Vesting Type :CORPORATION * # assaasaara:lO=r.-ra=•3L~~Oa=~33=~ # ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION # a a a L S~ 3 m p a s r w s a a a= T a a#~ G 3 ~.'3 = * Land :$4,000 Exempt Amount: Structure: Exempt Type # * Other % Improved # * Total :$4,000 Levy Code :02381 x 93-94 Taxes :$80.78 # sC~rraaO~~~73~~.-=0~= # PROPERTY DESCRIPTION it # aeaas~ ofr-..t=~3IItss7C~~ * Map Grid: Class code: * Census :Tract Block t NbrhdCd :DMTG MillRate :20.11080 * Sub/Plat: , t Land Use:1002 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL * Legal 4 9AC , + PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ' * Beta<<:oms # Bathrooms Lot Acres : Year Built ' * Heat Mechod: Lot Sort EffYearBlt ' Floor Cover: ' * Pool 3smFin SF * Appliance BsmUnf inSF : FouTidat ion : * Dishwasher Bldg SgFt Roof Shape : Hood Fan Porch Sgct: Roof Matl • Deck Attic SgFt: Inter~orMat: * Garage Type: Deck SgFc Paving Matl: * Garage SF E'xt Finish: Corst Type #t#t#*:#t#**###!t*##+ttt##*#t#!####!#*fe+Y#t#*#*t#*##tt##tt###t#x#*t#kir#t##*Rt#!tt The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not LUBA NO. 94-11.0 Exhibit No. (to Page No. ZL . 4~ 93081037*' . dkw ' -THIS DOCQKW IS hiLIItO T.CRECARDFII TO CORRh:C? LEGAL DLSCRIPTION PREVIOthSLY PUCORDED AS !EE 193081037 WARRANTY DIED RAYMOND B. EMS & PHY11Z G. EMS, both as Grantor, hereby oonvtty and war. rant to THE PETRM CO. OF OREGON, an Oregon corporation, as Oranteo, eertaia real property in Washington County, Oregon. froe of all enoumbrances, down-bed as spooeified in the N attachod P.xhibit A. 'TEAS Q•tSI LW# NT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUIZNT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND R&3ULA71ONS. BEFORE SIONING OR AG CEPT INO THIS INSTRLINM.4 P. THE PERSON ACQUIRINO FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECX WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNINO DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY AN PROVED USES." ~5. The um and actual consideradou fbr this conveyawA is 4! 9.9 All terns and coodithom of t"Ae prior ruraat money agreemant between the passes detect 12.8 A 1219/92 in by this reference included and isoorporsted berg in. NwMthfsanding the contents of the escrow and ctosint instructions accompanying this d&-A execution. dath- cry sod acceptsaw of this deed shall not be a waiver or release of eithst patty by the other of any rights, claims or detnaads arising out of said eamest roomy agreement. DATED: 1993. zl~ .14,24 e, YAkAYMOND B. EMS ~RYLLIS G. EMS gem STATE OF OREGON, Washington County), is The foregoing instrurnent was acknowledged before me on f • 1993 by Raymond B. Ems & Phyllis G. Eats. OFFIMAL$ _ i LYNN .T It. NOTARY RY Ar PU PusuC .OpIgCn~ao►a Notu?' Public for Oregon MY COMWSSION EXPIRES bV~1Rc"?.• t1 ser My commission expires: ' AF'T'ER RECORDING RETURN TO-) ALL TAX STATEMENTS TO: } The Petrie Co. of Oregon 9600 SW Capitol Hwy., suite 200 Portland, OR 97219 t 7S LU1 A NO. say-»o Exhibit No. (o - Page No. 2- • . Order No. 720.548 OWISR 'A, PARCELfi 890"btg 41 tt+e DwItO st Comet of ve W.W. Graham Donation Lard Calm in Section 1. Township 2 South. Range / Weet d the WMAMOtta M4Ad4A In the City of Tigard. County d Washington and State of Ofegpt•, thence North 0.30' East along the East one d said QMham Donlon Land CWm 670.70 test: thence North 89'24' Weet 360.0 teat to the Ira* point of DeglrWnp, Mle port! Demq IR the West It" of s County Road: dunce North 0.30' East along the West one of hid County Rced. 132.0 test: thence North N 89.24• West 296J8 feet; thence Sotto 1.25' West 132.02 tat; thefts South 8V24' East 298.69 test to the true pobt of b"inni g. 6C:EFrNO TMZREf1tOM that purtton In 8W Cherry Street. ALSO EXCEPnNO T142AZIFROM a tract at land In the Southwest quarter of Sect" 1. Town No 2 South. Range 1 Watt of the W4amatte MwIdlan, in the City of Tigard. Qounty of Washington and State d Oregon. more paalttdw deser bed as follows: 8aginntng at the Southeest comer of Lot 44. ROLLING HILLS - PLAT 2; thence Easiarfy along the North Me of SW Cherry Street. 187.6 lost to the tm poUtt of bogbWrtg; thence North 0136' East 122 feet W a point on the South the of that tract described In deed to Patel R. Wa.•tm. at tot In Book 263. Page 303. told County Deed Rocorda; thence North 89.24' West along Ute South One of Bald Warner trace 125 feat to a Petro; thenes south 0638' West 122 feet to a pools on the North Oft of said Cherry Street, therr_e I:astetty along sold North lMa 126 fast to the we point of beghntng. PARCEL 11 That pan d trot Watarn w. oraham and wife Donation Land Claim No. 39, to Townshlp : South. Range I Woe of the Willamette martdle^ in the Ctty of T1gwtL Cowry of Wa&vnglat and State d Orogo4 descrlaed as lodOws. wv& Commencbtg at a stake on a South the of said Owwdef Land Citl6rt. 10.0 chains West of the tm Q_st Easterly Southeast tamer of said Donation Land ClOw. thence North 20 chains to a state: thence ice' to awns; thence South 20 chains; thence East 10 Chains to the place Of 469111 in EXCEPTINO THEREFROM right of pray of Beaverton and Wallarttsbwg Railroad Company and of Oregon Floadc Rasway Company. ! ALSO EXCEPTiNO "AFFROM any portion I*g wtiNn ROLLING HILLS - Put 2 in ire Gay of Tigard. County of Washhgtoofand State of Oragort. AND ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM a pareal of lend In the South halt of Section 1. Tawruh;p 2 South t Range 1 West of the Wdtamette Marldlut, In the My d Tigard. Oounty o! Washington and State of Oregm being roofs psftu dry desefted as fdloaa: Beginning at the South one-quarter comer of said Section 1: thence North 0.OS' West 398.62 lest to a point of Utersegion wIth the South RM of the W.W. Graham Donation Land Claim No. 39: thafee North 0.59'50- Eau 24.02 toot 10 a point; thence Noah 88042'30 East paralW with the sale Donation Land Claim. South Q Snv. 291.84 feet to a pofrt0 thence North 04910 East 451.27 feet to a poW on tlA South Rne of ROLLING Mlt.ls • 2 West along the said subdivision South lino 780.42 foot 10 an angle comes in said subdivisfon South Brie, tnafco North 41•SS'40' West continuing along said South one 245.19 feet to a point-. thence South 1.14.20' East 502.01 lest to a point of Interteetlon w4h the Nortfteaateriy right of way One of the Southern Paelfo Rairoad: mwo South 42000' Fast stoop the said npht of way One. 777.08 feet to a pout of anenseflon with the South thte of Bald Section 1; thence North 89.39' East along the aaW Soctfon ant. 113.81 feet to the point of beg'lutfnq. y AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM a portion of that inset of lend in the W71ism V. G:anam and wde Donation and Claim No. 39. In Section 1, Township 2 South. Range I West of the r11tam4re Markilart, M the CR of Tigard, Count of W on and Stato of Or~ L*nvo sd to Ra And S. Ecru, at inc. by .r~• deed recoteta December 2.1952 Book 339. page 324. Washingiorl Courey. Oregon Dead Records. more V pamcularty dose.•tbod so tciows: • 8sgMtftg at a stake on the Southeast coma d Lot 49. ROUINQ HILLS • PLAT 2; t.ancs No.,Ihwty wong '.i• -I the Fast Una of said Lot 49. a dlmfts of 150 toot to the Seunh One at SW Far Street; thence Easnriy elottg -~l the South One of SW Fir Street. a dhwcs d SO feet to the East One or Sw ?girt Avenue; thence No.•'.hsriy ff along me fact One of SW 78ut Avenue. a dtstuue of 25 fat to the North its of Parch 11n he aforernontbnod Ems :rota; thence North 89'55' East along the Noah one a ask) Ems tract a distance of ~ 8•, 152.36 het to a marked alone at the Northeast comer at aaid Ems tract: thence Soul: 2.31• Wet! along the East Ono of talc Ems tract a diautr= of 17S feat: thence Wast rfy a dIewce of 210.8 feat more of tee% to the point of beginning PA AML 2 Lot 45. ROLLING MLLS . PLAT 2. >n the Cry or Tigard. Coma of washktgton area state of Oregon. EXCEPTING THEREFROM Me South 14x.37 lost to ROwNG MILLS . PLAT 2. wBp NO 94„11Q • -~---Exhibit No. 1.0 t3 "72 page No. N SVCM OF X00" fit cou""+ a" ,4A"gwn Da of 00M. O SS t. Rtr4 ,Ib .x t OF rr4 TazaUO^ to ap~ttty: do ~ rraa C,Wt,tt of 'Zr1nQ~ d t°`'° 3rd - `°°°Y'°u+tt in jo P. - v~eY~' ~ • Qp• d say ard C1e~~~F• Val co St r ~ r• i~.,%4`'+ y'yC~'~CtltSr b 040C 9308103 ,3.00 Re 144033 48:SIAM 1 a1'1993 10 . • 14 g;0q 3918 23.00 1 R 1;21299 d 10: 52: 25A1'► tab do page vt-vim- - - _ '-Ur1 Jt 1? ? ci! '~ci.t~r►• TO r=1 P. 01 UNIFIED Date SEWERAGE File UA ~ AGENCY • 155 N. FIRST AVENUE Project HILLSBOR09 OREGON 97124 (503) 648-8621 Subject k~etnrndhn -rest gACErV?F-D To ag,L!4dl W-7lsy, ~-x 2Zg~ `fs29 -&7 JUN -3 1994 JEFFREY L KI.MNMAN A=ORMX AT LAW Item copies Date Description r ~ ZS-9! Cov4c.PA6E x Q~- o g,_Y8 2 SEC QN Z . A. 3 Corer. PAmr OP Q ~D 92-3 Pr~r~ ~ Srt~w•NG su2ct,~E- D~~ as you requested Remarks ~4'D 9Z-3~f 441C-aD 6-0 ❑ for your information CA) ,~i~ y I, /y yz , wasT e3u-L~ - ❑ for your approval CAM/6z.-r-7--) oe:jjE less DES.E, ❑ for your review /,v 2°-0 g2-3~ ❑ return requested LUBA NO. 94-110 From Exhlblt No. Page No. 81-419 P . J 1 1471 FPOM un F & EU SEt-1EPi4GE TO RATES AND CHARGES RHO 91-48 (6-25-91) 1 IN THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 3 In the Matter of Adopting a Revised) Schedule of Charges, Rates and Fees) 4 Relating to the Sanitary and Storm ) and Surface Water Management ) 5 Systems and Related Services of the) Agency; Adopting Administrative, ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 6 Provisios Applicable to all Fees; ) - Providing for Interest and ) NO. 7 Delinquency Charges; Superseding Portions of Resolution and Order ) g 91-12; Pursuant to Ordinances 22 ) and 2.5; and Declaring an Effective ) 9 Date. 10 The above-entitled matter came on regularly before the Board 11 at its meeting of June 25, 1991 having been continued from the meeting of June 18, 1991; and 13 It appearing to the Board that it did adopt Ordinances 22 and 14 25 A-Engrossed, on May 28 and June 11, respectively, which 15 authorize adoption of certain charges, rates, fees, and. penalties 16 for the use of the Agency systems, and for services provided by 17 the Agency; and that certain of the existing USA charges contained a 1g in Resolution and Order No. 91-12 are now in need of amendment; 19 and 20 It appearing to the Board that the proposed charges, rates - 21 fees, interest, penalties, and administrative previsions, '0 22 including amendments, are contained in Exhibit 111" attached hereto 'd 23 and by this reference incorporated herein and that said amendments 1 24 carry out the standards and objectives contained in ordinance Nos. r 22 and 25 A-Engrossed; and 26 It appearing to the Board, that Exhibit "1" also contains a ' LU1 A NO. 94-110 Page 1 of 3 Exhlbit No. (e) Page No. S 1 UN-u ! ! FROM Ut 1 I F I ED EE4iEFkj-E TO P. 0 1 i SECTION 2 RULES, REGULATIONS AND DEFINITION OF RATES AND CHARGES A. Fees in Lieu of Participation in a Local Improvement District The following are fees in lieu of participation in a local improvement district. These fees are applicable to property which makes connection to a sewer system line less than 12 inches in diameter, which was funded in whole or in part by a Local Improvement District, or for which a local fee is established in lieu of formation of a District. The fee is based upon the actual cost or.estimated cost of identified local facilities, not part of an Agency Master Plan or Facility Plan. 1. Bull Mountain West Pump Station Connection Fee Bull Mountain West pump station surcharge connection fees shall be charged in addition to the regular sewer connection charges for those properties benefited by the Bull Mountain Pump Stations, shown in Appendix B. The purpose of the surcharge is to help defray the cost of the construction of two large pump stations. The surcharge shall be applied and collected in the same manner as the regular sewer connection charges. Properties that participate in a local improvement district for the construction of one of the major pump stations, or which otherwise directly contribute funds towards the construction of one of the major pump stations, shall not be charged this surcharge. B. Line Tap Fees Line tap fees shall be charged for installation of a connection of a private lateral or side sewer to the public facilities of the Agency. The amount of these fees reflects the actual cost of installing and inspecting connections from private facilities to public facilities, based upon the average cost to the Agency of performing such work. Line tap fees are not charged when the connection is made as a part of a project for construction of public sewer line under Agency Construction Permit Agreement, in which the taps are shown on approved plans, and are subject to a performance assurance for the work. (See Construction Standards Resolution and Order.) These fees are not system.development charges. 1. Line Tap Fees a. Sanitary, $950.00 per tap b. Storm, $350.00 per tap C. Service Request Fees 0 The following are fees charged for services requested or T ~9!`n required to be performed by the Agency. in each case, the fee is * .0c established based upon the estimated actual cost, as defined in Ordinances 22 and 25, of performing the service or making the service 0 Z a available. Z e: Z 1. Apportionment Processing Fees a y Apportionment processing fees shall be charged to cover the Rates and Charges--Page 5 q1_# 1-4: 3 Fria . o j I F I E1 -EWEF,.-- m- TO FLED 92 M30 AK 8: 53 1 IN THE UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCYRECORDS DEPARIMENT 2 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREG IED SEWERAGE AGENC:' 3 In the Matter of Adopting a Revised) 4 Schedule of Charges, Rates and Fees) Relating to the Sanitary and Storm ) 5 and Surface Water Management ) Systems and Related Services of the) 6 Agency; Adopting Administrative ) Provisions; Providing for Interest } RESOLUTION AND ORDER 7 and Delinquency Charges; ) Superseding Resolution and Order ) NO. U A (M - 7j 8 Nos. 91-48, 91-61, and 91-69; ) z Amending Resolution and Order Nos. ) LU 9 91-42, 91-43 and 91-45 Pursuant to ) 0 Ordinances 20, 22, 23 and 25; and ) g 10 Declaring an Effective Date. ) - it The above-entitled matter came on regularly before the Board w 12 at its meeting of June 16, 1991; and zR 13 It appearing to the Board that it did adopt Ordinances 20, 14 22, 23, and 25 A-Engrossed, which authori2e adoption of certain z 15 charges, rates, fees, and penalties relating to the Agency 0 16 systems, and for services provided by the Agency; and that certain z 17 of the existing USA charges contained in Resolution and Order Nos. 18 91-42, 91-43, 91-45, 91-48, 91-61 and 91-69, are now in need of 19 further amendment; and 20 It appearing to the Board that the proposed charges, rates 21 fees, interest, penalties, and administrative provisions, 22 including amendments, contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and 23 by this reference incorporated herein carry out the standards and 24 objectives contained in.the above-referenced Ordinances; and • 25 It appearing to the Board that the Plan of Capital 26 Improvements for the Sanitary Sewerage System, described in Page 1 of 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No- Page No. F?uM unIFIED :EWEPPo:c TO F,,.: • SECTION 2 RULES, REGULATIONS AND DEFINITION OF RATES AND CHARGES A. FEES FOR PHYSICAL CONNECTION TO PUBLIC FACILITIES Line tap fees shall be charged for installation of a connection of a private lateral or side sewer to the public facilities of the Agency. The amount of these fees reflects the actual cost of installing and inspecting connections from private facilities to public facilities, based upon the average cost to the Agency of performing such work. Line tap fees are not charged when the connection is made as a part of a project for construction of public sewer line under Agency Construction Permit Agreement, in which the taps are shown on approved plans, and are subject to a Construction Permit Agreement for the work. (See Construction Standards Resolution and Order.) These fees are not system development charges. B. SERVICE REQUEST FEES The following are fees charged for services requested or required to be performed by the Agency. In each case, the fee is established based upon the estimated actual cost, as defined in Ordinances 22 and 25, of performing the service or making the service available. 1. Apportionment Processing Fees Apportionment processing fees shall be charged to cover the cost to the Agency for processing apportionments. The fee is charged as part of the application unless the apportionment is initiated by the Agency where it is added to the apportioned amount. 2. Customer Assistance Charges Copies of Agency maps, publications and other documents provided by the Agency shall be charged at actual cost. Maps, publications and copy fees shall be waived for all governmental entities providing there is a reciprocal waiver of such fees. No charge shall be made for sewer availabilities and lateral location information. 3. Easement Vacation (Release)and Consent to Release Fees Easement vacation and consent to release fees shall be charged for the investigation, review and preparation of the necessary documents; and approval and recording of the documents for the legal termination of an easement. Owners of properties that have been paid for an easement who request vacation of the same easement or a portion thereof shall pay to the Agency a like amount for the easement in addition to this fee. • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. Lo Page No. SID Rates and Charges --.Section 2 Page 5 q 2- 3~( J Jl. N cc 93 S 0.3g root) 5^c.RV j CZ: ?9RTL"10 June • 8 1993 CITY OF T1 OREG.-Of, . ,Dear. Owner= I -N The ProPposed. subdivision 'develo~inent of lots between. -S r Street and Cherry Drive, •as..shownl.on.the attached Ziap,'wil3. r~equir:ft ' the: extent'ic:r •of'puf~lic sanitlary $ewer"ntrrth along i`?ith' ~t - • ' ° Avenue' and. along Cherry' Drive : The sewer • will be• Instal1ed.'ana' aid for by the develo er of the zvis on, Several peop * ave' expressed interest in 'continuing the. -sewer :along S .W. 74th ~,veue • ' and: Cherry.: Drive to serve additional houses-'indluding. yours:,. • 'E:ctending this: sewer. 'might cost;t each- •home'owner about.'S51 000, to. ' i , 000 each. If there' is. sufficient interest, a more. detailed .estimate' caulci be 'prepared: Additional' expenses would include :a : donnecti•on; fee`of •$2.i 135 for house's constructed after July 1;r:3970'; and $335 .for 'houses constructed:-earlier. Zii additi=on, eachrlowiier •'.ti would' havs: to abandon ihei:,r exi~ing.-:septic system and cony ct'~ ~o. ~ -wi- a ubllcf-line at. an expense- oF'perhaps . as much as •52,00.0: _ ~~~yT~:.~~ir+.'~r.%~i4•Nr: r---:r.~i:::..~:~~.e..r:~w.i,,.~. ~ ,.+'~sacT3 ~'Siu.'~~~~~ ---•-+rZ•~i:°r' •S _ l+Y!/7r.! •RI I: _9• !~wwf. f►, y!,• `+r . y T • .~.Z.4 :you have` any; interest in pursuing s please notify:me- b e -•r;; ~ 22,._ 1993 f;~If A-there is sufficient =interest, L1 Ss, Fill sugggst,•: we : W Tscheduie•~, an_ ,evening..-meeting ::td-. mcre, -fully '6-explain `::the fcost;- 2*73-- procedures,.-and options.-;.:In the le-antimeI if you have questi~hs!•or'.=: - 'require ;addi_tsonal infonaation/- please 'call • Sincerely:, _ _ ! - : • -I• - Greg N. -Berry Utilities Engineer I i c;ica:aeryx~l:as.ZU • . ~ I ' ' ~ . ' c : Randy tTAaoley, City- Engineer a. - LUBA NO. 94-110 _ Exhibit No. t fi - Page No. . 13125 SW HcU Biv[i» Tigard,. OR 97223 (503)-.639-4'i71 MD.(503) 684-2772 ' :y= -47 ,9/ I W • D 4 35 1 ~ W 0 z ~3*303 h Q i 0 n l 00 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER VY 30 L330 L 40 i L 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 9 BO Z800 1 00 • EWSA IAY aso~ 44 CHERRY STREET ROLLING HILLS NO 2 LUBA No. 94.110 ExhlbR No. Page No. - ►C~1!~-~tK_=tt~~t!r"-'~~tC~ FG':_..~t/G'=~1 _~i1C _ ~ti Jt'~ ..AK STATE OF OREGON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD REGISTRATION 'CERTIFICATE T61s certifies that the person named hereon ' Is registered as provided by law as a GENCONTR/ALL STRUCTURES t • :.Registration [ 847 36 NON-EXEMPT ` ;Number CORPORATION Si. ;t= .S• o r.: . t*-:i Expires: [ 07/ 20 / 96 (,~11 EMPIRE PACIFIC CONSTPUt;tION INC PO 30X 65 Z = Z WEST LINN OR 97068-0065 :t..: m ATURE OF REGISTRANT J 0. /Ot,Ot K-_?t 10t K==11C ~ t~~t ICS! fL~ IG~f K=fit fG~l S O a M G O u s o a 4 a ~ °3S~ V 3 I _ ~ -ON 0158d 'ON 114111 x3 0 L L-b6 'ON V917l1 R E c E I V IQOMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7901 MAY 31199 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Mill` Legal Notice Advertising agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W.'Hall CITY OF TIGARD. Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171. " *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING f. 13125 SW hall Blvd. JUNE 7, 1994 •Ti a rd , Ore on 9 7 2 2 3 - 819 9 • 13 Duplicate Affidavit TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWI HALL g g 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON rg ` ~`J'i•. • . ai~:l 1 7..k • • Study'Meedng ('Ibwn Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.). Agenda Review • • ' $usiriess Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) A ;t Oaths of Office AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ;Mayor • Council Position No. 3 STATE OF OREGON, ) : . Council Position No. 4 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' +i1~ r• I, Kathy Snyder • SpecialPresenuttion being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertisin '•%M6 oring Jack Schwab, Interim Mayor Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Times ''Pu lidlHearin a newspaper of general circulation as defined In ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard In the Reimbursement District-Pacific Ridge Subdivision aforesaid county and state; that the ;,(Continued from April 12, 1994) Ip~~ s ' City Council Business Mtg. Council Consideration ,nutk,;., a printed copy of which Is hereto annexed, was published in the • ' Elect Council President (to serve May 24 - December 31' 119p4)..; entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and - ••.:.Ordinance Amendment to Tigard Municipal Code - ~~:~M~b~~1 i' Chronic Nuisance Property: consecutive In the following Issues: Local Contract Review Board Meeting May 26,1994 Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Execve Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to dis. cuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and.,pending litigation issues. Subscribed and sworn to b re me this 2 6th day of May,19 9 4 TT7901-,Fublisfi May 26, 1994. r . OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P c for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024562 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16.1;97 1 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ • • i rZ.~-~rnfac.c.'t,ae.rr.e.+1.~- s~r~c~ - 3* 0Tkem s) Council Agenda Item 3 • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jack Schwab. ROLL CALL Council Present Mayor Jack Schwab; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Loreen Edin, Management Analyst; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 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. Council meeting reconvened into open session at 7:12 p.m. • STUDY SESSION 130th Street Extension: CIT West met April 5 and discussed the 130th Street Extension. Citizens voiced opinions for and against the completion of the extension. In order for the project to be removed from the Transportation Plan, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be applied for and approved. City Administrator reported that there was great support for the construction of the pedestrian bridge - this will be done as soon as possible. Agenda Review: Item 4.4 was pulled from the agenda. The Council meetin6. scheduled for May 17 (Election Day) was cancelled. BUSINESS MEETING i Council Liaison Reports: Councilor Fessler reported her appreciation for staff assistance in sending letters with regard to a current House Bill proposal to limit local government control along cable and telephone lines. Y Councilor Fessler distributed a draft resolution from Metro regarding the 2040 growth concept recommendation for Council's information. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. q_ 2. Proclamation: Mayor Schwab proclaimed April, 1994 as Fair Housing Month and read the Proclamation aloud. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA: Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany, Tigard, Oregon, expressed concerns with the proposed pedestrian bridge in Summerlake Park He urged the foot bridge not be built until the street connection was made. He reported on his understanding that the foot bridge would be constructed in a portion of the street connection right of way. He was concerned the foot bridge would interfere with the future street connection or used as justification to not build a street connection. City Engineer acknowledged that a portion of the foot bridge may be looted in the same area as the street (now a gravel road) right-of-way. The materials for the bridge can be salvaged and could be relocated to another area when the street connection is made. No wetland mitigation would be required for the foot bridge. City Administrator advised staff would proceed with the construction of the foot bridge unless otherwise directed by City Council. 4. CONSENT AGENDA. 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar -.4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution No. 94-_.IQ_ 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TCYS) Pulled from agenda NOT APPROVED 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units City Administrator Reilly noted the following changes: Item 4.2; it was requested that the Council Calendar be amended to show the May 17, 1994 Council meeting was cancelled. Item 4.3 had been requested to be withdrawn and would be considered under Non-Agenda as 7.a for separate discussion. -Item 4.4, the lease agreement-with TCYS, would be deleted from this agenda CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit NoA e No Pag Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve • Consent Agenda items 4.1 and 4.5. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes.1 Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to amend consent Agenda 4.2 which would adopt the City Council Calendar with the deletion of the May 17, 1994 meeting. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes.' 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION a. Public hearing was opened.. b. City Administrator advised the City Attorney had requested this item be set aside until May 24 to t1low the appellant to prepare for an appeal. Mr. Reilly advised that staff concurs with the request C. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to continue the Public Hearing to May 24, 1994. - Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Schwab and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 'yes.1 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RECYCLING RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Schwartz advised he had participated - in several discussions with people on this issue. He also advised that there were several letters in the Council packet from residents on this agenda item. Mayor Schwab said he also had had discussions about this issue. He clarified that this was a legislative public hearing and as such, prior Council discussion and review of information would not present a problem for a Council hearing on the issue. C. Management Analyst Edin introduced the agenda item and summarized the elements of the staff report, including the process used for gathering public input to date. Consultant Rich McConaghy reviewed several overhead slides, which included the following information: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 --PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. • Presentation overview • Yard debris options • Comparative benefits • Relative monthly costs • Yard debris recommendations • Cost control opportunities • Scrap paper opportunities • Scrap paper considerations • Indfiridual exemption use • Recommended class exemption (Copies of the presentation material used by Consultant McConaghy are on file with the Council packet material). In response to a question by Mayor Schwab, the consultant advised the haulers would not receive enough money from the sale oTscrap material to cover the cost The scrap paper program would represent a fee increase of approximately 50 cents a month to customers. With regard to yard debris, special trucks would be needed. The consultant explained the City sets the rates and these rates are reviewed annually to determine whether they should be adjusted. Councilor Hunt noted the prices the haulers can get for recyclables are erratic. For example, at one time milk jugs looked as--if they would be profitable, and then were not He also noted the price of newspaper print fluctuates. The consultant said the scrap paper market was very good because a Springfield, Oregon operation will be buying more scrap paper than can be collected in the adjacent region. In further discussions with Councilor Hunt, the consultant advised the rate assumptions were based on going to a fully automated solid waste curbside retrieval system. This had been taken as a policy direction of City Council at a previous meeting on this issue. Councilor Fessler referred to options available for customers to have control over some of their costs if they found they were able to reduce their non-recyclable trash and then utilize the on-call service. Management Analyst Edin reviewed some of the discussions that had been held with citizens with regard to their concerns. An exemption program was reviewed. She noted there would be a class exemption recommended for homeowners associations who have limited need and provide maintenance for their grounds. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. C Page No. Cf Ms. Edin described some of the elements that would be necessary for the • class exemption for homeowner associations. Such exemption would require a vote of the homeowner association and a demonstration that someone would be providing service for fifteen or more homes within the association area before they would be able to vote for the exemption. Based on the assumptions made and with HLA's experience, City staff felt comfortable with the cost assumptions presented in the staff report d. Public Testimony: Jerry Ott, 9055 SW Edgewood, Tigard, Oregon, testified he was opposed to the proposal because it did not provide for an exemption for those homeowners who compost and re-use their own yard debris. He noted the program does not promote home composting and is therefore flawed. Mr. Ott recommended the program should promote `true recycling' and that home composters be allowed an exemption. Bob Parsons, 10040 SW Century Oak Drive, Tigard, Oregon, Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Summerfield Civic Association. (Mr. Parsons' entire written text of testimony has been filed with the Council meeting material). Mr. Parsons described the Summerfield Civic Association which was comprised of 391 units. In addition, the retirement community has an apartment complex of 175 units, and an assisted living facility of 157 units. He advised that all the town house and condo associations have contracts • with landscaping companies to take care of the year-round yard=- maintenance. The contractor hauls off yard debris to an approved collection station. Mr. Parsons advised Summerfield was very supportive about the class exemption offered for homeowner associations. Mr. Parsons advised everyone was interested and willing to recycle all of their refuse in an effort to conserve the landfills gust give us a feasible and workable opportunity to do so.' Cece Dispenza, 11460 SW Downs Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted the information given by staff and the consultant was dear and concise. She advised she was in favor of the bi-weekly yard debris pickup, and noted the majority of people in the City of Tigard would use the service. She advised the yard debris program would make it possible for a tremendous amount of material to be removed from the waste stream. Council meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. t Mr. Merle Pugh, 15685 SW Old Orchard Place, Tigard, Oregon (Mr. Pugh- signed in to testify, but had left the meeting). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. Page ' No. Merrill Breshears, 15100 SW 98th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Breshears • expressed concerns over the additional costs to him. He noted he composted and chipped his yard debris and did not avail himself to many other recycling opportunities, because he recycled on his own. There was brief review of some of the rate options. Mayor Schwab noted there may be options for Mr. Breshears to save costs, and recommended that he contact Ms. Edin to determine what would be the most cost effective option for him. e. Council questions: Mayor Schwab questioned the 120 gallons of yard debris collected every month. He especially questioned the rationale for the winter months. The consultant responded it had been Portland's experience that the start and stop of yard debris pickup was not as effective, and there was quite a_ bit of 'missed diversion.' (That is, there was a significant amount of yard' - debris which would not be pulled from the waste stream if a seasonal pickup was used). The bi-weekly, monthly program appeared to be the most cost effective from the hauler's perspective, inasmuch as the investment in trucks must be made, regardless of the frequency of pickup. If the City opted to go to a monthly pickup only, then a depot system would also be required. • In response to questions from Councilor Schwartz with regard to large=- amounts of yard debris, such as tree limbs, the consultant advised that a larger bin service is available. Councilor Schwartz asked for clarification of what other cities were doing besides the City of Portland. The consultant explained what had been the experience of other cities, and referred to a matrix. (see Council packet material, page 31). There was discussion regarding home composting and what incentives would be provided for people who do home composting at the present time. The consultant advised that customers would receive a home composting bin from their hauler. Councilor Hawley questioned what incentives could be offered to encourage people to compost Tom Miller, owner of Miller's Sanitary Service, clarified the rates were calculated to factor in the fact that approximately 40% of the people would not use the yard debris program. The $2.90 rate was based on the assumption that 60% of the customers would use the yard debris service that was funded by 100% of the customers. If an exemption for home Y composting was put into force, the rates would increase. _ f. Public hearing closed. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 t3dttbit No..9_ .Page No. g. Council Consideration: • Councilor Schwartz advised he could not support' the proposal as presented. He noted he felt there was a need to take people who compost their material into consideration in some way. He said he did not have a suggestion as to what could be done, but would recommend that an option be put together for costs for an on-call system for yard debris. Councilor Hawley advised she supported the recommendation but would like to see an amendment for individual exemptions. She was concerned about incentives for people who were taking care of their disposables through composting. She said that the data (from other cities' experience) indicated that only 10% of the customers would request an individual exemption. Councilor Hunt supported the staff and consultant recommendation. He noted he probably would not use the yard debris pickup more than approximately three times a year; however, he was against an exemption plan because it would be "a can of worms.' He further explained that an exemption program would require administration and possibly additional staff to monitor. He also noted that with the addition of being able to remove scrap paper from the garbage, this would take care of enough of the waste so many people could use a smaller can and save costs. Councilor Fessler noted that in listening to the remarks of other Councilors, it appeared that all five Councilors would not use the yard debris service because they were already taking care of this waste. However, she also noted the need to make this service affordable. She said she supported the - staff recommendation, and also supported the class exemption as proposed. She urged promotion of the program in order for it to be successful. Mayor Schwab said he, too, supported the program as presented by staff and the consultant. As part of the reason for his decision, he noted that if there were individual exemptions the cost would rise. He pointed out that according to estimates, the majority of the households in Tigard would use the service. h. Motion by Councilor Hawley to direct staff to come back on April 26 with information to discuss individual exemption options. The motion died for lack of a second. T • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Q LP i. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to direct staff to • prepare the proper legislation to adopt Option A as proposed by staff and HLA, for Council consideration at the April 26, 1994 Council meeting. Motion was adopted by a majority vote of Council - 4 to 1 (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted 6yes'; Councilor Schwartz voted 'no.1 7a. COUNCIL REVIEW: CONSENT AGENDA ITE 4.3 - APPROVE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FEE AGREEMENT. Councilor Hunt requested a clarification of wording within the agreement which gave him concern that the City may be losing control over where the TIF dollars would be spent City Administrator Reilly noted the language reflects current practice. City TIF dollars are used for the County road system. The City participates in discussions to determine how the dollars are to be spent Mr. Reilly advised the City would have less influence over TIF funding expenditures if Council did not adopt the proposed-resolution. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Resolution No. 9418: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH • WASHINGTON COUNTY. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Schwab, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted 8-yes.1 8. Executive Session: Cancelled. (Note: An Executive Session was held during the Study Meeting portion of the agenda.) 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:35 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Re er M, City of Tii''gaard D1. q /2 ko q q oom0412-% • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 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 Deaq. 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, ExL 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (7DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deat). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO.94-110 Exhibit No. L~ Page No. CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 1994 • AGENDA • STUDY MEETING • Agenda Review • 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. 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. PROCLAMATION - APRIL 1994 AS FAIR HOUSING MONTH • Mayor Schwab 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: March 8, 15 and 22, 1994 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Approve Traffic Impact Fee Intergovernmental Agreement - Resolution NO. 94- , 4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Enter into a Three-Year Lease Agreement with Tigard Youth Services (TCYS) 4.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - Lakeside Drive Storm Sewer Replacement Project b. Award Bid for Purchase of Phase 2 SCADA Equipment for Monitoring the Water System to Remote Transmitting Units COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. • 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION • Staff recommends setting this public hearing over to a later date. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE RECYCLING RATE INCREASE (CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF YARD DEBRIS WASTE) • Open Public Hearing • Declarations or Challenges • Consultant Report and Recommendation • Staff Summary and Recommendation - Management Analyst Loreen Edin • Public Testimony Proponents Opponents - - • Council Questions/Comments • Close Public Hearing Council Consideration: Motion directing staff to prepare necessary documents to ratify Council decision for consideration on April 26, 1994. 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT =0412-sa COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 12, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. _D Y Page No. (U U O'DON HELL, RAIMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN 0_,6A ATTORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING • 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97,209 I ~ ~-TELEPHONE: (503) 222402 FAX: (S03) 243-2944 APR 0 81994 DATE: April 7, 1994 % TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator FROM: Ty K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Postponement of Hearing on Reimbursement District No. 5 Last week our office received the attached letter from an attorney representing property owners affected by the above- referenced reimbursement district. You may recall that the Council set April 12th to hear objections to formation of the district. The letter requests that the City void its decision to call for this hearing, in lieu of a citizen petition calling for one. I subsequently discussed the matter with Mr. Kleinman and he agre-ed- to a simple postponement of the hearing. He asked for a hearing date in late May or June. • I talked to Randy earlier this week about this possibility. He said that he 'anticipated the Council would be hearing on that date, but could not yet be sure. "Our suggestion is that staff advise the Council to postpone of the hearing until May 24th in consideration of the objections voiced by these affected property owners. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. i i I LUBA NO. 94-110: Exhibit No. I I Page No. 10 • AGENDA ITEM # 5 For Agenda of April 12, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reimbursement District No. 5 Hearing PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hearing on the formation of Reimbursement District No. 5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Attorney's office has recommended that the hearing be continued to a later date. See attached memorandum. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 8, 1994, the Council:..approved Resolution No. 94-11 forming Reimbursement District No. 5. A copy of the resolution is attached. At the time that the resolution was passed, the Council directed that a formal hearing be scheduled. The hearing has been scheduled for the April 2th meeting. Notice of the hearing and a copy of Resolution No. 94-11 has Ween mailed to the owners of property within the reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Following the hearing, the Council could • By motion, reaffirm Resolution No. 94-11; or, • Direct staff to prepare a resolution amending Resolution No. 94-11; or, • Direct staff to prepare a resolution repealing Resolution No. _94-11, thereby eliminating the reimbursement district. FISCAL-NOTES aw/petrie8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ja Page No. 1 (-)~L ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:26 No.008 P.02/04 O'I)ONNEI.L, RAMIS, CREW & CORRMAN • ATtORNEYS AT LAW BALLOW 6 WIUCHT AUIMING 1727 N.W. Hoyt Strev Portland, Oregon 99209 INAPHONE: (503) 222.4402 FAX: (503) 243.2944 DATE: April 4, 1994 TO: Randy Wooley, City Engineer VIA FACSIMILE FROM: Ty. K. Wyman, City Attorney's Office RE: Hearing on Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 On March 31, 1994, our office received the attached letter from an attorney representing the owners of Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500 in the above-referenced reimbursement district. Objections to establishment of the district were set to be heard on April 12, a date well within 60 days of the date of establishment of the district. The code gives affected persons 60 days from the date of establishment of the district to file a • petition for hearing of such objections. This letter objects to the Council having set the hearing without a petition, and calls for its postponement. In order to provide for a resolution of this issue, we are suggesting that the hearing called by the council for April 12, 1994, be set over. In so doing, the City will assure itself that the hearing when held will not be subject to challenge. If you have any further questions on this matter, please- feel free to contact me. TKW/jh , Attachment (March 30 Letter from Jeffrey L. Kleinman) r.\arcNkw\tignrd\+wwky.mem LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 0- Page No. 103 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4,94 12:27 No.008 P.03/04 O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN • JEFFREY L. RLEIIIMAN MAR 31 1994 Artvexat .T L... Txa AxHAs9AwR 1207 S.K. Six -.H Avrxuz PORnAxD. ORUOa 97204 TELIPHcas (603) 248.0808 FAx (503) 2'84528 March 30, 1994 Timothy V. Ramis Attorney at Law 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 Re: City of Tigard Resolution No. 94-11, Establishing Sanitary Sever Reimbursement District No. 5 Dear Tim: I represent Anthony J. Maksym, M. H. Monson, and Steve • Wilmarth, owners of Tax Lots 300, 400 and 500 in the above Reimbursement District. I am trying to come up to speed in this matter, and would request copies of the relevant portions of both minutes and audio tapes of the Tigard City Council hearings conducted on February 8, February 22, and March 8, 1994. Based upon the information available to me, I have a number of concerns about the proceedings to date with respect to the application or applications in question, and the hearing called by the City Council for April 12, 1994. The only issue I am prepared to address at this time is the scheduling of that hearing. Resolution No. 94-11 was adopted on March 8, 1994. TMC §13.08.020 gives affected persons 60 days prom the date of adoption of the resolution to file a "petition or other legal action intended to contest the connection charge * f This would give potential appellants until May 9 to file the appropriate petition with the City. There is no provision whatsoever for the City commencing an "appeal" hearing of its own. On behalf of my clients, I would assert that the conduct of any such hearing would comprise an entirely ultra yires act of the City and its elected Council.- Moreover, the limited time allotted for preparation of a competent appeal has given rise to manifest unfairness to the citia"ens of Tigard, and at least the • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit NO. I.;k- Page No. 1 ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Apr 4.94 12:27 No.008 P.04/04 • Timothy V. Ramis March 30, 1994 Page 2 appearance of favoritism with respect to the application and the applicant in question. I hope the City will proceed in this matter in strict accordance with its own code provisions, and that there will be no need to commence separate legal action. 4Vetrull y S, L. Kleinman JLK: slb cc: Anthony J. Maksym M. H. Monson Steve Hilmarth • • LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhIbft No. I ;I- Page No. ► S • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS,. all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the - area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of - benefit ' shall 'be. known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No., 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement -connection charge-as shown in.Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable=to development of each parcel within the zone-of benefit,as provided for in-:TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual- percentage.-rate "of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the:. connection---.charge.::..-:= Section 5: The zone formation" 7date-:`is:-February. 22,. 1994-. The: right of reimbursement-shall end on February 22, 2004; unless • extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 - (b) (2) • . LUBA NO. 94-110 RESOLUTION NO. 94- Exhibit No. 12 Page 1 Page No. 10(0 Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution • to filed in the f tf ice of the county his resolution to all recorder and affected shall ll mail a copy of in property owners at their last known address, accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). bf1 da f 1994. PASSED: This or _ 1 y o Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City Tigard O/W: eac-8.tdger55 LUBA No. 94-110 - Exhfbft No.~ RESOLUTION NO. 94- j Page NQ ti)j Page 2 • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBIIRSEM ENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. • Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer -service -to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements:in the future.. This .'has,created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit - The zone of benefit is the properties shown' as the- shaded Area on the attached map (Exhibit B) _ The proposed zone'-formation"' date "...for the-.sewer i0'-:_-the-.- date of Council action forming the reimbusement district-: It is recommended .that--.'+he';;reimbursement- -district; continue for ' ter. years. After- tern. years, :-ptopeirties connecting ' to_: the';-sewer'-would nc o longer be required to*-pay-iithey-"reimbursement<~--fee;~:unless the time is extended by the -Council as:=provided in--TMC 13.08.020 (b)- (2) . Cost Z Z O r- Z The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction,-including design anc m inspection costs is $46,119.00. .All of this cost has been paid by The J D. Petrie Company. • Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the-lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided.- This seems to be -a -reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than • one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should'not be charged their full share of costs until such time as. they are fully-developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure:- on - .each lot. Therefore, Exhibit . D provides";.: that connection . of.... one residential structure. would:.be.`charged only. one. -.unit of - cost.:-.;..:Subsequent -development would pay any 'remaining:_•share off%dosts. - Interest Rate - TMC 13.08.020 (b). (5) probides,thaVan annual percentage rate shall be - applied to the - connection - charge- -on'~~-theanniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested-that_~the.finance charge be -3%; which is comparable to that currently -being='_paid:to-finance public improvements. v- This seems reasonable, as the=financing costs for private development G are usually somewhat higher.:r:7.Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation • o date, the established connection.-charges shall be increased by-this 0 Z c i Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 _ 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700.. 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 • *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided,-.the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision. (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties--within -the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines`. outside -the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential-.~structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one-.unit for each residential structure connected to the public. sewer.- For'.- commercial development, the connection 'Charge shall. -.be for,"_ the number of units shown in-- the table above- The=-charge 'per-.unit= is $2,096.32.* Over the.- life ,of the reimbursement= district, - the total charge to any. tax lot shall not exceed the-number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. J - Page No. Q • EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 89° 57' 36" E, along the south'line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of. lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of-way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of.. said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 88° 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, alont3 said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records;...'-- thence N 020 02' 440 E, along the east line of -said Fee Number'---a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of. -way of - the."Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149:-page: ..293''of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 _ -51' 46TM,W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet :to the:"-east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four-courses;-.. thence. N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 89°=:51':x: 46°. W. a distance of 162.15 -feet; thence S 010 28' 24'2 W a distance: "of 25:-01 feet;. thence N 89°= 57' 360 W a distance of 50.02- fee't*:lto. =the: Northeast° corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence -N 89°:~: 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance- of" 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. ` ~o~_\pee_beA LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7850 BEAVWTON, OREGON 97075 O R E C ag 1I'N,ptice Advertising •City of Tigard Q~P~~'1 X44 • 0 Tearsheet Notice ; 0 3125 SW Hall Blvd. Of VGAP Z ~ Z Tigard, Oregon 97223 C~~ • O Duplicate Affidavit a .00 • • _ _ J IL 9 TNIS P, .,8..ttiOA h +8hlight biro published f nY4ur • - . fir;;''; o info ation. Full t~ ; ;be.b from 40 City Recorder .13125 S:W.,I#aIC quilt ;:Tig9r►; (egan,9.~223; or by ctllling 39-47.1,' ;t;iH,'; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION a ¢ CI' COUNCRibSINESS:MEETING..,.' <t~ r,n STATE OF OREGON, ) ` " . • • APRIIr112 1994 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )eS' Y.. o+ <'IOARD CITY HALL TOWN HALL `tea►"'y`', I, Kathv Snyder 13115,8.W:;:HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising , a.• %7t Director, or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tua1, i n T mes Stli MAtin :(Town Hali Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.) ? !ti " IY kj, a newspaper of general circu 'N Agi n a Review Non as defined in ORS 193.010 I t = and 193.020; published a gard Update from Meetingi'with Council/Sclio I Board Subcommittee in the o afo esald count $nd' state; h~ . , • .a:,rr , ; y,t~; Citv Council Business Mtq. Business Meeang (Town Mali) (7:30 P.Ivtc) • "';:'y Public Hearing: + a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was ublished in the _ p Rdi(nbu'rsorueiit District Paei(ic Ridge Subdivision' . _ i • ;7nt `4; entire-Issue of said newspaper for ONP. successive and ,.Yard Debris'Ptogram'Implementation y','' ~ 1~ consecutive in the following issues: 't""~{:``1~':{•(? i{'• F''~ ' ~ •''`~"t+ + {F:'%t'ai•% , - , '.1 ' i' ' ' ' :At6 al ContraciRBVlew,Board Meeting .,r• t . ' t jj;' : rr•!`.•~rY t =1. - y V. (N. X _AAr l 7,199 4 ~.Bxeci ;ve.Sesgib`,;~'i~ha`'Ti$uf. ;Ciiy ~ouncii.ma o into txecufivs`~ 4, . Session ' Hoer the:prpvisionsORS 192;660 (1) fdjc), & (h) iQ.di'9 1 ` t+:,pus la r boe. at Q~ls, real property transactions current and endin.~'(1}'''z" p trtn I litioit (sue ~ lt. i.. a. ' "~t~;:;'_~ 'i TT78S0' Publish' 'Ai-1,1994.' Subscribed and sworn efore me toja7th day of April,19 OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Not Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO, 024552 MY COMMISSION t.XPIRES MAY 18,1497 My Commission Expires: AFFIWIT 0 - Revised... • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON a f `f F r 1. PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 730 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 Deao. 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 • COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. W Page No. 1 i3 MARCH 8, 1994 COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING • AGENDA • STUDY MEETING (6:30 p.m.) Annexation Policy Discussion 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 • 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (This agenda item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994, City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the Council review district formation.) • Staff Report - Randy Wooley • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93- COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 6 Page No. I I L 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) -ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 93- 0004 BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL LOCATION: North of SW Bull Mountain Road, east of SW 129th Avenue, and 12765 SW Bull Mountain Road. (WCTM 2S1 9AD, • tax lots 1100 and 1000). A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 (Residential 7 units/acre). The applicants are requesting annexation for the purpose of connecting the parcels to the city sewer line. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 10.3.2,; Community Development Code Chapters and Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B). ZONE: R-7 (Residential, 7 units/acre) The R-7 zoning designation allows single-family detached/attached residential units, duplexes, public support facilities, mobile home parks, and subdivisions, residential treatment homes, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary uses, and accessory structures among other uses. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents (In favor of the annexation.) Opponents (Opposed to the annexation.) Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION LOCATION: Affects residential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. A request to amend Community Development Code Section 18.84.026 (1) to require the lowest floor elevation of one and two family structures, other than manufactured homes, to be one foot above the elevation of a 100-year floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.30.120 (Standards for Legislative Decision-Making). a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents (In favor of the proposed Code amendment.) Opponents (Opposed to the proposed Code amendment.) e. Staff Recommendation f. Council questions/comments g. Close Public Hearing COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 5 I 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR • THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.44) a. Staff Report: Finance Department 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET EXTENSION - ARLINGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT a. Staff Report: Community Development Director (Note: Staff report for this item will be available Thursday, March 3, 1994. Council will receive this report in this week's mailing.) 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SELECTION OF INTERIM MAYOR a. Staff Report: City Administrator 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Tigard Triangle - Update by Consultants 11. 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. 12. ADJOURNMENT • ccaoms.sa COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 8L Page No. I I (-o E C4 'R\4 1 e- q-e i D ;6 Ir f cf- - rf.e A& C/ Res 5- S Council Agenda Item • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U -N C I L MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at 9:05 p.m.); Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION Annexation Policy Discussion: City Administrator Reilly advised staff was presenting information on annexation to help determine what Council desired to achieve through the development of an annexation policy. Associate Planner Acker distributed the "official policy" from the Comprehensive Plan (this information has been placed on file with the Council packet material). Urban services, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, were reviewed briefly. Associate Planner Acker reviewed the areas of annexation which include the following: • Walnut Island • Fern Street/Bull Mountain North • Pockets on the Tualatin River • Bull Mountain South • Bull Mountain West • Metzger For each of these areas, Associate Planner Acker facilitated the Council discussion with regard to assigning importance between annexation and the following elements: • Growth management • Eliminate subsidies • Financial gain • Critical mass • Irregular boundaries • Defensive measure • Eliminate problems • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I _ -Q Page No. i 11,9 Council discussed the term "financial gain" as it would apply to an • annexation. There was discussion on the cost to annex, what dollars would come to Tigard, and whether there would be any "financial gain." A gentleman in the audience indicated he was a developer who had bought some property in the Walnut Island area. He inquired if he should wait to see if the property would be annexed and work with the City of Tigard, or if annexation of this area was a distance away. After discussion, the developer was advised that Council was reviewing their policy and it would be expected that within thirty to sixty days some policy direction would be in place. The developer was advised that if he wished to proceed, it would probably be best to go ahead and work with the County. Mayor Edwards advised that with regard to the policy discussion, the City should annex out to the urban growth boundary. He noted past history, the method of annexation, and the current situation where there are erratic boundaries, islands and pockets of areas within the urban growth boundary which are not currently in the City. Growth management, he advised, should be a consideration for annexing each of the areas not presently in the City but within the urban growth boundary. He advised the total package should be looked at for the long-term benefit of the City. Councilor Schwartz advised he agreed with Mayor Edwards with regard to the growth-management concept as it would apply to annexation. • Councilor Hawley also noted the importance ofmanaging growth and that annexation could be used as a tool for this. Mayor Edwards advised that in addition, the added population from annexation would provide more "governance clout." He noted Tigard would probably be at about 45,000. people if all UGB areas were annexed. Associate Planner Acker noted other growth management tools were available and referred to modification of the UPAA agreement. (.A copy of the UPAA agreement was submitted to Council in the council packet; it is on file with the meeting materials). Mayor Edwards advised he felt it was a different scenario today with regard to annexation than it had been prior to setting the urban growth boundary. The urban growth boundary assumes the area will be urbanized. Those areas, under development and within the urban growth boundary but not within the City, are taking advantage of City services and, thus, are placing an unfair burden on the City taxpayers. He advised development within the urban growth boundary should be controlled. Also, the City should receive the taxes generated in that area. He noted open communication was important when talking to citizens in areas which may be annexed. These people should be shown how much the City would receive in taxes and what it would cost the City to provide services to them. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I c~ Page No. i ► I • Councilor Hunt noted his position has been for "forced annexation." He stated he would consider bringing any islands into the City boundaries. Councilor Hawley agreed the City should initiate proceedings to bring the island areas into the City limits. Councilor Fessler advised she would prefer to specify a future date which would be announced so those people living in the island areas would know when the City plans to bring them into the City limits. City Administrator Reilly advised timing of the annexation would be important, so the services provided and the taxes received would occur together. Council consensus was to stress to staff that as much information as possible about pros, cons, and the financial information should be available to give to the citizens who would be affected. It was noted this would not be a financial windfall for the City, but it would be a good management opportunity. City Administrator Reilly advised staff will outline a more aggressive annexation policy, in skeletal form, for council review. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:10 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 7:25 p.m. Business Meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETING Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Council Fessler announced the Third Annual Fanno Creek Friends of Trees effort had been held recently. She reported 800 volunteers planted 10,000 trees in the Englewood area. City Administrator Reilly announced the Tigard Triangle update by the consultant would be placed on the agenda under Non-Agenda items. City Administrator Reilly advised Item No. 8 was to be deleted from the Agenda; no action or discussion was required by Council at this time. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 81 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1_(5_ Page No.. 1; S 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Louise Shaw presented a hand-out to the City Council (on file with the Council packet). Ms. Shaw noted her concerns with the interpretation of the Oregon Constitution which says that the free speech clause may not be read to ban laws against obscenity, including child pornography. She noted it was important this stance be reviewed in order to preserve the quality of life. She announced that Tigard is in a State which protects obscenity. She noted she was associated with a number of citizens who felt there was a need to change Oregon's Constitution. They are organizing to attempt to effect this change. She requested Council consider taking the following steps: A. Sign a petftion to move this effort along. B. Gather signatures on petitions. C. Come out in support of this effort. • Hank Miggins addressed the Council, advising he was a candidate to the newly-created (by Metro Charter) position of Auditor. He advised he was present to introduce himself to the City Council. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: i 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 8, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Tri-Met Agreement for 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.4 Approve Agreement with Fred Meyer for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection to Relocate Entrance with New Intersection Location and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: Award Construction Contract for the 72nd Avenue/99W Intersection Project to N-B Hatch Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign Councilor Hunt noted that the Council Calendar should be corrected to indicate the Mayor's Reception would be held March 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. City Engineer Wooley clarified that the project in Item 3.4 would be funded by Transportation Impact Fees (TIF). Councilor Hawley questioned Item 3.5, asking how the lowest qualified bidder was determined. She noted there was substantial difference between the lowest bidder and the next bid. City Engineer Wooley explained the firm is reviewed by staff to determine. whether they are registered with the Contractor's Board and whether they have obtained the • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. Page No. I necessary bonding. He advised they also do a check on the • contractor to determine their ability to perform the type of work required. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the Council Calendar corrected as noted. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt, and Schwartz voted "yes"). 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION: (This Agenda Item was withdrawn at the February 22, 1994 City Council meeting. Subsequently, the applicant, Mr. Craig Petrie, requested the Council review district formation). City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report, noting this issue had been before the Council twice before. He advised the staff report is the same as presented on February 22, 1994. City Engineer Wooley reviewed on overhead slides the connection charges, and what was done to reflect Council direction and concerns by the developer. He noted on February 22, 1994 there had been discussion about a surcharge which the City had been collecting on sewer hookups. At this time the City Attorney's office has advised the City should cease collecting the surcharge until further review can be made regarding whether this charge should be collected. There were questions by Council regarding the developer's costs. City Engineer Wooley reviewed how these costs were derived. Testimony: Mr. Craig Petrie expressed concerns with past dealings with the City of Tigard as well as this one now before the City Council. He said that when he bought this property, he also received the historical perspective on the property. He brought up several concerns dealing with the presentation of information by Mr. Maksym, including the declaration that there was a dedication of the right-of-way on 74th Street. Mr. Petrie advised that as a-developer, he made an investment in the property with the hopes of return on capital. Mr. Petrie submitted pictures showing sewage flowing in ditches, to illustrate his point that sewer connections were needed. Mr. Petrie said the Code language was fair and that he should be able to take advantage of the reimbursement district provisions as would-:any other person. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 9jY 10 Exhlbtt No. I Page No. tan Anthony Maksym, 13565 SW 72nd Avenue, responded to Mr. • Petrie's claims that he had not been factual with regard to the 20 foot right-of-way dedication on 74th Street. He asserted this was a proper claim by him that the street had been dedicated for public use by him. He referred to 200 feet of land vacated by Council at the back of Cherry Street, which was under private ownership and now has sewers installed. He noted he had placed some papers on the Council desk with the purpose of clarifying his points of testimony. Mr. Maksym advised he thought the agenda was in error. He said there is no valid application before the Council at this time. Mr. Maksym questioned the calculation of costs for construction of the sewer, and asked whether there was adequate proof of these costs. He noted the City must go out to competitive bidding and that Mr. Petrie was not required to do this. He -noted that if people are to participate in a reimbursement district, then they should also be afforded the right to have the costs be at the lowest possible price. He requested clarification information from the City Engineer, including the number of lots on the Petrie property. He also questioned the City Engineer on the cost verification of the construction. Mr. Maksym urged Council to revise the ordinance with safeguards normally available to citizens. He noted the zone of benefit was only for Mr. Petrie. He noted that if the • ordinance is accepted as prepared, then this would be in error. Mr. Petrie responded to Mr. Maksym's concerns, noting "Mr. Maksym wants something for nothing." Mr. Petrie advised he thought Mr. Maksym was leaving out relevant facts, and advised he withdrew his application on February 22, 1994 because he wanted this issue to be heard before the entire council. He advised he had provided corroborating evidence with regard to sewer costs. Councilor Hawley asked some questions about documentation for engineering costs. She advised that if the City Engineer had gone over the reports and accepted the figures, then she would be accept this information as being satisfactory. Councilor Schwartz asked Legal Counsel to respond to the issue of whether or not this was starting over, or if the application should be accepted. Legal Counsel Ramis responded he had not listened to the tapes, and if it is Council's recollection that Mr. Petrie withdrew the application for decision by full Council., then Council should proceed with a decision on the issue. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 9"10 Exhlblt No. I Page No. I 'al There was a letter submitted in the Council packet from Mr. • Craig Petrie, requesting that City Engineer place the request for creation of a zone of benefit district on the Council Agenda for March 8, 1994. Councilor Hawley concurred that Mr. Petrie advised he wished to have this issue be heard before a full council. After discussion, Council consensus was to review the application. City Administrator Reilly noted the public hearing nature of this issue tonight was premature. Once formed, there will be an opportunity for public hearing. The item for Council to consider tonight is: Does this request meet the threshold test for a reimbursement district? If yes, then Council should review to determine whether or not to approve the formation of _a reimbursement district. Any affected party can appeal this approval, and then a public hearing is held. At that time, Council can uphold, reverse, or modify the reimbursement district formation. Councilor Fessler asked questions about the computation of the per-unit allowance on the costs of a sewer hook-up. Councilor Schwartz advised that when the ordinance was approved about four years ago, he believed the intent was to allow the person who had to install the line to be reimbursed • if other property owners wished to connect. This way, the initial property owner or developer would have the opportunity to receive some reimbursement for the up-front costs. He noted that people would not be charged in advance for connections they are not using. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the costs claimed for reimbursement and how approval of the amount was obtained. Councilor Hunt noted he felt a different set of circumstances was before him if the $3,000 surcharge was no longer collectible. Councilor Hawley noted the Code now allows for a reimbursement district. This opportunity is offered with no means of distinguishing between a developer or private landowner. She noted staff had done a good job; Council should determine whether this application met all criteria. If so, Council should approve formation of the reimbursement district and then the formal public hearing process can be implemented. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. _I.._ Page No. Mayor Edwards agreed with Councilor Hawley. He said that the only way to resolve the concerns raised would be to form the reimbursement district and allow the public hearing process to follow. He supported the resolution in order to "get the process going." Councilor Schwartz agreed that the intent of the reimbursement district had been satisfied and said the district should be formed. He noted the concerns of Mr. Maksym with regard to cost allocations had not been supported. During council discussion, it was noted there were concerns that the public hearing process should commence as soon as possible. Legal Counsel Ramis advised that property owners are asked to trigger the hearings. However, he advised that the City Council could require the hearing. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, that if the resolution is approved, the public hearing process would automatically be triggered and staff would start the process for formal notification. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes"; Councilor Hunt voted "no.") Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to adopt Resolution No. 94-11: RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5. Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council present (4-1). (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Schwartz voted "yes", Councilor Hunt voted "no"). Council meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. (Mayor Edwards left the meeting at this time). Council meeting reconvened a- 9:16 p.m. 5. PUBLIC EBARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNBSATION ZCA 93-0004 BROWN/EQSTIS/BALL a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or challenges: Councilor Fessler advised she had visited the site. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 8 TUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.. Page No. , a C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy • reviewed the staff report. During the staff report, Community Development Director Murphy advised that an island area would be created if this annexation was approved. Councilor Hunt questioned whether the island created could be annexed now. Community Development Director Murphy advised staff would return at a later date with the island annexation proposal. It was noted the Bull Mountain Road portion which was annexed into the area would still remain a responsibility of the County with regard to maintenance. d. Public Testimony: Larry Altendorf, 14472 SW 130th Avenue, Tigard,.Oreg.gA, _ had questions about what the zoning change from R-6 to R- 7 would mean. He asked for a better idea of what would be planned for the area. The decision on the type of development planned for this property was not before Council at this time. It was explained to Mr. Altendorf that the development approval would come before the Planning commission at the time the development was to occur. Mr. Milford Pond, 14335 SW 125th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, questioned whether or not the area that was now an island would automatically be annexed into the City. Council President Schwartz responded the City of Tigard would not automatically annex the area, but would be looking for annexation in the future. e. Staff Recommendation: Approve the resolution and ordinance. f. Councilor Fessler noted the staff report referenced an official letter which had not been received from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Ball. Community Development Director Murphy advised the Balls were notified and had indicated by telephone that they had no objections to the annexation. An official letter is not required. g. Public hearing was closed. h. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Resolution No. 94-12. RESOLUTION NO. 94-12 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUT LINED IN EXHIBIT "A", AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. If. Page No. ►,4d i. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council • present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") j. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to amend Resolution 94-12 to note that in Section 3, the city Council hereby declares its intent to annex the island in the short-term future. The City Council directs that proceedings be started for annexation no later than March 31, 1995. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.##) k. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Ordinance No. 94-04: ORDINANCE NO. 94-04 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONE CHANGES (ZCA 93-0004 - STRAYER-BROWN/EUSTIS/BALL) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes"). • 6. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 93-0007 FLOODPLAIN FLOOR ELEVATION a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Staff Report: Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. Councilor Hawley questioned what was meant by "substantial improvement" in the language of the ordinance. Community Development Director Murphy noted he did not have a definition for "substantial improvement" and this would need review at the staff level. He clarified that houses would not be allowed to be built in the floodplain. d. Public Testimony: None. e. Public hearing was closed. f. Motion by Councilor. Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to approve ordinance No. 94-05. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i • ORDINANCE NO. 94-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN, CODE SECTION 18.84.026 (I). Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: ORDINANCE AMENDING. PROCEDIIRES FOR THE SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE 3.44) Finance Director Lowry reviewed the staff report on this issue. The ordinance, if approved, will allow Council to change the sale terms for sale of property and if a sale is unsuccessful, try a sealed bid again, or list with a broker. Proposed amendments will also simplify the sale of substandard parcels such as those resulting from the Gaarde improvements. Staff noted these changes will greatly improve the sale process and make it more reasonable and flexible. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to • approve ordinance.No~ 94-06. ORDINANCE NO. 94-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.44, SALE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICTS HEREWITH. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes") 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: COST SHARING FORMULA FOR GAARDE STREET E%'1'SNSION - ARTENGTON RIDGE/VISTA POINT This item was deleted from the agenda. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: SEIMCTION-OF INTERIMS MAYOR City Administrator Reilly summaized this issue, noting Council had planned to interview interested applicants. Two applications had been received; however, one candidate had withdrawn his name. Councilor Fessler advised Council needed to move on this process. She said she supported the appointment of the candidate who had submitted an interest letter, Mr. Jack Schwab. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94 10 Exhibit No. I_ Page No. ! (p Councilor Hunt noted he thought the City was fortunate that a • candidate had expressed interest who had experience, could step in and be productive for the City. He added the City had been criticized that this process had not been well publicized, but advised it had been advertised in the Oregonian, Tigard Times, and Cityscape. Council President Schwartz noted Mr. Schwab had served as an appointed Councilor in the past, and appreciated the fact that Mr. Schwab was stepping forward to assist once again. He also noted Mr. Schwab was a past First Citizen for the City of Tigard. Councilor Hawley noted she was ready to "get going" with this appointment. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to appoint Jack Schwab as Interim Mayor to be effective April 1, 1994. Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "yes.") Mr. Jack Schwab, who was present in the audience, advised he would accept the appointment and he said he hopes to "keep the Council running in good shape." 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Tigard Triangle - Update by Consultants Associate Planner John Acker reviewed the Tigard Triangle report. A recent open house devoted to the Triangle planning effort was well attended. During the open house citizens had the opportunity to review and ask questions about different ideas being proposed for the Triangle area. Mr. Ralph Terran from OTAR and Mr. Randy McCord from DRS were present to review the Tigard master plan with City Council. There was an adjustment,-in density from 165 residential units to 900 units in the area. Areas along 68th and 70th (which were not viable for residential use) were recommended to change to office-park use. Land uses as well as the site relationships to each other were reviewed. Mr. McCord reviewed the transportation element in the proposed Triangle plan. An inventory of the system was done and guidelines were developed to plan for transportation which would compliment the land use plans. There was reference to the I-5/Kruse Way connections, as well as addressing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 12 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1 a~ • pedestrian traffic and connectivity between mixed use areas. Associate Planner Acker advised the City has been going through a process of developing the plan. Now, implementation of the plan must begin. He noted that a specific area plan should be adopted; this would be accomplished through a series of proposals for Council consideration. This process of hearings should be completed by the end of the summer. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:22 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. 12. ADJOURNI4EPT: 11:14 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley,'City Rco der r Mayor, ity of Tigard at =0308.94 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1994 - PAGE 13 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No..1.~_ Page No. i a 4r ' 250 ~.C-~-~c~ r1 • !o /714'y CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- L A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer .Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit, A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by'the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 • (b) (2) RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94410 Page 1 Exhibit No. AW . Page No. rc Q - • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This da f , 1994. ~f or - ity of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City Tigard cj/-RW:Pae-~irige.55 • RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. A_ Page No. 30 - Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer--kine-al-s~o- provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. • Financing _ All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of-benefit is the properties shown -as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LYBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. L_ Page No. t Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost, to each lot:- is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development would pay any remaining share of-costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge. on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development • are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 30. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. (9- Page No. !,a amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW;Pac-R1dge.SS • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -J(P- Page No. 3:3 • i i EXHIBIT "B" ! REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET ' 27 0 9 T 60 Q - - TL 35 I v n w 2 1 3 00 ~ 3 a VI NEW SA I A Y o . z N T 0 L 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER 3 L320 44 T 3 02 TL 3300 L 40 m cr > CHERRY STREET Z ;X Z - G Z0 _ L 00 C ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling. Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, • a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 011 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. Johnsh%pae.ben LUBA NO.94.110 Exhibit No. i 10 Page No. /35 Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 ...~........$..~_119. 0 0 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone 'of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ILA . Page No. .~G PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name lid Name O A7 • / S . Address 6 o Address ~'i ol.. E}Wy ~....T(, O Q• 1 3 5 S', l,J~ S W C-lip Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address h:\Iogin\jo\besdfy LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhM t No. 1-2 Page No.= ` AGENDA ITEM # • For Agenda of March 8, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacifid Rid e Subdivision i PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council previously discussed this item at the meetings on February 8th and 22nd. However, during the February. 22nd meeting, the applicant (Mr. Petrie) withdrew the application. Therefore, Council made no decision on the matter. On February 23rd, Mr. Petrie requested that the application be reinstated. (See attached letter.) ettached is a copy of the previous staff report. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/petrie6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I THE PURiE COMPANY : COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 February 23, 1994 D TO: Randy Wooley FEB 2 3 1994 City of Tigard CITY OF TIGAR~ FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Zone of Benefit District # 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you place the above mentioned request for the creation of a zone of benefit district on the council agenda for March 8th, 1994. This zone will not only benefit me but it will benefit the owners of tax lots included in the zone in that without the zone a hookup will pay an additional S 3,000.00 and with the zone a.hookup will pay a figure of ' S2,096.32. The zone of benefit exists in the City code, my request qualifies according to the code, the City has never denied a request for formation of a zone of benefit, and the formation of the • requested zone is fair and equitable. The formation of the zone will also save others within the zone S 903.68 per hook up. You previously have on file the information that I am required by the code to submit and ask that you submit the information that you had prepared for the meeting February 22, 1994. i Sincerely yours, ' Craig A. e e ` • LUBA NO.94-110 Exhibit No. 18 Page No. 1T- 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND. OR 97219 ' Arzzchme.,4 f . 3/.f/4 y AGENDA ITEM # Iq • For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific id e Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT'HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. - - - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a proposed reimbursement district for sanitary sewer to Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the--Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February.10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). 0-he engineer's report has been amended. Exhibit A has been revised to reflect the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised by adding Note 4. Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district. Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of-the option of requesting a hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. I_ 2 _ Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the W ttached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exh[bit No. t 55 Page No. i L4 THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 -Es B'~ - February 9, 1994 M 10 1994 TO: Randy Wooley C IV OF T1GARID City Engineer Tigard Oregon FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I am requesting that for tax lots 300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development of those sites that the hook up fee be S 4,192.64. So in other words if an office building/or development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be S 4,192.64 even if there is only one hook up. On the other band if an existing structure is hooked up and there is still land which is developable the current hook up fee should be S 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of S 2,096.32 would be paid. This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full development of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. Today I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your time, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, _ Craig A. Petrie • 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY PORTLAND. OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-110 FAX: (503) 2440123 Exhibit N0.0 Page No i._ • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels within the zone of benefit, and* the recommended interest rate; and, WHEREAS, the City': Council has determined that formation of a zone of benefit as recommended by the.City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Engineer's report title "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Section 2: A zone of benefit is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown .in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage-rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement'shall-end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by "the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1f_ Page No. 143 • Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1994. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS i RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA No. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. Page No. I Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REImBIIRSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Backaround A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be-formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown .as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to - pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. I It Page No.' Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500), are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure-on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost" to each lot-is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on-February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development-would pay any remaining share of - costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing-costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 30. -On each anniversary of the zone formation • date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94.110 Exhibit No. Page No. amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. 6p-~~ Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/AW:Pae-Aidge.55 LUBA NO. .94.110 Exhibft No. _ Page No. i q EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 W ~9 T 60 a - - L 3 1 d n W . 2 T 00 a NEW SA I A Y 0 z N 1 0 ~ N\\\ NEW ANITARY SEWER 3 L320 44 T 02 L 3300 L 4 m ~C CHERRY STREET m aa Z;w Z P Z0 o• L 00 l-~ ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E. along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of•110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the-northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of-way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 01° 07' 53" E. along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington.county Deed Records; thence N 020 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right. of way. of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 89° 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. • Johnr!:\pae.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. Exhibit D • Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 21096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer -lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. _V~ Page No. 15-0 0 ~OP,i 1994 1?: 18 TSS SW 692 0587 P. 01 C O~ j<Af February 28, 1944 T0: Tigard City Council RE: City Council meeting. March 8th, Reimbursement District. Council Members, Since I will be out of torn for the City Council meeting on March 8th, I decided to write a note regarding some concerns I had after the February 22nd Council meeting. During the discussion between the Council Members on the merits of allowing the developer to form a reimbursement distinct it was pointed out to the Council that if there vas not a reimbursement district the City could collect $3,000 per hookup from the property owners. This is $1,000 more then the homeowners would be required to pay under the reimbursement district and I don't feel this is equitable. Instead of trying to help the homeowners it appears the City is eager to increase our costs if it benefits the City. I vould hope your decision is fair for those concerned, especially the homeowners who it appears will be paying some of the costs. Steve Wilmarth Lot #500 -72 - OR. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. $ Page No. J ~o5 Subm~~-e~. ko Q ger~a Z~-er~ • J 3~8~q~ - S22 ~Ylgina~ ~i ~e - J LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 11 r cEIvI COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal M~g P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 7 811 lCl~14 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 °ITY UE TIGAItI: Legal Notice Advertising -City of Tigard • 0 Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW HA11'Blvd. •Tigard, Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as. I,Rathm gnyAt-r being first duly sworn, depose and say .that 1 am the Adve(tisin Director. or his principal clerk, of theTigard-Tualatin Mmes a newspaper of general circuulIation defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at T1gar ? in the aforesaid county and state; That the City Council Business Mtg. 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: March 3.1994 Subscribed and sworn to a ore me this3rd day of March, 19 OFFVAL SEAL Al enf:2 ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P lic for Oregon COMMISS;01N NO. 024552 MY COMMISStON EXPIRES MAY 18.1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT = LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 1G Page No. L i _ 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 calling 639-4171. . , CITY-COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING MARCH 8,1994 TIGARD CITY HALL =TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD,'TIGARD, OREGON StudyMeeting (Town Hall Conference Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Annexation Pblicy~Discussion Business Meetingg (Townn Hall) (7:30 P.M.) • Council Consideration: , : • . . - Formation of•a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge .5 'SubdrvrsioW; > ? a L' thdrawri:at Felirirary 22, 1994, Council meeting; applicant 'F' ;.`has , nested the Council review district formation on the ads. <s r Mai+c"h '1994agenda) Consider ordinance amending municipal code provisions _ concerning the said of surplus real property. Public Hearings:, ! Annexation Hearing - ZCA 93-0004 Brown/Eustis/Ball. Location: North-of S.W. Bull Mountain Road; east of S.W. 129th Avenue, and 12765 S_W: Bull Mountain Road. A request to annex two parcels consisting of approximately 11.90 and 2.04 acres to the City_.ofTigard and to. change the ione from Washington County R-t(Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-7 . (Residential Tunits✓acre.) Zone Ordinance Amendment - ZCA-93-0007 Floodplain Floor Elevation = affectrresidential properties located within or adjacent to the floodplain. This request, if approved, would require the. lowest floor elevation of one and two fa mily structures (other-. than manufactured homes) to be one foot above the elevation.of a 100-year floodplain. Local Coritract Review Board Meeting Executive,Session: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive -Session underthe-provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. M811- Publish March 3.1994. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ~l Page No. I~ Revised 2/17/94 • CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be • present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 730 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 Deao. 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 • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a.o Page No. 1 ~5 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 22, 1994 AGENDA (PLEASE NOTE: ALL AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE 2/15/94 MEETING HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING AGENDA) • STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.) 5:30 - 6 p.m. - METRO TRANSFER TAX REVIEW AND UPDATE • Representatives from Metro 6 - 7:30 p.m. - YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM DESIGN • Risk Manager 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Collson - Resolution No. 94- 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94- 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Water Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94- COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110" Exhibit No. Q0 Page No. IS 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT • DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (This agenda item is continued from the February 8, 1994, City Council meeting.) a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94- 5. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony • Proponents • Opponents • Rebuttal e. Council Questions/Comments f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94%- 6. ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION • Staff Update: Community Development Director 7. DISCUSSION - INTERIM MAYOR SELECTION PROCEDURES • Staff Update: City Administrator 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 maom.s4 • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhiibit No. m-ID Page No. I q - ~b e4 - 7'f~, ~l PLjCs - Council Agenda Item 3~~ • T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem. Judy Fessler. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Pro Tem. Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, and Paul Hunt. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner; Loreen Edin, Management Analyst; Bill Monahan, Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • METRO TRANSFER TAX REVIEW AND UPDATE Metro representatives Craig Prosser and Rob Monroe were present to review this agenda item with Council. Mr. Prosser advised that approval of the Metro Charter changed the priorities of operation for Metro. He said the that the charter stipulates that Metro must:. 1) Adopt a future vision for the region. 2) Establish a regional framework which addresses nine areas (listed on-Page 2 of the Charter). (Note: A copy of the Charter has been filed with the Council packet materials.) Mr. Prosser reported that the Charter did not give a source of funding, but prescribed the mechanics to develop financing. He reviewed the financing options available to Metro. Some taxes must be referred to the voters; some can be adopted by Metro Council (but can be referred to the voters). The current Metro tax structure was described. The Metro Tax Study Committee must review Metro-imposed taxes prior to implementation;-= (See packet for a copy of the "Metro Tax Study Committee -..Report-and Recommendations to the Metro Council - November 15,.1993,.-):- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No.1 q The Tax Study Committee has developed a recommendation; two • components of the recommendation include a construction excise tax for new construction and a real estate transfer tax. There appears to be more support for the construction excise tax than the real estate transfer tax. It was noted that the real estate transfer tax is now a funding source for other entities. The Tax Committee hearing process was described (see pages 8 and 9 of the Committee report.) Discussion followed on ramifications of different types of taxes, excise fee increases, voluntary dues (for which some cities cannot pay), etc. Mr. Monroe advised that planning must be done for the region to protect livability. Millions of Federal dollars will be lost if the required planning is not done. Mr. Monroe noted that the 2040 Plan should be in place by early Fall 1994. There was discussion of the review of the Urban Growth Boundary and the pressure to expand Mr. Monroe informed Council that Metro would be asking for continued.input as time goes by. • YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM • Management Analyst Loreen Edin reviewed her February 2, 1994, memorandum to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (A copy of this memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) This memo highlighted areas of three attached technical memos: Technical Memo 1 - History of Yard Debris requirements by EQC and EDQ. The City is required to offer yard debris collection at curbside as a recyclable no'less than monthly. Technical Memo 2 - Assesses the yard debris program alternatives. Technical Memo 3 - Details a model to assess costs of program options. Ms. Edin reviewed the process timeline (see Page 2 of above- mentioned memorandum.) Rich McConaghy of Harding Lawson Associates reviewed the following overhead frames with City Council. (A copy of this material is on file with the Council packet.): • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.al Page No. 151' . > List of Study Session Objectives Review Yard Debris Program Background • Summarize Rey Collection Alternatives • Review Supplemental (Non-Collection) Alternatives • Receive Council Direction/Input on Alternatives/Options > Yard Debris Diversion Goals > Program Requirements > List of Rejected Options > Primary Alternatives > Comparative Benefits > Relative Monthly Cost > Supplemental Alternatives There was Council discussion on the program in general, how possibly to structure fees, and a discussion of the alternatives. Also discussed was the type of equipment needed by the haulers. t • Ms. Edin advised that all the CIT's would receive information and an opportunity to comment on the yard debris program. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Summerfield Civic Association also receive the program information. Council discussed the program options.including frequency of pickup, what is required now (monthly pickup) and the possibility of a weekly pickup requirement some time in the future. Council members expressed interest in hearing what the reaction is from the CIT's and Summerfield Association. Ms. Edin advised she will communicate comments received from these groups back to the Council. Council meeting recessed - 7:40 p.m. Council meeting reconvened - 7:50 p.m. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 ExdUbft No. Page No. I (00 • BUSINESS MEETING 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to approve the following consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve Appointment to the Planning Commission - Michael Collson - Resolution No. 94-07 3.2 Authorize $2,500 Contribution from the Water Fund to the League of Oregon Cities to Hire a Consultant to Develop a Joint Application for a Municipal Water Reservation on the Willamette River 3.3 Authorize Extinguishment of Easements within the Landau Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-08 3.4 Authorize Cancellation of the City's Interest in a Water Right - Marion Estates Subdivision - Resolution No. 94-09 Motion was-approved by a unanimous vote of Council present; 3-0. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 4. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A RE13 BURSWUNT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION Mayor Pro Tem noted the Council had the prerogative of addressing this issue or turning it. down at this time. Sher. referred to questions raised with regard to methodology for a reimbursement district.- City Administrator Reilly advised the first question to resolve is whether or not the Council wants to have a reimbursement district formed under this particular set of circumstances. If yes, then-the Council may want to take more comment and discuss the apportionment of the costs. There has been interest expressed in reviewing the reimbursement district ordinance, including the philosophy behind it as well as procedural matters. Councilor Hunt advised he, at present, was leaning toward voting•to refuse the reimbursement district request. He noted concerns with individual rights being subjugated, especially in this instance. Developers and builders appear to receive preference many times over individual citizens. Councilor Hunt said he is not in favor of a developer building a subdivision and then requesting individuals to pay for.the sewer. He said there are subdivisions being developed and the developers are not asking for reimbursement district formation. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. 1(= • Councilor Hunt said the reimbursement district provisions are not well defined in the Code. He added, however, that he is not against the concept entirely. Councilor Hawley said the reimbursement district concept was a good economic development policy. The reimbursement district ordinance allows a developer to spread his cost and move his product. She said, perhaps, the Code provisions do need reworking. Councilor Hawley supported a review of this application at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler recalled an earlier reimbursement district request which had benefitted a smaller landowner. She said the way she envisions a reimbursement district is that it would be for smaller landowners, who have to hook up to the sewer because of a failed septic tank or because they want to develop one part of their land. She questioned whether the same parameters should apply to smaller landowners and a development proj ect ( i . e. , above three or f our parcels) . Councilor Hawley said that she did not think this was really "relief," but rather, a financing process. Legal Counsel Monahan said the City would be providing a collection mechanism. • Councilor Hawley said that whether the reimbursement is collected from the developer or individual people and disburse it back to the developer, it is simply a difference in the process the paperwork and the timing. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler advised she had methodology concerns, especially in this instance. She said would like review of criteria and discussion of what the intent was of the reimbursement district provisions of the Code. City Administrator Reilly noted that this proposal must be reviewed on the basis of the current ordinance. Once a decision has been made on this issue, the ordinance may be reformatted. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Mr. Reilly advised that Legal Counsel Coleman had advised this application was consistent with the ordinance. It is Council's discretion whether to authorize this reimbursement district. Legal Counsel Monahan agreed the formation of the reimbursement district was at the discretion of City Council. City Administrator clarified that the first question to be determined by Council. was whether this was a legitimate reimbursement district before deciding how the costs should be apportioned. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. W10 Exhibit No. A Page No. I to c-,, • Motion was offered by Councilor Hunt to disapprove formation of a reimbursement district as requested. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler called for a second. Councilor Hawley noted no discussion or testimony had been heard on this issue. After brief discussion on process, Legal Council Monahan advised that since Council requested new information from staff at the last meeting that reaction to this information should be heard from the public. Councilor Hunt withdrew his motion. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report. At the last meeting, Council determined that the connection charges should be based on the number of units and not the size of the lot. A letter from Mr. Petrie was received (filed in the Council packet) concerning how to determine commercial development with regard to the number of unit connections. Staff prepared language which should reflect the Council's direction and still reacts to Mr. Petrie's concerns. The language provides that if a single family dwelling connects, it would pay for one unit. Later, if the lot is subdivided and another house is connected, they would pay for the second unit. If a lot is zoned commercial and has a house on it requesting connection, then it would pay for a single unit; however, if this house is torn down and the lot was developed for commercial use, then it would pay for the full number of units assigned to the lot. Over the term of the. reimbursement district, no lot would pay for more than two units. (The above changes were made by adding Note 4 to Exhibit D and also has been reflected in the Engineer's Report.) Councilor Hunt asked how much of an audit is done to arrive at the total number of dollars eligible for reimbursement. City Engineer responded that, in all cases, the applicant is asked to show some evidence of what their costs actually were. Usually, a billing is submitted from their contractor or a copy-of their contract.:,. In this case, Mr. Petrie submitted a letter from his contractor saying how-much the Petrie Company was charged for the sewer portion of the development. Also there were engineering costs-and fees charged by the City. Staff reviews and'asks for evidence that these expenses were actually paid. Also,-staff reviews to determine whether the costs appear to be reasonable;-that is, what would be expected for this type of development: In.-this case, staff reviewed the costs and made some-changes downward because it appeared there were some items included (side sewer stub outs for the new subdivision) which should be removed. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES'- FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhfbft No..ZI _ Page No. h5 3 Mayor Pro Tem Fessler asked about the cost for a current sewer . hookup for property not in a reimbursement district. City Engineer advised there are sewer connection charges established by Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) which must be paid whether or not the property is in a reimbursement district. A connection charge for a single family dwelling is $2,200 plus a $35 inspection fee (total = $2,235). Currently, in Tigard if the property has not participated in building the sewer, they are also subject to a surcharge of $3',000 per connection. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification: If part of the reimbursement district, then a property owner would not have to pay $3,000? City Engineer Wooley responded yes, but cautioned there has been some question raised about the current ordinances (regarding the surcharge). This question is in the attorney's office and is under review to determine if in compliance with USA agreements. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler asked if there was any difference in charges between single family and commercial. City Engineer advised that for multi-family, the charge is still $2,200 per unit. Fees for commercial is based on the number and type of plumbing fixtures. Councilor Hunt said the $3,000 surcharge makes a difference, as far as he is concerned, about this reimbursement district formation. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt,,- Legal Counsel Monahan advised that participating in the reimbursement district would be evidence in the property's participation in the sewer construction and the surcharge would not be assessed. Mayor Pro Tem Fessler questioned the difference in the commercial and residential connection charges. City Engineer advised that the USA connection charge is based on the plumbing fixtures; however, the reimbursement district charge is a separate calculation. Councilor Hunt asked for further' clarification on the surcharge. City Engineer advised that the surcharge of $3,000 is charged per connection. Councilor Hunt noted that it would be less expensive for property owners to participate in the • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94410 Exhibit No. 1 Page No. reimbursement district. City Engineer said that it would be • less expensive assuming that the surcharge "stays on the books." In response to a request for clarification from Councilor Hawley, City Engineer advised that USA charges $2,200, which is independent of the reimbursement district charge. - The $3,000 is a surcharge, collected by the City (into the sewer fund) to those persons who did not participate in extending the sewer. Discussion followed on the City sewer fund, equity issues of those who did and did not participate and the role of the reimbursement district. Mr. Craig Petrie said: (transcription of tape follows for Mr. Petrie's comments) "I'm going to ask to withdraw this right now...because of philosophical differences. Councilor Hunt, I heard you say that you had a problem with reimbursement the whole issue. Then, when it became money ...you flopped the other way. I don't think I'm getting a fair shake here, a fair hearing. I think before we started here, at least two out of three voiced what your concerns were. I point out, Mayor, that the lady who developed her property developed her property... You know, developers you folks always think... (we've) just got a pot full money sitting somewhere. That's not the case. So, I am asking to withdraw this another meeting, hopefully when there's a lot more Councilors here. I don't feel like I'm getting a'fair shake the decisions were already made like I said, philosophical, Councilor Hunt the issue of reimbursement, whether it is fair or not...can develop something, and I have a real hard time with that. -I am asking to withdraw this." Legal Counsel advised the council was bound to accept the withdrawal. Tony Maksym, resident of Tigard, said that if Council voted to deny this request that this.would provide the opportunity to put protection in a- new- ordinance.- Mr. Petrie, advised Mr. Maksym, would then have to apply under the new ordinance. He said there is a need for safeguards.in the ordinance and urged that work begin on this issue. City Administrator Reilly advised that staff will be coming back to the Council for review of this ordinance. The review would focus on improvements. to-:the process. Also, the philosophical purposes of the ordinance should also be worked through.:. The reimbursement district concept is a useful tool for a variety of reasons. - This will be set on a future Council work session agenda. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. g;0 Page No. l b5 5. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDCI • METHODOLOGY a. Public hearing was opened. b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report: Associate Planner Acker reviewed the staff report which is on file in the Council packet. The methodology is unchanged from the methodology which was used by the Tigard Water District. There was brief discussion. City Administrator Reilly advised further analysis of the SDC would be needed after the Capital Improvement Program is updated. d. Public Testimony - None. f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, STATING THE METHODOLOGY AND SETTING THE AMOUNT FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICES. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 94-10. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council present. (Mayor Pro Tem Fessler and Councilors Hawley and Hunt voted "yes.") 6. ANNEXATION POLICY REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Community Development Director Ed Murphy and Associate Planner John Acker reviewed this agenda item. Staff referred to a current annexation map as well as a memorandum dated February 7, 1994, from Ed Murphy, Community Development Director to Pat Reilly, City Administrator. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) Senate Bill 122 requires urban services agreements to be developed for the areas within urban growth boundaries. These agreements can then be used to develop an annexation plan. Councilor Hunt suggested further review of the annexation policy be deferred until January 1995 after Council elections are completed. After brief discussion, there were no objections raised to continuing the annexation policy discussion. It was noted that growth was continuing in areas (such as Bull Mountain) -and to defer action would mean that any problems identified would become more critical. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbit No. I__ Page No._ City staff advised that annexation is only one method to • attain the goal of growth management. Management could be achieved through amendment of the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County by dealing with urban services planning in that document. City Administrator Reilly suggested that a goal statement with regard to the UPAA be developed prior to approaching the County for amendment. Councilor Fessler requested a copy of the UPAA for review. This item will be on the March 8, 1994, Council agenda for further discussion. 7. DISCUSSION - INTERIM MAYOR SELECTION PROCEDURES City Administrator advised that two letters of interest were received Mr. Michael Brewin and Mr. Jack Schwab asked that they be considered for the Interim Mayor appointment. After discussion by Council with the City Administrator about process, Council consensus was for all Council members to develop two questions to ask the interim candidates. The candidates would be asked to give a two to three minute statement at the beginning of the interview process outlining why they would like to serve as interim Mayor. The interviews will be conducted at a special Council meeting, March 1, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.; the meeting will be called to order at 7:00 p.m. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • City Administrator Reilly announced that the joint School Board/Council meeting has been rescheduled to March 16, 1994 at 6 p.m. • City Administrator Reilly advised that Westwood Corporation has asked for approval to construct another "pad" next to the Rey.Bank at the Tigard Towne Square site. There has been an issue of noise and buffering efforts between this commercial- site and the adjacent mobile home park. Efforts will be made to get cooperation from the developer to mitigate the residents' concerns. Councilor Hunt noted pedestrian access problems at this site. For example, the sidewalk in front of Albertson's cannot be used because .there is inventory for sale on the sidewalk. Staff. will-review the code to determine if something can be done.- CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 10 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. V o-7 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into • Executive Session at 9:35 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. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. Attest: datherine Wheatley, City ecorder A Meyer, Ci of igard 61 Date : .3~~ ~4~ c=02U.94 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 22, 1994 - PAGE 11 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.Q Page No. I K AGENDA ITEM # • For Agenda of February 22, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN 0 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached res.olution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 8th the Council heard citizen comments on a proposed reimbursement district for sanitary. sewer to- Pacific Ridge Subdivision. After considerable discussion, the Council determined that revisions should be made to the proposed method of calculating the connection charge. On February 10th a letter was received from Craig Petrie (copy attached). *he engineer's report has been amended.. Exhibit A has been revised to reflect the February 8th Council discussion. Exhibit D has been revised.by adding Note 4. Staff believes that Note 4 satisfies the general intent voiced by the Council on February 8th. At the same time, staff believes that Note 4 responds to the concerns raised in the letter from Mr. Petrie. Note 4 provides that the connection-charge for a house would be at the rate of one unit on any of the lots. If a second house on the same lot is later connected, the connection charge for the second house would be one unit. If a property is re-developed as commercial property, the connection charge would be two units. The total connection charges for any tax lot, over the life of the reimbursement district, would never exceed two units. Although Council has heard comments from citizens, there has been no formal public hearing. TMC 13.08 provides that affected property owners may request a public hearing, if the request is made within 60 days after formation of the district. Therefore, the opportunity for a public hearing will remain even if Council approves the resolution forming the reimbursement district. In accordance with TMC 13.08, each affected property owner will be mailed a copy of the resolution and advised of the option of requesting a hearing. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Of the Council finds that the revised Exhibit D accomplishes the changes that TUBA No. 94-110 Extdbit No. a Page No. d Council discussed on February 8th, then it is appropriate to approve the OR ttached resolution. If Council determines that Exhibit D needs further revisions, the report should again be returned to staff for more work. FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by the Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer line. rw/petrie3 • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. as Page No ' I o THE PETRIE COMPANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 • D February 9, 1994 FEB 1994 TO: Randy Wooley CITY OF TIGARD City Engineer Tigard Oregon FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Modification to Sewer Reimbursement District Dear Randy, The following modification is requested for the Reimbursement District # 5. From questions Mr. Maksym asked you last nightat the City Council meeting, specifically, could he pay one of the two hook up fees, run a sewer line onto his property and then run laterals off of that one line and get by with only paying the one fee it is very clear his intent is to find a way to circumvent paying his fair share. I am requesting that for tax lots 300, 400, and 500 which are the lots within the reimbursement district which are zoned for commercial office use that upon full development of those sites that the hook up fee be S 4,192.64. So in other words if an office building/or development is proposed for the whole site (full development of the site) then the fee should be S 4,192.64 even if there is only one hook up. On the other hand if an existing structure is hooked up and there is still land which is developable the current hook up fee should be S 2,096.32 and upon full development of the site the remaining fee of S 2,096.32 would be paid. This would not apply to tax lot 3501 which is in the single family R 3.5 zone. In order to achieve full development of that site it would have to be subdivided; being subdivided full development would require the two sewer hook up fees allocated to that site being paid. The above request is fair and equitable by using full development of the site as the standard for the office zoned property. By doing this we avoid a situation where the residential property is fully developed and they have paid their full share and the commercial property is fully developed and have only paid one half of their share. Today I am mailing this to the addresses on the tax rolls for tax lots 300, 400, and 500. Thank you for your time, please call with any questions. Sincerely yours, Craig A. Petrie 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY PORTLAND, OR 97219 CUBA NO. 94-110 FAX: (503) 244-0123 Exhibit No. :;a Page No. ! T CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been -paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the'-parcels within the.'zone-of benefit; and the recommended interest:rate; an WHEREAS,;; the__City`. Council' has 'determined that Yformation =of.:a.-zone: of a benefitas : recommended : by: the City - Engineer ' is : appropriate . - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section :1: The ;City,:;. Engineer) s report;'title Sanitary::: Sewer Reimbursement District .No 5attached hereto as Exhibit A;`is hereby..aPProved. Section,2: A zone of. benefit is hereby established in accordance - with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and.described on Exhibit C. The' zone of benefit shall be. known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement-connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the.zone.of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is February 22, 1994. The right of reimbursement shall end on February 22, 2004, unless extended by-the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020' (b) (2) . SOLUTION NO. 94- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibft No. a;L Page No. i a. Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1994. Mayor City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.SS • RESOLUTION NO. 94- Page 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ;Z);~~ - Page No. • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain-adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost • The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.--:) 21 Page No. 114 Reimbursement Rate • West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain-11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable basis for calculating the connection, charge, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. At a meeting on February 8, 1994, the City Council heard from property owners within the proposed district and discussed the options for determining the connection charge. Based on those discussions, the Council determined that the larger lots should not be charged their full share of costs until such time as-they are fully developed. Although some of the lots have the potential for more development, current development consists of one residential structure on each lot. Therefore, Exhibit D provides that connection of one residential structure would be charged for only one unit of cost. Subsequent development would pay any remaining share of costs. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted February 11, 1994. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/RW:Pac-RSdge.SS • • LUBA NO. 94-110: Exhibit No.. i Page No. c - ` - EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 ' 9 T 60 a fL 3 1 d h z T 00 V1 NEW SA I A Y a z N n T 0 NEW SANITARY SEINER 3 f/l \~~L 2 0 44 T 0\ L 33 0 4 C CHERRY STREET - - - - to z o z o II. .00 o• ROILING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER { EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 010 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of'150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 461 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No: 2; thence S 01° 071. 53" W, along said west right of way,.a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48'00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255.; thence N 880 40' 15" W, along the north'*line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 89° 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 02° 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 89° 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 89° 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. • Johns%pae.ben LUBA N4.94-110 Exhibit No. a Page No. Exhibit D • Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units** Charge** 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 41192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 41192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have • been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in-accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties. which are connected directly to-the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone -of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. **Note 4: For residential structures, the connection charge shall be at the rate of one unit for each residential structure connected to the public sewer. For commercial development, the connection charge shall be for the number of units shown in the table above. The charge per unit is $2,096.32. Over the life of the reimbursement district, the total charge to any tax lot shall not exceed the number of units shown in the table above. • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. *ON eBed 'oN 31giUx3 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal OLL•t6 'ON dam P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 ?TT 7797 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 C Legal Notice Advertising `Z 1994 n. Full B.2 Thq OWi g tnrkdng highlights are published fory6u agdndis•'innyylid obtained from the City. Recorder; t 1 S ~N, Hall • • ❑ Tearsheet Notice y of -gGARp Boulevard. .TIgard, Oregon Q7223j or.by. caliing City of Tigard •t1 '~.A. c ti cnT 01 NCIL;BUS SS iVl g 13125 SW Hall Blvd Y,±~g~ • • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit BR Ti i 4 gand Oregon 97223 '~IaMir) C I L 22 1994' cf ! • • 13125 S.W. . V s;-TI Study Meeting ('Ibwn,N" tonferg•d R tFi) r • Update tpt.Coultc..il - 'Cure t Bvents l :C ev~► t AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Business Meedng Ch u Hah)'(7:30 STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF WASHINGTON,) ouncil Consideradon: Kathy Snyder -'Formhtion of•a Reimbursem@nt District fo ..ac idge being first duly sworn, depose and any that I rt~the Ad ertisi . Director, or his principal clerk, of th:y tharc-TUala in Imes Subdivision ?;;.s (Continued from the.February 8, 1994, Council''rh4ting)j:. a newspaper of general circulatlon as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the Public Hearings: airesaid ounty $nd t te; thhat the C~ity Council q.February 22 Consider adoption of a'.Systems Duvelopfttent Charge Methodology for the Water System: a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the Local Contract Review Board Meeting r~" :.r `i~+'i entire Issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and r consecutive in the following issues: Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go. into )executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)'.~d)iI(e,); At (h) to February 17,1994 .'discuss, labor relations, real property transactions. current'anil pending lidgation issues.•r. ~ TT77~7-Publish February 17, 1994• •~ii~: Subscribed and sworn to be me thial7th day of Februa y 4 OFFICIAL SEAL. ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 024552 Notary PutKj for regon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16,1997 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ ~ i i Council Agenda Item -3•~ T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 • Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. • Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • Gana Activity Update by Police Chief Goodpaster - About two weeks ago, there was a gang-related shooting in Tualatin. Rival gang members live in Tigard; there is concern that there may be retaliation. The Tigard Police Department is implementing several strategies to diffuse the situation. Next week, the Police Department, next week, will be filming a segment in cooperation with Tualatin Valley Community Access on gang awareness. Playback will occur primarily on Channel 9 and will be aired several times. As soon as scheduling information for playback is known, efforts will be made to let people know. • Transportation System Study - Community Development Director Murphy presented two pages of information on the Transportation System Study. (This information has been filed with the meeting packet material.) The City of Tigard will seek a consultant to evaluate Tigard's existing and proposed street system as input to a redrafting of the transportation plan. The City is also seeking funding to improve its transportation system connectivity through two different projects. There were no Council objections raised; staff will continue to pursue the Transportation Study and seek grant funds. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the Tigard Greenway Path System where it is already constructed and those areas which are high priority. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. D4 Page No. I 'Z 1 • Tigard Water Department - City Administrator Reilly advised the Water employees recently voted on whether to join the union (OPEU). The employees voted not to join. • Washington County Jail Levy - City Administrator advised the jail levy is now scheduled for the September ballot. • Agenda Review Item 3.6: Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension. After brief discussion, Councilor Fessler advised she would request this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda to give any audience members an opportunity to comment on this issue. Legal Counsel Coleman advised that ordinance language changes concerning the formation -of reimbursement districts are planned for submittal to the Council during March. Item 3 7a Authorize Request for Bids Improvements to Maintenance Services Yard. In response to questions from Council, City Administrator advised he did not think the City would be leaving the current Maintenance Services location in the near future. There are no dollars available for relocation and the City should fix up the property. BUSINESS MEETING 1. BUSINESS 14EETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call - All Council was present. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: Councilor Hawley reported on a recent WCCCA budget committee meeting. After February 28, more information will be available; however, preliminary figures indicate that fees.will be going up 30%. Councilor Fessler announced "Christmas in April" a charitable home weatherizing endeavor sponsored by the Home Depot. Volunteers are being sought; for more information, call 693-4760. Councilor Schwartz reported that the Washington County Transportation Committee will be reviewing process and potential projects for a MSTIP III road improvement effort (effective 1996, if approved by voters). Funds for MSTIP II will run out in 1994. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -4'4 Page No. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA • Larry Westerman, 13665 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 offered suggestions to preclude notification problems (reference recent Albertson's land use issue.) Mr. Westerman suggested that every address of record within the 250-foot notification area be used to supplement the required notification of property owners (per Washington County records) within that same area. In addition, he suggested that a property owner be required, upon sale of the property, to disclose any pending public notifications. Mayor Edwards requested that staff look into Mr. Westerman's suggestions. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt to approve'the following Consent Agenda items with Item 3.6 removed for separate discussion: 3.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: January.ll, 18 and 25, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded (Cook Park)- Res.No. 94-03 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded for a Wetlands Attributes Assessment and Planning Program - Resolution No. 94704 3.5 Approve Encroachment Agreement for a Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lola Lane - Resolution No. 94-05 3.6 Discussed separately see below. 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: a. Authorize Request for Bids-Improvements to Maintenance Svcs. Yard b. Approve the Purchase of Five Police Vehicles Through the City of Portland Bid Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 3.6 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension City Engineer Wooley reviewed Item 3.6. There was no one in the audience to testify on this issue. If approved, affected individuals are notified and they have 60 days to petition for a hearing to reconsider reimbursement district formation. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No.~ Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 94-06: RESOLUTION NO. 94-06 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council present. 4. VACATION OF A PORTION OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OAKS LANE. The request was initiated by the City of Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf of Hal Keever of W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was scheduled for January 25, 1994 at which time the hearing was rescheduled to February 8, 1994. a. Public hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges. C. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. . d:------Public Testimony Proponents • Mr. Jack Frank, 14040 221st Avenue, Woodinville, Washington advised he was available to answer questions on the requested vacation of right of way. • Mary Croom, 11720 S.W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223 • advised she was in favor of the vacation request noting she was anxious to have this issue resolved. • Helen Ausmann, 11965 S. W. 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon advised she was in favor of'the vacation request. • Mayor Edwards read a letter submitted by Lou W. Christen (on file with the Council packet material). Mr. Christen asked for assurances that the property description would be specific that the 20-foot road- way right of way (referred to as the "unnamed 20-foot wide right-of-way east of 79th Avenue") is a definite part of 5 lots of Palmer Acres. After consulting with staff, Mayor Edwards advised that the property description would be prepared in accordance with Mr. Christen's request. e. Staff recommendation was for approval of the proposed vacation as requested. f. Public hearing was-closed. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. g. ORDINANCE NO. 94-02 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF 1) A PORTION OF SW 79TH AVENUE, BEGINNING WITH THE INTERSECTION OF SW 79TH AVENUE AND SW PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND CONTINUING TO THE SOUTHEAST TERMINUS OF SW 79TH AVENUE, 2) THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OAKS LANE RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12 PAGE 18, WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDS, AND 3) AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF SW 79TH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve Ordinance No. 94-02. The motion was approved by a majority vote, 4-0-1. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Schwartz voted yes; Councilor Fessler abstained.) Councilor Fessler advised she was abstaining from voting as a "protest vote" and referenced previous issues pertaining to the right of way. *'5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Note: Testimony sign-in sheets were available for those persons wishing to comment on this agenda item.) a. City Engineer Wooley'summarized the staff report which is on file with the Council packet material. • b. Public Comment - Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon asked for an opportunity to respond to public comments. - Anthony Maksym, 13565 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Maksym thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Mr. Maksym outlined several concerns with the formation of the reimbursement district. Among these concerns, he advised that he received the notification letter several days after the date appearing on the letter from Mr. Petrie advising of the sewer reimbursement request. (A copy of the letter is on file with the Council packet material.) The original date for Council consideration of this item was set for December 14, 1993. Subsequently, the reimbursement district formation request was set over to tonight's meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 5 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. ;0 Page No. I- • Mr. Maksym questioned the language of the reimbursement district formation and its application in this instance. There was question over the methodology for the cost of the improvements and the per unit charge for the different tax lots. Mr. Maksym presented a petition with the signature of five residents which requested the Tigard City Council reject the formation of the proposed Pacific Ridge sewer reimbursement district. The petition cited that the undersigned property owners had contributed over the years land, money and other good valuable consideration to the area where the sewer reimbursement district is proposed. The dollar value of those contributions were alleged to be far more than what the developer had invested in his sewer line. (The petition is on file with the Council packet material.) Mr. Maksym discussed in more detail what he believed his individual contribution has been to. the_auerall_.,_ improvements to the surrounding area over the years. Mr. Maksym referred to outstanding nonremonstrances along 72nd Avenue and advised that the City should call in these nonremonstrances. He noted the need for a traffic light at Fir Street. - M.H.- Lefty Monsen, 13515 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon. Mr. Monsen advised that he was the owner of Tax Lot 300. He urged the Council to make a decision in a fair manner. He said it appeared to him that more research was needed before the reimbursement was formed. Elizabeth Lauck, 7472 S.W. Fir Street, Tigard, Oregon. Ms. Lauck advised that Mr. Maksym's arguments were valid. She said the previous contributions toward improvements of the area should be taken into account when considering the reimbursement district. She advised that she was not totally opposed the reimbursement district, but had some concerns as to the way it was now drafted. Ms. Lauck said that her lot, Tax Lot 3501, was assigned 2 units. She noted that this would be unfair because. she would be required to pay for two units even if she only made one sewer connection. Ms. Lauck also advised that she had not been notified by Mr. Petrie prior to-the previous council meeting. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 6 0 LUBA NO. Tlb Ex hibit NoPage No. - Mr. Craig Petrie responded that he had had many conversations regarding the sewer issue with Ms. Lauck. In addition, Mr. Petrie referred to testimony by Mr. Maksym with regard to issues brought before the Planning Commission. Mr. Petrie advised this issue was not heard by the Planning Commission but was heard before the hearings officer. Mr. Petrie said that if the residents do not want to hook up to the sewer line, then they would not be obligated to pay for anything. He described a "reasonableness test" which should be applied to this request and he asked that the reimbursement district be approved. C. Councilor Schwartz asked for clarification of the number units Mr. Petrie would be building. Mr. Petrie advised that it was an 11-lot subdivision. one lot includes a pre-existing house and another structure....--Leven houses, in total, would be within Mr. Petrie's proposed subdivision. Councilor Fessler asked Mr. Petrie how long Mr. Petrie had owned the property. Mr. Petrie responded that he purchased the property in the fall of 1993 with the intention of developing the property. Mayor Edwards noted that the reimbursement district question before the Council should be separated from several other issues brought up during the public comment. Prior street improvements and other issues did have a bearing on this proposal. In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, City Engineer Wooley clarified that approximately half of the cost of the sewer installation could be recovered by the developer if all other connections were made. The proposed subdivision would have 11 connections; there are 11 additional connections coming from the other adjacent 6 lots. In response to Councilor Hunt's question on why some properties were shown to be liable for 2 hook ups if they chose to participate, City Engineer Wooley explained the historical philosophy behind the calculation. Some lots are larger and could potentially have more than one sewer connection. At the time one of the larger lots develop and a hook-up is made, the property owner would pay for all hook-ups (i.e., two units). Later, if a second hook- up is made, no further charges would be due. In the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 7 LUBA No. 94-11o Exhlbft No. U Page No. I f,-) past, it has been a requirement that all hook-up charges • be paid for at the time any of the hook-ups are requested. Council discussion followed on the computation of the hook-ups and the charges made to the different lots. Councilor Schwartz advised that he had participated, in a reimbursement district for water services. He noted that a reimbursement district should have a 10-year limitation with no extensions. He advised that reimbursement districts served a good purpose and he was in favor of the concept of reimbursement districts. He noted that if a person does not want to utilize the sewer connection, they are not required to do so. Councilor Schwartz questioned the charge for two connections when only one connection may be wanted. Councilor Hunt also agreed with Councilor Schwartz' concerns about the unit costs. Councilor Hawley noted she agreed with the concerns about the way that the per unit charges were derived and the requirement that all units be paid for even if only one unit is wanted. She disagreed, however, that the reimbursement term be limited to 10 years since this may not be long enough. After Council discussion, it was determined that staff would-review the unit connection charge methodology and propose amendments (to address Council concerns for residential hook-up costs for larger lots) for Council consideration at their February 22, 1994 meeting. Legal Counsel Coleman advised that with regard to question of the life of the reimbursement district, a request for an extension must be. acted upon by Council before it can be extended. Council meeting recessed: 9:12 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 9:24 p.m. 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O--MARA STREET, FREWING STREET, AND ASH AVENUE a. The staff report was reviewed by City Engineer Wooley. b. Mr. Bill Mitchell, 13380 S.W. Ash Avenue, homeowner and CIT member noted he favored the ordinance which would add Ash Avenue as one of the truck-restricted streets. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 81 1994 - PAGE 8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -D4 Page No. I_ aq C. Council consideration After* brief discussion, Council • considered the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 94-03 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.16.051 AND PROHIBITING THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O'MARA STREET, FREWING STREET AND ASH AVENUE. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler to adopt Ordinance No. 94-03. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Edwards, Councilors Fessler, Hawley, Hunt and Schwartz voted yes.) 7. UPDATE ON TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN • Community Development Director Murphy distributed a copy of the Tigard Triangle Plan to the Council. Mr. Murphy described advised that on March 1, there will be an open house with the consultants available to respond to questions by the community. Subsequently, there will be hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. There was discussion on what this would mean to the rest of the City if multi-family zoning were included in the Triangle area. Community Development Director Murphy advised this would give flexibility with regard to density requirements. In response _to a question from Councilor Hawley, Legal Counsel Coleman advised that this decision is considered to be "legislative." Therefore, it would be appropriate for Council members to attend the open house. Because this decision is legislative, this frees up the Council from the concerns of ex parte contacts. 8. OVE V:EEW OF TBE LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMSNT PLANNING EFFORT • City Engineer Wooley reviewed the process for developing a long-term capital improvement program. (See listing filed in the Council packet.) This process was also reviewed with the Planning Commission. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEM None 10. ESECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:46 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (i) discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and performance evaluations of public officers and employees. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 9 LUBA NO. W110 Exhibit No. ~4_1 Page No. 11. ADJOURN14ENT: 10:15 P.M. w Atffest Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder Mayor, City of Tigard Date: -3) =0208.94 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 81 1994 -PAGE 10 LUBA NO. i 110 E~dtibit No. . Page No. _ `j _ • 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 aarenda 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 Deao. Upon request, the Ciiy 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 Deao. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit Nu. Page No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 8, 1994 AGENDA • STUDY SESSION (6:30 p.m.) Discussion: Study of Local Transportation System 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. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: • 3.1 Approve Council Meeting Minutes: January 11, 18 and 25, 1994 3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 3.3 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded (Cook Park)-Res.No. 94-- 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment for Grant Awarded for a Wetlands Attributes Assessment and Planning Program - Resolution No. 94-_ 3.5 Approve Encroachment Agreement for a Sanitary Sewer Easement on Lola Lane - Resolution No. 94-_ 3.6 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for 79th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension - Resolution No. 94-_ 3.7 Local Contract Review Board: a. Authorize Request for Bids-Improvements to Maintenance Svcs. Yard b. Approve the Purchase of Five Police Vehicles Through the City of Portland Bid COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-1A0 Exhibit No. Q - Page No. 1 I 4 4. VACATION OF A PORTION OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AN UNNAMED 20-FOOT . WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY EAST OF S.W. 79TH AVENUE, AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TWIN OAKS LANE. The request was initiated by the City of Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf of Hal Keever of W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was scheduled for January 25, 1994 at which time the hearing was rescheduled to February 8, 1994. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony - Proponents (In favor of the requested vacation.) - Opponents (Opposed to the requested vacation.) - Rebuttal (Opponents/Proponents) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 937-- 5. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION (Note: Testimony sign-in sheets will be available for those persons wishing to comment on this agenda item.) a. Staff Report - City Engineer • b. Public Comment C. Council Discussion d. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 94- 6. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THROUGH TRUCKS ON PORTIONS OF O'MARA STREET, FREWING STREET, AND ASH AVENUE a. Staff Report - City Engineer b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 94- 7. UPDATE ON TIGARD TRIANGLE PLAN • Community Development Staff 8. OVERVIEW OF THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING EFFORT • Engineering Staff 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS • COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No..a_ Page No. A . 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 11. ADJOURNMENT 0WOM8.94 • i COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 8, 1994 - PAGE 4 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a5 Page No. Depending 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 4tay further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: February 8, 1994 COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF A REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT FOR PACIFIC RIDGE SUBDIVISION 0 PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a(b Page No. u AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT *roponent - (Speaking In Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) Name Name I'd Address t-I Name Name / Address Address _ 35I S 5L~1 2-Ad 1tv~ Name Name Address Address r-7 r7 b k/ F) Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Amlk dAlPddress Address Name Name Address Address Namo Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address Name Name Address Address LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a~ Page No. AGENDA ITEM ; S For Agenda of February 8, 1994 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY On December 14, 1993, this issue came before the Council. However, at the request of the applicant, the Council took no action at that meeting. Now the applicant has requested that the application be brought back for Council consideration. The December 14 staff report is attached. Mr. Tony Maksym, an owner of property within the proposed district, has indicated that he has issues to bring before the Council regarding this application. Therefore, this item has been scheduled on the regular Council genda to allow for public input. Although no formal hearing is required, the City Attorney has indicated that the Council may receive and consider public input prior to taking action on the proposed resolution forming the district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES rw/petrie2 1.UBA NC). _q44-910 No Exhibit Page No. AGENDA ITEM # • For Agenda of December 14, 1993 70,54 p, ne d - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON St.&Jebjk4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY .2111gq ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed for the Pacific Ridge Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by The Petrie Company to serve a subdivision they are developing at S.W. 74th and Cherry. The sewer line also provides service to seven adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Petrie Company has requested that a district be formed. he engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. o public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of ' 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office has drafted revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owner, Mr. Petrie has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to form a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES All costs are borne by The Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. /Rld : Pa e-eZidge . ss LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. o. Page No. ► 'l CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost .-among.:the parcels within the zone of benefit, and the recommended- interestrate; and,:::;..:;.. . WHEREAS,` the.;City::Council :.has determined that-formation of a: zone of..- benefit. as-recommended.by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW,-.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The { City Engineer's report title -.-."Sanitary Sewer-' Reimbursement District No. 5", attached hereto as Exhibit A; is hereby approved. Section 2: A'zone of benefit is hereby.established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit B and described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: The zone formation date is December 14, 1993. The right of reimbursement shall end on December 14, 2003, unless extended by- the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 1 Exhibit No. Page No. 165k_ Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution • to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shal 1 mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g) . PASSED: This day of , 1993. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.SS RESOLUTION NO. 94- LUBA NO. 94-110 Page 2 Exhibit No. an'_ Page No. ~~q Exhibit A • City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMURSMCM DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving adjacent property owners of • installing sewer improvements in the future. This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed-zone formation date for the-sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by-the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020-(b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.5, which provides for single-family residential development • and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a`7 Page No. -DD The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) • occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems-to be a reasonable request, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. Interest Rate TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be • applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at•3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted December 3, 1993. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer dj/AW:Pac-Ridge.SS • LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. g_ Page No. r~, 0 1 EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 W 9 T 60 C - - ! 35 1 n W z T 3 00 3 a Vf NEW SA I A Y 0 z N n N W SANITARY SEWER 3 L320 (A 44 f 3 02 IL 300 4 ~eC ®cy n CHERRY STREET Z;x z O } O ROLLING HILLS NO 2 l 00 NEW SANITARY SEWER O EXHIBIT "C" • REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. S A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4-and Lhe SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast- ccrner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88' 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to the southwest corner of the property described in Land Sale Contract recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 01° 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 020 02' 44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. ]ohnrMpac.ben "LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. i Exhibit D • Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units Charge 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The reimbursement district connection charge is deemed to have been paid on these lots. • Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed-equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B) . If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. dj/RW:Pae-R14e.SS LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlblt No. Z-4 7~ Page No. ;j D ~ 2 1t y nY~ _ PETITION FE B. 3, 1994 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS, HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER THE YEARS, LAND,MONEY AND OTHER GOOD VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS TO THE AREA WHERE THE SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED. THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE CONTRIBU- TIONS IS FAR MORE THAI WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INVESTED IN HIS SEWER LINE. WE, THEREFORE, REQUEST OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY REJECT THE FORMATION OF THE PROPOSED PACIFIC RIDGE SEWER RE-IMBURSEMENT DISTRICT. NAME ADDRESS LOT l 3665^ S~/~~ <jCoo 0 ~irr'►~ )s5)5- s.w, Sao 3G )5 S k_; 7L S (,J (r ~fi 3s° rN 12- Sw 3SL 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.$ Page No.. Subrn:, ~ed1 b~ THE PETRI E* COM PANY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE a S~ 4 ~ 246- (503) 7977 December 4, 1993 TO: 13565 SW 72nd Tigard Oregon Tax Lot 400 FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Sewer reimbursement District Greetings, I have recently installed sanitary sewer mains adjacent to the above mentioned tax lot and have requested the formation of a sewer reimbursement district (as provided for in the Tigard Code) which would include the above mentioned tax lot. My calculations following the formula in the Code indicate that the per hookup fee would be approx. S 2,119.55. Some of the tax lob have a potential for greater than one book up. I believe that the City Engineer is adjusting that figure downward slightly. Should i you decide to take advantage of utilizing the sanitary main you won't have to construct any of it since it is already installed. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Craig %Aetrie -0 i LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Z8 • Page No. A ( ( 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND. OR 97219 FAX: (503) 244-0123 -29. US& THE PETRIE COMPANY CSCOMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE P~ o 9 C is C 'S► 66W SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Q 9 Page No. a O ~ 'o eBe _ 'ON 1141yx3 TT 7783 OLL-b6 'ON v8m COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal ~b P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice J BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076 r . M., r~ , The following meeting highlights aro pdblistied'f,Qir on. Ful 4,e 1 Nonce Advertising agendas may be.. obtained, from the C4 Re or W Hal [ i V f d Boulevard, Tiod; Oregon 97223, or by callh'g 63 *City of Tigard • 13 Tearsheet Notice EB 0 71994 CITY COUNCIL l3vsIlVESS IHfiB'1' 13125 SW Hall Blvd . FEBRUARY 8,1994 •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit " . TIOARDCITY I I Y OF TIGARD HALL -TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD; • • ! ;Study Meeting t"Ibwn Hail Conference Room 6:30 P:M.)' ' ~t- • Discussion - Study of Local Transportation System I~ °i $psiness Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) ~i;+ `'4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION aG Public Hearings: STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' • Vacation of a portion of S.W. 79th Avenue, aft unnamed 20-foo I, Kathy Sn~~der wide right-of--way east of S.W. 79th Avenue, and the,sub~fivisioi z- plat Twin Oaks Lane. The request was initiated by the City o being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising Tigard Council on November 23, 1993, on behalf of Hal Keever o Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tualatin Times W&H Pacific for Costco Wholesale. The hearing was schedule( a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 for January 25, 1994. On January 25, 1994, the hearing was se and 193.020; published At Ticga r_ d in the over to February 8, 1994, aforesaid county and state; that the ' City Council Bus. Mtg . Council Consideration: c+, a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the • Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Sub entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and division ..(Note _Testimony`sign-in sheets 'will be available for those person consecutive in the following Issues: wishing to comment on this agenda item at the ,meeting.) : . I.r• February 3 ,19 9 4 •;,•j?roposed Ordinance - Prohibiting through trucks on portions.o O'Mara Street, Fr+ewing Street, and Ash Avenue...' Council Review: Kal" -1 JA OP.- • Update on the Tigard Triangle Plan • Overview of the Long-Term Capital Improvement Planning Effort I ;`j:;k~,r Subscribed and sworn afore me'this 3r day of Februar Local Contract Review Board Meeting OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS Executive. Session: The Tigard City Council tna ntoXicecutiv TAR Y PUBLIC - OREGON Session under the provisions of OR 192.660 '~~MMISSION NO. 024552 Notary Publi r Oregon c cuss labor relations, real property lr8nsactions;t~ iigrlti"16 %'&ftdin MY COMMISSION ._itPIRES MAY 16, 1997 • 'ir, .;r , . My Commission Expires: litigation issdes, • AFFIDAVIT M783 - Publish February 3. 1994. I ►rbur50rne,4 acCi-FiC Se e P5. 2 Council Agenda Item T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 • Meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. by Mayor Edwards. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel (present for Executive Session only); Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:31 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: 7:21 p.m. • Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) - council consensus was for approval of appointment of Councilor Hawley as representative, replacing Mayor Edwards, to WCCCA. BUSINESS MEETING 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE CHAMPIONS a. Council President Schwartz presented the team with a small gift and congratulated them on their achievement. The team has won this title three years in a row. 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Cal Woolery, 12536 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, Oregon, noted concerns with the Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) process with regard to land use issues. He advised he had requested that a land use issue be placed on the December agenda and it was not done. City Administrator Reilly responded he would consult with Community Relations Coordinator Liz Newton. He noted that Ms. Newton contacts the facilitators after meetings and the concerns noted by Mr. Woolery had not been expressed (by the facilitators) to City staff prior to \ this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.`3 O Page No. a D61 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilor Fessler requested Item 4.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to approve the Consent Agenda, less Item 4.5: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to Enter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve Strips as Right-of-Way - Resolution No. 93- 61 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Subdivision (This item was removed from the agenda - see Council packet file for letter dated December 14, 1993, from Craig A. Petrie, requesting withdrawal of the issue.) 4.6 Approve Dartmouth. Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes - Resolution No. 93-62 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley, and Hunt voted "Aye.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4, 000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land. Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street.. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200) a. Public hearing was opened by-Council President Schwartz. b. Declarations or Challenges: Council President Schwartz asked the following questions: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits? • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94110 Exhibit No., _30 Page No. I, Councilor Fessler reported she visited the site. • - Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Councilors advised they had familiarized themselves with the application. Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? There were no challenges. C. Staff Report Council President Schwartz advised the following: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Senior Planner Bewersdorff and City Engineer Wooley summarized the staff report. d. Public Testimony Legal Counsel Ramis advised Council on process relating to testimony noting the Council must determine during deliberation what parts of the record were to be considered. In addition, he outlined the rebuttal procedure available to the parties participating in the hearing. Proponents (In favor of the requested development approvals): • John Shonkwiler, 13425 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon 97223, gave testimony as a representative of the applicant. Mr. Shonkwiler summarized the NPO process and, after the NPO's disbanded, the process with the neighbors to date. He described the attempts to provide notice to the neighborhood. • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft Nom Page No.1 Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the site plan (see slides • contained in the Council packet material as well as exhibits used by Mr. Shonkwiler during his Council presentation.) He addressed the access points for vehicle traffic as well as the pedestrian access. Mr. Shonkwiler review the application and answered questions about site elevations, noise abatement . (i.e., screening from air conditioners, fans, etc.). A representative from the traffic engineering firm, Rittleson & Associates, reviewed the traffic analysis and conclusions which resulted in the proposed access and traffic flow to and from the site. Mr. Shonkwiler, at the conclusion of his presentation noted he was reserving his rights with regard to rebuttal and examination of the testimony offered for the record. • Mr. Scott Russell, 31291 Raymond Creek, Scapoose, OR 97056 advised he owns the subject property as well as some adjacent land. Mr. Russell advised he has been involved with the land use and development of this property for a number of years. He supported approval of the application. • Craig Petrie, 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway, Portland, Oregon 97219 recounted the length of time he has been involved in this real estate development proposal. He reported that land use notification signs on the subject property had been removed without permission. He said spreading the number and location of shopping areas would help alleviate problems (i.e., traffic/congestion) by dispersing people. He encouraged support of the application. • Garry P. McMurry, Benjamin Franklin Building, Suite 435, One S.W. Columbia, Portland, Oregon noted the citizen involvement process including the NPO's and meetings with citizens and staff. He commended the City's involvement throughout the process. Mr. McMurry cited the City's and owner's efforts to accommodate the concerns. He noted this development would ideally suit the land for the next 25 years. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 4 - LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.3 U Page No. a~~ "MCI, Opponents (Opposed to the requested development • approvals) • Edward J. Sullivan, 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, No. 3200, Portland, OR 97204 distributed information to Council (see Council packet for pages titled "Before the City Council of the City of Tigard..." and packet which begins with the Staff Report, dated July 12, 1983). Mr. Sullivan advised he had not been notified of the hearing. Mr. Sullivan submitted testimony to support his concern that this was not a neighborhood-oriented site. • Greg Wintrowd, Planner, Wintrowd Planning Services, Suite 210, Office Courts Building, 700 North Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR 97217 presented a packet of information to the Council. (See Council packet material for the information containing Mr. Wintrowd's "Land Use Report and Appeal.") Mr. Wintrowd gave lengthy testimony, summarizing from the submitted report which was offered as support to his concern that the proposed land use request did not conform substantially to the guidelines and standards of the Tigard Community Development Code, Chapter 18.61. Mr. Wintrowd contended that the proposed development was a "basic strip mall design." Council discussion followed on the site development review process. Legal Counsel Ramis noted Council deliberation of Code interpretation can be conducted at the end of the process. 9:40 p.m. Council meeting recessed. 9:57 p.m. Council meeting reconvened. (Public testimony continued - opponents): • Pam Garcia, 14550 S.W. Teal Boulevard, Beaverton, OR 97005, (representing interests of the Murray Hill Thriftway store) testified that there had been a communication breakdown with the neighbors and there were residents who opposed the proposed development. Ms. Garcia advised that it appeared there was a problem with communication because of the NPO and CIT transition. She advised she did not feel all input for the issue had been received. Ms. Garcia registered her concern with the notification process; advising that the lack of testimony at the Planning Commission should have been indicative that something went wrong with the communication process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 5 WBA No. 94-110 Exhibit No. _ Page No. 1 Ms. Garcia submitted photographs and referred to a 40 map (see photos and Columbia Research Associates map which has been filed with the Council packet) to support her claim that the development was neither suitable for this area nor met the criteria of the Code. She noted her concerns with the impact that this development would have on two, nearby family-owned business (Murray Hill Thriftway and Howard's). She said the proposed development was a regional shopping strip mall and not a neighborhood-oriented development. She also noted concerns with noise. In response to a question by Councilor Schwartz, Ms. Garcia advised she would be opposed to any grocery store in the area. She questioned whether the proposal was in keeping with the "vision" of a Community Commercial zone. (Note: Testimony sheet indicates several people who signed in to speak, but did not stay to testify.) • Chris Rullan, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified in opposition to the proposed development. He referenced lack of notification to the neighbors about the proposed development. There are new homeowners in the neighborhood. • Scott Van Dyke, 14111 S.W. Northfield, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised he was opposed to the development. He said the proposed application was not intended to serve the surrounding community but would draw from a five- to seven-mile radius. The sign he saw notifying of the development said it would be a "community grocery store." • Shannon Rullman, 14077 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that the neighbors do not want this development. • Bruce Tilley, 14189 S.W. Stardust Lane, Tigard, Oregon 97223, advised this would impact his residence. He said property values would go down and cited the 24-hour use of the commercial property as an adverse impact. Mr. Tilley said there could be more compromise. • Ted and Tiffani Trecker, 14061 S.W. Chehalem Court, Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ms. Trecker testified as to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 6 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 3 0 Page No. ► 4 her concerns with the notification process advising • they had not been informed about the development and the process has been unfair. She reviewed her issues with the traffic pattern and access to the shopping center (in particular the Northview Drive entrance which she said should not be there.) Ms. Trecker questioned whether emergency vehicle access to the neighborhood would be adequate for the residential area. She also noted concerns with the congestion to Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Trecker said a grocery store as large as the one being proposed "...doesn't fit." Ms. Trecker advised that a "Charboneau-type of development" would fit in more with the neighborhood. • Larry Westerman, 13665 S.W. Fern Street, Tigard, OR 97223 testified that he was generally in favor of the development; however, he advised he was concerned about the site design with regard to pedestrian access. • Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard, OR 97223, submitted to Council a letter dated December 14, 1993, outlining his concerns with the citizen- input process. He requested additional time for ' citizen review and for the CIT to set this on an agenda. CIT agenda items are set by CIT members; Council policy is still formative, but consensus by the Council was not to place issues on a CIT agenda. • Marlin Hopfer, 8924 S.E. Alder, Portland, Oregon noted he owns 4.5 acres to the north of the subject property. He suggested this property, now zoned Neighborhood Commercial, be rezoned to Community Commercial. Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) After discussion, it was the consensus of Council and representatives of the applicant and opponents that the hearing will be continued to January 25, 1994. All evidence and rebuttal remarks are to be submitted to the City by 5 p.m., January 14. 11:20 p.m. Council meeting recessed 11:29 p.m. Council meeting reconvened • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 7 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. aA~_) Page No. P ! 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to • the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Public hearing was opened by Council President Schwartz b. Declarations or Challenges - None C. Staff Report was summarized by City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: None d. Public hearing was closed by Council President Schwartz e. Council Consideration: • RESOLUTION NO. 93-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON MAY 17, 1994. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler, to adopt Resolution No. 93-63. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Council President Schwartz and Councilors Fessler, Hawley and Hunt voted "Aye.") 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS - Mega Foods Director's decision - Councilor Fessler requested discussion on the recently issued Director's decision for the Mega Foods development in the Triangle area. Of concern to Councilor Fessler was the tree removal and traffic. After brief discussion, there was no motion for Council call-up of this issue. 8. ADJOURNMENT : 11:45 p.m. Attest: Ca erine Wheatley, Cit ecorder Z no L PRestden+ard Date- ~~lk)9 y =1214.93 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE-8 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhlbft No. alo_ Page No._-;;AkP • 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 Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA i COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 1 ' LUBA NO. 94-110 EXNlbtt No. 1- Page No. A G E N D A • STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. • 1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.) 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. PRESENTATION TO TIGARD HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM - 1993 AAAA STATE CHAMPIONS - Mayor Edwards 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: November 9, 16 and 23, 1993 4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar 4.3 Award Contract for Yard Debris Program Design - Authorize Staff to Enter into Contract with Harding Lawson Associates 4.4 Dedication of Reserve Strips as Right-of-Way-Res. #93- 4.5 Approve Formation of a Reimbursement District for Pacific Ridge Subdivision - Resolution No. 93- 4.6 Approve Dartmouth Bond Anticipation Notes - Authorize Issuance to Refinance the 1992 Dartmouth Notes Resolution No. 93- 5. PUBLIC REARING (Quasi-Judicial) - CPA 93-0009/ZON 93-0003/SDR 93-0014/CUP 93-0002/MLP 93-00136 Albertson's Inc./Duncombe. A request for the following development approvals: 1) Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight acres of a 12 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community Commercial on tax lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on tax lot 100. Zone changes accompanying the above plan changes includes a zone change from R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units/acre, Planned Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre); 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 53,950 square foot multiple-use commercial retail building; 3) Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 12 acre parcel into two parcels of approximately eight acres and four acres each. LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, tax lots 100 and 200) (Item 5 Continued to Next Page) COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhtbit No. 31- Page No. (Agenda Item 5 Continued) a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report d. Public Testimony - Proponents (In favor the requested development approvals) - Opponents (Opposed to the requested development approvals) - Rebuttal (Proponents/Opponents) e. Council Questions/Comments f. Staff Recommendation g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 93- 6. PUBLIC HEARING - CHARTER AMENDMENT - Proposed amendments to the Tigard City Charter: Eliminate the requirement that the council make an appointment or hold an election to fill a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohibits an interim appointee from running for that position. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report - City Administrator Reilly d. Public Testimony: • Proponents (Favoring Amendments) • Opponents (Opposing Amendments) C. Council Questions/Comments d. Close Public Hearing e. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 93- 7. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 8. 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. 9. ADJOURNMENT cca1214.93 COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 14, 1993 - PAGE 3 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No.,J)- Page No. Q111' THE PETRIE COMPANY q.~ COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (503) 246-7977 December 14, 1993 TO: Randy Wooley FROM: Craig A. Petrie RE: Reimbursement District No. 5 Dear Randy, I am requesting that you withdraw the above issue from the City Council agenda at this time so that I may have more time to discuss the district with some of the owners of the tax lots within the district. Thank you for your time. Sincerely yours, Q ~Gitr-~2- Craig A. rie • 9600 SW CAPITOL HIGHWAY • PORTLAND, OR 97219 LUBA NO. 94-410 FAX: (503) 2440123 ExhibR No.asp Page No. 5 AGENDA ITEM # 44.5 For Agenda of December 14, 1993 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of a reimbursement district for Pacific Ridge Subdivision PREPARED BY: R. Woolev DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a reimbursement district for a sanitary sewer line constructed for the Pacific Ridge Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY A sanitary sewer line extension has been constructed by The Petrie Company to serve a subdivision they are developing at S.W. 74th and Cherry. The sewer line also provides service to seven adjoining lots. Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code provides for the formation of a reimbursement district to repay a portion of the development costs when other properties are connected to the sewer. The Petrie Company has requested that a district be formed. he engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail. No public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for a period of 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard. The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing. This process of notifying property owners after the district is formed has caused some concern in the past. The City Attorney's office has drafted revisions to the Code to change the procedure. We expect to be ready to present the revisions for Council consideration in a few weeks. However, until the Code is revised, the process is governed by the existing Code procedures. To avoid surprises to the other property owner, Mr. Petrie has contacted each owner and advised them of his intention to form a reimbursement district. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES. All costs are borne by The Petrie Company. No payment is required from other property owners until they connect to the sewer. /RN:Pac-Ri4e.ss ' eLUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. Page No. aal CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer improvements have been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge Subdivision and certain adjoining properties; and WHEREAS, all costs of said sewer construction have been paid by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, formation of a zone of benefit has been requested by The Petrie Company; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the zone of benefit, a methodology for spreading the cost among the parcels. within the zone of benefit, and the recommended interest rate;. and, WHEREAS; the City:: Council . has. determined . that.. formation of a zone of enefit ' as - recommended : by... the.. City:. Engineer is ' appropriate . NOW,-'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The Engineer's report. title.:: "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No..5", attached hereto as Exhibit. A~ is; hereby approved.`.".-':..''..;. Section 2: A-zone of benefit is hereby•established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.08. The zone of benefit shall be the area shown on Exhibit Band described on Exhibit C. The zone of benefit shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5." Section 3: Payment of the recovery agreement connection charge as shown in Exhibit D is a precondition of receiving city permits applicable to development of each parcel within the zone of benefit as provided for in TMC 13.08.030. Section 4: An annual percentage rate of three percent (3%) shall be applied to the connection charge. Section 5: 'The zone formation date is December-14, 1993. The right of reimbursement shall end on December 141 2003, unless extended by the Council in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2) . RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 1 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 53 Page No. aaa- Section 6: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the county recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.08.020 (f) and (g). PASSED: This day of , 1993. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard dj/RW:Paa-Ridge.55 RESOLUTION NO. 93- Page 2 LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. -33 Page No. aa3 • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 Background A sanitary sewer line has been constructed to serve Pacific Ridge subdivision located adjacent to S.W. 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive. The sewer line also provides service to certain adjoining lots. The sewer line is nearing completion and the developer's costs are known. Financing All costs of construction of the sewer extension have been paid by The Petrie Company. The Petrie Company has requested that a reimbursement district be formed so that the company will be reimbursed for a share of the costs of the sewer extension in the future as other properties are connected to the sewer. The sewer extension has potentially provided sewer service to seven adjacent properties, thereby relieving.-adjacent.-Property _owners of installing sewer improvements-in the future.- This has created a zone of benefit as defined in TMC 13.08.010(7). Zone of Benefit The zone of benefit is the properties shown as the shaded area on the attached map (Exhibit B). The proposed zone formation date for the sewer is the date of Council action forming the reimbusement district. It is recommended that the reimbursement district continue for ten years. After ten years, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee, unless the time is extended by-the Council as provided in TMC 13.08.020 (b) (2). Cost The total cost of the sanitary sewer construction, including design and inspection costs, is $46,119.00. All of this cost has been paid by The Petrie Company. Reimbursement Rate West of 74th Avenue, the lots served by the sewer extension are all zoned R-3.51 which provides for single-family residential development and certain related uses. The minimum lot size in'the R-3.5 zone is 10,000 square feet. LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. 3 3 Page No. as • The new subdivision currently under construction (Pacific Ridge) occupies Tax Lots 3300, 3400, 3600, and 3601. This subdivision will contain 11 single-family lots, with no potential for further subdivision under the current zoning. Tax Lots 2700, 3200, and 3302 are currently fully developed with single- family residential structures and cannot be further subdivided under the current zoning. Tax Lot 3501 could be subdivided into two or three lots under the current zoning. The lots east of 74th Avenue (Tax Lots 300, 400, and 500) are zoned C-P. These lots could be subdivided or they could be developed with more than one structure on each lot. The applicant suggests that the lots with potential for subdivision should be charged at twice the rate of the smaller lots that cannot be subdivided. This seems to be a reasonable request, as the larger lots have the potential of more than one connection to the sewer in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the costs of the sewer be divided among the lots within the zone of benefit as shown in Exhibit D. The recommended cost to each lot is shown in Exhibit D. Interest Rate • TMC 13.08.020 (b) (5) provides that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to the connection charge on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The applicant has requested that the finance charge be 3%, which is comparable to that currently being paid to finance public improvements. This seems reasonable, as the financing costs for private development are usually somewhat higher. Therefore, it is recommended that the interest rate be set at 3%. On each anniversary of the zone formation date, the established connection charges shall be increased by this amount. Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with a zone of benefit, reimbursement rate and interest as indicated above. Submitted December 3, 1993. Randall R. Wooley City Engineer d j/RW: Pao-Ridge. SS LUBA NO. 94-110 Exhibit No. a) - Page No.~ i ~ • EXHIBIT "B" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 S.W. FIR STREET 2 0 9 T 60 35 1 ~ n W W2 T 00 Q • 3 NEW SA 1 A Y S n T 0 0`\ N W A ITARY S WER 3 vi L 32 0 44 T 0 L 3 0 4 CHERRY STREET 00 s ROLLING HILLS NO 2 NEW SANITARY SEWER IN ~Qa ~z0 0• p I Qao• EXHIBIT "C" REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 A portion of the W.W. Graham D.L.C. in the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, City Of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of lot 49 of the plat of Rolling Hills No 2 , thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along the west line of said lot 49, a distance of 150.00 feet to the southwest corner of said lot 49; thence S 890 57' 36" E, along the south line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the east line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 01° 46' 24" W, along said east line, a distance of 219.96 feet to the northwest corner of the property described in Fee Number 78-039189 Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E along the north line of said Fee Number a distance of 104.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Fee Number; thence S 010 40' 00" W, along the east line of said fee Number and the extension thereof, a distance of 196.32 feet to the south right of way of Cherry Street; thence S 88° 48' 00" E, along said south right of way, a distance of 394.50 feet to the west right of way of SW 74th Avenue and the northeast corner of lot 43 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 010 07' 53" W, along said west right of way, a distance of 180.00 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 43 and the south line of the plat of Rolling Hills No. 2; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along said-south line, a distance of 50.00 feet to the southeast corner of said plat; thence N 01° 07' 53" E. along the east line of said plat, a distance of 88.00 feet to- the southwest corner of the property. described in Land Sale Contract, recorded in Fee Number 90-13022 of Washington County Deed Records; thence S 880 48' 00" E, along the south line of said Fee Number, a distance of 290.00 feet to the west right of way of SW 72nd Avenue; thence N 010 07' 53" E, along said west right of way, a distance of 396.00 feet to the northeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90-49255; thence N 88° 40' 15" W, along the north line of said Fee Number and the north line of the proposed plat of Pacific Ridge, a distance of 484.80 feet to the southeast corner of the property described in Fee Number 90- 30051 Washington county Deed Records; thence N 02° 02' 44" E, along the east line of said Fee Number, a distance of 271.91 feet, to the southerly right of way of the Public street dedicated in deed recorded in Book 149 page 293 of Washington County Deed Records; thence N 890 51' 46" W, along said southerly right of way, a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of the proposed ' plat of Pacific Ridge; thence, along the boundary of said proposed plat the following four courses; thence N 02° 02'•44" E a distance of 20.00 feet; thence S 890 51' 46" W a distance of 162.15 feet; thence S 010 28' 24" W a distance of 25.01 feet; thence N 890 57' 36" W a distance of 50.02 feet to the Northeast corner of lot 49 Rolling Hills No. 2; thence N 890 57' 36" W, along the north line of said lot 49, a distance of 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. johnrh\pae.ben LUBA NO. 94-110 ExhibR No. 3 Page No. aa~1 as • Exhibit D Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 5 Recovery Agreement Connection Charges Connection Tax Lot Units Charge 2S1 1DC 300 2 $ 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 400 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 500 2 4,192.64 2S1 1DC 2700 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3200 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3302 1 2,096.32 2S1 1DC 3300, 3400, 3600, & 3601 (Pacific Ridge Subdivision)* 11 23,059.48 2S1 1DC 3501 2 4,192.64 22 $46,119.00 *Note 1: Pacific Ridge Subdivision is owned by the applicant. The -reimbursement district connection charge is deemed. to have been paid on these lots. Note 2: If any tax lot shown above is later subdivided, the recovery agreement connection charge for that lot shall be assigned to the new lots in accordance with the written instructions of the subdivision applicant. If no written instructions are provided, the charge shall be distributed equally among the new lots created. Note 3: The connection charge shall apply only to properties which are connected directly to the sewer lines constructed as a part of Pacific Ridge Subdivision (the sewer line shown on Exhibit B). If properties within the zone of benefit are connected directly to sewer lines outside the zone of benefit, the connection charge shall not apply. dj/RW:Pac-Ridge.SS LUBA Nit. 94-110 F-xhlbit No. 3 Page No. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 - PHONE (503) 684-0360 NoticeTT 7 7 3 4 - BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON. )ss. ` _ • yeler EA It being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising P Director, or his principal clerk, of theTicrard- ia1 a i n mimes a newspaper of general circ~ation as defined-in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at 1~Jard ! •n the aforesaid county and state; that the /.,.1.=1iy..:y 0013 cif $uC M+g a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and i consecutive in the following issues: December 9,1993 Subscribed and sworn t ore me this 9th day of December, OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON Notary P is for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 024552 tAY COMMISSION O(PIRES MAY 18.1987 My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT r LUBA NO. 44-110 Exhibit No. ^3y Page No. a ~i IUe 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 calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING' DECEMBER 14.1993 TIGARD-= HALL"- TOWN HALL -13125.5 W: HALL BOULEVARD. MGARD. OREGON - Study session (Town -Hall Conference Room) - 6:30 P.M. Business" Meeting - 7:30 P.M. Publir_Hearings:- • ".:Comprehensive Plan Amendment- CAA 93-0009/ZON - 93-00031SDR 93-0014/CUP 9340002/MLP 93-0013 Albertson's: Inc./Dancombe. A=regnst for the fol]owing development vials: 1 C omPre 'f `henstve Plan and Zone Change aPProyal-to: . aPP~ . - nydesigaate.approximately eighC acres, of a 12 acre parcel from ' Mediiiun=High Densii lciidential.to Community Commercial on, takIot:200.andtoacedesignate.:an approximately 6.93 acre parcel "from Neighborhood Conmereralto'Medium-High Density: Residential dk-& f 100. 'Zone changes accompanying-the above plan changes inchrdes•a zone change from-R-25 (PD) (Residential; 25 u rits/acie,;Plan ed`Development}•t4 C-C..(Cominnnity:. ` Commercial),and C-N(Neighborhood.Commercial)'to-R-25= (Re6deridA':25' unils/acre)-2) Site Development Review approalv" to allow theconstruction:of a 53,950 square foot mulupletuse• - commeicW.ittail">iW. ng; 3~ Conditioiwl Use approval to allow. the constivction of. a 4,000'square foot gasoline station; 4) Minor Land Partition approval "to divide.the 12 acre-parcel into: two. parcels ofA approximately. eight acrei earid four'acres each ..WATT " ON. Southeasraiid northeast quadrants of the"intersectioii: " -orSW-Scholls ferry Rogand SW.Walnut-S6i6L'(WCIV 2S1- 4BB,taxxlo+t _l00 nd 200). -.,_Pioposed`aaiendments"to the Tigard City Charter. Eliminate.the- requirement that the,Council make an appointment or hold an election to 611 a vacancy of an unexpired term; and eliminate the requirement which prohbits an interim appointee from-running for that position. Local Contract Review.Board Mecting. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may 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. TT7734 -Publish Decembei 9,1993. LUBA. NO 94 -'Vi0 Exhibit No. 34--- Page No. ~O_ CERTIFICATE OF FIUNG I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on July 19.1994 .1 filed the original of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94110 with the Land Use Board of Appeals, 306 State Library Building, 250 Winter Street, NE, Salem, Oregon, 97310 by first class mail. DATED: July 19. 1994. Catherine Wheatley Tigard City Recorder i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE • I, Catherine Wheatley, hereby certify that on July 19. 1994 1 served a true i and correct copy of this INDEX AND RECORD in LUBA No. 94110 by first class mail on the following persons: The Petrie Company c/o Mr. Craig Petrie 9600 S.W. Capitol Highway Portland, OR 97219 Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew, Corrigan & Bachrach 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97204 DATED: July 19. 1994. CAMerine Wheatley 01 Tigard City Recorder