Loading...
City Council Packet - 03/16/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA MARCH 161y 1981, 7:30 P.M. FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTU RF. ROOM 1. (ZOLI. CALL 2. FIRE DISTRICT CODE DISCUSSION - TRFY1) 3. FIRE DISTRICT PROPOSED MICROWAVE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - TRFPD Chief of Police 4 . POLICE: REPORT - TOWN & COUNTRY DAYS CELEBRATLOId - DISCUSSION - - DENSITY REVIEW - Request of Mayor 5 , LCI)C COMPKEHENSIVI: PLAN 6. ISLAND ANNEXATIONS - Planning Director 7 . SITE DESIGN REVIEWPIZOPOSEfi REVISION - Planning; Director 8. COUNCIL ACTION ON MSD FUNDING - Request of Mayor 9. AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF FUNDSFOR UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS - Finance Director 10. OTHER 11. ADJOURNMENT i loll= T I G A R D CI T Y C O U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES -MARCH 16 , 1981 - 7 : 30 P.M. 1 . ROLL CALL: Present : Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian, John Cook, Kenneth Scheckla (arrived at 8 :00 P .m. ) ; Chief of Police , Robert Adams (left at 9 :20 P.M. ) ; City Administrator, Raeldon R . Barker; Legal Counsel , David Foster; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldie Howard (left at 10 : 55 P.M. ) ; Administrative Secretary, Loreen Wilson. 2 . FIRE DISTRICT CODE DISCUSSION - Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District (a) Tom Thompson , Division Chief of TRFPD, synopsized the major changes in the fire code from the Uniform State Fire Code . He advised Council of the importance of the amendments dealing with the 'built-in fire protection ' measures needed in construction with- in the City. Noting this would be done with sprinklers and fire separation walls in construction. (b) Councilman Brian questioned whether other cities had experienced any opposition in adopting the ' built-in fire protection ' amend- ments . (c) Mr. Thompson stated there had not been much opposition except in Portland when the City of Portland was trying to make this section of the ordinance retroactive . (d) City Administrator stated that the Building Official has seen this code draft and only wished that the architects and builders have a chance to see it before it is adopted by the Fire District . He also advised Council that the fee collection process would be the same as for Washington County Rural Fire Protection District #l . (e) Consensus of Council was to review and consider code at a later meeting when Building Official is present to discuss with Council . 3 , FIRE DISTRICT PROPOSED MICROWAVE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District . (a) Ken Morris , Division Chief of 'TRFPD, stated that the district suffers from radio propagation problems and has been looking for some means of solving this problem. The district is currently considering a microwave communication system. The District ' s Board of Directors has requested that before any further work is done on this proposed system, the surrounding jurisdictions must have some input as to concerns and hopefully an endorsement of the concept of a microwave system. The pre- sent project calls for one 8 foot tower to be placed within the City Limits of Tigard on the fire station on Commercial Street which will have a 6 foot dish on it . r Councilman Scheckla arrived at 8 :00 P -M. (b) Planning Director questioned why cable TV was not considered for communications . (c) Mr. Morris noted that cable TV would be used for training purposes and 911 automatic call system. liovever, he stated that micro- wave would be a more effective source of communications . It would be more reliable and consistant in case of emergencies and fire insurance would cost less for the citizens because of the use of microwave communications . Ile advised Council the cost of the system would possibly be as much as $725 ,000 . Mr . Morris also noted that there would be some share use of the system in computer programs , lower cost of phone usage , sharing occupancy files , etc . Council expressed their interest in hearing more about the micro- wave system and wished to be kept up to date on any further studies and information. 4. POLICE REPORT - TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS CELEBRATION DISCUSSION (a) Chief of Police stated that the Police Department policy is to not assist private functions in the policing of beer drinking and/or ID checking procedures and noted that this would apply to the beer garden at Town and Country Days . (b) City Administrator expressed concern in the officers ofnthe City getting involved in the policing of the beer ad referred to a letter from the City s insurance carrier which expressed concern in the liability issues at hand . (c) Renee ' Hoffman, President of Town and Country Days Committee gave history of other jurisdictions and Tigard giving assistance of this nature at private functions in the past . (d) Chief of Police stated he was not aware of any time that the reserves or the officers of the Department had worked with private functions in the ID checking or beer garden type of patrol . (e) City Administrator stated he felt the policy of the Department was good but would support any decision Council makes In this matter. ( f) Renee ' Hoffman stated that OLCC is requiring a professional security group to police the beer garden and the use of a chain link fence . These items will add approximately $600 to the cost of the celebration. (g) Consensus of Council was to have Hoffman present budget request at the Budget Committee meeting of March 25 , 1981 . Councilman Brian suggested that she submit the required figures to the PAGE 2 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16 , 1981 City Administrator as soon as possible to help in the prepara- tion of the budget for that evening . (h) Consensus of Council was to instruct Chief of Police to have one officer within 25 feet of the beer garden fence at all times during the celebration. (i) Chief of Police advised f:offman that OLCC is willing to train people to check ID and suggested Hoffman request of OLCC if this would be possible at the Town and Country Days celebration . fie noted that this would save at least $200 for the committee . Chief of Police also suggested Council consider putting up a permanent site obscuring fence in the park for use by Town and Country Days and ether groups for the purpose of the sale of beer within the park area . Chief of Police requested Legal Counsel look at TRIC section 7 . 52 . 100 as to what liability the City could expect as third party. RECESS : 9 :00 P.M. RECONVENE: 9 : 11 Y.M. 5 . LCDC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - .DENSITY REVIEW (a) Planning Director read the proposed ordinance to the Council and explained how this system would help to achieve a 10 unit/acre density in the area outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary. He noted that currently the density of that area is 98% R-7 zoning which would be about 4 units per acre . He stated that the proposed ordinance would give Council the ability to adjust the density up or down as need arises . Chief of Police left 9 :20 P .M. (b) Mayor Bishop expressed his displeasure with the ordinance , stat- ing that he is concerned with LCDC ' s ability to enforce the requirement of 10 units per acre. He felt the City could up- hold the intent of Goal No . 10 without meeting the new require- ment of 10 units per acre . (c) Planning Director advised Council this was only a suggested method to achieve Goal No . 10. (d) Lengthy discussion followed between staff and council regarding_ timeliness of presentation, staff ' s intent in preparing the ordinance, concern over LCDC ' s recent units per acre ruling, and other related topics . {, (e) Councilman Brian expressed his concern. that the City try to put forth a good faith effort to meet the housing needs of the area but noted that the units per acre ruling was not appropriate at this time . A.. s PAGE 3- STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16 , 1981 Imo- ( f) Consensus of Council was to go to all NPO ' s and the Planning Commission and requ,2st input as to what areas might be likely for upzoning. (g) Roy Bonn and Cliff Speaker of the :Tanning Commission asked Council for direction in the planning process . (h) LaVelle Allen, Chairman of NPO #4, requested clarification of Council ' s feelings on LCDC Goal Nlo . 10 requirements for 10 units per acre density. (i) Council stated that the authority of LCDC ' s requirements of 10 units per acre is not totally justified , but noted that Council was not necessarily condoning down zoning in any areas . (j ) Mr. Allen expressed interest on the part of NPO #4 to consider down zoning the A-40 zoning in that NPO. Council advised Mr . Allen that would have to be presented through a zone change application with the proper procedure being followed . (k) Consensus of Council was to consider this item at the .larch 23 , 1981 meeting at which time guidelines will be set by Council in dealing with this matter. 6 . ISLAND ANNEXATION PROPOSALS (a) Planning Director advised Council of possible island annexations in response to a request by Councilwoman Stimler for the inform- ation. (b) mayor Bishop asked Planning Director to check with the Boundary Commission whether an island created by another city boundary could be annexed. (c) Consensus of Council was to have Planning Director notify property owners of the areas under consideration on April 13 , 1981 . (d) Mayor Bishop, with consensus of Council , advised staff that the City would adopt the policy of advising all property owners by letter when the Council would be considering annexation petitions . 7 . SITE DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSED REVISION (a) Planning Director stated that this ordinance would appear on the agenda for March 23 , 1981 meeting. Consent of Council to hear at that meeting . 8. COUNCIL ACTION ON MSD FUNDING (a) Mayor Bishop distributed a proposed resolution to advise the statc- legislators of the City ' s position on the MSD funding PAGE 4 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16 , 1981 IF matter. Mayor Bishop requested that payment be made to Metro on a volunteer basis for services rendered . (b) Councilman Brian expressed his concern that the City should not endorse paying for services rendered . However supported the concept of paying the fee on a voluntary basis . (c) Consensus of Council was to have staff prepare resolution for meeting of March 23 , 1981 with the sentence regarding payment for services rendered left out . Planning Director left - 10 : 55 P.M. 9 . AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR UNEMPLOY1,1ENT CLAIMS (a) Finance Director requested Council authorize a transfer from the Unemployment Reserve account in the amount of $1 ,000 so that the City can pay unemployment claims which have been received . (b) Discussion followed regarding the claims received . (c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to authorize transfer of $1 ,000 from the reserve unemployment account to the expense account :or unemployment claims . Approved by unanimous vote of Council . (d) Finance Director stated that this would be in resolution form for Council ratification at the March 23 , 1981 meeting . 10 . OTHER: (a) City Administrator advised Council that Thursday, March 12 , 1981 the Community Development Block Grant Program had a meeting in Tigard to discuss several areas of concern. On March 19 , 1981 at 1 :30 P.M. someone from that office will be meeting with staff at City Hall to prepare a 3 year program for the entire county. They will request Tigard advise them of needs for the project funds that could be included in this 3 year program. City Administrator invited Council to attend meeting if possible . (b) Councilman Brian advised Council and staff that he ran out of gas on Burnham Street while taking the Planning Director to see a site under development . They pushed Councilman Brian ' s car into the Public Works yard and used 1 &allon of City gas to get his car then to a gas station. Councilman Brian just wanted everyone to be advised of the circumstances surrounding the incident and noted that he will be making reimbursement to the City for the gas used. (c) Councilman Cook requested that Council discuss the 92nd Avenue development before building permits are issued . Consensus of PACE 5 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16 , 1981 Council was that this item be discussed at an upcoming study session. 11 . ADJOURNMENT: 11 : 16 P.M. Citecorder y' ATTEST: Mayor r PAGE 6 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16 , 1981 24 Hour Phone 455-9797 1 � MILLIER B O S S A S S E S S O R 5 Cable Address "MING BELLEVUE" 11 - 105TH AVE. S.E_ Telex: 32-8933 SUITE 10 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 lith ?March 1981 Chief of Police Robert B. Adams Tigard Police Department P. O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: T0WN & COUNTRY DAYS COMMITTEE Your Correspondence dated 24th February 1981 Dear Chief Adams: I am in receipt of correspondence in the above referenced matter wherein you requested certain specific insurance information on the use of uniformed Tigard City Police Officers as identification checkers/bouncers at the To-an & Country Days Beer Garden. As your Department and the City should know, over and above your specific questions, the operation of a Beer Garden or "open bar" entails many other liabilities besides the threat of a minor being served intoxi- cants. Firstly. the Beer Garden will need to provide a short term dram shop insurance policy to cover third party liabilities to protect both the Town & Country Days Committee and the City of Tigard from the resulting actions of any drunken patrons. Further, the public liability insurance which the committee must provide the City should also have a False Arrest endorsement in the event that they must detain a minor, rowdy or other person. This public liability insurance should provide coverage for the following areas of concern: 1. False arrest; illegal detention, malicious prosecution. 2. Discrimination. 3. Assault and battery. 4. Violations of civil rights. J. Both the Commute and vicariously (due to their sponsorship) the City of Tigard can be held civilly liable for any acts of the proprietors of the Beer Garden (i.e. , serving a minor; serving of drunks; drunk drivers causing death or injury; death or injury of a drunk if it can be proved he was served alcohol at the Beer Garden, etc.) . Even if the claims or suits are meritless and baseless in fact, un- insured defense costs could be devasting to a small community such as the City of Tigard. w Chief of Police Robert B. Adams - 2 - 11th March 1981 Addressing your Police Department specifically, we find ourselves some- what in a quandary. As you know, "suspicious and furtive manner" and "reasonable suspicion" as doctrines have been adjudicated unconstitu- tional. They do not establish Probable Cause; in other words, a police officer cannot check IDs without probable cause. If an officer momentarily detains someone at the entrance to check ID, he has committed the following: 1. Illegal detention. 2. Violation of right of privacy. 3. If a female or minority, discrimination. Further, when committed without probable cause we leave the individual officer open to a charge of malicious intent and punitive damages. As to the policy of insurance issued by Hansen & Rowland on behalf of Lloyd's, your particular certificate provides no coverage for moon- lighting. Checking identification at the Beer Garden, in uniform, is still moonlighting because it is specific law enforcement for the benefit of the Town & Country Committee and not the community. i I am not attempting to waffle the specific question, but because each and every claim is autonomous I cannot make a specific statement that, "Absolutely no coverage would exist". Every claim has its own circum- stances. In general, coverage questions would exist due to the following: I. No moonlighting endorsement. 2. Acting on behalf of a specific individual and not the community at large. 3. Committing intentional acts without probable cause (no fortuity) which would seem to abrogate the whole concept of insurance for negligence or accidental happenings. Chief, personally I fail to see any benefit to the community or the Town & Country Days Committe to serve beer. Dram shop insurance is most expensive, public liability insurance with a false arrest endorsement is equally expensive. Further, the use of uniformed police officers to control an "open bar" seems, at the very least, bad public relations, I against public policy and not a job of the police force. Y personally would recommend that if the City feels the above mentioned legal liability exposure is worth the profits from a .50ill, mug of beer i that they contact Burns, Lawrence or Pinkerton Security and pay the $9.00 an hour. It is not our officers' job to act as ar.. ID checker/ bouncer. i If you have any questions whatever or if I can be of any further assis- tance please do not hesitate to call. 11 - 105TH AVE. S.E. -SUITE 10, BELLEVUE, VILA 98004, 455-9797 LOSS .A S S E S S o R S Cable Address milt BELLEVUE- s Chief of Police Robert B. Adams - 3 - 11th March 1981 Best regards, • 4 Ji Martin J14.,s s Enclosure I . r v I i MILLER mb MORRIS Inc.. ! - LOSS wss>sSse�ns 105TH AVE. S.E. -SUITE 10. BELLEVUE. IRNA 98004, 455-9797 Gh(®Addrsaa MING sj!U k-yUL- /,,re invalid. 262 N.W. 2d 921.(19771• here that the Detroit ordinance had ity, the guarantees of the rvu�..�a Supreme Court reversedan{ been used "in such a pretextual man- f'rhna g o�tis not based o do not allow [objectiveanded in an opinion by Chief justice ner." criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abu- , Burger.pPointing out that DeFillippo $earC�L and seizure. . . sive police practices exceeds tolerable wan not charged with violation of the limits." the Court declared. ,rdinance.the Court said that under the stop and identify v. Speech-or-debate •clause. . . .ourth and Fourteenth amendments an to another Tune 25 decision.Brown arresting officer may. without a war- Texas. 443 U.S.—•61 L.Ed. 2d —.999 defamation rant, search a person validly arrested. S.Ct. 2637.47 U.S.L.W.4810,the Court on June 26 the Court held that Ser.. "The constitutionality of a search inci-• reversed the conviction of a Texas de- William Proxmire and his legislative dent to an arrest deer not depend on identify himself pursndant who was ued for ant to refusal tate assistant could be sued for defamation whether there is any indication that the after their release of press statements Fleece- person arrested possesses sveapons or statute. The Court held that the officer evidence," the Court declared. "The who made the arrest did so without ren-was about b ards.hThe Courts rejected the l argu- fact of a lawful arrest. standing alone, sonabie engagedinany crimiilieve nal activity. The ment that the releases were protected authorizes a search." either b the First Amendment or the �speech-or-debate clause. The case was "When the officer arrested respon- Court did not reach the question of the Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. _---, dent;" the Court continued, -he had constitutionality of the statute. abundant probable cause to believe that The Texas tat tote mees se tta identify r 61 L.Ed. 2d --. 99 S.Ct. 2675, 47 respondent's conduct violated the himself b personfor a ivin his name and address U.S.L.W. 4827. ' terms of the ordinance.. ..Ai that time, Y 8 g Senator Proxmire periodically pre- of course, there was no controlling to an officer-Who has lawfully stopped Bents"awards"for what he.perceives to precedent that this ordinance as or him and requested the information." beegregious examples of wasteful gov- was not unconstitutional, and hence The police stopped Brawn after they the conduct observed violated a pre- observed him walking away from an out Hutchinson, diernmental rector�of research at sumptively valid ordina_nce:' other man in an alley in a high-crime a mantas hospital, for his research, The Court distinguished this case neighborhood. When stopped, anfunded b N.A.S.A. and the navy, on from others that have applied the ex- angrily refused to identify himseliff and d the problems associated with confining clusionary rule to evidence obtained in was arrested and convicted for viola- human beings in close quarters for ex. searches carried out pursuant to stat- tion of the statute. The police did not . tended periods of time. The research uses that purported to authorize claim to have any reason to suspect him an searches without probable cause and of specific misconduct or any reason to surement of aggealt with tressian�concentr ting with a valid warrant. saying that believe that he was armed. .-- withcases involved statutes "which. The Supreme Court reversed in an on such behavior patterns of monkeys those by their own terms.authorized searches opinion by Chief justice Burger. The as plenching their jaws osed to aggravation. under circumstances which did not Court poirited unced the "award" in when they are out that whenever a exposed anno satisfy the traditional warrant and police officer accosts an individual and a press release that was followed by an probable cause requirements of the restrainseperson.���the Fauah,Amend- a cunt of Hutchinson's research in a Fourth Amendment." newetter justice Brennan, joined by Justices meat requires that the seizure be e s onslHutchin on filed this suit.d in a speech on talleg- Marshall and Stevens.dissented.argu- sonable." umiliated ing that the dispute in the case was not The state did not contend ursuantthat tothe a him and affected hiseabilitylto earn in- between the police and DeFiilippo,but appellant was stopped p ith between mate ippo and Michigan. practice bout rather maintained ng neutral criteria, th•t his contractual relationships interfered wi by the "The ultimate issue is whether the Court sat governmental agencies. The district State gathered evidence against re- had a the police were justified because they c spondent througehn`us`ons i iuti the con that aonalacrime had us been[was be- the grounds granted- court summary heaspeech -or-debate means." the d s tted." cl State is responsibledas well as for the ac-its The flaw n the state's case.'theing. or was about to be tcourt nitYsihat Hugave t hinson was absoluteoxmire public fig- legislative bomust none of the ircum- ur malice"to continued that he officers' deten- sue for a defamation"actual New York trans of its police,the State can hardly t "defend against this charge of uncon- stances preceding Sullivan. 376 U.S. statutaonal Gond arguing product of .suspicion that he wastin involved o crime and that Hutchinson could not in any coollect under nstitutional defect was te law. legislative action and that the police inal conduct." "The Texas statute ich appellant was evped entc Seventh Circe affirmed, 579 F. were merely executing the Yaws in good and requnder ired d to identify himself is de- 2d 1027 (1978). faith;'he declared. The Supreme Court reversed and re- justice Blackmun wrote a concurring signed to advance a weighty social ob- p opinon that was in effect a reply to jus- jective in larga metropolitan centers: Burger.The Court said[Etat,manded in an opinion by white it has lice Brennan.He agreed that there was. prevention of crime." the Court said. g some danger that police will use a_.,-,.But even assuming _that purpose is avoided giving the speech-or-debate ce to arrest served.to some degree by stopping and clause a literal reading that would limit slap-and-identify ordinan people for improper identification and demanding identification from an indi- protection to utterances within the i without any specific basis for be- then conduct a search for contraband, - lR be- then eawalls of one of the chambers of Con- e he said that ear®was no evidence vidualieving hues involved iti cirminal actin- gress,it has not departed"from the ob- 41230 American Sar Association Journal COST TO BE INCURRED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD DURING TOWN AND COUNTRY DAYS CELEBRATION. 4 Chemical Toilets $130.00 30 hours parade overtime & 18 hours park maintenance overtime $705.00 $835.00 14EMORANrDLTM TO: IYIE14BERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FRO14: ALDIE :-HOWARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUW. : DISCUSSION OF LCDC HOUSING GOAL, TIETRO°S EXPEECTATIONS AND THE LAND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. ENCLOSED WITH THE PACKETS IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE ADDRESSING DEVELOPI,1ENT OF THE AREA OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. AT THE STUDY SESSION I WILL HAVE SECTION ?MAPS SHOWING EXAMPLES OF THE DEVE'LOPIMNT PATTERNS PROPOSED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE IS ?AT.lED SPECIFIC IN THAT IT CREATES A ZONE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FUTUR=. THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT. LCDC HAS BEF'N CONTACTED AND THEY rENTiUSIASTICAI,ZY ENDORC ED THIS APPROACH. 11-P RO AND 1000 FRIENDS _HAVE; BE,FN GIVI'N AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT. AFTER YOU REVIEW IT YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. 140NDAY NIGHT I WILL DISCUSS THE CONCEPT WITH YOU AND Yi'E WILL HOPEFULLY RESOLVE THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. f Tlu � LL k ji,Lll� vl�', I m, CITY OF TIGARD, O.'ZEGON ORDINANCE NO. 81- AN ORDINANCE CREATING SPECIFIC "ZONES OF ADJUSTMENT" FOR PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE PRESENT CITY BOUNDARIES BUT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Adjust.rient Zone Planned Development (AZPD)) WHEREAS, there exist approximately one-thousand (1,000) developable acres of land outside the present Tigard City limits, but within the Tigard Urban growth boundary;and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to adhere closely to the goals established by the Land Conservation and Development Comra.ssion, State of Oregon, and the findings of 'the Metropolitian. SeYvices District related specifically to Goal 10 - Housing and WHEREAS, the Goal 10 - :lousing statement from the Land Conservation and Development Commissicn, and the Metiopolitian Service District letter of June 6, 1980 - Expectations For Goal #10 Acknowledgment In The Metro Region-are made a part of this ordinance for reference; and WHEREAS, certain policies and procedures ane needed to guide future development in these specific areas which eventually will be incorporated; THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City of Tigard as follows: SECTION 1: Development policies relative to land outside the present City boundaries within the Urban Growth Boundary. 1. All development on parcels of five (5) acres or more shall be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council as Planned Development Districts. Z. The underlying density on these parcels of land shall be reviewed in each instance and shall approximate a density of ten (10) units per acre. ORDINANCE 81- M 1-81 3. Particular attention shall be given to existing land use patterns in each area, and an effort shall be made to protect established single family units from the sharp impact of proposed multifamily units. Single-level multifamily units shall abut single family residential units as appropriate. Buffers of open space or parking areas shall separate differing housing types and an atter.-.Pt to harmonize the old with the new shall be made. 4. Designation of Adjustment Zone Planned Development (AZPD) shall be placed on each parcel of five (5) acres or more by tax map and tax lot by section as a portion of this ordinance. The Planning Staff shall reference this designation as a portion of the final annexation/zone change ordinance to the City Council when these properties are annexed to the Cit; . 5. Development of land in these specific areas shall not take place until adequate public services are available. These services include, sewer, water, improved streets, and availability of mass transportation in the area. 6. It is clearly the intent of this ordinance to adjust development within these areas to meet the intent of the Land Conservation and Development Commission - Housing Goal and demands placed upon this Community for housing in the future. 7. The careful administration of these general policies shall be carried out at the Staff level at the initial review stage, and forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval. S. In these zones of adjustment, attached single family residents shall be outright permitted uses on ten-thousand (10,000) square feet. Detaci single family units shall be permitted on five-thousand (5,000) square feet. "Row housing", "common wall" structures, townhouses and condomi.nivm, and . other multifamily configuratiorn, and manufactured homes.i shall be considered. . By agreeing to consider an increase in the density on a substantial ORDINANCE 81- M 1-81 Page 2 amount of land surrounding an existing community, and by agreeing to consider ja wide variety of housing types, the City places the burden on the developer to relate the proposed projects to the surrounding existing land development patterns. It is clearly understood by all parties that this ordinance is not to be considered a blanket approval for maximum density, but rather an attempt to solve a problem. 9. Chapter 17 - Major Land Partition and Chapter 18 - Zoning Sections shall be used to establish development specifics. Deviations from these Sections must be clearly outlined in the Planned Development narrative and variances must be clearly requested. By agreeing to consider an increase in density on parcels of five (5) acres or more, the Council realizes that it is adding considerable value to this land. For this reason, the City expects quality development to take place and insists that adequate open space be provided, natural features of the land be retained and protected, adequate public services be installed or improved. SECTION 2: Inasmuch as it is necessary to the peace, nealth, and safety of the public that the foregoing in the City's records become effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor_ PASSED: By vote of all Council members present this day of 1981, after being read two times by number and title only. ORDINANCE NO. 81- X 1-81 Page 3 Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of , 1981. Mayor - City of Tigard ORDINANCE 81- M 1-81 Page 4 - ----- -------------- ---- Z� *' METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT i�= 5275 W.HALL ST.,PORTLAtvD,OR. 97201, 5431221-1646 is•';tl V MSO MEMORANDUM Date: June 6 , 1980 To: Metro Area Jurisdictions From: DLCD, Metropolitan Subcommittee of the Commission and Metro Regarding: Expectations for Goal #10 Acknowledgment in the Metro Region Since the Seaman Order and the DLCD's subsequent letter calling for a regional market level housing allocation plan, the Commis- sion has acted on several petitions for review and acknowledgment requests in the metropolitan area. *r7hile Metro, the Department and the Commission recognize the allocation plan and the Metro housing policies are post-acknowledgment issues, interim guide- lines are needed to judge compliance with Goal #iu . Goal #10 compliance criteria have been partially e_ tablished through acknowledgment of the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the findings of Goal #10 compliance for Multnomah County and the cities of Durham and Gladstone. To date, Metro has used assumptions supporting the "UGB Findings" as general guidelines for meeting Goal #10 . Specifically, the Findings assume local jurisdictions will provide for a new con- struction single family/multi-family (SF/MF) ratio of 50/50 or a SF/MF plan "build out" ratio of- 65/35 . . Average densities for new development are assumed to . be 4.04 Units per Net Acre (UNA) for new single family development, 13 .26 UNA for multi-family and 6.23 UNA overall (i .e. , SF and MF) . While the above assumptions serve as guidelines for meeting Goal 14, the Commission has concluded they are not sLtffiCien� for meeting Goal 010. "Falling short of regional UGB housing guidelines may, in certain limited circumstances, be acceptable. However , merely zoning for these minimal regional densities and mix assumptions does not necessarily guarantee compliance with Goal #10 „ Generally speak- ing to comply with 'Goal #10 local zoning must provide for densities considerably in excess of UGB density assumptions" (underline added) . (Adopted DLCD Acknowledgment of ~, Compliance Report on Metro UGB, ` December 13 , 1979) Memorandum June 6, 1980 Page 2 The phrase "densities considerably in excess" has been subject to some misunderstanding and, hence, clarification is called for. The specific intent of this Commission. requirement- is to ensure that opportunities for moderating the cost of housing are affirmatively included in local comprehensive pians. Increased densities are generally recognized to be an important factor in coping with excessive housing costs, although it is also known that other options available to local jurisdictions could help to moderate costs. A partial list of such cost-moderating opportunities including increased densities follows: 1. Construction of new housing at higher densities than assumed under the UGB Findings. 2. Increased density of existing housing stock through such provisions as "rental-add-ons" or outright conversion of large, older structures to multi-family units. 3. ' Provision for manufactured housing. 4. A new construction housing mix more favorable to multi-family housing than the 50/50 ratio assumed under the UGB Findings (e.g. , a SF/MF ratio of 40/60) . 5. Relaxation of subdivision improvement requirements for wide f' streets, curbs, sidewalks, etc. 6. Reducing the time required to complete the development approval process and/or relaxing design and development approval standards. 7 . Density bonuses to developers/builders who sell units to low-income households below market level prices. 8 . Density bonuses to developers/builders who reserve a per- centage of units for assisted housing. 9 . Density transfers for sites partially constrained by unbuildable conditions such as steep slopes, flooding, etc. In evaluating local -jurisdiction's plans for compliance with Goal 410 the question is principally whether, given the circum- stances of each jurisdiction, adequate cost-moderating opportunities have been affirmatively provided for. Commission requirements concerning clear and objective standards would apply to any cost-moderating procedures. It is also understood that residential housing mix and density requirements for new construction apply only to buildable lands. However, the criteria used to establish buildable lands must be defined in Memorandum June 6, 1980 Page 3 terms of Goal #5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources) , Goal #7 (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards) , Goal #11 (Public Facilities and Services) and Goal #15 (Willamette River Greenway) . As a basis for evaluating compliance with Goal #10 , the following guidelines are established. Guidelines for Small Develoned Cities For small cities (less than 4 ,000 projected year 2000 population) where land is almost completely developed (i .e. , less than 50 acres of buildable land) with very limited potential for new construction or redevelopment to accommodate regional housing needs, the threshold for acknowledgment is low (i .e. , the SFIMF ratio and density need not vary substantially from current patterns) . Metro area cities of this type are: Johnson City, King City, Maywood Park, Rivergrove and Wood Village. + Guidelines for All Other Jurisdictions Housing Mix Ratio: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must meet one of the following minimum requirements: 1. Provide a 50/50 SF/MF new construction housing ratio and , additionally, provide other cost-moderating opportunities which together with the 50/50 ratio, meet the housing requirements (need) identified in the plan as is appro- priate to the circumstances of each jurisdiction. 2. If a jurisdiction's current SF/MF ratio is at least 65/35 , a new construction ratio of less than 50/50 (but generally not exceeding 50/40) is sufficient if there is justifica- tion based on other goal factors such as peripheral loca- tion and poor access to transit (Goal Trl2 , Transportation) , low employment base (Goal #9 , Economy of the State) , lack of recreational open space (Goal 08 , Recreational Needs) , etc. In cases where minimum requirements of #2 above are applied, a greater emphasis (than under #1) will be placed on cost- moderat-ing opportunities. Cost-moderating opportunities which result in a shift of the housing ratio in favor of. SF units (e.g. , from 50/50 to 55/45) , such as a lowering of the minimum single family lot size in a particular district from 7,000 to 5,000 sq. £t. may, in certain situations, be adequate justification for varying from the above standards. Memorandum June 6, 1980 Page 4 Housing Density: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must also meet average- density levels for new- construction of at least 5 UNAr and. ranging higher depending on the site and amount of buildable. land and locational factors of each jurisdiction. Relatively small Metro area cities with some growth potential (with a projected build out population of less than 6 ,000) are not expected to play a major regional housing role. The cities of Cornelius, Durham, Fairview, Happy Valley and Sherwood are included in this category. A minimal acceptable overall new construction density for these jurisdictions is 6 UNA. Counties with buildable lands within an urban area which extensively abuts both rural and other urban lands and medium-sized Metro area cities are expected to play an important housing role in the region. Clackamas and Washington Counties and the cities of Forest Grove, Gladstone, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Troutdale, Tualatin, West Linn and Wilsonville are in this category. These jurisdictions are expected to provide for an overall density of about 8 UNA. Larger jurisdictions (with projected build-out populations of approximately 50 ,000 or more) , which include Multnomah County and the cities of Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Portland and Tigard, are expected to plan for overall new con- struction densities of about 10 UNA. While size and amount of buildable land are important con- siderations in establishing the appropriate overall new construction_ density for each jurisdiction within the region, locational considerations are also significant. Therefore, with 6 UNA established as a minimum for development on buildable land , minor variations from the 8 UNA or 10 UNA standards are permissable provided that these variations are justified by locational considerations. Such locational factors include the degree of access to transit and/or major roadways (Goal #12 Transportation) , proximity to employment opportunities (Goal Q9 Economy of the State) , proximity to and adequacy of parks and open space (Goal #5 Open Space, Scenic and Historic Area= and Natural Resources and Goal I8 Recreational Needs) . 3n summary, with the exception of a few small cities with limited potential for new housing development or redevelopment, jurisdictions in the Metro. area must accommodate at least a 50/50 SF/MF new construction ratio unless otherwise justified and provide opportunities that moderate the cost of housing. Also, they must provide for an over'all new construction density Memorandum June 6, 1980 : Page 5 _ of at least 6 UNA depending on jurisdiction size, amount of buildable land and locational factors. For smaller cities with some growth potential, overall new construction densities of 6 UNA are minimally sufficient to meet Goal #10. For medium-sized cities and counties with lands generally bordered by rural -land , local plans must provide for about 8 UNA. Larger jurisdictions must plan for about 10 UNA for new construction. In practical terms; this will mean average single family lot sizes of 6 ,000 to 8,000 square feet and multi-family densities of about -Mr-MA. There remain some methodological questions as to how a regional Post-acknowledgment market-level housing allocation will be developed beyond the guidelines set forth above. Ingeneral, it is clear that such an allocation plan should begin with an over- all evaluation of the housing distribution patterns resulting from these guidelines as to: (1) whether Goal r10 cost-moderat- ing opportunities, housing mix ratios and density increases emerging in local comprehensive plans fairly and equitably meet regional housing requirements (needs) , and (2) how well the distribution is regionally adjusted to requirements of other Statewide Goals, particularly Goal n6 (Open Space) , Goal a8 (Recreation) , Goal r9 (Economy) , Goal rll (Public Services) and Goal r12 (Transportation) . The regional allocation plan would thus be expected to set criteria for such evaluations, identify Goal #10 inequities or discontinuities with other Statewide Goals, and identify necessary remedies. MB:s s 8201/127 t� cb N to A is y a d a cca Co c O O C A'C p C.0 4_) d N r -O c -O ca 4) C >+C C y 0 a) .., U O CT C'C - O y to � ) o v Via) N o o ow- ai -S.LP co U co o m a E o)o a) co U a) 0 U.X,_v_ -> ca O > d O'2 U o Z. U-d L 'O O `C m -----err U Ooo a)�w � O -0 cmc NU.22Z5Ed01 mo ► > C.c n y�_ v �n o va O 7i 0 �M c �d o y o c O _ Y -__._N C O C O U +'7. Ti v y U O 0 ` E— d Q ` .0 V• ca Q a) a C O U C a) ca #t `�` 0 0 3` c Qrn--� a u_� o caL c� o a>-` o c�aiu &nY c xU� c UQ a Q E ati cX �6 Ince $ °' 0' oQ' cw -:• '.'r- c) Co ;� is a) U Ccgs_ U "�'-:� y r E C U ca- •> uj a) cn y 0 .CO > O C N A - O C y .0 - U ca L Mw'O^� C cn-0 "'C Oa d Q CTm k C3 O a) > U CO w ._ M. U N U cn O Q) ca O C c6 L Q m C a) oS 0'c cn c`� a`) O o o E o aLi ai�o a) CO c a a) aa) -0 c E a)ca c ai Co.—C L U C.]UTC E E„LO, 'y-co ca p)C 7 O > U ,�' O a_' E c`a O E U Q. CT "' o o n c o�co ��ca mco Ci U � �°:L C U 0 c' cncn r O O ca CLEn p a � a — ccn Cl)�. o �uo virc-a caUc enCD O.CD CO O �.E� acioi �� :° ca cUawoE� N oo oocca � c—ce cacuV)co o o� Q QE — TQcorn L6 Cc o L m CT m co ca ®ca� m°) c vs 0 taM> o c f d E' cC- �ooccO .)c O a) -Fn cno. - co CL) o``CUmC`•� �3' oo >c� caocUo - L3N-a•OC L o cnU a) LO ` ) jOLco yUQ T EC a) accn6 U3 a3p�) U•nCc)ai-0a) C: OL CTVy-- —co a — QC " � i ) o cD a) Zo Uo ' o � ao Q-0 Ca� oo o cm > � ` cu iai-nc .0 Oa CO Eai ` via to m y U ca = ca E a.x oQU ca 3 >Q U C a) � Ad hNU aU ` O av L N E d CES o cn � o C-D 'd a Q � � ` cUc3cO nc a) ca m cc mo cu o oa � a E� mc dcU ocaCO•v CD ca-- -o a) o (n w:2O •F= mY m 0 C > Qmo -d O ma) = N 0 ' � E 70 CL— ca U . . -; a) a) Co OCO O CZ C: 'o a 0 UT, ca-0 CML C ( Cn >.OCo �to " a) O cu oUa >tO AUU Q OoOU T OaR U aO CTytoC n U UtCQn oN ccn O Nyca Q > - C — Q— Q d0 U O O E co . d j C OcnaAO= ` > O Cca oC Up C a —cu co 'E to 0 0 . Eo ' v cameo Ch Car C%j Ch O CD ® H ca a _ =73— C C C a) ca CD v U O > C ea .0 0 C CL fm Q C A C.a C =y a 0 U � O a C R .0 a) ca ' U) + ® N •a• C•� V C 7 Q) A'N — U a.0 'O U i a � ca U 7 d C:�0— in cn d o � U Ea c > a) --= >,-- - E yCO C m�'� y C c co O - O'�- .L-. ca Q d U U N U > y.C� C ® A C r 7 C7 ca 0 O L cn O E j C U .a U [T cs C C ems ca c s C C a A Q O CD C _m y U C p O N d OL M-0 C ca v d 1 . CD c3) (D CD g N co CO O CT O c- ca cdn Q om : _U O "- U a C m U e' _ N m CA e-• C,.•• U CO O C U C O ca 3 g -�.� ` � � gc20o mCD Lo a ?f : O qj ` C 3 L , ca U y ca > U a Qom. U N C m U O U U 93 c b. ca C! C i �T. _U C � m c U L y•p >+ L,O C � cn-o C_� �.$ "�� ` 41.0 0 U�— A ' A Z7 a) •c o �U a •X a) � U C ca i 3 O co 0)d A •� U to v ea•w. E 19 «f U c d �. C U y c 2 a y c j dQ C 0-0 a) 'o c cs:E o x en '� ca a- c CO ca a) c vs CL:: cca00 s9c cCaCUU i U t19 OO[2� _ Urom� �aasO= .� -0 >,''9 C7 Uy..�� JAA U C...L rU�v_ CTS C Q)+��� CL m0 '.� O CD 0-0 0 a N A O — C -7p U)> O a).0 o i-o C to ,d U N ccaa � c�C•C �.o� sCa cac > can)mc i! cCa caa Esc --- MEwa_TEC c rf °is C— U '0 O C U U O d O d — U a ca C3»: ®•w V ®•p m ca a s 0 co a �. — -Cc o L ca c3 a°)co coi w 0 a. �•o WE ca« m C`3 Qr cv ISLAND ANNEXATIONS SMITH - 104th and McDonald 2S1 2C, 3100 SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD R.O.W. - Scholls Ferry Rd. & Conestoga 1S1 34AB COLES ACRES - 114th & Bull Mountain Rd. 2S1 10A, 2608, 2603, 2606, 2601, 2200, 2502, 3200, 3201, 3301, 2301, 3300, 3400, 2500, 2402, 3302, 2400, 2300, 2401, 2302 MILNE - 105th & McDonald St. 2S1 11B, 1600, 1700 NEILSEN - 98th & Durham Rd. 2S1 14B, 200 PECH - 109th & Neve Rd. 1S1 10D, 1200 ODOT - Pacific Highway at Fred Meyers 1S1 36DB WALNUT STREET R.O.W. - Walnut & 128th 2S1 4AD BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD R.O.W. - Bull Mountain Rd. 2S1 10BD & 1OBC PACIFIC HIGHWAY R.O.W. - Pacific Highway & Naeve Rd. 2S1 10D DAVIES - 74th Ave., south of Bonita Rd. 2S1 12A, 1300, 1400 CASCADE ANNEXATION WAS FIP7A1, MARCH 5, 1981 - Discussion of Final Ordinance SMITH 2 S 1 2C 3100 4�04`�, ` -11.Ov�, 'sem cc -J-- jo �sG ..v hlnOfi`E -- 114.2 71 .. W 70 - -. $7 LIRE OF G. R HAI9OSON SO1e06` 0J'W 220 5. ��, 1. N C) D.L.0 36 W m �j -t ` p W w O 0 I C% C) z pN O � O � �O A � O O N n '1 u O I—WO oI( fV O �r GO ". 5105 Q 114.2 114.2 b O: CilAVENUEL ? 434.0 NUP U+E .- Lb ...p•" 'tfER3GtiET3S.tf,.•� 39:71f e _ N::.`.OS•1`,..E 5.?.37. 449 � yp m_ \ SC 05 w' i r5o '-" - - SCe05 w t65.5 LK n O 60 �� O Cl 60 01 oc w O •i • 0•p .i E� C 30 y� _135.0 HOIe02 _aR �IQe255pcz2 E'£ a9 9! �y X2.5 tx �j Q A Nao �\ 805 NCe.e.. i 51 ro-v9 I O N 0 co - / O I a O Cl. p o.. _ :50 yr v P4 r.06'E 163.5 ro lz�Ln O Q W N y0. $000.ik H 1C;6i per•+. } £"-� � � 165 9 ' I� Z O N n p O _ z p 00 a p m ! A a o pL a � `o wry p JN `• � w - • m m CA •: (u at m (} N O 'p ! 12G.0 110 99.16 01 Q' Ind. AVENUE HJ�eo6E e ►41o06'E 1 5.S N v 0 w C) O v o� !-i OC-71 ' a.0 Q N N 03 175.22 , N 213.09 \ _ c1n 41 o N ® A - 1a co a Iii& -A a = r - •` W SCROLLS FERRY ROAD ROW 44 1S1 34AB -EE 1 _. IS 1 Q -s tw N Al o - J ' t U ' 1 C.S 14,6O4 s CS. 14,003 N 656,938 515 NfT�Qh 42fMUTr, MARK E. I,a1f,435.368 WS_B GS BPASS :j-- 7 =_ Ax 3200 1 1 ! C.S 14,003 • I 1 3300 i•1 n _ 273 Qt. f 5e . 42 A iv O ri 1 c �•� - Qr • INITIAL PT. CCLES ACRES ZS1 10A, 2608, 2603, 2606, SEE A?AP . ' ' 2601, 2200, 2502, 3200, 3201, 3301, 23Nq, 3300, 3400, 2500,2S 1 3CC _ 2402, a30_ 2400, 2300, 2401, 2302 =? r.s �sz.5 GAARDc o o. 529 ' d" 2790 I •t 52.= 15:.ya _ �30we. .cam + 2000) 6504 _ 1501 H3�et3't li 70 ca 78'•348 3.35 Ac- 1 rJt,O - ., n .?3 Ae. .JOAc. 4 72Ae. 3 1 - c�i 15 v`? 't 444, Ale` -F Z(] 290! 2791 N 2605 G lTy p 1503 joaz. .33Ae. 3 y Q t I • _ r� t 3SAe. _ .38Ae� 1€q � 10' I.23wc. 06'� b . f 52.5• ' 151_42• ¢ 1 � 2701 cl 1$ a 3 INITIAL POINT a LaINIT� `moo I S88*25'w 0• sot' 99.84' 05• > ? 3 > -7 9700 �21rO7303f 2608 CD 0-74a i 7 �+ tJ Ar. 4 IB Ac. ( q_ 1701 .• � -"ems-F--•--=J___. 4 SEE t�A 4r- b Q R TY2a' —_ c'.d02 0",. 3 2605 t a P 1700 o .asnc. a 2S 1 108A r �� w 16.3000Jp . 260130 31013- �.Ps 250 3100 m 2501 2 _;. °° As _ a, saA� 1$.3d1Ac. o .ZS Ac. ;. y ! 46Ac. 2500 13417} 3200 -53201 — ,0 3`�.gAe.• : : o_ .a� -7 -474c. .44 Ac '� "' 2160Ac TF? 2402 7►ssae. 2300) 3302 C .44Ac. q. .96Ae 707.5' 3 7 Ac. rq 305 `>L13 j 3300 150 304.94T -- �,, Ra103 -7 q i6o 12y �; 2302 `,/ - .42.7s g �1- / S31_B• \� C •~ 173• ;9 ! .�` 305' -t=:, X20' S78 C a / ti 3400 -it 2200 t29/d f l _ S/Ae 5 :- 1 Pis -g 132' .�.--w r.;y 25OEDYJi7E0 432.30 SES 1 P ..t.00 a� f .,".:P � ia, N �� ��o / •�000 28 1 Z P9nt$Yt "tel T 493.98 �1 i s 2M-5 rhT ROADs, �. z9 OQ (44 L54 a%/i� I a-fir If . a Ra10 368 �'••" ,3801 r 3681 a O Q 4.l4A� a , f 3700 l;�4d 9/ ae � /.SfAe. �v L_ �.._. ae9a36'W .,TSl_2B. 201.B3 d¢ ! t 3800 AA 4 1 R e 4200 ay f.eo Ac tC S.N.12250{ so a GJ r GVH.. S.W.CORNEA +�•- MILIdE _ Sv�tis RICHARDSON D.L.C. 5 4 •� - C., 2S1 11B 1600 & 1700 N Q 2 �� �SEGIR Cc RL TGO O ) A SOUTH L114E GEORGE RICHARUSCNy CLC 3P ;y;> '.�%i7 s.:'}3 a �..�%%11111::;iii%`,11111:%f,�d///�%%S�%%".zri✓.::!�ks:i3:T.�e.-+c � a.: i�a�f...Y.,.,,, _ � . 451.66 0489O 3 E 110.0 40 11 2101 2100 1503 130, ' 2.61 4r. .93 Ar- 2 Ac 3.5:1.4c. 23-74 _ N - 0-10 90 n i o y 1501 ry8 � 1 d !9 Ac c = w (GS-N�d1�35) c (C-S No 11,531) 6 1502 m • 1 589*38•w 3 184.76 n.L`2fIC. a !r .S, 1500 m o M ".c4 Ac m lC5 N ARiF C TO BEE1600 'isT.'4 0 0 .A t / T - 0 1700 ' o. .0i . N - 1300 _ 25f.98 z' t . 56• ._ 5'z.iC -2000 aa9p v 0 0 /.42Ac. e+ - 523®04*W 18.97 297.47 S89039 w 250.45 S8,4043%. 277r. 1200" 1900 .94.Bc. 1800 v% a Us M N •t>c ' N S N ro K _ 1 100 3b6 N 2 "� .94Ac.' s 168.70 26470 ,000 S1l9a 33W - n -TZ.1c. _ 278.9 r es 281%71 r- SEE MAP a W NEILSEN � Q 2S1 14B 200 f _ i i U 10 o00PJ.LN389 c a o SZ b y t Q 4f �� •� NIHON ,09611 00 10 A cv o C%j mom -3AV 9 V f T4 COL. WUJ cn Sb N � ui a � � m . }� VN383S 76A'S W (n cn cm L.ie C� y� uj V o aO r C\j F- �Z- _n V C) a � v .r nq Q m C.D ch Z Li.! w (n C SEE MAP - 2S 1 IOA i a PECH 1S1 10D 1200 2S Ii7A. 600 500 f asU.u+ s-ate ac. i o.27.4c. 201 20068 Ac. sae_ n m ' � N W O 6 i ® 7 202 0 9 /.6/ Ac. 23=7d �. 1 ^ �l � 1 y 0 L fJ` \/ _ 300 Ir 970 Ac. x E3 R J 0 I� 5 i Q J c 7• a o m _ 28.85 1100 40 s Arm40 0 9Z Ac. 1-3 : n o N 402 ..e'..- I200e 3 ter; c.sa Ac. 4 �4l9^SS•]C w 200• - 74 r - -$�+' [/J AGS. W ca 1Y A - CS 9543 .4 A m A I p- AREA TO /3,=— F Afit/ AtElYED 2000 _. m x lI ssc m ODOT 1Si 36DB SOUTH LINE T.3 TT63 o E MAP IS1 3SAC 21.1 143.8 S8Q-03 io"E 30212 \ c { l� A ,tl N E COR.G.RICHARDSON0 " A OLC 98 a ,a 0 0 3' ti ,poo � � ^ r_ L586019,E i 102 s, 100 9 3 8.7 1 , .30Ac r `� .39Ar- �s ' 3 S a ®s ®1 ,.1 /I c ' q \Ci - a� - �, UJ 1 — U R 4 A 120'n1 •2311 4AD i 164 a0 03 to iD V m y a) n0 ? 0 - n p43 o ^ O !l v N (JI N O N v � O N 2C L. .O 1 20 46 t ti .394c. 120 £ ° t 20 N a N N N m p cn o ` co CD O O a 0C:) - n n0 �' „ 0 0 u, F. - C O 1' w r n S sCI- CIFL 120 5 Oto 57 20•W 37.90 O NvaN a O - A O o 2 > 0) - O 4 . O o (.71 O o O) O o v 0 0 0 S, m (D O �. 70 75 .91 75.00 73.00 7300 00 75.00 53.58 2680 65 65 O r, 3Sz NOIo57 20"E � A 1121, o Sw 128t h AVE . 80. 24 75.00 63.27 0. ,0 65.00 75.00 O y 5 Z p O c CD N m p — m O m _ p 61a A OO Ln p 'o a, OpoP N - O 100.00 ZE ='a U N on&3d'E 76.14 75.27 0 � 73.00 T OI`�7.20"E 131.41 V N01157 20"E 145.00 roll 0 O o IV� -w t 1 5. 70 O 1 " N O Cd O v a 'r1 w'` a G N O 1-,4• ATE O A O J] o v° Oco E - v - O- ISO + w m N 02136.30"6 �' _w a �O •L O u w �j 2 d6 0 Y .Y M q9 O 4LDv A oQ �® m $ $ a,N OCID V C. r O N. y Y tt 0112540 E 3 9 446.90 '"�� Q o Niql Cb fli -1 C'� t!1 O 3a O Q 077 g 9 - 99612 Q SGS �a ��y J v tr 087 LLJ 1>"09 .2v SO mlwom VS - C) n in �- f.i - P.i N CL Q o Q W Cl) V V) N ..:._ a Ilk f Q 9. _ Q of � ti O a m '. Wit• N on w. o z 3 A°r ^� y 0$ r ISO QINC w a � w m M�r o ate, Q _ A PACIFIC HIGHWAY RON� 2S1 10D 1/4 CORNER 700 660 5.67Ac B.3T Ap. s: -yam . 9 8 25.,-7 o; Ora y O s O 9 V ��J ' 2e9.48' tv 26 9.4 3' wgd0 /.40,4c. 294.73' e F 294.73• p •t J _O Om e� 321' 10- oN m 10 1(Doo 321 'r 6774c. /.6J Ac. - 349.67' N _ux— ° 3`N89 32'LY 3®2.28' k89°SI'30'w200' \ 1500 589048'W 627 \ 4.33 Ac. SEE MAP JAi a 2S i 10C a oN tSl __ T02.9' Y 7` 1600 731.4• ry ov, 2.07 R c. �• S 8700 J.5 Ac. i2.4 r ' 9'3300 2000 m x.94 Ac ' !T Ac p' dw millEmm Io Is DAVIES 2S1 12A 1'300 & 1400 w . Fn r T1 a r� ` r 34735 1 .:64.92• 347.35 99 9}` 212.70' } ` ch O yab Cla m �� ! "r � _. �'N mp y10 aC'' Orifi wt 4.(31 i ap �! ` CK O e p p p 4. ra ct E - w 0_ - / _p7 r 1 a /!/ 41 1EN '' TQ 1�j 1415.49 a ��r 1� �R1C .2'S• 06• �-g• i - — _ l a3 170% A,`f E NUE. ® a .—.ice •s lu id. •� 238.3 120of '� p . 324.43' Q �3 s6•fltl- w aG 250.16 _ Q p Q Q -Mr n p"—', ap ✓�. !� b. s of r. w i •�i317 M) An �J cv A v' z:Zca {- t Z tA n\'4160 t� ter w a7 39'W N bb ab am V► s O� Q C 4 u b O - 1209 s N lk •tet t- o _ •• H 48 tCiS 65L pe-)63 - 2s3�B2 1072.5c rte.-: ;.. ... •�.. °� •• i. '~� f 4 ! A Q,o "Wo ._ a s 01. �- .'4�.�rsf4''r.�4P J•.�-�. � t�:"� 1� s i•-i;j..••ce�:•�;.w+X•' ,- `�'"4 � '1; •' ry _ - _ _._ '�c •� ,4..'.�+ •_ qi-v '•.�..�-t�.��'it:: �1-j7-.r ro �a .'t/S.• 'r •} la - •- -=^•-�44"�'�x t ho�f', �.� •i �...."�'Cr �.3 ZSJ.• �• �.•rq:__ -At;- 17Z;7- At ^pr's• �CgA _ , i- •$ `.�2e aid' ¢_ .'S it i �"'1".::•~� ♦}-. -�rr i w} ,�•"� _r+ '-., � 8. -•y 3^ � * �.* !" Er Z a. . i�Y•F` :!a?��tF �: s�y�j,�w+ -aWg p L �: ••:J.`� F•.rT :K- f: .-.��''�,r` ', `.:t�i'. :i; `a.x.�.y - .y" .i �'ti', .'• _ t :f CASCADE �✓>': r � I cL�.a•�t to;--•� — �:: ( � ( � � ; ....-.....,. to j � ca .•<. 1 � Pr,-%Posal No. 1667 /7 . t , i.•Sr . >. , + • ! I taco�• y i " ' .; cot3cMr c> .� e•cccu- a5ar[ CsvE:E•s 2.3-72 .?< .•_. 1� �r^y 3�r •i — — '�"� ... ! LTE rsv -� V 1 tiL2 ;i: — 11 C S Esrr ' _ ' 50 •• 1- C.. e.i tsof st L ealaal•: I 1 GCS:EM7 1! ?^ — .:•„= :...— — <, -; t ' ; �IP.aa+4i4.LUM• ,. .£, 1 t L...so> ! •1, '•, � .r+ �� `too 1 / aa -It aD.r• * - � 11 1''"� �� i� , �.••` AREA TO BE ANNEXED - i •Nae � ` .:► •► r � i lit• �d �' r t.-ra..sF ._•',S 1 7aM `\ OT DJ a Mao \ ��1i0-1•�`'l 01 �� �a SL.Yip 4 1 35" . }' w� +rear ,CI _'ro .. � �••e•• f •7RL t.•io t% 1 S•Ar. � � f 23-64 ca r1•• SQE wit tS13394 CITY OF TI CARD ,/A S H-BA O D 2-3-62 t, IS 1 S+.J �4: S..•'t r C1 ISPI it •.-rc.o�^.�` ♦ .31 a _ t5 h 3V2 ]'NW y. �la°a! `.:- JrDar Ss i;:� `-�M 'i;w -�: � � ��•J i i • - - ! I7SS1 �' O � �� t_p { •� .'- �/•p�•'T� pyp�q�q�p1' \ .,•,:: . -~=--� a f.� _ CITY OF TI G4,RDmat • 4.r4l�l�/bir_ �\ �'� ra. ♦a ae � � "'.`'' 6'—:� 1 - �_�`/~I/ ^1 I '„• � f ++ �, .` a'ss+• i s'� � 'tx r.•.•A}+� i 1 •+sem i t a� .S •� � ���_ � a a 6tf v / �1 lef.-]}./•. .is fa.. e".::e � - a PROPOSAL NO. 1667 CITY OF TIGARD -;% ANNEXATIOIS FIG, 2 r A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 81- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.59 OF THE TIGARD _M.UNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW. AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That Section 18.59 of the Tigard Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: "SEE EXHIBIT All SECTION 2: Inasmuch as it is necessary to the peace, health, and safety of the public that the foregoing change in the City's records become effective, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vete of all Co ... �il u==-,,;ers present. this day of 1981 after being read two times r by number and title only. Recorder - City of Tigard APPROVED: By the Mayor this day of 1981. Mayor - City of Tigard ORDINANCE NO. 81- ZOA 9-80 DESIGN REVIEW R 0 U G II Chapter 18.59 DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 18.59.010 Purpose of provisions 18.59.020 Administration Action 18.59.02:3 Fee Required 18.59.024 Modification .of:P.lan 18.59_030 Applicability of Design Review 18.59.032 Appeals -.niocedure 18.59.040 Conditional Applicability 18.59_050 Matters Exempt 18.59.060 Design Review Procedure 18.59.061 Application for Design Review 18.59.062 Standards and Criteria 18.59.063 Additional Requirements 18.59.064 Aesthetic Desian 18.59.070 Minor Deviations 18.59.080 Bonding and Assurances 18.59.090 Validity Period 18.59.100 Offsite Improvement of Right-of-way 18.59.010 Purpose of Provisions. The intent and purpose of design review is to promote the general community welfare by encouraging attention to site planning, with. regard to the natural environment, creative project design and the character of the neighborhood or area. It is. also in the public interest and necessary for the promotion of the safety, convenience , comfort and prosperity of the citizens of the city of Tigard to: (1) Preserve and enhance the natural beauties of the land and of the man-made environment, and enjoyment thereof; (2) _ Maintain and improve the qualities of and relationships between individual buildings, structures, and the physical developments which best contribute to the amenities and attractiveness of an area or neighborhood; 9/80 - 12/4/80 - 1/12/81 Page 2 c. (3) ^otect and insure the adequacy and usefulness of public and private developments as they relate to each other and to the neighborhood or area; (4) Irsure that each individual development provides for a quality environment for the citizens utilizing that development as well as the community as a whole. (5) Stimulate creative design for individual buildings,g groups of buildings and structures, and other physical developments; (6) Encourage -the i nnnl'at ern use of materials, methods and techniques; (7) ; 37ntegrate the functions, appearances and locations of buildings and improvements to best achieve a balance between private prerogatives and preferences, and the public interest and welfare. 18.59.020 Admir_sitration Action. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of design plans in conformance with all aspects of this code, the planning director or his agent shall approve, disapprove, or ap-+rove with eonaitions all design review plans , _ except as P may be otherwise provided under Section 18.59.040, Conditional Applicability. Page 3 18.59.023 Fee Required. At the time of the filing of the application for approval of a design review plan, the applicant shall pay a fee to be determined by resolution of the city council_ 18.59.024 Modification of Plan. A request for modification of an approved design plan shall be submitted to the appropriate city department and shall be modified or denied in writing by the department head. 18.59.030 Applicability of Design Review. Action by the planning director or his agent shall be based upon findings pursuant to the criteria of subsection "d" of Section 18.59.060. The applicability of development requirements contained in the Tigard Municipal Code shall be determined by the plannIng director relative to each application for development -made to the City of Tigard. All new buildings, structures and relocation, addition, extension, and exterior changes of or to existing buildings, structures, and physical site improvements shall be subject to design review including preparation of a design plan. ("Physical improvements", as used 'in this chapter includes, but is not limited to, parking lot areas in excess of three spaces, loading areas, retaining walls , signs, and cut and fill or grading actions.) 18.59_032 Appeals Procedure. Action of the planning director or his agent may be appealed to the planning commission (1) A written notice of appeal is recorded stating 'reason(s) for the appeal bases'[ upon. the 'criteria of this chapter:.' Page 4 r- (2) Said written notice of appeal is received by the City Recorder within twenty (20) days fol'lowi,ng .notice of action in the. form of a Staff Report to the applicant.prepared by. the Planning Director or his agent. (3) Action by the planning commission may be appealed to the City Council as outlined in Tigard Municipal Code Section 18.92.020. 18.59.040 Conditional Applicability. The planning commission or city council may, as a condition of approval for a zoning ordinance amendment, or conditional use approval, require conformance to the requirements of this chapter and may specify design approval authority. 18.59.050 Matters Exempt. Single-family detached amend. single family attached (duplex) dwelling structures and accessory physical iiaprove-ments are exempt from design review. 18.59.060 Design Review Procedure. Following a preliminary review of the design plan with the planning department, the applicant shall prepare final plans incorporating all aspects of the design review plan and file three (3) copies with the planning director. If the final plans are found to be in compliance, it sl-all be so certified in a staff report. A copy of the certified plans and staff 3eport will be returned to the applicant. Attached to the staff "report shall be an "acknowledgement" statement. The applicant will sign this statement agreeing to the conditions stated and shall return an _°Iacknowlledged. : copy to staff prior to the issuance of any permit by the City. A copy of the final plans with the staff keport and conditions shall be distributed to the building official and placed on file with the planning department. Page 5 (1) Conformity to Site Plan. (A) No building permit, grading permit,.parking permit, or sign permit shall be issued, nor any use commence or be enlarged, changed, or altered until a design review plan, as required under this chapter, is approved by the planning director or his agent. (B1 As may be determined by the planning director or his agent, a grading permit, parking permit or sign permit may be approved after preliminary consultation with an applicant provided adequate evidence and findings indicate compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter. (C) The planning director may approve minor. changes .in approved design plans when it is determined that the changes will not. significantly alter. the.character, density, intensity,or otherwise significantly change the plan. Significant changes must be approvedanee,w as required by this chanter. (D) The applicant shall demonstrate continued compliance with the approved landscape plan twelve (12) months. from the date of issuance of an occupancy permit on. a site. Noncompliance with the approved site plan, or conditions placed upon the site in the staff report, pursuant to this section, shall be treated as zoning ordinance violations. Page 6 18.59.061 Application for Design Review. The applicant for approval Of a design review plan shall consider the intent and purpose and the standards of this chapter in preparing a design plan as herewith required. The application will not be processed by the planning department unless it is complete. As a minimum, the design plan must contain the following: (1) Site plan, including vicinity map; (2) Architectural drawings including elevations preferably prepared by a licensed architect; (3) Landscape plan with irrigation plan, and plant material index, p--aferably prepared by a licensed landscape architect. (a) Site drainage plans. Parking configuration plan. The application, design plan and supporting documentation shall be submitted in the form as required by the planning department. If the planning director determines it within the public interest, due to the complexity and/or uniqueness of prop osed project, to require the services of a licensed architect and/or landscape architect, this may be mandated and applicant shall pay all expenses incurred. 1 Page 7 18.59.062 Standards and Criteria. The review and approval of design plans and proposals as set forth herein, based on the following criteria, shall assure that developments and physical improvements are designed and located in a manner which will best satisfy the purpose and intent of this section. (1) It will not impair or interfere with either the development use, or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, or the orderly and pleasing development of the neighborhood, or the design functions of public lands and rights-of-way. (2) It will not directly, or in a cumulative fashion, impair, inhibit, or limit further investment or improvements in the vicinity, on the same or other properties, including public lands and rights-of-way. (3) it will be adequately served by public facilities including, but not limited to, sewer, streets, water, and power. The Public Works Department shall make a determination as to the availability of public facilities. Adequate parking shall be provided. All plans for public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the public Works Department. (4) It will properly and adequately perform or satisfy its functional requirements without being unsightly or creating substantial disharmony with regard to its 'locale and surroundings; (5) It will provide a safe, pleasing and liveable environment for those people utilizing the development, and immediate neighbors or community as a whole. (6) It will be properly and adequately landscaped with maximum retention of trees, minimum soil removal, and minimum grade changes as shall be in keeping with tht,. general appearance of the neighborhood or area, and the safe, efficient and attractive development of the site. Page 8 (7) It shall provide a minimum onsite landscape area of. ten (lo%) percent in accordance with the following formula: Residential Zones -- Front twelve (121) feet from the street right-of-way Commercial Zones -- Front ten (10') feet Industrial Zones -- Front twenty (201) feet 18.59.063 Additional Requirements. In certain instances the following additional requirements may be applicable. (1) All areas not occupied by paved roadways or walkways shall be landscaped and maintained. (2) Tree and shrub planting areas of a minimum eight (8') feet in width within parking areas shall be provided and maintained at an, average of one y (T) planting area 'per ten -(10) parking spaces _required by-Code. (3) A minimum five (5') foot landscape strip along any lot boundary shall be installed. (4) All off-street parking and loading areas shall be effectively screened from view from the public right-of-way. E Page 9 18.59.064 Aesthetic Design. All projects will minimize or eliminate adverse visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design, or juxtaposition. Such adverse effects may include, but are not limited to, those produced by the design and locaticnal characteristics of: (1) The scale, mass, height, area, and materials of buildings and structures; (2) Surface and subsurface drainage and appurtenant structures; (3) Cut and fill or the reforming of the natural terrain and structural appurtence . thereto such as retaining walls; (4) Areas, paths, and rights-of-way for the containment, movement, or general circulation of persons, animals, vehicles, and conveyances. (5) Other developments or improvements such as, but not limited to, utility lines, storage or service areas and advertizing features, which may result in . diminuation or elimination of sun and light exposure, views, vistas, privacy, and general aesthetic value of the neighborhood or area. Page 10 df 18_54.070 Minor Deviations. (1) Landscaping" required by the underlying zoning district may be varied up to twenty (20%) percent provided said variation is demonstrated to result in a superior design in the public interest or relates to a practical difficulty associated with the natural character of the site_ (2) Parking required by the underlying zoning district to twenty (20%) percent where special conditions warrant said variation, and considering such factors as the following: (A) Availability of public transit; (B) Multiple or joint use of parking facilities; (C) Special conditions such as housing for the elderly, low income, or studio apartments. !r 4 Page 11 18.59.080 Bonding and Assurances. (1) The planning director may require a bond or other adequate assurance as a condition of the design plan that conformance to the a�')proved design plan be completed. The bond or other assurance shall be released when conformance to the design plan is certified by the planning director or his agent. (2) Landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy permits, unless security equal to the cost of landscaping as determined by the planning director is filed with the city recorder assuring such installation within six months after occupancy. Security may consist of a faithful performance bond or letter of credit for 100% of the cost payable to the city, cash certified check or such other assurance of completion approved by the city attorney. If the installation of the landscaping is not completed within the six month period, the security nay be used by the city to complete the installation. Page 12 18.59.090 Validity Period. Design plans approved by the planning director shall remain valid for a period of one (1) year following the date of its approval. If at the end of that time construction has not begun, the site plan approval shall lapse and shall be in effect only if resubmitted to the director and again an,Droved. All construction and development under any building permit shall be in accordance with the approved design plans. Any departure from such plan other than provided for in Section 18.59.070 shall be a cause for revocation of a building permit or a denial of an occupancy permit. Any proposed changes in an approved plan shall be submitted to the planning director in accordance with Section 18.59.020 for review and approval. Site development shall be completed before issuance of occupancy pe=-Lts unless an extension of not longer than six (0) months is granted, 18.59.100 Offsite Improvement and Right-Of-Way. Dedication of necessary right-of-way, street improvements, pedestrian ways, lighting, and signalization may be required by the City as a condition of development, if it is found that .a need for such is caused by the development under consideration.