City Council Packet - 04/20/1981 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
APRIL 20, 1981, 7 :30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LECTURE ROOM
I . ROLL CALL
2. RELOCATION OF LIBRARY - Library Board
3 . TUALATIN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM
FIRE PREVENTION CODE - City Administrator
4. TAXI CAB ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - Legal Counsel
5 . ANNEXATION DISCUSSION - NORTH DAKOTA ANNEXATION - Planning Director
6. KOLL BUSINESS CENTER REQUEST - Director of Public Works
7. A70-80PD - HOME FOR THE AGED ORDINANCE - Planning Director
8. DISCUSSION - ADDITION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(CHAPTER 18; - Planning Director
9. TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - STATUS REPORT FRONT YARD
SETBACKS FOR SLTHMERFIELD #14 - Planning Director
10. DALES GLEN SUBDIVISION - STATUS REPORT - Planning Director
11 . 1981 LEGISLATION EFFECTING CITIES - DISCUSSION - City Administrator
12 . SALARY ADJUSTMENTS - LIEUTENANT & MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE - City
Administrator
13 . PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR - City Council
14. OTHER
15 . ADJOURNMENT
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
STUDY SESSION MINUTES , APRIL 20 , 1981 , 7 :30 P.M .
1 . ROLL CALL: Present : Mayor Wilbur Bishop; Councilmen Tom Brian , John
Cook, Kenneth Scheckla ; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler (arriv-
ing at 7 : 38 P.M. ) ; Chief of Police , Robert Adams ; Legal
Counsel , Joe Bailey (leaving at 10 : 10 P.M. ) ; City Adminis-
trator, Raeldon R. Barker ; Director of Public Works , Frank
Currie ; Finance Director/City Recorder, Doris Hartig ;
Planning Director, Aldie Howard ; Administrative Secretary ,
Loreen Wilson.
2 . RELOCATION OF LIBRARY
(a) Betsy Chick, representing the Library Board, addressed the con-
cerns of the Friends of the Library and Library Board noting lack
of space for books and patrons , generally poor condition of
building and lack of security in the present site .
Councilwoman Stimler arrived - 7 : 38 P.M.
Ms . Chick explained that the current lease for the ,Iain Street
site of the Library is expiring on June 30 , 1982 , and states no
option for renewal . The committees have been looking at Christ
the King Luthern Church at 11305 S .W. Bull Mountain Road as a
possible site for relocation of the library on an interim basis
until a Tigard Civic Center is a reality. The sale price of
the property under consideration is $580 ,000 .
(b) Lengthy discussion followed between Council , staff and members of
the Tigard Library Board and Friends of the Library. Areas of
concern were : a lease extension would be acceptable , the solar
heating assistance that could be installed for the new site with
federal funding assistance; concerns regarding the completion
date of a civic center, and parking needs at the present location .
(c) Irene Ertell , Head Librarian, advised Council that Washington
County Cooperative Library Services is in the planning stages of
a serial levy request for a County-wide capital improvement
program for libraries . She noted that these funds could assist
in payment of the library facilities in either a civic center
or different location.
(d) Council expressed their support of the need for a new facility
for the Library, however, stated they felt any tax levy measures
for Tigard should be formed for the construction of a Civic
Center Complex.
(e) 1,1otion by Councilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Scheckla
to request City Administrator. contact Mr. Sorg and negotiate an
extension to the current lease for one year to 1.8 months and
advise Library Board of decision.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
( f) Consensus of Council was to have COUncili:tan Briars sic in on
meeting with Mr. Sorg and City Administrator .
3 . TUALATIN RURAL FIRE. PROTECTION DISTRICT - AMENIDM?ENT TU L1i%;]
PREVENTION CODE FORIM FIRM
(a) City Administrator reported that the Dire District has requested
an amendment to the existing fire code to incorporate the 1979
Uniform Building Code, Fire Code and Mechanical Codes and have
requested a change in the code to require sprinklers in new com-
mercial buildings which create higher fire hazard due to sire ,and/
or height .
(b) Mr . Tom Thompson, Division Chief of TRFPD, stated that a Ietter
had been sent out advising contractors and architects of the
hearing before the Council and it was distributed to all 13 ilci-
ing Departments in the area to advise persolas not recei.vi�ag letters .
(c) Mr. Ed Walden , Building Official , gave brief overview of the
Uniform Building Code current requirements for sprinklers and
installation of fire walls . He addressed his concerns that
construction cost would increase for developments and possibly
discourage developers and investors from coming into the City .
(d) Council expressed concern that the change in the sprinkler requiro-
ments would be different fro;,, that of shi I ,
City limits . ton County t:ur:.al Fire
Protection District #1 which also has jurisdiction caithin the
(e) Tom Thompson advised Cotancii that the Fire District has a class 3
rating for insurance purposes and this would help maintain that
rating which would in turn reduce fire insurance costs .
(f) Mr. Doug Krebs and Gene Birchill , TRFPD, discussed with Council
the jurisdiction in the metropolitan area that have sprinkler
requirements and also noted formula for determining; what size
building requires sprinkler systems .
(g) Consensus of Council was to have TRFPD disctiss areas of cori-
cern with the Building Official and report back to the Council
at a future meeting.
4. TAXI CAB ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(a) Legal Counsel gave background of request by cab companies for a
revision in the ordinance . He noted that the proposed changes
included a permit being issued for each 1000 population instead
of each 5000 . Also that there should possibly be language in the
ordinance to refer to the trips starting and ending in the City
limits .
(b) City Administrator stated that the original request was submitted
by Radio Cab Company.
PACE 2 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL .•iINUTES , April 20 , 1981
(c) Mr. Lewis Elenboden, Supt . of Radio Cab , requested Council
consideration of changes in the ordinance to allow his company
to service the Tigard area along with Broadway Cab .
(d,` After lengthy discussion between staff, Council and the cab
company representative, concensus of Council was to have Legal
Counsel re-woad ordinance to allow a yearly business license
fee of $150.00 per cab company, deleting limit on the n1.unber
of unit permits .
Legal Counsel left at 10 : 1() P. I.
5 . ANNEXATION DISCUSSION - NORTH DAKOTA ANNEXATION
(a) Planning Director stated an island has been formed in the North
Dakota area .
(b) Pe Le Cha iney, resident from Tiedecnan Street , questioned Council
and staff as to what benefits would be derived by the citizens
for coming into the City limits . Staff and Council discussed
this question at great length .
(c) Mrs. Cookson, 10520 S .W. North Dakota , questioned Council regard-
ing her specific property and how annexation would affect it .
(d) Mr. Roberts , manager for Washington Square discussed storm
drainage problems with Council .
(e) Planning Director stated that this iLer'i wouid come before Council
at the April 27 , 1981 , meeting for action on a resolution initiat-
ing the annexation request .
RECESS - 10:30 P.m.
RECONVENE - 10 :40 P.M.
6 . KOLL BUSINESS CENTER REQUEST
(a) Mr. Ray Lang, Koll Company representative , requested Council allow
the lighting that they placed on Nimbus Street to be maintained .
(b) Director of Public Works gave background of problem noting that
development was originally proposed with six 200 lumin standard
street lights being installed . Koll Company has installed
eight 400 lumin lights which are not the standard street lights .
The problems caused by this installation are a lack of maintenance
parts being available, increased power costs to the City, and no
public control of the lights on
ownership. Director of Public public property because of private
Works suggested a remedy needs to
be found to these particular problems .
(c) After lengthy discussion with Koll Company, staff and Ken Snyder
from PGE, concensus of Council was to request an agreement be
drawn up between Koll Company and the City of Tigard to require
y' maintenance parts be kept on hand, Koll Company pick-up the
r PAGE 3 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES, April 20, 1981
z
difference in power costs from all Option B 200 lumin light cost
to an Option C 400 lumin light cost , and require the agreement
to go with the land in any sale of the business .
Staff will accomplish this and bring back to Council soon .
7 . A70/80 - HOME FOR THE AGED ORDINANCE
(a) Planning Director stated that this item will be before Council on
April 27 , 1981 , for a public hearing . IIe explained the backoround
of the request and noted that this ordinance would give NPO ' s an
opportunity to respond to the applications in this zone desi_��n-
ation .
(b) After lengthy discussion , Council requested Planning Director
change ordinance to reflect the code pertaining to parking space
for employees .
8 . DISCUSSION - ADDITION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (CHAf' i ':K IE:)
(a) Planning Director stated this would be considered at the April. 27th
meeting also in public hearing and explained the background of the
requested change .
9 . TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - STATUS REPORT FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR
SUMMERFIELD 7#14
(a) Planning Director stated that this item is being taken care of by
working with TDC. However, he noted that if the ordinance amended
Planned Development , had been in effect ( item No . 8) during, the
time TDC filed their complaint , the questions of the front yard
setbacks for Summerfield No . 14 world not have been an issue .
10 . DALES GLEN SUBDIVISION - STATUS REPORT
(a) Planning Director advised Council that an error had been made in
the mailing out of notices for this subdivision because the
Planning Department Secretary had quit . He advised Council of
the way this item was taken care of and noted letters had been
sent to the surrounding property owners apologizing for the
mistake and extending the closing date for remonstrances against
the proposed development .
11 . SALARY ADJUSTMENTS - LIEUTENANT & MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
(a) City Administrator requested Council consider salary adjustments
for the Lieutenant and Municipal Court Judge . Ile discussed chart
showing difference in salaries between the Chief of Police ,
Lieutenant and Sergeants in the Police Department . He then
requested Council consider approximately a 6 . 1% salary increase
from $2 , 214 to $2 ,350 for the July 1 , 1981 , salary for the
Lieutenant position. It was noted that this would make a differ-
ence between the Chief and Lieutenant of 10 .0% and between Lieutenant
and Sergeants 12 . 6% .
PAGE 4 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES , April 20 , 1981
(b) After lengthy discussion regarding salaries and fringe benefit
packages , Councilwoman Stimler moved to have a salary adjustment
for the Lieutenant position of 5 . 1 with a 2% pension pick-up by
the City. Motion was seconded by Councilman Brian .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
(c) City Administrator requested Council also consider picking up the
2% pension benefit for the Chief of Police since this would make
him the only employee in the Police Department who has not received
this benefit .
(d) Motion by Councilman Scheckla , seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to
approve the 2% pension pick-up by the City for the Chief of Police
position .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
(e) Linda Sargent , Research and Development Aide reported to Council
the findings in a salary survey of surrounding communities for
the Municipal Court Judge position.
City Administrator recommended Council approve the request for an
increase to $775 per month.
( f) Councilman Scheckla moved to approve the monthly salary increase _
to $775 for the Municipal Court Judge . Motion seconded by Council-
man Cook.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
12 . 1981 LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE CITIES .
(a) City Administrator reported to Council that the Senate and House
are currently considering measures to require 50% of the Municipal
Court revenues be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue .
(b) After discussing impact this could have on the City budget . Council
requested staff submit letters to the senators and representatives
for this area noting Council opposition to the passage of the
measures
(c) City Administrator also noted that house Bill 2735 would require
building permit fees be earmarked for inspection purposes only and
could also have an effect on the budget .
(d) Council concensus was to direct staff to forward letter to senators
to oppose passage of the measure .
13 . PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR
(a) :Mayor Bishop stated that he and Councilwoman Stimler had met with
the City Administrator earlier on this date to review the compiled
report of Council Member ' s performance reviews .
;. PAGE 5 - STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES, April 20 , 1981
s-r.
s:
(b) City Administrator requested this item be handled at a future
meeting as the time was after midnight and he would like a little
more time to prepare his response .
(c) After consideration of the request , Council set a special meeting
to consider this :item for April 23 , 1981 , at 7 : 30 P .M.
14. OTHER
(a) Director of Public Works requested Council approve a request by
Northwest Underground for a progress payment in the amount of
$5 , 545 . 50 for the Senior Center project .
Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council ,
(b) Director of Public Works stated that 1S bids had been received
for the McDonald Street LID project and that low bidder was $93 ,000 ,
high bidder was_$267 ,000 and the engineer ' s estimate had come in at
$150 ,000. He will report in more detail at the April 27th meeting
when the formal bid report is submitted .
(c) Director of Public Works requested Council approve expenditure of
System Development charge monies for a traffic circulation study
evaluation on the southwest end of Main Street . A development of
15 . 63 acres is now being proposed and has -been filed with the
Planning Department . Due to the impact of traffic on that end of
Main Street , staff would like another professional opinion on the
traffic study which the developer submitted with the plans .
After discussion, Councilman Brian moved to have an evaluation done
of the traffic circulation plan in an amount not to exceed $3 ,000
and to transfer this amount from System Development Charges .
Councilwoman Stimler seconded motion.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
(d) Planning Director stated that a list of the annexation areas and
the date for proposed hearings before Council will be submitted
to Council at the April 27th meeting. He also noted that a sample
of the letter which will be sent to the citizens in the areas
will also be included .
(e) Mayor Bishop requested Council waive the Building permit fee for
the Tigard Stadium project as it is for the community needs .
Motion by Councilman Brian, seconded by Councilman Cook to waive
the building permit fees for the Tigard Stadium project .
Approved by unanimous vote of Council .
15 . ADiOURNMENT: 19 :32 P.M.
Ci ty�tecor�r
ATTEST:
*' r Mayor
PACE 6 — STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MINUTES, April 20, 1981
7...—
`s"—.•.ate
CITYOFTIOA- RD
April 1, 1981
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Mr. Adams
TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
15300 SW 116th '
Tigard, OR 97223
I
Dear Mr. Adams:
i Reference Staff Report ZC PD 10-80 for Summerfield TDC Phase XIV.
Under Findings of Fact Paragraph Three Item #3 - "Each phase of the -
development shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
At the time of approval of each phase, the densities and uses shall be
approved. Item #8 states: "Approval of any lots to be subdivided shall
be through the Subdivision -Ordinance procedures."
- - The subdivision plat that you recorded div rot si`vw else placement of
structures on the lots. You did not request a variance to the R-7 setback
requirements. You did not .reference Exhibit "B". to Ordinance 73-5 paragraph
. 2, section "F" - "Single Family lots of 50' .X 80' with front, 4 foot side
and- 8 foot rear" (setbacks) - exceptions from .standards.
As a mater-of-fact in this phase there are no .lots with these dimensions.
My point to you has been that the setbacks on lots 709 - 708 on Naeve Road
should be 20 feet for safety reasons. A large amount of development will
take place across the street to the north and visibility is an important
issue. On let 708 the 20 foot setback needsto. be made on 109th also.
Between lots 705 and 704 off of 109th to the west, you intend to serve a
large condominium project in the future. Visibility is an issue.
Lot 703 is a .corner lot and lot 698 .is-a .corner lot. Safety is the issue.
Your option is to request a variance before. the Planning Commission.
Please respond.
Yours tru ,
Ald Howard
Planning Director
ANH:pjr
12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. F3OX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
(5 03 639-3101
TUALATIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
15300 S. W. 116th Avenue TIGARD, OREGON 97223
April 2, 1981
City of Tigard
Attn: Mayor Bishop
12420 S.W. Main
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Honorable Mayor Bishop and Respected Council Members,
1 respectfully request that you review the following facts and exhibits and
that you subsequently share my conclusion that the City of Tigard Planning
_ Director, Mr. Aldie Howard, has made an arbitrary decision which directly
and adversly affects our property values and that he has done so without due
process of the law.
It is his demand that we implement R-7 setbacks into our Phase 14 of the
Summerfield planned development which is contrary to prior approval .
He has failed to recognize a prior ordinance (Tigard #73-5 Exhibit #1 )
adopted in 1973 outlining specific reduced setbacks and sideyards. These
are vastly different from the R-7 standards being forcibly and illegally
imposed by Mr. Howard.
It is by now obvious that the Planning Director is demanding conditions beyond
the approvals obtained through proper governmental processes outlined through
the Planning Commission and City Council . More specifically , it is evident
the specified setbacks and sideyards are evidence in adopted findings of fact,
approved and recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission
(#2-F) and approved unanimously as item #7 of Exhibit "C" dated February 12,
1973. How is it then that the City can go back on prior approvals without
notice to us and without a hearing?
It is evident that Tualatin Development Co. could proceed with an injunction
through the Washington County Court to enforce the provisions of the prior
ordinance but this would only cost the City, taxpayers and ourselves time and
money and this is not our desire.
The alternative at this point is for the Council to instruct the Planning
Director to rescind his illegal hold on our submitted requests for permits
and to allow the building department to proceed with plan checking and sub-
sequent issuance of building permits as long as the plans comply with the
original conditions set forth.
Page 2
Sequence of Evidence:
1 . Ordinance #73-5, contained herein, with both the Planning Commissions
findings of fact (#2-F) and the Council 's conditions of approval 07)
circled in red.
2. The area of Summerfield Phase 14 does lie within the boundary of the
Summerfield Planned Development. Herewith attached is a copy from the
original presentation manual showing the area in question, now containing
Phase 14, does and always has been contained within the original conceptual
plan for Summerfield, with no exceptions.
3. Copy of City of Tigard "Approval" of referenced project dated April 29,
1980 - a continuance and review of planning for a phase of the Summerfield
project - a condition placed on the approval in 1973. (Item #5) that each
phase can be substantially completed within one year of each approval , and
(Item 3 Exhibit C - 1973) that each phase of the development shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. At the time of approval
of each phase, the densities and uses shall be approved.
NOTE: Of Conditions 1 thru 14 of this 1980 approval , there is no mention of
altering or changing our approved setback and sideyards previously noted as
findings of fact (2C 5-72) Item.2F.
It should also be noted that Planning Commissioner Smith made the motion to Nam
approve the project with modification as discussed - that Item #4 requiring
design review of the single family portion should be eliminated from the
conditions (See Exhibits) .
We feel that our civil rights have been violated; that certain of our property
rights have been taken by your Planning Staff without due process of law; that
we are and will suffer money damages for which the City and Mr. Howard can be
held liable.
We believe that this Council should do nothing more or less than to reaffirm
the ordinance already enacted into law (73-5) .
1 thank you for your review of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
ohn Adams
Vice President
Tualatin Development Co. , Inc.
i
�3
eft ..r Z CITY OP TZOARD, OREGOhI!��
c : d >• ` ' ORDINANCE N4.73-
fzr - AN ORDINANCE RECLRSSIPYING LANDS Or COMPANY AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPAAND
FRANKLIN SERVIE CORPORATION VITHD! AN AREA KNOWN AS "SUMMERPrELD"
FROM WASHINGTONCOUNTY' P-R - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, TO CITY OF TIGARD
PT ANNED.-1EVELOPMENT DISTRICT; ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN fi
R WN AS, "SUI&4ERFIELD 'PLANNED COMMUNITY OF 1972" TOGETHER WITH GENERAL s
FLANN -1Rk PROGRAM- PRESCRIBING CONDITIONS APPLICABLE THERETO; FIXING
. CTIVE DATE AND DACL va.4G AN MRGENcy-
'LM CM OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLM'S:
J
Sanction 1: The Cit Council Finds Nat pursuant to provisions of
[ Title l�'of the Tigard Municipal Code, the City has here-
tofore instituted proceedir{gs to change the zone classification of
an area formerly under zoning jurisdiction of Washington County, Oregon
which was annexed to the City by recept order of the Metropolitan
Boundary Commission and confirmed by City ordinance, said area being
locally known as "Samnerfield" as more particularly described on the
attached sheet designated "Exhibit A" and by this reference made a
part hereof.
` Section 2: The City Council further finds that after due and legal
- noblce as by the Municipal Code required,a hearing was
regularly held by the City Planning, Commission on December 19, 1976 -
whereat all interested persons were afforied an opportunity to be
heard with respect to the change in zone classification of said lands
from Washington County P-A - Planned residential, to City of Tigard
P-D - Planned Development District: and thereafter the Plannina Com-
mission,pursuant to Sec. 18.56.OLC of the Municinal Code, submitted
to the City Council findings and recommendations as hereto attached
marked "Exhibit B" and by this reference made a part heregf, that the
change of zoning classification as herein stated be approved subject
to the conditions hereto attached marked "Exhibit C" and by reference
made a Dart hereof.
Section 3: The Council further finds that after due and legal notice
a hearing was held by the Council at its regular meeting
of January 22, -1973, and thereupon'by motion was continued to and
reconvened on February 12, 1973, whereat all interested persons and
the general public were afforded a further opportunity tb be heard with
respect to said proposed change of zoning classification of said lands
described :in Exhibit "A", and the Council further finding that no
public detriment will result from the granting -Of said petition and
that it is in the public interest that said zoning-,reclassification as
I=tituted by the City of Tigard be approved and that said lands be
re-zoned accordingly-The Commissionle findings are hereby adopted as
tY.e Council's findings.
Section t: The City of Tigard finds that the development of the said
"--' lands as described in Exhibit "A" pursuant to the Planned
Development District provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code shall be
authorized subject to and in accordance with the following:
(a.) Those conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission
of the City of Tigard, being 20 in number as hereto attached marked
"Exhibit C" and by this reference made a part hereof.
page 1 - ORDINANCE No.73--
R ^.
•, {b) The development of Said lands shall conform with the
A`-'general development requirements as set forth In Title 18 of the Tigard ,
.z Hunicipal Code and. the "Summerfield Planned -Community of 1972" concept y
-•ass submitted by and on behalf of Tualatin Development Company and
Franklin Service Corporation, a copy whereof is hereto attached maLrked
z _ mrxhibit "Dr and- br this reference made a part hereof.
aeetl:orn 5: Its accordance with the foregoing and subject to each and
every_ requirement hereof and particularly the conditions
r .. ._ awt� orth an the attached "E-xhibit 'Ct, the coning classsifieatiori of
the `36xadas -described an the attached "Exhibit A" be, and the.sad*' In
Lareby changed and said lands are reclassified fram Washlagton County
r-a m panne-d Realdential, to City of Tigard P-D Planned Dealopms nt
D eetrietand are further subject to each and all applicable rwqul"-
s&rritaa of,Title 0 of the Municipal Code of the.City of Tigard.
Zs-etion $: Inasmuch as it is necgaea,► Im order to preserve the
Integrity ref the la%d use regulations and to require
adherence to the planned development district requirements as in this
ordinance set forth, and thereby provide for the :+roper utilization
of said lands, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest and
necessary for the peace, health and safety of the people of the City
of Tigard that this ordinance become effective with the least possible
delay, and therefore an emergency is declared to exist and this ordi-
nance shall be effective upon its passage by the Council and approval
Pa by the Mayor.
PASSED: By unanimous vote of all Council members present, after
being read three times by number and title only, this
12th def of February,, 1973,
ecor ei - ty o
L
APPROVED: By the Mayor this 12th day of February, 1973•
•'s/car""L ^: •� ,r:[..�_--_
~ ayor ty or TIgard
t
' rage 2 ORDINANCE No.73-
i
• c Exhibit` "Be •
MSOLUTION OF THE PIAPIW= COmMi7ISSIOH
CW TIC:, CITY 4 TICMW
;4 ADOPTING FINDINGS CF FACT AND RECOM-ME DIHCs To THE CITY COUNCIL
% AMOVAL OF Zone No. 5-72
X89, proceedings have been conducted by the Planning
Commission of the City o Tigard with respect to the petition
by the Tigard Planning Commission for a change of zone classi-
fication from Washington County P-R, Planned Residential to
{, City of Tigard P-D, Planned Development.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.84 of the Tigard Municipal
Codas after due and legal noticA, a public bearing was held by
the Tigard Planning Commission with respect to the above described
proposal on the 19th day of December, 1972;
NOW, THUMFORE, the Planning Ccmmissioa of the City of
Tigard in meeting assembled this 6th day of February, 1973,
now resolves to and does hereby adopt and/or approve the following
Findings of Fact with respect to the above designated proposal:
1
1. The subject property is designated for Urban Lov
Density Residential development within the Tigard
Community Plan. This category ellovs residential
densities of up to 4 dwelling units or 12 persons
per gross residential acre. The proposed development
• is in substantial conformance with the Tigard
Communtiy Plan.
2. That exceptions from the Standards of the underlying
��dd district are warranteS by the design and gaeenities
Incorporated in the devglopment plan and pro
The
a 1 acres supporting 1250 dwelling units
1.92 persons per dwelling unit or a masdcum
• of 2400 total population
c. Typical residentlil lot area of 4,0oo square
feet - -
d• 49.5 acres of golf course and natural reserve areas
e. Approzimataly 20,000 square foot recreation building
w&intenanoe b�+�, lake � s courts
•
CAWS.
f. $ids fandly Ists- S•`�f. x:-80',wi :SO:fee::Id-
th t,
- r Jot-foot 'sidai aim, $ Yeeot �r bards• Rear an .yard setbacks stay be waived for woos�onYall
at w
3. The development plan is in ba ay with the surrounding
area and will beve a beaefieiel effect on the area vhicb
could not be achieved under other zoning districts.
r ' 2
b. The system of ownership and the means of developing+
preserving and maintaining open space, is
suitable.
.: 9. =t e�--nh phase of d" be . ae._
�-.^pint•�n _e_.,.,,,atially
.' completed vithin oma year of each approval.
F: 6. The Co--Laity Fla- does not designate oommorclal -
development for the northeast or southeast corners
Of Durham Road mad Pacific HiStnmy.
7• 16"quate 0--mitY ;mopping and cowareini facilities ,
are provided in proximity to the development--at thio-
-- -• Karig City, s'sappiag center.
i 8. With develo s
pn3ant of this magnitude, road improvements
/ will be raquired to serve the additional resident
IV population and those who will use the public recreational
facilities.
9. The Department of Environmental Quality has approved
nonoccupancy building permits--to allov construction
of model homes. Connections to the King City treatment
Plant will depend upon D.E.Q. approval of the completed
treatment pleat expansion during 1973.
+A. The Tigard Water District is in the process of
connecting its lines to the Lake Oswego water system.
This should be cam
pleted by Pay of 1973•
h` .11. Dousing will have ege restrictions in the project by
the developer.
IT IS FUR UM FXZOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve the above described proposal and hereby records its recom-
mendation for favorable action by the City Council
PAFbMD by a .,...,.—.<, vote of the City Planning Commission,
this 6th day of February, 1_973.
�• Prue,1d+RIIt
Gt
JLTDST:
{^ ar@ted
6"
J�Jqji s!
!• �, qua ttPa the JCAZio+riasg Co�i��'' �3 :.
'building pek4t Wl"lin
_ .Pzrior to tho issuers of any
_ the development, a►,site plan of the entire
eel be
sebttiaig forth the site davelop
' 4 e� submitted to the-Planninl6 Commission for review and
t l issclud.e but not be lialited
approval. lefties plan "hal
"£Rt.ibit :: to 'lamdzeaping. setbacks, building ewalksheighta.
stseata,• pro sedveaents, sidear;a s, Ow.
gutters. parUing, aervic® and storage eraser.
2, All laved within the; development shall be used for
residential and recroatiosol sea, except that V%'" -
are4 designated for commercial use on the site plan
may include service and/or professional office uses
serving the devoloP=ont. If such uses are approved,
than Plennin Commission shall approve the location,
access, sMg and range of permitted uses.
3. Zach fah®as of the development shall be reviewed
and approved by Pleesning Commission. At the
time of Approval of each phase, the densities and
ursee shall be app ed.
4. A boat and trailer storage area shall be designated in
an area contained by an opaque fence or might obscuring
landscape screening maintained atthan six
(6) feet nor more than seven (7) test le hie •
5. The apartments in the project shall be developed in
accordance with A-2 *standards unless otherwise approved
on a specific site plan by the Planning Commission.
6. The overall denaltty o4 the development shall be no
omits)rthan with.&btotal populationnottoacre
exceed 24CO 1250 total
7. The.-setbacbCs.-And"-1otItizeati' sag ;proposed for. single-:
family- salts"shall-be. approved unlearns otherwlae•
specifled`.by . the 'Planning Coesiaei®n. eyicept•thast`'�aere
shall be a teas;.(16) -.foot, minimum ydrd requirem6lit
where any:yard-abut:e a public street.
8. - pprova inn a through
the Subdivision bOrdin.•snce procedures.
9. opensp ace shall be maintained through a Homeowners
Association or by the developers with convenanta
submitted for approval at the filing of the final plat
10. All utilities shall be subsurface installations.
11. Housing shall be limited to an average density of
no more than 1.92 person per dwelling unit.
1C2. occluded parcels surrounded by "Summerfield' ;hall
Baeincluded in the site plan with the possibility
of access provided these parcels to eliminate their
isolation.
P.1 - EXHIBIT "C"
.;�1, �.�.•, • EE ., ._, _, �~ _ - •
t , r� There --shall
e; dedication• to 45 feet from centerline
.• on S.W. Dam Road.
1+4.' There `2hall be dedication of-35 fest groat sant+sr2iize
earth x � foot improvement provided on S.W. g8th
where+ the development'abuts both aides of the•road
and a half street improvement where the development -
abuts only one cMe of the road.
'R? X15. There shall be dedication of 25 feet from centerllne
(32 feet inpr+ovaaent) on s.w. Heave Street with half
street improvement where applicable.
` 16. Th*ra &hall be dedleatlen or 3o feet from contePliae
an S.W. -Battler (36 toot Uvrowiement) with Waif str"t
improvement where applicable. p
17. Internol
_ Improvements will* be designated at the
Utistreet Si of the platting of the subdivision.
18. There :shall be no occupancy without public water and
,y1�"MPPe
14. A •copy of the deed restrictions and covenants shall
b• attsched.to the approved plan to help insure
co forolty with planned densities.
20. Phase 11 of the development shall not be approved
until additional mater service is available to the
Tigard water District from the City of Portland
and/or City of Lake Oave6aZ.
t
0
` Pg. 4 _ staff Report - "Summerfield"
r
a
s _
a
P.2. - EXHIBIT " :,j
rw
i
r
4T.wS:�
a�1 ►�wi•� ' +r �/ �' MOI"' az/r`
-� ter, 1
I R• �1. `?�, r Ov►a" �i�? O"a%.�,�Is"_`�a.�X1w.�ri�=nom k.
14—
Vi
4—
k^, "�s� )I//1%-0',��i.. ;L�, �•/°9�lt�r;Y t1_��, • ^`7����;i 'f��. + 1�`i{ a1':j� f
�- {4�1i9`/ ':v �. l'��kT 'Cf"y ey'". a' �)/n.'t!.�� e n.•i'�sii "�
.01
WAR
r
•►11
i!r,'r�+�'<Rjw � P v•f��-'��c�+►��� Q•�s�T��"-, � �,A'i+ i �`'� _ 0'1` .}')�
`�'":n' e - PO.:���� ~ry„•0egso� 1 Tra��,,a,{ r� �.
h J �i'- 1� ttOifOa tit. Go ,k
bN
;�-' =11 `' �d/t5�'i`.� O, ��, t O h r ..3.. • w fit 4+R
- �1' 41► 0 I►!p/I aia►1�.� ��.� �. � <'�-./w /�'� �,a. j�`�,#,�� t♦ *'di �.._ �E
r`V^+`
4 =`i�
OTT4
8�/ e�a� T ,'O `ss•.9=�Is."s��� . 3A- v ' c: ',-3
..i�� �f,�"�« •�+:.a��7i:.M.. zz f � t,}� h1"'gIp -
>1�.r7i :` a.
�4•R+5-., � - t s .. _ ..L 1+>� em.�rar•, a' �,r S { �. i r..
V
41%
7•G' a j,2 i� - ��y
♦ � w ; ..per. 299
.-0
• .. _ • ff'� {p.. :.J'.- � F <5.
• ?`
Raymond J. Bartel
M
BE Haxstisexs
�iUL St• _
' B.Yt,saU;3€, o?adA
RE 'EREN=: ZOt,'E Cog PLANNED DCVEZ.CpbU= ?e�pD 10-8
e Plea" be advised that the Tigard Planning Ccandaaion
onAgxil 23, 1480 at
their Public 'Meting approved the abeam reinrenced project. '
This OPProval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Ha0ve Road be imprOvsd to local street standards along the entire northern
Pzvp®rty line including frontage on Talc Lot 1200, Tax Hap 2Sl 1OD. Full
street improgements axes to be 'ne2sdo... Necessascv riabP-0r-vav �dica�®r±s
era to be nade to the city.
a. 209th Avenue be inprc d to local strett standards Brom 3 rfl%fei Drive
to the inter•ssction with Naeve Road. This intersectitin to be imp
roveaT as
apecXfted by the Public Works "Mrector. Necessary right-of-xray dedi.catians
to be made to the City.
' 3. , iia gravity sewer 'line at Durham Road and 108th Avenue is .to be comple�Xed
rind fully cperational pri to issuance of
Building Permits. This
daysicpnaret shaUln resod through tie Pun, Station now in opera Lion .
an Dus$:a Road
4. P jeBct A, gle fa:nil,Y, t to. Site Design Review.
S. &'ate jeot C at a. r date be brought before the planning aS s$feta''
for rev3 ew pA�z3.osy�� •tFia,isat=ac6 Of Building Pe rmi.ts. Project ahall'� • j � �J,��
to s3� 1.84��
.#- 1"tea lots awe to be aomhtned. Building Depairt=ent will not inats�,. �
• 'ate ]?ermine for-a building over two separate talc lots.'
�•
NO 00CUPR acy Permits shall be issued until all conditions placed upon
_-_ thIM &VUlCiPwant by the City of Tigard have been satisfied and inspections
verifying this have been carried out by the approRriaate department=
i
124203.W. N AIN P.O. WX 23397 TIGAM, OREGON 9M3 PH: 639-4171 f
?�yt���' ���- � h"Sp 4,F, ✓ s i„rf. Cp � t� _� .�iK.. ?•`- ��� .•-" ` .3t
c J !"�•',a/'Y 'y"16 � r � { .•'j•�� t - + _`F �C _W�_.�r' iF K-•Y -. ye e
4 .
1'
` . an" itia mty of r194re
Y
�erq� asoft to &PPro ed tUnS:owi Gil 8i� �_. • ,
�� io7. the iipir pY$at� qty. �S t '�.a" s
, s fir.dapa�nt. licatio*I �r .cam -i -ii t�r�
• _ r ting ac .S kt�thltadlx► s licable drawings.
y t m
A 1' !r 8dieaS Y s3suzz and construction0plans o& all publia right-cf- y� shall
�. be subwLttsd orad aW e$ by 'the Pubai•" a&•ri# niMctur pri9S to Commence-
nant of vozli.
l8. a zL3rg or pxvpmed•Utuities shall be placed underground. ' Suet
a-: lighting insatallatic0b shall be approved'by the PuI Warkw ffirector.
12. No Building Permit shall be issued until the esqpiration of the twenty
(20) day appeal period from the date of approval.
t
13. That street improven entsa be•constructed to the approval of the Public
Wozks Director prior to the issuance of a Building P+erzit.
• 14. A see oa eievution pians saisa•!i iris s., ---_La u a:.=:.�y.y t:.�. ag,aa tuseniC unacs: --
a- in relation to the adjoining property, height to be measured by building
official. If Code is nom met, a variance rust shall be submitted to
the Planningg n�..a....Sew.
.Ration of the Planning Commission is final unless notification of appeal to
the City Council is filed with the City Recorder within twenty (20) days of
i tho Planning Cosmmissian°s action. .P •. .
-e
If we can be of any futther assistance, please do not hesitate to conthct'
this office at 6394171.
Sincere ly,
i Homed
]Planning Director
AAVMQ
SM ATTACEMOMT
_ Y -
i' dirt_ e
April 22, 1980
4Pago 3 - . v
., i
lwpZ'6semV2t occanloned by thla 4ovelopm ' t ire 98tb. Howar4
or nors� eoas�t$tlons Co.=
aaYx°Ciat3 Street would be deroloped fid.
Ya wed e6itTsia t e aoa:siderab'
y s considerably im�ovIng trat8la SZ�ow into s
- tha he of the city tre=. the.north.
1j copm Z ZSCQSSZ AND Ofd: Popp expressed corn for the ^
ads S th® g�provided, gueeoing there be more than
cars Pier.Wit.- would tax- parking s 8 for vihitors.
V4a&os air®ed :Lt Irould be ' able to re parking, but that
it came down to addition of S o crlfic0 treen, and they
opted for the trees is the projec ga. Howard called attention to
the criteria for multiple ho u g in t ity eapha+Zed proximlty to
seas tranalt, with disco ement or use o Yat® antoaxobilas. T3as
Parking 1rovlded is the Code requITement
Speaker, approval of Zone Change Planned Dove eat ZCFD
9-80 at preliminary and general review level, based on ., f Findings
and ommendations. Helmer seconderd the notion, which was un ugly
ried.
593 CONE CHANGE PLANNED DEV=P4 ENT DISTRICT, ZCPD 10-80
(Summerfield Phase XIV) TdPO
.aaAemr �®
A request by Raymond Bartel and Tualatin Development Company
for a Plaanin Co a Fourteen (14) In
...Snm=erfie , o ect A e 138 Condominium Units, Pro
n le Fa�mi and Project C =- future hou gate,
loca s a th and Susamerfield Drive (Wath. Co. Tax Map
2SI lODD, Tax Lot 100 and ;x Hap 2S1 10D, Tax Dote 2100 •
end 2C00).
Howard read the STAFF REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS.
The APPLICAWrOS PRESENTATION was seeds+ 'by Raymond. J. Bartel, archi-
tect and planner, 2515 SE Harrison St., Mllvaukie. He asked for clari-
f1cation of several items: as to Condition 1, he wandered if subsequent
'a developers could be required to pay for a share of the Naeve Road
improvements made.by. Tualatin Vbvelopment Company. With respect to
Condition No. 3, he pointed out that the Unified Sewerage ASency really
controlled the timing on this. 'Pith respect to Conditio he a3ondered
_ if ftaJect H,- composed Vb013,T of ,aingl,e family hoaxes, shau3 be subject
to Sits Domign•. Review# Contrary .to the practice an single family develop-
;, senth. On Condition 13 he called attention to the inconsistency in_.tbo
tiering of street improvements and the recording of the, fiscal plat.
Bartel compred the Summerfield project as originally planned seven
years ago and as-built to date. He described the market aimed. at by the
condc6lmIum development Proposed. He described the assumptions behind
ji
e
MINUTES � • tits.
P ee y�BNG COMMISSION _ .�,c".••�_
April 22, 1930page
„
t4 ?
the parking provided, acrd the individual unit types to be Included is
then condosigliux. Be reviesec4 tis® `
building and the manner is mcg the iccadl characterlorriaticx ofacesf the
broleea up and given soma character, ge statedeboth hg jg W1 be .
Of Tualatin Development Company aeould be aavallabLr toOhn
answer questions.
In• C
Raeve S :Owner of thappositioa was gives by Bette peaks 11000 SW
objected to a thr®�etor pa.e6l surrounded by this project. She
y b�lildiag on the 6ronnds of
her one-story house. which loof from
view f� built with a view orielos 'of and f
AP"tments In general. She questioned the amount nta$tio
be token from th^m for r'O%d improvements. of property which would
CRaSIZEE 1MZPJ11► ® R $oward raised the discrepancy
by zone standards for height. I'he height of the Pricy posed
three stories and a flat roof is less than that building Zsx�opoaed with
Building Code for a twO-story bul-I Permitted by the Uniform
come is for m variance. g. He suggested the applicant might
In relation to Peak's. house* the elevation of the building
mss• peak a. house•
COMMStTON nr3
s•.W.,�
handling Or Bartell Y::esti:comment 'nod r,a!' as io :ha -
described the street improvement requireda On would 3. Frank Currie
would be pavement down the
middle of the street (it is now a
improvements on the developer's si�avelled rand) with half-street
since the developer is $e telt this is reasonable,
tion froom Romarld initiating the project. Smith received coafirasa_
"�� that d,. Oct B as mentioned in Condition d} should $e
eliminated from the condi,; As to Condition 13 the cords
of the final plat or" should be deleted. Condition I w �®coring
follows: "A set of elevat34� �lan3 shall be ` as added as•'
apartment units in relation 'to t e submitted showing the
measured by buildl.A h adjoining property, height to be
g official. It Coda is not met a
anning Commission.+ In this iancecrequest
Shall be submitted to the Pl
resp
called attention to the fact t Smith
that while .the developer is proposing a
three-story'structure, he is designing �t
roof to keep goat the height, with the more e$peasI ve, flat
twostory height and h1s proposed height is less than the
permitted under the ordinance.
Thereupon Smith MM--
and
Approval
..
and RecOmmendation mgt"`h e m ovailoOf ZCPD s0-80based
b On Stark
Conditions rt
and a3, plus the addition he Condition l4. 4
Funk raised a question about the timing of the saver,
Of
motion. {
®f Condition 3• Howard reported USA is ready to ecce t itch is the subject
And therotore according to previous p intercdptor
agreements Tualatin Developmeht
Company has OIIe year is which to construct the
A would 11start
telt one more conference with _ required sewer lino. He
on this issue. The motion thOrx carriedsnanimou3ly. the clock running" ;
r '
L
CITY 1..r 11Gt1L D
TICARD,OREGCN
;3t Blanket Property .
$ 1,053,765
.00
All Risk/Replacement
Cost
$500 Deductible
c Scheduled Equipment
$ 310,845.00 . .
All Risk
( T $100 Deductible
Valuable Papers $68,000.00
Premium cavarisan
T r. ..
Hartford ''F77'emans Fund yDeans? & Ai<,¢te VyyW✓b
-
Ts $ 6,038 00 $ 4,458.00 $ 3`839 00
'a.
� *
V.
}... �� t :t � t• „ -3 '} rpt.
G
..ra+ sy¢� '* ! Thr X z ^y. .+n s• t _' .531
re,7
e t
-t .Ott 1 -T'ti N l
1 �r;- tl
J
' ,•,trs _t ri.0 IS? �• sus a Lt -e �.. •Y i 4 ��ti Y.a
'�i�r 5� � r j 5 �.'.0 J t .a ,i k� s �i4 r�+.+X 1' J � t s fi1•�=s-5 '�;
v 3
y t
•• " ��� FG 7 t'.:?:J..�^J',.( y.Ys(Y 3 �,,{��ttY,4..Y{.
W.
t '
1
City of Tigard
Proposed
1980-1981 1981-1982
Blanket Property $ 798,691.00 $ 1,053,765.00
Scheduled Equiixnent $ 212,097.00 $ 310,845.00
Valuable Papers $ 68,000.00 $ 68,000.00
Annual Premium: $ 3,249.00 $ 3,839.00
t
EM
KOLL
KOLL BUSINESS
CENTER—TIGARD
April 1, 1981
Tigard City Council
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Attn: Doris Hartig, City Recorder
Re: Koll Business Center-Tigard
CU 33-78, ZC 26-78
Approved Planned Development
Dear Council Members:
We would like to appear before the City Council on April 13,
1981 in order to discuss the acceptance of installed street _
- l i e b+-- and fi- t fres on Nimbus T..�.nuc t
'-- L T.Tl,, l^ i..uc. iii his letter of Dec-
ember 16, 1980, Frank A. Currie, Director of Public Works ,
indicated these lights were not acceptable to the City of
Tigard.
We are a planned development: and as such we showed our pro-
posed street lighting fixtures and poles when we submitted
our electrical drawings for approval. These fixtures and
poles match those in our parking area, and also fit in with
the concept of the planned development. We feel that the
installed fixtures and poles are essential to maintain the
overall park concept, and, in the interest of security and
safety, do a superior lighting job in comparison with the
aluminum pole with the cobra head.
The fixtures and poles in our park are not specialty items,
but are commonly available at prices comparable to other
existing standards. As a matter of interest, the poles
currently lighting Nimbus Avenue are the standard poles
used at the Clackamas Town Center, Clackamas County; Pay-
less Distribution Center, Wilsonville; Carlton Springs
Elementary School, Beaverton; Tualatin Residential Develop-
ment; Gresham (P.G.E. Gresham street lights--70 poles) ;
and Urban Development, Beaverton (approximately 200 poles
used on Beaverton city streets) .
I have attached all correspondence to date concerning the
street lighting fixtures and poles. I have also attached
t P.G.E. ' s Schedule 91 applicable to lighting service for
public streets.
10110 SW. Nimbus Avenue• B-11 Portland • Oregon 97223 •(503)684-0510
Tigard City Council 2
April 1, 1981
{
P.G.E. has Option "C" on this schedule, which is used for
the furnishing of electric energy to luminaires owned and
maintained by the customer. Under this program, Koll Busi-
ness Center-Tigard would be responsible for all maintenance
of the fixtures and poles, while the City would only pay
for the power.
Based on our 400 watt sodium vapor fixtures, and the 404,'
credit the City receives by using Option "C" , the yearly
cost would be $660. 48 ($6. 88 per month for eight poles) .
We hired an electrical engineer to do a study of the in-
stalled street lights versus the aluminum pole and fixtures.
A copy of his findings is attached.
We are looking forward to the discussion of this issue on
April 13.
Very truly yours,
T5
K;;7
PL,�
Sonna Durdel
Vice President/General Manager
SD/dd
Encl.
I3AISLEY & ASSOCIATES INC.
Electrical Consulting & Engineering
1923 S.E.Stark St. . Portland, OR 97214
Telephone 503-231.7625
April 1981
Koji Company
10110 SW Nimbus (B-11)
Portland, Oregon 97223
Re: Koji Business Center - Tigard
Nimbus Avenue Street Lights
Attention: Ms. Durdel
Lu-o�atlonal items related to the above referenced project are
attached and listed as follows:
1. P.G.E. Schedule 91 for Street and- Highway Fighting and Service.
(Sheets 1 through $ effective for service rendered after March 1, 1981.)
2. The Koll Company letter of December 3, 1980 to City of Tigard Director
of Public Works.
3. The City of Tigard Director of Public Works letter of December 16, 1980
to `h9 K01.1 Company
4. Malcar Associates list of pole prices and recent pre-stressed concrete
pole projects.
Following review of the above information and the street lighting installa-
tion, we offer the following considera.tlons:
1• Eight 30' poles on approximately 130' centers With 400 watt high-
pressure sodium symmetrical-pattern luminaires along the east curb
line of SW Nimbus Avenue have provided a very even and desirable
distribution of light on the roadway and parking area drives adjoin-
ing the roadway. Even light distribution on roadways and adjoining
areas provides a safer and more pleasant environment than the normal
bright and dark street lighting found throughout our city streets.
2. Available energy, power costs and product improvements have quite
recently made marked changes in street lighting design, as well as
other construction services. The attached pole price comparison
(Male Associates Exhibit 'A9) shows recent prices -of aluminum,
galvanized steel and concrete poles.
3. Maintenance reductions and construction economics are now being
employed in street and parking area lighting projects. The attached
list of projects (Malca.r Associates Exhibit 'B') provides a list
of recent concrete (Centrcon) pole installations.
s
The Koll Company
April ° 1981 2
4. Attached P.G.E. Schedule 91 has been researched for some indica-
tion of Street Lighting Standards without success. We have found
monthly rates for F.G.E. Co. approved street lighting lumina ires
'A',under options ° °, °B` and 'C', monthly rates for P.G.E. Co.
specified pales, special conditions, monthly rates for non-standard
equipment including luminaires, special City of Portland charges
and credit items and customer owned/maintained street lighting
service. It appears that a reference to P.G.E. Co. Street Lighting
Standards means only approval by this serving utility for poles,
luminaires and all other street lighting item„ depending on-location,
application and wind factors.
5. One solution for acceptance of SW Nimbus Avenue existing street
lighting by the City of Tigard may be for The Koll Company to
Provide a new unmetered 230 volt single phase service and add
photo-electric control of the eight street lights under option 'C'
for 400 watt sodium vapor found on sheet 1 of P.G.E. Co. Schedule 91.
With present power rates, power cost to the City of Tigard by
P.G.E. Co. ' "d approximately $660.00 per year and maintenance
including lamp replacement would be by The Koll Company. As these
Poles and luminaires are the same as the other three Type 'A' poles
and luminaires employed for area lighting around the retention pond
and woode. deel;, no special maintenance or
Possiblefunctions exist. Possible replacement
6. Perhaps a more economical and better solution for acceptance of
the Sod Nimbus Avenue existing street lighting by the City of Tigard
may be for The Koll Company to provide a metered 208 volt single
Phase feeder complete with photo-electric control from the
Building 'B' electric room. With present power rates .of P.G.E. Co.
Schedule 32 the power cost billed to the City of Tigard by
P.G.E. Co. would be approximately $590.00 per year for these
street lights. Maintenance, lamp replacement and possible pole
or luminaire replaceme
nt would be by The Koll Company or any
Possible future owner of this 11 building Phase I area.
- s
CONTRACTOR
December 3, 1980
City of Tigard
12420 S. W. Main Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Attn: Prank Currie
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: KOLL BUSINESS CENTER TIGMW
STPJMT LIGHTS •- NIMBUS AVENUE
Gentlemen:
Much to our surpise, we have found that the street lighting moles and
fixtures installed on Nimbus Avenue do not meet the criteria for
maintenance and upkeep by Portland General Electric.
The city's note on the civil drawings requiring street liahts per PGE
drawings did not go un-noticed at the time, but assumed our electrical
engineer had worked it out with PGE. We have no record of a street
lighting layout or equipment specifications from PGE.
our electrical drawings, submitted with the application for building
permit, showed the proposed street lighting fixtures and poles. Since
these poles and fixtures match the poles and fixtures in the parking
area, and also fit in with the concept of the planned unit development,
we feel that the installed fixtures and poles are essential to maintain
the overall park concept.
The poles and fixtures are not specialty items and are commonly available
at prices conparable to existing standards. Possibly, The Koll Company
couldprovide the city with an extra pole and fixture for mTaintEanance
purposes. or if.replace rt is requbred in the future, the. replacement
-
ever*be whatever in standar at the time provided the park seenagement
elected not to provide a matching pole or fixture.
Possibly, a meetis)g with the city is in order to discuss the available
alternatives. 'Please. adviss.
4
i
• 8253 S.W. Cirrus Drive• Beaverton •Oregon 97005•(503)646-9681
i
City of Tigard
- FrM* Currie, Director of Public Works
Page 2
De6ember 3. 1980
In the interest of safety and security, the street lights have been
temporarily connected to the Building "B" houses panel since PGG will
not connect them to franchised power.
Yours truly, -
THE KOM COMPANY
D. D. Bier
Project manager
DDZ:ka'
cc: Frank. Hanzione
Sonna Durdel
Pu;•tland Utz ectric Company
z
C. Ore. No. E-12 _Original StaceL hu. 91-1
SCHEDULE 91
t., STREET ANIS HIGHWAY LIGHTINU
SERVICE TO STREET ANU HIGHWAY LIGHTING
AV.,ILABLE
In all territory served by the Company.
AV.'L i CABLE
To lighting service for public streets and highways, and public grounds and
ar---as, supplied to municipalities or agencies of Federal or state govern-
ments where funds for payment for electric service are provided through
to ration or property assessment.
CH',RACTER OF SERVICE
Fr )m dusk to dawn daily, controlled by a photo-electric control or time
s%-. itch to be mutually agreeable to the Customer and Company.
MC','THLY RATE FOR STANDARD EQUIPMENT
TI:..: following monthly rates are for Company-approved streetlighting luarai-
n.. res. Option A is for luminaires owned, maintained and supplied with
e: .ctric energy by the Company. Option B is for maintenance and ener
si plied to luminaires owned by the Custo_ Option C is for the furnish-
if i of electric energy to luam na res ownea and maintained by the Customer
ar i i nstal I ed only on Customer-owned pol es. A credit of 400 per luminaire
w. : I be made for those luminaires billed under Option C where the Customer
>� o;. ,s and maintains the circuit.
M. ntenance by the Company includes group lamp replacement and glassware
c' :aning on Company schedule. Individual lamps will be replaced on burnout
a• soon as reasonably possible after no by the Customer and
s1. 1ject to the Company s operating schedules and requirements.
Nominal Monthly Rate
Type of,.Light Watts Lumens Option A Option B Option C
Incandescent* 92 1,000 $ 2.38 $ 2.18 $ 1.68
182 2,500 3.91 3.51 3.01
300 4,000 5.63. 5.08 4.48
405 6,000 7.30 6.65 6.00
620 10,000 10.44 9.69 8.99
Mercury Vapor** 100 4,000 4.42 2.89 2.03
175 7,000 5.41 4.12 3.24
250 10,000 7.15 5.35 4.33
400 21,000 9.28 7.54 6.54
1,000• .5.5,000 19.76 17.34 16.11
Sodium Vapor' 70 5,800 5.35 3.33 1.72
100 9,50U 6.13 4.09 2.46
1:50 Ib,00U 6.71 4.72 3.28
200 22,000 7.74 5.56 4.02-
250 25,590 8.96 6.59 4.8 7 _ 1,-fo�.
48,000 11.01 8.68 7.28- �' trsc�s
* No new service
** No new service under -Option A except in established residentiaIq iT
areas in order. to provide compatability with existing liy
services.,
.+ped January 30, 1981 Effective for service rendered
on and after March 1, 19131
C. L. Heinrich, Vice President
�.�_•-••'•-_ - -_,=r•- ^•• -_:T:T�1✓ J�•s-.6.:Kar�• _ �.'_-�,,�sQ'+yr•-a s- -r:��^-�-- a--%'�=A►gtiy►"_a.r°,'
• P
Portland General Electric Company First Revision of Sheet 91-2
P.U.C_Ore. No. EA.1 Cancelling Original Sheet No. 91-2
SCHEDULE 91 (Continued)
MONTHLY RATES FOR STREETLIGHTING ONLY POSTS AND POLES
Metal posts and wood poles shall be in accordance with Company specifications:
Company-owned and -maintained wood poles and metal posts: Monthly'Rate
Standard wood pole for overhead service, 35-ft. or less 51.40
Standard wood pole, 55-ft. _ 2 38
Laminated wood pole, 20-ft. or less 1.35
Painted wood pole for underground service, 35-ft. or less 2.15
Curved laminated wood pole, 30-ft, or less 3.47
16-ft. or less aluminum post 3.16
16-ft. or less steel post 3.81
25-ft. aluminum post 4.30
25-ft. aluminum post, davit type 5.13
25-ft. steel post 5.66
30-ft. metal post, regular or davit type 5.70
35-ft. metal post, davit type 6.s9
Maintenance of Customer-owned wood pole, 35-ft. or less .33
Maintenance of Customer-owned wood pole, 55-ft. ,37
Maintenance of Customer-owned painted metal post 1.49
Maintenance of Customer-owned nonpainted metal post .63
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Customer :s responsible for cost associated ;;pith trenching, conduit, and restoration required
for underground service to streetlighting.
Unless otherwise specifically provided, the location of Company-owned streetli.jhting equip-
ment and poles may be changed at Customer request and upon payment by the Customer
of the costs of removal and reinstallation.
If Company-owned streetlighting equipment or poles are removed at the Customer's request,
a charge will be made consisting of the installed cost, less accrued depreciation and less salvage
value, and plus cost of removal. This provision does not pertain to the sale of Company-
owned equipment.
If Customer-owned (Option 8) streetlighting equipment or poles are removed or relocated at
the Customer's request, the Customer is responsible for the costs associated with the change.
A separate and additional charge will.be made if circuits or poles have to be changed to accom-
modate specified or requested mounting height of streetlighting luminaires.
Issued February 13, 1980 Effective for service rendered
C. L. Heinrich, Vice President on and after March 14, 1980
{ . rtland General Electric Company
U.C. Ore. No. E-12 I _--- - - Origina% Sheet No. 91-3
t SCHEDULE 91
(Continued)
t';.NTHLY ELATES FOR NONSTANDARD EQUIP14ENT
1 e following special monthly rates are for Company-approved ornamental
r:.-.?nstandard luminaires and posts. All terms and condi ti orzs included under
t:;e standard Schedule 91 tariff are applicable to these rates.
Monthly Rate
AF*—
-cial box-like enclosure, similar to
t '°;;p-ce-G1
i75-watt/7,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor $ 6.74 $ 4.14 S 3.24
250-watt/10,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor 11.31 5.59 4.33
1,000-watt/55,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor 22.71 17.36 16.11
i:cial rectangular box, anodized aluminum
s milar to GardCo Type PW 400
400-watt/21,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor 12.00 7.54 6.54
?cial rectangular box anodized aluminum,
:ailar to GardCo HUB series
H. P. Sodium Vapor
70-watt/5,800-lumen * 3.55 1.72
100-watt/9,500-lumen * 4.16 2.46
150-watt/16,000-lumen * 4.98 3.22
250-watt/25,500-lumen * 6.68 4.87
400-watt/48,000-lumen * 9.13 7.28
Metal Halide
175-watt/14,000-lumen * 6.10 3.47
250-watt/20,500-lumen * 7.40 4.60
400-watt/34,000-lumen * 8.87 6.93
* Not currently offered.
}*
No neva service under Option A except in established residential
areas in order to provide compatability with existing light
services.
t; d Ja.n+iary 30, 1981 - -r- Y� Effective for service rendered
Ill. L. Iieinrich, Vice President on and after March 1, 1981
�•.�'.7:'9 " _.�;._c'r__'°="Y":""r;'�'�'^_�:?�"'v'P r �tv".:-v�-�"-e•-r�T�c.:b:v:r7�r'�'r -.r��'�"—�.-�.�....i�A'— e►"x�
Pc. --tland General Electric Company
P. _.C. Ore. No. E-12 — Original Sheet No. 91-4
50HEUULE 91
(Continued)
Monthly Rate
Luminaires A** 8 C
S;: :cial spherical enclosure, anodized
ai .iminum, similar to Sterner, Fremont series
400-watt/21,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor $14.48 $ 7.73 $ 6.54
1,000-watt/55,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor 25.60 17.54 16.11
Sll.�cial high-intensity highway lighting
lu..iinaires maintained by Customer
400-watt/34,000-lumen, Metal Halide * * 6.93
700•-watt/40,000-lumen, Mercury Vapor * * 11.02
1,000-watt/90,000-lur,►en, Metal Halide * * 15.96
1,000-watt/130,000-lumen, H.P. Sodium
Vapor * * 16.15
* Not currently offered.
No new service under Option A except in established residential areas
in order to provide compatibility with existing light services .
Pc . ;,s Monthly Rate
It. ft. aluminum cruciform post, to go with Type Pri 400 luminaire,
in._ luding investment and maintenance charges $3.20
35 - ft. tapered steel post, painted, similar to PumCo tapered post:
including maintenance charges only 1,49
including investment and maintenance charges 6.99
Sl,_:IAL CHARGES AND CREDITS (CITY OF PORTLAND) .
Tv. -i ornamental metal post served from underground prior to
Ju ; 1, 196, extra-heavy strain 1.93
Cr .lit for customer-installed pole footings, installed prior to
De..=tuber 31, 1973 (.35)
Ac: " itional charge for special Company-owned double-davit pole,
30 :t. or less .25
Ch. -ge per luminaire forunderground circuit installed with
di _ribution system prior: to February 1, 1965 1.75
Ch •ge per luminaire for underground circuit installed with
di .-.ribution system between February 1, 1965 and
Dc -tuber 31, 1975 3.40
I•s -,ed January 30, 1981 Effective for service rendered
C. . . Heinrich, Vice President on and after March 1, 1981
�-c- - _ -.T�r'. _�t."�"r'_ " _ •.fir �-Yom':•. �c-°m.,•,,,:�,.a.... L•�qe- ""f'.�, -.!!- .:'���-''.ei.+►4..
.+ ; •�rtland General Electric Company' - - --- -- Original Sheet No. 91-5
i. .U C. Ore_ No• E-1_.?--------
SCHEDULE 91
(Concluded)
;7 ,RYICE TO CUSTOMER-OWNED AND -MAINTAINED STREETLIGHTS
to luminaires owned and
licable for the furnishing of ele:tric energyoustomer.-owned poles. The
` `gyp the Customer, and installed only the Customer and Com-
sage
by agreed upon by
(. ;timation of usage will be mutually 9
A circuit charge of 40e per month will be made for all luminaires
: any. provides the circuit.
jr Which the Company p
Monthly Rate 3.889¢ per kWh
TERM OF AGREEMENT -
N'Jt less than 5 years.
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
i s subject hedthe ul e G sn ar panful es and Regulations
service under this schedule
contained in the tariff of whit
'L �ySG �
32 SdMrnc.r� x,963
v!t rJT� ►c 2.25
41 BL��"1 J.►h"Kfs 4�}cWP�'('�S X02 3c�5 ��Y�•
CdTN AJirt!',St ^t' 1G¢},zs nE� Vf'`Y �Z�S48 6�W Hovpe,S
wANeRa
aM 01t
og J5u�.-rEe/yJNTEL
//t�Rse-
Sg�tvtaL G14AA-IsE
-- r Effective for service rendered
,sued January 30, 1981• on and after March 1, 1981
L. Heinrich. Vice President
l�
�I .-�'. — ..v APV .... '!•,e=. J.' e� — �`~�- ..�r
-198
COMPANY
tNTION: D' D. Zanier �°.`:�,,'�°' � Tf�E � ` `yk ��`•
8233 S3aT Cirrus Drive `'` _ 8E/►V (L r;
,,,AT
Beaverton, Or 97005 "
SUM;C :XC LL BUS' INESS CENTER—TIGARD '
STRMT,LIG ITS - NIMUs AYENuE
DearZande 17?
_ -
�y
I amzorry that it comes as .a surprise to you as to what the:city-standards
are .sor. street light poles' and fixtures; the fact remains hpweeer;-,that
these ire just that -- STANDARDS. This particuia=.item wasa'subject=of much
discussion prior to approval of the plans for this project_; 'TZier:.pproged
plans clearly state conformance with P.G.E. drawings. Ay of your-P.G.E.
work sheet was included as a part of the approved plans specifically making
reference to six aluminum poles.
Electrical drawings for street lights are not approved by or even considered
by our.7Building Department.
These'•.poles 'and -fixtures 'are specialty items as far as the citand P.G.E.
are concerned. city
We appreciate your concern for maintaining your overall park concept however,
we feel that the overall concept of, and ultimate responsibility for, maintenance
and replacement will fall to the city and we prefer to maintain our own
standard and identity as it relates to SW Nimbus Avenue (a- public street).
If .1;44 project is to be accepted by the city and subsequently connected
to the franchise power, it must be done to the standards laid' out .prior to
approval of plans.
This.-Is the only option 'and-was specifically outlined before this project
started. .
Respectfully,
'
''rank:A.
•
--Currie, P:E.Director-of Public Works '•Y
12420 S.W. MAIN P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 PH: 639-4171
. - Md�uWn� t,artvr
Jerome D. Winters
S. E. 28th Ave.
Connie Worrell
Land, Oregon 97214
Helen Lee
G. W. Kolling
AR A SYS
®ci ii..'sDavid O'Brien
MA L
,tJ�y
Exhibit "A" - Pole Price Comp-risor,
(1C ) pcs 3u, motuntirg height t«pered one-piece poles with 2 3 3" Q.D. top
tenon, complete with }tvndhole and anchor bolts, with freight allowed
to Portland, OR.
(Contractor Net Cost, Freight Allowed)
Spun Polished Aluminum
Union Metal 11171-Y7 (natural spun finish) $625.00
Union Metal 1#171-Y7 (bronze anodized finish) 5894.00
Galvanized Steel
Union Metal #FN1130-W1 $426.00
Pre-Stressed Concrete
Centrecon #MER-9 (111 ) std.. gray finish $392.00
Centrecon ,MBR-9 (113 ) exposed aggregate acrylic- $421.00
sealed finish
Embedded Pre-Stressed Concrete
Centrecon #MER-9 (111 ) std. gray finish 1247.00
Centrecon #MER-9 (113 ) exposed aggregate acrylic- $282.00
Sealed finish
Exhibit "B" - A Representative 1-i.st Of
Recent Centrecon Jobs
Safeway Stores Qiehcilis
- Clackamas Town Center ----- —- -------- -`Clackamas
Rimrock Shopping Center Sisters
International Paper Gardner
LDS Chapels Lakeview, Vancouver
Payless Distribution Center ilsonville
— Koll Business Center igard
Parkrose Athletic Fields Parkrose
Tri Met Satellite Stations Metro Counties
-- Carlton Springs Eleaantaxy -Beaverton
Evergreen Jr. High School Clark County
Tualatin Residential Developmant P,G,v.Gresham �e-eT VrG<7o?"r- SiA�GSr��/E.
Portland Public Parks Pendleton, Farragut,
Glenwood, Wallace
Arbor Lodge, Sunnyside
Etc. Etc.
Urban Development �pREEco,./a1%t/uC' 7* Beaverton crTY S5TKC 'ted Po Lers�
Civic Center LEU A1A/Artcd44C41_ Springfield
Community Canter Longview
Mt. View Mall Bend
Bull Run Hydro Sandy
�1°G6.GResN.e�9-
FACTORY REPRESENTATION IN THE OAEG{3N TERRITORY