City Council Packet - 12/10/1984 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate
DECEMBER 10, 1984, 7:30 P.M. sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available,
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start
10865 SW WALNUT of that agenda item. Visitor's agenda items
TIGARD, OREGON 97223 are mattersecanobeesetpforoa2futureeless; longer either the Mayor or City Administrator.
1. REGULAR MEETING:
1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call
1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
/! 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items
t �.Y
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less, Please)
3. AAA TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARD
o City Administrator
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT/CRIME WATCH - WORK SHOP
o Chief Adams
5. BURGLARY ALARM MONITORING - DISCUSSION
o Captain Jennings
6. EMS PROGRAM REPORT
o City Administrator
7. CPA 26-84 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT- BUFFER POLICY - PUBLIC HEARING
Review Planning Commission recommendation to amend Policy 11.5.1 C,
Volume 29 Findings, Policies and Implementation Strategies, of the
Comprehensive Plan.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
o Ordinance 84-
8. SDR 12/84 - WESTERN INTERNATIONAL FINAL ORDER - RESOLUTION NO. 84-
Planning Staff
9. ZCA 16-84 - ANNEXATION/VAN S. CAMP - NPO 13 - PUBLIC HEARING
Review Planning Commission recommendation to annex 3.18 acres of
property into the City of Tigard. The zoning on the property will
change from Washington County RS-30 to City of Tigard R-1. The property
is located north of SW 126th, north of Bull Mtn. Rd. (WCTM 2 S1 9A/402).
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
o Resolution 84-
10. PD4-84, ZC12-84, 59-84, V15-84 MALLARD LAKE APPEAL - PUBLIC HEARING
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
o Resolution 84-
11. ZOA 6-84 HOUSEKEEPING ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Community Development
Code) PUBLIC HEARING
Review Planning Commission recommendation to make amendments to various
sections of the Community Development Code.
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
o Ordinance 84-
COUNCIL AGENDA - December 10, 1984 - PAGE 1
12. CPA 28-84 NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACES (Special Areas) - PUBLIC
HEARING
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o Consideration by Council
o Ordinance 84-
13. ZOA 8-84 HOUSEKEEPING ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Ravines, Industrial C
i Park, Home Occupations)- PUBLIC HEARING
o Public Hearing Opened
o Summation by Planning Staff
o Public Tcztimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
o Recommendation by Planning Staff
o Public Hearing Closed
o consideration by Council
i
o Ordinance 84-
14. PERSONNEL RULES DISCUSSION S ACCRUALS
o City Administrator
15. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
ion and separate action.
that an item be removed by motion for discuss
Motion to: Agreement
,1 Ratify Dispatch Contract Consultant Ag
.2 OLCC Application - K. C. Deli
.3 Receive 6 File
o Storm Drainage Communications - 2 letters E
o Newsletter Draft
o Response re: Randall Complaint
o Plaid Pantry Litter Issue
,4 Approve b Authorize Signature for Partial Release of Public
Improvement Bond monies - Gallos Vineyards Subdivision
.5 Accept Public Greenway Dedication - Copper Creek II and III
.6 Accept 72nd Avenue Right-of-Way
16. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City council will i° in) (1)(h)ito
Session under she provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(d); (1)(e)
discuss issues regarding labor negotiations, real property transactions
and pending litigation.
18. ADJOURNMENT
(2235A) t
I
COUNCIL AGENDA - December 10, 1984 - PAGE 2
TIGARD C I T Y C O U N C I L
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1984, - 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors: Tom Brian, Phil
Edin, and Kenneth Scheckla. City Staff: Bill Monahan,
Director of Planning 6 Development; Mark O'Donnell., Legal
Counsel; and Donna Corbet, Deputy City Recorder.
2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
a. operable capability for windows at new Civic Center
b. Clarify and ratify the intent and use of W.C.C.L.S. funds and the
use in the Civic Center Budget.
C. A letter to Southern Pacific of appreciation of their handling of
the extension of residence for the Terrace Heights Mobile Home
Park.
d. L.C.D.C. report by Mayor Cook.
e. J. B. Bishop bankruptcy report.
3. APPOINTMENT OF PRO TEM DEPUTY RECORDER
a. Motion by Phil Edin to have Donna Corbet as Deputy City Recorder
pro tem for this meeting, was seconded and approved by unanimous
vote of Council present.
4. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No one appeared to speak.
5. AAA TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARD
a. Chief Adams presented a citation from the American Automobile
Association to the City of Tigard for, no pedestrain fatalities as
reported in the AAA Safety Inventory .
6, POLICE DEPARTMENT/CRIME WATCH WORKSHOP
a. Captain Kelley Jennings, Lt. Bob Wheeler, Reserve Lt, Ron Royce,
Lt. Branstetter and Alice Carrick (Support Services), presented
the Council with the Department's report on services. Chief Adams
summarized the presentation and Council's questions and concerns
were addressed. One question in particular regarding annexation
was posed by Councilor Scheckla. It was pointed out that if the
city was to annex any more large areas, it would put a severe
strain on already limited police resources.
b. Annexation program will be a future agenda item in early 1985.
7. BURGLARY ALARM MONITORING - DISCUSSION
a. Staff presented a recommendation to terminate this service.
b. Councilor Brian moved to recommend termination of this service as
of July 1, 1985. It was seconded and approved by unanimous vote
of Council present.
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
8. E.M.S. PROGRAM REPORT
a, The Emergency Medical Services Program requested by Washington
County for the City to participate in, was reported un by Chief
Adams. A meeting with the county representative was held with Bob
Jean and Chief Adams. The legal issue is that the County can
regulate those things outside of incorporated areas, but they
can't franchise within the City unless we agree to that. County
Council, through Mr. Lazar is supposed to get back to us. When we
have further information, it should probably be reviewed by Legal
Counsel to address those anti-trust issues.
9. CPA 26-84 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - BUFFER POLICY - PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b, Director of Planning and Development gave synopsis of issue.
C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. Director of Planning & Development stated the Planning Commission
recommended approval.
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. ORDINANCE NO, 84-70 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICY 11. .5.1 . , VOLUME
2, FINDINGS, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT AS
ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE. 83--52 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
t (CPA 26--84)
g, Motion by Kenneth Scheckla, seconded by Phil Edin to adopt as
amended by correcting the reference in Section 1 to Policy 11 .51
to read as follows:
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
10. SDR 12-84 WESTERN INTERNATIONAL FINAL ORDER RESOLUTION 84-80
a. Alan Fox, Western Int'1 Prop. , 1805 N.W. Glisan, Portland, Or.
gave a brief comment as relates to the railroad crossing. They
are requesting a waiver of remonstrance in lieu of bonding in
order to go ahead with their development.
b. Mayor Cook asked Legal Counsel to comment. Mark O'Donnell
suggested the Council follow their policy decision. Discussion
followed as to alternatives.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 84-80 A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION FOR A SITE DESIGN REVIEW REQUESTED BY WESTERN
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES, FILE NO. SDR 12-84, UPHOLDING THE
POLICYPLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON REVERSING
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON THE RAILROAD CROSSING
ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
C. d. Phil Edin moved to adopt Resolution No. 84-80. Tom Brian seconded
the motion.
page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
e. Tom Brian suggested an amendment to the wording on page 3, second
line where it says Southern Pacific tracks: after the word
"tracks" put in the words "or unless an LID is formed to construct
said crossing." And eliminate the words "construction of a
cul-tie-sac."
Tom Brian moved to amend the wording, Councilor Edin seconded the
motion.
Motion to amend was approved with a 3-1 majority vote of Council
present, Councilor Scheckla voting no.
The amended resolution passed 3- 1 with Councilor Scheckla voting
no.
il. ZCA 16-84 ANNEXATION/VAN S. CAMP - NPO #3 - PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Planning 6 Development Director presented the facts regarding
annexation of 3. 18 acres into the City of Tigard.
C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak .
d. Planning b Development Director stated Planning Commission
recommended approval .
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. RESOLUTION NO. 84-81 A RE..SOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND
DSCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (CAMP) ZCA 16--84.
g, Phil Edin moved and Tom Brian seconded the motion to approve
Resolution 84--81, the annexation of the Camp property . It passed
3-1 with Councilor Scheckla voting no.
12. PD4--84, ZC 12-84, S9-841 MALLARD LAKE APPEAL. - PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Planning and Development Director presented the item, and stated
that the Planning Commission had approved this based on
information provided to them. The concern was over two small
lakes which are not shown on our Comprehensive Plan, however the
Planning Commission went against staff recommendations for
approval and denied the application, based largely on the question
over what the actual sizes of the lakes are. Planning 6
Development Director further stated as follows: "Based upon what
I've heard and read there seems to be sufficient controversy that
a better action by the Commission would have been to postpone this
item one more time. My recommendation to you is to refer this
item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration,
perhaps with the direction that the applicant do a more thorough
4 survey of the land to determine the size of those lakes and direct
the Planning Commission to approve a Planned Development that is
consistent with those restraints."
Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
b. Mayor Cook stated he felt there was sufficient question to refer
this issue back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration. Council and Legal Counsel agreed.
C. Phil Edin moved to send this issue back to the Planning
Commission, Councilor Scheckla seconded.
Approved by unaninious vote of Council. present.
13. ZOA 6-84 - HOUSEKEEPING:; ZONE ORDINANCF AMENDMENT (Community Development
Code) PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Planning and Development Director briefed Council. on this item,
stressed it is a housekeeping ordinance.
C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. Planning & Development Director stated Planning Commission
recommended approval.
e. Public Hearing Closed
f. ORDINANCE NO. 84-71 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-61,
AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY. (ZOA 6--84)
g. Motion by Ken Scheckla, seconded by Phil Fdin to adopt.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
RECESS 10:00 p.m.
RECONVENE 10: 10 p.m.
14. CPA 29-84 - NATURAL. FEATURES AND OPEN SPACES (Special Areas) - PUBLIC
HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Planning and Development Director outlined the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
C. Public Testimony: Elton Phillips spoke in favor of a 140 foot
elevation.
d. Planning & Development Director stated Planning Commission
recommended approval.
e. Public Hearing Closed.
f. ORDINANCE NO. 84-72 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-45, VOLUME
( 1, RESOURCE DOCUMENT AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 83-52 AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (CPA 28-84).
Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
g. Motion to approve by Tom Brian, seconded by Phil Edin.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
15. ZOA 8-84 HOUSEKEEPING ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Ravines, Industrial
Park, Home Occupation) - PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Hearing Opened
b. Planning and Development Director outlined issue.
C. Public Testimony: No one appeared to speak.
d. Planning & Development Director stated Planning Commission
recommended approval.
f. Public Hearing Closed
g. ORDINANCE NO. 84-73 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18/84/045,
18.68.050, 18.42.010, 18.60.030, 18.62.030, 18.66.030, 18.68.030,
18.70.030, 18.72.030, AND 18.142.010 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (ZOA 8-84)
h. Ken Scheckla moved and Phil Edin seconded the ordinance be
approved.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
16. PERSONNEL RULES DISCUSSION & ACCRUALS
a. Councilor Scheckla stated that the person questioning this item
was absent and suggested it be postponed. The Mayor agreed and
set this time over to the December 17, agenda.
17. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request
that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.
Motion to:
17.1 Ratify Dispatch Contract Consultant Agreement
17.2 Approve 01-CC Application - K.C. Deli
17.3 Receive & File
o Storm Drainage Communications 2 letters
o Response re: Randall Complaint
o Plaid Pantry Litter Issue
17.4 Approve & authorize signature for partial release of Public
Improvement Bond monies - Gallos Vineyards Subdivision
17.5 Accept Public Greenway Dedication - Copper Creek II and III
17.6 Accept 72nd Avenue right-of-way.
a. Motion by Phil Edin, seconded by Tom Brian to approve Consent
Agenda.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Page 5 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
18. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
18.1 Operable capability windows - Civic Center
a. Planning & Development Director presented a review on this
question. It has become necessary, according to the
Architect's, to determine whether or not this capability is
required. Discussion followed with the consensus evolving
that the Council generally favored the operable capability.
b. Phil Edin moved to direct the City Administrator to work
with the Architects to include 10 operable windows at an
estimated cost of $100 each with conditions that they have
some sort of removable lock or crank that is only given out
when the HVAC sy stefrs fails. Mayor Cook securkled the
motion. The motion passed 3-1 with Councilor Scheckla
voting no.
18.2. Clarify and ratify the intent and use of WCCLS funds and the use
in the Civic Center Budget.
a. Planning & Develoment Director presented the agenda item
and briefed the Council of the background of the material.
b. Councilor Brian stated that his recollection of the
dispersal of WCCLS funds would be that $100,000 would be
for furnishings and fixtures in the library, not for
construction per se. Councilor Edin stated that was how he
remembered it also. He said as he read the minutes of the
meeting of February 20, 1984, "The bond measure will pay
for the purchase of land and construction of a building.
Furnishings will be paid from other sources, i.e. , sale of
Old City Hall and Pinebrook lots, interest earnings from
pond proceeds." He felt, if that' s the case, the funds
shouldn't be used for construction. Mayor Cook said he
thinks that is the part that needs clarification.
Councilor Scheckla stated he had nothing more to add.
Discussion followed.
C. Phil Edin moved that the funds and projected receipts from
the sale of the Pinebrook lot, the Old City Hall, and the
$35,000 presently budgeted for construction, be reserved in
our budget and designated for furnishings. Councilor
Scheckla seconded the motion. The motion passed by
unanimous vote of Council present.
18.3 Terrace Heights Letter
a. Planning & Development Director presented a draft of a
letter to Southern Pacific regarding the extension of time
for the residents of Terrace Heights to move. Recommended
Council compliment Southern Pacific on their action.
b. General consensus of the Council directed the letter be
sent over Mayor's signature.
Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 10, 1984
18.4 Mayor Cook gave a brief update on the L.C.D.C. 6 Comprehensive
Plan. He noted that a report on the progress and proposed
language changes would be presented in January to the Council.
18.5 Councilor Edin requested Legal Council comment on J.B. Bishop
bankruptcy status. Legal Counsel stated his office is reviewing
the matter at this time.
19. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 11:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1)(d); (1)(e); and
(1)(h) to discuss issues regarding labor negotiations, real property
transactions and pendinn litigation.
20. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 p.m.
Deputy City Recorder
ATTEST:
(dc:2290A)
Page 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 10, 1994
ON
co
_� .
Ic Q 1, ,
z
.4 Aim
O� O
J Y
i-
U
Z --
Q U 'a
g O
O Z Q
Oe 'com m
m C t a
� O
P, m cc co
m m
azz • � m ��` � O
Z
— a w ❑ ❑ Q c I . m w
2 Q - U O� V
S O V =. O m N
= c G
o a
_CO) Z CO
«.
.J w Zm aaio 00 co
> H — c ; a o
cc c a
m U r x I Z
a o JCD m
M « � my m
CLLu a ccO
M LL m 7 t.0 mm m O
CQ O aY
L
N H Z d U tl c mom"' _� a C
r N a • 3cr OD
b L O� Q m aD�. (Lj C -:tC
ad M Z_ N E•V c O coo a
4D M (Z tL rl O c p a W f+ 3 m a0 LE W
x ;'-
x Q 3 •,� T dD ° a 7 T .� c C C
0 LL
c •v�, CL Go
°•Hd • �� ocn_a� �t � O m a c� y ao � OcaQo°a .0 > > E
Cd 0� cd aE Uo f Z - cm a o
w ' . m� m a "m >QOQ0cc
NU va e a 0 1i
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY 8���9�
P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)884-0380 mace
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 r F C 10 1904
Legal Notice Advertising CITY OF TIGARD
•
• ❑ Tearsheet Notice
City of Tigard
• p. 0. Box 23397 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
Tigard, OR 97223
•
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
1 Susain Pi n k 1 ey --
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the T &Ara T;me S
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at_ Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; th t the
city Council Regular Meeting
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for 1 —successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
Dec . 6 , 1984
C
Sdpscrib74t/
or, o be
1984
'j_
N ary Public for Oregon
My coinmissbn Expires: /88
AFFIDAVIT
C
AGENDA ITEM # 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE December 10. 1984
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council
wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but time may
require that we schedule your items for a future agenda. Please contact the
City Administrator as to agenda scheduling. Thank you.
N.124E, ADDRESS 6 AFFILIATION ITEM DESCRIPTION
7 - �f
--- V
C
DATE December 10. 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: #7. CPA 26-84 - Comprehensive Plan
Amendment - Buffer Policy
*******************************************************************************
Proponent (For Issue) Upponent (Against Issue)
*******************************************************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
g0
y
F
f
DATE DecemhPr 10 , 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: #9. ZCA 16-84 - Annexation/Van S. Camp -
NPO #3
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
l
DATE December 10, 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 0110.
PD 4-84, ZC 12-84, S 9-84, V15-84
Mallard Lake Appeal
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxx*x�►x*,�x***xxxxxxxxxxxx*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Appellants (Supporting Appeal) Respondents (Against Appeal)
***********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Name. Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
'A t--(,A _ I i.o o 5'(A-M"14 r ���>Z o"i
L
z cj-7 -L �{
4
c 9 �jti' �� P0# C C(l rf"a H - �4 �ea
D S O n--j & S S�.1 S c'NECKCA c
1"/G.•�> ZIA- PA AjOyiy> Sr x / '�k&S Sc�l ScMEcr[d s
J2
SC_4%eGjua DrZ.
i
E
t
_ S
f
i
i
1
DATE December ld, 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: # II .ZOA 6-84
Housekeeping Zone Ordinance Amendment (Community
Development Code)
Proponent (For Issue)
Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
DATE December 10, 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: j� j-j_
ZOA 8_s6 Housekeeping Zone Ordinance Amendment
(Ravines, Industrial Park, Home Occupations)
*******************************************************************************
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
DATE
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description:
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
*******************************************************************************
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
l
DATE December 10, 1984
I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on
the following item: (Please print the information)
Item Description: #12.
CPA 28-84 Natural Features and Open Spaces
(Special Areas)
Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue)
Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation
LP
t
AUTOMOBILE CLUB Of OREGON
�- • . • 600 S.W. MARKET STREET • PORTLAND,OREGON 97201
SERVING MOTORISTS SINCE 1905 Affiliated with AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
EMERGENCY ROAD SERVICE MOTOR T� URING WORLD WIDE TRAVEL SALES INFORMATION INSURANCE
222-6777 222-6700 222-6767 222-6900 222-6734 222-6744
November 22, 1984
mayor Wilbur Bishop
TIGARD CITY HALL
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mayor Bis,.op:
Breaking tradition at a time of year when traditional
events and activities consume one, I am forwarding
Tigard' s Pedestrian Safety Award. Wanting the
award to reach you before the New Year, my schedule
will not at this time permit a personal presentation.
Oregon Triple A wishes you continued success in your
pedestrian and safety program activities -- and the
happiest and safest of holidays!
Sincerely,
Mary M ritt
Public Relations/Safety Dir.
MM:mm
Enc.
OFFICERS&DIRECTORS
WARREN A.McMINIMEE,President GEORGE J ANNALA EDWIN E CONE E ROY JARMAN GEORGE E.SWINDELLS
Portland Eugene Portland Salem
C.EDWIN FRANCIS.V ce President R D.COLCLOUGH GEORGE H COREY JOHN W.SNIDER WALKER M.TREECE
DAVID L.DAVIES.Treasurer Bend Pendleton Medford Portland
L.R.KNEPPER.General Manager RUSSELL M COLWELL E.ROBERT DELUCCIA A.W SWEET RAY T.YASUI
Portland Portland North Bend Hood River
FORM 6528
NEWS RELEASE
600 S.W.MARKET STREET . PORTLAND,OREGON 97201
Contact : Mary Merritt '
(5 03 ) 2 22-6 74 9
August 15 , 1984
SAFE STREETS IN OREGON EARN RECOGNITION
Thirteen cities in Oregon have been cited by the
American Automobile Association with Pedestrian Safety
Citations for their efforts toward reducing pedestrian
fatalities and for their interest in safety. They are :
Dallas, Lake Oswego, North Bend , Canby , Bend , Central Point ,
McMinnville , Ashland , Coos Bay, Albany, Eugene, Forest Grove
and Tigard .
Two Oregon cities , Dallas and Lake Oswego, received
the difficult-to-earn Triple A "Award of Achievement" for
having no pedestrian fatalities for the tenth consecutive
year.
The AAA Pedestrian Program , unique in the nation ,
focuses attention nationwide on pedestrian safety needs by
stimulating interest on the local level in pedestrian-related
F
programs, Recognition is given to cities and states that
have demonstrated successful pedestrian safety programs . i
In 1984 , 2,569 cities were evaluated nationwide.
-30-
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 12/10-84 AGENDA ITEM #: /
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/6/84 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
Police Department Workshop REQUESTED BY: council
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: - ,Llc CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
We will be presenting a brief summary and overview of key departmental activities in
the following r:
Administration and Operations, Captain Kelley Jennings
Patrol Division, Lt. Bob Wheeler/Reserve Lt. Ron Royse
/ Investigations Division, Lt. Lonnie Branstetter
\ Support Services Division, Manager Alice Carrick
Summary, Chief Bob Adams
Followin-; this presentation will be the Workshop for questions and discussion with
staff, :. : Crime Watch Committee, and Council. Attached are some of the background
data sheets which you might want to review prior to the Workshop.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
SUGGESTED ACTION
Conduct Workshop.
Respectfully,
i
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
i
I
1981
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHART
I
I
1
t
I
CHIEF OF POLICE
OPERATIONS DIVISION
LIEUTENANT
PATROL SERVICE'S INVESTIGATIONS
DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION
Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant Sergeant
Corporal Corporal Corporal
ivision
upervi
Page #1
1983 (APRIL)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHART
CHIEF OF POLICE
OPERATIONS DIVISION
CAPTAIN
4
z
PATROL DIVISION SUPPORT SERVICES INVESTIGATION
LIEUTENANT DIVISION DIVISION
MANAGER LIEUT 24ANT
salgawt Smigeant GaToral
Q�al Oxperal
63bch I Yatdi II Wlbch III
Page #2
1983 (JULY)
ORGANIZATIONAL STURCTURE CHART
CHIEF OF POLICE
OPERATIONS DIVISION
CAPTAIN
L1
SUPPORT SERVICES INVESTIGATION �
PATROL DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION '
LIEUTENANT MANAGER LIEUTENANT
i
i
i
Sergeant LCoc):r7poral
t
Corporal
Corporal
Page #3-
1984 (JUNE)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE CHART
r
CHIEF OF POLICE
OPERATIONS DIVISION
CAPTAIN
PATROL DIVISIONSUPPORT SERVICES INVESTIGATION
LIEUTENANT DMSION DMSION
MANAGER LIEUTENANT
C
Page #4-
PATROL DIVISION
'
1 It/ 1 •• • -•
15,000 1.5
Sworn •
10,000 1 '0 1/1 populatiLon.
5,000 t
11
90% DISCRETIONARY PATROL ■
TIME
OBLIGATED PATROL TIME
■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
]H_■■■t■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1981 1982 1983 1984 . .
a _
f
PATROL DIVISION WORKLOAD
IMPACT ANNALYSIS i
i
45
C,
— r
40
\ Service calls
per day.
35 \
\
-- 30 \
25
Discretionary patrol
( time, Exp in %.
Population served
20 Exp. in (1,OOOs).
r
i
00w
/ Patrol division
i staffing level-
. 15
evel.. 15
i
- , 10 Case load/per
officer Exp. (100s).
4
Emergency response
-4eJ ti
---- - --- - - --5 time.(Re:service
� r
r level cuts)
I
FY 1980/81 .1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85
POPULATION: 14,855 15,100 17,500 18,364 .19,500
Page #6
PATROL DIVISION CRIME CLEARANCE ANALYSIS
C 50 Part I & II Crimes
cleared per officer.
45
40
35
30 \
\
Part II clearance
per officer.
25 \
Part I clearance
per officer.
20
15
10
FY 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 .1984/85 1985/86
Page #7
TIME ALLO'ITELT BY PATROL DIVISION
FOR YEAR 1983
Criminal
Total Time Time Traffic Other
Directed Patrol 2,067.5 2,067.5
General Patrol 5,296.4 5,296.4
Traffic Patrol 2,228.1 2,228.1
Criminal Investigation 11167.3 1,167.3
Accident Investigation 285.0 285.0
Traffic Enforcement 932.4 932.4
Court 152.7 152.7
Jail 84.0 84.0
Transport Prisoners 181.8 181.8
Assist Public 403.8 403.8
Assist Other Officers 1,334.3 1,334.3
Recovered Stolen Property 25.2 25.2
Recovered Stolen Vehicles 13.0 13.0
Calls Answered 2,824.6 2,824.6
C FIR's 132.9 132.9
Dispatch Duties 192.4 192.4
591.0
Office Duties 591.0
Report Writing 2,089.2 2,089.2
Case Preparation 57.8 57.8
Case Clearance 74.6 74.6
Special Details 1,112.5 1,112.5
Training
2,147.0 2,147.0
Patrol Vehicle Service 693.8 693.8
.Authorized Breaks 2,077.7 2,077.7
Vehicle Impounds 6.6 6.6
Administrative Duties 1,625.8 1,625.8
27,797.4 hrs. 7,386.9 hrs. 3,445.5 hrs. 16,965.0 hr
26.6% 12.4% 61.0%
C
Page #8'
TIME AIJ-C MD1 T BY PATROL DIVISION
FOR JANUARY THPU OC"110BM, 1984 (10 months)
Criminal
Total Time Time Traffic Other
Directed Patrol 1,923.2 1,923.2
General Patrol 3,117.2 3,117.2
Traffic Patrol 2,009.0 2,009.0
Criminal Investigation 951.5 951.5
Accident Investigation 189.0 189.0
Traffic Enforcement 1,578.5 1,578.5
Court 413.8 413.8
Jail 116.2 116.2
Transport. Prisoners 169.4 169.4
Assist Public 587.1 587.1
Assist Other Officers 1,144.2 1,144.2
Recovered Stolen Property 14.8 14.8
Recovered Stolen Vehicles 10.6 10.6
Calls Answered 2,309.1 2,309.1
�i FIR's 352.1 352.1
Dispatch Duties 112.1 112.1
Office Duties 243.4 243.4
Report Writing 1,905.1 1,905.1
Case Preparation 70.8 70.8
Case Clearance 80.8 80.8
Special Details 812.2 812.2
Training 1,776.8 1,776.8
t.
Patrol Vehicle Service 541.2 541.2
Authorized Breaks 1,660.8 1,660.8
Vehicle Impounds 5.9 5.9
Administrative Duties 1,911.1 1,911.1
24,005.9 hrs. 7,158.4 hrs. 3,776.5 hrs. 13,071.0 hr
C 29.8% 15.7% 54.5%
Page #9
INVESTIGATIVE CASE LOAD ANALYSIS
150
C
Case load . nvest.
100
P Cases cleared/Invest.
�.` % Case cleared.
50
INVESTIGATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
_. 2000
\\ Cases received.
1500
,1000 Cases suspended.
- - 500
Cases investigated.
Cases cleared.
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
(( FY 83/84 .
Page #-10
SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
CARD LOAD / DISPATCHER
(# Of Cards Typed And Filed)
6,400
f 6,200
(1
6,000 -
5,800
5,600 -
i
5,400
5,200
5,000
4,800 -
4,600
1980 1981 1982 .1983 1984
Page #11
POLICE DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
I
�{ CITY COUNCIL POLICY
AND REPORTING FEEDBACK
GOALS
i
POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYZE AND EVALUATE
MISSION STATEMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT
AND PERFORMANCE
GOALS
DIVISION GOALS
AND
PERFOFMANCE
STANDARDS
STATED EMPLOYEE
PERFURMANCE
STANDARDS
i
Def: Performance Standard
1. Make uniform; 2. Criterion to measure
3. A model to follow
�l
Page #12
TIME ALLOTMENT BY POLICE DEPARTMENT
FOR 1983 -- PATROL AND DP-,BBL rIVES
Criminal
Total Time Time Traffic Time Other Time
Patrol 27,797.4 7,386.9 3,445.5 16,965.0
Detectives 6,103.0 6,103.0
33,900.4 13,489.9 3,445.5 16,965.0
39.8% 10.2% 50.0%
TIME AUDIT-= BY POLICE DEPARTMENT
FOR 1984, JANUARY THROUGH OCTOBER -- PATROL AND DETF7CrIVES
Criminal
Total Time Time Traffic Time Other Time
Patrol 24,005.9 7,158.4 3,776.5 13,071.0
Detectives 5,932.0 5,932.0
29,937.9 13,090.4 3,776.5 13,071.0
43.7% 12.6% 43.7%
Page #13
Board on Po/ice Standards and Training
SUITE 404. THE EXECUTIVE HOUSE, 325 13th ST. N.E., SALEM, OREGON 91310-1071 PH. (503) 3783574
'..'TOR XnyvP4 OREGON POLICE ACADEMY, 550 N. MONMOUTH AVE., MONMOUTH, OREGON 97361 PH. (503) 378-2100
oaeMa�
March 1, 1984
Chief Robert B. Adams
Tigard Police Department
9020 SIV Burnham Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Bob:
I have been planning to write to you since our conversation the other
day, but I delayed in order to conduct a little experiment first.
I routinely routed your 1983 Annual Report through our Research and
Management Section for inclusion in our resource library. Today I
heard from Leonard Skinner, section chief, who commented on hoty
thorough your report was and what a wealth of management information
it contained. He was especially interested in your use of goals and
the measurement of values which makes your report unique in this
state.. - Jerry Butler, who also works in this section and who will be
t taking over when Leonard retires in April, has withheld the second
copy from the library for a couple of months as he is planning to
use it as an example when lie teaches in our next middle-management
class the week of April 23 to 27.
I thought you would enjoy their reaction and I would like to add that
I share their views completely. Thanks for remembering us with the
copies and please pass our best wishes on to those persons who helped
develop and prepare this report. . ,
Sincer v,
Paul Bettiol
Executive Director
PB:dat
C
MEMORANDUM
July 7, 1983
TO: All Policc Department Personnel
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: 1983 Performance Objectives
RE: Divisional and Individual Performance Objectives,
Work Programs
(Police Mission and Goals Resolution 82-74)
The following objectives are derived from historical data, and are
generally obtainable performance objective goals. However, to achieve
these goals will require strict management of time and other related
resources at all levels of the department.
The following p-iges will identify Division and individual performance
objectives of each respective division where appropriate.
To meet these objectives will require team work and a spirit of
harmony between all divisions.
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
RBA:ac
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION No.
MENT
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CIY COUNCIL ADOPTING A POLICE MISSION ELLTAS ADDRESSING PRIORITIES FOR DISCRETIONARY EER ICES-
GENERAL GOAL STATEMENTS AS W
and a prioritization of what
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council ghas determined oal statement that it is necessary to adopt a
police mission statement, general g `
are available; and
discretionary services will be provided as resources
t
l hereby deter
f a
.WHEREAS, the Tigard City Councia►ovidethat
t he ta
the basic foundation o for
Mission Statement, Goals and Priorities will P provide general guidance for
police objectives in the community and it will further
the Police Department.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL THAT:
Sect= 1: The following Police Mission Statement is hereby adopted: concerned
The Police Department and its resources shall be primarily
with the prevention and suppression of crime, and the protection of
life and property.
Sect=2: The following Goal Statements are hereby
adopted:
Uni
1. The Tigard Police of Department Oreshall
the orce the ordinances laws
of o the eCity to
States, the State Oregon,
Tigard in a fair and impartial manner.
2. The Tigard Police Department shall provide twenty—four (24) hour
police service to the citizens of the community-
3. The Tigard Police Department shall respond immediately to all
emergency calls for police service.
4. The Tigard
Police Department shall provide for the safe movement
of people and traffic throughout the city.
Department shall provide the necessary
S, The Tigard Police
citizens of the
investigative support to reported crimes by
community.
6. The Tigard Police Department shall conduct special police missions
based on crime data analysis-
7. The Tigard Police Department shall
lbestatponsiveed t a l objectives,
C calls for
service, consistent with department
and within the limited resources allocated.
RESOLUTION No. 82--i4—
I
Section 3: The attached priorities are hereby adopted for service
calls. The intent is to establish a rational decision making process
to shift resources to mandatory criminal and traffic functions, to
trade-off discretionary functions in order to cope with growth and
maintain cost controls. Discretionary service call responses will be
prioritized with the lower priority calls being delayed until resources
are available. The service calls have been prioritized into three
groups with Priority I calls being the highest pric-ity and Priority
III calls being the lowest.
See Attached Exhibit "A"
PASSED: This Lj�` day of /,, /.. , 1982 by the Tigard City Council.
�ayor - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Recorder - Cit of Ti d
i
C
PACE 2 '
RESOLUTION No. 82-_
EXHIBIT "A"
CALLS FOR SERVICE MANAGEMENT
RESPONSE PRIORITIES
TRAFFIC PRIORITY DISCRETIONARY PRIORITY
CRIMINAL PRIORITY
Priority (#1) PotePriorittialy (#1fo)
Priority (#1) nr violence or injury
All Violent Crimps Life Threatening *Alarms (Fire or Police)
Fatal t
in Progress •A :Injury/ •Disturbances
*Homicide Fatal
*Hit b Run:Injury •Family Fights
•Robbery •Prowlers
•Rape *Reckless
•Reckless •Suicides or attempts
•Assault •Fires
•Burglary •Extreme Hazards •Warrants Felony
(occupied bldg.) *Elude
•Unwanted Persons
•Arson •Wire down (Power)
•Assist Agency (Criminal)
•Hazards (injury threatening)
Priority (#2) Priority (#2)
Priority (#2) Non-violent
Non-violent Crimes Hazards Co Public oAssist Agency
Safety non-criminal)
in Progress •Dog Bites
*Burglary •Non-Injury
accidents on a •Civil :tatters
(unoccupied bldg.) public street •Check Buildings
p
*Theft •Hazards
•Forgery •Directed Traffic
Enforcement •Suspicious Auto/Person
•Fraud *Hazards (no immediate threat)
•Vice/Narcotics •Random Traffic
Enforcement •Narcotics information
•Uj:acted Crime •Subpoena/Summons Service
Patrol •Persons: Drunk/sick/confused
•Juvenile Problems
•Check Occupant
Priority (#3) Priority (#3)
Priority (#3) General
*Reported crimes of General Traffic *Traffic Problem
all index crimes •Traffic Nuisance
•Parking •Wire Down (non-power)
which are cold •Found Property
*Abandoned Vehicles
•Non-injury accidents oLostProperty
with damage under oProwl Checks
$400.00 value •Animal Problem
•Assist Citizens
*Deliver Messages
•Noise Abatement
•Private request for towing
auto
•Vacation Checks
•Unlisted Situations
•Non-Injury accidents on
private property (civil
matter)
RESOLUTION No. 82-71
TIGARD POLICE DEPARTMENT
BUDGET
and
WORK PROGRAM
C
oo
.--� u Q V N N O JLfN O O Cm
ro •4 U W CO p
1 .. ,O .D cA O N IO
re) In
ca
u ro .+
Ln w _ v > ro
V ~
>+ C o ►• h W •. p W N d
G ObD
N E co caro 1 Q 'O O r—N O CD n4 •D C/ ro
Z G! u p U ZW�
u r� v cel O O C 7 C
a ►+ aj d ^
O ro C u u 1 r` •o r- rn N [" aci G ro
.r
a1 L u C W W u u
ami i - •� -- W d d W AJ
A E ca w cn
.^ �• O u N O'0 U W �D t"1 N O cn
2ZwV)CD
tj o „ a Cl. 2M — co
� CIN
z,~ w w 000 o rn N
b��2Q t> u 3 a0)
O.
Q
v ro p 3 m u _
O�O v H u T
Om Q o ai .Ei co h u r U w PO. a oCi
N 00
.E.r v W W N > w cn o a 1�.
14 0
cc a u n' W 4.1 ' H c �-•� •� w � ow •v
ar .+ V d N ►. o d
h Q W 1-' O a
O Q a W � {� H z N N ro C d E N
N �+ u cc Z h h O O H •-4 p •tl ro w C H G
w a.i W J J d h CO N 4 W U) a O
ti+ T O b X
O �' W O j .4 .-4 N a G PL. O -4
O w C H w a 7
G o w co ro Co E
N 7 •.� u W H 0 0 0 P. •►�+ 3 + N O
Ou E m N a Qom,v V H 3 H 1- .e U U)
�O `14° u u E u
,r E u
w N > O 1 .. .D '7 cn
`i- N U O Q rcn n C) N C) � 'n O N �D c,4
O
O •.a u) u F^CD s .o � •� rn I r O .a E o00
•p •� u •O E W 1 .-c ,n .n .� N cn c•l .-�
Aj y .�+ N 7� ^O rn N -+
.4 Dt u W
,a 00 .+ Cr .+
�, C
U h G J O
co E
Q� d E ca oo Vl oo r � .0 O
.G 1 ^� m p, O� O N c', a0 N N �O G O
u H C Q o0 N O •--c
rn C W M r` .� N O
�..e u a w ,. O Wm N .a o .+ o4 cn
r.
:1 T y ro d Q(D
p u w T
to N b pp CO
c w
C ro G •-' G
O
0..;
(n Co u .r- O� N .-, vl .n N O
O�. h ,A aD O� ✓1 `O co .-+ O a0 N J J O, C O
d .� u �± co JN o - o 1 n Co% °° � 4 -4 E v.
co CD fn
p. m O d 1 oo ry cn
ON
yw cn .� Q�
..4 o _ u
VC ro G
p •'� &Cn .--� CA N Ql uI
y •.a u t•1 oo oo O p to �!1 �l r— a oo G
•U ro bo O co 1.4 4j .n N ^ n C" n a0 r� ..a o0
. 0 .� -+ E
P. "O cn E I w H� Q r- N J
►. w DO (30
d O > Svc O V!D
H u •.C+ H d Q
•
I I I I 1 IN IN I IN N I I 1 IN I
Io la bl to c I
I I L I I I I I� YI I� � I I I IY to
Iu 1� I u I;
I� A IA I Iro ro 11 I>. ro
I I l l l I 1 1 1 o I I I YI JI I I I I !ml I m I -rl
ll I I I l l
cc
I I I �I OD I I I I ISI I O 1 �I
E ! I Icl I I I l l 0 1 1 1 I I I I Im m I ml
l0 1 ¢ 1 1 1 1 �I I 1
cl I
oIcl I I
F- 1 1 1 bol" I I I I I I I I TI �r l I 1 1 1 IU 1 1 I ro i i
cl I
0 6! I Gltic
n I I l0 1 11 1 �I 1 OI 1 I I I O
E ¢ .� Nlc E I IY v I YI I I ul I
nI I ILL I I 1 1 1 I I I I�'IN of I 1 1 1 Icon
S u
--
o� o < yl I i�lx I I I I I I I I IIl I I
Iv+lIv w I 1 I I I I 61 bio I I I I I I I I N I I
I z I ° tc
O
I lom I I I I I I I o� I 11 I� I I Nm I
t.Ul !11 I I¢�� IL I I I cI� I c
Z
Z m I I d lu In I I o I I I 1> I I ! I o 0
W �jl IE Y E I > N L N I .� I ad m I
4. I IA Iro Y I I I IL I i t i Y
S OM m I to s L o 1 ro w e m c I A I o c I
F W I I I IE Y 11 I�I �•+ I I I I.,, Y N h �
c h !
o m E "y� -iIIiI! IItlIacsaacr,!lI1l J>cc 1IlomYarIYecq II1I�EJo IIttao�.;croW.;.ll 11 11 ¢oYT YN�+IlI�co.. 4.III cA=YaroV III HtYc IIII IIII IIItxmvYuao, No II ¢oT omoLo. IIIII
vrowux
olv
> o> EA o v
to
o vmaw
ya
I
I I_o ¢I I •+>-I I L I I I I-� io
LIV I N I I + I I I Ix N I
V Y V r c V Y �i¢s E v I N
I Icl Ivl lar hl I I tici I
47 I I I I I I u I
a A n > c Y , N L o I o I
o IE� lulu lar of I A131 o ril I w I I I I I L 1
I�•+ I I�� lo• «,IE I sIN I � NI I c I I I I I v I v I
c I A u L a ar v c � >• o I I
T lol Iu
c o
z o �Yc ItI.x-o
O vuc . loro r+I III L)lol ¢ UENaL-rlII II bvro II1II1 1IIm4mrs.1ll III1 mYvcooIoco s 1II !Il
IIl
I l l
I I sole It I Ir c
Icl I
F I I o
olA ld I I I o I I �I lu I L I I IFI 1 0 1 !
I I I bC01L I �I I I I l l Tll� I I F I I IYI I I An I
I it cl a 1 1 I INI N !
Y Ic IF m1Y DIY 1 1 1 1 �1 14 I l >. I I I WI 1 1 0 1
Y
I O s I I I I Ula 1 A
>
IAI I Qla i51 I I'' V>.I I I I 1 I >1
p, 1 lyI ecol VI.E ul I I 11 1 �11�4.1 I aYi I I I wl 11 I �I
o v L >, I I I a,
y mi Ib�olc cic ¢Icy �I I I ! I ! ILr\1 I c I I I �kol I c I \
C !
S IA roles I �+Ip I 1 0�I I I I Isl c sl
L a v J o Y I 1 I I m I 0 co I I ml
MV No c;
L O I 0 n C N O V N Y o7 .-r V Y I N
117 014 I I C O Ic I EIC ro e l l AIEI A =1c
1 N O 6 d 0 Y O C d Y C I L 1 0
IJlarulv I� vl + Y VI-+ I of + o -+ I I olol o
�I Im u c arlo I >IIm :° �Im I v Vlro A I I bdwl N m ar1A
L to A L 2 V 1, O ^� u ++ > U .-� U V > T V >1
u
Q IY •-+I 1 Li A ac OIA I ¢ a+lA A ro 1 I LI IN IA
Io1N ZZ:c hd hq I I I v I c o o L c A
I U A Y V A C A C L >. L L C Y L L C Y .r a. O I Y L
.7 I I It V u +lo-+I la+ aIV 41 alar a v I I +IarIY + arlar
Q u •+0. O O Y h0 O ho A -- Y 0. Op
Io1L v .IQ bd� hd IgE o I ti>I vl I I bgvlu s L u ¢ vl
O 0. 7 7 0 U C-0 C o l 01:3 .� 7 c 7 A r. 0 7 U 7 7
VVV ti ! IF-�° m 91.10 oIF-OIE rn �nlcn 2�1 min r� v� I I olml> s a ..mlrn
�.�. V 1 1 1 I I I � I I 1 I I 11 .r I
LA-
O oc m — S J Y O
co
a co N
J .-1 t J H D QI H U
E C M DO ` > u.
h J E V
V r m D ar r C F7 a Z W 0) E O ac O N Y V
H1 V V E 7 V.tl L > O ++ N D C J J\ J 4] L•� J
Z E Y L OG.Q E •m a! �••� T N Y A b0 c N T x C U O > X F
H O V V V O V 00. A¢ F 666 L A V O
F •. eomh-.r mv' < At a, v)-a
u A,c- d, n F- +'., + ac o w
(\ dc 6 C 7 EO>h C-�i V W h0 P�U Y Q F ho
L L 4] N \
OC m V A C a) 0. L 4+ L » C L V W N N
F �j�{f' S •ti CI S C O C O b0 ti C rOr 7 t h0 c L T b0 C
93 C c A O m u 0:9 c A O m Y c o t-• V A�0 J c o
H J O A Y.r T-� C .+ ar\ ..+..� -� U •.� F- pprr\ O .+ ¢ Y V L -+
U z S V LZ V C U C L O J G JL. Y J C J J N cYp\ C J J O A L V b C JY
W H bo J V --,E:u C V-0 A s .�i�C•�•�• A L •.� Y�p A 4] ..11 4. 7 ar j��j+a ayy��A o. d O L d•-��j A
Q mUdmF 60.0.wnV.� C<• 1=F>.U F-L.FA•3 � r=i IZ U.¢aUF m> N 0 s UGL.to 1--'m
d
N � s
1
PATROL DIVISION
BUDGET
and
WORK PROGRAM
and
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
C,
r
N
G ro ro U O C3 v 10
oo .-+ oO O N
O V y u w
LL) cn u ro 3 P%
U 4 •.4
H ,>a U y 6 �� % .D
d A E •,c
la] H
u w
N
0, 0 u
U
O p
>� lo. E ro C
H u u •-+ W O N
Z W .4 Cl. t w0
u Z'� N p O
•.� w u u co .-c to
O o uw ..ya 0. HVI
.Jo .4
v a a w E u 0m
wG a C U —
a O ro W
o -+ W bo rn .n .D v1
Ylu 1.. > ►+ _
O 'V co v 01 cn n t` O O o cn cn r-c .D .D O r� oo J op O I
L 'fl N O� M I W �T �7 �7 o% Ln -4 .4 N N O O
�'`Q •u dl G r-*, rn N O
P, �D cn %D %a
co C
d N a CO cn u1 N ^ .•a
Q Z O u
bo b Q1 G
W o c
u .,,r O •.� 4. O
OcOt.I F ai y C wcc 14 u
�OC�Q u 0 u ro o ca w
-4 w W
w a W a.y A (' m a w u
n 0 c0 OD
164
Wt.. u O .� w
a •,a `V N G
~ 01 L w co V LY. •c c a.r U P. W WO to i
1 0/ ca b G NH .-4 C -,� 0 0 � OI
C, E.,t +•+ d u " W V ¢ a rn d w o �
tt ,+ U rn E u E w o w ro v
,4 U L O .,r p Q H w w o C w 0 C u
eV C a co cc Q J O Z rn C -0 w w o c0 w " T
u u •.a u ro Co j H '� w 4 -u w a vii w w co - a14 s
hIV
O ra > +-r q Z h O 6 A w w C V C a w -+ ro C u
P.O w G b -4 LJLJ v v a ¢ 'w a _4 ¢ w b w .� U v o G
Z y 14 d Q O O E cc aU •,c w
E w co •,t X Q v 1 6-4 r u v OQ w ►+ v u E
O V C cn W O Q H H w 44 •,a r--7 w O! H H V Cod
.a X U w w or u . -4 .c
L.4
d o EN epi..W ¢ PG u u i w w N .O •.r u u > a C•
(--c O w w r-
0 4f c0 N E W H w w a C-
�� u w w w iV w Q Q O 3 0 ro 0 H w m a 44 0 0 N O a
v) G a o > w (� E. P. Cl. Z H E-r 0 Z o a. 0. N a. N
W O 14 ro
d co w U a co O� vl .D cn
of� ..4 u O d u —
"� E .--r u •.a W V• � � 00 v1 N a oo J S .1 O, Vl ,4 .4 N N O ✓�
O C cc "� V C F-GO %n— r- v a. ` N !- .D t•1 .o .D O o`
.t N
o. O q A G E W I a. � ,r .fir en rr rn cn � �
w� m u o co OD 10 '^ N r- o. v►
w w E N q u W— H
N d I IC cc ,-4
M •O .L til d C C� N
Q O O, ra
w a rn .+ O eV0 O+ N c•1 vl v1 Irl r- c'1 'D r- oo O
w N "� w ro O oc) �D LD Vl O� N I N n .!1 �p r` J .-� .-� N N O
-C W fn � v Co .D .-. c7, N r` cr-1 c1 t•'1 .D cn
Ln Ul%
C w b 1' caro u C W Cn -+
ter ro G to R. E W I N v1 O N .-•c vl N N
L > .�
rn ,.o C7 N N �
O w O) u C7 ODi
wu U W
CD
U. U v u C:)
GO y C 1•,, U O Q,
t ' ,+ u
O to u w O N d .cn D c-4 lo .-O� cO'1 oo O� r- LIN .4 10 .-c ✓1 r� r� O
•.+ o0 .+ cn , m r- oo J oo c'1 .--c N N O
% .-+
•.y-c U w d J N o •� .D d .. a. .-• r- c') c-1 �? 'D -�
A C N 0 U Q OD c'1 O� 00 .-+ .--r ✓1 N V>
-c cc 1 rn c'� N •D ••+
a uIn
-4 C• H— d
ro y N X (��
.-r u N �
�� u •> C cc .- Q_
C -14 0 30 oo
o o s co
( W .•-c t 1•' 41 ,--r .p O c"1 J O n n N O,
a w C .o W G .D v. 00 J O .D c•'1 N -4 .-� ,4 c'1 N LnW u O co C E O J— .-c ..• .D O o0 a,I ON Q` .• e'1 .D co
E
ro w 00•.c J c•1 .--.
W Or r+ w O 0 > O m
N w V 0�. A Q�
I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I lu 11 10
I I I I
Z I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 181 to I I l0 1 1 1 ILI 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I IM I I IcI I I o Ivly 1 1 1 1 1
I? I I I? c - I I of
L I
o I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I� I I I I I I E I I tl A I I I 1 1 1
J I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 m I I of (D
E ° I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I F I ml v IJIo I I I 1 1
I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I I I I I I a Irol I c lylm 1V6_
fmlr,zlIIc
ro Icly 1 1 1 1 1
0 3 CGL I I I I Inl I I I I I I 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o u I �I n w�Iu m 1 1 1 1 1
o a t- a I l l 1 Iol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I,7,I 1 1 1 1 1 1 �o �I�Fol v v a .l„I c 11 I I
n d I I I I I +I I I I I trol I II 1 1 1 1 i>�IIFI� I m .� Nlpl:' I I
J J O p y y ) N
�-.
K I I ILI Iml I I I I �vl ISI I I IEI I ISI Imw
l �l
,C I I Iml 1�1 ISI I I
GS I I I Iml IJI I I IIl I>l 6t1 !l ILlI Ii iImli m :�Iml cel dL
cNLcl„Nylcrocm
m > °
> OyLq a; �aiil L m Lcz I01 1. 1 14,1 1 1 ) V)
X. !1 (1 I1 I1 t1i
E- I O L E
U I I IJI I>J lolI I I•+1•-1 I I +INI Irl c clYl >I w > c ulyla I I I I
ca - m O
w m I I ILI Iml Iilul I o f lol I I lyl I I o D 1•-I I ro � °L J clxlc° I i l l l
F (n m a C N •-� It p.-� V a >. .� N J C p a o1
z w o I I ILI I-+I 1a7�•-•I I JICILI IwI �I I Iml N N v u 131 I C N E a+ LIy1N I I I I I
O ! d E �•- N 10 m m u N p .+¢ d ro O m .�•.+ti 0 N I
I lal I +I IJlml Iro I IJI Icl Nlvl ISI > IE-I dl y - Ip00lm I
>+ N L d l - N.r m V L T I-
E w I ILITI I IoIJI IL Nldlcl ILI LI•+I lol y + ro �I14 vol 9O)i E ° vimlo ` 1
m m < v I Ipl +1 lal I Ivl I MINI-+1 Ivi ILI^I I 7 v c v Idl'- m c m T—
a > z mJ - c m1mNp a 3 � mw NJ wv c
[.� ¢ L 1 lylcl 1 -I INlml IE ulcl 1 IaIN IV) >I L o f ml LI y c ro o al> Iw 1 1 1 1 1
O C ro -1 0l >, C J'-• m H y
z ° I I 1•oi I Io1E+l-.IL ul+Io1 I Im c IJl�ly C 7 s � I I y J ply' I w I I I I I
o UI-+ s .-( v m L L . m o N or > m + ..ia+lml 1 141 1J1-+ILI 41 1>J ISI-+ +�lolol ro NI ri o m > >{mIDii
IIIU L J l4 p J �+ L .•-1 N a n c E F �t,.. ., .•+� °lululclebl�olcl I8Ivlo IWa�I� o - Iml I u m o >folsl�a ' tm C O L O + L m L C x J 7 L v V L l' TTT"''-
•.�•.+ J L m p N W U m p ••-� T U �-. p
1 I� IJluic�IJl larl>J -plulvl I Ic NI-IJIJ 7 ILI 1 c° -u� v a�lclU 1 I I I
UL m up Nic c N v co N o + L L ro a N
1 Imlml IvloJvlclolm ml ml I Icl rol 1>lo J L 1 1 +I r m y m c1Elc� I l l l l
w LL , JCN.r Jul p •- ro c N•+ r N J m•- .
lull-IJlclmlol>IINIL-•I-+IDI I to -Io iJi(nl c 171 �I c p o J 1=0 1 1 1 1 1
p J Nd toL7mim > m w -+ Nmu -+ Ly L x
tml>JwIEIJI ILI71ul clvlal ImlJ JlMIMI I J o u Ivl I » olocilvlp I I ( J 1
c I I Iclul7lml INlvly ElJlul I�IL vlil-+I { a -� ro.�l•-I ml L ol�im I
IDIc olLIcIJ V m D t m.+ p .+ D 7 + c c I E m L y
+� V E �••••� 01 7 O I U > L E m N v u m ro C G C E I
m INI+I�IcWIEIoi -ImIL I�+IvI I -I +I I +I I u.-+ 'E EB iLl I . v ° o ml I I I I I
m J W N I N G W C.--, J L N O > N .a O m b O L O .+
Zo IyImIJI I -S -IYI-+I +i oidlol Icid NIJI�I I N N L u Io1 UI L ro u J W"lu I I I I I
L U _J C U N p l L J y J m p 6 V L J ro I
ImI01Jlo+lulololmlNla' cl I I IEEIc Iwicl - IW I m N Lplp°pt - I 1 I
T .-1 L N.N H�1 U o1 J l 0 0) o/ a H.-y 7 •+ y T -U y C 7
L ly J10 to Ic1 I�IoIv ylolEl I•�131�lolmlc c% �I�JTa I > mipla 1
f o
> v J o a ml u p v m y O J E J L L. p u J o
L I�IvI -ivlolal�+lvl (J INI-+I I I IWJlolc L L m Irol� of p y L o -(I I•- I I I 1 1
ro J . N c10 N > v N c m 7 oro d N•� o
F ° IUIUIarI +I -1 IDlmlplc c Imlo+l. Ivl 1 ly!clx 7 E L I._ sl :; a c° m. >I Iv I I I I I c
OU M U N E N o N W-1 c ta, L -U O L U y 7.-1 U o! m O L�.. w .1 O
I Irolmiilrol+ILlmicl -+lal«I I +I INI I-2 w -. 4n _ -+I L y pl IJ I I I I I
ti V 0/ a+r n t O N I C L 7 a N D N .-y m y p
Tlmlvl IJI-+icl 1 Iv IJ Jlrol I>loi I71c1N1 1 o a DI cl c o -I la ( I ( I m
J c•...--� w v u u c c Ulc v o o J L L BIW wl N1>1 I; I c
+I +IL Imtpl +1>I-+lolrol dl•INIILI ILI•�ILI I yto
+I +Iml-+I -I71^�I�I�ImINLas m E
J L L E N Y L L 7 J L L C C V
vlulJl+Ici I�olu1LINILIJIJI
to IdI�ILI L O > 1 Is
ro L u > u o v �+ N c o a c
a i�lvlUlul••1+i I-+I IpIWLI•-I IJI 1- 1:31 Ti 171 al ° °0m ° asil> I.y. » I I I I I e
;1 4 J C O N m J J -
y olcicl41 v cololmlerol�-Iol Iml I j 0I>I ` o c m L I ly of L. o o u >Isl`M I I I I I p
c JlmlmlclLlmlolarl I +INI-+I�1-.IIWNI WI-+I d s v ar lUl� I D ElLlml T I c
o m L L m 7 v J L L d J N o Y T J m o E o u N , . N , + m
J J J N ar y N N =:
c N 7 W '> ._
m cl I ININIJILI-+IJloldlgivlul I� It NI I I w + v N a lot,. of w o N cl Is I I I I I c
O U u ro J L p O -� C W L O m U y�.. T L N C J O v ••+ c
o -ImICI I IJIJILILILI 1NI -+IvI.IN N m CIJI wl O a, s m FICIN E 1 1 1 1 1 E
O J�•-�-•�-• V O C of V••+ U 6 ti C J .�t r J p Q of t C y U L i y L N L a
vl I�IoIa IJ1Nl-+Ivldlslol�l 1 Iilo •I+IJIo c. c N EE J Iml I 7 L J olely p I I I I I o
O ++ .ti y C -++ m T [•_i > y V y p C
UI I IcI7171L1N1>1-+IL.Im1N1Nl 1� I+� �ILlol«� t + - s �Iml 1 m p Llmlc ro I d
v •N+ m 0 o c u a v c°v °ic nivl Iclu rolElElu (n o oLi a o(i t c v w m >
�] IW vl p m �alcl
L Ivlvlml Iolil•+I Idlvl +IuILI 1-+1� Idlcl� J L .� m o TI o f m J T cl to + I I I I I
ro L y y 7 N L J U.r
_F— <aEK a'o o7 4vUa.+,.lI•�Ncm Ii-mNc+lI•J.0c�IltJIli.7a 11mSNcl1 V�IL••IcW l>L luo)lsy lol IIvdcI1Ld7 of J 1 ILrn D m V .r 1L 1 d M
V TIO
1 I 3 v
m>ro
L L. y
> oJ 0LLdl — .. IWU pt> aJl
opQILI +Iol>Iolvt Iti O
vOUl lQl4 +L>M81 -lnHo o 0
coI L
I I
1.L z
zaD J
Oa c . w °J m
O A U J p� N (n E m p m of d
O W N C7 V 4) N C 7 J Vj N J m
O 2 L L.. m J C u U > 7 Q J N �--� T E W J J C ¢ 4I
V L O N C N F aEE J
116
U F Om0 J v= N C N .e; d ¢ V �yy c U T•JS+ O W 0}0}yyy0aa...�t�t�ttt ¢ E N N ¢
4' ...1 O O N N J O >'U m•.°1— 01 Y L.
y•.Ci w d m O J N 6 U U L V U
„?y O O L. L o/ p L U C J.+ .•y u N .� E n a L .+
F Q J J J > .N p.-� L >- m m U W N J p 2 7 N J.r m > O C L O .� m
M m C U G. W L a� L J •.+ L •+ 7¢ •t f/I N m a .,C.� H .ti �j •� m O(•_ >
U Q mda�+ u NDL W_ m LU Jp 6G. Et,L, p Q T Q L > m cul 0 c .H+
_ < 6.d ¢ C 7 J J L C, y 7 C N �! a7 O Qy W w U
pv•-� maO C3 W 00> cOD �0 c C, J au p• F¢.. J
N y m U L ti L.r C O u E O U C u W U U c u N F
J.r •.� c •.� J >, o H •.•� U U .+t-. J N Q V L •.+ C O J U m O J S 0 L U U ("� Z C J L C U
G1 F J u L E�•. L.r ti .-' .ti V V- L m ++ n L m U N a.> W.y p, r
L L+-� m 7•.� N N U a�N�pp L m J U(.- N J V H L N L.� L p77 M .0 WW Ea m U m w O
L Occ ¢p p U f U-mi i C fa~. U h H Gm. O G Gm. >3 d C) O d�] nUi 6 d m U!✓6 H�Ci Gam.
C
a
l
I I I I II I I
u
I Ia I I d I m I I
4 I Ic I I
� .� loltc 1 o I � I I•°.I icl � I I I i l I l
w O A !''! v ! I
a n L
I I L I ro I c. L ro
C�IOI I I
u o s < °. :.
Ic I I n L -11 I n I I
F u IFIr' I 1 as L Ylnl y I I I I l I l
a s Cl O I ovmwa'101 u I
ro c v of 1 I I
w n'sI 1 0 I 1
_ � °�Io en0 I I •-vIo cla,l I � I I I 1 � I
d c....�II c n !I
7 > a .''! 1c, 1 I ' t 150! ! 1
< IJ I c%ti
CL 10 0- 1 a
a
F o .+ I�lar cl I u c m ar vlrol � I I
F N m v IYI� �1 I m y oclxl I I
w w n v 1 14 AI I v v FIJI O I I
C n E N L a
I ro ,,,,.. o ° V I I I I
I 1
a > z o°i .. w e hI . �I c w v
o C i v 0 I�Ic I `0 1 •�.� c m o m!>.I a I I
•� A nL n bm I L > A •1�1 0, I 1
oro > >co
I I I I i l
o O lroll 1 u c. u I I
u v u
10-1 Z) FI i o v IJI I 1
U v cA r Into I .. ro v A u
c OaLi I I
i=t
l JJClOl
OLr Ea)IL to)lcl-+I b I I I I
I I> nl o t+ a, v
! cn. b o l w> ar
uIc%lac n sl ! . d r o colwi I I
Iegv v >1
z n ueeo Ir°i- 0° sl > I Lmu .'{iojml I I
Z J
> u d A m
0 141 L w l v v u-.0—1 I ani I I
uF vu ° c I v ! .vas° °' 1 1 •' in ( I I
O v D olvlo $I I v mIa�Iul I u D I I I I l I l
4 I I A
L Talc �1 A 1 I
to
m.> >i ! >
ml
IL o ai A Icic I I L m A o sl I > o
w '" L •- 41 E I I
J LV
y n d o c Ilii.i�I �'~I� Ic%I2� m I I T
m J c oVl ' vlI vv cv vck01 n id u acyl > 1 o v s J40) lcl vvlu v1 L I L Lf v M '° I I
< cJ. c tc s lvlc.. �l " l ro nlu L.115 c c I I I I )
ILIA s vl L I A c v I'T o I I
In > m� r °�
> .+ n ro I s
11 v}�mlo.�r i I ¢¢I� Izi
a o c m a I. L ° I i > > u c nlol ro I I
Im In `'rn I I
tL , ao o
OL
LG c c mm v V C v
C' F O n.y 7 C S V n L C C "'� d C
Q Sy
~ w yCy n 47 V ap c
V (moi > E < u •.Ei O C C 0 ) w < 9 J u
d dL C.0 C p5E� L .c W A N rr Gaej U N y �j L O VI tL�
�L.Ai Lu A ti C CGd F �- U u �7"� 4• 4]
w Q h n A d O 6 .Ci L ,mow..Oi A 'y E A O O
O6dL L L H J ..a w V L Li.
t u A 4. a>i f.°.. aroi 41 < A c n i..
c u ., o o n n n.v v F � C L i y F� C.1
111
or-
Luu "°L. V n.+v < J a V ,uR >,.atiNyy w U L n L.-� L~L >> f/1 •(2p+ O A•.}� J C Il �•ti
Z nv. D D6°. ;c:2 �Vi 4~.4~. >d 2 d O� m a~y OFd
3 A p UC Yi.. 00 L ti� YN � A D V�.. O L..�.•yY .ti
1
1983 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Goal Actual
I. Patrol Division
A. Crime:
28%
1. Part I Crimes Cleared 58%
2. Part II Crimes Cleared
B. Crime Control:
70
1. Part I Victimization Rate (per 1000) 50
2. Part II Victimization Rate (per 1000) 1,295
3. Total Part I Crimes 925
4. Total Part II Crimes
C. Crimes Cleared per Officer:
18.5
1. Part I Crimes 24.6
2. Part II Crimes 43.1
3. Total Crimes Cleared
32%
D. Recovered Stolen Property:
95%
E. Crime Conviction Ratio:
{ F. Traffic Activity:
346
1. Traffic-Accident Control 18.7
2. Accident Rate, (per 1000) 26
3. Traffic Enforcement Index 95%
4. Conviction Ratio 'officer
5. Traffic Activity per
246
a. Traffic Enforcement (UTC) 150
b. Traffic Enforcement (Written Warnings) 100
C. Traffic Enforcement (Verbal Warnings)
d. Motor Officer Program
(1) Traffic Enforcement (UTC) 1,800
(2) Traffic Enforcement (Written Warnings) 300
(3) Traffic Enforcement (Verbal Warnings) 200
G. Crime Specific Targets: (Patrol & Invest. Division)
20%
1. Burglary Clearance 25%
2. Theft Clearance 130
3. Field Interviews per Officer
H. Cost Containment/Time Management
5%
1. Reduce Overtime .17 cents
2. Vehicle Operations Cost (Per Month)
Page 2
Goal Actual
3. Obligated Time (hours) 23,000 +5,000 -
4. Non-Obligated Time (hours)
Z. Community Crime Watch
1. Neighborhoods Organized
5
(Requires participation of the majority
patrol division personnel)
.;. Training
Training hours of all sources per member annually
50
K. Response Time to Calls for Service
1. Priority Code I (routine)
a. Goal: As resources are available
b. Average Response Time:
2. Priority Code II (prompt) Non-emergenc,
a. Goal: Response time 15 minutes or as soon as resouces are available
b. Average Response Time:
Per
on ma�
in danger or
3. Priority beeinIII
progress,aandte)•rapidse
response may result in.
crime may
apprehension.
a. Goal: 6 minute response standard
b. Average Response Time:
s in
4. .inicircumstance Vofesimilarymagnitude iwhen time distcritic � or
Prority Code al
a. Goal: 5.5 minute or less response standard
b. Average Response Time:
5. Priority Code V (delayed) . Assigned at citizen request
a. Goal: Respond when citizen available
b. Average Response Time:
Response time is measured from the time call is received at the
Dispatch Center and when the dispatched unit arrives at the
designated location.
All calls for service require b the iort1Services Divisioncpersonnel.
card
regardless of the priority, y PP
L. Watch Commanders: (includes Assistant Watch Commanders)
C
Page 3
Coal Actual
1. Watch Management
a. Plan and organize watch resources consistent
with division objectives. 100%
b. Controls Watch personnel consistent with
department policy. 100%
c. Reviews subordinate performance to assure
attainment of division objectives. 100%
d. Approval of all reports within 8 hours of
date and time report is taken. 100%
2. Leadership
a. Maintains a reasonable field activity level, .
field support, and supervision to achieve 100%
division objectives.
b. Develops directed patrol assignments and team
building to target specific criminal and 100%
traffic targets.
t c. Provides training to improve performance and
overcome deficiencies. 100%
3. Cost Containment:
a. Assures proper care and use of department 100%
equipment.
b. Schedules time off requests to assure
reasonable shift coverage and overtime cost: 100%
will be eliminated, except in cases of illness.
M. Division Commander
I. Division Management
a. Plan, organize, lead and control the activity
of the Patrol Division consistent with 100%
department policy, goals and division
objectives.
b. Reviews Division, Watch and individual 100%
performance.
2. Cost Containment
a. Manage authorized division budget resources to
assure cost control, and that program 100%
objectives are met.
Page 4
Goal Actual
3. Division Planning
a. Plans for budget development and resource 100%
needs.
(1) Short and long
term needs 100%
b. Tactical and Strategical Programs to combat 100%
specific crime and traffic tat-gets in the
community consistent With available
resources.
(1) Select and train personnel for specific 100%
assignments (Teams)
s
(2) Develop other resources to accomplish 100%
specific missions
(a) Hardware
(b) Interagency Teams
I
C
INVESTIGATION DIVISION
BUDGET
and
WORK PROGRAM
and
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
C
N
• O -0 .-.
c u •.+ to CJ co rn O 1 �p
N -O .� m r-r p n. .. .D O .....
W To M a 1 .O � I N
m
•> •>, Or v c N C co
> •.t .r N E . .,
cx C A -
W O u
N 'd q C iT to
u c C d >,
H obo ..Ot `0 ~ co
W ..
z a u " C p tf r- v .10 0 00
a v w M opo y o W CD oo to o .M7
�4 > .-4 •.-/ L L c 1 . . .. ..
u to c
vwrcr .r w 0 y 0co c,4
0
d o or � O -•y
> I. rn O U —
C to w W
c"r � V H Q• �D
Iiu
w rt W
aJ u .--c
ca Aj
" w C C WV OM O I O M tnM %D .l tn ,. • J J N O I
Q w ua E w NCo .O v %D O N co r� .D w% a0 %D J J .--r M M O
••t�2
t.3 O O •.r C� 1 +D trl 1 NON %n00 N .-+ I
O V G C O CO V4 ell
••-r
Q O •.+ .. w to -4
Aj
�DCQ w " > > m
Q. c0 O 0 7
O Aj ccy a
.+ O
O C H O c4 u O u
M u C aP. > � V 6 6 d •� y d
o r+ F-Q Q r+ r t o to m •v to -- W
�I H n v w 60 w -oCO
d Or to oG
W H > C u C w N U O
( Z� .°,;° o o w N p Q I 70 004 Ull &-4 0 v to •.r >, >, ►>. E
O O 0-4 u u
U " a c -� a oG y N m w W N CO/ -4 cc 4
•4 N O W d O d N N N L y
.t O > W •.a W H Q Q H 3 co w w 0 w w w > 0 .o u w a
,.
W O O C a u w V O N M W O W w rCt 0 Nw 7
p' o •.4 u ;o H U U U U P. n. a
cr� O c .
y e w thov C E p M
O u c0 4' W t- %D M O 1 a Lf-1 M %D til N to •-4 J J N O W
N > t1 "4 F-CD `D v `D O N 7 V
r- 10 1 oo %D J J .4 M M co
u to 0 y a N ' �D crl 1 N N try ao N .+ M
++
ob a0 n. to E j M o rn o rrn
D m N M oo
;64
.
.+ -t C � C7 m .-. � rn y►
.D co O c d W a
tIl O�'y .o J ,4
Q� C w .> rn .M. K
N U G •"r p �D Co ✓1oo
.-� N r- N M J �D
fes+ C O` W!h N v vO'1 M 11
D\I Ln a0 N c0 Ln %D �1 1-4 r'l rl
co m O ra 1--CD ,. '
.+ >, u w O N opo °° .�4 IT -.
JD N c9 p Ca •'-t .--.
d Q1
CO
LL cc w .-4 u co o0
O
O F o c O%
u •� 0 u '�
7 y 0 to M O .--.Icy, 'D to to M M M c-
..-t
d to p u -4 -j v t/1 O oo co oo N r- N r, to M .--. cil O
' c0 A u4p-. J N J �D 1 O O� J r� M
.a E c w 6 I
OD
q O -.� U D
d ... w u r+O 1--—
> t.+ c w U ap
-4 u O „+ .0 Q Ch
cc c
to u u
.� C ,0 '0 O 3 tii O
C
10 n N
�•+ u cc u .-.
7 cc W C J .n O M r� O Go .D .O co
O J O J
O� N J
00 d O W N O M to ap O .D r, ✓N to J J N n n
> •••r N u -�Co tr1 Ot o N ON vl to J •--t -4
n O 6 :3••4 I LIN r- tr1 rn
N a N
O
N N > to d C U tT
CD .•-.
� N` ►`, ►: G0am
I `
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
1 1 1 I I 1 1 t l l i l l l l l I I Iml 1
III 1111 V III II 1 , 11111 11 III I IIYII
� I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 �I til I hI I
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I t l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I�1 I
>' I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I EI '�I I IEI I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
s 1 1 1 I I I I I l l l t I I I I I 1 1 1 1
I Iol I
11111 IIIII1111 II 111 00
NI I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I t 111 I
a I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 t I INI I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
M I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ihl I
F I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1I ISI I I°c�l I
w o s I I I I I I I I l l t l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I
I I I I I I I ( I I I I I 1 lyl I
11111 IIIIII111 I II=II
F I I I I I I I I I I I I
V 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I ISI I Ivl I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I Io
I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I II
F N DO I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Iml I
I I I I d l l I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a y I I I t t I I I I I I I I I v
O O I I I I I v1� I ISI 1
04. > Z I I I I I I I V I I I
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 111 I
h I I I 1 1 I l l l l l l t i I I I I I
o
( I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Ivl�l
I I I I I I I I I I I I 7�I I I I all
I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
I°lal
I I I I I I I 1 1 i l l t l 1 1 I 1 1>1r1
o
1 1 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I t l l l 1 1 I I I 1 I I,nl�l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ISI�I
I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I I I I I I c I I Int I oI 1 I Ia°plLl
> I I I 1 1 1 1 t l l l l l l l t v 1 1 1�1 I ISI 1 I:3 cL
� 111 IIII 11111 m �
Z ( I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u
I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I T I I I I I
o
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
`0
Irl
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
U I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I S
I I I I I I I V I I I
( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I leol I�I�1 1Ei
I I I I l l t V I I I I I I I I I I I I i i yl.al 1I 1��I I I I o
I I I l l l t I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 �Idl I I eocpl Iml I ro
W I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 OI I�+I I
� I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Llrl I c y
I I I I I I I I I t �I Icl�l E
I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 u
la d
I I at> I 1 cl IElcl
1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I
I�lul Ied01 >
>
O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
mL
< Itl 1111 tllllllll
I I I I I I I I I I I I I cl�l rol �y
I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 1 eSI W IS I b I�I�1 Ia E a
s �I
N a
ILL K 1 6 U j ° 0'
C
O O. F r U F L1 .Y .. J Ocr
In
s N
N Fg611
Ic,naae � a`i A
E� n N ¢ L N L C .Ei a".. o di-. N a ^+ <�
UN M •• $ G O N V N L O V 4 0 E •1 p F y » 7 E O S
„ i0 b� >. C4U .0 ` o C U C U „O.1 7
H N L T N 4 F I V T rF-+ 7 0 C N �-1 L�1.y Z U . d G = q o V G >
1 O F T L A �..1 .-1 L C p J O.+ b O ..�O. N ..y ./Sy W O > N
�1 EO L O O ¢ f O V p ice..U O,u p n 7 G@ V N L �j� 3 L ��(+�^�>'' V S G my . IC -.�J
uu G O O N e0 �,.1 O d y 10 L.tea 10 N N CI :d O Z H IV-1 <2 O C'•c�.l "'1 C- a. G U
6D L Xuu q �� p O J OC t 3 Z A. U7 N dOn'
U OC A O�<NQ (”" G AG
W d S CC CC . • .y N f'1 1 I♦h.O t•CO
�N P•1 1 1(� �N f'1 J �.O NCO O`
a
1983 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Goal Actual
II. Investigative Division
A. Crime:
I. Part I Crimes Cleared 28%
2. Part II Crimes Cleared 57%
3. Combined Total Cleared 42%
B. Crimes Investigated:
1. Total Crimes Investigated 256
2. Case Load .per Investigator (3) 85.3
3. Part I Crimes Cleared 62
4. Part I Crimes Cleared per Investigator 20.6
5. Part II Crimes Cleared 45
6. Part II Crimes Cleared per Investigator 15
C. Crime Specific Targets:
1. Burglary Clearance 20%
2. Theft Clearance 25%
3. Robbery Clearance 30%
D. Cost Containment/Time Management:
r
1. Reduce Overtime 5%
2. Vehicle Operation Cost (per mile) .170
E. Training:
Training hours of all sources per member annually 50
F. Division Commander:
1. Division Management
a. Plan, organize, lead and control the
activity of the Investigative Division 100%
consistent with department policy, goals
and division objectives
b. Reviews Division, Watch and individual 100%
performance
c. Plan and organize watch resources consistent 100%
with division objectives
2. Leadership
a. Maintains a reasonable investigation 100%
activity, field support, and supervision
to achieve division objectives
•
Coal Actual
b. Develops directed in.estigative assignments 100%
and team building to target specific_ criminal
targets
c. Provides training to improve performance and 100%
overcome deficiencies
3. Cost Containment
a. Manage authorized division budget resource to 100%
assure cost control, and that program
objectives are met
b. Reduce overtime 5%
c. Assure proper care and use of department 100%
equipment
4. Division Planning
a. Plans for budget development and resource 100%
needs
(1) Short and long term needs 100%
b. Tactical and strategical programs to combat
specific crime targets in the community 100%
consistent with available resources
(1) Select and train personnel for specific 100%
assignments (Teams)
(2) Develop other resources to accomplish 100%
specific missions
(a) Hardware
(b) Interagency Teams
c. Develop case status reporting system to 100%
victims consistent with the Investigative
Management Information System (IMIS)
4
f
a
SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
BUDGET
and j
WORK pRonRAM
and
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
C
ON
N
w 0 }, w O ^ O I O
cp u O Co O O V
u w u coO^ n I w
N •.r H 1 - .. .•+
W u w .4 C n-M p, 00 -4
U cn •./ V w •.a 000 ^ N O w
N
H w w u y O C Q .-•c b ^
4 0cn CF)
-14 w h 0. O G
W > -4 c0 w 'm w „�
0~1 N G 0.., 0 'V .�
>+ U) w y ,� > W ^ O, w
.+
H L y U b Z� O, ,-� O O
.Z w 1+ u .d w 0. W Co •-+ s O u
a u o d G [L o v, - ,� b
..� A G cp y .+ ..+ M rn '� -� rn y w
.-4 t1 .--c � G w .0 y 2 m r— c0 N H y
v P. vai -+ W y , w u o O� a
v
c0 w y ..+ •.+ W :
O u -vi' CL w p"
c0 •rl 1. r L 14 O p/t..
E > V 0 •'� r. �'}
w 1
..22V 0 w -4 u � 00
liJ J u u CO v, C ..4 (L M oo ►.
0 0 " ly+ W 0- d o
w u >,P.
0Q� cc d co C w o 0
� mu u y . b y U � o
OQ ca w c
.--� u d w N 1+ 4.1 V G V P.
1 b -u a G u C W V ti H o v, CC, k a o E
Li 1 W y Q
-u d y r H U r„ w o G ni a, a o G w A U $4 w
14 H C >, 1–(r . Q �. H w rn U w u w W U w u w cL
.+ o o L i9 u o W ~ w ZZ C (V - � o G v .+ b o a~, c u ..
C. w AJ `n h w µ-c co 0 w w w ca V w P. O u 0
ct1 w u b C Z w w C u C w w G u G �C O u
Cl w .. W w W J v p w 0 -.a d W W 0 •.a d
r v w N O N L X N Q J I O E O H •.a V V O w N w
H -.c u V .-7 •.+ E
O U w w >, cc W Q .-] H H 1. ..-r ..a H H 1+ w u•. c0.A .-4
3 >` y b ill .a c) w w U0.
w a, u �•� ¢ x u u l w w u u l w w •0 w w a-
u w cA w y ►. W Q Q N P' N 1+ G o 0 ►+ 1+ G c0 W H w 0 0.
1+ 1+ w y O 1. H c0 > 7
.moi A a w u 1++ V 1, 3 p. CL. Z P. 'L H H U d cn
WO o. w
GOCO 64
'4 w E
(71
�� w 6 O - - - - - -
w at
u r. 14 co C oo u W of rn n o I rn crl .+ o .o ,o N s o .o ,o Cn o
O % - n (-•1 OO �7 d �7 O, M ,O N r� O, c''/ N c'1 .--c
..-r w C F-� v O O W oo N n ,0 c-'1 ,0 .-c D\ C, O ,0 .--� N c"1 vl
p >� w 'L N 1 ✓1 c1 crl N � N M N 00
W 00
. �� u w r- •A tIO �C N N
w u X O CI1
/\�� ,'nom •Li w 4 p, Q•
4 C7:
Q 0 u H G u U ^ c•1 Lr% ✓1 c!1 r� N O c!1 O r� .-c O N
Q. •.� H Q O N co 1 N N N r` N ,O O, O ,0 0, n N O �7
ca ty G w W M N v O O N W N r� c•'1 c•l Op cel OO
O .0 cc W ml p, r� n •--� •--� N
c1 ,0 N N d
.c
—4 > -491 w G 3 o 7 N 4
w w > w
1+ M'o p, p u m
w w A u
u y - - - -
O ,0 0 ..+ w C E a0..1 ^ c•'1 ["1 O,
c- N Vl O r�
G -C w w y .-c t� N O
� •� > ., E u C O ... .4 O ,O op 1.-c n rh cn J
x •� w y p _1 N H 10 O, O,
w > v, p D > u Q s N N a
.r O O 1
44
to 00
PA
4 y cc y u Q
O
o
w u O
1+ .+ V O w ^ ✓1 O+ Co 0. •--. N O, .--� O r'1114
'1
o p 1•. w W > n n d J O, W d O 0 c 1 N co c-•1 O o, N J In O
d 3 0 ►+ M I.c ,J rn— C'!
v O ci0- N O a, a, O, .. J c�-1 w%0 cn vl ch ,0 -4 .l
CA N G -ro w Ai ,V y Q W ., - H ✓1 N c!1 c1 c'1 N N �1
V) w w E }, H I =) 1 � cn J J
, c N
w E w w v, —
�•c u
E w to c0
Q—
00
•
I
Iml
I I 1 1 1 o I I I I I I I I 10 1 I I Mlo I I
V I I I r. ro I I 1 1 1 Iz I la I I I u I I
V I I I =1 CL 1 I V I I I I Iw I I I I I
V I I I �-c m
s E I I 1 1 1 � ro� I I I I I Io Iv I I lyl 1 1
u V I I I u o I I 1 1 1 tE I N IE I I c1 I I I
Cn ¢ ro
u 43
-01 1 1 1 1 o to -I I
s a I I I 1 1 n o I I 1 1 1 I'M I tro I I I IC
�1 I cl I
o b I I 1 1 1 11 I Jlro I I I 1„I I «I I
F 9 V I o I I I I I I �I alb I 1� I I of I I I
CL
I
v al ¢ T V I I I ova I 1 I l i l t i Wro I I I I I cl I
a V I I I ro 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Mlc I I 1 ..I I I I
L
N h Q rola
z
Oy V I I I ep I �I 1 1 1 IE I vt o I IE I I I I I
m u I I
E V I I I M � � I roI 1 1 1 1 1 I SIN 1 I I I=t I I
U I I 1 1 1 4- ro c I WI I I I I WIJ I I I I I I
E" N z a 4)W
w 4 1 1 1 1 1 os� I ul I I I I�oI ( �1� I Imo I°v°I I I
E O 1 1 1 1 1 T ro I BI 1 1 1 W L 1 1 JI Iml I I
tj -.a J
a > z I I 1 1 1I cl I I I ITI I LIQ I I EI 1 1 1
U3 p y y I I 1 1 1 I �f I I I I I l a I I i01 ISI I
h & I I 1 1 1 ) C.y I LI 1 1 1 I I I JIL I 1 JI I,nl I
V I I I ro-+ I FI I I ISI I dla I I� dl I�In I
m aci v I -1 I I I I TI
�I 1 1 1 1 1 0l W I I of IJ1� I
--4 I I 1 1 1 I o I W I 1 u l d li
rJ MI I I I oI I I I I I I.0 I I MI I d t
fal -L LL" W n In " f "t o I
1 t o rot 1° I
O II I I I + I I I I Ip I W J
ISI I I I �� 1 0l I I I Iii 1 MIT I Iz � 1>1 I I
> IAI I I I L •--+ +�1 cl I I I I �I I I ul I,,I I I
ylol �1Iv 1 I
IJI I I I -i s W -.I WI I I I Iz -•+IJ t 1 1 I of 1 I
ro W U n n n W ' m
v
INI 1 1 1 v W v 8I 41 1 1 1 1 1 I TIm I I NI I I I
E 1�1 I I I o c. �I nl I I I ITI I Llro I I I I I I o ¢
VO w aI _L41
I
1 IVI I I I u n rol W olv I I L.
I I I I
J 101 I I I m u "I WI I I I I� I WM 1 IE WI I I I I
p L O a W.T
t°yt IIIIvsIIl III III III vW+L n cI �I V I I I oooe
WI 1 1 >vW CL
Z ¢ CIO1 1 1 ln
1I 1I
Hv
I�% ~ vI ISI 1 I W IWI I.:
to
ISI I I I '� y d of cI 1 IQI I 4) I~ I I
I+�I I t l v W LI LI I ILI I I IJ I EI ,i1 WI c
INI I I I n c u Buil LI I Iml 11 otd I EI Ivth cl E
Ihl I I I � ml eol I IroI I I �to I %I lylo �I o
4 leq I I I v+ t=1 c+l I ITl I I cln I SO IAIJ cJl v
LI21 I I I cv Y m •-I �'I 1 IAI I + I ul� lyp yl Iclb cl g
pp c
�I I I I I L V L �I ul CIL°QIroI ISI I roles t I 0 y 1 L F ro t m
L W ..a .+ .-i.f ,.-� J L W O m v I L I
rolrol I I I J L n dJ -+I olol rl 11 I cIW v I wl ML o
olol I I I n o L �1 W ciclaEil I< I Iu a to >al Imlo ml L
�` dC ti _SISI I 1 1 A u a. ul tl OIOINI �1¢ n Iz FI I 1� xl o
002C y
O ti W D J h 47 .• O W of L J
3'34:
m mO W n u W o c rn
7+ ..Ca v 7 h u W » -• L c .W-� O O ✓ A
VGv r� U L EE W W.-1 +i •• C a+-1 J J C 00 W G. O J+a ¢ W
> J N O N 00�•. 10 L N 1 C d 6 - C 00 �-+ 00
cc n U.� c�.. •• J-0 gg N n 7 O of h•-�O U W ul m U 2
(Fj A O W-J+ L V 00 •r O J C > C W W-+ >. > -- �0 U >• c �p
{ w W C U W-+ 7 u Of W U m '� y N C 0 0 c A to U E «+ L M O S
oao rm-+ -+ c c c c� ,
T L O J u u 01-.� c T ro L O ro L CO J V J J .. ro O d
`y� E O J a J 0++ c .-I O u C 8 V L W-� t o. W G 7 W h L -.+�•-.
U .w W W L-C U h++ +- 4 J a J T U W L O a 00 c m G. V F r ro
W V V V W W C L.-� ro t h O u L 6 u u fi V 0 O s L U -.+ J
A W W O a O W O L tv� ++ L 7 7 -� W W ++ L U O O G 41
¢F to- N .+ �.o. F N CL c F N h U A D. •+Z p
U E ¢ /
d pp
.r N n s 1(�.O l� N •--�N�J 1(� .O � •'�N h s 1!��O t� m� Z
Nage Y
1983 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Completion
Time Goal Actual
III. Support Services Division
A. Report Processing 45 minutes
1. Report from Officer
2. Complaint Log Entry
3. Case Jacket Data Entry
4. Type and File Master Cards
B. Final Case Distribution and Filing 8 hours
C. Computer Entry 1 hour
1. Stolen, Lost Property
2. Stolen, Impounded Vehicles
3. Warrants, Person of Interest
4. Clearances (Arrests and Recovered Property)
D. Citation Processing 30 minutes
1. Citation from Officer
2. Type and File Master Cards
3. Citation Log Data; Entry
E. Case Logs 24 hours
F. Transcribing Tapes 24 hours
j
1. Supplemental Reports
2. Interviews
G. Property and Evidence 24 hours
r
1. Take from Officer, put in Temporary
Holding
2. Receive Property/Evidence Receipt
3. Determine Final Location for Storage of
Property
4. Mark Property/Evidence Receipt accordingly
5. Distribute copies of Property/Evidence Receipt
6. Transport property to Evidence Locker
Release of Property H. Rele p Y 1 week
1. Receive Release Notice from Proper Authority
2. Locate Property, Transport back to Temporary Holding
3. Obtain Property/Evidence Receipt for Owner's Signature
4. Notify Proper Owner
5. Owner come to Police Dept. to pick up Property
C
Page 8
Goal Actual
596 Limit
I. Error Factor
1. Filing
2. Typing
J. Response Times to Calls for Service
1. Priority Code I (routine)
a. Goal: As resources are available
b. Average Response Time:
2. Priority Code II (prompt) Non-emergency
a. Goal: Response time 15 minutes or as soon as resources are available
b. Average Response Time:
3. Priority Code III (immediate). Person may be in danger
or crime may be in progress, and rapid response may
result in apprehension.
a. Goal: 6 minute response standard
b. Average Response Time:
4. Priority Code IV (emergency). Life is in immediate
(• danger, or in circumstance of similar magnitude when
time is critical
4
a.' Goal: 5.5 minute or less response standard
b. Average Response Time:
5. Priority Code V (delayed) . Assigned at citizen request
a. Goal: Respond when citizen available
b. Average Response Time:
Response time is measured from the time call is received at
the Dispatch Center and when the dispatched unit arrives at
the designated location.
All calls for service require the initiation of a dispatch
card regardless of the priority, by Support Services Division
personnel.
K. Training
100%
1. ICAP data entry 100%
2. Word Processing 100%
3. Performance by Objectives
K. Division Commander
1. Division Management
Page 9
Goal Actual
a. Plan, organize, lead and control the activity
of the Support Services Division consistent 100%
with department policy, goals and division
objectives.
b. Review division, watch and individual performance 100%
c. Plan and organize watch resources consistent 100%
with division objectives
2. Leadership
a. Maintains reasonable office activity, support 100%
and supervision to achieve division objectives
b. Develops directed division assignments and team 100%
building to improve specific activities
c. Provides training to improve performance and 100%
overcome deficiencies
3. Cost Containment
a. Manage authorized division budget resource to 100%
assure cost control, and that program objectives
are met
b. Assures proper care and use of division 100%
equipment
c. Schedules time off requests to assure shift 100%
coverage, and overtime costs will be eliminated
except in cases of illness
4. Division Planning
a. Plans for budget development and resource 100%
needs
(1) Short and long term needs 100%
b. Special programs to combat specific problems 100%
in the division consistent with available
resources
(1) Select and train personnel for specific 100%
assignments
C
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
BUDGET
and
WORK PROGRAM
and
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
•
u 'v T00 •- O T O 1
..+ C u C to u u
N A C w O .. C I
W -14 a CO •u w O Q.M rn 10 O
U cc) cn
.a0.4 li CO O -4
O w 'G u 7 w U Q
1+] •.a H U 0. N J
N U wG 00 CO
N C � O ^ w (')
H u Ow0 •.4 `� y oo w W i-.
t0 u w w Q. U E -+ C.) O 1z Li
14 V ca 4
.-.
�7
a .4 -+ .y >w .O F+ a, c'1 O
O ^4 u dy ^ pp w G CD r�4
U R. Q. .� C O<T
w U—
E -4 w W
Of
O 'fl V q
w H N w m •C
.. '• a. y U H .0 ••� n _�
wyI w U w 0 (] J cn O O
CZ, A 0. y u W r-v 00 O
..
N N CO Ln Ln O
a.r > d G H w co c M en s
Ln
W
Q1�1.- w w ►+ WC
E 3 ,Na
�ma o y v d w tl w
^O U w
p to, G E U C w C E
w
3 rz u o .� ...Aj o w H u
..
•A C N u T d a• 0p H Pal ca to w. G •.�
w
L .y 0 d y '�' w •p y H co w . 4 w u
[-. pC. h. .� u y O y
a PdG
OH u w w H O w ry w �). W H d C +1 O 3 O 0'
�+ U .4 "
1 I' w U v ., c o W 43 0-4 z owo U A u o cn w
rn w G cvz J r+ co o a .� > co
o o u .' '.•+, w u nW= J v d a G �i E, ..Ei cx > •a a aGi
H a Q Q v d .
O w p x Izi
1 O G w G ++ E
w 'O w ..ci C W Q -1 u CO •.+ W no�+ CO w �
w w > u v p h
.7 w U E w M ' i r 0.
o u oco ° w w co '; IW, Q Q F a v >~ o w ¢ a. w a.
WO ►�+ A•m o owou c > � � V H 3 � wxx ¢ Ha u cn
v
ai row C13 T..c w tv
C
O „cI o w E w ►°°. w W tt cn 00 o �: o N E z o °: o
E •.4 , ...I d H u E N CD O v, O .o c-i oo .o cn o •,# 1
W G G W ' vl �D to O+I v1 � N M 00 w
w� y 00 0 O c0 u moo u �M CID cn -4 •, ON •+ ;o -' a
J.! y N 14 O w W
.d w w .4 11 w •fl cr L
U ww U I., y 7 X 7 y
Q •� T 0. 0 � .-. T
w 'c .+ y .+ _ u G •co
u U y
to D cn m O � cn ' oto E O G
p w C td y , p W M 00 ( N CD N Co 01
art• u UON O, 'O d •O w O u W �p •--• N c•'1 h r� w
w .ter -yr E oo Ir E G N N c I .+ O .+ --4 .4
a -+
* .y w A U G Q O m .� V
L . C w ^ O C� w L. w
U,
co E N O C w V O%v .O cn cn OU-1 O .-•r oo c'•'I n .p E •--. O -4 b {
A Q m N ,can .o ch LIN O L
•� •-r •'r E U 00 U w h- -4 .fin O\ # .-4 � w •.r
t+. to u • 4 .a C E U # Ua y
w G u p 0
V cxi v A w w > w U P' n.
W wo y
W0 y ..c, '• c w w
•v
O O0 4 L ., -4 x x ..c ,n .n G I+
H U GO GO r0 A 'v a, v n O � v
.0 O .. r .-. .a E N l O
,..� •0 •0 r- r0 G J— 00 ✓1 1 .7 00 r� Cl) 00 P.
O T U u E C w w Q O�I ^d • cn N
W b d
P. u co w C v .-+ N LnN J -0 U
I Ln J
w w U w •.� ..+ co
Q .p O� .--• d H
W w w 7 a.i w N N -+
go ix a G
N 0 w co •.i ►. N Q # #
1 1 1 1 I I I i l l l 1
I I I U)
I I I 1 1
I l l i I I I I I 1
O I I I I m I I I O I I I 13 I I I I I
c .� I I I I a I I I I 1 1 IEo I I I I I 1
o I IzQ t CO I I I ro ISI I 1 I I I I I 1 EI
V E J I
t I I I I L I I I I I I I�•I I I 1 1 I 1
h
c I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
i x A I I ` I YI lal II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1I
v 0 H v 11 I = I I I I
z 1 j a JCc eii I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
v I I I I I uI Iml I o, c I I I I I 1
o m u Zj > c I I I I I 31jt;
I EI I I I I I I
¢ < ° : L J I I I I I l ro l 1 mIh s 0 a z 1 II Ief NI ( I I I I I ac 1
O14
y I+I I I
IF,
plJl..l I I I ml ( I I I I I 1
CL. < u < a ISI I I I HIN�I I 1 1 1 1 I u :,I
ro �I 1 1 1 1 1 I w1
2 J IFI 1 1 i ICI 1I I •
yp s r ITIg I I 010101 1 1� vl I I 1 1 1 I u1 EI
I H N a c m ISI �I1�1 NI 11 Nlnln rn �+ % w >of
.. E dldl�ldl rol cl
L c Irol 1�1 I �Iol�l FI c I 1 r-IL1u1�Iul�l ul a,
F N m :� E...•-. I J I I--r 1 1 x I c 1 I I o I ,I c l s01 T T T T T v I
z \ m o L n vl�lcl �Ico1�1�1U1U1 U1 v ecrl o
47 Z IIII EI 1 J a JI.>IJ1J1 JI u rr
f£, m cJ �s clot �I �I c+lclml Nil I I ul Iva v v v �I
C rn V n a JIU IJI E I—IT > ' o c� �I�I�I�I �I e, u
w > Zecledol I m Ix nLlOtml I Iml 01 v1
m < ya, a emL mI -i I I Iva� uar a+ cI
dlclm LILILILI LI J
0 o x 4 ro, w J vlml I I c
0co
ILoI �I c'", �I vl I.�1ylyl�I NI ul
c c o w e11 v EIIc o c BI 1> > > > > m ul o
s w v 101- nl o cl>2 d a a c E.14 It.14 l c.l c EI
V +
y V+I -Iro1J1 S ml I I L 1 t of
L O 'r
a¢w dlFl lul I dlml vl cl I I 2 �I L L
tVA o ¢IEI IW I �I�ImI EI .I �I c°'. o•�
o o UD X: 1 I>Irol LII Imo+ �I
y a ''rlul��I I olcicl ml I z I aO1i dl
T
N OOIcI IJI �• 'u1 SI I 1 c rol O JI
> t �Irol INI = clblecl cl uI I c �I J cl
i c mlml 1 s corl�l�l �I I I ml m o EI
(5I0I I E°- �Iclml L.
Io I d <I m M vl
m o ISI I I 1 vIAITL E
TI cl v I I J vl c e 0l
.? C 0 U er J S ro D. C t co O
H 3'?c0 rn 1ec01 t I I cl +I LI +'I I I E E 1 CJ) O co � LI c
s%IUlnl NI I�T I v Im>. J rn 00D0 "�1
O d w o mle°golcl E"I dlglcl avilo; Iwo vJi� > y hl m
¢� os c cE m a . soon ICO ° u o NI v
v 0101 +t `o i�IL�I I I
v
aCc
of I ol
-,I,
ml cicicl al I •I c l0 m4 ° m o�I
IIIII d1 le v sly L o c u m �I ..
w c, ¢1 I I�1 0 �Iro1o1 a �1
rn J v n cl I:Q of u wluloLil : glil C E (a o n� J mal m
o + a s ro I I ar .+v o c 31
vlvlvl -�I I I mer v L E c u c
J m ro .r m C E Z\ J v ..Oi c l E
vrn m 'JI
I ISI IBI jl c c of 'a." I O `�.. u q'a m Jar
V a v c A Icl Isl " I I I o o -.I I I 1 u v v u vl o
Cn Y Y Y +� .-1 J CL C L L M C e)++ .--1
O " t "' °' L.-V J J mIoIL
IAI IdI I z1=131 u cm uls'0 .+I o. o n z x ¢ col d
c s S A J c clul Icl o+lo�l°.I c c el tio
r CL. ro col A gu -rO/,l-0+t .l E .+Iof >o > cnopll I�1 > > > v nmn v > v L > > > O00 lol I �� -+I-+I .1 0 < Tt + ld o v m o al� 1 11rn :4 o I¢mn v m ¢01 a
LL o ar c m
O m y r ^+ om
41
Y L C O er '•y J u J pp Ul L C
O 6 J A d
L J C m
O ni J4 Gt O L� dN J p
U E E E a J e/ J e1 e7 ��to yy J e u W N b n bl m •• U ro
w > v 0u0 C >yp m u c L C ayer el .-1 er CC J
• GI G T u"o5 v� N u n•.O+-rE•1 c G~.6. J v� a m
/ �Ep r>I L n J L m U u 71' u e1 n m • C: J
` f•r J ��ppJ 6001,
iJ m ��pt Lim. m p�pL 7U••y m- GN�. Z¢- rE• Y C
U 6 S 0 m J er t id u O 4. Y A > N
bo— a�V c u J E-• W
< yy C C m U C h�.. < U L ¢ O.r n d c O m J L. O mHz d C C
\ p ti q O C L (�pp L C m 1p� >
er S U 7 7 S an d•� 4. E C u S 1Y 41 C pppp J.r L J C er E
E+ E L J p + 7 C m c J L O E N [
('J C C C J J m a.••Ci d m e1 G.G.G. E L "� L c s m go "�'.q J u U
��77 J .-1 <<6 E m c V m O v L 7 7 L c ftl
�7 J Y1 Q m m m••uL.+ J e/v Y m u U U U 00.-•� C O..•+ L 7 er O•O' m m 0 L
0 7 L L V \ m O.J L L O --- U < m O a•0 m(L w w
d' 0 0 0 3 7�T 1'1 O L fl C Y O L m a '-• er C �=
p. ¢G.G.m m 40 CD G.t•••G••�Y.3 O.<.•-1 N P7 ? N
Page 10 0
IV. Administrative Division
Coal Actual
A. Administrative Management:
1. . Plan, organize, lead and control the 100%
activities of all divisions consistent with
department policy, goals and objectives, to
assure community police services are met and
are consistent with available budget resources.
2. Review activities of all divisions to assure 100%
department policy, goals and objecLives are met.
3. Review all divisions' performance to assure 100%
appropriate supervision, leadership, and con-
trol whereby division objectives are met.
4. Review employee performance and provide
appropriate guidance to assure performance 100%
is consistent with division and department
policy, goals and objectives.
B. Leadership:
1. Develop strategic and tactical team building 100%
methods to encourage personnel involvement in
program development and implemented to achieve
department goals and objectives.
2. Provide each division with reasonable support 100%
and resources to achieve stated objectives.
3. Assures understanding of department policy goals 100%
and objectives through effective communications
and training.
4. Develop and assist all divisions in community 100%
education and information sharing programs.
C. Cost Containment:
1. Review program budget appropriations and expend- 100%
iture tren!'s to assure budget control
throughout the fiscal year.
2. Institute divisional inspections to assure 100%
proper care and use of equipment whereby
abuses will be eliminated and safety practices
are followed.
3. Review work schedules and time off requests to 100%
assure proper shift coverage within divisions
and overtime costs to cover shifts will be
eliminated, except in cases of illness or injury.
Page 11
i
Goal Actual
4. Review training needs, requests and cost to 100%
assure a relationship to department goals,
objectives and productivity.
D. Planning:
1. Develop fiscal year budget proposals consistent 100%
with program objectives and workload.
2. Develops long range forecasts for budget resources 100%
and personnel needs (Growth Impact Studies).
3. Personnel and equipment implementation 100%
strategies, coordinated with budget programs.
4. Develops computer programs to improve management 100%
information systems (M.I.S. )
5. Review divisional plans to assure appropriate 100%
resources are available or obtainable, and such
plans are consistent with department policy, goals
and objectives.
6. Develop Duality Circle management team approach to 100%
department planning. Productivity by Objectives
(P.B.O. )
f E. Specific Program Management:
1. Operations Division Management
(a) Coordinates activities between divisions to 100%
assure department goals and objectives are
met.
(b) Manages the ICAP to assure program objectives 100%
are met, that progress and evaluation reports
are timely.
(c) Reviews progress of Community Crime Watch 100%
programs to assure department objectives are
met.
(d) Manages the Alarm Ordinance to assure abuses 100%
will be kept at the lowest possible level.
(e) Administers or supervises all internal 100"
affairs investigations in a timely manner.
(f) Plans and manages short term special details. 1006i'a
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December/O, 1984 AGENDA ITEM M: —
DATE SUBMITTED: 11/26/84 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Discussion with
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Burglary/ City Council August 13, 1984
Robbery Alarm Monitoring Discussion PREPARED BY: R.B. Adams."
REQUESTED BY: Mayor John Cook
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY CITY ADMINISTRATOR: —
i
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Mayor John Cook instructed staff to bring this matter back to City Council in
December 1984 to assure those business alarms monitored by the police
department were provided timely notice of the City' s decision to discontinue
the monitoring of alarms at the Police Dispatch Center; if that decision is
made by City Council. As a general rule, police departments are getting out
of monitoring alarm systems, as there are now several private vendors
providing alarm monitoring centers for public use. Several of the former
businesses that we monitored, have gone to private alarm centers.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
To continue monitoring a3arms will add cost to the civic center project: i.e. ,
additional phone lines, alarm panel fixtures and installation cost.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends termination of this service by July 1, 1985, with notice of
termination to the user group in January 1985, and a reminder to those
remaining in May 1985,
Respectively,
R.tl Adams
(RBA:pm/2207A)
11/21/84
TIGARD POLICE ALAR14 BOXES
# 1 . MOVIE MAGIC
201 Tigard Plaza . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .620-.5151
#2. WASHINGTON FEDERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .639-1163
12260 S,W, Main
#3. OREGON BANK. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .620-2151
11999 S.W. Pacific Hwy
#4. GODFATHERS PIZZA. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . .62O-2823
11619 S.W. Pacific Hwy
#5. PAYLESS DRUG. ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .620-9107
12080 S.W. Main
#6. OREGON PIONEER SAVINGS. . . . . . . . . . . .620-9117
12000 S.W. Main
#7. NELSON TIRES. .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . .639-4100
13880 S.W. Pacific Hwy
C
#8. STREAMBORN FLY. .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .639-7004
12963 S.W. Pacific Hwy
#9. MODERN PLUMBING. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .639-3701
9045 S.W. Burnham
# 10. TIGARD MUSIC. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .620-2844
238 Tigard Plaza
#11. STREAMBORN. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .. .620-9195
14425 S.W. McFarland
# 12. WILLAMETTE SAVINGS... . . . . .. .. . . . . .684-1190
12160 S.W. Scholls Fry.Rd.
# 13. TIGARD LIQUOR... . . .... . . . . .. . ... . .639-1483
12490 S.W. Main
# 14 STEVENS MARINE. .. .... . . . . .. .. . .. . .620-7023
9180 S.W. Burnham
i
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
{ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM_SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10, 1984
AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: December 5, 1984— PREVhearIOUS
ng ACTION: C 26 ,held 1984a pgblic
CSSUF/AGF NDA flTi..E: Polic 11.5. 1 consider_.the pol_icY_ revision __._____...____
(CPA _6--84) _._____.___._--------
PREPARED BY: ----
RFQIJESTED BY: _ ..._._._._.._.—..__....—.—....—
DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: —
INFORMATION .SUMMARY
On November 26, 1984, the City Council Vw1d a public hearing on revisinq
Policy 11 .5.1 of the Comprrhensi.ve PlanmissA
At
to uphold the Planning ontsa recommendation excluding votedeeting, the Council
ot
numbers 39, 40 41, 42, and 43 from policy 11 .5. 1. An ordinance adopting this
change is attached For council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES._CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached ordinance.
0834P
dmj
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10 1984_ AGENDA ITEM #: r-----
DATE SUBMITTED: December 6, 1984 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Postponed on Oct. 29,__
1984, for review of policy 11.5.1.
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SDR 12-84
policy115_1 was revised on 11-26-84
Western International Final Order PREPARED BY: .----
REQUES 1'D BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: rf _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
t--
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On October 29, the Counr_il delayed adoption of the final order for SDR 12--84
until. Policy 11 .5.1 could be reviewed. The review was completed by the City
Council on November 26, 1984, where the Council revised 11 .5. 1 so that the
properties adjoining Western International. are now exempt from the restrictive
setback provision of the Policy. A revised final order has bei!n prepared for
Council. adoption.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. The Councilshould adopt the final. order as written.
2. The Council may modify the final order if it wishes.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Council should adopt the final order for SDR 12-84
Ny
IF
0833P
dmj
�4
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: - December 3, 1994 PREVIOUS ACTION: None
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Van S. Camp
Annexation PREPARED BY: Liz Newton
REQUESTED BY: Pianninq Commission
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK:
C'ITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INrORMATION SUMMARY
At the November 11 , 1984, Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend to City Council that Van S. Camp' s request for
annexation be forwarded to the Boundary Commission for review. In addition,
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to assign the R-1 zoning designation
to the property . The zoning will become effective upon action by the Boundary
Commission annexing the property into the City. Attached is a resolution
which, if approved, would forward this annexation request to the Boundary
Commission.
The City Council, on November 26, 1984, delayed action until the December 10,
1984, meeting to receive and evaluate additional information.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the resolution attached forwarding the annexation request to the
Boundary Commission.
(EAN:bs/0827P)
CITY OF T I CARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
April 17, 1984
Mr. Robert E. Santee, Administrator
8841 SW Commercial St.
Tigard, OR 97223-6290
Dear Mr. Santee:
This letter is in reference to your property on the north side of Bull
Mountain Road (Map 2S1 9A, Tax Lot 402). As you are aware, the parcel is
presently under Washington County jurisdiction. It is adjacent to the City
limits on the south and east. The property is within the Tigard Urban Growth
Boundary and is designated for Low Density Residential development (1-5
units/acre) in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent zoning within the
City is R-1 (Residential, 1 unit/acre).
If annexed, the parcel would be given a single family residential zoning
designation. A residence could be constructed on the property. Utilization
of the public sewer system is required if a sewer line is within 300 feet of
the property. If the distance is greater than 300 feet, a septic system
approved by Washington may be used. the 20-foot wide access is adequate for
up to two dwellings but a 30-foot wide easement is necessary for three or more
residences.
I trust this information is sufficient. If you have any additional questions,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Keith S. Liden
Associate Planner
(KSL:pm/0404P)
l
12755 S W ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
r
AGENDA ITEM 5.5
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 13, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. F END1NU 0 t (4CT
1. General Information
CASE: Zone change and Annexation ZCA 16-84 NPO #3
REQUEST: For consideration and recommendation to the City Council on
an annexation of 3.18 acres into the City of Tigard and a
Zone Change on the property from Washington County R-30 to
City of Tigard R-1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-30
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends approval of the
annexation request with R-1 zoning designation.
APPLICANT: Van S. Camp OWNER: same
8800 SW 57th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97219
LOCATION: North of SW 126th, North of Bull Mtn. Rd. (Wash. Co. Tax Map
2S1-9A Lot 402)
LOT AREA: 3. 18 acres
NPO COMMENT: No written comments had been received from NPO N3 at
the writing of this report.
2. Backqround
No previous land use actions have been taken by the City on this parcel.
3. Vicinity Information
The property involved in this request is surrounded by large lot
homesites.
4. Site Information
The property is vacant. The site slopes gently to the east. The
vegetation is primarily orchard, gardens and lawn. There is no
floodplain on the property.
STAFF REPORT - ZCA 16-84 - PAGE 1
I ,
5. Agency Comments
Kevin Martin, Senior Planner with the Planning Division of the
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, responded
in writing. He stated that "the first sentence of the applicant's
statement is not entirely correct. According to Policy 25(a) of the
County CFP, subsurface sewage disposal systems are allowed in some
circumstances." The applicant's statement is attached as Exhibit "A" .
8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Mr. Camp has requested annexation into the City to obtain a Building
Permit. Mr. Camp would like to build one single family residence on the
3. 18 acres. In addition, Mr. Camp is requesting that the new residence
be allowed to be served by septic rather than connect to a public sewer.
The City has adopted policies relative to annexation and extension of
City services outside the City limits. The following policies apply to
this annexation request:
10.1.1 PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD:
a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES
AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE
AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE
MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED*, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED
AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE
SERVICES ARE:
1. WATER;
2. SEWER;
3. DRAINAGE;
4. STREETS;
5. POLICE; AND
6. FIRE PROTECTION
*Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the
Comprehensive Pian.
10. 1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS FO LAND BY THE CITY SHALL
BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR
"ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR
b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY
THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR
OUTSIDE THE CITY;
C. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE
ANNEXATION;
STAFF REPORT — ZCA 16-84 — PAGE 2
d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING
AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY;
e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES
LISTED IN 10.1. 1(a) .
10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED
SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT:
a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THF CITY; OR
b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX 14LTH
PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RE.' _O
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR
C. WHERE T14E APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS t
DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH
E
HAZARD.
:yy
10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2. 1, THE i
EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL
NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREA
WITHIN THE CITY.
The property is presently served by the Tigard Water District by a 4"
main in the private road. The property drains to the west into a small
Swale. The Tualatin Rural Fire Protection District serves the
property. There is a fire hydrant located near the northeast corner of
the property . The City of Tigard Police Department should not be
ation of the property since the property
adversely affected by the annex
is vacant. Access to the site is from a private road off of SW 125th.
The private access could be utilized to serve one dwelling unit. The
property does not abut a public right-of-way, however, so only one }
dwelling could be constructed under the grandfather rights of the
property and private access. The private drive is shared with five }
other property owners. According to one of the abutting property
owners, each property owner is responsible for maintenance of the road
in front of his/her property. There are several potholes in the road in
front of the subject property.
In the applicant's narrative it is stated that the cost of bringing
sewer to the property would be unreasonably high for just one building
site. The applicant further requests that a building be allowed on a
septic system. The City Engineer/Public Works Director has reviewed the
sewer situation and commented that if the sewer is ultimately served
from the north (i.e. Walnut) and if this property is within 300 feet of
a sewer and can physically be served with a private line, this option
would be more preferable, and in fact should be required.
The applicant stated in his application for annexation that he would
like to construct one dwelling unit on the site. The present County
C zoning on the property is R-30. On April 30, 1984, the Ci`y Council
passed on ordinance relating to zoning designations on newly annexed
parcels. The policy is as follows:
STAFF REPORT - ZCA 16-84 - PAGE 3
10. 1 .3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A
WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGANTION, THE CITY OF TIGARD
SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTkiCT DESIGNATION
WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGANTION.
The City zoning designation which most closely corresponds to the county
R-30 zoning is R-1 which is single family, one unit per acre, with a
minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet.
The subject property is designated as a developing area on the
Established/De.veloping areas map which is a part of the City' s adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
The standards for approval for annexation into the City of Tigard are
set forth in Section 18. 136.030 of the Community Development Code as
follows:
A. - The decision to approve, approve with modifications or deny an
application to annex property to the City shall be based on the
following criteria:
1. All services and facilities are available to the area and
have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed
annexation area; and
2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing
ordinance provisions have been satisfied.
8. The plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the
property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely
implements the City's or County' s Comprehensive Plan map
designation.
C. The determination of whether the property is an Established Area
or a Developing Area will be based on the standards contained in
18.138.
All services and facilities are available to the site and have
sufficient capacity to provide services with the possible exception of
sewer. It is the opinion of the City Engineer that the property can be
served with a private line to the manhole located to the south. If a
private sewer line is not physically possible, another alternative will
have to be used with the approval of the City Engineer. Section
18.164.090 addresses requirements for sanitary sewers as follows:
18.164.090 Sanitary Sewers
A. Sewers -Required. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve
each new development and to connect developments to existing mains
in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Standard
Specification Manual and the adopted policies of the Comprehensive
/ Plan.
t
STAFF REPORT - ZCA 16-84 - PAGE 4
Approval. The Public Works Director shall -approve all
Sewer Plan
B' laps and proposed systems prior to issuance of
sanitary sewer P
development permits involving sewer service.
C RECOtK1EN0ATION
Commission recommend
The Planning staff recommends that the Phe Tigard City Council and
request to the Tigard
approval of the annexation R subject to annexation of the property
approve the zone change to
based on the following
1. The applicant' s request conforms to applicable Statewide Planning
Goals I. Z, 11, and 14-
2. The applicant's proposal conforms .1, 10.2.2, and
to applicable City of Tigard
Plan policies 2.1.1, 6.4.1, 10. 1 .1, 10.1.2, 10.2
• 10.1.3.
conforms to applicable sections of the
3. The applicant's proposal
nt Code: 18.136.030 and 18. 138.03
0.
Tigard Community Developme
p. CONDITIONS royal
Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to app
of ZCA 16-84. the
1. The annexation proposal shall be reviewed and approved by
Tigard Police Department.
ent on the property shall be reviewed and
2• All future the C°� of Tigard.
approved by
Permits, sewer plans shall be
3. Prior to issuance of any Building to a
approved by the Public Works Director to connect the property physically
public sewer by a private sewer line. If this is
used only
possible, a^ alternate the Public
Wo ks Director.of sewage dispo
if approved by
Newton APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
A. New
PREPARED BY: Eliza. Director of Planning 6
Associate Planner Development
(EAN:pm/0767P)
STAFF REPORT - ZCA 16-94 - PAGE 5
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 13, 1984
1. President Moen called the the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The meeting
was held at the Fowler Juni-,r High - LGI Room - 10865 SW Walnut.
2. ROLL CALL: [ABSENT:
ENT: President Moen; Commissioners Owens, Fyre,
Butler, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell.
Commissioners Leverett and Bergmann.
FF: Director of Planning and nPvP1(?pm"nt William A
Monahan (arriving at (9:45 P.M. ); Associate
Planner Liden; Associate Planner Newton (arriving
at 9:15 P.M.); and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
o Commissioner Butler was concerned that item 5.4, on the October 3rd
minutes, the definition for Wetlands, was not correct. (Staff will
review the tape.) President Moen felt that the options for item 5.6,
on October 2nd, should be included in the minutes.
* Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to adopt
minutes from October 2, 3, and 29th, modifying the minutes from
j October 2nd, page 7, to include the options. Also, exempt item 5.4
on October 3rd minutes to be reviewed by staff and brought back to
the next meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION APPOINTMENT
o Louise Stewart, 11990 SW 72nd Ave. , was present and stated why she
would like to become a member of NPO # 4.
o Geraldine Ball, NPO N 4 Chairperson, stated that Mrs. Stewart had
attended the last two meetings and the NPO unanimously supported her
appointment.
* Commissioner Owens moved and Commissioner Campbell seconded to
forward a recommendation to City Council for Louise Stewart to be
appointed to NPO N 4. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner
present. }
i
5.2 REVIEW DRAFT DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN - WASHINGTON COUNTY
o Glen Grant, Kramer, Chin 6 Mayo, consultants for Washington County
Drainage Master Plan, provided materials and gave a slide show
presentation. Questions and discussion followed. No action was
Cnecessary.
PLANNING COMMIISSION MINUTES November 13, 1984 Page 1
x Commissioner Bulter moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to
direct staff to complete a final order based on staff' s findings and
conclusions and to authorize the Planning Commissioner President to
sign the final order. Motion carried unanimously by members present.
Commissioner Owens left 9:15 P.M.
5.4 SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 4-84 MILLER/POTTER/SCHAEFFER NPO # 2
A request to allow a second free standing sign which is 216 sq. ft. per
side and 60 ft. in height where one sign, 70 sq. ft. in size and 20 ft. in
height is permitted. Located: 10830 cW Greenburg Road (Shilo Inn) (WCTM
1S1 35BD lot 1300).
o Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for denial.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o Dale Clark, representing the applicant, explained the necessity for a
sign the size and height of the one being proposed.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Roger Maddox, NPO # 2 Acting Chairman, made NPO # 2's recommendation
for a compromise to allow the sign code exception.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o The Commissioners recognized the unique problems of the application,
however, they were concerned for the number and size of the signs
already in the area. Discussion followed on how best to handle.
o Roger Forney, Shilo Inn representative, stated they were willing to
work with staff. However, they hoped to open this week and needed
something more and would like a decision now. Further discussion.
* Commissioner Butler moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to table
Sign Code Exception SCE 4-84 until the December 4th meeting, to allow
staff and the applicant to work up a compromise proposal. Motion t
carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
5.5 ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 16-84 VAN S. CAMP NPO # 3
A request to annex 3. 18 acres into the City of Tigard and a zone change
from Washington County R-30 to City of Tigard R-1. Located: North of
126th, north of Bull Mtn. Road (WCTM 2S1 9A lot 402)
o Associate Planner Newton made staff's recommendation for approval
with three conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 1984 Page 3
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o No one appeared to speak.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o Benny Larson, 14465 SW 125th, opposed the applicant because the
property did not have proper access, only a 20 ft. easement. Also,
previously the property had been zoned agricultural which does not
allow for residential use. Discussion followed -•egarding the zoning
and the access.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Consensus of the Commission was to support the annexation and zone
cliange.
Commissioner Vander-wood moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to
forward to City Council recommending approval of the annexation and
approval of the Zone Change from Washington County R-30 to City of
Tigard R-1. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioner presents .
5.6 ZONE CHANGE/HISTORIC DISTRICT ZCHD 17-84 FESSLER/CITY OF TIGARD NPO # 3
A request by the City of Tigard to assign a Historic District Overlay on
property zoned R 4.5. Located: 11180 SW Fanner (WCTM 2S1 3AC lot 1700) .
o Associate Planner made staff's recommendation for approval.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
o John Fessler, 11180 SW Fanner, owner of the property supported the
Historic District. He explained how they had moved the house from
its original location and where working at maintaining the integrity
of the house. Also, they would be adding a detached garage which
would be consistent with the character of the house.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
o Commissioner Fyre commented that he had been inside of the Fessler
home and would like to compliment them on the nice job of restoring
that they had done.
* Commissioner Fyre and moved and Commissioner Peterson seconded to
approve ZCHD 17-84 based on staff's findings and conclusions. Motion
carried unanimously by Commissioners present.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 13, 1994 Page 4
Although the county has approved the parcel for septic seMrage disposal, it
it since it is io y to 's growth boundary*
will not allow a building permit on
There is no plan to develop or divide the property, only to use it as a single
family residence and retain the full 3.18 acre as one building site.
The City has allowed the property to potentially be divided once into two sites
per the attached letter of April 17, 1984. Investigations into bringing the
or
sewer to the property have shown that the cost would be unreasonably f
just one building site, or for even two, for that matter; and this petition
requests that in exchange for holding dawn the density to
on building way site
instead of two, that the property be allowed annexationn for
t r irants necessary
a building permit on septic, subject to the normal permi equ
at a future date.
The existing sewer is exxceptionally deep at 19 feet. Additional facts that
is :lie line of run requires an additional
add to the unusually high expenseis
and placement of the existing manhole.
manhole casing because of the ang and fencing
Still further, the existing easement runs right under shrubbery
of the neighbors to the east.
out, it
If more properties were going in on the project andve the cost spread
would make sense to bring the sewer up now. Howeneighbors wanted to participate
acts
the petitioner suggests
that it is exhorbitant for one hanesite. If the nei
in the future, of brining the sewer up, the petitioner would not object and will
participate in a pro-rata share. t
i
i
3
s
q(
b
t
t
k
i
k
C
7
I
_- l r , S• —is EO IM
STREET y
� •L
.srbL
I
4 3 I SIREEl
■
sw
n c/
ti
— _
3
11VS CT -
!w IL O
cT
st
- ---- umoocRSW �URDOC
i
i •}t
fJ!
� I -
0
- ~If
�f
IJ I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM H: 0 -
DATE SUBMITTED: December 6, 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Mallard Lake ___
Denial on October 2, 1984
Planned Development Appeal-Case No. PREPARED
_..�_..
ZC 12-84, PD 4-84 S 9-8_4L.V 15-84 Rk(�UES l to 8'i. '.
npcal by Prr.norty owner
fr'�yY CITY ADMINISTRATOR: �.._.... ___
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
on behalf of Ferd Wardin, property owner has filed an
Attorney Mark Weintraub,
Commission' s denial of a subdivision request. The
appeal of the Planning
subdivision, known as Mallard lake, was proposed on property located north of
SW Sattler west of Scheckla Park Subdivision. Attached are copies of the
Planning Commission minutes for October 2, 1.984, the transcript a , that
hearing, the Planning Commission staff report, the appthe applicant' s written
exhibits from the Planning Commission hf'ering; and the app
argument which was submitted at 4:59 P.M- Wc-dnesday, December 5, 1984.
t
1
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Hold the public hearing and uphold the Planning Commission decision.
s
2. Hold the public hearing and reverse the Planning Commission decision.
SUGGESTED ACTION .,
The City Council should hold the public hearing.
(EAN:pm/O835P) �h
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan '
DATE: December 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Mallard !?.kes Planned DeX'elnpmont Appeal (Case Nos. ZC 17-84, PD
4-84, S 9-84, V 15-84) .
The Mallard Lake Planned DevelopmentTheoposal Planningwas
staffreviewed
recco mended approval
Commission on October 2, lication based
subject to conditions. The Commission, however, denied the app #
upon the findings noted
the1CommFission deciste final �er dated on based upono ber the items listed 29, 194. he
applicant has pp
a notice of appeal from Attorney Mark Weintraub dated November 9, 1984. The
appeal takes issue with all of the findings presented in the Commission
decision except for numbers 2 and 3.
Attached are of nd de staffwhich Planning
Commission
order, the Plan Policies sections ae referred to n the order,
�
and the notice of appeal filed by the applicant. }
The primary issues involved in this proposal are related to density and
whether the northern portion of the property is suitable for the amount of
lots proposed. The Council should compare the Planning Commission's action to
the City policies to determine if the Commission action was proper. One of
the prime concerns is the adequacy of information provided by the applicant
concerning plans to utilize land on the northern side of the existing lakes
for residential development. The applicant contends that a road of sufficient
width to meet City standards can be constructed on the land providing access
to the rear lots. If the Counciloverturns
a mad ficat on sof iontheionplan to provide
, the Council
may wish to condition the approval on
only for a private road.
Staff recommends that the Council hold a hearing to allow the applicant to
state reasons why it differs with the application be Commission proved
ation. Since the Commission level, we
staff recommended that the app p
have attempted to provide you with all pertinent materials so that you are in
a position to make an informed decision.
(0831P)
3.1.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING THE FOLLOWING
DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS EXCEPT WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT ESTABLISHED
AND PROVEN ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES RELATED TO A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN WILL
MAKE THE AREA SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
a. AREAS HAVING A HIGH SEASONAL WATER TTuABLE WITHIN 0-24 INCHES OF THE
'w=. ...,• SURF,:AM FOR Fi�-Q2,-MDRE --:KB��,W, TH6;YEAIU.�,..- :L..;.;�>..;.,.. :,.r+,.tea►
3.4.2 THE CITY SHALL:
a. PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ALONG STREAM CORRIDORS BY
MANAGING THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND CONTROLLING EROSION, AND BY
REQUIRING THAT AREAS OF STANDING TREES AND NATURAL VEGETATION
ALONG NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AND WATERWAYS BE MAINTAINED TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE;
b. REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN DESIGNATED TIMBERED OR TREE
AREAS BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO
MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED; AND
c. REQUIRE CLUSTER TYPE DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS HAVING IMPORTANT
WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE AS DELINEATED ON THE "FISH AND WILDLIFE
HABITAT MAP" ON FILE AT THE CITY.
6.3 .2 IN THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE A
DENSITY TRANSITION WHEREBY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ARE
ADJACENT TO ESTABLISHED AREAS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
a. THE DENSITY WITHIN 100 FEET OF EACH PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED
i 25% OVER THE DENSITY SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE
ADJACENT LAND UNLESS THERE IS AN INTERVENING ROAD (MAJOR COLLEC'OR
OR ARTERIAL) IN WHICH CASE THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLY.
6.3 .3 IN ALL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL
"ESTABLISHED AREA," A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY SHALL BE TO
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT ESTABLISHED AREAS.
7.2. 1 THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE AS A PRE—CONDITION TO DEVELOPMENT THAT:
a A SITE DEVELOPMENT STUDY BE SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS
SUBJECT TO POOR DRAINAGE, GROUND INSTABILITY OR FLOODING WHICH
SHOWS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS SAFE AND WILL NOT CREATE ADVERSE
OFFSITE IMPACTS:
b. NATURAL DRAINAGE WAYS BE MAINTAINED UNLESS SUBMITTED STUDIES SHOW
THAT ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS CAN SOLVE ON—SITE DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS AND WILL ASSURE NO ADVERSE OFFSITE IMPACTS;
c. ALL DRAINAGE CAN BE HANDLED ON—SITE OR THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION WHICH WILL NOT INCREASE THE OFFSITE IMPACT;
d. THE 100•-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE 1981 FLOOD
INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BE
CPROTECTED; AND
e. EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
The problems facing the neighborhoods would be discussed at the
A1-V
r/ meeting A a committee formed to address the issu_s during ubsequent
meetings. The committee should consist of NPO N 4 members,
interested residents, and commercial property owners. It would not
need City funding, but assistance should be requested in terms of
providing meeting space and staff participation.
3. Issue Identification
The goal of the committee meetings should be to articulate the issues
confronting the three neighborhoods and to rank these issues in order
of importance. It is likely thatAlist of problem areas will include
some of the following items:
— encroachment of commercial development and the impact of
incompatible uses in the neighborhoods
— increasing traffic on both major and local streets
— lack of park land and recreational facilities
— poor pedestrian and vehicular linkages between the three
neighborhoods as well as commercial services located along
Pacific Highway
— lack of adequate City services and facilities such as police
protection, sanitary sewer, streets or sidewalks
C.
— 5 —
18 .02 .010 Purpose . As a means of promoting the general
health, safety and welfare of the public, this code is
designed to set forth the standards and procedures governing_
the development and use of land in Tigard and to implement
the Tigard comprehensive plan. To these ends , it is the
purpose of this code to:
( 1) Ensure that the development of property within the
city is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the
land, and in general, to prc,mote and protect the public health,
safety, convenience and welfare;
18 . 40.040 Residential density transition. (a) Regard-
less of the allowed housing densities stated in Chapters 18 . 44
through 18 .58 , or in Chapters 18 . 80 , 18 .92 or 18 .94 , any prop-
erty within one hundred feet of an established area shall not
be developed at a residential housing density greater than
one hundred twenty-five percent of the allowed density in the
adjacent established area (s) . For purposes of this limitation
only, the allowed density is as specified in the comprehensive
plan land use designation, not as in the zoning district. For
example, the property within one hundred feet of an established
low density residential area (one to five dwellings per acre)
shall not be developed at residential densities greater than
6 .25 dwellings per acre. (6. 25 = 5 x 1. 25. )
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply with
regard to established areas that are separated from the proposed
housing development by a major collector road or by an arterial
road.
(c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply
where the actual density in the abutting established area
exceeds the maximum density allowed under the land use plan
map designation for the established area. The density transi-
tion still will not exceed one hundred twenty-five percent
of thabutting established area density. (Ord. 83-32 §1,
1984; ord. 83-52 Exhibit A (part) , 1983) .
r COP-d '04- -Co
18 80 110 Application submission requirements--Conceptual
development 1 n. (a) All applications shall be made on forms
provided y the director and shall be accompanied by:
(1) Fifteen copies of the conceptual development
plan (s) and necessary data or narrative which explains how
the development conforms to the standards :
(A) Sheet size for the conceptual development
plan(s) and required drawings shall not exceed eighteen
inches by twenty-four inches, and
(B) The scale for a conceptual development plan
shall be twenty, fifty, one hundred or two hundred feet to
(2) A list of the names and addresses of all who are
property owners of record within two hundred fifty feet of the
site;
(3) The required fee.
(b) The required information may be combined and does
not have to be placed on separate maps.
(c) The conceptual development plan, data and narrative
shall include the following:
(1) Existing site conditions, Section 18 .80. 130;
(2) A site concept, Section 18 .80 . 150;
(3) A grading concept, Section 18 .80 . 160;
(4) A landscape concept, Section 18 .80 . 170 ;
(5) A sign concept, Section 18 .80 .180; and
(6) A copy of all existing or proposed restrictions
or covenants. (Ord. 83-52 Exhibit A(part) , 1983) .
f q. The primary reasons for the decline of the neighborhoods
neighb,` will kAS&
related to the encroachment of incompatible use 5A rather than internal
causes such as aging h s tock or poor building maintenance.
NEIGHBORHOOD$ CONSERVATION STRATEGY
1, utilization of NPO # 4
Because of the^planning involvement of NPO # 4, this group should
initiate a re—evaluation of the City' s planning policies in the
Tigard Triangle. The NPO should adopt a cooperative strategy in
dealing with the City and build upon the working relationship that
has been established.
2. Formation of a Tigard Triangle Committee
With the assistance of City staff, an initial public meeting should
be sponsored by NPO # 4 with an invitation sent to all property
owners and renters in he Triangle. Although the thrust of this
effort will be to preserve the three neighborhoods, the surrounding
property owners must be involved because the development of their
parcels will have a profound affect upon the long term viability of
the residential areas.
C
— 4 —
18. 84 .010 Purpose . (a) Sensitive lands are lands
potentially unsuitable for development because of their loca-
tion within the one-hundred-year floodplain, within natural
drainageway, on steep slopes or on unstable ground.
18.92.020 Density calculation. (a) Net development
area,in acres, is determined by subtracting the following
land area(s) from the gross acres, which is all of the land
included in the legal description of the property:
(1) All sensitive land areas:
(A) Land within the one-hundred-year floodplain,
(B) Land or slopes exceeding twenty-five percent,
and
(C) Drainageways;
(2) All land dedicated to the public for park purposes ;
(3) All land dedicated for public right-of-way :
(A) Single-family, allocate twenty percent of gross
acres for public facilities,
(B) Multiple-family, allocate fifteen percent of
gross acres for public facilities;
(4) All land proposed for private streets; and
(5) A lot of at least the size required by the
applicable base zoning district, if an existing dwelling is
to remain on the site .
(b) To calculate the net units per acre, divide the
number of square feet in the net acres by the minimum number
of square feet required for each lot by the applicable zoning
district .
In 1971, the City formed seven Neighborhood Planning Organizations (NPO)
to provide improved neighborhood representation and input particularly on
planning related issues. NPO # 4 includes all of the Tigard Triangle plus
some additional land on the north side of Pacific Highway . NPO' s consist of
t
✓
++e" volunteer members who reside, own property, or own a business within the
neighborhood.
NPO # 4 was given an opportunity to participate in the development of the
Comprehensive Plan. Also, the NPO is informed by the City of all land use
proposals within its boundaries and given an opportunity to make
recommendations.
NEIGHBORHOOD F,,WE@ G14A1tAtTAV-1 ST'e.5
The problems facing the three neighborhoods are different from those which
typically confront declining inner city neighborhoods because of the following
factors:
1. The Tigard neighborhoods are racially and culturally homogeneous.
2. The housing stock is relatively new and the majority of the
residences are in good excellent condition.
3. The residents are generally not in need of financial assistance to
maintain their homes.
— 3 —
TRANSCRIPT FROM OCTOBER 2, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION
FERO WARDIN/FARR DEVELOPMENT CO./MALLARD I._AKE
Transcribers note: The tape has loud clicking noise and static noise which
makes it extremely difficult to transcribe.
Commissioner members present: Vice President Owens (chaired the public
hearing); Commissioners Fyre, Butler,
Leverett, Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell.
i
Owens, "All right we' ll open the public hearing. We' ll call for item 5. 1,
staff."
Associate Planner Liden: "Okay this item is for Mallard Lakes Subdivision and
it was before the Commission the last time we meet on September 4th, and there
was quite a bit of discussion regarding the design, particular in relationship
to the ponds in the northern portion of the property. Uh, the hearing was
tabled and the developer was asked to discuss this with the NPO and then to
come back before the Commission so that we could discuss this a little hit
further. Also, the applicant did meet with the NPO, also this matter was
Page 1
discussed before the Recreation or the Parks Board, and uh, and as far as the
Parks Boards is concerned, uh, they've changed their position somewhat on Park
Land dedication, and if uh, . . . . . . . . open space or a natural type of a park
with essentially no or very little maintenance is proposed, the Park Board
feels that that type of dedication would be appropriate, they still feel,
however, that, uh, dedication of the Park Land that would be actively used. it
would require mowing, . . . . . . . and so forth is beyond the City's means at this
time. So, uh, they didn't decide, uh, absolutely what they, what should be
done with this area. They would like to talk to the applicant a little
further before they make a formal recommendation to City Council . . . . . . . . As
far as the design of the subdivision, it has been modified somewhat, I presume
this is in response to, uh, the discussion that developer had at the NPO. Uh,
in summary we have one less lot than was proposed early, . . , originally
there was 43 lots proposed and now we have 42. Uh, the lot . Essentially we
r
have one less lot to the north side of the pond, than we did before. The rest
of the subdivision design, as far as I can tell, is essentially the same as
the one before. Also, the applicant is apparently proposing to do this
development in two phases, with the southern phase being outlined in the, with
the darker line, in the south portion, and the seconded phase being the
northern portion. The staff report that was prepared last time, has not
really been modified, essentially we still have, the major issue is whether,
what is the status of the ponds. Uh, as was brought out last time, the
adopted floodplain/wetlands map does not show this areas as a wetland.
Earlier maps, as well as the map that is in the background information report
of the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as a wetlands. Uh, we looked into
this matter, tried to find out if we could get anymore background on this
Page 2
specific property, as to whether there was a deliberate decision made to omit
that, or is, or whether it was just a mapping error or something.
Unfortunately, we couldn't find anything out. so, I'm afraid as far as the
wetlands issue is concerned, what the status of these ponds should be, I
guess, is going to have to be a part of the Planning Commission' s decision
this evening. With that, the City is recommending approval of the
subdivision, nowevor, we do have some recummended conditions, . . . . . that the
�d;..d .c-cndi.ng on, if the Planning
only thing that will have to be ate..=u, �r-••-•-
Commission feels that some kind of an approval is appropriate, conditions
would have to be added to deal witty the situation of the ponds. I guess, with
that, are there any questions?
Unidentified person asked question (inaudible)
t
Liden, "Yes, yes."
Unidentified person, "Clarified in your mind . . . . . . ."
Liden, "Well it does, I guess the only thing that is still is has a little
to the situation is the fact the ponds are man made. Uh, I
some conclusive evidence as to, say for example, if you
drain the ponds are we going to still have a high water table or
marshy situation after we drained or whether it would be dry.
we haven't been able to find out.
Page 3
Commissioner Fyre, "Did you do the density calculation on this."
Liden, "Yes."
Commissioner Fyre, (inaudible)
Liden, "Well, this, this ties in with the, with the status of the ponds, in
the staff report that was done last time, depending on how you deal
with the ponds, what the, density ranges from 38 lots for the entire
subdivision or 44.
(Inaudible question)
Liden, "Okay, 38 being, if the park land is dedicated as shown.
(Inaudible question)
Liden, "Right, and the density calculations are, if Park Land is, is
dedicated, you actually wind up with the lowest number of lots
allowable. If only the ponds are subtracted, lot area is subtracted
as sensitive lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a maximum of 40 would
be allowed. If its decided that the ponds are not a sensitive lands
area then . . . . . topo maps, then 44 lots would be permitted."
(tape inaudible)
i
Page 4
Owens, "Could we have the applicant' s report please?"
"My name is Bill McMonagle, Harris, McMonagle Engineering. 8905 SW Commercial
Street, Tigard. We've reviewed the staff report, we essentially don't have
any problems with the recommendations other than the disposition of the ponds.
Staff spoke to the density question, as to whether its 44 or 40 or 38,
depending on which way you interpret the Code. I think staff would agree with
me, that that section of the Code, as it reads to those, the lands that may or
may not be dedicated to the Park, as opposed to being keep private, very
clearly written and its intent is not meant what you might read into it. You
would have to --ead it two or three times, to actually get the intent out of
it, because essentially what it says is that if you dedicate land to the
public for Park purposes your penalized by the density factor, but if you keep
the land private, in a home owners association, your, not penalized. But the
land from a functional standpoint, essentially does the same thing. And so
there is a glinch in the Code, which I am sure there are many, and its just as
time goes no these things are brought up and staff, in the meeting that I had
with them, agreed that there was a problem there and that, I understood that
this was there and needed to be taken care of, &1146 YOU can ask staff if you
care to. Uh, Other than that the basic lay out, we have reduced the lot and
eliminated part of a stub street to the northern end of the ponds. Uh, we
have shortened the cul--de—sac, about seventeen or eighteen feet. It still
requires a variance, uh, according to the Code. As far as the density
calculations as far as the perimeter calculations are concerned, uh, its well
within the limitations. Uh, I guess it all really boils down to the ponds.
Page 5
r
As to whether they are or are not sensitive lands; according to the
Comprehensive Plan, they're not. Uh, the Planned Development plan they're
not. Those ponds are man made. Uh, for purposes of which was agriculture at
the time. Uh, we see, that, even though they are man made, that it would be
nice to keep them. But, I must honestly say, in trying to do it in such a
manner that we can keep them, its certainly causing us a lot of problems. But
I still thinks its important. Now relative to whether, whether those ponds
would be dedicated to the Parks Department, public, or private, depending on
the City ability to maintain them, as I said before, we have no problem at all
with creating a Home Owners Association and having those ponds be private with
the provision in the creation of the plat, in the wording of the dedication of
the plat, setting it up, such, that at the time that the City, at any time
that the City would request that those ponds be dedicated to the public that
the Association would so dedicate. . . . . . . . . its such right now that they F
don't want to take that on, any more obligations of park land, which I can
understand, thats fine. If it improves in the future, and they care to have
them, thats fine to. We can do it either way . We thought that they would
want it as park lands, so we put it with a park on there, staff wasn't sure,
we said, well, let the Planning Commission decide Are there any other
questions?
(Tape inaudible)
i
Owens, "The NPO please. "
Page 6
"My name is Phil Pasteris, and I'm the NPO 6 Chairman. First of all I would
like to thank the developer for stopping by at our NPO meeting last month,
because it was a good effort on Keith's part to get the people and the
developers together and talk a little bit about this situation. So I would
like to thank them. Basically, my presentation tonight will review the
written, I mean written report that I have in your packet. It deals primarily
with the staff report. I done a little bit of research in the Development
Code and I think one of the key things here is that, written in the Code,
although not on a map, I think, in my mind, rlea, ly that the Pinebrook
watercourse is part of the wetlands definition that the City of Tigard has.
And uh, very briefly here, we identify in table one on page 55 that Pinebrook
is an identified watercourse. A couple of pages later it talks about the
ponds being a part of the watercourse and identified by a upper and lower
designation. And also, on page 63 of the Development Code it talks about
wetlands un poorly drained areas. Areas which are poorly drained or have
seasonal standing water or high water tables can also pose special
difficulties. For these purposes of the study, wetlands and poorly drained
areas are defined as, poorly drained soil, or watercourses and since in a
previous definition a few pages earlier it defines Pinebrook as a watercourse,
it appears to me, uh, rather conclusive, in my interpretation that the parcel
of land proposed for development it subject to wetlands development
restrictions. The parcel already abuts a City designated open space park area
and we feel, I feel the, the NPO seems to indicata that the area has a similar
character to the open spot, open space designation. A little bit further in
the staff report, it talks about the area around the ponds and the . . . . . . . . .
that would be done to get a cul-de-sac through there. As best as I
Page 7
can determine from the drawings there, you would have a fifty foot wide
clearance which would go betwc-(,n the two ponds for paving, and uh, I don't
really feel that the ponds could be retained in there natural state with a
fifty wide roadway separating them. One other thing that is mentioned in the
staff report is the common access driveways. We don't really object to have,
to past approved common access driveways in development, however, in the plan
it shows lots 1Z, i3, iv, i5, ib, and t/, a total of six lots, being serviced
by a common access driveway. This seems excessive and should be redesigned or
eliminated. Another section of the staff report, we talk about the density
transition area. The density transition on the northern part of the
development, abutting the established Pinebrook area, does not conform to the
125% limitation. The proposed development shows seven lots, within the one
hundred feet of the five abutting lots on Pinebrook and that would be a 129%.
Whi,,h isn't oxrc+ssive of the maximum Ona other svrtion t-?lks ahni_It the
intersection of Reiling and 91st. After consultation with people who know
traffic engineering, they suggest that the dog leg intersection, which is on
both proposals, be straightened out to be more perpendicular, and that any
curving be done at the, uh far end of the development where they intersect
with Reiling and uh, and the eastern and western parts. And lets see here,
I' ll briefly highlight the NPO meetings here in conclusion. Although the
staff reports that lot sizes ranging from 4250 to 8680 are permitted in this
development, a predominance of opinion express at the NPO meeting that this
would riot be in character with the established neighborhood to the east and to
the west. Another highlight that came out was that any higher density in the
development should be located toward the south, not on the north. The
southern part has the existing Summerfield and Sattler, I think its a
Page 8
collector road, which would be more, with what we're looking for in the
situation of higher densities. And finally the developers did provide a
revised drawing, which I have riot been able to formally review, uh, for the
NPO, for the Planning Commission meeting tonight and for the Park Board. In
summary I would like to thank the developers for their presentation on the
19th and we recognize that a large portion of this parcel can and should be
developed in a manner consistent with the established neighborhood and we are
willing to work with the developers, Planning Commission, City Council, and
also State and Federal Agencies to resolve the Sensiti.e I...ands issue, to
insure developments which we can all be proud. Questions?"
(Tape inaudible)
Liden "The Code does not indicate how your suppose to, . . . . . specific on
how your suppose to calculate the density transition. . . . . . . . . . . formula
based on the number of . . . . . . . . . adjoining property and the density your
proposing on your project, uh, when I did the density calculation, I just took
the whole area essentially a horseshoe in this case and came up with a total
square footing and the allowable density and even at that, once you break it
down and go . . . . . . divide it essentially into three sides, calculate each one
separately, the most they could have along the north side would be six lots,
or . . . . . . . . seven. Now, the revision that they have you do have six lots.
s
The adjacent, instead of the, of the proposal where you have six lots then a
r
seventh that was fairly close . . . . . . . but, this lot over here did fall within
the 100 ft. area. I can't quite tell it looks like probably about 80 feet or
C
Page 9
more, uh before . . • • •
seventh lot. The way be calculated this before, was if
there was just a small corner of the lot that is within 100 ft. area but there
would be no open space and based on setback requirements we have not included
those. You could either including total lots or lots you have enough
of a lot you could get a portion . . . . . . . . . . . .
Owens, "Thank You,
Uh, I will row colt for those people who are proponents.
Proponents, Tom Arvidson."
E
i
"My name is Tom Arvidson and I live at 8885 Scheckla, Chats lot 23. . . . . . . . . . .
the larger pond here. And, I'm directly behind the other pond according to
. . .(inaudible) . . . . according to that, uh, that plan, • • • •
the existing
right at our property line. When we look out our dining room you can
see the ponds. So I went out there and actually, comes 55' end of my property
. . . . . . . .
So I started looking at that map and I saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .
. . . . .
under water. • • • • • • • I of
250 long from my property line.
g
back into the raspberry bushes to see if, how much land is in between the two
ponds, uh, there's twenty feet of land between there and eight ft. of walk up
then it starts leveling off . . . . . . . . elevation. . . . . This shows Seven feet
and it measure about eight feet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • " " "I
really concerned about a 50 feet road when there's 20 feet of dirt there.
plus going up a hill. And I don't think there going to be able to put a
road through there and preserve the ponds. So with that . . . . . inaudible) . . . .
Page 10
(tape inaudible)
"Pat Phillips, 8855 SW Scheckla, thats lot number 20. I would like to speak
to my ultimate opposition of the road between the ponds as well as the
development immediate to the pond area. It seems that for some reason this
area was forgotten when . . . . . . . . for natural area was being identified as a
part of the resources for goal 5 of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Goal 5
states for the requirements for eligibility are . . . . . . . . . open space, fish and
wildlife areas and habitats, ecologically and scientifically significant
natural areas, water• areas, wetlands, watersheds, and ground water resources,
all of which is very . . . . . . . I think that you will agree that, that the
area . . . . . . . . . . . visibly appealing and should remain in its natural
undeveloped state. You can also see some nF the wildlife that frequents some
of these ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . ducks and birds, and there a few that you can't
see, such as frogs, turtles, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . catfish, racoons and squirrels .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . also make reference to a marsh area near Fowler
Junior High School, thats used as an educational tool for students in science
classes. I see no reason why this couldn't be the case with this area for
Templeton Grade School. Thats just a few blocks away . It true these ponds
were manmade, which was 25 years ago or so, but they are feed by natural
springs and the water level is controlled by a small run off creek, that
eventually runs into Fanno Creek. I also believe this is a designated
wetlands area, because I believe Mr. Butler made reference to . . . . . . . . . . . .
Also in regards to the ponds being man made. We've you've seen a body of
water that has been established for 25 years or more, it is a natural body of
water. I think that it doesn't really make much difference to the fish and
the other
Page 11
w;.ldlife that live there, whether or not it was man made. I would also like
to, quote briefly from the Comprehensive Plan, also on page 90 99 Inventory
. . . City Parks, . . . . . . . . .inaudible. . . . . . . . . . this park area was there but
was never carried through. For these reasons we would like to see the
proposed development of this area, including the road between the two ponds
denied. We feel that the impact such of this kind would have an adverse
effect on the sensitive area. Thank you."
(tape inaudible)
"My name is Coni mith, and I reside at 8860 SW 3checkla, I think its lot
12. My neighbors and I are very opposed to this particular development known
as Mallard Lakes, we strongly feel that the development of this area, as they
have shown, does nut in any way follow the true continuity of these
established surrounding neighborhoods, such as Scheckla Park, Launalinda, and
Pinebrook. The established neighborhoods were developed at 7500 sq. ft. lots
with three bedroom homes on them. The proposed planned lots start at 4250 sq.
ft. ranging up to approximately 6,000 ft, and the average being about 5,000
sq. ft. . I found in their general application filed with the City of Tigard,
on . . . . . . . . . . . That they planned 42 single family two bedroom homes. I feel
clearly this is a difference between our established neighborhoods and those
they are planning. We personally talked to homeowners that own the lots on
this map, colored in orange. . . . . . and we also collected . . . . signatures of
people w.io very strongly against this development. Another point that I feel
is worth mentioning is that the development of road and the building of some
10 houses on the north end of the property would directly curtail the natural
C
Page 12
habitat that now exist in this area. I would object to any change in the
variance that would increase the number small lots/flag lots with common
driveways. Basically what I'm saying is we request a denial of this proposal
the grounds are . . . . . . . . . .
"My name is Myron Recob, I live at 8795 SW Reiling, which is lot three in
Scheckla estates. As much as I would like to see Reiling go through and my
family my family be able to walk to school, I . . . . . . against it, this
development. Basically, the reasons T'm against it . . . . . . . . . . . already
raised. . . . . . . . (inaudible) . . . . . . . . . . . we're at 7,000 sq. ft. in Scheckla,
7,000 sq. ft. lot and those on the other side have an establishment of
approximately the same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm strong urging consideration
for larger lots. We I look at the first cul-de--sac there, southwest Wardin
Court, all chopped up with wants available there with the land there, about
5,000 ft. sq. lot . . . . . . . . with setback and etc. I see no stipulation there of
shake roof or cedar raft or whatever, so it leaves it to my imagination as to
wants to go in there. So I encourage the Commission to deny this proposal.
Thank you."
(tape inaudible)
Page 13
"Ladies and gentleman of the Commission, my name is John Hansel, my home which
was complete on August 1st of this year is located at 888o SW Scheckla Drive.
one of the primary reasons that we choose this area to build our home was
because of the consistency of the surrounding neighborhoods. We relocated
from Tualatin from an apartment residential commes-cial development on wedged
c t 1..; .. wCeara interested in and asked
in between arterial. streets. Becau�` V1 L e _
our realtor about the future or the Mallard Lake property. He told us to his
knowledge the ponds were designated as Ci.ty Park and the remainder of the land
would be developed consistent with the existing neighborhoods. Had we know
that the City's zoning or could be changed at a moments notice to suit
a developers plans we might have reconsidered our purchase. I would like to
also address the overalllocation of the parcel of the proposal. In several
meetings that I hive attendFd, Mr. McMonagle has questioned our opposition to
the plan citing the relative closeness 61r1d therefore continuity of the
Summerfield Community, based on this enlarged portion of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan Map I. would like to point out the proposed development,
shaded in yell.ow, and its relationship to Summerfield, shaded in green. The
proposed site only abuts at one corner and i.s further divided by Sattler
Street. I don't not feel that it is connected to and should not be considered
for development solely on its proximity to a large scale . . . . . . . . . retirement
community . I am aware that the Commission is under- pressure to allow high
density development with today's economic conditions
. However, this
parcel of land, presents what I think are too many obstacles for a residential
development of this kind. Not only for the ecological impact but for the lost
of continuity in the surrounding areas. . . . . . . . . . . I urge the Commission to
reject this plan and if approved will tell the people of Tigard that the
Page 14
zoning restrictions are only as good as the last Commission meeting. Andy any
piece of land, regardless of size or location is subject to rezoning, however
a developer wants to make numbers on a project work. . . . . . . .inaudible. . . . . . . .
Thank you.
Owens, Now for the applicant to make his rebuttal ."
Bill McMonagle, " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For, all the residents w'vi testified, I can
understand their concerns. Our concerns are the As far as the ponds
are concerned. We honestly think they should be saved also. As far as the
dimension of the road going between the ponds. Uh, fifty foot right cif way is
required by City Code and well as state statutes for a public way. From the
best information that we are able to gather, from the aerial topography
mapping of the area. There is approximately 50 feet or m-1re of area to build
the road through there. We may have to, in thn process of building it from,
because of the vertical difference between the lakes, possibly doing some
filling, some cutting to be able to put the road through there. I don't see
it as going to, in an overall manner, destroy the functionability of the
lakes. Relative to the density question, that was spoken to on the north
end. There are six lots and as Keith pointed out, that seventh lot, just a
portion of it would cut into the 100 ft. boundary, uh, and I calculate it
based on what it is is about 1.2, which is within the allowable limit. Now
the contours of the ponds, from an elevation point, the difference between the
two elevations, uh, the best information, again, that we have to go by is the
City of Tigard topography mapping, which, as an engineer, consider to be more
Page 15
accurate than somebody's observation on the site on what they think it might
be. Uh, that sight is almost impermeable at the moment, due to blackberry
bushes that are extremely . . . . . . . . We have not gone in and done any
preliminary clearing at this point and, don't plan to because winters coming
on and we wouldn't have time to do anything, from the standpoint of any
reclamation if we stir the ground up in there and we don't want to do that.
It was spoken of at the time that we had the NPO meeting, uh, of doing that,
and I don't know if I stated our reasons for not doing it at that time, but I
think in general terms I made it clear that we weren't going to go in there
doing any clearing at this time, and those are the reasons. Now the fish in
the ponds were brought in, for all intense and purposes on the legs of birds.
Whether they be ducks, herrings, whatever they are. They didn't just come
there through evolution. So when a persons speaks about the fish in the
ponds, uh, if the man hadn't made the pond the bird wouldn't have had placed
the land and then you've got the chicken and the egg and we all know what that
can get you. Okay, we speak to the density factor as far as the number of
lots in the subdivision. Again, it does boil down to economics. As to what
the worth of the land is and whats being asked for• in the marketplace. The
NPO suggested that we concentrate smaller lots in the southern portion of the
site and make some of the lots on the northern portion larger. We choose not
to do that. I think that probably to some extent, that could be done, but
within reasonable terms of 50 foot lot, conditions the types of homes, that
are going to be built in there, those lots are what we need to service the
types of homes that we plan to build, foundation types. There still building
sites, and whether the lot is 5,000 or 6,000 or 8,000 sq. ft. , uh, I have a
hard time in my mind separating, uh, anything, other than that the buildings
Page 16
site. I think that the buildings and the homes will be just as nice as people
that live in 7,000 sq. ft. lots subdivision. The only reference I've every
made to Summerfield, is that Summerfield Development, the underlyi'- ,J zone is
R-7. And the lots are roughly 52 x 95 feet in depth, and the reason that they
are that way is so that enough land can be generated by concentrating the
___ ... to � able t„ ha„p tho golf course, and the qolf course lakes and the
U l�I1JlVy vv Vc �wa� �_ .._._ _
ponds that exist in Summerfield, and all I was trying to do was to draw the
relationship. Other there any questions.
t
(tape inaudible)
F
Owen., "Public Hearing Closed. . . . . . . . . . . . ."
t
i
(tape inaudible for Fyre, Butler, Campbell)
i
Commissioner Peterson. "Well I agree with the rest of the Commissioners, I
see the ponds as wetlands, uh. I don't know how any development can take
place in the north end of this parcel, I don't see a problem for the rest of
the parcel, but I don't see how he can get in there. I don't think
you can get a road in between the ponds. I think that perhaps that the ponds }
are not drawn correctly on the plat map. That would take out a couple of more
lots, lot 22 that would go out. I guess . . . . . . . the Home Owners Association
be responsible for the maintain for the entire upper end of the parcel . . . . . . . .
\i (balance of tape inaudible)
Page 17
TIGARD PLANNING COrM1ISSI0N
REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 1984
1. Vice President Owens the the meeting GtoRoomer a108655SW P.M. The meeting
was held at the Fowler Junior High
PRESENT: Vice President Ownes, Commissioners Fyre, Butler,
2. ROLL CALL:
, _.. _ �+ Peterson, Vanderwood, and Campbell.
President Moen (arrived 9:15 P.M.) .
ABSENT: Commissioner Bergmann.
STAFF: Director of Planning and Development William A.
Monahan (arriving at (9:30 P.M.); Associate
Planner Liden; Associate Planner Newton (arriving
at 9:15 P.M.); and Secretary Diane M. Jelderks.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
CommissionerCampbell
Commissioner submitted.Vanderwood
to
• approved minutes September 4, 1984 as motion seconded carried
resent.
unanimously by Commissioners p
• Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Fyre seconded to approve
minutes of August 22, 1984, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously
by Commissioners present.
4. PLANNING COM'MIISSION COMMUNICATION
commentome
• Commissioner Butler MallardeL Lake.at Several other Commissio er he had been called athhad
regarding item 5.1,
also been called.
• Commissioner Vanderwood stated she had communication regarding item
5.10, the Richard Smith appeal.
5, PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 4-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC LARD SUBDIVISION PO �64•
VARIANCE V 15-84; WARDIN/FARR DEVELOPMENT/MALLARD LAKE
Request for a rezoning from R-4.5 to R 4.5 (PD), Planned Development
Preliminary Plat approval for a 43 lot, single
Detailed approval and
and a Variance to the maximum cul-de-sac
family residential development,
length of 400 feet to allow a 460+/1 foot length. Located: North of SW
Sattler St. between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivisions, (WCTM
2S1 11A0, lot 6500) .
• Liden reviewed the status of the application,
Associate Planner
recommending approval with conditions. Discussion followed regarding
the wetlands/sensitive lands, density, and NPO # 6 comments.
i
'a
PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 1
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION eed with
•
Bill McMonagle, 8905 SW Commercial. ag ark areas,
ae and athe ff rdpifficulty
commented on the thesity, the DevelopmentvoCode.
involved regarding
NPO COMMENTS
., n 6 Thairnan, reviewed Lhe written material they
•
phi! Paster-is, NWO '� that they are willing to work with the
had submitted, stating
e the Sensitive Lands issue. Discussion tullowe
developer to resolv
regarding the density.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
SW Scheckla Park, opposed the development. He
• Tom Arvidson, 8885
of the ponds stating the applicant's drawings did
submitted drawings
e size of the ponds. His property abuts one of
not accurately show th
the ponds.
• Pat Phelps, 8855 SW Scheckla, opposed the development. Hersubmitted
pictures of the area and gave testimony as to why the property
shoul
be designated wetlands/sensitive lands.
• Connie Smith, 8860 SW Scheckla, opposed the development as proposed.
She submitted a map which depicted the property owners they had
contacted. She also submitted a petition signed by approximately 100
homeowners who opposed the development.
• Myron Recob, 8795 SW Reiling, opposed the development for reasons
previously stated.
Scheckla, opposed the development because it
• John Hansel, 8880 SW
was not consistent with the surrounding area. He submitted a map
showing the project in relationship to the zoning of the surrounding
properties.
REBUTTAL
e Bill McMonagle responded that the their concerns poons. He the
address d the
surrounding property owners regarding
density issue as being consistent with the Community Development Code.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CONMIISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
• hat he had walked the area and supported
Commissioner Fyre stated t
designating the lands as wetlands/sensitive lands.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 2
• Commissioner Butler stated he would deny a park dedication at this
time. Also, his calculation only allowed 38/39 buildable lots
(Commissioner Fyre concurred). He noted sections in the code which
would require the lands to be wetlands/sensitive lands.
• Commissioner Campbell was concerned that the ponds would become a
safety issue with samll children in the development.
• Commission Peterson did not believe the upper portion of the project
could be developed because of the ponds.
• Commissioners Owens and Vander-wood supported that the area should be
designated
• Lengthy discussion followed on how to proceed with the application
with regards to the density and sensitive lands.
* Commissioner Fyre moved and Commissioner Vanderwood seconded to deny
ZC 12-84, PD 4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84 based on the finding that
there appeared to be gross inaccuracy in the mapping of the ponds,
which made density calculations in error. Also,
because of the
number of uncertainies as to whether the City intended the area to be
wetlands. The findings are based upon the following Code sections
and Plan Policies: Sections 18.02 A. ; 18.40.040; 18.80.110 C. 1. 2.
3. 6 4. ; 18.84.010 A. ; 18.92-020 A. 6 B. ; and policies 3.1.1 A. &
F. ; 3.4.2 A. ; 6.3.2; 6.3.3; and 7.2.1 A.
` Motion carried by majority of Commissiuners present. Commissioner
Leverett abstaining because he is an abutting property owner.
5.2 CWPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 20-84, ZONE CHANGE ZC 13-84 BUTTTERFIELD
CNITAL CORP./WESTLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY.
Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential
to Medium High Density Residential and a Zone Change from R-12
(Residential 12 units/acre) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) on
property located at 9815 SW Walnut Place (WCTM 2S1 280, lots 1501 6 1502).
• Associate Planner Liden made staff's recommendation for approval.
Discussion followed as to why this property had been zoned with the
lower density.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION €
Y
• Jerry Mason, Westland Investment, 6823 SW Canyon, explained how
through a sale of this property that it was discovered it had been
downzonMd and why it would be appropriate to rezone to the high
density•
PLANNING COPMISSIONER MINUTES October 2, 1984 Page 3
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.5
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - LGI
10865 S.W. WALNUT
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FINDING OF FACT
1. General Information
CASE: Planned Development (PD 4-84), Subdivision (S 9-84), Zoned
Change (ZC 12-84) and Variance (V 15-84)
REQUEST: Request by G. Ferd Wardin for a rezoning from R-4.5
(Residential, 4.5 units/acre) to R-4.5 (PD) (R-4.5
units/acre, Planned Development) Detailed Planned
Development approval and Preliminary Plat approval of a 43
lot, single family residential development. A variance to
the maximum cul-de-sac length of 400 feet to allow a 460+
foot long cul-de-sac is also requested. The property is
located on the north side of S.W. Sattler Street between
Lauralinda Park and Scheckla Park subdivision, Tigard (Wash.
j Co. Tax Map 2S1 11AD, Tax Lot 6500).
t COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre)
APPLICANT: David L. Farr OWNER: G. Ferd Wardin
Farr Development Co. 915 E. First St.
9520 SW Beaverton Hwy. Newberg, OR 97132
Beaverton, OR 97005
2. Background
Sattler Park Estates received preliminary approval in 1979 (ZC 22-78,
Ord. 79-52), however, the project did not proceed. In 1981, a revised
proposal featuring 34 common wall units, 3 single family residences, and
a 3.7 acre open space area at the northern end of the property. This
project also did not materialize.
3. Vicinity Information
Single family residential subdivisions zoned R-4.5 and R-4.5 (PD) abut
the property on the east, north, and west. The Summerfield development
which zoned R-7 (PD) is located to the southwest on the opposite side of
Sattler Street. The remaining area south of the street is undeveloped
and zoned R-4.5. Except for this undeveloped parcel, the surrounding
( properties are within an Established Area as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 1
E
F
Z
(� A wooded tract adjacent to the northeast corner of the property is owned
l by the City as park land. It contains a drainageway for the ponds and a
bicycle/pedestrian path which connects 89th Avenue with Scheckla Park. C
i
1
4. Site Information
The property is undeveloped, relatively flat, and it contains two small
man-made ponds near the north end of the parcel. The ponds are not
identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a sensitive land area or as open
space.
The applicant proposes to develop a 43 lot, single family residential
subdivisiuu. Lcrn will vary between 4,250 and 8,680 square feet in
41 acres which include the two
size. Two separate parcels of u.8[. and v..,. I
ponds are proposed to be dedicated to the City as park land. The
addition of a Planned Development zoning designation is requested to
allow for a planned development instead of a standard subdivision.
This development will connect the two stub streets which presently
terminate at the east and west sides of the property. local primary
access to the development will be provided by a
street
intersecting with Sattler Street and terminating with a cul-de-sac near
the northern end of the project. The cul-de-sac is proposed to be 460
feet in length from the intersection with the subdivision cross-street.
The area around the ponds is to be cleared selectively, however, they
are to basically be retained in their natural state. The cul-de-sac
street will extend between the ponds. The land adjacent to the ponds is a
proposed to be dedicated as a City park. a
5. Agency & NPO Comments
The Engineering Division has the following comments:
a. Sattler Street is a minor collector street which requires a
right-of-way width of 60 feet.
b. Joint use and maintenance agreements should be required for
all common driveways.
C. The Code requires that street intersections are not less 1
than 600.
d. The street intersection should be modified to be consistent
with Section 18.164.030 H. 1. .
e. Sidewalks should be 5 feet wide and adjacent to the curb
except along Reiling Street between 91st Avenue and Scheckla
Park Estates and along Sattler Street where they should be
constructed along the right-of-way line.
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 2
f. Interior streets shall be dedicated to the public and shall
be improved to City local street standards (50 feet
right-of-way, 34 feet between curbs), including curbs,
sidewalks, streetlights, driveway aprons and wheelchair
ramps.
g. The City Park Board should review proposed "Park Dedication"
of ponds.
h. Private streets (designated Tract "C" & "D") require that a
bonded maintenance agreement be filed with the City or that
a homeowners association be created to assure continued
maintenance. (T.M.C. 18.164.030(S)(2)1_
i. Storm drainage and sanitary sewer details should be provided
as part of the public improvement plans.
B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The proposed development is basically in conformance with the purpose
and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code.
There are several aspects of the project that should be noted and
perhaps discussed in more detail during the public hearing.
( 1. Zone Change
i The Zone Change to add the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone
to the R-4.5 designation is consistent with the R-4.5 (PD) zone
which applies to Scheckla Park Estates to the east. The overall
density allowed on the property remains unchanged.
2. Subdivision Lots
The lots range in size from 4,250 to 8,680 square feet. Setbacks
of 15 feet for front and rear yards, 4 foot side yards, 10 foot
street side yards, and 20 feet between garages and property lines
are proposed. It appears that each lot will have an adequate
buildable area.
The setbacks on the periphery of the development must meet the
requirements of the R-4.5 zone. Also, a house on Lot 29 must
maintain a 10 foot side yard setback from the eastern property
line as required in Section 18.96.090 of the Code.
3. Density
The R-4.5 zone allows for a maximum density of 4.5 units per
acre. Chapter 18.92 of the Code provides a method for calculating
the allowable density for a specific proposal. Sensitive lands,
park land dedications, and public facilities (e.g. streets) are
subtracted from the total to produce a net acreage. The net
C acreage is then divided by the minimum lot size (7,500 square
feet) to establish the maximum number of units allowed.
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 3
calculation
varies depending upon
The answer for the density
the ponds are not dedicat ated lots are
disposition of the ponds.
public and not considered
property. When the sensitiveland
dare esubtrac ark land
from
permissible on the p P ro osed p
the gross acreage, 40 lots are allowed.
d the p P
is dedicated as shown, 38 lots are permitted-
4.
4. Density Transition Area P within
Section 18.40.040 of the Code provides that when developing
Sthe density within this 100 fthe
100 feet of an Established Area,%% of the density allowed by
not exceed .lane the west,
wide area �Y Accordingly, a 100 foot scrip units
Comprehensive Plan lines may not have more than 6.25
north, and east property area contains 5.31 acres and
per acre. The 100 foot wide boundary
31 lots for a density of 5.8 units per acre.
5. Park Land the
p on the City's present
The proposed ark land dedication would need to be reviewed y
City Park and Recreation Board. Based upon
difficulty in maintaining
and resulting land is probably not
financial arks,situation acquiring additional a homeowners
existing parks, ld be maintained by
desirable. The land couublic at a later time when the
association and dedicated to roves.
City's financial situation imp
6, Variance
received in regard to the variance 60 efeeta
No objections were length noted in the Code by
the maximum cul-de-sac aesthe following:
Section 18.160.120 B.
be approved, approved with conditions or denied
A variance may Commission finds:
provided the Planning the
There are special circumstances or conditions
edit oto affecting
ec
1, land as
property which are unusual and
compared to other lands similarly situated;
2. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function
of the subdivision;
3. The granting of a variance will not be injurious to detrimental
rights
public health, safety and we
or inj
of other owners of property; and
4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
ofextraordinary
of a substantial property right because compliance with the
hardship which would result from strict
regulations of this ordinance.
C
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 4
The applicant has submitted the following response to these
( approval criteria:
a• The previously determined street stubout locations of S.W.
Reiling Street determined the southerly intersection
location. The position rod eadjacentsac was to the ponds. so It is
as
to provide more usable ground
felt that a variance of approximately 60 feet in length
tends to preserve the ponds adjacent area.
b. The variance requested is the minimum reserve the to serve the
land adjacent to the cul-de-sac and^ preserve
vept e..,.1 r ponds as
Ci . -ard o
ng
opposed to using La— �� ponds.
unnecessary construction directly adjacent to the
to the
C. The granting of vaa welfare and willrince will not be detnote injure any
safet
public health, Y or
adjacent property rights.
will be
d• All other City requirements for street construction
utilities do
met. Sewer, storm drainage, water supplyfic
not pose any problems due to this request. Troffer
circulation will be virtually the same as any
cul-de-sac.
The Planning staff concurs with the rationale presented by the
his applicant. However, tiof the based ne assumption
ponds does not conflict with
development around and north
any sensitive lands or environmental issues.
As stated above, the proposal warrants additional discussion
before a complete set of recommended conditions can be established.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends approval of PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, and
V 15-84 subject to the following conditions:
1. Standard half-street improvement to minor collector standards
i
including sidewalks, curbs, street lights, and wheelchair ramps
shall be provided along the S.W. Sattler Street frontage to match
the alignment of existing improvements.
2. Seven (7) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction �
plans and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by
detailing all proposed public
a registered civil engineer,
to the City's Engineering Division
improvements shall be submitted
for approval.
}, Storm and sanitary sewer details and pond details shall be
provided as part of the public improvement plans.
C
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 5
4. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence
until after the Engineering Division has issued approved public
improvement plans (the Division will require posting of a 100%
performance bond), the payment of a permit fee and a sign
installation/streetlight deposit. Also, the execution of a
construction compliance agreement shall occur prior to, or
concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement
plans.
5. Joint use and maintenance agreements shall be recorded for all
common driveways and copies of the recorded document(s) shall be
submitted to the Planning Director.
6. The intersection of 91st Avenue and Reiling Street shall be
modified to be consistent with Section 18.164.030 H-1--
7. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the public along the
Sattler Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to 30 feet
from centerline. The legal description for said dedication shall
be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Division and
recorded with Washington County.
8. After review and approval by the Planning Director and City
Engineer, the final plat shall be recorded with Washington county
and a mylar copy of the recorded plat shall be submitted to the
City Engineering Division within 15 days of recording.
9. Survey Conditions apply as follows:
a. Compliance with Section 18.160.160 (All) with the
following exceptions and notes:
Exceptions:
(1) 18.160.160 A.2.
Capped 5/8" X 30" I.R. 's on surface of final asphalt
lift will be acceptable.
Notes:
(1) 18.160.160 B.1.
Point numbers for all points in C.S. 20,223 have been
increased by one. Ex: point No. 56 is not point No.
57. This was due to improper point numbering in S.C.
19.947.
(2) 18.160.160 B.2.
Local grid coordinates are acceptable. The City will
make transformation to State Plan coordinates.
C
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 6
18.160.160 Monumentation, Basis of Bearing Requirements and
Acceptance of Improvements
A. Monumentation
1. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2),
the centerlines of all street and roadway
right-of-ways shall be monumented before the
City shall accept a street improvement.
2. All centerline monuments shall be placed in a
monument box conforming to City standards, and
the top of all monument boxes shall be set at
design finish grade of said street or roadway.
3. The following centerline monuments shall be set:
a. All centerline-centerline intersections.
Intersections created with "collector" or
other existing streets, shall be set when
the centerline alignment of said
"collector- or other street has been
established by or for the City;
b. Center of all cul-de-sacs;
C. Curve points. Point of intersection
(P.I.) when their position falls inside
the limits of the pavement otherwise
beginning and ending points (B.C. and
E.C.).
d. A11 sanitary and storm locations shall be
placed in positions that do not interfere
with centerline monumentation
10. The zoning map designation shall be changed from R-4.5 to R-4.5
(PD).
11. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final
decision date. The final plat must be filed within this time
period or the approval shall expire.
PREPARED BY: Keith Liden APPROVED BY: William A. Monahan
Associate Planner Director of Planning 6
Development
(KSL:pm/0604P)
STAFF REPORT - PD 4-84, S 9-84, ZC 12-84, V 15-84 - PAGE 7
r-
f
CITY OF TIGARD
FINAL ORDER NO. 84-/Q PC
A FINAL ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY G. FERD WARDIN,
FILE NUMBERS ZC 12-84, PD 4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84, DENYING THE REQUESTS,
ENTERING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.
The Tigard Planning Commission heard the above application at a hearing held
on October 2, 1984. Bill McMonagle appeared on behalf of the applicant and
several people testified in opposition to the proposal.
The Commission finds the following FACTS in this natter:
1. The property is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) and located
north of S.W. Sattler Street between Launalinda Park and Scheckla Park
subdivisions, (Wash. Co. Tax Map 2S1 IiAD, Tax Lot 6500).
2. The applicant's justification is presented in the minutes of the
September 4, 1984 and October 2, 1984 Commission hearings. Information
supporting the request is found in Planning File Numbers ZC 12-84, PO
4-84, S 9-84, and V 15-84.
Based upon the record in this case, the Commission makes the following
FINDINGS:
1. The relevant approval criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1
and 2; Comprehensive Policies 3.1.1 a. and 4. , 3.4.2 a. , 6.3.2, 6.3.3,
and 7.2.1 a. ; and Community Development Code sections 18.02 A. , 18.40.040, {
18.80.110 C.I. through 4. , 18.84.010 A. , and 18.92.020 A. and B.
2. Statewide Planning Goal 01 is met because the City hat adopted a Citizens i
Involvement Program including review of all development applications by
the Neighborhood Planning Organization (NPO). In addition, all notice
requirements were met.
3. Statewide Planning Goal N2 is met because the City applied all applicable
Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies, and
Development Code requirements to the application.
4. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 a. is not satisfied because the northern
portion of the property is known to have a high seasonal water table and
it has not been demonstrated that this area can be made suitable for
development. i
S. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.4.2 is not satisfied because it has not been
shown that the clearing and grading proposed will preserve the wildlife i
habitat values of the ponds and the adjoining area.
6. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3.2 is not met because the number of lots on
C_ the north side of the development exceeds the density allowable by he, density transition section of the Community Development Code. p
FINAL ORDER NO. 84-_PC - G. FERD WARDIN - PAGE i
7. Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.3 .3 is not satisfied because the proposed
subdivision is of a higher density than the adjacent developments.
8. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1 is not satisfied because the applicant has
not shown that the development will not create adverse off-site impacts.
The drainage on the northern portion of the property is poor and the
development will encroach upon this area without a plan for mitigating
adverse impacts.
9. The proposal is contrary to the ppurpose of Community
� Developmentumnyenwith Code
Section 18.02 A. because the proposal
physical limitations of the property.
10. Section 18.40.040 of the Community Development Code is not satisfied
because he anus imus of lllowablelthin densityein this trather nsition feet ofeche subdivision
exceeds
y Development
e are
11. Sections 18.80.ilc;uCQl;nsuffici nt informatioC nnwwanstsubmitted tto ad quately
not satisfied be
:ection
valuate the proposal•
iZ. 18.84..010 A. of the Community Development Code applies to this
issue
application and the related sensitive lands s have not been addressed.
e are
13. Sections 18.92.020 A. and B. of the exceeds t unity 00
allowablb numvelopmenbe�of resid ntial
because the density proposed
units based upon the provisions of the Code.
The Commission adopts the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. eased upon Findings 2, and 3, the Commission has determined that the
proposal meets the applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
2. eased upon Findings 4 through 13, the Commission has determined that the
proposal is not consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
and Community Development Code requirements.
eased upon the above findings and conclusions, the Commission denies ZC 12-84,
PD 4-94. S 9-94, and V 15-94.
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this
order. 0
PASSED: This __-t_
day of � _ 1984, by the Planning
Commission of the City of Tigard.
A. Donald Moen. President
Tigard Planning Commission
j (KSL:pm/0719P)
FINAL ORDER NO. 94-_W_PC - G. FERO NARDIN - PAGE 2
GILBERTSON. BROWNSTEIN, BASK, SWEENEY, KERR S GRIM
GTT Cr F:NES- GT Lt.W
IC�;C• :. W. M.I. N L' IIL C11N1-
PC.IR-LGNE'. OFYE-(-ON 97205
CrOr-INt
r.:
C,
eF
qAr M[�NC M —51
SES SWEENEI Ee r •eR
.lb-EW>. .EAf+ November 9, 1984
n.- ♦.JENSE,-
W•, v cN • e Fn..
• ffltiov 9 1984
D
City Recorder CITY OF TIGARD
Tigard City Hall PUNNING DEPT.
12755 S.W Ash
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Re: G. Ferd Wardin
Notice of Appeal of Final Order No. 84-10 PC
Dear Recorder:
Enclosed is a Notice of Appeal with regard to the Mallard
Lakes Planned Development Application .
Please provide me with a tape recording of the minutes of
the appropriate hearings. Petitioner also requests that a
transcript be made, and, accordingly, enclosed is a check for
$450.00 to cover the $150 .00 estimated costs of preparation of the
transcript and the $300 .00 filing fee.
Sincerely,
MARK B. WEINTRAUB
MBW: js
Enclosures
cc: G. Ferd Wardin
William McMonagle
\ William Monahan
Keith Liden
Tigard Planning Commission
r
I BEFORE THE CITY COUNSEL
2 OF THE CITY OF TIGARD
3 In the Matter of the Application )
for a Zone Change Amendment, )
4 Plan Development, Subdivision, ) File Nos.
and Variance Requested by G. ) ZC 12-84, PD 4-85
5 Ferd Wardin. ) S 9-84, V 15-84
6 Petitioner. )
7
8 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ORDER NO. 84-10 PC
9 G. Ferd Wardin petitioner, hereby gives notice of his
10 appeal to the City Counsel of the City of Tigard of the Final
11 Order No. 84-10 PC of the Tigard Planning Commission, dated
12 October 29, 1984 . Copies of the Final Order and Notice of Final
13 Order are attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the Application is
14 attached as Exhibit B.
16 The petitioner qualifies as a party pursuant to
16 518. 32.290(b) of the Community Development Code, as the property
17 owner and deed holder. Petitioner appeared before the Planning
18 Commission and was entitled as of right to notice and hearing
19 prior to the decision to be reviewed.
20 The specific grounds for appeal are as follows:
21 1 ) The Planning Commission misconstrued the applicable
22 law, including provisions of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan,
23 Policies 3 .1.1a, 3.4 .2, 6.3.2, 6.3. 3, and 7.2.1, and Community
24 Development Code, Sections 18.02 A, 18.40.040, 18.80.110 C.1-.4,
25 18.84.010 A, and 18.92.020 A. and B. ;
26 2 ) The decision of the Planning Commission including
Page 1 - NOTICE OF APPEAL
GILBERTSON,BROWNSTEIN,BASK,SWEENEY,KERR i GRIM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1200 S.W.Main Wilding
ponlond,Or on 97205
Tolepho"(5031 221.1772
i
i
i
1
I Findings 1 and 4-13 and Conclusion 2, is not supported by subs tan-
2 tial evidence in the whole record;
3 3 ) The Findings and Conclusions of the Commission do not
E
4 support the denial of the Application;
5 4 ) The Applicant was not afforded a basis to contest
6 certain materials and communications presented by the opponents;
7 5 ) The Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to
8 gather additional evidence;
9 6 ) The decision is inconsistent with Sections 18.80 .010,
10 18.80.060(b), and 18.80 .080 of the Community Development Code;
11 7 ) Petitioner complied with Section 18.80.030 of the
12 Community Development Code;
13 8 ) The order is based upon Comprehensive Plan Policies
14 and map designations, substantive ordinance provisions, and other
16 policies, regulations, and constraints not cited to the applicant
16 at the Pre-Application Conference, as required by Section
17 18.32.040 of the Community Development Code;
18 9 ) The Applicant satisfied his burden of proof that the
19 Application fully complied with the City of Tigard Comprehensive
20 Plan and the relevant approval standards found in the applicable
21 chapters of the Community Development Code and the standards and
22 criteria that were applicable at the time the Application was
23 first submitted.
24
25 * •
26
Page
2 - NOTICE OF APPEAL
GILBERTSON,BROWNSTEIN,RASR,SWEENEY.ICERR i GRIM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1200 S.W.Main Building
►ortbnd,prpon
TdepMm»(fOfl)221.1772
I The Final Order of the Planning Commission was filed
2 October 30, 1984 . Notice was received October 31 , 1984 . The
3 deadline for filing an appeal is 4: 30 p.m. , November 9 , 1984 .
4 DATED this 9th day of November, 1984 .
5 GILBERTSON, BROWNSTEIN, RASK,
SWEENEY, KERR & GRIM
6
Bv
8 MARK B. WEINTRAUB
Of Attorneys for Petitioner
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C
Page 3 - NOTICE OF APPEAL
GILBERTSON,BROWNS EI NEY�T SWESWEENEY'KERR&GRIM
ATTO1200 S.W.Main Building
Ponland,Oregon 97205
Telephone 15031 221.1772
�l
SEP 23 1.984
CITY OF (IGHKU 4/-27/8
—I uiv(/1i5SG4YPlLANNING DEPT.
o aj �s/,,w s
S FD y -8q{ s y-9, - c (2-8 y S-�
�S
I CAA ,9ea( 'AM OJL
rt SzAA Sr f t C / '�G� aA-CO— d-L- Cts o la�
N,00 rKG�tcu � 71t al
f�u� �c�c.�
Iva G2-- SP&AA !E'ja ,,CAA
SR S c iCaLS l&AAA ir-1 M
• ��� P. r- ss , 3a��
�sus I�I;GC- �'��� � �� �-�-�- ,�►� ��.
Kum .
0
Deus Ovt
d - � 5
n "es
/- 17
Ab
�AWMJJ
. _ w s ,k s�
lipo cAac nutK r>
/�4�e�
�tirZ &nAA C,4— Cut&
un c,e� C�
c.kuAeA-c
5 s s
WLA
_
OilAAJ
-Sac-
C)
ac.O
cv,-V\ m m a C-C'e—
2 3 y / jo
Gnn d S 6xu 6-c-- 22 d -s c
sl�fZ4Y1 m � A c r-Az r✓l
I `�
!�o /n� ok- u 4 n, -�
nod c ave�t v �o
u,9c ki, /64, ox s i
s ��9 7o a� ��s �- n1-�r►•vu.w�
i I i vi 1Jl1 ( ,S-reah-& aA4d S�� 41C Ad4?S
� I �/► Un cite
: o i n c oyt f roe 01e UC
47r� �
S-
�cv
2 . � c s, S��u "C a—reC.0 C.,+ 4&-e --
�u.�n
cL s
� : P C4 A A-s �M
v7 .
� P �
s�I'V"V",
�4-Al
NPO xtco h r s -t� � r
PW cj r�
5 J S
c v,� CAA�
fel aM.vu�w C-wvtrvt c��� G'ru�c� � S �
J�S lSS � a
xoo"
, A,'<- C&tAA P �
_-cul
—.—(
•,}i0
~ -
F.71
_ i t
_TON ,
;4 rE•tl' y � _�
cr
CT _
►C f•
�•—- s_ _ '� __ - = -mer
SSM'.MM _ `r`a - ,-- -• _ Jm. _ -_ , 1 �—�+
JA f.:
r
4. 5 12 .
low cm
V"�H 7 IS 7
14
*-N
• . • tia• � � •- � ilk
�#
r.
:;.. ��_
,, �L
.,� � �-
�, -�'�
�_
.��
, .
-�
•. �'� _�
. ,
� �
_ ��
��
, r
1
d�
i y -
' r
j � r
n�
''ip�S•vY ����1�
F
L At e.
s .
i
.1
a:
_ M C-
v
C � '
jt `
4'
T
•.l
z F-
{ �a
.i NF
1� J
T..
Y
f ti
R;~
If- _
1'
.� vv
i
•:� L- Y r
s,:pit•-� 4
� �5 a
w �
V'.
..ice- �,• .
Ff
21
TI.
r , {` tt, y
I
J,
i r
AL
k.
i
r
s,.
1
�Qr�
sti
��
'�
�,
,�?
ti
'�� ',
� �,
+~
� ,
..
i
vi
" f.
.L
�,
.. 1,'��
�, .r. '� 3
t
K
i
' I
i
i
l ;
f
r
1
t r� "
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
ppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately
6,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE #
n � Wil.✓ ��� �
J
`1
�u�v� �_ t1rL�-� ���S�W► �+��"�t'l�i ?J�4'�� �o2d` 7&,S ccl
Q3�ZyyyL�.r a / 75 T. d O-.2 718Y !/
97 L-
7p�� S.w• 1 �� �✓' �'Z� 4� 2
(o 7`, 7 y z
YjS W
q
9
t certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date1"-.27 1984
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
opose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately
6,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE
iit' �8
1S0�S ski (rcZ ���- zv°1 - a� d'j y 'C?-7l
dy
y
i
Z�o � S/ 0'0
•So
VW 4-0 S)A)• ��cu ��- ��3 - 30 -�4-
WIZa -
-7
certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date ?6Z , 1984 A
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
ppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately
6,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE # DATE
q 30 84,, l
{ certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on thq date shown following their signature.
Date I fzk . 1984
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
opose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 , 250 square feet to approximately
6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the
continuity
Launalyndathe
Parksonbthehed
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North.
The
proposed
north ofconstruction
ponds of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
PHONE # DATE /QL�
NAME ADDRESS
5 5 W Sc ke C k l e-
S SW isCAXe_ VC,
g 8 i s Sw g 6 L°- 82s-6
�. 8 _� s(kJ S
�o
vS, 20
&A-
CA' W �
o s� Co
o
,.� 62 0S, V w- 7
certify tha
son who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date 60
1984 /
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
ppose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 square feet to approximately
6,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
NAME ADDRESS
PHONE # DATE
�8 5 Sw ec T`_Cx
l �5 sw 4 RAV G C42-0 03%+ ::q2� d
ss�_)sd4ee&4 W 6 �s-�9
certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date , 1984
We, the undersigned homeowners at the addresses set opposite our signatures,
ipose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. The plan proposes 43 single-family
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 , 250 square feet to approximately
6 ,000 square feet. This does not maintain the continuity of the established
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Estates on the East, Launalynda Park on the
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The proposed construction of
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development.
ADDRESS PHONE # DATE
O SW 22 n 62 - 02 45 - 2S 4
` -a?8-
d -
-.1, 9 - P4E
a 67Vf fk�
—�0
13:1,77e
` S— 9
lc7 SO 92�wja &zo- 79 Z 1— 9 t
certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date 1984
i
• opposite our signatures,
We, the undersigned homeowners atlohmeRddreThesplan proposes 43 single-family
,pose the Mallard Lake Plan Development. square feet to approximately
dwellings on lots ranging in size from 4 ,250 s�I of the established
6 ,000 square feet. This does notatesnon1thethe
Eastntinuity Launalynda Park on the
neighborhoods: Scheckla Park Es proposed construction of
West and Pinebrook Subdivision on the North. The prop tion
a 60-foot road between the ponds and the development north of the ponds
would greatly
curtail the natural habitat of the pond area. We, therefore,
ask for a denial of the Mallard Lake Plan Development. DATE
PHONE #
NAME ADDRESS
..:0�� ��0 SW ?i2 vim...... _
G 3� .7.a 57-0
no
A ao -61t�
-
(J-16- 11Y7
S
4L if4
6l0-_1� 9
41)
' cy .w. �2�d v�� 20�
I �-�
> � �� 0 9- 3v�'
e ' ' c u �- �D
---------------
� ( certify that every person who signed this document did so in my presence
on the date shown following their signature.
Date /0 - , 1984
GILBERTSON. BROWNSTEIN, RASK, SWEENEY, KERR S GRIM
ATTORNEYS A7 LAW
1200 S. W. MAIN BUILDING
PORTLAND. OREGON 97205
JOHN R.G:LCEPTSON TELEPHONE 1503)22772 BREL T..-A
GEORGE G.CURT:S'
R,CHARC J.BROWNSTE'N
M OwA[' R.SAN LO'/.
pAVMONC M.RAS•
JErREv v..ILL
MILES SWEENEY p
ANDREW P. HERR December 5 1904 JEEN BOWERY♦
MARK B.WEINTRAJB
DOUGLAS R.GRIM
KIT A.JENSEN
DAVID J.SWEENEY
NDI
q:IERT%D •O.CGON STATC.Nc
WAS��NGTOM STAT[BA•`HAND-DELIVERED EC 5 19£ 4
City Council CITY OF TIGARD
City of Tigard PLANNING DEPT. r-CZ ►F G{ '�� P�1
Tigard City Hall
12755 S.W. Ash
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Re: G. Ferd Wardin -- Mallard Lakes; Appeal of Final
Order No. 84-10PC
Dear Members of the City Council:
Please accept this letter as the written argument under
Community Development Code § 18. 32.320 B ( 3) in support of the
appeal of G. Ferd Wardin of the Firal Order No. 84-10PC of the
Tigard Planning Commission .
INTRODUCTION
This appeal is taken from the denial of a proposal for a
subdivision planned development zone change and variance, reviewed
by the Planning Commission on September 4 and October 2, 1984.
The proposal was reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Staff, after consultations with the Engineering Division
and the applicant. Because no comments were received from NPO 6,
the first hearing on the matter was tabled, and the applicant was
asked to discuss the development with the NPO. On October 2,
1984, a public hearing was held. At that time, the staff again
recommended approval with some recommended conditions. (Tr. 3. )
Phil Pasteris, NPO 6 Chairman , did not oppose development of the
north portion of the property, but recommended that any higher
density in the development be located toward the south. (Tr. 8. )
Several residents opposed development, and one submitted a peti-
tion urging denial of the development application. The applicant
also made a presentation, emphasizing that the proposal was con-
sistent with the Community Development Code and that it had been
approved by the staff.
The site is surrounded on three sides by Launalynda Park,
the Pinebrook development, and Scheckla Park. The fourth side
abuts S.W. Sattler Road. The property is on a gentle slope,
highest at the north end. It drains to the south and east. It
r
City Council Members
Page -2-
December 5, 1984
contains two man-made ponds, originally used as livestock watering
holes. These ponds drain into Pinebrook Park to the east of the
property.
The proposed planned development incorporates the ponds
as an extension of the greenway created by Pinebrook Park. The
applicant proposed dedicating a strip 165 to 260 feet wide,
running east-west and surrounding the ponds, as a city park. This
greenway would be bisected by a cul-de-sac prov4.ding access to the
northern third r.f the property. When the City Park and Recreation
Board expressed a desire not to acquire additional land, the
planning staff recommended, with the applicant 's concurrence, that
the land be maintained by a homeowners association, possibly to be
dedicated to the public at a later time. The property was pre-
viously approved for development in June 1979. Despite neigh-
borhood opposition, the City approved at that time an application
for thirty-seven lots, including thirty-four common-wall units and
three single family residences . (Ord. 79-52. ) The property was
subsequently sold, and a new application submitted in 1981. At
the time, the file shows, Planning Director Aldie Howard suggested
to the applicant that "you may wish to reduce the density .
and pick up more single family units to the north. " In conjunction
with the 1979 and 1981 applications, drainage and feasibility stu-
dies were submitted, showing the feasibility of development.
Aerial photographs showed the size and location of the man-made
ponds .
Petitions in opposition to development were submitted in
response to the 1981 application. They were certified by Phillip
Pasteris, now Chairman of NPO 6. Opposition at that time was
based on the proposed duplexes and on a proposed parking area on
the northern portion of the property. Ultimately, the proposed
proposal was abandoned.
A 1979 preliminary Flood Plain and Wetlands map contained
in Volume I of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan (I - 23 ) shows that a
portion of the property was tentatively included in a drainageway
or wetland. The area so designated, however, is the portion of
the property to the south of the ponds. Additionally, the
wetlands area surrounds and includes the area now developed as
Scheckla Park. The Pinebrook Park ravine and the northern third
of the subject property are not included in the wetlands area. In
the current Flood Plain and Wetlands map revised July 1984, the
City Council Members
Page -3-
December 5 , 1984
drainageway and wetlands designation has been deleted for both
Scheckla Park and the area to its west. None of the subject pro-
perty is shown as drainageway or wetlands on the current Wetlands
map.
1. The Planning Commission Misconstrued the
Applicable Development Regulations.
Finding 4 . The Planning Commission 's finding 4 states
Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.1.1 A was not satisfied because the
northern portion of the property was "known" to have a high seaso-
nal water table and it had not been demonstrated that the area
could be made suitable for development. Policy 3.1.1 A does state
that the City should not allow development in areas having a high
seasonal water table (which this property does not ) unless shown
suitable for development. However, the accompanying
Implementation Strategies (II Tigard Comprehensive Plan at 13 )
state that "the City shall designate on a map areas having physi-
cal limitation (poor drainage, seasonal flooding, unstable
ground) ." The north portion of the property referred to in
! Finding 4 of the Commission 's Order is not designated as having a
[ high water table on the July 1984 Flood Plain and Wetlands map.
Moreover, it has never been shown as wetlands. On the 1979
Wetlands map, as d cussed above, the north property was not shown
as drainageway or wetlands, even though that map specifically
defines such areas as those having "ground water seasonably within
one and one-half feet of the surface." Thus, Policy 3.1.1 A did
not apply to the application.
Finding 5 . The Commission found that Comprehensive Plan
Policy 3.4 . 2 was not satisfied because it had not been shown that
the clearing and grading proposed would preserve the wildlife
habitat values of the ponds and adjoining area. The
Implementation Strategies for Policy 3.4 .2, however, state that
"the City shall encourage, through the planned development
process," the retention of habitat areas. (II Tigard
Comprehensive Plan at 17, emphasis added. ) This is exactly what
the planned development proposed in this application was designed
to do, by preserving the albeit man-made ponds and incorporating
them into a greenway extending through Pinebrook Park.
3
Finding 6. The Commission stated that Comprehensive Plan
Policy 6.3. 2 was not met because the number of lots on the north
{
City Council Members
Page -4-
December 5, 1984
side of the development exceeded the density allowable by the den-
sity transition section of the Community Development Code,
S 18.40.040. This finding directly contradicts the Staff Report,
which found that S 18.40.040 had been met. Section 18.40.040 pro-
vides that the density within the 100 foot wide area adjacent to
an established area may not exceed 1258 of the density allowed in
the adjacent established areas by the Comprehensive Plan. As the
Staff Report found, the maximum density allowed in the transition
area is 6.25 units per acre. The 100 foot wide boundary area con-
tains 5 . 31 acres and thirty-one proposed lots for a density of 5.8
units per acre. Clearly, S 18.40.040 of the Community Development
Code was met. To the extent that S 18.40.040 might conflict with
Policy 6. 3.2, the more specific Community Development Code imple-
mentation provision, which was met in this application, would be
controlling. See, e.g. , Liles v. City of Gresham, 7 Or. LUBA 87
(1982 ) .
r
Finding 7. The Commission stated that Comprehensive Plan
Policy 6. 3. 3 was not satisfied because the proposed subdivision
was of a higher density than adjacent developments. Policy 6. 3.3
states that "a primary consideration" shall be to preserve and
enhance the character of adjacent established areas. The section
does not provide any formula for implementing that policy, but a
specific formula is found in S 18.92.020 A and B of the Community
Development Code. The Planning Staff found that the density
calculations in S 18.92.020 were met. As discussed above, the
ponds are not designated as sensitive lands in the Comprehensive
Plan, and the Park and Recreation Board has declined to acquire
them as park land. Thus, as stated in the Staff Report, "if the
ponds are not dedicated to the public and not considered as a sen-
sitive land area, 44 lots are permissible on the property.
(Staff Report at 4. )
Finding 8. The Commission found that Comprehensive Plan
Policy 7.2.1 was not satisfied "because the applicant has not
shown that the development will not create adverse offsite
impacts." Policy 7. 2.1 is a general policy requiring as a precon-
dition to development that, in areas subject to poor drainage or
having natural drainage ways, it be shown that the developement is
safe and will not create adverse offsite impacts. The policy is a
general one, and it is noted in the preceding Findings that "most
of the following policies have been transformed into city
regulations. " (II Tigard Comprehensive Plan at 44 . )
C
City Council Members
Page -5-
December 5, 1984
The Staff Report recommended approval of the application
with a condition that storm and sanitary sewer details and pond
details be provided as part of the public improvement plans.
(Staff Report at 5 . ) This would be an appropriate method to
satisfy the general Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2.1. That policy
by itself did not justify the denial of the application, when the
application otherwise satisfied the Code's specific implementation
provisions.
Finding 9 . The Commission found that the proposal was
"contrary to the purpose of Community Development Code S 18.02 A.
This general policy states that one of the purposes of the code is
to insure that property development is commensurate with the phy-
sical characteristics of the land. As previously stated, a
general policy such as this cannot justify the denial of an appli-
cation, when the specific implementation provisions have been s
satisfied. Thus, to cite another example, in Stephens v.
Clackamas County, 8 Or. LUBA 172 (1983 ) , the Land Use Board of s
Appeals found Clackamas County's findings inadequate when they
/ merely stated that a conflict existed with the "purposes" section
l of the zoning ordinance.
Finding 10. The Commission found that S 18.40.040 was
not satisfied because the number of the lots within the northern
100 feet of the subdivision would exceed the maximum allowable
density in the transition area. As previously discussed,
S 18.40.040 was satisfied. The Staff Report found that the 100 r
foot wide boundary area contains 5 . 31 acres, and that the proposed {
31 lots within that area would create a density of 5.8 units per
acre. Since the maximum would be 6.25 units, the application
complied with S 18.40.040. (Staff Report at 4 . )
Finding 11. The Commission found that SS 18.80.110 C.1
through 4 of the Commmunity Development Code were not satisfied
"because insufficient information was submitted to adequately eva-
luate the proposal." That section requires a conceptual develop-
ment plan to include data regarding existing site conditions, a
site concept, a grading concept, and a landscape concept.
However, if insufficient information had been submitted for an
adequate evaluation, the Commission should have ordered a con-
tinuance (as it had already done once for the benefit of the NPO)
in order to allow the applicant and staff to gather and submit
City Council Members
Page -6-
December 5 , 1984
additional information. The Commission did not find that
S 18.80.110 was not met, but only that insufficient information
had been submitted.
Finding 12. The Commission found that S 18.84.010 A of
the Community Development Code "applies to this application and
the related sensitive lands issue have not bee� addressed."he This
finding clearly misconstrued S 18.84 .010 A, patof
ve
lands provisions of the Community Development
ntiCode.
allyunsuitab4 .0 0 A
states that "sensitive lands are lands po
development because of their location within the 100 year flood
plain, with a natural drainageway, on steep slopes, or on unstable
ground." (III Tigard Comprehensive Plan at 139. ) Additionally,
Statewide Planning Goal 2, Part I, states that a city's published
plan documents "shall be the basis for specifireimplemevised Jntation
measures." The Flood Plain and Wetlands map,
1984 , on file at Tigard City Hall, does net designate this pro-
perty as sensitive lands . Therefore, Finding 12 in the Planning
Commission's Order is clearly mistaken in finding that
licatisen-
sitive lands provisions of the Code apply to this app
Finding 13. The Commission's final finding was the SS
18.92.020 A and B of the Community Development Code were not met
because the proposed density exceeded the allowable maximum. This
provision was carefully addressed by the Planning Staff and
discussed in the Staff Report. The maximum density is calculated
by dividing the number of square feet in the "net development
area" by the minimum number of square feet required for each lot
by the applicable zoning district, in this case 4 .5 units per
acre. Sensitive lands, park land dedications, and public facili-
ties ares
ubtracted from the total r�ycrethereowere cnoadesignated the
t area."
developmenFor this property,
sensitive land areas and no lprop
and dedicated the public for park
purposes. Therefore, as the Staff Report found, the aximummorehan
number of lots permissible on the property
the proposed 42 lots.
2. The Commission's Findings Were Not Supported By
Substantial Evidence.
There is no support in the record for the specific fin-
dings made by the Commission. The Commissions factual findings
included the following:
City Council Members
Page -7-
December 5, 1984
1 . The northern portion of the property is known to have
a high seasonable winter table;
2. It has not been demonstrated that this area can be
made suitable for development;
3. It has not been shown that clearing and grading will
preserve the wildlife habitat values of the ponds and adjoining
areas;
4 . Drainage on the northern portion of the property is
poor;
5. The proposal is not commensurate with the physical
limitations of the property.
None of these findings was any support in the record.
The northern portion of the property, contrary to having a high
seasonal water table, has never had any reported drainage
problems. The 1979 Flood Plain and Wetlands map, which showed a
p natural drainageway encompassing all of Sheckla Park and the
[. southern portion of this property, did not designate the northern
portion of the property as a drainage way. In fact, the
topographic map submitted with the application shows that the
highest elevation is found on the northern portion of the property
and that the property drains primarily to the south and east.
This is further confirmed by an extensive drainage study which was
submitted in conjunction with the 1979 and 1981 Sattler Park
Estates proposal . (ZC 22-78, ORD. 79-52 )
There was no evidence that the northern portion of the
property was unsuitable for development. The Staff Report found
to the contrary, recommending approval. The Engineering Division,
while requesting storm drainage and sanitary sewer details, did
not contest the suitability of the property for development. NPO
6 did not object to the placement of lots 12 through 17, all to
the north of the ponds, but only to the common access driveways
intended to service them. (NPO 6 Chairman Phil Pasteris to Tigard
Planning Commission, September 27, 1984, at 3 ) .
There was also no evidence that the wildlife habitat
values of the ponds would be impaired. To the contrary, the pro-
posal maintains the continuity between the ponds and the Pinebrook
City Council Members
Page -8-
December 5, 1984
Park ravine. As the Staff Report noted, "The area around the
ponds is to be cleared selectively, however, they are to basically
be retained in their natural state. " No evidence was submitted to
the contrary.
As previously discussed, there was no evidence to support
the conclusion that drainage on the northern portion of the pro-
perty was poor or that the proposal was not commensurate with the
property' s physical limitations. To the contrary, the file shows
that the City Building Inspector and Engineer both found that
development could proceed satisfactorily subject to appropriate
storm and sanitary details and attention to the ponds.
Finally, the Staff Report specifically found that ponds
were man-made and not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a
sensitive land area or as open space. (Staff Report at 2 . )
3 . The Findi is and Conclusions of the Commission
Did Not Support Denial of the Application.
Even if the findings and conclusions of the Commission
are for purposes of discussion, accepted as accurate and well-
founded, they supported, at most, a continuance of the application
to allow for a further study and reformulation of the proposal.
(See Community Development Code S 18.30.110. ) For example, it
has since been suggested, in the course of the December 4 Planning
Commission meeting, that the northern portion of the property
could be developed through the use of a narrower private road
serving a smaller number of lots. This private road might be an
extension of the proposed S.W. 91st Court cul-de-sac, or an exten-
sion of S.W. 89th Avenue through the corner of Pinebrook Park.
NPO 6, in its report to the Planning Commission, expressed a
willingness to work with the developers, Planning Commission, City
Council, and others to resolve any sensitive land issues and
insure a development consistent with the established neighborhood.
The Planning Commission's denial of the application, however,
cut off the opportunity for the informal discussions necessary to
achieve this result.
Instead of denying the application, the Commission had at
least two other alternatives. It could have continued the pro-
ceedings allowing for a further discussion and a reformulation of
could have approved the application with con-
the plan. It also
ditions sufficient to address the concerns of the neighborhood.
C
City Council Members
Page -9-
December 5, 1984
it should be noted that NPO 6 did not recommend denial of
the application, but, in its report, only recommended further
cooperative efforts. The Planning Staff recommended approval with
conditions . Thus, the action taken by the Commission was incon-
sistent with its own staff recommendation and with the position of
the neighborhood planning organization .
4 . The Applicant Was Not Afforded An Opportunity
To Gather Additional Evidence.
One of the basis for the Planning Commission 's decision
was that the applicant allegedly had not demonstrated that the
area could be made suitable for development, had not shown the
minimization of adverse offsite impacts and had submitted insuf-
ficient information for adequate evaluation of the proposal .
Rather than a denial of the proposal, the Planning Commission
should have advised the applicant of these concerns and given him
an opportunity to present additional information. By not making
these findings until after the conclusion of the public hearing,
the Commission denied the applicant an opportunity to submit addi-
tional evidence or even to respond to the Commission's concerns.
To deny the application on that basis was patently unfair.
5 . The Commission's Order Was Based Upon Comprehensive
Substantive
Plan Policies and Map Designations,
Ordinance Provisions, and Other Policies, Regulations
and Constraints Not Cited to the Applicant at the
Pre Application Conference as Required by S 1.8. 32.040
of the Community Development Code.
Section 18. 32 .040 of the Community Development Code
requires that at the pre-application conference, the Planning
Director or his designee shall cite to the applicant the appli-
cable Comprehensive Plan policies and map designations, applicable
substantive ordinance provisions, and other policies, regulations,
and constraints that relate to the application . The same section
also requires the Planning Staff to provide technical data and
assistance which will aid the applicant.
The bases for the denial of the application were not
related to the applicant at the pre-application conference, at a
time when the Planning Commission's later concerns could have been
addressed. The Commission found, for example, that S 18.84.010 A
t
s
C
City Council Members
Page -10-
December 5, 1984
of the Community Development Code, sensitive lands, applied to the
application. However, the current Wetlands map does not designate
the property as wetlands, and the Planning Staff had so advised
the applicant. (See Staff Report at 2 ) Had the applicant been
advised of the applicability of this provision, he could have
established to the Commission that the land was suitable for deve-
lopment and therefore not restricted by S 18.84 of the Community
Development Code.
6. Conclusion
The petitioner, in consultation with the Planning Staff
and the NPO, has made every effort to comply with the established
criteria governing his application for a planned development, sub-
division, zone change and variance. As found by the Planning
Staff, the criteria were met. The Staff consequently twice recom-
mended approval of the application subject to conditions relating
to improvements, drainage, and protection of the ponds. Overall,
the application showed that the property was similar to the
surrounding area, that there was no reason to suspect that it had
any higher water table than the neighboring developments, or that
the developer did not intend to preserve the natural features of
the property even offering to dedicate a portion of the property
as a city park. The applicant relied upon the Staff conference
and on the Staff's subsequent recommendation of approval .
The concerns subsequently raised by the NPO and the
Planning Commission could still be addressed in final development
plans. Petitioner and the NPO have both expressed a willingness
to negotiate and cooperate with each other in order to plan a
development which is suitable for the property and acceptable to
the surrounding community.
The City Council should therefore reverse the Order of
the Planning Commission. It can do so on any number of grounds,
as outlined above. Moreover, it can send these proceedings back
to the Planning Commission with several alternatives on how to
proceed. The Council can instruct the Planning Commission to
approve the application, with appropriate conditions regarding the
disposition of the ponds, the density of the northern portion of
the property, the width of the cul-de-sac bisecting the ponds, and
the attention given to environmental issues. Alternatively, it
could instruct the Planning Commission to continue the proceedings
l
City Council Members
Page -11-
December 5, 1984
giving the applicant and NPO an opportunity to pursue their stated
desire to work with each other in the planning of a suitable
development.
If the City Council were to affirm the Planning
Commission, upholding the denial of the application, the result
would be a substantial amount of wasted time and resources by the
applicant, the Planning Staff, and the NPO. A more efficient and
just decision would be to send this matter back to the Planning
Commission with instructions to proceed with the planned develop-
ment, subject to conditions which take into account the concerns
of the Commission and the neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
MARK B. WEINTRA UB
Of Attorneys for Petitioner
t MBW: js
cc: G. Ferd Wardin
William McMonagle
William Monahan
f
CITY OF TIGARD . OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: December 5, 1984_ _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Ad tion. of Ordinance
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _ZOA 6-84 84-61 on October 25 1984
Community Development Code .- PREPARED BY: Planning Staff
REQUESTLD BY:
n �
Dt" CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK:
�..._
INFORMATION SUMMARY
s
On October 25, 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 84-61 which {
amended the Community Development Code by adding and deleting certain
sections. Unfortunately, due to the numbering system in the codified version
of the development code, the section numbers in all cases did not conform to f
the staff's copy of the Code. In order to clarify the intent of Ordinance
84-61, it is necessary to amend the ordinance as outlined in the ordinance and
exhibit attached.
r
t
's
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED l
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached Ordinance.
(08301P)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA_ITFM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: _ December 6, . 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Ordinance 84-45 _
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CPA 28-84 _ adopted on July 23, 1984
Natural Features 6 Open Spaces . PREPARED BY:
(Special Areas) 108th/113th Ravine REQUESTED BY: Planning Staff --
—a74 I
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 1,= .__ CITY ADMINISTRATOR
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Ordinance 84-45 adopted by City Council on July 23, 1984, designated the
ravine at SW 108/113 north of Tualatin River below 150' in elevation as
significant wetlands. Frank Currie, City Engineer has determined that the
elevation should instead be 140' as land -above 140' in elevation is not within
the ravine. The Planning commission held a public hearing on December 4, 1984
to consider this issue and voted unanimously to recommend to Council that the
108th/113th ravine from 150' to 140' . A copy of Ordinance 84-45 is attached.
In addition, an ordinance amending Ordinance 84-45 as recommended by the
Planning Commission is attached for Council consideration. Minutes of the
December 4 meeting are not available, however, there was no opposition at the
meeting.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached ordinance adopting the Planning Commission
recommendation.
2. Retain the 150' elevation as it appears in Ordinance 84-45.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached ordinance adopting the Planning Commission recommendation.
(EAN:pm/0835P)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VOLUME 1, RESOURCE DOCUMENT AND CHAPTER 18.84 OF VOLUME
3, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 83-52 AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY (CPA 14-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Volume 1 - Resource Document, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies, Volume 3 - Community Development Code and the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission held an
acknowledgement on Goal i 5 with In Order to Comply Statements; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning commission on June 12,
1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was
made to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984,
for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-36 was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 1984;
and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 1984, the City Council directed staff to initiate a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to consider the inclusion of the Ravine at
108/113th as a significant wetlands area; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 10,
1984, to consider including the Ravine at 108/113th as a significant wetlands
area and to consider an exceptions process for development near the ravine; and
i
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 23, 1984,
for Council consideration of Planning Commission's recommendations of the
Planning Commission's recommendations.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Ordinance 83-52 is amended to revise page I-42 of Volume 1 -
Resource Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include a list
of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands to be
protected and preserved. Language to be added in underlined
below and will be inserted at the beginning of "C. Special
Areas".
ORDINANCE NO. 84-��
"Protect the areas designated as significant wetlands un t��'
Floodplain and Wetlands map and prohibit conflicting usrs un
those sites. The sites designated as significant wetlands xre :
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest
Krueger Creek
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east end of
SW 135th
Fanno Creek north of North Dakota
Ravine at SW 108/113 north of Tualatin River, below 150' in
elevation."
Section 2: Chapter 18.84 of the Community Development Code shall be
amended by adding a Section 18.84.045. Language to be added is
underlined below and will be inserted after section 18.84.040
D.4—
"18.84.045 Exce tions for Development in the 108th/113th
Ravine Si nificant Wetlands Areas.
A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process,
the Hearings Officer may allow portions of
Th—
La,Ravine at 108th and 113th designated as
a significant wetlands area to develo
provided that all of the following criteria
are met.
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
development is at less than 25Z slope.
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
considered for development.
3. The Provisions of chapter 18.150- TREE REMOVAL shall be
met."
Section 3. Inasmuch as it is necessary for this ordinance to become
effective with the other amendments relating to Goal 5.
an
emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall
become effective on July 25,
PASSED: By M - nlMu
6 -5 _ vote of all Council members presenx after
• being read by number and title only, this _,;L-3v-tq— day
of 1984.
W.
puty City Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED: This day of . 1984.
or - City of Tigard
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 84-_q5L--
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMIfTED: December_..6, 1984 _ PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance
Amendment ZOA 8-84 PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH NEWTON
REQUESTED BY: PLANNING STAFF
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK; kV44fWCITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
There are three sections of the Community Development Code that the Planning
Staff is recommending modifications to. The three sections deal with
Sensitive Lands, the Rolling Hills Buffer Policy and Home Occupations .
Section 18.84.045 was added by ordinance 84 -45 (attached). Section I of the
Ordinance added the ravine at SW 1.08/113 north of the Tualatin River, below
150' in elevation as a significant wetlands. The elevation for the wetlands
areas should be 1401 . Section 18.68.050 of the Code deals with dimensional
requirments in the Industrial Park zone. On November 26, 1984, the Council
voted unanimously to modify policy 11_5.1 and to include a reference to Policy
11 .5.1 . in Section 18,618,050 of the Code. Chapter 18. 142. or the Code deals
with Home Occupations and was reviewed by the Planning Commission to consider
whether or not Home Occupations should be allowed in residences located in
industrial and commercial zones. On December 4, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing and voted unanimously to 1 .) add 140' elevation to
Section 18.84.045; 2. ) add a reference to policy 11_5. 1 to Section 18.68 .050
of the Code; and 3. ) allow home occupations in residences in commercial and
industrial zones provided they meet the home occupation approval criteria. An
ordiancp approving the Planning Commission' s recommendation is attached. The
Planning Commission minutes are not available at this time.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the ordinate attached adopting the Planning Commission' s
recommendation.
2. Modify the attached ordinance.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached Ordinance.
0835P
dmj
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
~ ' ORDINANCE NO. 84- L157
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VOLUME 1, RESOURCE DOCUMENT AND CHAPTER 18.84 OF VOLUME
3, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 83-52 AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY (CPA 14-84)
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City by
Ordinance 83-52 on November 9, 1983; and
WHEREAS, Volume 1 - Resource Document, Volume 2 - Findings, Policies and
Implementation Strategies, Volume 3 Community Development Code and the
Floodplain and Wetlands Map were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) on November 18, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Developmentsand ion held an
acknowledgement on Goal / 5 with In Order to Comply Statement ;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning commission on June 12,
1984 to consider the In Order to Comply Statements and a recommendation was
made to the City Council; and
`< WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on June 25, 1984,for Council consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 84-36 was adopted by the City Council on July 25, 1984;
and
4, the City Council directed staff to initiate a
WHEREAS, on June 25, 198
to consider the inclusion of the Ravine at
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
108/113th as a significant wetlands area; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 10,
vine at 108/113th as a significant wetlands
1984, to csider
can dex exceptions oning the s8 i
process for development near the ravine; and
area and t
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on July 23, 1984,
for Council consideration of Planning Commission's recommendations of the
Planning Commission's recommendations.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Ordinance 83-52 is amended to revise page I-42 of Volume 1 -
Resource Document of the Comprehensive Plan to include a list
of those areas to be designated as significant wetlands to be
protected and preserved. Language to be added in underlined
below and will be inserted at the beginning of "C. Special
Areas".
ORDINANCE NO. 84-
"Protect the areas designated as significant wetlands on the
Floodplain and Wetlands map and prohibit conflicting uses on
those sites. The sites designated as significant wetlands are:
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest
Krueger Creek
Summer Creek Floodplain and Riparian Forest at the east end of
SW 135th
Fanno Creek north of North Dakota
Ravine at SW 108/113 north of Tualatin River, below 150' in
elevation."
Section 2: Chapter 18.84 of the Community Development Code shall be
amended by adding a Section 18.84.045. Language to be added is
underlined below and will be inserted after section 18.84.040
D. 4.
"18.84.045 Exce tions for Development in the 108th/113th
Ravine Significant Wetlands Areas.
A. Under the Sensitive Lands Permit process,
the Hearings Officer may allow portions of l
the Ravine at 108th and 113th designated as
a significant wetlands area to develop {
provided that all of the followins criteria
are met.
1. All of the land (within the ravine) being considered for
development is at less than 25% slope.
i
2. There are no unstable soil conditions on the land being
considered for development.
3. The rovisions of
chapter 18.150- TREE REMOVAL shall be
met.
Section 3. Inasmuch as it is necessary for this ordinance to become }
effective with the other amendments relating to Goal S, an
emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall
become effective on July 25, 1984.
s
PASSED: By 5�1�►� n ets-5 vote of all Council members press after
being read by
number and title only, this day
of , 1984.
djpugtayelua�ityW Recorder - City of Tigard
APPROVED: This day of `�'� , 1984.
..J
or - City of Tigard
APPROVED AS TO FORD:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 84- �
0522P
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
/ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 12, 1984_ AGENDA ITEM #: Lam.
DATE SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 4 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PREPARED BY: ��--
REQUESTED BY: COUNCIL _
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
As Council is aware, we are in the process of reviewing our Retirement policy
and our Salary and Classification policy. These consultant reports are due
shortly. The last change in employee benefits was io 1.982, as a result of the
Benefits Task Force Report which was implemented through the Budget at Council
direction. After the remaining studies have been received and and related
items discussed by Council, we will then need to complete the Personnel Rules
update accordingly .
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The summary of benefits by employee group is attached. Any changes in
benefits will require negotiation and Council action.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Ratify existing benefits policy by motion.
0664 /� I
GENERAL EMPLOYEES
COVERS ELIGIBILITY BENEFIT
MEDICAL Tw months after employment OPTION OF PLAN 'V-A'OR
CHOICE OF: if you are employed on the PLAN 11 -MAJOR MEDICAL �
BLUE CROSS first of the month COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
-Limited Basic Benefits
-SW-Private Hospitalization
-$50 Deductible
-Stop Loss Provision Provides
e ( 10OX Payment of Eligible
Claus After the First
00 $2,500 Per Year Wrier Major
H Medical Coverage
o *See Personnel Director for
information on health Covera
W" OR
COVERS:
ori KAISER Two months after
employment if you are Physician's Services
H.0 employed on the first Routine Exams
of the month Costs: $1 Per visit
�A
Hospitalization Charges
�O Paid in Full
6 Routine Preventive Services
DENTAL' Three months after
N Oregon Dental Service employment if you are 1st year - idX
p- employed on the first of increases MOX yearly
the month (Upon minimum 1 visit per
year)
Maximum$1000 in any benefit
year
:SICKEAVE Start accruing B hours 12 days peryear, plus same
a month from date of payout of accrued balance
employment upon leaving City (96 houERM DISABILITY After six months of 60X of base monthly salary
continuous service (Up to a limit of $1,000 per
N Z month for classified
n employees)
{
LIFE INSURANCE Eligible after 2 months $25,000 Life with a double
of service if oployed on indemnity A 0 i 0
first day of month
a
y ADOlil01NL A O i D First day of employment $150,000 A D i 0
optional
o? Coverage is at employee's
expense, and dependents may be
covered if desired. Premiums
id by roll deduction
IRA OR A DEFERRED After 6 months of City contributes 8X of the
w COMPENSATION PLAN continuous service monthly salary on behalf of
the non-exempt employee
�a SOCIAL SECURITY First day of employment As provided by Federal Iaaa
a°w
VACATION 0-12 months 12 days
12 mo. + 1 day - 5 yrs. 13.5 days
5 yrs. • 1 day - 10 yrs 16.5 days
10 yrs. a 1 day - 15 yrs. 19.5 days
15 yrs. v 1 day - 20 yrs. 21 days
20 yrs. ♦ 1 day - on 24 days
F
w PAID HOLIDAYS First day of uployment 11 paid holidays
Z
m See
IOMAL Personnel Rules
EOIICIIT
ASSISTANCE
0
CREDIT UNION Optional
LFJLYES OF see Personnel Rules and Contract for various provisions
ABSENCE
(1726A)
I TY 0 F T I FA
Summary of Benefits
This summary is intended to provide only a
general overview of the City of Tigard benefits.
Please refer to individual benefit booklets for
answers to specific questions regarding benefits
and coverages.
G
I
a
POLICE EMPLOYEES
COVERGE
ELIGIBILITYI(Well
ENEFIT
Two months afterV: U.C.R.* AND MAJOR
MEDICAL MEDICAL
CHOICE OF: amnployment if you aret of
BLUE CROSS employed on the firProvides
custamaryxamd
the wonth
able costs of most
benefits.
des:
or Calls, surgery,
o nostic X-ray and lab
ro
s
°D entive medical services
F (Yel Baby Care). periodic
La o physicals, therapeutic
injections and immunications,
>ci eye exams
o -Semi-private hospitalization
*MR-Usual Customs sonaDl
% Two months after COVERS:
KAISER employmnt if you are -Physician's services
x m employed on the first -Routine exams
7 of the month -Costs: $1 per visit
-Hospitalization charges
d Paid in full
Three months after
Routine Preventive Services
DENTAL: 1st year - 10i
OREGON DENTAL SERVICE employment if you are
employed on the first of increases IDS yearly
the month (Upon ain)mum 1 visit per
per year)
Maximum$1000 in any benefit
ar
Start accruing 8 hours 12 days per year, plus after
SICK LEAVE 1/1/84 payout of accrued
a month from date of
ogloYeant balance upon leaving City. (%
hours option-honor maximum)
or accrual employed prior to
that date
HW
o LONG-TERM DISABILITY After six months of to a limit of 1,000 per
Ny continuous service ieD
month for classified
o employees; up to a limit of
2,000 per month for Chief,
Captain, Lieutenant and
Rmmcords Ma r
Eligible after 2 months 325.000 (24-hour life
LIFE INSURANCE STANDARD g
of service insurance protection) with a
°G ADDITIONAL A 0 t 0 First day of enploymwnt double indemnity A 0 i 0
Optional
>oL) Coverage is at employee's Zso, A D i D
a expense. and dependents may be
covered if desired. Premiums
id by 11 deduction. ides full retirent
E RETIREMENT INCUS After six months of City pray me
benefits which mmeets the
Z tn men
PLAN employment requirements of State
JJ islation
m w SOCIAL SECURITY First day of employment As provided by Federal Law
°G10 "ys
VACATION 0-12 months 12 days
12 mo..l D�Y-5 yrs. 15 days
yrs..l day-10 yrs. 1B days
l0yrs..1 Day-1S yrs. 20 days
rn IS yrs..I 00
E~
y PAID HOLIDAYS First day of employment welvesatoryBtimiehouroff of
Ws
CREDIT UNION Optional
0
LEAVES DF See personrmeI Rules and contract for various leave
ABSENCE provisions
(1126A)
�CITYOFTIGrARDooxmw
Summary of Benefits
This summary is intended to provide only a
general overview of the City of Tigard benefits.
Please refer to individual benefit booklets for
answers to specific questions regarding benefits
and coverages.
P
i
S
t
i
i
t
E
f
MANAGEmw EMPLOYEES
COVERAGE ELIGIBILITY BENEFIT
MEDICAL Two months after employment option of Plan IV-A* OR
CHOICE OF if you are employed on the PLAN Il - HAM MEDICAL
BLUE CROSS first of the month -LimitEN COMPREHBasic Benefits
-Semi-private hospitalization
450 Deductible
-Stop Loss Provision
-provides 100%payment of
F eligible claims after the
N� first $2,SDO per year under
U3 O Major Medical Coverage
OR *See Personnel Dir for info
on benefits cover
0
U
F d KAISER Two months after employment COVERS:
6•� if you are employed on the Physicians Services
w a first of the month Routine Exams
mCosts: $1 per visit
SHospitalization Charges
B Paid in Full
v
w
p%
DENTAL Three months after employment Routine preventive services
if you are employed on the 1st Year - 10X
first of the month increases 10%yearly
(upon minimum 1 visit per yr)
Maximus$1,000 in any benefit
ar
SICK LEAVE Start accruing 8 hours a 12 days per year, plus some
>. month after the first payout of accrued balance upon
month of employment upon leaving City (96 hours
a maximum
CCU
.+o
4Z
tdArZ+
o
LONG-TERM 01511Bil.lTY After six months of 60%of base monthly salary
continuous service (up to a limit of $2,OODJmomth
for unclassified employems
LIFE INSURANCE Eligible after 2 months of $25,000 LIFE with a double
service if employed on indemnity A D 3 D
first of month
ac
ADDITIONAL A 0 i D Optional 150,000 A O d D
orgy First day of egioyment
y coverage is at employee's
expense, and dependents may be
covered if desired. Premiums
id roll deduction.
H IM OR A DEFERRED After 6 months of City contributes 8%of the
pyAPEN511T10N Pl1W continuous service monthly silarylon behalf of
SOCIAL SECURITY First day of a ployment As provided by Federal Lar
VACATION 0 - 12 months 12 days
12 no. ♦ 1 day - 5 years 13.5 days
5 yrs + 1 day - 10 years 16.5 days
10 yrs • 1 day - 15 years 19.5 days
15 yrs • 1 day - 20 years 21 days
h
20 • 1 -on 24
F
PAID HOLIDAYS First day of employment 11 paid holidays
oma
°L EOIlC11TI01NL See Personnel Rules
w
H ASSISTANCE
0
CREDIT UNION Optional
LEAVES OF ABSENCE See Personnel Rules
(1T26A)
T
i
L ` L
l Ci
r � rJ
V N
1 1 L
O
O
£ 7 C \J CO CO I b Q t2 ;
.c. X N N.-+ q�-. b
X 9 .4
Y ^r O > Yj
O
OG ` i � C 1 3 1 N Je L L L
O !n O O O 0 C O q N N
1 C 1 ^
W i = f O O O n O O O
J L L Y 1 X N _O � C C -
L c
C
^ E O >
L O N
C L L > L df 0 .-+ d O OC:)
L C ' L _ 'J >` .-. O "'' O O 'D Oco
O Z 1 T n n n
7 S
U U ry Q r` � ¢ � Q`
>
G r
Z O J
¢ J L T
E C M q O_ 7
O
41
I 1 I
i ✓ p o n r: N G q Q O C G Z N ^ o •O w
3 1 N o o
/ v > _
1\ r o v
n
� u
v ¢ 1
1 U O
J I
6 C YI
G G r
A L
¢ Q 0 - — L L r L V V
C • L L l L L L L L L o O O
Co 0 Z
6 r 1 O O d cli Or C ^ < < c < c Z Q
L O O
C—)
O m O
V q N
2 -
o
1 4 L L
ti C) O 7 7
r, L
Q Y rJ L
U J ( V V „ r •
¢
> JC q N N N L ] L L L L = L L L
U �" L L L •-•� !7 M L L r ^ O
„ T >• — L > > L p o O O O p 0 0
O L � CD C C ?. t ^ N
� T
��O N C � � � ¢ ¢ r: �
d
C'" Q1 •� v O r 4-
c ..
d j + T r 1
CL T
d _ _
LD
Y S Y L.
O 3 ' C
u c° o o
O > .N• b y
7 = q
- 7
AS OF NOv"'IfSF:R 30,
SFX— pressed in hours)
VACATION FLOATING AY NOLNTMEN'l SICK
VAC
DEPARTMENT HOURS LEAVE
HEADS ACCRUAL HOLIDAY
215.67 O 15 567
286
Adams, Robert y5 8 16
Currie, Frank 8 13 367.5
Ertell , Irene 117 16 312
0 185.75
Jean, Robert 326 O 14.5
Monahan, William 62.67 8 16 133
Widner, Jerri 189
{ FLOATING COMP APPOINTMENT SICK
ADMINISTRATION VACATION
ACCRUAL HOLIDAY
TIME HOURS LEAVE
39
6.25 11.25 118
Corbet , Donna
Martin, Joy 140 8 60
If there are questions regarding the above report , please all Cindy Cranston
at Extension 44.
C
(JW:pl/1859A)
A(;(;Iih1ULA"1ED 11Mh. ;':At.\I:I.
AS OF N0-VEMti1:R 30 lyr;;
(Expressed in hours)
FINANCE/SUPPORT VACAT?ON FLOATING COMP AY POINTMEN:' SICK
ACCRUAL HOLIDAY IIME HOURS LF.AVF
8 9.25 0 62
Cranston, Cindy 46 608
339.5 8 4.5 14
Hartig, Doris 8 14.75 4 129.75
Liehertz, Penny 38.5 8 37 5 10 175.25
Martin, Patricia 98.33 8 31 .5 9.5 26
Murray, Lowana 90 216.75
8
78.25 0 14.5
Robertson, Pat 8 10.25 10.5 63
Stevens, Randy 203 2
Wilson, Loreen
189.5 8 39.25 9.25 0
If there are questions regarding the above report , please call Cindy Cranston
at Extension 44.
ACCUMULATED TIME EARNED
AS OF NOVEMBER 30 1984
(Expressed in hours)
LIBRARY VACATION FLOATING COMP APPOINTMENT SICK
ACCRUAL HOLIDAY TIME HOURS
LEAVE
8 15.5 16
Anderson, Connie 16 0 .25 11.75 175
Hawes, Karrin 19.5 16 176.5
Miller, GeorgeAnn 48.25 8 5
0 8 6
Rasmussen, Pam 12 175
White, Bobby
200 8 1.75 16
If there are questions regarding the above report , please call Cindy Cranston
at Extension 44.
C.
(JW:pl/1859A)
J
t9ti4-
(Expressed in hours)
COMP APPOI NTT?-NT S I(;K
VA(,AT1ON FLOATING IIU-UR F:
S LI:AV
PLANNING 6 HOLIDAY TIAL
ACCKG��L -
DEV F:LUI'Mt•:ti'i 14 180
0
Beckley, Bill 26.5 0 9.25 16 227.5
5767 0 14.5 452.5
.
Clarno, Randy U 0 33,5
John 117 7 .75 15
91
Hagman, U 80
Jelderks, Diane 8 21.75 9
b4 2.25 4.25 285
Liden, Keith 32 5 8 218.5
Newton, Liz 8 30.25 16 558
`39 36 5 5
Roast , Brad 8 16 298.5 I
Thompson, Robert 83 8 0 0
175.5 2.75 10
Walden, Ed 8
Zielinski , Colleen 10 Cranston
if there are questions regarding the above report, please call Cindy
at Extension 44
ACCUMULATED TIME EARNED
AS OF NOVEMBER 30,
(Expressed in hours)
APPOINTMENT SICK
VACATION FLOATING COMP LEAVE
PUBLIC WORKS - HOLDTIME HOURS
ACCO_ _
Administration 9 .25 51.5
Rawlings, Billie 34.75
0 0
COMP APPOINTPIENT SICK
VACATION FLOATING HOURS LEAVE
PUBLIC WORKS - ACCRUAL HOLIDAY .- TIME
Opratns/Maint
136
18 g 18.5 16 56
Avery, Wally 16225 8 36.5 16
6 . 55
Belcher, Trudy 8 53.5 16 32
Dickman, Alfred 125.67 8 2.5 y
16 80
40
Duda, George 48 0 0 12
64 8 64
Eddy, Glenn 22.25 164.8
56.1 8
Hand, Eric O 16 16 16.67
Landis, Bob 8 3 165
Edward 38 12,25 l2
Latham, Ed 194 8 156
McNatt , Robert 8 2 16 138.5
Jerry 116. 3.25 8.5
McNurlin' 94.6767 8 16
Rivett , Steve 8 10.25 16 141
109.33 26 14
Tracy, Ben 2
183.67 8 6
Walker, Melvin .75 16
46.67 .75 lb 2 .5
20
8
Williams, Russ U
Zielinski , Walter 21
C
It there are questions regarding the above report , please call Cindy Cranston
at Extension 44.
(JW:p1/1859A)
ACCUMULATED TIME EARNED
AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1984
(Expressed in hours)
POLICE VACATION HOLIDAYS COMP APPT. SICK LEAVE SICK
ACCRUAL TIME HOURS ACCRUAL_ USED
233.67 8 FH 32.25 16 608
Branstetter, L 8 FII 14.75 16 616
Carrick, Alice 167 0 1
Crow, Sandra 54 43.5
64 1.75 16 80
Cummins, Brian 80 60 7 8
deBrauwere, Rich 112 54 24.75 16 488
DeVeny, Darwin 84 0 0 32
DeVeny, Lori 20.5 16 0 16 16
Edin, Christopher 13.34 2 23
Featherston, John 40 70 24
.25
Goldspink, John 46 0 20
Grisham, Joseph 150 40.5 22.75 1644 4.5
Guarnero, Carol 35.33 108 32. 5 16 332
Harburg, Robert 156.33 8 FH 24 12 320.5
Jennings, Kelley 132.67 4.75 40
Johnson, Paul 28 16 96
Killion, Teresa 26 4.25 020 41 .5 16 920
Killion, Thomas 62 18.25 16 432
Martin, Charles 172 40 459
Merrill, Halbert 40 0 0 10
Myers, Don 52 49.75 3 16 964
57.35 24 10.5 16 24
Nerski, John 24 0 16 795.5
Newman, John 36 31 .5 20 32
Newman, Robert 86 40 17.75
Ober, Steve 56
g 0 16 135
Peterson, Rick 51.33 80 0 16 92
Schober, Eric 36.75 8 FH 71 16 616
Wheeler, Robert 213
If there are questions regarding the above report , please call Cindy Cranston
at Extension 44.
C
(JW:pl/1859A)
10 Management Information Service
each employee. A computer program minimizes the the mechanic loses his incentive pay if a vehicle is imme-
manual effort required by the record-keeping sys- diately returned to the garage because the work done did
tem. Monthly, a 'Mechanic Production Detail" not fix the problem. The city is also saving more than
report is produced, which shows the standard time $20,000 annually because we are paying fringe benefits
and the actual time required for every work order. for 2 fewer personnel and incentive payments have been
The mechanic is eligible for incentive pay for each 10 to 12 percent of salaries instead of the 15 percent origi-
job for which the actual time is less than the stand- nally estimated.
and time.
• Rate Established for Incentive Pay.Originally incen- INCENTIVE FOR NOT USING SICK LEAVE
tive pay was set at $6 per hour. It is reviewed each
year during budget preparation and is currently set One of the city's oldest employee incentives is its sick
at $7 per hour. A maximum monthly accumulation leave award. This simple program awards employees
of 50 incentive hours can be paid. This equates to a additional vacation days for not using sick leave.
potential bonus of $350 per month for each Employees had pressed the city to buy back unused
mechanic. sick leave, since there was no incentive to accumulate
sick leave except to guard against a catastrophic illness.
• Payment of the Incentive to All Mechanics Whose City management and the city commission were loath to
Total Standard Time Exceeds Actual Time for Work pay employees a cash reward for not abusing a benefit.
Orders Assigned.The incentive is paid on the second The sick leave award was the solution finally agreed
payday of each month for the preceding month, to upon. Extra vacation time is awarded in accordance with
time to enter data for all work orders for the month. the following table:
The mechanic is furnished with a printout listing
each job he worked on during the preceding month, Employees Working a 40-Hour Week
and showing the total incentive or bonus hours and Slek Leave Used Vacation Hours Awarded
the amount paid. -—--- -- - —
None 24
1-8 hours 16
• Supervisory Follow-up to Ensure Integrity of the 9-16 hours 8
Plan. Additional clerical and supervisory time is 17 hours or more 0
required to keep accurate records, ensure that the
mechanics record their time properly, and ensure Employees Working a 56-Hour Week
that the flow of work is not interrupted. This com-
ponent is especially important since without proper Slek Leave Used Vaeatlon Hours Awarded
supervision the incentive program could be abused 0-24 hours 24
by an unscrupulous mechanic. 25-48 hours 12
49 hours or more 0
When the program first started production reports Prior to establishing the sick leave award, usage of
were posted on a bulletin board. This resulted in some ill sick leave averaged about 7.5 days per employee each
will, so now the reports are simply distributed to each year. Since then the average has been about 6 days per
mechanic. Nevertheless, all the mechanics are generally employee each year.Also important to the city is the fact
aware of how productive their coworkers are and there is that vacation is scheduled and can be planned for,whereas
some healthy competition to see who can have the highest sick leave is usually taken without warning.
efficiency each month. We no longer have the problem of
the new, highly productive mechanic becoming discour-
aged because he is earning less than the long-time em- SANITATION INCENTIVES
ployee who turns out much less work.Production reports
are an invaluable tool for determining whether an em- Winter Park's oldest incentive program is the task incen-
ployee should receive a merit raise and, if so, how much. tive program in the sanitation division. Under this pro-
Our mechanics incentive program has now been in gram, route personnel complete their workday as soon as
effect for three years, and has fully met all our expecta- they finish their route and clean their equipment. Crews
tions. Employee turnover has been drastically reduced. are paid for four, 10-hour days each week. During the
During the two years prior to implementing the incentive spring when residents are cutting back their shrubbery,
program the city lost 10 mechanics. We have lost only 3 crews work overtime to complete their routes. During
mechanics during the three years since the program light periods of the year, they work about 30 hours per
started. Workmanship has improved, because we are week. This program, together with equipment improve-
able to attract and retain better mechanics, and because ments, has been a key tool in reducing the number of
� I
CITY Of" TIGARD, OREGON
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT TITLE: STUDY AND EVALUAfION FOR CONT Co tract OF POLICE 000042 ISPATCHING
SERVICES_
made and entered into this �aday of December, 19841 by and
This Contract, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,
between the City of Tigard, Durbin 2088 Eastwood Lane Eugene,
hereinafter called "City" and Clay E
Oregon 97404, hereinafter called "Contractor: , duly authorized to perform
such services in Oregon.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the City requires services which Contractor is capable of
providing, under terms and conditions hereinafter described; and
actor is able and prepared to provide such services as City
WHEREAS, Contr
does hereinafter require, under those terms and conditions set forth; now,
therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION ofpartiesheagree al promises
follows: and the terms and conditions set
forth hereafte , the
1 , Term.
The term of this Agreemenk shall be from the le I/ day of December,
of 1441&4,d 19 Ps-
19
S .
19 _, to and including the 'Z�.S day
unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereof.
2, Sery ices•
Contractor' s services under this Agreement shall consist of the
following:
A. Review and an the Compass Consulting Group Report and
December 10, 1984, report from the County Emergency Communications Plan for
Washington County, Oregon, dated August, 1984, and alsothe
Requestractt
Proposal by the City of Tigard for a Police DispatchingServices the Review
proposed to the City Council on September 24, 1984, The purpose
is to develop CCan unerstanding of the proposals and ouncil. questions and recommendations. content of these documents
to respond
e. Review questions submitted by Council members and develop an
informal response to the Council members and develop an informal response to
the Council in reference to that area of e o lCounknowledge. e quostiono npr iority re to
the
in the priority assigned by
assigned, Contractor may determine the priority.
the port, the
C. Meet with the Council
to discuss
sto Councilors'Compass reviouslq submitted
response/report
Tigard RFP and present a
Cquestions on this subject.
D. Provide a written summary and oral presentation of findings ani
recommendations to the Council based upon the two documents reviewed and tF
Contractors past experience and knowledge in the field of consolidated public
safety communications.
Council at a date
E. An interim report Durgin and submittedshall be to
tScott but no later than
mutually agreed upa
on By y
January 7, 1984.
shall be submitted to the Council within 45 days
F. The final report
of the date of this contract.
3. Contractor Identification.
Contractor shall furnish to City its employer identification number,
as designated by the Internal Revenue Service, or Contractor's Social Security
number, as City deems applicable.
4. Compensation.
A. City agrees to pay Contractor no more than $2.000.00 for
performance of those services provided hereunder, which payment shall be based
upon the following applicable terms:
1. The hourly rate shall be $50.00 per hour except that travel
time shall be at a rate of $25.00 per hour.
2. The twelve hours of work which has been prepared prior to the
date of this contract shall be paid at a rate of $25.00 per hour.
3. At the termination of this contract, Contractor shall
97 r2epara
and submit to the Finance Director, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon,
statement of services rendered, indicating hours and dates of .services
together with a request for payment.
4. Payment by the City shall release the City from any further
' obligation for payment to Contractor for service performed or expenses
incurred as of the date of the statement of services.
S. A provision for reimbursement of other expenses to include
clude
typing, transportation and miscellanious costs accrued in performing
this contract shall be made if within an estimated $50 to $125.
B. City certifies that sufficient funds are available and authorized
for expenditure to finance costs of this contract.
F
5. Contractor Is Independent Contractor. '
A. Contractor's services shall be provided under the general
supervision of City Council, but Contractor shall be an independent contractor
entitled no
for all purposesan for all beparayraph 4tof this°mpensatioAgreement n other than the
compensation provided
occLuxrcc rvuToorT — PAnr 7
B. In the event Contractor is to perform the services described in
this Agreement without the assistance of others, Contractor hereby agrees to
file a joint declaration with City to the effect that Contractor's services
are those of an independent contractor, as provided under Chapter 864 Oregon
Laws 1979.
C. Contractor acknowledges that for all purposes related to this
agreement, Contractor is and shall be deemed to be an independent contractor
and not an employee of City, shall not be entitled to benefits of any kind to
which an employee of the City is entitled and shall be solely responsible for
all payments and taxes required by law; and furthermore in the event that
Contractor is found by a court of law or an administrative agency to be an
employee of the City for any purpose, City shall be entitled to offset
compensation due to demand repayment of any amounts paid to Contractor under
the terms of this agreement, to the full extent of any benefits or other
remuneration Contractor receives (from City or third party) as a result of
said finding and to the full extent of any payments that City is required to
make (to Contractor or to a third party) as a result of said finding.
D. The undersigned Contractor hereby represents that no employee of
the City of Tigard, or any partnership or corporation in which a City employee
has an interest, will or has received any remuneration of any description from
the Contractor, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting
or performance of this contract, except as specifically declared in writing.
6. Subcontracts — Assignment 6 Delegation
A. Contractor shall not subcontract or permit any pirtion of the
work to be further subcontracted except as provided in the proposal without
the prior written approval of City, and Contractor shall be fully responsible
for the acts or omissions of any subcontractors and of all persons employed by
them, and neither the approval by City of any subcontractor nor anything
contained herein ! '-iall be deemed to create any contractual relation between
the subcontractor and City.
B. This agreement, and all of the covenants and conditions hereof,
shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Contractor
respectively and their legal representatives. Contractor shall not assign any
rights nor delegate any duties incurred by this contract, or any part hereof
without the written consent of City, and any assignment or delegation in
violation hereof shall be void.
7. Contractor — Payment of Benefits - Hours of Work
A. The Contractor shall: (1) make payment promptly, as due, to all
persons supplying to such Contractor labor or material for the prosecution of
the work provided for in this contract; (2) pay all contributions or amount
due the Industrial Accident Fund from such Contractor or subcontractor
incurred in the performance of this contract; (3) not permit any lien or claim
to be filed or prosecuted against the City of Tigard, on account of any labor
or material furnished; (4) pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld
from employees pursuant to ORS 316.167.
B. The Contractor agrees that if the Contractor fails, neglects or
refuses to make prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to
the Contractor or a subcontractor by any person in connection with this
contract as such claim becomes due, the proper office of the City of Tigard
nAf�C 5
may pay such claim to the person furnishing the labor or services and charge
the amount of the payment against funds due or to become due the Contractor by
reason of such contract. Payment of a claim in this manner shall not relieve
the Contractor or the Contractor's surety from obligation with respect to any
unpaid claims.
C. Contractor agrees that no person shall be employed for more than
eight (8) hours in any one day, or forty (40) hours in any one week, except in
cases of necessity, emergency or where the City of Tigard absolutely requires
it, and in such cases the laborer shall be paid at least time and a half pay
for all overtime in excess of eight (8) hours a day and for work performed on
Saturday and on any legal holiday as specified in ORS 279.334.
D. No City employee shall be required to work overtime or on a
Saturday, Sunday or holiday in the fulfillment of this contract except where
the Contractor agrees to reimburse the City in the amount of money paid the
employee for such work as determined by state law, the City' s personnel rules
or union agreement. The Contractor shall require every subcontractor to
comply with this requirement.
8. Contractor's Employees Medical Payments
Contractor agrees to pay promptly as due, to any person,
copartnership, association or corporation furnishing medical, surgical, and }
hospital care or other needed care and attention incident to sickness or f
injury to the Contractor's employees, all sums which the Contractor agreed to
pay for such services and all moneys and sums which the Contractor collected
or deducted from employees wages pursuant to any law, contract or agreement
for providing or paying for such service.
9. Early Termination
A. This Agreement may be terminated without cause prior to the t
expiration of the agreed upon term as provided by ORS 279.326 as follows:
1. By mutual written consent of the parties;
2. By either party upon 30 days' written notice to the other,
delivered by certified mail or in person; or
3. By City, effective upon delivery of written notice to
Contractor by certified mail or in person, under any of the following
conditions: (insert as appropriate).
B. Payment of Contractor shall be as provided by ORS 279.330 and
shall be prorated to and include the day of termination and shall be in full
satisfaction of all claims by Contractor against City under this Agreement.
C. Termination under any provision of this paragraph shall not
affect any right, obligation or liability of Contractor or City which accrued
prior to such termination.
C
--• --.�+ rfu Tern /+^A nA(`T
10. Cancellation for Cause
City may cancel all or any part of this Contract if Contractor
breaches any of the terms hereof or in the event of any of the following:
Insolvency of Contractor; voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy by
or against Contractor; appointment of a receiver or trustee for Contractor, or
an assignment for benefit of creditors of Contractor. Damages for breach
shall be those allowed by Oregon law, reasonable and necessary attorney's
fees, and other costs of litigation.
11. Access to Records
City shall have access to such books, documents, papers and records
of Contractor as are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of
making audit, examination, excerpts and transcripts.
12. Work is Property of City
All work performed by Contractor under this Agreement shall be the
property of City.
13. Adherence to Law
A. Contractor shall adhere to all applicable laws governing its
relationship with its employees, including but not limited to laws, rules,
regulations and policies concerning workers' compensation, and minimum and
prevailing wage requirements.
B. To the extent applicable, the Contractor represents that it will
comply with Executive Order 11246 as amended, Executive Order 11141, Section
503 of the vocational Rehabilitation At of 1973 as amended and the Age
Discrimination At of 1975, and all rules and regulations issued pursuant to
the Acts.
C. As provided by ORS 279.315, all applicable provisions of federal,
state or local statutes, ordinances and regulations dealing with the
prevention of environmental pollution and the preservation of natural
resources that affect the work under this contract are by reference
incorporated herein to the same force and affect as if set forth herein in
full. If the Contractor must undertake additional work due to the enactment `
of new or the amendment of existing statutes, ordinances or regulations
occurring after the submission of the successful bid, the City shall issue a
Change Order setting forth the additional work that must be undertaken. The
Change Order shall not invalidate the Contract and there shall be, in addition
to a reasonable extension, if necessary, of the contract time, a reasonable
adjustment in the contract price, if necessary, to compensate the Contractor F
for all costs and expenses incurred, including overhead and profits, as a
result of the additional work.
14. Changes
City may at any time, and without notice, issue a written Change
Order requiring additional work within the general scope of this Contract, or
any amendment thereto, or directing the omission of or variation in work. If
such Change Order results in a material change in the amount or character of
the work, an equitable adjustment in the Contract price and other provisions
of this Contract as may be affected may be made. Any claim by Contractor for
under this section shall be asserted in writing within thirty
an adjustmentContractor of the notification of change
(30) days from the date of receipt by ursuant to this section or by
no change shall be binding upon City until a Change Order is
or the claim will not be allowed. Whether made P which expressly states that
mutual agreement, Representative of City,
executed by the Authorized Rep The issuance of information,
it constitutes a Change Order to this Contract.
or instructions by City's Representative or other City
advice, approvals, ursuant to this sec�ion.
proceeding
personnel shall not constitute an authorized changecontractor
as changed.
Nothing contained in f the work sections
in accordanceexcuwith a the Cont actfrom p
with the prosecution o
16, Forc�Lure
Neither City nor Contractor shift besconsidered
hereunderr due taucausesbecause
beyond
onsibi art of the party so
any delays in completion of resp public
the control and without the fault or negligence on the P
but not restricted to, an act of God or of a p
including, a idemic, quarantine, restriction,
disenabled, fire, flood, P of
enemy, volcano, earthquake, severe weather or delay
area-wide strike, freight embargo, unusually provided that party so
Tiers due to such cause; P notify
subcontractor or suppliers days from the beginning of such delay
of the causes of delay and its probable extent.
disenabled shall within ten (10) claim for additional
the other party in writing
Such notification shall not be the basis for a
compensation.
16. No r performance
on or enforce strict P rights
The failure of the City to insist up extent
by Contractor of any of the terms of this contract or to exercise any
or rely upon such terms or rights on any future
� hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment to an
of its right to assert
occasion.
17. Warranties workmanship
Contractor warrants that all practices and procedures, the
the work nor payment therefor shall relieve
and materials shall be the bestfa�ailable unless otherwise specified by
this
profession. Neither acceptance o
Contractor from liability under warranties contained in or implied Y
contract.
ig, Attorney's Fees provisions of such sum as
In case suit or action is instituted to enforce the
this contract, the parties agree that the losing party shall pay
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs including
the Court may adjudge ellate courts.
attorney's fees and court costs on appeal to app
ig, gpplicable_Law
This contract will be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon.
i 20. Conflict between Terns
een the parties hereto that
It is further expressly agreed by and betwthe
conflict between the terms ofO t of and rnothing a and
should there be any this instrument shall ro sal
proposal of the contractor,
shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said P
conflicting herewith.
� Et
i
' k
21. Indemnification its
indemnify and to hold—harmless the CitClaims, I
agrees to from any and all loss,
Contactor and Agents against and fees, for or on account of
Officers, Employees attorneys' damage to or destruction
including costs and ersons, arising
actions, suits, to, or death of p resulting from, f
bodily or otherwise. Contractor or others, k
injury to City, activities hereunder,
of property belonging connected with Contractor's the fault or k
out of, or in any way as may be caused solely by
such injury or harm to ees and/or Agents.
excepting only its Officers, Employ
negligence of the City,
22 Complete Agreementthe complete
referenced attachments constitute or written or
nd supercedes all p
This contract and any
agreement between the City and Contractor a
regiments.
oral discussions or agreements.
s caused this agreement to be executed by its
Ip WITNESS WHEREOF, the City ha
duly authorized undersigned officers. CITY OF TIGARD
i
By �'' Mayor
By �� cvrd�r
y
` CpNTRACTOR
By �l8
By 7
(AB;pm/1673A)
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
DATA:
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
NAME OF PERSON LETTING CONTRACT
P.O. Box 23397 Ti and Ore on 97223
Address
INSURER (if applicable)
Add re s s
Cla_V E. Durbin
NAME OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
2088 Eastwood Lane Eu ene Oregon 97404
Address
IF PARTNERSHIP, LIST ALL PARTNERS
Address
Time or Project(s) covered by the Declaration:
The undersi ned hereby declare that all services performed under
the contract dated �`j� shall be rendered by the independent
contractor in his or her status as an independent contractor.
f
The independent contractor shall give the person letting the
contract sever (7) days advance written notice before obtaining the assistance
in performance of the contract. Upon receipt of this
of any other person
notice, the person letting the contract may require the independent contractor
to qualify as a direct responsibility employer under ORS 656.407 or as a
contributing employer under ORS 656.411. Failure to give the notice required
by this declaration or to obtain workers' compensation coverage as required by
the person letting the contract shall constitute grounds for termination of
the contract by the person letting the contract.
In consideration of the letting of this contact, the independent
contractor agrees to indemnify the perssonexpenses,letting
engthe contract
ntr ct and the insurer
listed above, if any, for any damage
and
attorneys' fees incurred by said person or by said insurer as a result of the
independent contractor's failure to adhere to the terms of this declaration.
The parties to this declaration understand that a person who
files a declaration of status as an independent contractor is not eligible to
receive womkers' compensation benefits (Under ORS Chapter 656) in the event of
injury or disease, unless said person has obtained coverage for such benefits
pursuant to ORS 656.128.
Dated this day of ---Y—=—'
4 Independent Contractor
Person Letting Contract
(1673A)
p�DQnMAI grDVTf FC rf*JTRArT - PA(;F A
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF . _ December 10, 1984 AGENDA TTEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: 12/5/84 PREVIOUS ACTION: None
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: O.L.C.C.
Application PREPARED BY: R.B. Adams
REQUESTED BY: Applicant
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: C ° � t CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
K.C. DELI, 15995 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard
OWNERS: EBY, Kendrs Luwayne; and
BRACKEN, Latha Elaine
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: Retail Malt Beverage (RMB)
The above deli will be located in the new business complex at Boones Ferry
and S.W. 72nd, adjacent to the Oregon Industrial part.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
The police deparmtent finds no objection to the above named applicants for
this OLCC license, and recon ends approval.
Respectfully,
R.B. Adams
Chief of Police
t
MEMORANDUM
November 29, 1984
TO: ROBERT ADAMS, POLICE DEPARTMENT
FROM: Penny Liebertz, Finance Department
Liquor License
SUBJECT: OLCC q Application
Please review and have recommendation to us by December 5th so we may include
it in the packet for the December 10th Council Meeting. Thanks.
K. C. Deli
15995 SW 72nd AVenue
Tigard OR 97223
/S 3
A;
November 27, 1984 C'TYOFInIVARD
WASH04GION COUNTY.OREGON
Chairman Wes Myllenbeck and
Washington County Commissioners
Washington County Courthouse
150 N. First Street
Hillsboro, OR 97124
SUBJECT: Proposed Storm Drainage Program
Honorable Persons:
The City Council of the City of Tigard would like to support your efforts and
the proposed intergovernmental approach to storm drainage management in
Washington County. The City will gladly lend its support to your efforts, but
requests your consideration in two areas of concern.
First, the City feels very strongly there is a need for the segregation of
accounts and programs into at least the two major basins. The five sub-basins
lying west of Beaverton are generally agreed upon as logical, related units.
The Fanno basis is also generally regarded as a distinct unit. Obviously,
as
the downstream recipient of Fanno Creek floodwaters, the City of Tigard is
very supportive of an intergovernmental approach to the resolution of this
critical problem. The advisory committee assisting you in the development of
this proposal was split in its advise to you in this regard. The City Council
of the City of Tigard unanimously requests there be at least the two basins,
with Fanno as a distinct program unit.
feels that City consent should be obtained by the
Second, the City Council
County prior to the inposition of any County storm drainage fee within an
a incorporated City. ..this recommendation is ,consistent withthe
intergovernmental spirit that launched the effort. Failing consent, any such
City would also be obliged to indicate howintends
ntothadaay Storm Drainage
ita
ge
intergovernmental responsibility. The City quests
measure submittal to the voters include a provision requiring the written
consent of the affected City Council prior to the imposition of any County
service fee within City limits.
On behalf of the citizens of our city and the greater community, we wish to
thank the Commission for its consideration of our concerns and mostly for your
leadership in the area of rational storm drainage management. we stand
willing to assist you in this endeavor given reasonable accommodation of our
two items of concern.
Sincerely,
John E. Cook
Mayor
12755 S.W.ASH P.O. BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
I
CITY OF TINA RD
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
November 30, 1984
Chairman Wes Myllenbeck, Washington County
Mayor Frank Ivancie, Portland
Mayor-Elect Larry Cole, Beaverton
Councilor Forest Soth, Beaverton
Councilor Tom Brian, Tigard
Mayor Joy Morgan, Durham
Mayor Jean Young, King City
Mayor Roy Rogers, Tualatin
Mayor Mary Tobias, Sherwood
SUBJECT: Fanno Creek Storm Drainage Management
Honorable Persons:
eet
I would like to invite each of you and any appropriate staff member
1984 o m
ay, December 14, The
with us at Tigard City Hall, 2:30 p.m., Friday,
purpose of the meeting is to review Washington County's Proposed Storm
vernmental agreement
Drainage Utility and also to explore a possible intergo
approach at potentially lower cost.
I look forward to meeting with you or your representative. As always, thank
you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
John E. Cook
Mayor
JEC/dc:0657p
t
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
15,3
t
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council December 6, 1984
FROM: Donna Corbet, Executive Secretary
SUBJECT: NEWSLETTER
The newsletter draft is not available for enclosure in packets as of Thursday.
If it is ready Monday, it will be hand carried.
Thank you.
C
21 1984 C'7y� GARD
November . WASHINJGION
Mrs. C. A. Mc Clellan
10035 S.W• Highland Dr.
Tigard, OR 97224
Dear Mrs. Mc Clellan:
sked me to respond to your letter of November 59
The City Administrator has a
1984. to the street
I have visited the site, and investigated your concerns relating
barrier; the drainage ditch, and the street light.
you feel Wronged, however, the conditions that allow the
(the S.W• 100th Ave. right-of-gray), existed
I understand that Y and, as such,
building on the Randall property, art of Summerfield,
prior to Summeconditionswere
thedtimeeyour house was built.
were existing
The barrier and the street light are standard City installations common to all
nts, and are necessary for public safety-
similar developme
paint on the back side of the
=ar r
ier is
ark white
iately
I would concur that the at contrast, and be toned down to more hela pop
perhaps an unsig Y
blend in. The application of a coat of earth-tone paint sig P•
Portland General Electric to investigate the possibility of
the streetlight if this can
shielding,
I ll ask P be done without
wior diffusing ht was intended.
sacrificing the purpose for which the streetlight
you has been there for at least 5 years• Its
The drainage ditch q refer to There is a
e and overflow water.
intended purpose is to accept surface drainage
catch basin grate in the bottom of the depression.
I hope we can accommodate at least some of your concerns, and thank you for
bringing them to our attention.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Currie, P.E.
Public Works Director
cc: Portland General Electric
( FAC:br/01905)
12755 S.W ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
t
November 21, 1984 ClTYOF T1 RD
WASHINGTON COUNTY.OREGON
Portland General Electric
Attention: Jerry Arnold,
Streetlighting Consultant
14655 S.W. Old Scholls Ferry Rd.
Beaverton, OR 97007
Dear Jerry:
Please investigate the possibility of shielding or diffusing the newly
installed streetlight at the end of S.W. 100th, just south of S.W• Kable in
Tigard. The rear of the house at 10035 S.W. Highland Drive is the problem
area as outlined in the attached letter from Mrs. McClellan.
We do not -- nt to sacrifice the intended purposes of the light - illumination
of the street.
Perhaps a louver type shield could be installed, which directs the light down
on the street and vould diffuse the more horizontal light which reaches the
back of the house.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Currie, P.E.
Public Works Director
(FAC:br/01905)
12755 S.W ASN P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD.OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171 `
< Sa t)5
November 5, 1984
10035 S. W. gighlpnd Drive
Ricard , Oregon 97224
To Tigard City Councils
Dear Sirs and L-Iles :
Some time ago Eunice Day, the Sumrerfield resident represent-
ing Summerfield interests in TiQ-rd approached you about
correcting the injustice done to us living in the houses
Bordering the property of the Handall Co.
It is not abit fair for us whose patios facing in that
direction wh-re we enjoy sitting on a sv-Tner evening alone
or with guests to have to view the ursightly bprrier put 1-1)
to denote the end of the street . The barrier and the gvl.ch
by it are ugly and sn affre)nt to is who have to look at them.
That area whnilld t•e planted nicei.y and something oth-r has
thathiddous wTodden fence should re placed there.
i
i
9
i We feel very strongly thr-t we hive been wronged. Please
do the decent thing and correct these nightmares.
Remember we pay taxes to Tigard for which we receive very
little in return:
In despprgf i on,
I
Mow s s,�sa
C y,x
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10,.._1984 AGENDA ITEM #: 1J• 3
DATE SUBMITTED: -December.,5, 1984.._ PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Plaid Pantry _
Litter Issue PREPARED BY:
REQUESTLD BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: Qf' _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In response to concerns raised by Eunice Day of NPO #6, 1 have written to
Plaid Pantry and Tigard High School requesting cooperation in solving this
problem. Roger Staver of Plaid Pantry has contacted my office and agreed to
take steps to correct the problem. He will be in contact with the School
District to work out a solution.
Copies of the letter are enclosed.
f
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
Receive and file.
(0830P)
C
December 3, 1984
C ad
CI�IYOF HARD
4
{
John Piacentini }
Plaid Pantry
2540 NE Riverside Way
97211
Portland, Oregon
Corner of Durham and Hall in Tigard
RE: Plaid Pantry Store -
Dear Mr. Piacentini, owners
laints from property
Recently the City of Tigard has received comp litter which has
living in the vicinity of your store on Hall Blvd• andcerninjin the right-of-way of
collected on the site, on adjoining vacant land, ears to have been
both Durham Road and Hall ourvstore.e bulk Given itse litter location directly across from
generated from sales at y
Tigard High School, it is safe to asiheirtlunch brmuch of the litter eak or free times y
dropped by
C students who visit the store during
re
I would like to request your cooperation to in, if
On behalf of the City, property. In addition,
that adequate trash receptBtT i the siteedon you
for debris which Y may be blown onto
you would take steps to p problem could be reduced.
properties or into the street, the p
other pro p requesting its
I an also sending a letter to the Tigard School Dis=obably ict Tigard High
assistance. Since the major source of litter is p reater
students, perhaps the School District can request that students pay 8
attention to the need for proper disposal of litter.
Together I hope that your company and the School District can take steps
which reduce the litter problem.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, /
William A. Monahan went
Director of Planning and Develop
C (WAM=dsj/0823P)
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
December 4, 1984
CITY OF TI17ARD
WASHINGTON COUNTY,OREGON
Al Davidian, Principal
Tigard High School
9000 SW Durham Road
RE: Litter Problems Associated with Plaid Pantry at the Corner of Durham
and Hall.
Dear Mr. Davidian,
Recently the City received complaints about litter problems at the above
named Plaid Pantry site opposite Tigard High School. It is believed that the
bulk of the litter generated at the site is associated with purchases made by
students during the course of the school day. I have written to Plaid Pantry
requesting their cooperation to provide a better clean up operation. To be
(\ successful, however, we also need the cooperation of your students.
Therefore, I would appreciate any efforts which you might make to request that
students shopping at the Plaid Pantry store take special care to dispose of
trash properly on site.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
L �
William A. Monahan
Director of Planning and Development
(WAM:dmj/0824P)
12755 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:639-4171
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 12-10-84 _ _ AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: _ 11-28-84 — PREVIOUS ACTION: Partial release of
ISSUE/AGENDA TIILF: Partial release Public Improvement bond monies
of Public Improvement bond _monies PREPARED BY: Rangy _Clarno
for Gallos Vineyards Sudivision REQUESIE'D BY: Herb Morissette Bldrs.
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _! V _` ? _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Herb Morissette Builders Inc. has requested that the City release that portion
of their Public Improvement Performance Bond (I-PLter of Commitment) that
covers work completed. The following is a list of those items being requested
for release.
Amt. Requested 20% Retainage
Construction Item Bond Amt. For Release 80% For Maintenance
8. Underground Telephone and $ 3,270.00 $ 2,616.00 $ 654 .00
Electrical
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Deny or accept their request.
SUGGESTED ACTION
i
The Engineering Section has inspected the above stated construction work and
has determined that it is complete. Therefore, Planning and Development
recommends release of the above stated funds.
RC:dmj/O811P
ti
R
Decenber 11, 1984
CITYOF TWARD
VaSHW&-M QOUW r.OREGON
Herbert E. Morissette, President
Herb Morissette Builders, Inc.
7470 SW 76th Ave.
Portland, Oregon 97223 tment Partial Release)
RE: Gallos Vineyard Subdivision (Letter of Corsi
Dear Mr. Morissette,
' five hundred
Letter of fitment, between
In the ratter of the one hundred thirty-four thousa • and Oregon
suety-three and 00/100 dollars ($1d34.5 3 that City a Tigard, Oregon
Herb Norio* and
Builders Association; this is to serve as official notice to
pioneer Savings and j'°an and Loan Association to release to Herb
allow said Oregon Pioneer Saving the deposit entrusted to said Oregon
Morissette Builder* In - a portion of
-
Pioneers Savings and Loan Association.
authoriseusand six hundred
d to be released is two tho
The amount hereby 00)
sixteen and 00/100 dollars ( 2,616• Savings and Loan Aosoc"tion
The amount to remain entrusted to Oregon PIOUeor t all remaining requirements
as a cash performance bond a assurethe shallCty- thabe thirty-siz thousand one hundred
of said Subdivision are coapleted,
� 36,154.16)•
fifty-four and 16/100 dollars (� o!`. the
not "be construed to nailify or "elter the`tsras
This notice shall went is :say ray; it is rarely an aathosisation
aforesaid Letter of Comm
release a portion of the entrusted monies. `
City. of Tigard.
Oregme.
By:
or
B
City B,scor er
f
zCadmj/0811P
PH: +N 71
12756 S.W.ASH P.O.BOX 23397 TK3ARD.OREGON 97223
IYFJ��OR/ssFTTF 8U/MFRS, /JVC.
7470 S.W. 76th • Porfhnd, Oregon 67223• 246-8803
November 20, 1984
City of Tigard
12420 S.W. Main
Tigard, OR 97223
ATTN: Randy Clarno
Re: Gallos Vineyard - Partial Release of Funds
Dear Mr. Clarno:
In accordance with our Letter of Committment and Performance
Bond signed by Herb Morissette Builders, Inc. and accepted by
the City of Tigard, we hereby request the City of Tigard provide
certification acknowledging completion of the following areas
of work at Gallos Vineyard Subdivision.
Underground Telephone and Electrical $3,270.00 $2,606.00
Work Completed per Rutan Construction
Contract $3,270.00
Funds Available for Release(80%) $2,616.00
Your earliest attention to this matter is appreciated.
Please call our office at 246-8803 when the authorization and
certification letter is ready and we will come pick it up for
delivery to our lender. Thank you.
Yours try,
Herbert E. Morissette, President
Herb Morissette Builders, Inc.
cc: Rutan Construction Co.
Oregon Pioneer Savings and Loan Association
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY �r-
AGENDA OF: 12-10-84 AGENDA ITEM #:
DATE SUBMITTED: 11-28-84 _._ PREVIOUS ACTION: Accepted sidewalk
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Performance Bond
Public Greenway Dedication - Copper PREPARED BY: Randy S. Clarno
Creek II and III Subdivisions REQUESTED BY: Tualatin Development Co.
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: I CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Copper Creek phased Subdivision development is located south of
Durham Road and west of SW 92nd Avenue. This Public Greenway Dedication is a
"condition of development." The dedication area is south of River-wood Lane
and north of Cook Park and is approximately 5.3 acres.
t
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
To not accept this Public Greenway Dedication.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Planning and Development Department recommends that Council accept this
Public Greenway Dedication.
0811P
dmj
INDIVIDUAL-GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
GREENWAY DEDICATION f
BENTS, that —""TIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY a division of
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRE
HAYDEN CORPORATION a Delaware CO` oration ur oses the following described real `
do hereby dedicate to the Public Oregon: Greenway Purposes
premises in Washington County, g i
SEE ATTACHED ••EXHIBIT A"
To have and
to
oand hold
the
esa above-described
stated. dedicated rights unto the Public
forever for the
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and the
liens and encumbrances, they have good and legal right to grant
property is free of all
and they will pay all taxes and assessments due and owing on
the rights above-described,
the property.
The amount paid for this dedication is $__0
(have) hereunt s his (her (their)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) has ( 19 4
and seal($) this 6th day of November
hand(s) (SEAL)
(SEAL)
Yres;dent
/l (SEAL)
(SEAL)
e retary I
STATE OF OREGON ; 1g 84
Be. November 6 ,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)
Personally appeared the above named Robert C. Luton and Barbara L. Harrison
who executed this instrument and each of them acknowledged to me that this instrument
was executed voluntarily and freely.
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission expires: 8/25/88
ACCEPTANCE
Approved as to form this _.3_ day of 0 —, 19�.
By. y Attorney - City of Tigard
Approved as to legal description this `21 _
day of , 19
Ci y Eng neer - City of Tigar
of 19 E� •
Accepted by the City Council this p day CITY COU CIL, CITY OF T CARD, OREGON
By:
ty Recorder - City of Tigard
(1704A)
(7-84)
"EXHIBIT A"
Real property situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 2
South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian lying within the City of
Tigard, Oregon, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of lot 74 as shown on the plat of Copper
Creek Stage 3, recorded in Plat Book 55 at pages 43 and 44, records of
Washington County, Oregon; thence South 0008157" East 260.48 feet to a point
on the Southline of the S. Richardson D.L.C. #44; thence along said Southline
South 89055'41" West 659.86 feet; thence South 0010'00" East 185.00 feet;
thence North 73050'00" West 231.73 feet; thence North 0011131" West 432.98
feet to the Southwest corner of Copper Creek Stage 2, as shown on the plat
thereof, recorded in Plat Book 54 at pages 34 and 35, records of Washington
County, Oregon; thence along said Southline South 72010'00" East 474.68 feet
to the Southeast corner of lot 36 of said Copper Creek Stage 2; thence along
the East line of said lot 36, North 9025'48" East 119.78 feet to a point on
the South right-of-,way line of S.W. Riverwood Lane (50 feet wide) as shown on
the plat of said Copper Creek Stage 3, said point also being on the arc of a
325.00 foot radius curve; thence along said right-of-way line and along said
curve to the left, through a central angle of 5052139" an arc distance of
33.34 feet to the Northwest corner of lot 68 as shown on said plat of Copper
Creek Stage 3; thence along the West line of said lot 68, South 0008'57"
East 110.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said lot 68; thence along the
Southline of lot 68 and 69 of said Copper Creek Stage 3, North 89013114"
East 108.00 Leet; thence along the Southline of lots 70, 71, 72, 73, and 74 of
said Copper Creek Stage 3, North 71052'23" East 283.86 feet to the point of
beginning.
Containing 5.35 Acres.
a a
a �
W
W N
N
rl Y 19'96
its,a.o sR . .'M R ►�- .-'�r
M
I £9,211
Ie) O,
i Z M
1 ssxzl �g•
N
:91 M "
19,fiL� LI't 1 �
p L� 96 Zzl 30�
£679
ta3ado3 MM oz)
�\
ms Is l .
V.9 09 o�t' "C9
boll $ $ �,
0 = o00 eon� /
QV G9 W06L r CV N
I,�tr9 NIiw�00 os d g -- �,
Cv
os
N r 8 9vet
g Ir£n s M
t0
S In �$ N M
IV M W
g �� 0 all
o„
Nti
N M Lt j� N M
os o O sit
oy) O a
fn MCL, N M d
M
p
sit Q
OO rn
N) �� N M
rorprn
:s1=a •s IT d , ! � 991
�M �N•Z� O ��o = ' �Q MS O O S =
N��
O
So 7W
�r O sit do
00
c., W O
Ci z
,� Iprn el-) p GO r
\�
60411 ki
"' " i
a ^ O IrD
00 v e
a —cv+►ol
os•I sol M ..Tc ,ol ,o a ' i
f I'1AM1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
1 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10, 1984 AGENDA ITEM #: krl
DATE SUBMITTED: December 3, 1984 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Incorrect Documents Accepted
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 72nd Right-Of-Way by Council and Rejected by Wash. County for
Recording.
PREPARED BY: Frank A. Currie _
REQUESTED BY: Frank A. Currie
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: *� - CITY ADMINISTRATOR: _
`t
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Attached are the fully executed and corrected documents for right-of-way fur
streets and easement for utili,ies for Ford Predelivery Service, Ident. u64.
This dedication was originally exe�-uted and accepted by Coun,-il, and only
r-presents a change in the calling of a deed reference.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NONE
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends Council accept this right-of-way and easement for recording,
and authorize the City Recorder to sign said documents.
f
r
Suite 446 -AGC Center
DE HAAS & 9460 S.W. Commerce Circle
,s Wilsonville. orpon 97070
- ssociates, Inc. (603)882-2460
Consuhing Engineers 8 surveyors
November 269 1984
Frank Currie
Public Works Director
City of Tigard
P .O. 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Frank :
Attached are the fully executed originals of the correct Street
Dedication and E e Corporation). These documents nt for Utilities for ident NO- reflect
(Predel i very Service
R.
proper corrections as noted
our
letter 10/23/84 to Mr. C.
Niemann of Predelivery Ser
Please record these documents in the usual manner .
4
Sincerely,ely,
1�7
Marlin
J.!OofDe aas, P.E .
Attach d/ents
cc: Ident No. 64
MJD/bh
Y
ID64-LTR.N26
STREET DEDICATION t. No. 64
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Predelivery Service Corporation,
a Delaware Corporation 4
hereinafter called grantor(s), for the sum of $ 6,496.88 grant and dedicate to
the Public a perpetual right-of-way for street, road dnd utility purposes on, over,
across, under, alone and within the folltwiny, described real property in Wanhineton
county, Or,.gon:
This is a correction description to correct the Book and Page of the Deed
Reference of Fee No. 84-017377
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
To have and to hold the above-described and dedicated rights unto the Public
for the uses and purposes hereinabove stated.
The grantor(s) hereby covenants that they are the owner(s) in fee simple and
have good and legal right to grant their rights above-described.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor(s) have hereunto set their hand and seals this
1st day of November 1984
(SEAL) (SEAL)
aug a ice rest en
(SEAL) -(SEAL)
IN WITNESS WHEPEOF the undersigned corporation has caused this Street Dedication
4c. ne executed by rt: duly authorized, undersigned officers.
rnM in"i' ^DHP(]HA TTnN _
Name of C rporation
�
V
Fres de - L. raziano
✓By: �W'
Secre ary- e
)
STATE OF Kichigan )
couNTY OF Wayne )
On this 1et day of November 1984 , personally appeared the above named
an•i .9cknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act and deed.
Befos Me:
No ary Public Ul:E1TA A MACKENROTH
My Commission expires
ACCEPTANCE S
Approved as to form this day of 19_ t
i
By:
City Attorney�y-� City of Tigard
Approved as to legal description this day of %G�' w`" 19 •
Accepted by the City Council this day of 19_
By:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
l of 3
Right-of-Way Acquisition Description Exhibit
o"A"
Ident. No. 64 Page
f 2
A parcel of land in the East ', of the East '� of Section 12, T.2S, R.IW.,
W.M., the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows:
Being that portion of the tract of land described in Book 897, Pages
940-942 of Washington County, Oregon Records (T.L. 800, Map
2S-1-12AD)which falls between a center line and a line 25 feet
easterly at right angles and parallel to said center line, said
center line described as follows:
/ Beginning at a point that is N 89038'24" E, 20.00 feet from
the recognized East 1/16th corner on the South line of said
Section 12 (the southwest corner of the East � of the southeast
of said Section 12) noted as Point No. 289 on County Survey
No. 19,127; thence along a center line N 0021'36" W, 2646.33
feet to a point that is N 89040144" E, 20.00 feet from an
iron pipe with a brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16th
corner (the northwest corner of the East 15 of the southeast
of said Section 12) noted as Point "P" on County Survey No.
13,247; thence continuing along said center line N 0016'56" W,
2627.25 feet to a point at the end of said center line that is
N 89043'04" E, 20.00 feet from a stone at the recognized 1/16th
corner (the northwest corner of the East 35 of the northeast
of said Section 12) noted as Point "B" on County Survey No.
13,247.
10/15/84
Z
of 3 80.194.118
Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 2
Stone at Recognized 1/16th a, , N 89043'04" E
Corner (Point "B" on j 20.00'
C.S. 13,247)
m
w
c
v
u1 I
v
v
V
d X1'1 I
U N
Q n
N I
O
C N ,
N
VI
K
W
20'
25'
N 30'
�---- Assessment Ident. No. 64
z Tax Lot No. 1800
Tax Map. No. 2S-1-12AD
c z Deed Ref.: Book 897, Page 940-94
cz ;o I Owner: Predelivery Service
�+ Corporation
Additional Right-of-Way Contains
;.$ I 2888 Square Feet more or less .
�z
( I
Scale 1'=100' I I
Date: 10/15/84 I I
Brass Cap in Iron Pipe •
at Recognized 1/16th Center Line Angle Point
I
Corner (Point "P" on N 89040144" E 20.00'
C.S. 13,247) I I
I I
I M I
y M
c %D
I Q N
I �
c
I N M Additional Right-of-Way
a
I
0
Recognized 1/16th Corner z
Point of Beginning of
County Road No. 922 N 89038'24" E 20.00'
(Point No. 289 on C.S. 19,12
09HAAS&ASSOCIATES,INC. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION MAP
CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SURVEYORS L I D NO. 21
SWm"S-AOC CAFAW M3)so-Wo CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
aso s w Cawwa"Cwm A" 03"Ift
w,tion.ft.Or.,"novo
3 of 3 File No. 80.194.118
i
Project: 72nd Avenue Area - LID No. 21
Assessment Ident. No. :
64
f
Tax Lot No. : 800
Tax Map No.: 2S-1-12AD
Deed Reference: Fook 897, Page 940-942
EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES
Predelivery Service Corporation
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That
a Delaware Corporation
of the County of State of in Consideration of the
sum of $1.00 (One Dollar) to them in
,ty
hand paid, do hereby grant and convey unto the o igard, a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon,
a right-of-way and easement over, across and under the following described
real property situated in the County of Washington, State of Oregon, to-wit:
PERMANENT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
This is a correction description to correct the Book and Page of the
deed reference of Fee No. 84-017378
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED
This permanent easement is granted for the purpose of laying, constructing,
replacing, and maintaining utility lines, and the easement herein granted
shall include the right for the Grantee to go over. across and under said
land for the purpose of installing said utility lines and maintaining and
repairing them, but reserving to the grantors the title to the lands,
subject to the easement, and the right to make such use thereof, except
to construct buildings, as will not interfere with the uses and purposes
< of the easement. /
Page 1 1 ��
Utility Easement
TEMPORARY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
- E
NONE
t
This temporary easement is granted solely for the purpose of constructing
utilities within the above described permanent easement. Said temporary
easement shall cease to exist Thirty (30) days from the date of certifi-
cation of completion of the project by the Engineer.
Grantors covenant to and with Grantee that they will not in any manner interefere
with or restrict, except as herein stated, Grantee's use of said easement.
This right-of-way and easement is granted with the understanding
that any
work done by the City of Tigard pursuant hereto will be so done as to
leave the premises here described in condition reasonably similar to
the previous state thereof when any work is finished thereon.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE Herein described right-of-way and easement unto
the City of Tigard, its successors and assigns, forever.
In the event that it becomes necessary for any person now or hereafter a
fits and/or obligations of this easement to institute a y
party to the benea
action or suit to enforce ny of their rights hereunder, the party P 9
in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover its costs and disburse-
ments and suchisumn saas the id actionorsu�trt aorudge reasonable as anY PPeaI thereonattorney's fees
to be allowed
Page 2
utility Easement / .
The grantors do hereby warrant that they are the owners in fee simple
and have the right to grant the above described easements.
W NESS o hands a d seals this 1st Day of November 1984 .
.�jtl• •�� (SEAL) _ (SEAL)
aug an ice Presi Fe
(SEAL) ,(SEAL)
(SEAL) (SEAL)
For a consideration, the mortgage lien on the above described properties
is hereby made subordinate to the easements above granted.
Dated this _ day of 19---
NONE
9,___NONE
Mortgagee
By _
Title
INDIVIDUAL)
STATE OF Michigan )
County of _ Wayne
BE IT REMEMBERED That on this 1st day of November 1984 ,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,
personally appeared the above named J. W. Baughman
and
who are known to me to be the identical individuals described in and who
executed the above instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the
same freely and voluntarily.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and
year last above written.
Notdiry Public LUKETTA A. MACKENROTH
NOIa'l PWOC. 0r—nu i.,unty. MI
My commission expires My commission Expires May 25. i"R%
1
Page 3
Utility Easement 3 Of
7
f
I f�e
f
,
t: i
RP
t
SCORATE 0
STATE OF Michigan )
) ss.
County of _Wayne
On this 1st day of November 19 84 before me
appeared L. J. Graziano _ and
D. R. Jolliffe _ both to me
personally known, who being duly sworn, did say that he, the said
L. J. Graziano is the President, and he,
the said D. R. Jolliffe is the Secretary of
Predelivery Service Corporation _ the within
named Corporation, and that the seal affixe.i to said instrument is
the corporate seal of said Corporation, and that the said instrument
was signed and sealed in behalf of said Corporation by authority of
its Board of Directors, and L. J. Graziano and
D. R. Jolliffe acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said Corporation.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and
year last above written.
No ry Public for State of Michigan
County of {Mayne EORtTfA A. MACKENROTH
Notary Nu')lic, Wayne County. MI
My Cammiss un Expires May 25, 19R_
My Commission Expires:
Page 4
Utility Easement I O f 7
ACCEPTANCE ti
The City above named hereby accepts the foregoing grants and agrees to
with each and every term and condition thereof. 1
comply. .�
CITY OF TIGARD
By: _
Mayor
By:
- c,ty Recorder
s
STATE OF OREGON )
ss.
County of Washington)
On this day of 19 before me appeared
and
both to me personally known who, being duly sworn, did say that he, the said
_ is the Mayor, and he, the said
is the Recorder of the CITY OF TIGARD,—a municipal
corporation, and the said _ and
acknowledged the said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and
year last above written.
Notary Public for State of Oregon
i
t
r
fly Commission Expires:
Page 5 Soir 7
Utility Easement '
utilities Easement Description Exhibit "A"
i'
Ident. No. 64 Page 1 of 2
A parcel of land in the East 2 of the East 2 of Section 12, T.2S, RAW. ,
W.M. , the City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows:
Being that portion of the tract of land described in Book 897 "ages 940-
942 of the Washington County, Oregon Records (T.L. 800, Map 2S-1-12AD)
which falls between a line 25 feet easterly at right angles and
parallel to a center line and a line 30 feet easterly at right angles
and parallel to said center line, said center line described as
follows:
Beginning at a point that is N 89038'24" E, 20.00 feet from the
recognized East 1/16th corner on the South line of said Section
12 (the southwest corner of the ,East 2 of the southeast 4 of said
Section 12) noted as Point No. 289 on County Survey No. 19,127;
thence along said center line N 0021'36" W, 2646.33 feet to a
point that is N 89040'44" E, 20.00 feet from an iron pipe with a
brass cap inside at the recognized 1/16th corner (the northwest
corner of the East 2 of the southeast , of said Section 12) noted
as Point "P" on County Survey No. 13,247; thence continuing along
said center line N 0016'56" W, 2627.25 feet to a point at the end
of said center line that is N 89043104" E, 20.00 feet from a stone
at the recognized 1/16th corner (the northwest corner of the
East 2 of the northeast : of said Section 12) noted as Point "B"
on County Survey No. 13,247.
C
10/15/84
0 80. 194. 118
Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 2
-
Stone at Recognized 1/16th i` N 89043104" E c 1 20.00'
Corner (Point "B" on _, 1
C.S. 13,247)
c
w
ul
v Ia,
uN 1
u 1
a r`
rN I
N
1
X
W
20'
' 25'
N �O'
Fd
dent. No. 64
8 800
I 25-1-12AD
A = Book 897, Page 940-94
;o elivery Service
oration
u o I utilities Easement Contains
2888 Square Feet more or less .
Iz
I
Scale 1'=100' I I
Date: 10/15/84 I I
i
i
Brass Cap in Iron Pipe ---2_
at Recognized 1/16th N N Center Line Angle Point
Corner (Point "P" on I N 89040'44" E 20.00'
C.S. 13,247) I I
I I
I M I
C O
I > O
q N
I � .
C l
n'
s
Area of
Utilities Easement
cm
Recognized 1/16th Corner '0
0
Point of Beginning of z
County Road No. 922
(Point No. 289 on N 89038'24" E 20.00'
C.S. 19,127)
DeHAAS A ASSOCIATES,INC. UTILITIES EASEMENT MAP
CpNSI.XTING ENGINEERS A SURVEYORS LID NO. 21
Suwt.4D-AGCCWAV (50)GG-PW CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON
Mx a w coma.*Chess lies.63"105
W.I$ "ft.o.pew OMO
O filitNR. 69,411A
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: December 10 AGENDA ITEM #:
1984 -
DATE SUBMITTED: December 10 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Civic Center
Widows _ PREPARED BY: Joy Martin
REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR_
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The issue regarding the windows in the Civic Center is whether or not to have
operable widows. The architects just informed staff that this decision needs
to be made now in order to incorporate the intent in the bid document.
• of here
are twenty widows, mostly in the administrative/general Po'
project, which could be operable. The two options are briefly discussed
below, with the suggested action being a compromise.
The principle reasons given
ventilati inoperable
and air windows
co ditioninglisted
system (HVAC) is not
1. The heating, �'�9
able to work efficiently with operable windows. .
2. It is more difficult to keep a uniform temperature throughout the
work area with operable windows $100 more per window.
3, Operable widows cost more, approximately
4. Operable windows increase security problems.
S. The Civic Center Advisory Committee recommends inoperable widows.
The primary reasons given for operable windows are listed below:
1 . Should the system fail, there will be some air circulation, thereby
avoid the need to close City Hall. To close City Hall alone (not
the Library or Police portions) will cost $3,500 per day in
personnel costs. Therefore, the costs for operable widows will be
recovered if there is only one 2—hour period of operation when we
would have to close due to system failure.
2. The option of operable windows will enhance the quality of the work
environment. Many occupants of new buildings wish operable widows
were installed.
3 . To install operable windows at a later date will cost $750 per
widow for retrofiting.
s poor air circulation and temperature
4. The current system provide }
inconsistencies creating an unhealthy environment.
A compromise position is to have the capability of opening a limited number of
widows, thereby reducing costs yet preserving the option if conditions occur
where it will be needed.
SUGGESTED ACTION
A motion to direct the architects to de i
inclun the bid document ten operable
widows with the capability of opening being controlled by removable cranks or
locks.
(JM:bs/0669p)
CITY OF TIGARD,. OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDAITEM SU!nq-R—y
AGENDA OF: 12/10/84 AGENDA ITEM #: Non-Agenda
DATE SUBMITTED: 12-10-84 PREVIOUS ACTION:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: _Civic Center
_g!Ad�et Clarification PREPARED BY: Joy Martin ........
REQUESTED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The issue before Council tonight is to clarify and formally ratify your intent
on the distribution of Civic Center Project expenditures. This is necessary
in order to establish common understanding and for the calculations on the
control budget to be discussed December 1.2, 1984 at the Budget Committee
meeting.
According to the discussion Of the motion unanimously passed at the
February 20, 1984 meeting (see attached minutes, page 2) the revenues for the
f. Civic Center are to be from the bond measure, sale of old City Hall property
and Pinpbrook lots and interest earnings from the bored proceeds. The bond
measure is intended for land and construction costs, and the remaining
revenues are for furnishings. At that time revenues From W*,'CLS were unknown.
Since then part of the WCCLS revenues have been appropriated to the project
for Library furnishings and Library interiors instead of using other General
Funds sources.
At November 12, 1984 regular meeting of city Council the architects presented
the plans and budget as of Lhe end of the Design Development stage (COPY Of
the budge handout is attached) . This shows the bond sale and interest
earnings, property sales, and $35,000 of WCCI-S dollars as revenues for the
project, not including $65,000 of WCCLS revenues intended for. Library
furnishings ("interiors" are built-in work such as the Library circulation
desk; "furnishings" are finishing items such as partitions, blinds, etc.)
The purpose of this discussion and motion is to confirm the intent to use the
revenues from the bond sale and interest earnings, property sales, and $35,000
of the WCCI-S dollars for the project, with furnishings being separate.
SUGGESTED_ACTION
A motion to include in the Civic Center project bu(:;z. revenues from the bond
sale and interest earnings, Pinebrook lot and Old City Hall property sales,
and $35,000 of the WCCLS money. The project budget includes land and
construction costs and interiors.
(JM:bs/0668p)
L4
CITY OF TIGARD
/ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 20, 1984
City Nall
The meeting was called to order by President Ken Scheckla at 7:32 p.m. Roll
Call: John Cook, Ken Scheckla, Ima Scott, Wilbur Bishop (7:34), Tom Brian.
An Executive Session was immediately ,called. Council reconvened at 8:12 p.m.
Staff: R. Jean, J. Widner, I. Ertell, B. White, K. Hawes
Guests: L. Allen, B. Wyffels, P. Ober, W. Munhall, R. Appleman, R. Bendixsen,
J. Miller, G. Ball.
Press: J. Mitchell, Oregonian and C. Weslund, Tigard Times
1. City Hall Lease Extension: Ken Scheckla moved to authorize the City
Administrator to sign a lease agreement with Jerry Crow for City Hall
facilities. Ima Scott seconded. Vote: 5/0 passed.
2. Library Lease Extension: John Cook moved to authorize the City
Administrator to sign a lease agreement with Otto Sorg Estate for the rental
of the Library building, subject to City Attorney approval. Ima Scott
seconded. Vote: 5/0 passed.
�^ 3. Space Needs III Report: W. Munhall urged Council to continue the momentum.
CMayor Bishop wanted to know what the cost difference was between Sturgis and
Air King. The Air King site would require the installation of an elevator.
alow
Ralph Appleman reviewed the schematic of the Sturgis site
ft.-lzbra=uld 111400
mid-range space needs: 10,400 sq. ft.-police; 12,750 sq. y:
sq. ft.-City Hall. The facility will provide 87 public parking spaces and 64
spaces for staff. He also explained how the facility could be expanded in the
future. The design has flexibility with the heating and venting system and it
doesn't have bearing walls.
R. Jean reminded Council that we have not yet selected a project architect.
Mr. Appleman was asked to produce a conceptual picture of what the building
would look like. What other ways to save money--down design will not save
that such. Mr. Appleman stated that materials could be an area of savings,
however, it has been his experience that replacement costs sometimes eat up
any initial savings. Mr. Appleman also stated that he would like to get the
bid for the project when the time comes.
Tom Brian stated that he did not want to ask the voters for more money than
was requested in November. He recommended no more than $2.2 million be on the
measure. The land cost of between $550,000 and $600,000 would be subtracted
leaving a balance to construct a new building to house police, library and
City Hall.
A discussion followed regarding the merits of bids from architects etc.,
ending with the suggestion that the request for proposal be on a fixed fee
with incentive for savings basis.
iii
ifoing
Tom Brian moved to adopt the reeolutiofill-in h election date ofpacket withe March w27.
t
changes: First page-Resolution 84-12.
1984, pacific Standard Time, amount to be $2.200.000 and replace in the
-in in
question "a city" with "land and". Second page-$2.200,000 Cass d 20Ch dday of
both yes and no sections; Section 3 b 4. March 27. 1984% p appropriate. The
February. 1984. Exhibit "A" and "B" same change seconded
title to include the word Land after City.
Ims Discussion followed regarding what was included in the bond measure. The bond
measure will pay for the purchase of' land and the construction of a building.
Furnishings will be paid from other sources 1•e•9 sale of old City Hall and
Finebrook lots, interest earnings from bond proceeds.
The vote: 5/0 passed.
Discussion followed regarding the cost per $1.000 to taxpayers. This
information was provided in a table form. The average will be 11i over 25
.
years. Wilbur stated that he will support this measure, although he feels the
Cthis is not the least expensive way to
City could be getting a better buy and
go.
Tom Brian stated that by caping the bond at $2.2 million and with a design
for efficiency the City will be getting a good value for its money.
John Cook stated that anytime you build to suit you are going to come out
ahead. He also told the library board how much he appreciated their hard work
in this endeavor. He also thanked Ken Scheckla and Tom Brian for carrying
} through with the negotiations with Mr. Sturgis.
t Walt Munhall stated that the City has never built a structure and this is the
Cbeginning.
R. Jean stated there were two related items to take care of before adjournment.
Ken Scheckla moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the earnest money agreement
with Mr. Sturgis. John Cook seconded. Vote: 5/0 passed.
f
-'
Ken Scheckla to select an
John Cook moved to authorize Tom Brian and
independent appraiser to appraise the -Sturgis site. Ina Scott seconded.
Vote: 5/0 passed.
Ralph Appleman recommended that a soils test be done.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
ting Cit�corder - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
Mayor - City of Tigard
(JW/0202F)
5MINC01Qd1tre[5n1Q, arcn�tect520915 SW. 105th AVENUE, TUALATIV, OREGO9/062 503MM06.5
Ir
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER November 12, 1984
RESOURCES
Bond Sale 2,200,000.00
Interest 202,000.00
Pinebrook Lot 25,000.00
WCCLS 35,000.00
Old City Hall 105,000.00
S.D.C. (Participation in bus
stop and 1/4 of half
street improvement) 10,000.00
Sub Total 2,577,000.00
RELATED COSTS
Bond Cost 37,000.00
Debt Service 98,000.00
Land Cost 544,500.00
Legal/Appraisal/Soils 8,500.00
Fees b Charges 14,000.00
Program 3,000.00
Varner 3,000.00
Sub Total :708,000:00
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDS AVAILABLE _ = 1,869,000.00
PROJECT COSTS:
CONTINGENCY for CHANGE ORDERS 50,000.00
A/E FEES 126,907.00
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET 1,692,093.00
$ 1,869,000.00
ullpd[lremi(Darc5mitr1/d1
20915 SW 10501 AVENUE, TUALATNV, OFEGON 97062 5031692-6065
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER
November 12, 1984
Design Development Cost Estimate
Architectural/Structural $ 986,532.00
Mechanical 227,800.00
Electrical 141,700.00
Landscaping/Paving/Damage
148,202.00
34,000.00
Half Street Improvement
i
SUB TOTAL 1,538,234.00
Contractors Site Cost & Overhead @ 6% 92,294.00
1,630,528.00
Contractors Profit @ 4% 65,221.00
$ 1,695,749.00
Credit Cost Of Permits 7,000.00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,688,749.00
I
CITY OF TIGARD......2REGON
COUNCIL AGENDA _ITE-M SUMMARY
December 10 1984 AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA OF
DATE SUBMII-I-FD: Nov. 30 1984 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council .set as agenda .
ISSUE/AGENDA TIALF : Elton Ph.j_lliPs item at November 26 1984, meeting
Ravine PREPARED BY:
108th/113th RFQUUS-TE0 BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR:
INFORMATION_qU_MMAR!
Elton Phillips hj*�, requested clarif ication frOm thc, city Council concerning
the application (if the Sensitive Lands portion oF the code to his development
of lots in the 10eth/11.3th Ravine,
ALTERNATIVES_CONSIDERED
SUGGESTED ACTION
1. Require dedication Of X11 floodplain area as part of the sensitive lands
process.
2. Direct staff to pursue a revised policy in reviewing Mr. Phillips'
Sensitive Lands application.
0823P
dmj
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF 'TIGARD, OREGON
T0: Members of the City Council
December 3, 1984
FROM: William A. Monahan, Director of Planning and Development
SUBJECT: Elton Phillips -- Ravine Issue 108th/113th
Mr. Elton Phillips recently annexed property located within the
ity 108th/11.3th Ravine i tin tthe Cf singerdthe Ravines Comprehensive
isidentified a Plan
restricts develop ravinelace a sewer line in the Ravine
significant natural feature in the Plan. To lace
Mr. Phillips must apply for a Sensitive Lands permit.
A problem has arisen since Mr. Phillips wishes to retain a portion of his
land which is within the floodplain. The City f
staff Coderequires
dedication
interpreted thatthis
"sufficient" open space for greenway.
ls
means all lands within the floodplain
thtustaff enforcesa itCshouldCindicateeets
that this should not be the policy that
preferred policy .
The pertinent policy reads in part as follows
ENT
OWED
3 .2.3 WHERE1LND 00AORM ALTERATIONS AND FLOODPLAIN* OUTSIDETHE07_MRO -FOOT RISE
THE YEARFLOODWAY*N
THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE:
d. THE DEDICATION OF SUFFICIENT OPEN LAND AREA FOR GREENWAY
ADJOINING THE FLOODPLAIN* INCLUDING PORTIONS AT A SUITABLE
ELEVATION FOR TFIE CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
PATHWAY WITHIN THE FI-000PLAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ADOPTED PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY PLAN.
The question which the Council should address is, where development takes
ed
place on property which includes the Ravine area, should acriteria1, area lshouldlbe
as the floodplain be dedicated to the City? If not,
used to determine the extent of the dedication?
A map showing the area identified by Mr. Phillips as floodplain area,
elevation 128 or below, is attached for your review.
i
0823P
dmj
5 - 00' 03 '20'- E
( 1
o OD ' D
_ c
rrri
o o
ouof 1 'e
Ln T
CID
t. �O w 204 .50' - l
IV
7l7
/K
00',
5 �
i
t
r%
i % EL • /Iz8-
k� 1
i
r
A
�I.
�Y�x
h GR6F/✓Wvy
. 3
A/Pe'A FoiC r" -'C'/G11�
v 6z r -i-•=s
�'�o�o s�-o GR��ivw�y .�frE T-cs4� ��.► .u� �.# ,�u t z.y -
/.t
IRS