Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/14/1986 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 49snda item needs t® sign an the'appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, APRIL 14, 1986. 7:00 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the !start F014'LF-R TUNIOR H1CH of that a3enda iters. Visitor's ageri4a items are 10865 SW WRLNUT asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contactirkg either the'Mayor or City Administrator. 1. REGULAR KEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and RollCall ' 1.2 Pledgs of Allegiance 8.3 Csll To:'Stafr at-,4 C:ouncil'For`,Non-Pgenda Items, Motion to approve as aLi'mrided. 2. CAtVV,�SS ELECTIONS - 5�acrch 25, :1964 - Motion o 'Deputy City Recorder 3. ADMINISTER wES4 COUNCILOR OA'?er.S OF OFFICE o Mayor 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes ur Less, Please) S. AWIINISTE? ?u CHIEF 0=' POLICE OATH OF OFFICE o 'Mayor 6. PROCLWATION "Bust Say No To Drugs" flay O Mayor 7. TIGARD PRONOTIONS, XNC. (TPI) PRELIMINARY REPORT '. o Shuck taartin. TPI Pregi.dent . 8. PUBLICHEARING - STREET VACATION - 99W FRO11TP,GE ROAD Al PARK,STREET rr Public Hearing Opened a Declareticns Or Challenges o Summation By City Recorder, ` o Public 'testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation.Dy City Recorder o Council Questions Or Comments` o Public Hearing closed �€=: o Consideration By Council E; 9. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING# - SUBDIVISION - S 1-E6 - LINCOLN sA'JINGS AND LOA A request by NPO 96 to re v-'Gj4 or. appsal an approval by the Planning ¢ Co°uaission of subdivision diuic€ing 2.68 acres into 18 'lots with:a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. This will be an "argument,type" hearing only. The Council will ,consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on file at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or ovidance uhii.ch his not in the record in accordance wi`h Section 18,32.320 of the Tigard Municipal Code. o Public Hearing Continued -• From Parch 24, 1986 a Declarations Or Challenges o Ar gumai. Appellants, Respondents, fappallants' Rebuttal o Council questions Or Comments � o Public llaarisul Closed Fz - o E`.onsisiaraation By Council - 10, PUBLIC HEARTIoTs - FIRST :C!',#TERSTATE TRUST -- WR 6-86 & V 5-36 hPO 3 �t A -aquert by the City of Tigard City Council to review the Ccnmunity Davelo nt Diraactor's a,�rroval withc«szcdityons'to devaalop a 6804 s$. ft, retail/auto seryice -building sand an automatic car mah and, ,;a � variguace for deletion of a portion of pAblic, sidavnklk aloes Center f:- street and to allovi a landscaped area of 13.5% where '15% is 'reduirad. # !�• 'The- property is zea epi r G and is lot.wDd at the northwest coy of pa9ia is #Tirabasay axe:Crxan3€xsr'g Road iTa1:T�i r"Sl 2AR, Lots=3004, IOOi, a T: T o Consider fiy�pliczant"s Request Te Tda�erss -T}aciHiori of Ccoanci'l To t' Review € neciaion By Council YI, 100.6•H/u.'a sawk LID REPORT - PNASC"71 -- 'RESOLUITO?! NO. 96-__..,. o' Projact EnginQer 12, WE';RY gTREF SE14ER LTD REPORT - PHASE T:3: frESOLUTTO:N NO. 86-,_ Kr o :Project Enginear i s f Gtl€tfiL`TL E�1DA #APRIL 14,. 19906 PAGE R 3 h; 13. CIVIL INFRACTIONS ORDINANCE NO. :16- 0Co:murity Deuelopmont Directpr 14. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CODE REVISION - ORDINANCE NO- 867- Legal Counsel 15. COUNTY ROAD 3URISDICTIO, ACCEPTAN DIsCOSSION .1 Resolution No`. 86- - 22 Various Roads 2 Resolution No. 86- - Durham Road o Community Development Director 16. COMMIUNXTY D£VELOP1iEWT CODE REVISION -- COUNCIL INITIATED o r-owmunity Development Director 17. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to by routine and may be enacted in one emotion without separate rdiscussion. Anyone my request that an itain be removed ;by motion for discussion and-soparata action. Motion to: ` 17.1 Approue Coy}nci2 Minutes - A�ra3r 20 & 24, 1986 17.2 Approve City ;Administrator Authority,For Job Description Approval Ari! Implementation - Resolution No. 8"I 17.3;' Receive and File: a. Cozmranity'Duvelopment Land Use Decisions b. Council Calendar Update c. Tentative Agendas - Quarterly Update 17.4 Approve Board and Committee Appointments: a. Approve Utilities+& Franchises Co2mmittaca Appoint. -- Res. 's 6-34 b, Approve Budget ConmaitteQ'Appointment - Resolution #,k62 17.5 Approve Dartmot4th Engineer's Contract & Authorize Signatures Part 1 - That Portion Of work FalliN Within Limits Of LSD -- -� --- �- - Fart ,2 - That Portion, Of Fork Failing Outside Limits Of LID 17.6 Approve Addition Of Liability Rider To City's insurance Policy for Crusin' 'Tigard '96 17.7, Approve Signalization Agreement dor kaalllHcQonald With ODOT: & AuthorizeSignatures - Resolution 9o. 86-35 117.8 Declare Library Surplus/Refuse Material '& Approve Disposal To - Won-Profit Organization - Resolution IYo. 96-36 " 17.9 Approve Training Roqua_,.s: > a 11A" Love1 Inspectors, Building Division - Brad Roast $100 Tom Plescher - $100 b. 'Recorder's Certification'School - LOreQP Wilson - $395 17.10 Accept Street Dedication S Pemsinent Gan, Sewer Ease M ant - Dick 1(adQ1 - Gr•,aenburg Road - ---17.11 Accept Compliance Agreement - Davidson Storm Sewer Relocation - SW - Walnut Place 17.12 Approve Conditional Acceptance of Davidson Storm Sewer d Authorize Partial Release ($62170) Of Bond - Resolution NO- l6-37 17.13 Accept Subdivision'Compliance AgreamQnt & Project Bond - Morning Hill,'ff4 1.7.15 Approve Conditional Acciptmnce Of Bond Park II Swed. - Res.N 26-38 17.15 Approve Conditional Acceptance of Bond 'Park III Subd. --Res.0g -39 17.16 Approve Acceptance of Bellwood Ill Subdivision & Release Of Bond - Resolution Ho- 86-40 17.17 Approve Subdivision Compliance AqPreeraent & Sena For "Penn ,Lawn Estates II Subdivision And Authorize Signatures 17.13 Approve TAG Insurance Rider 17.19 Approve Sign Placement For 'Landscape Maintenance Of:Oregon' At Liberty Park 17.20 Accept Non-Romanstrance Agreement - Kruger Corp. Cotswold Meadows #2 subdivision 17.21 Approve Chief of Police Employment Agreement - Resolution No, 86•-43 s , 19. MON-AGENDA'ITf.S: From Council .and Staff 20. E#EC33TEVE 'SESSION. The Tigard City Council will ra into Executive Session under the {provisions of OR$ 19z.660 (1)(d) tx (h): to diacusz labor relationsiand current/ponding litigation issues. 9 21. ADTOU9?V4E?1T T lu/3793A C iCIL 1 NDA APRIL 14, 1996 - PAGE 2 71 T I G A R D C I T Y C C U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — 'APRIL 14, 1986 — 7.00 P.M. Y 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John Cook (left rtseeting at 10:58 PM); Councilors: Torn Brian, Carolyn 'Eadon', Jerry Edwards, and Valerie Johnson; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Admiycistrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Div-actor, Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Lor•een Wilson' Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON—AGENDA AGENDA ITEMS a, Mone were presented. 3. C;AWVASS ELECTION RESULTS — March 25, '1986 Election a. Recorder synopsized the election results as follows, Council Position #2 — Lee R. Cunningham — 435 votes cast in favor : Valerie A. Johnson - 1064 te # Council Position #3 — Carolyn Eadan 387 " - R. M. Finlay 428 p. b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to t' receive and file election results. : F' Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. r}. ABMI ISTER NEW COUNCILOR OATHS OF OFFICE a. Mayor Cook administered the oaths of office to Councilors Valerie Johnson and Carolyn Eadon. They then took their places at the Council. table. � 5. ADMINISTER NEW CHIEF OF POLICE OATH OF OFFICE p(. a. Mayor Cook administered the oath of office to David _Lahr as Chief p, i' of Police. tr. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Mr .. 9tob 31a'�el?/, Presi:dent of the 'Tigard Rotary Club, presented Mr. Dennis Borman of the Club. Mr. 'Borman presented to Fuad Librarian Irene Ertell and Library Board Chairman Mr. Walt: Munhall a check for 1L1,E3tlC} which is to be used to furnish the youth oriented area at the new Tigard Library. b. Mayor Cook thanked the Rotary Club on behalf of the Council. 7. PROCLAMATIONS a. Mayor Cook read proclamation noting 5/22/86 as "Just Say No To f Chugs" Day in the City. b. Russ Joki., Tigard School. District Superintendent, thanked the City for 'its assistance in the area of drugs enforcement in schools and stated the St izr3ol € istrict will celebrate ' this day with special activities. ' Page i - COUNCIL MI€UTES —' APRIL 14, 1906 g , , C. Mayor Cook: read proclamation declaring May 12 through ,.7 as "i igarc! - 25 Years And Building" for- the Civic Center dedication week. S. TIGARD PROMOTIONS, INC. (TPI) ;PRELIMINARY REPORT G tChuck Martin, TRI President, highlighted the planning being a.t r accomplished for the annual Crusin' Tigard `86 celebration r, scheduled for the last Saturday in; July. He stated TPI wishes to tie into the "25 Years and Bui.l.ding" theme of the City this year and is working around a 1961 theme for the celebration with a �. fdcus on family= participation. � b, Councilor or:ran congratulated "k'P'T for their dedication and hours of work. 9. PUBLIC HEARING STREET VACATIOV R 3igTAGE ROAD AT PARK STREET f s a. Public Hearing Opened � b. Recorder synopsized the vacation request by, Mercury Development was needed to facilitate the development of commercial noting it 99W. The Planning Commission and City Engineer• property a recommended approval of the request. C. Public Testimony: s Proponents'` a Paul GraIvam, MercuryDevelopment, requested approval for site development needs. ' d. Recorder recommended rapproval. f e. Public Hearing Closed f. ORDINANCE NO. 86 13 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE 99VJ FRONTAGE ROAD HE VICINITY OF PARK STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, g• Potion by councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson to adapt. 4 Approved by unanimousvote of Council present. 10. AIPPEAL Pg Ell 4 RI - SUBDIVISIOW, - S 1-86 LlwootH SAVINGS AND LOAN A request key Npo g6 to review on appeal an approval, by the Planning Commission of a subdivision dividing 8.69 acres into 18 lots with a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. This will be an "argument--typa" hearing only. The Council will consider only the record before the Planning Commission, which is on -fi.le at City Hall. The Council shall not consider any new testimony or evidence which is not in the record in .32,320 of the Tigard Municipal Code. accordance with Section 78 a. Public Hearing Continued - From March 24, ,198b b, Declarations Or Challenges; Councilor Eadon and Johnson stated they would not participate in this decision as they were not present for prior hearings and did riot review the fu11 record. page,2 - COUr%,Cik.. MINUTES APRIL 14, 1986 C. Senior PlannerLidera highlighted the efforts by staff, developer,' and citizens during' the last two weeks to resolve :some of the issues. Except for. lot 18, the Audubon, Society and Corps of Engineers had 'indicated approval with sere modifications. Corps a of Engineers will require a 404 permit be filed prior to work in the floodways. City Engineer, Pandy Wooley submittel a copy of his memo dated 4/3/86 which' outlined comments and concerns regarding the proposed development. City Engineer's recommendation'was to riot extenel `Riverwood Lane across 92nd Avenue with only a driveway to service lot 17 From 92nd Avenue. }3e further noted -that with Ei.vurvscod Lane going through to 22nd more ingress/egress for the neighborhood' would be allowed and said design was in complia-nce with the Comprehensive Plan 'Traffic Element. He recommended Riverwood Lane be constructed to a 34' nide right-of-away. d, gM"Ument o #favid Hamer, 16520 SW 93rd, expressed concern for wetlands and slope and sugr c st,ed -a pa be placed '.From Kneeland III Subdivision (or a 93rd Avenue) down to Cook Park to help ease traffic problems. o Sally LeRoy, {9505 .SW Riverwood Lane, suggested that -to be consistent with policy ;3.4.1., the wetlands could not be encroached upon and noted Ccok Park and the surrounding wetlands had educational/research value. o €ion Mangel.li, 1641= SCJ 93rd avenue, was concerned about: the } strQPtsftraffic and wetlands, but noted he was not against further'development in the area. o Phil Paster-is, WPO ,#6 Chairman, noted historic of request and the NPO's involvement to date, NPO 46 and the citizens present at the last meeting voted to not have Riverwood extended to 92nd Avenue, He suggested the developer's' new proposal of a subdLvision design had potential but requested additional time to review with citizens, staff, and the developer. o Councilor- Brian noted hundreds of hours of citizens hearings had gone into the dove lopment of the Comprehensive Plan and that '`document required 'Riverwood Lane connect at 92nd Avenue. o Councilor Edwards questioned whether• it had been determined that lot 10 :did encroach in the 100 year floodplain.' City Engineer stated this would need to be surveyed to know what remount €of encroachment would occur, o Dan Leslie, ;9540 SIJ Riverwood Lane, was concerned with an increase of Park traffic conning onto Riverwood Lane should it be connected to 92nd Avenue'. -` Page 3 '- COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1986 o Norman Harker, Alpha Engineering, 1.750 SW Skyline Blvd. represented the developer - Lincoln Savings He noted they warp aware of the need for a 404 permit with the Corps of Engineers. He furthier reported 'on the ll #6 meeting with the citizens and sdggested a condition be placed on the development to survey and delete anything which would fall within the100 year floodplain. o City Administrator suggested Council. could approve the request subject to an alignment angle of Riverwood Lane at 82nd Avenue being approved by the City Engineer. H.e encouraged Council to se= the parameters of appro�ra). now. me o Community Development Director 'cautioned Council that the transportation ; plan was in Place prior oto any density planning occurring in the Camp Plan process He was concerned haw conditions Placers on this development would impact both the plan and density;. e, Public Hearing Closed f City Administrator stated the 120--day time line requirement by kCC was running nut and that council would have to adapt a final order, in this matter :by May 5th. g. Councilor Edwards stated this was a difficult decisions but based upon the Comp Plan, ,testimony before the Planning Comm.ssi-on, the testimony received by Council.. and the 4/3/935 memo from the City Engineer, he »recommended upholding` the Planning Commission decision to approve with modifications Lots 17 & 1€3 reviewed and concerns addressed; ,2 Width of Riv�*rrsar�d Lana addressed. .3 modify Planning Commission approval based on the 4/3/936 City Engineer's menia. He suggested the Council Could then proceed with adoption of 3 findings and approval of the subdivision request. He noted concern 'about the continued occurrence of citizens presenting problems to Council at the 11th hour. h. Councilor Brian stated he concurred with Councilor Edwards and would upheld tha Planning Commission approval with the following modifications: Lots 17 & 1.8 be d4leted with no half street improvements being required to 92nd Avenue-on that side. ,2 Riverwood _Lane be extended to 92nd Avenue with design criteri;7n noted in item 45 of the 4/3/861 City Engineer's memo be addressed and subject to -final approval of street and parking design by City Engineer. Special parking bays, and widths at_inter•section with 92nd should be investigated +t�ith NPO review prior to the 5/5/86-Council meeting. 13 All property should be surveyed and that within the 100 yew- floodplain should be dedicated to the City for greenhtay purposes. .4 Incorporation of a footpath, if Passible, to assist with traffic to and from the park. Page 4 - C0UNCIL MINUTES APRIL 14, 19861 y ]e 'i. motion by Councilor Br°i�an, seconded by Councilor Edwards to uphold the planning Commission decision ,to approve with modifications as discussed by Council and direct staff to prepare a final;order for adoption on 515!86 subject to City Engineer's final approval of Riverwood Lane design and the addition of a 404 permit requirement. Approved dry a 3-0-2 majority vote of Council present, Councilors Eadarr, and 'Johnson abstaining due to riot being familiar with former record. j . Developer, :Dick Caffell of Lincoln Savings and Loan, noted for the record that adoption of the final order on 'say 5; 1986 would be permissibly whether it fell within the 120 day requirement or pat. � 12. PUBLIC HEARING _ 'FIRST '1€�1 ERSTNTE TRUST -• SDR 6-9Gs� V �mg� � NPO 02 z. A request by the City of Tigard City Council to review the Community Development Director's approval with conditions to develop a 6800 sq, ft, retail/auto service building and an automatic car- wash and a , varieance fur deletion of a portion of public sidewalk along Center Street and to allow a landscaped area of 13.5% where 15% is required. The proper,,ty is zoned C---G and, is located at 't:he northwest corner of Pacific Highway and Greenberg goad (WCTM 2S1 2AA, Lots 1000, 1041, and r a, Community ;Development Director statedthe 'applicant wished to presentinformation td the City Council along Frith a request: for Council to reverse their dAcision to review thispplict:ian. He also noted for the record that the newspa%per notice had appeared for this hearing but notices were riot mailed to surrounding property owners. }ie suggested that Council continue to the public hearing, to 4/28/06to allowI notices to be mailed unless Council t' decided to not revipw the derision. - 1 b. Legal Counsel stated his firm has. represented Gramore, the applicant, in another City, but that business ,would have no impact j. an this 'issue. 6, C. Tope Barghausen, 6625 S. 190th : Street, Kent Washington 98132, stated he was a registered engineer in the state of Oregon He noted the public dict not appeal. the Director's decision of approval, ODOT 'had given permission for development and curb cuts in this area and noted that there would be a hardship on the ap{al icant to delay to 4/28/86for a hearing .due to purchase L6ption� can the land in question, Bre requested; Council nake a motion to reverse their decision to revietAl. d, Mr. Barry; Cain, Gramove representative; 10300 Sal: Greenburg Road, stated they had satisfied the 'Ci.ty sof ?.igasd and OOOT with no local opposition for the developmf_nt; He requested Council trust the study and terminate review of the decision. e. Public Hearing 'Opened x page 5 - C OUNC:1L. MINUTES - APRIL 14, 19216 c: f F. After brief Council discussion', Councilor Edwards moved to continue the public < hearing to 4/28!86. Potion seconded by Councilor Johnson. Approval by unanimous vote of Council. present. 12. 1.0075 i INESEER' LIQ REPORT =- PHASE II a. Project Engineer, Bob Wright of 'KA Wright Engineering, presented the preliminary engineer's report and recommended -Council call for a public hearing. b. RESOLUTION NO. £6-44 A RESOLUr:f:O, DEC!_ARING THE `:!'sl!'i'E�3T' TO FORMA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT tE�a7 c i�2It�1 ?Q CONS Ut�l SA�1T1 t RY SEWER ` iMPROVEMENI'S IN THE AREA OF 1001"H AND INEZ AND TO HOLD A PUBLIC HE AR1,kgG, ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT APER DIRECTING T1-9A1 NOTICE OF THE HEARING BE GIVEN. G c. cation by Councilor urian, secondedby Councilor Edwards to approve. e Approved by unanimous vote of Council. present'. 13. C1,_RRY ST€�EET SEWER LID REPORT — PHASE :E3: a, Project Engineer, Bob` Wright of RA Wright Engineering, presented rice pry lim`iraary engineer's s report and recommende€i Council call for e public hearing. b. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 86--45 A RESOLUTION DECLARING' THE INTENT TO FORM A 'TQ CONSTRUCT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEiECTF DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF SW 74TH AND CHERRY' AND TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AEUD DIRECTING THAT 'NOTICE OF THE HEARING BE GIVEN. E c. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor F_adon to approve. r Approved by unanimous vote of Coincil. present. �. NC14. G33L FiRpqqMwRRg z ea. Community Development Director synopsized the history of the civil infractions ordinance noting that cads infractions rkaers to be { nor:-criminalized. The 'Municipal Court judge will delegate the hearing authority to a hearings officer. b, ORDINANCE NO86-20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 5.04,180 AND REPEALING �- SECTION 5 04.190 AND CHAPTER 7.40, DEFINING NUISANCES AND CIVIL INFRACTIONS PROCEDURES, AND ESTABLISHING CIVIL PENALTIES. � c. Motion by COUncilor Brian, seconded by CouncilorEdi.$ards to adept. Approved ,b s•sna:niranus vote of Council resent, _p£� y p s, d, Consensus of Council was :to �iekve staff brie back modification to the sAseed height of 10" noting that the City; greenways would ,be in etiolation of this section. � ' Page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — APRIL 14, 1986 i;; ism=, -15. LOCAL IMPROVEMENT CODE REVISTOU Legal. Counsel stated this revision was recommended to define further the mFAiling requirements for local assessments. b. ORDINAINCE NO. 86-21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 85-40 +' RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROUE4'tE!1ITS. c. Legal Counsel recommended amending Section 2A by adding the -following to the last sentence: "and make necessary additions to the information in Section 5B1, the Preliminary Engineer's Report". for Johnson seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt d. Motion by Councilor with amendmentL.s outlined by Legal Counsel. Approved by unanimous of Council present. 16. COUNTY; ROAD JURISDICTION ACCEPTANCE DISCUSSION I a. Community Development Director noted jurisdiction is ne.2ded Pram a fc,r• 23 roads within :the City Limits of Tigard. tie the.. County � y recommended 22 roads be requested in 3. resoluti.arj With Durham Road being requested via a separate` resolution. St; fi expressed concern aboutthe conditions whyicF; the County sight attach to the transfer of jurisdiction for Durham Toad, o. Firs. Geraldine Ball., 31st Avenue resident, expressed concern that thjereare other local roads in the City for which jurisdiction -;, should be requested. r ; C. City 'Admini'strator stated staff would study the issue and bring other requests to Council in the near future. d. RESOLUTION NO. 86-46 RESOLUTION RECORDING THE DESIRE OF i-HE' CITY OF TIGARD TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OF CERTKIN COUNTY ROADS, OR PARTS THEREOF, ri'��.'THIN THE CITY OF TIGARD NOW UNDER JURISDICTION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. o. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Brian to adopt with the note that the County must grant all the roads to the City or- the City would not take jurisdiction of any roads. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. f. RESOLUTION NO. 86--47 RESOLUTION RECORDING THE DESIRE OF THE CITY OF TIGARD -TO ACQUIRE 3URSSDIC'TION OF CERl•'ACN COUI�dTY ROADS, OR PARTS THEREOF, WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD NOW UNDER JURISDICTION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. ` g. Motion by Councilor, Brian, seconded by Councilor Johnson to adopt. Approved;by unanimous vote of Council present. ' Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1986 -RECESS; 9:48 PM RECONVENE: 9:57 PM 17. MII� tUNAIT`( DEVELOPMENT SDE REVISION - COUNCIL 1MITIATED Community DevQlopment Director stated Council had suggest- staff review the length of time for appeals to be 'ailed on land use issuers.` Lengthy ,discussion followed regardingthe 10 day appeal period currently in the code and how that, effects the 120 day time limit .placed on all land use decisions. b. Consensus of 'Council was to not change the appeal tl m line but to have staff 'look at uther• .trees of the coesaP Plan to streamline the process. 18. 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: 18.1 Approve Council Minutes - March 20 G 24, 1986 18.2 Approve City Administrator Authority for Job Description Approval And Implementation'- Resolution No. ;86-41 18.3 Receive and File: a. Community Development Land Use Decisions' ba Council Calendar Update C. Tentative Agendas'- Quarturly Update 18.4 Approve Board and Committee Appointments: a. Approve Utilities & Franchises Committee Appoint. Res.' # 86--34 b. Approve Budget: Committee Appointment - Resolution # F6-42 - ,. 18.5 Approve Dartmouth Engineer 's Contract & Authorize Signatures Part 1 - That Portion Of Work -galling Within Limits Of LID Part 2 That Portion Of Work F'a'lling Outside Limits Of I.-ID 18.6 ;Approve Addition Of Liability 'Rider To City's Insurance Policy For Cr us in` Tigard '86 113.7 Approve Signali.zation Agreement For Hall/McDonald With ODOT & Authorize Signatures - Resolution No. 85-35 10.0 Declare Library Surplus/Refuse Material & Approve Disposal To Non-Profit Organization - Resolution No. 86-36 1.8.9 Approve Training Requests: "A" Level Inspectors, Building Division - Brad Roast - $100 Tom Plescher - $100 b. Recorder's Certification School - Loreen Wilson $395 � 18.10 Accept Street Dedication & Permanent San. Sewer- Easement -- Dick Kadel - Greenburg;Road :18.11 Accept Compliance Agreement Davidson Storm Sewer Relocation - SW Walnut Place 18.1.2 Approve Conditional Acceptance of Davidson Storm Sewer & Authorize Partial Ral.ease ($6200) Of Bond - Resolution No. 85- 37 18.13 Accept Subdivision Compliance Agreement &' Project Bond - Morning Hill #4 18.14 Approve Conditional Acceptance Of Bond Park II Sub+d. - tiles,## £16-38 18.15 Approve Conditional Acceptance of Bond Park III Subd. Res.$186•-39 18.16 Approve Acceptance Of BellwoodI:II Subdivision & Release Of Band - Resolution No. 86-40 € aye 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1986 Y . 18,17 Approve Subdivision Compliance ,Agreement u Bond' For Penn Lawn Estates 11 Subdivision Reid Authorize Signatures 18.18 Approve TAG Insurance Rider 18.19 Approve- Sian Placement For• 'Landscape- F?,aint2nanee Of Oregon' At Liberty.Park t 18.20 Accept Non-Remonstrance Agreement Kruger Corp. Gotswald ` Meadows #2 Subdivision 18.21 Approve Chief of Police Employment Agreement - Resolution No, 86-.43 a. Staff requested that 'Director's 'Decision SLR 8-86 be added to the i consent agenda -dor- receive and file. b. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Edwards to approve the consent agenda without SDR 8•-86 being added and pulling item 11.16 to be considered at the 4/211/86 meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Gi?iS€ cl:i_ M E=-flNG RECESSED- 0:15 PM 19, EXECUTIVE 8810id: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Sessionunder the provisions of ORS 192,660 (1)(d) & (h) -to discuss labor relations and current/pending litigation issues at 10:20 P11. MAYOR COOK AT 10:58 PFS 2G. - ADS�7E RN4AIIENT: 1:1.:12 PM —P deputy Gi.t� RQcarder' - Gity of T i.gar-d €TTEST \e.. Tigard Page 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 14, !996 u _ mo=w } 1 st t�'� - Az{x $`•x+,,��,` ��:. ��+P.'' 'fie�,$kz E � s ye �,z2ep 3z -•tea A � 1R Sio 0; loo m aUt T �oaa U tr y •ems.- cl E TJ&s , t3 E-1 co s� co ams co cc of c Ci �+) CL ' cn w ti LL cu®in N - Go ON �\ ti Ci: O\ � ... 3 9_W•p •-,�. 'raj CC) i• ` ' F vi ll LL uj ex s� o ao CJ S- aQviCC R P F-1 *-t •ri ! ... 4� {TP O r •ri �'r Pel b,3 tJ U E-1 t �L � 6d b^ G'�V .�i3� � ✓� d;f �.' 76S f9: U I... i� .d.' '•r;e! CITY GF- TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed SST f6 C ''OF GREG ) County ofWashington) ss City of Tigard ) s., 1,, tiflbeing first duly sworn, an oath depose and t That pra ted in tie following public arra conspicuous places, a copy of or d i atance Number(s), Flo—. c�� c G' `�2_L__ .; Which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated copy(s) of :air? ordinance(s) bein%-. hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, or, tile : 1< day of A� fi d 14 Tigard City Hall.' 12755SW Ash Avenue, Tigard, OR �A 2. Tigard Police Department„ 9020 SW Burnham, Tigard, OR 3. Tigard Public Library 12568 S'W'Maiv, Tigard, OR �t ,r. C ,! ' J u. Subscribed ars: sworn to before nae this stay of � � r Notary Public for Oregon T My Commission Expires rs� t k p , t4 .L` - CIIY O+ TIGARD, OREGON r ORDINRtut,E NO. 86-� -- AN ORDINANCE VACATINGA PORI-ION OF THE: 99W FRONTAGE ROAD IN THE VICINITY OF PARK STREET WITHIN THE CITYOF TIGARD, WASHINGTONCOUNTY, OREGON, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the 'Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Cade; and WHEREAS, the reason and purpose fry:^ this vacation is to ret�+rn a portaon of the frantage road along 99W in the vieirtity of Park Street to the adjacent property owners to facilitate a commercial deveiopment planned for the area; and WHEREAS, the vacation is recozinended by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 271.100, and TRIC Section 15.09.110, the Council fixed a time and place for the public hearing and the Recorder published notice and posted 'notice are the area to be vacated; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property otaners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described in ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, the Council, waving held a hearing on April 14. 19Hb, finds the ` s public interest will not ba, prejudiced by the vacation as ;provided by ORS 271.120 and TAMC Section 15.08.130, and WHEREAS, the Council 'finals that it is in the pudic interest to approve the request -to vacate a portion of the 99W frontage road in the vicinity of Paras Street because ,the public interest aill not be prejudiced; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following condition is necessary to vacate said land The vacation shall not be effective until the effective date of this ordinance and it shall not be effective untie a certified copy of this ordinance has been recordedwith the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Stirveyor. .y THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS Section 1: 'The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of heat portion of the frontage road along 99W in the vicinity of Park Street as descrabzd on the attached Exhibit "A" and shown on the attached Exhibit "a and by this reference made parts hereof. Section - 2: The Tigard 'City Council further orders that the vacation be a set4a,ject to the: following condition: ORDINANCE NO. SCz-� ..' €eage 1 1go93 750fie i The vacation shall not be effective until the effective date of this ordinance and it :shall not be effective until a certified cony of this ordinance has been recorded with the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor. Section 3 In no situation; shall this ordinance :be effective until the 31st clay after its enactment by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By _ " 1 ��r>c _ vote of all Council members present after eins3 rem.: by number orad title Only, this �.a h day Of 1456. L/ Loreen R. ;Milson, Deputy Recorder -- APPROVED: This °�� tfay of -Af8i f.Q4314i, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 06—� Page ;2 TWf IN EXHIBIT SeA" Mercury Development Street �iacatzon gTaylors Bridge Rd. � C.R. 477 Project No. 273-01-85 February 25, `1936 LEGAL DESCRIPTION tract of lad situate in the S.W. 1/4, Section 2, `.x.25., R.1W., w.H., City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at 5,x£3" I.R. on the southeasterly right-of-way line of Pacific Highway 1 99) at Engineer's Station 1.33+90.79: said point being 40.0 feet, when measured at right angles, from the centerline of said Pacific Highway, and being' south 39042832" Fest, 70.74 feet from the northwest corner of that tract of land f described in Book 831, ;Page 41.5, Washington County deed records; thence, along the southeasterly right--of-waay line of said Pacific Highway, North 34"23835" East, 70.66 feet to a point on the northwesterly projection of he southwesterly line of that tract sf land as conveyed to Southwest Church of Christ, recorded in. Book 1013, Page 402, Washington County deed records,' and ;the true Point of:beginning; thence, continuing alohg said southeasterly right-of-way, North 34123138' East, 577.08-beet to a point of intersection with the northwesterly right-of-way line of Taylors Bridge Rd, (C.R. 477) , being 60 feet its width; thercep along the northwesterly right-of-way line of said Taylors Bridge Rd. - (C.R. 477) , tiorth 39'°42'32" Ea.stp 303.44 feet .to a point on the northwesterly;projection of the southwesterly line of that tract of land as conveyed to Roland and Ka.ry Ingalls, recorded in Rook 270, Page 455, Washington County deed records; thence, along said northwesterly projection of the southwesterly line sof said ingall.s tract, South 500288482 East, 60.00 feet to a point oda the southeasterly right-of-wayl in of said Taylors Bridge Rd. (C.R. 477) ; thence, along said southeasterly right-of-way line of Taylors Bridge Rd., South 390421320 West, 877.85 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of said Southwest Church €f Christ tract; thence, along the northwesterly projection of the southwesterly line of said Southwest Church of Christ tract, North 53*38952" West, 6..56 feet to the true point of beginning'R Contains 37,329 square feet. CPWINAVCH NO. 86- CD &i I`r' ROAD X4-"77 I`3 t it lz 19�(,5�1•N1• XIF: 'rE67AfkD,.WA144.4agn7-i"(i Of c409 A 1 i21^t-5&•&t T9 E 1 Ir . G t 1. 21A1.51;5 Of, f f 2j R �° T4 50G yta PRL7�9;55'.9Ci AA: 7n ^rt.^Yap'. tAgD 3U:kVETO -�� ti"� 3BOIlARDt 9LpeLSILY ' b',FL vd/C.�.p"` PRuNihil F 3 2 rS d"S t,d s> W 1'LiAYE CONVILTAMS,00- �i sxenMa t,t�mx�.o.as 7t65 S.Yd.Y .- 3 +97I"s3 a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 86- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 5.0 4.180 AND REPEfiL�,Ie'vCs SECTION 5 04.190 AND CHAPTER 3.40, DEFINING NU 1A SSANCES AND CIVIL INFRACTIONS, ESTABLISHING CIVIL 'INFRACTIONS PROCEDURES, AND ESTABLISHING CIVIL PENALTIES. fEREAS, i��? order taaprotect the i,asbA3c T1ieaIth, safety and welfare 'them must: bea }process for enforcing the provisions of the Tigard ,51ga.nicipal 'Code; itt`HE'i:EAS, the Tigard Municipal Code currentlY Makes a violation of the Code a criminal act,', and current practice among cities is to estaab- "ish civil proceedings; b�119-REAS, the Cjty Council desires to establish a 'framework for the a: ra c cit res :certain sections of the Tigard Municipal Code through of vla proceedings; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is designed to 'establish civil proceedings to -rftae Tigard E u icipal Cede under the jurisdiction of the mx xclpaal Judge; r. T X. C.I..%T OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Exhibit "All entitled "Civil. Infractions Ordinance" shall be adopted and mace a' part of Title 2. section 2. Section 5.04.100 shall be ascended, to read as follows: The City is authorized to conduct inspections to Insure the_administration and enforcement of this Chapter. Eln addition, all city Police OfficOrs are charged. with the responsibility of admi�a.i.W-ration and enforcement of this chapter) . Thicode enforcement o f.frioe , ha l be �onsible. f tk�c� es~ �srcement of this ciao.1.2ter. Section S. SectIon b.Oa.190 shall. be repealed. and the provisions met forth in E blt "B" entitled "Business Tax Pe l- ti,vvll shy, l be adopted and codifiedr. 5.04 .190a 'Section 4 Chapter 7.40 shall be repealed and the provisions of Exhibit ,ICSH entitled "Nuisance ordinance" shall be " adopted and codified as 'Chapter 7.40, Nuisances. �ZbI3ACE NCS. &-., P PASSED �y ��l:=fir?r ,'!�sr•�___vote of a13 Council ����a�r� present �. after ;being read 'tear number ani tithe only, this_ lelr'_ �s� C fJ.^r �� ---- 19860 ti screen Re Wilson, 'Deputy Recorder p APPROVED: `Fids � j b, caf_ ?� — _° 1986, J F 'tin E. Cook, Mayor 11-4 NCE NO, 86 I?age t� EXHIBIT "A" CIVIL INFRACT19NS_-t F PINANCE g Title Section 1 Gt ora Establishment � Purpose A. Purpose Remedy section ;�• L�x1p�bility; Nonexclusivey Section 4• Definitions A. vii. _infra:ctions Hearings officer � Z3; Code Enforcement officer C. �i.esponderst ' D. Voluntary Compliance Agreement � coon 5 Infraction Procedures A. Reporting B. r evieTfi of Fact $1af f ici aa�c y of Evidence . statement of Pacts 2. sufficiency of Evidence �- C. votice of Infraction` 1, Validity Of Notice of Infraction 2. Class Infrac°ti on 3. Class 2 and 3 Infractions u ' 4. Time to Remedy infraction Afte'a Notice of 1nfractio�: B Imminent Danger to Health, Safety or welfare 6. jiethode of Cawing Notice of Infraction 7. computation of Time Period a. Information required for Notice Of Infraction 9. Failure to Respond to 110ti.ce of Ia fractican iC. Voluntary' compliance Agreement (a) Effect of Agreement (b) Failure to Comply with Agreement D Uniform IE' fraction Summons and Complaint 1, Timing Of Service 2.` Form of .B ur's and Cotte aint 3 Service; Service by Mail and Failure to Receive Notice Default E. RespcndOnt I s Ann gar 1. Answer Required 2. Admission a. Denial F. Hearing procedure 1. No Right to Jury o�o�caael M 2. Represeratation day Cross E�aa�iaa�tian 3, cpport�.xilty to be Heard; 4. witnesses J. Hearing; Admissible Evidence (a) Relevant EV i.dOnce ORDINANCE 1,10. Page i, x ; IN ('b) Oral Evidence (c) Admissibility of Evidence (d) E�:clusion of Evidence 6. Burden of Proof 7. The Decision S. Civil penalty; Assessment of Fees 9. The Record z iia. Finality Of Decision; Appeal Section 6 l emedial Action by the City; Costs Chargeable to the Respondent section 7 Default Judgment Sec tion 8: Civil Penalty A. Continuous infraction B' gime Payment Dub C. Classification of civil Penalties D. &9sessment of Civil Penalties . Delinquent Civil penal ties Section 9 Lion Filing and Docketing Section. 10: CodeEnforcement officer Authorized to Promulgate Rules r ection 23: eference £ta :Mate Taw section 12: Effect of-This Ordi.n�nc Section 13: Severability Section 14: Use of Language �r ORDINANCE NO. 86 C� gages CIVIL, INFRACTIONS ORDINANCE Section. 1: Title. This ordinance shallbe known as the "Civil Infractions; Ordinance" and may also be referred herein as "this chapter." Section 2: stablistae t_nt_and purposL. A. Purpos6 (1) The purpose of this chapter is to establish civil procedures for the enforcement of certain provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) . (2) he civil infraction procedures established herein are for the purpose of decriminalizing penalties for inf r c:ions of ced Iain cavil ordinances and for the purpose of providing a convenient and practical forum for the hearing and determination of cases arising out of said infractions. (3) The civil infractions abatement procedures established herein are for the purpose of -authorizing the City to proceed to abate such infractions if it is determined that the infraction presents an ipmediaste danger to {' the publio health, safety or welfare. (4) This chapter is adopted pursuant to the hone rule powers granted the City of Tigard by article Iv, Sections. 1, and Article XI, Section. 2, of the. Oregon Constitution; CRs 30.315 and Sections 4 and 21 of the Charter of the City of Tigard. Section _3: CulRability:. Nonexclusive Remedy. A. Acts or 'omissions; to act which area designated as an in- fraction by any City ordinance do not require a culpable mental state as an element of the -infraction. B. The proceduresprescribedby thi.e chapter shall be the exclusive procedures for imposing civil penalties; however, this section stall not be read to prohibit in any gray alternative remedies get out in the Tigard Nunicipal Code which arra- Intended to vabnte or alleviate. Code infractions, nor shall the City be prohibited from recovering, in any manner prescribed by lwot ally expertise incurred by it in abating or removing ordinance infractions pursuant to any Code provision. Section 4: Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: 86- page,_ A 'civil Infractions Hearin s a-ff cea. Ttae; individual r appointed by the Igunivj.pal judge with tie delegated aaathcsr- ity to preside over the code enforcement hearingsand to ncrform the related f-mnctiOna s specified this chapter. B. Code Enfoacement officer. The individual or indi.vitdulals L -Iappointed cy^t 3e Director of Community Development to enforce the provisions of this chapter. C. F2e2oaad€�n�t § p r on charged with a civil infraction. ?Ja].�atataCo a _Ltanee A g3reement. written agreement erat be- t�vee s tAee:coda enforcement oif.icer and the respondent which Is intended to resolve the alleged civil infraction. .Section fagacticanz°s�c idure . A. Be ao,Ltinq All rePOrts Or complaints of infractions covered by this chapter shall be Made to the codeenforce- went officer. B. evie �of "acts: sufficient of Evidence. (1 5tatem_nt of 'R cts. When n alleged i.nfr ction is reported to the comae enforcement officerthe code enforcement officer shall Prepare a statement of the facts and shall revi~exz the f&dts and circumstancessurrotund3ng the alleged Infraction. g2? puf1ici0ncy of Evidence, The cordo enforcement officer shall not proceed further with the matter if: the officer determines that thOre is not sufficient evidence to support the aliOgati.on orif the officer determines th&t It is not in the bei�xter t of tae city 4o rraceed.` C. Notice ref zfr�ctiwp f l it of oti.ce of Infrac��l0n. in ,order tea be e i= ct3 e, n.�at c oaf the_Jnfraacti.on must be made i irai a l a s preceding the i.as nce of the uniform infraction 'song &rid co Pl.ai.axt f " ) Classxaf ctio a. Notice of the �alle��.d infraction may be gAven to the reap.ndexat before a uniform`irx- fr ctio z sons Anel complaint is issued dor � Class 1 Infractl aaa, it is not a prerequigi.te to the c issuance of -the summons and co�pla�int and the giving ora - . of notice is at the sole discretion of the code en- f-orcement officer. (3) Clays 2 and 3 Infractions. Notice of the alleged infraction shall be given to the respondent before a uniform infraction summons and complaint is issued for a class 2 or 'a Class 3 infraction. (4) Time to Remedy nfraction After Notice of Infraction. The code enforcement officer shall give the respondeat a reasonable time to care or; remedy the alleged in- fraction after the notice is given. The time allowed shall not be 'less than seven (7) days nor more than thirty (30) days. Where there is an extreme hardship as deterrai.ned;by the code enforcement afficer, the officer may grant additional time to the respondent. (5) Imminent IPgp-ger to Health, safety or Welfare. Not- _ withstanding the remedial time period contained.' in Section;5C(4) , if the code enforcement officer determines that the alledged infraction presents an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare, the officer may require immediate' remedial action. if the code enforcement officer is unable to erye a Noti.cc of Infractlon on the respondent or, if after such service the ''respon.dent ref�,:�es oris unable to remedy the izLifraction, the City may proceed tq remedy the infraction as provided in Section 5 of this chapter. (5) Methods ofGiving Notice of infraction (a) A notice of the alleged Infraction may be :given to the respondent in persona by the code enforcement of f l cer (b) Notice of the alleged infraction may be by a telephone cell to the respondeat If notice is given in this manner, the respondent shall al ao be provided with a Notice of Infraction by first class mail sent to his last knovm address as soon as possible after the 'initial. notice by telephone. (c) ctics ofthea alleged infraction may be 'given e5 by mailing to the respondent at his last know address; ca Notice of Infraction by registered ' Y° mail, return receipt requested. w (7) QpApqtatjqr cag Time Period. (a) Where she Notice of Infraction is delivered in Pers€n,,, the time ;period shall begin to bud PPA" ` Axa���"�c� aVF. • ��-- �C� 6 ONr immediately upon such delivery. (b) Where the Notice of Infraction is 'mailed to the respondent, for the purposeas. of computing any time period prescribed by this chapter., notice shall be considered complete three da s after such`<mailing, if the address to which it is mailedis within the state, and seven days after mailing it the address to which It is mailed is outside the stat:. Liformatiioon Required-for Notice of Infraction. The following information shall be included in the Notice:' of infraction: (a) A description or identAfication, of the activity or condition constituting the alleged infraction, and the i.ndentification of the recipient as the respondent; "(b) A statement that the coria enforce east officer has determined the activity or condition to be an Infraction; (c) A statement of the ;action. required to remedy or cure the alleged infraction and the time and date by which the remedy must be completed UnIass�„ a -i Voluntary Compliance AgIreeMent is;��€�c�ter3;. (d) An invitation to participate in an informal discussion concerning the alleged infraction emd the possibility lity ,of the respondent enteri.n Into a yoluntarV Compliance Agreement; (e) A statement advil sing the respondent. that If the required remedy is not comple4ed within the time specified and the respondent has not entered Into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, a uniform infraction summons and complaint will be ia3uad and a forfeiture in the maximum amz un't provided for the partIdular infraction mail be Imposed. ( ) Kailure to _rs nd tea Ngt.ice of ;11 _action. When the respondent wither receives or rejects the 'Wotice sof Infraction & d fails to remedy or cure tae alleged infraction within the time speci.fled in the Notice of Infraction, the code enforcement officer shall serve-, the reepandont with a uniform infraction summons and complaint. 2Y NO. 86- . U (30) Js�luntar. Ga�as24iarct-_Agreement. . (a) �'ff ctTog A __ement. (i) The code enfarceaaent off icer may enter into a written Voluntary Ccsip lance Agreement with the respondent. The agreement shall include time limits ;for compliance and shall be bindAng on the respondent. The fact that a' person alleged to have committed s civil infraction enters Into a Voluntary compliance Agreement shall not be considered an admission of having committed the .infraction for any Purpose. (iii 'Yae C ty shall 'meats further processing of the alleged infraction during the tiMe allo -qed in the Voluntary ;compliance Agree- Mont for the completion Of the necessary corrective action. The Cagy shall. ti e no further actja%-j concerning the alleged viola- tion if eal terms of the VolnntarY Jam- pliance Agreement are satisfied, other than stews neo mar to terminate the matter. yai.l uxe 0 COMRA}* with �%qreem.en t. The f ai'llWe to reap with an • terga of the Volum g compliance AgreemeUt ccnsti.taxte separate Class- 1 Civil nfracticn and shall bo handled ice. accordance with a the'procedures established by this chapter. except no further notice after the Vclamtary Compliance Agreement has been signed 'need be given before the uniform infraction aeons and complaint is Issued. The city may also proceed on the alleged infraction that gave rise" to the Voluntart' Compliance Agreement. '�Taifs� rafratca_ � a and Cclaint. (i a ih cf r•�ice. A uniform infraction seine and complaint l ixzt a arved an the respondent: (n) Immediately UP021 discovery of the Infraction if it Is a class ICivil Infraction; (b) Where a Notice Of Infraction is given, when the responz period in the Notices of infraction has ,expired; :or (c) Where a Voluntary- Compliance Agreement has been ORDINAUCE NO. 6--_'2Cj executed, when the ,period for compliance has expired and the infraction not been cured. (� EgrM of Summons and Complaint. (a) the uniform Infraction summons and complaint, shall consist ';of at least three pages.: Additional pages may be inserted for administrative purposes. The required pages ars: (i) The summons; (ii); The complaint; and (iii) The statement of facts prepared by the code enforcement officer pursuant to Section 5B(l) of this chapter. (b) the front of the uniform infraction summons shall contain 'the following information: (i) The 'file namberand the name' of the hearings officer; (ii) The name ;and address of the respondent; (iii) The infraction with which the respondent is charged, the class vaf the infraction and the the mar-Amum civil pari-aity for the infrac- tion. The code enforcement officer is wathorized to reduce the amount of the penalty when<paid the respondent pursuant to Section 5D(2) (c) (iav) , (iv) The date, time and place at which the hearing an the infraction :is to take place, an explanation Of the respondent's obligation to appear at the hearing, and the amount sof the security fees required for the hearing; (v) An explanation of the respondent's sight to a Meering, with the sight to representation by counsel at personal expense, the riaght to cross-examine adverse witnesses, acrd the right to compulsory process fear the p�°c+t?a�c- tion of witnesses, along with a notice that the; cost of the hearing, including witness fees, may be charged to the reponden.. if the final order of the hearings officer finds �r. 9,0 CarrEMANCE No. 86--, that ' the respondent committed the infraction as charged; (c) The knack of the uniform infraction snsmmOns shall contain the following information (i) liras appropriate form: wherein the respondent may admit or deny having ccamitted the alleged infraction; (ii) ; The gime period for returning the form. to the code enforcement officer'; (iii) A notice that if the respondent denies' having committed the alleged,infraction and requests a hearing on the date indicated on the 'front of the €uwMns, the security Ease' appropriate for th.e charge must accompany the denial; (iv) znotice the t, if the respondent admits having committed the alleged infraction as charged, cash a check air a mo ney order in the amount of the civil penalty for the infraction, as she vni on the front of the summons, mup3t accompany the admission, Fexcept that the respondent will he further `. notified 'of the code enforcement officer's authority to reduce the penalty pursuant to Section 5D(2)(h) (iii) (d) The uniform infractions ro plaaint small contain the following information: (i.) The data, time and place that the alleged Infraction occurred or, At the infraction is; of a continuing nature,' the slate, time and place the iaafracticzs ��a€� observed 3rd* the code enforcement officer or the citizen signing the complaint; (il) The date an which the complaint was issued'; (iii) The name of the person who signed the cam Plaint and the signature of that person; (ia) A form of veri.f ication that the person signing ;the complaint swears that the person hag, reasonable grounds to believe, and dots so believe, that the respondent committed the alleged infraction; and (v) A notice to the respondent that a civil complaint has been filed with the civil infraction hearings officer. (3) Service- Service by Mail and Failure to Receive Notice s Default (a.) Service o:f the unilforre infraction means and complaint may be by personal service on the respondent or ,by registered mail, return receipt ac a� i:ed,' to respondent at the his last known address,. Service by any other method reas8;tably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the respondent of the existence and pendency of the infraction and to afford a reasonable opportunity to respond shall ;be acceptable. (b) Service cin particular respondents, such as minors, iE3cx pa.cit ated persons, corporations, limited partnerships, the State of Oregon, anther K Public bodies and general partnerships shall be as prescribed for the service of a' civil su=ons and aomplaint by the Oregon Rules of Civil P YOce- �= dune.' $c) Ejo default shall be entered againat any respon- dent s=ai.thcut, proof that the respondent had actual notice of the uniform infraction iia o sand complaint. A sworn affidavit of the code en� � forcement officer that the respondent had actual notice shall create a rebuttable presumption that the `respondent had such notice.- Re ndent's Answer. (1) Answe Recr.ired. A respondent served with: a uniform infractionsulmons and coMPla nt shall answer the complaint by personally aPPOaring at the scheduled hearing onsaid infraction; except an answer may be made by Mail or Personal delivery to the code enforce- ment officer :if received by the City within ton dMYS of the date of the oervice of the summans and com- plaint as provided in subsections 2 and 3 below. (2) Admission.. (a) if the respondent admits the infraction, �;he �. „emspander t may complete the appropriate answ*r on Ob3t6zr's.aaMICEr A1C. 6— the back of each summons and forvaarc3 the summons �. to the; civil infraction hearings officer'. Cash, a check or a money order in the amount of the civil penalty for the infraction, as shown on the front of the summons, shall be 's omitted with the answer, _unless the respondent and code enforcement officer each agreement on a penalty reduction pursuant to Sections 5D(2) (b) (iii) and An appropriate order shall be entered yen 'the re=cords of the civil infraction hearings officer indicating the receipt of the civil penalty. (b) A person who admits to .the infraction shall have ten days from time date the order is entered in the records to cure ger remedy the infraction, �: except in situations'where the code enforcement . officer determines that there is a danger to the �ta�lie, in hie casea lesser' amount of time may; f' be specified. (3) Denial. (a) The respondenic mall reclixest a hearing On the date indicated in the eons by completing the a.ppro- aria arxs r Ora the back of the summons and forwarding the s�ohg, together with the s�c�r- _ qin�s wffi"vers3p�n re- fees, to the ezty � cei.pt the gnawer snail be entered. the security court fees received shall be returned to the respondent -apon his appearance -or the hearing � except as otherwise pro�ris3ed dor Sara this chapter. ('b) The security fess mW9 be waived in .*chole or in part at the discretion of the hearings officer for good cause shown and upon written apPli.catiwsa (, of t%e respondent. The vi alver request shall include the reasons for the requeSt. � F. clear JL a r1 cedures (1) No Right tw jg ,r-r. y hearing to determAnr a 'Whether an infraction has 'been cw MMI shall be held before the civi.i infraction hearings officer without s. jury. (2) �2gpregaAa:Rtion by Co gel. The re pw�acleynt y be represe a ted by; legal counsel; <however, legal counsel z shall not be provided at public expense. if 189al counsel is to ; pp6ar, Written notice shall be provided OPWHANCR Ito 36- 13 r Iffij i. to the hearings officer no later than five days prior r � to the 'hearing tate. {�) C' tArt�ani�vTo_ die_�i c L_C oss Examination. The respondent shall have, the right- to present e@vidernce and witnesses in the respondent's favor, to cross- examine rossex .ine any witnesses who testis y against the 'respon- dent and to submit rebuttal ,evidence. V (4) Witnesses. (a) The respondent may request that witnesses be ordered by subpoena to appear at the hearing. ` The respondent shall 'make such request in writing to the hearings officer at the time the answer is returned, or subsequently by mail at ally time at least five clays priorto the scheduled hearing. } deposit for each witxAess shall accompany the request, such deposit to be refunded if no civil �. penaltyis assessed by the final order of the t � ear.ings� officer. he deposit shall be in the amount equal to the witness fee prescribed by state statute for witnesses in :circuit court. (b) Subject to the same five li�itatics n, the code , enforcement officer, the citizen who signed the �smplaint or the city attor°xneY, �ppropria�� B may also request in gar itinq- that the hearings officer corder certain witnesses to aPPO r by subpoena. if a civil penalty is declared in the E` final order, the order shall also provide that �. the respondent shall pay any Fitness fees payable in connection with the hearing. x (5) The Heari.nq'1_ AdmissIbl e Evidence � (a) Relevant Evidence. The hearing shall be limited to production of evidence only an the infraction alleged in the complaint. (b) Oral Evidence. Oral evidence shall be taken only vapor. oath or affirmation administered by the ci.vri.l. infractions hearings ofsi,car. (c) Admissibilit of EvidegncZ. Evidence shall be Y" dmi tcd if it is of the type which responsible .> persons are accustomed to rely on in the conduct of serious affairs,, regardless of the existence � of any common Lave or statutory rile which might render such ev Aimee inadmissible In civil fi Y'- RDA CF. no 8:Page «. �N C actions in courts of competent jurisdiction in 117 this state. (d) gxc usissn o�gvidence. Irrelevant car unduly repetitious evidenceshall be excluded. cnrdeax of Proof. The complainant or, if tae City is the c ampl ainan•t the code enforcement officer, shall have the burdenof proving the alleged civil infrac- tion lay a preponderance of the evidence. d) � :3scision. The hearings officer shall determine �.. if the respondent committed the infraction as alleged in the complaint. , Mien the infraction has not been provern, an' order dismissing the complaint small be entered in the records of the hearings officer.. A copy of the ordershall be delivered, personally or by mail., to the respondent. When the hearing office'r finds that the Infraction was committed, and upon written request by arty to the heariang, the order - a hall include a briefstatement of the necessary , findings or fact to establish the commission of the infraction. i Divil 49an 3t*�; sera en of °ee$. Upon a finding that tine infraction was co nittesi by the respondent, ;.. ` r the heris officer ma.y assess a civil penalty, . pursuant to Section a of-:this =chapter, plus hearing costs and-witness fees, if any. ` (9the eco d. The hearings officer shall. maintain reword of ,•th€c proceedings. A mechanical recording of the hearing accompanied by any written documents, e physical evidence associated with corre��nnaince or � 1' �'- the matter !shall be sufficient to me-et the require � menu of this subsection. l ion_ .ae_i t f ��r i i ca nal.. The determi. tion of the hearings officer shall be final. Review of the hearing officer's deter inaation. shall be to the ci.r- cuit court by writ of review pursuant to Chapter 34 of the Oregon Rgvi.aed Statu tem. section S. ���a�dial �sct�t�R1 b� Mase �:it�€; Cwst� C&�r_ ��?�e to the .5 ��qq yry/yy q,e.��fy9}}�'g eems�..� y� — R.. 3.*a onde ale In the case of class 1 Infractions and cohere there is a fixtdiriq by the code enforcement officer that therm is a da aer to the .public health, safety or welfare, the city ORDINANCE NO. 86- :1 INI p! may, without notice, remedy.* the infraction and charge the remedial costs 'back to the respondent. B. The code enforcement officer shall have the right at reasonable tines to enter into or ;capon Property in accor- r3ance with lam to investigate or to remedy the infract-tion. .. The Finance officer shall keeps an accurate record of the costs incurred by the city in remedying the infraction. The Finaice Officer'shall notify the responndent by certi� tied mail, return receipt reqnested, of these costs and advise the respondent that the costs will be assessed to and become: a. lien against the respondent's property if not pain within 30 days ,of the notice, and shall further notify the respondent gnat the respondent is entitled to a hearing to contest the amount sof the costs to be assessed. D. The respondent shall tae entitled to request haat the code enforcement officer schedule a hearing to consider the amount of the costs assessed to remedy the alleged .infraction. That hearing shall he conducted pursaaar..t-- to the procedures estab!i.shed Section 5F of this chapter. E.' if the remedial costa are not paid, tare Finance Officer shall follow the procedures for .lien filing and docketing as ccntal ned in Section ,9 of this chapter. setfon 7. �efa�slt 7 d esa Subject to thae limitations set forth "iia Section 5D(3) #0) , a degault judqment shall be;entered for: the maximum civil penalty applicable to the charged Infraction if, the respondent falls to appear at the schaduled hearing. if the resp nden.t fails to appear for the hearing, ally security sees posted shall be forfeited to the City. Section 8; civil Penalty. A. ntinuous Infraction,. When an infraction Is of continuous nature, unless otherwise specifically provided, a separate infraction, shall he deemed to occur on each calendar clay the ;'infraction continues to exist. B. i � payMent Due. Any civil penalty assessed Ghali be paid � no latex thwa thirty rlaye after the final order. Such period may be extended upon :order- of the hearings officer. 0. Classification of Civil'Penalties. For the purpose of determining_ civil penalties, infractions are classified in ORDT1 A CE $0. Page the following categories: « (1) Class 1 infractions. (2) Class 2 infractions. ' (3) Glass 3 infractions. D. Assessment of Civil Penalties. The civil penalty to be � assessed for a specific infraction shall be as follows: (1) For class 1 infractions, an amount not to exceed � $250.00; 2) For Gass 2 ianfract :ons, 'an amount not to exceed $150.00; (3) For Glass infractions, an amount not to exceed 50.00. E. Delinquent Civil Penaltico. Delinquent civil penalties and _those imposed by default judgment which were assessed for infractions may, in addition to any other method,: be col- lected or enforced pursuant to ORS 3€3.310. � Section 9. Lien Filing and Docketing. A. When a judgment is rendered by the hearings officer in favor of the City: for the sty of 3.C.00 or more, e�clueive of'costs and disbursements, the code enforcement officer shalt, at any time thereafter while the judgment is enforceable, file with the City Finance officer a certified transcript of all those entries made in the docket of the hearings 'officer with respect to the action in which the judgment was entered. B. Upon receipt of this transcript, the Finance officer shall enter the judgment of the hearings officer on the City's , lien dockets �. C. From the time of entry* of the judgment on -the City's lien docket, the judgment shall be a lien upon the real property of the parson against whom the judgment was Bantered In the hearing. Except as "provided in. subsection D,_ entry of the judgment .in the city's lien docket shall not thereby extend thelien of the judgment more than ten years from the original entry of the judgment at the hearing. D. Whenever a judgment of the hearings officer �.•iaich had been entered pursuant to this €ubsecti.orn Is renewed by the hearing= officer, the lien established by subsection C of ORDINANCE NO. 86- Page J 4 rt W t ., this 'section is automatically extended ten years from the date of the renewal order. E. The Finance Officer shall file thetranscriptof the judg merit with the Washington county Clerk for entry in the judgment docket of the circuit court., All costs %associated %Pji.t: the filing of the transcript 'shallbe added to the amount of the judgment. sacti-0n 10. Code Enforcement officer Authorized to Px°esmzale�ate Rule�a ThG cede enforcement officer Is authorized to promulgate any rules he considers necessary to enforce this chapter. To be effective, such .rulee rust be approved by the City council by resolution.. Section il'_ Reference to Mate�aa�. y reference to a state ota-- tute incorporates mato this ordinance by reference the statute in effect on they effective date of this ordinance., Section .12. Effect of This ordinance. A. Citations or complaints issued and filed with the municipal court prior to the 'ef2ec'tive 'date of this ordinance shall be processed in accardance with then provisicnss irs. effect at the time the complaint was issued. Nothing in this ordinance shall be cams' rued as a 74aiver of kyr aMMY .,grit asseaame ht, hail or fine ordere=d by the Munn- i a.l � . ��_ f" court, sectlon 13. Severabillt . The provisions of this chapter are -sever- able. If any sectloi , sentance, cla°. e or phrase of, this chapter is ad.ju ed to be Invalid by a court of competent ,jurisdiction, that dec isle-n-ehe.22 not effect the validity of the remaining portions of the. chapter. Section 14. yUse of Lara nage As used;in this chapter, pronouns ndIcating the masculine gender shall include ude the feminine gender, singular pronouras shall include the plural,1, and "person" shall, where appropriate, Include any partnership, corporation, unincorporated as soclation, the State of Oregon or other entity. Igo — EXHIBIT "B" BUSINESS TAX PENALT IES 5.04.190 ��staltie�. a Violation of this c=hanter shall constitute a Class 2 civil Infraction which shell he processed according to the proce- dures established In the civil Infractions Ordinance, Section t through Sanction 14. h. Each violat;on of a separate provision of this chapter shall constitute ute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this chapter is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute 'aseparate infraction. C. A finding that: a. ;person has committed a civil 'infraction in a101ation ofthis charter shall not act: to relieve the person from payment of any unpaid business tam, inari.uding delinquent charges, for which the person is liable. Thr-1 POnalt:i'es imposed by this section are in ::addition to and not In lieu of by remedies available to the City. ai. PaYment of the business tax after the complaint and summons Is severed is nqt a defense. e. If a Provision-of this chapter is violated b a ,fi.rm or cOrporation, the officer or officers or person or persor.s responsible for ,the violation shall he subject to the penalties imposed by this chapter. y ORDINANCE NO86 Paso" 00 f C EXHIBIT "C" CHAPTER 3.40 NUISANCE- ORDINANCE Section 1. Short Title Se.ct.1on 2. Definitions } Section 3. Declaration of Nuisance Section 4, Nuisances Affecting the Public Health i. . Privies 2. Debris s 3. Stagnant Suter 4. Water Pollution 5. Odor 6. Surface Water 7. cesspools S. Animals 9. Removal of Carcasses Section a. Nuisances .Affecting Public Safety 1 . Noxious Vegetation 2. Tries, .Streeter-and Sidewalks 3. G.reanway Maintenances 4. Open Storage of Junk- 5. unk- a. Attractive Nuisance v. Scattering Rubbish Section 6. Nuisances Affecting the Public Peace 1. Noise Section 7. Permits< Required i 1. Permits Required for Certain Events Using Amplified Sound Section 3. Penalties Page } NUISANCE ORDINANCE Section 1. Short Title. This ordinance -shall be known as tl-f..e "Nuisance Ordinance" and may also be referred to herein as- "this chapter.`" Section 2 Definitions. ' 1 . Re§ERonsible Party. The person responsible .for curing or remedying a nuisance, which includes: a. The owner of the property or the owner's manager or agent or otherperson in control of the property on behalf of the owner; b. The person oceu.pying the property including bailee, lessee, tenant or other 'person having possession; C. The person who Is alleged to have committed the acts or omissions, created or allowed -he condition to exist or placed the object or allowed the object to exist on the property. Section 3. Declaration of Nuisance. s. The acts, omissions, conditions or objects specifically enumerated in this ordinance are hereby declared to be a public nuisance. 2. In addition to the nuisances specifically enumerated within this ,ordinance, every other thing, substance, or act which is determined by the Council to be offensive, injurious or detrimental to the public health safety or welfare of the City is declared to be a. nuisance. 3. All nuisances :shall constitute a. Class I Civil. Infraction and, shall be processed according to the procedures estab- lished in the Civil Infractions Ordinance, _Sections 'I through 14. action4. Nuisances Affectin_ the Public Health. No person shall cause or permit a nuleance affecting the public health. The following are 'nuisances affecting the public health., 1. L?rIvIes. An open vault or pr1,%-.1 'constructed and maintained within the City, except those constructed'or maintained"In Paste , _ ._ connection with construction projects in accordance with the StateHealth Division regulations. 2. Debris. Accumulations of debris, rubbish, manure and other refuse that affect the ]health of surrounding persons. 3. Stant Water. Stagnant water which affords a 'breeding place for<mosquitoes and other insect pests. 4. Water Pollution. pollution of a. body of -water, well, spring, stream, or drainage hitch by sewageindustrial wastes, or other substances placed in, or near the water in a manner that will cause harmful material to pollute the water. 5. Odor. Any animal, substance or condition on the premises that is in such a state or condition as to "cause all offen- sive odor detectable at a property line or that are in an unsanitary condition. 6. Surface Drainacre. Drainage of liquid wastes from private premises. 7. Cessvools. Cesspools or septic tames that ars: in an unsay.- " itary condition or which cause an offensive odor. a. Animals. Anim4ls including livestock or buildings for the purpose of maintaining livestock or animals maintained in such places or,:-$n such a manner that they are offensive or annriyi.ng';to the residents within. the crliate' vicinity, or maintaining the premises .in such a wanner as to be a breed ng place or likely breeding place for rodents, flies, and:other pests. g. Removal of carcasses. An animal carcass permitted to remain on public property car to b� exposed on public pro- perty for a period of time longer than is necessary to remove or dispose of the carcass. Section oNuisances Affecting Pub ir. Saftzs� i. Noxious Vga to iM o a, The term B6noxious veag8ta-ion'F aloes not .include vegeta- tion geta- tion that constitutes an agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, ;a fire hazard or a ORDINANCE NO. 86- �_� traffic ' hazard, and it is vegetation' 'ai�hin the Mfr meaning of subsection (b) . b. The term vegetation" includes. (1) Weeds more than 10 inches high; (2) Grass more than 10 inches high andriot within the exception stated in subsection (a) of this Az section; (?) Po'ison oak, ,poisolj ivy or similar vegetation; (4) Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps and any rather thing likely to cause fire'; (5) Blackberry bushes that extend into a public thoroughfare or across ,a property line; (6) Vegetation that is a health hazard; (7) Vegetation that is a health hazard because: it repairs the view of a public thoroughfare or other*r'.so snakes use of the thoroughfare hazardous. c. No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious ry ; vegetation to be on the property or in the right of way of a 'publi.c thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery, brush, bushes,; weeds or other asoiou:� vegetation as often as needed to prevent;ed @ theme froecoming unsightlycap', in the case of Weeds x or other noxiousvegetation, frommaturing or from going to seed. I Trees; streets rated Sidewalks. a. No owneror responsible party shall' 1pexmit tree branches or bushes on the property to extend into a public strut or public sidewalk in a manner which V interferes with street or sidewalk 'traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or responsible party to ke�:p all tree branches or bushes on the; premises which adjoin the pudic street or public sidewalk, 'Including the adjoining parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than eight feat' above the sidewalk 'and not less than ten feet above the street. b. No owner o responsible party shall allow to stand any dead or decayina tree that is in danger of falling or f Page r ; . P /* 2 otherwise constitutes a haze:rd -to the public or to persons or property on or near the property.' C. The e4vaner :or responsible party shall keep a public street and/or sidewalk abutting their property free from "earth, rack and other debr and other objects that may obstruct or render the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use. d. The Cosner or operator of any vehicle engaged in the transportation of excavation or construction materials shall be responsible for keeping the public street and sidewalks free from such materials, including, but not limited to, earth, rack,Iand other debris that may obstruct or render the street or sidewalk unsafe fer its :intended use. 3. Green-Way Maintenance. a. TIhe owner or responsible party shall he responsible for the maintenance of the property subject to an easement to the City or to the public for greednway purposes. Except as otherwise provided by this section, sthe standards for aaa�aia�teri?nee shall be as follows: (2 `the land shall remain in its nata?ral topo- graphic condition. No private structures, _.. culrertss excavation- or xa5ls shall be . constructed within the :ease ��nt area unless r. authorized by the city engineer based on a finding ,of sed in order to prots ct the n property or the public health, safety Or welfare; (2) No tree over fire feet in height shall be removed unless authorized by the, planning directorbased on a,x issding that the tree constitutes a nuisance or & hazard; (3) Grass shall be kept cut to a height not exceeding tem: inches, except when some natural condition prevents cutting. b. In situations w where the Approval Authority establishes different standards or additional standards, the standards sha:ll be in writing and shall be recorded. No person hall bed found in violation of this sectiOn of the Code 'unless the person has been given actual Or constructive 110ti ce Ofthe standards prion to the time the violation occurred. ORDiUMCE NO. a Page 4. O_pen_Storage_gf_Jur_4_. No person or responsible party shall �• deposit, store, maintain or keep on any real property,: except ill fully enclosed storage facility, building or garbage receptacle, any of the following- ; a. An icebox :or refrigerator, or similar container which seals essentially air tight, without first removing the door; b. Inoperable, partially dismantled automobiles, trucks, bus 'trailers or other vehicle equipment or parts thereof in a state of disrepair for more than ten calendar slays ;as to any one automobile, truck, bus, trailer or piece of vehicular' equipment; C. Used or dismantled household appliances, furniture, other discards or ,junk for more than five days. 5. attractive Nuisances. a. No owner or responsible party shall permit on the property: (1) unguarded machinery, equipment, or other devices which are attractive, dangerous, and accessible to children; (2) Lumber, logs, building material or piling placed or stored in a manner so as to be attractive, dangerous. and accessible to children; (3) An open pit, quarry, cistern, or other excavation without safeguards or barriers to prevent such places froze being used by children; or (4) An exposed foundation or portion of foux.Ydation, any residue, debris or other building or struc- tural remains for more than 30 days after the destruction, demolitions or removal of any building or portion of the building. b. This section shall -lot apply to authorized construc- tion projects with reasonable safeguards to prevent injury or death to playing children. 6. �jcattea ing Rubbish. Ho person shall deposit upon public or private property any kind of rubbish, trash, debris, refuse, or any substance that would mar the appearance, create a stench or fire hazard, detract from the clean lin+ess or safety of the property, or would be likely to ORDINANCE NO. 86--f � pago , , 9 injure y person. aInimal, or vehicle traveling upon a public ray Section 6. 1_vuisances 'Affectinq__fiLit Rgl?Aic_Pesace. Z . Noise. a. Definitions. For purposes of this section., the following mea=a' (1) Ambient Noise. The all-encompassing noise associated with ,a given environment, being usually a` composite of sounds from, many sources, near' and fa.r. (2) Noise Sensitive ±Ioperty. Real property on which people normally sleep and, in addition, schools, churches, hospitals and. public: libraries.,- b. ibraries.b. No person' shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner or at such a .location as to cause the noise created ,by the vehicle to cause the ambient noise level at the nearest noise sensitive property to` eXceed the levels specified in subsection (d) of this section, as measured at 'a point locates 25 feet from the >sioisersensitive structure toward the. noise .._, source. c. Excent as.may be expressly allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 6, no ,person shall cause or permit noise to emanate,from trier' property under his or her control so as to cause .the ambient noise level at tAionearest noise--se�:sitive property to easc�^ed films levels set -fortes- in subsection (sl) of this section, as measured at a point located 25 feet from the noise- sensitive structure toward the noise source. d. :Allowable noise limits are as follows: Time maximum noise level, DBA 7 a.m. - 14 p.m. 60 10 P.M. 7 a.m. 55 e. The restrictions imposed, by subsections (b) , (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply to the fall a�a�isa� (I) Emergency equipment not operating on a regular or scheduled basis; 44 � NO. 86- page M M- , s r (2) ' Noise emanating from the PacificHighway, 'Highway E 1-217 and Highway 1-5; (3) ' Sounds originating on construction sites and reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of work in progress; provided, however, that no construction 'work may be carried on between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. , except for bona fide:* emergencies where the public health or safety is threatened or when a special permit, granted by the City; Council, :has been first' obtained.' Any such special permit may be granted �sy. the 'City Council only 'after first having held a hearing and hawing otherwise followed the administrative procedures contained in Chapter `18.32 of this Code; (Via) Emergency repair equipment not operated on a regular or scheduled basis; and (5) Lawn, garden or household equipment associated with the nor�al repa4r -upkeep or maintenance of property. f. No person shall operate within the city limits of the City of Tigard 'a motor vehicle exhaust--bras-ring system, commonly knows as 'a. "wake brake." For the purposes of this eubaa,ction, the exceptions set forth in subsec- tion (e) of this section shall not apply, and this section shall be read as an absolute prohibition o the, operation of such motor vehicle braking systems within` the City of Tigard, g. No person shall cause or permit noise to emanate from sound amplifying equipment under their control so as to `cause the ambient noise level to exceed 60 DBA at any distance 100 'feet or more frog the source between the hours of 7 a.m.. and 10 p.m. and 55 DBA 100 feet from the source between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7' a.m. h. Penalty. (1); Failure to arcate the nuisance within the time allowed for the abatement shall consti- tute a Class 1 Ci.v3l . Infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures established in the Civil Infractions Ordi- nance, Sections a through 1.4. (2) Baca violation of a separate provision of this section shall constitute a separate CPD11; C MO. 0F5 �CJ Wage c n - infraction, and each day that a violation of. this section is committed or permitted to continue shall 'constitute a separate viola- tion (3) epi finding of a violation of this section and imposition'of a civil penalty 'shad not believe the responsible party of the duty to abate>the violation. , except where the City has acted to abate the nuisance. In such a situation, the responsible party shall be liable for the costs' pursuant to Section 5 of the Civil Infractions Ordinance (4) If a provision of this section is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer of officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties 'imposed by this section. Section 7. Permits Required. 1. Permits Recu.ired for Certain Events Usi.nq Anglified Sound. a. The use of amplified voice and music at levels which z, Mould .otherwise exceed those= parraissible under Section � s:. 6(1) may 1:�e allowed upon application to the city administrator. Application for an "amplified soused permit shall be made to the city administrator on forms prepared by the City. The 'applicant shall identify the date, location and time of the event for which the permit is sought, and shall provide an estimate of the duration of the event b. In the case of a series of similar events (for � example, as season's high school football games) to be � conducted at the same location, the city administrator may, in his discretion, issue the permit In a. farm � extending to cover the entire series. In that event, �. the permit shall be subject to the administrator's ` withdrawal at any time. C. The city administrator shall grant a permit in any instance in which the event and Its accompanying noise will not, in his judgment, interfere unreasonably with the peace of those likely to be affected by the noise. In making this judgment, he shall take into account ' the nature of the surrounding properties and the i< benefit to the community of the event' for which the application ,is made. ORDINANCE No. 86- Page i xfi� The city administrator may suhuiyt any 'question arising y with respect to this section to the city council, and if any member of the city council requests kits submais- sion to the council, any such question shall be heard by the council . In either event, the decision of the city council shall be final. e. No permit authorized by this section shall give the applicant the right to cause or permit soundto emanate from the property or, which the event is held so as to cause the ambient noise >level at the nearest noise-sensitive 'property to 'exceed 55 DBA after the hour of '11.00 p.m. Section , PENALTY. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter., 1. A violation of this chapter shall constitute a Class 1 Civil infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures established in the Civil Infraction Ordinance, Sections 1 through 3 otiue 'het abate the nuisance shall he a �giaar contract. F 2. Each violation of 'a separate provision of this chapter shall constitute a separate infraction,` .. and tpach day that a. violation of this chapter Is .; co itt_� d or permitted to cs�s.tinai�e Ghali e��»sti- tute--a separate Infraction. 3, A finding of a violation of this chapter shah not relieve;the responsible party of the duty to J abate the violation. The penalties Imposed by this section are in addition to and not In lien of any remedies available to the City. 4. If a provision of this chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, ,or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this chapter. is tt PM--e F77711 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ` ORDINANCE NO. 86- ') AN ORDINANCE: AMENDING:ORDINANCE 85-40 RELATING TO LOCAL TiMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, State 'law in ORS 223.389 mandates the Council prescribe by ordinance or~ resolution the procedure to be followed in mailing local assessments for benefits from a localimprovement upon the lots which have been benefited by all or part of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the Council may amend these ordinances and/or resolutions when deemed necessary;' and WHEREAS the Council has determined it necessary to revise Ordinance 85--40 THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLO'W.S: Section 1. Ordinance`85-40" to be amended by adding the following language at the end of Section 5S(1)(a);: If it is determined that it is necessary to enter onto property within the proposed district for surveying or other eng r!eerin ur rises, the'Preliminar Engineer's Report shall include an ade uate description of the properties to be entered upon and a detailed 'i descr"ipianf thehework to be dame on the pro2erties l_ Section 2:' Ordinance 85_40 to be amended by"ixddi.n Section 7:1 Public Hearing' on f-__P i__-na l clans and specifications may be called when deemed necessary by City Council. H. When City Council deeses it in the best interest of the public, or when a material defect in the preliminary plans and specifications of the local imerovement district has been found. a public hearing on the final plans and ssoec ifications ma4called. The Council may cure defects, or delete portions of the plans which have been declared amid or set aside for an, Leason, and make necessary additions to the information in Section 5BI, the preliminary Engineer's Report. C. The notice. of public hearing shall follow Ordinance No. 85-40 Section 6.i3. D. <Hearing Procedure: The City Council shall considers oral and written nony. Section 3. Ordinance 85- 0 to 7e amended by adding tree following immediately after Section 78(2): a unless stated otherwise in the Final Plan and �citi:cations, all technical reguir^ements for the proposed improvements , such as curb hpi�ts, overlay thic4cnesse etc. , shill be those on fide with the City Engineer as the approved reauirrements for all construction_ within the ... ORDINANCE NO. 86-1 PAGE 1 of 2 -' 4 b. A 'descri tion of all necessary rig hts•-vf�-wGnieasements shall be 4 included in the Final Plan and Specifications, Easements may be acquired for anyeecess�ara_public use within the _district and Playinclude., easements for access to properties that wru'd otheroise have no public access 'o would have inadet�u�te';saublic'access. - Section 4. 'Ordi.nance. 85--40 to be amended by deleting [ ] in Section`7D: The resolution accepting the final report [whic•h3 may include sections on the improvement, finance; and legal summaries, Section 5. Ordinance 85-40 to be amended by adding Sections 8A(3)(i): ii. The a costs of all administrative expenses, inoludi.ne� legit fees, exLgnded on a revi.ously instituted improvement within the district boundary, wherEj_the previous improvement was abandoned delayed by litigation or othervii.se riotT coml.etrd as planned, Section 5. Ordinance 85-40 to be amended by addin Section BB(8): 3. As an alternative to a reassessment procedure, the Council may "cuntrar_t far indebtedness sufficient to cover the costs and +expenses of the rproposed local ia�aprciv m nt. lipors the_ecorr,aletion_If the imprrr to en the bene_fited_2rs ert owners will be finally assessed proDortionstte to the beriefits derived froze the ie� ss�rtrW and -tiaese` assessments will be �seci to repathe indebtedness and tFse •nes rest ori tF*e �ndebt�dness. : The final assessments under this proceds:sre sh 11 kse eligible for pavrspnt in installments, as outlined in Section 98 belaua'. The a°incl assess€sents sander this' seciion shall be entered in -`ti e Cit��'s lien dock et and shall`become a lien ort the assessed proR2erty. as osstlinec� in Section__1R belaw._fFaa limns created by these assessments srsau be placed as security for-any _indebtedness `incurred b�,,,X'the C:ity� Vic' cover_ the costs' of tse ,rasosed ,isnpro�ars�ent.' PASSED: Sy ' (,ft�� v�a +c7�a � vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this w 74 clay ofL�_ 19Bts. Lareen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This ��•�? day of 1986. 'o E. Cook, Mayor J ORiIT,WANC:E NO. 85- 21 Pane 2 I wish to testify before the Tigard<Gi.tY COUnci.l On h fs �a item': (Plea se print the info tion) item Description: XC��_ ^�t� :r.'#asefat§tkstf�#�s##s��i�s:�#�t����•xl#fst�s�##8�a�e�rs8#t'�st�k#�t�•�«'#�s+i�a���i����a#ss��ka�s�#�a#�s�i�#�dz�T�S#s4�s� Proponent (Far Issue) Opponent (Agaainst, ISQUC) ���s����a��#����;����,�������s��d�a��r��t�r�#�c���a����s���ss��a�#��s���#�x�s�������#���•#�:a�,���x� i zg Cdr s affiliation. llama, Address and Affiliation. .t DATE April lea, 1986 I wish to testify before theTigard CitY Council on. the following ;item: (Please; print the i nfOrmatioxa) ItwA Description: #9 PUBLIC BEARING (APPEAL) KNEELAND ESTATES III Lincoln Savings & Load Subdivision S 2-86 Proponent (For Issue opponent (Against Isere) ���fit�'aft�st�sk�atii>�t3z�+�«��r�4a��'i��: sits'���x���rtkih?e���t�s�sfc:#��ina�s�s�aE��t�i§�a:a�sst�:�a�sesk�t��tfiz�k#ay��a�3artesk� e16meo AAdress and Affd.3.intiou Name,.Address and Affiliation {{..cl', .k� �'` 3���! t ��i,.��.`E" :, �t�Yr:ya•s:eu. ��+���� a•:.fir ��sfy,��. Acle F E l DATE Agril_14, 1986 T wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description, #Y30 PUBLIC FEARING (REVIEW BY COUNCIL) First Interstate Trust SDR 6-86 & U 5-86 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Nta. Address and Affiliation Same, Address and ,Affiliation x;. r j t r. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: _tri l 4 ;.956 AGENDA ITEM DATESUBMITTED: _,April 8t 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Authorized Election ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Canvass Of Votes For March 25, 1986 Election PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson )'42-- REQUESTED —REQUESTED BY: Loreen Wilson DEPARTMENT ii HEADOK* CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Prior te. administering the oaths of office to newly elected officials, Council policy has been -to canvass the election results for the official record. INFORMATION SUMMARY March 25, 1986 Official Election Results Council Position 4 Candidate Motes Cast # Lee R. Cunningham 435 ##2 Valerie A. Johnson 1,064 #3 Carolyn Eadon 587 03 R. M. Finley 426 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Motion to officially receive election rosults SUGGESTED"ACTION Motion to officially receive election results. a E l' w r 0A1'H OF OFFICE STATE OF 0REGO N ) € ) :ss. CITY OF ";I( RRt1 ) I, vaierie 3rahnson, da solemr�l.y swear that I will support the Constitution and I `of the united estates, ;and the Con stituiian �r,d laws of the State of Oregon, and I. will. faithfully, hanEr tly' during MY and ticonti uance therein he duties the Of the office of councilor (Position H2), 9 west Gf m_t aiai.lity, so help me Gad. I further affirm that i' am r,r)t now, nor have I ever been at any time, a member of any; or S+gni zati ren advocating the overthrow of the United State Government. lerie Johnson Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of April, 1986. Notary Public For V:wegon Fly Corrjmission Expires: 11-06-99 J " !M11 4 OATH OF OFFICE_ STATE OF_OREGON } ss- GITY OF TIGARD } I, Carolyn Eadon, do solemnly swear I. = ill support the Constitution and laws of the United States, and t-Vie Cons titutior= acid taws Of the State- of Oregon, andI will faithfully, honestly,- and impartially discharge th,�, duties of the afFice of Councilor (Position ff3) during my continuance therein to the best of my ability, so help me God. _ h e :been at any time a member I: further ,a=r firm .that :L ani not now; nor have I ever vb y of any organization advocating the overthrow of the Unitek 'States Gover`it rit`. G; Carolyn Eaclof k' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of April, 1986. Notary Public For Oregon My Commission Eypires: 11-06-09 �4 1`: OATH OF OFFICE STATE OF OREGON ) ss CI:11"Y OF i"7Gf;Ra 1 s I:, David t-Eihr, do solemnly swear that 7 will support the Constitution and laws aI thQ United States, and the tonsLitution and laws of the State of Oregon, and I; will faithfully, honestly, and impar:.i:all.y discharge the duties of the PosIFiin of Chief of Police', during my continuance` therein to the best of .my ability, so help me God. T' further affirm that T arse not now, nor have T. ever been at any time, a member of any organization advocating the overthrow of the United States Government. .. FZid 1_E=hr RUM Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of hpril, 1986. (J ' Notary Public For Oregon My Commission Expires: 11-06-89 I' oil MEMORANDUM {'M- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON / TO- .Mayor, and Councilors April 10, 1986 FROM, Loreen Wilson, Recorder SUBJECT, Proclamation — Just Say No To Drugs Day At the time of packet preparation the background information had not been receiver from the School District. I will prepare a proclamation for the Mayor to nigra and present `to Dr. Russ ;Joki, Superintendent of Schools and will' hand carry Monday evening. lw/35&5A F t z S 1 It iffil e y CGS_ r 4z"',i Sfiv? r +S ., PROCLAMATION e r_ JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS DAYS =+ Ba MAY 12. 1986 s WHEREAS the Cit of Tigard Police :Department and the Tigard moi. ak •i y 9 School 'District has joined together in an effort to encour°,ge our young people, targetad at ages 9 to 12, to �g stand up and speak out against drugs; and A E WHEREAS, Our First Lady. Nancy..Reagan .and the stars of the Punky f� Brewster Show are the leaders of the "Just Say No" Walk against drugs and ars encouraging the whole nation to P rticipate with a National "Just Say No To Drugs" Day on � tAk W May 22, 1986; and N �€ . e�+ ; WHEREAS, We want the future loaders of our Country and Community to be the best they can be; to hake strong ,bodies, clear , minds and be drug—free. �}!: NOtd TnEREFORE LET IT BE KNOWN that the City of Tigard does hereby � 'a c ler Proclaim flay 22, 1986, as "JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS DAY. S } / John E. Cook. Mayor a RE NINE •/.'ilk i f �' f 3' e r . 4, %'1404,1411's 204 Z gw RV" gg IM 00 r i�3•fill CIVIC ��Ittn CIVIC CENTER DEDICATZOU WEEK CER=HIES �•[; WHEREAS, in 1866, John Tlgavd officially nar-ed 'his General Store Post Office address as Tigardville and therefore Tigard is r T officially entering its 100th Centennial Year as a 'q �. co=unity; g& WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is celebrating the 25th year of its } Incorporation as a City, and r + WHEREAS, the Tigard Civic Center complex is soon to be complete and 4-i f r rtdt in need of an appropriate dedication and community � y xQ�i " celebration. g, NOW ThIER27ORE, let it be known that the creek of Way 12 through May 7 ' '17, is officially named "Tigard -- 25 Years and Building" " s o; Week In 'honer of the above occasions. F tax THEREFORE, lot the citizens and friends of the good City of Tigard � loin In the festivities of the week culminating with the. �f a official Dedication and RUbbon Cutting ceremony of the new -S��ESbtE�- r I Civic Center on Saturday, :fty 17, 1986, v BE 1T YXCWA that the honorable i4ayor John Z. Cook, requests the < tionor of your prosenee and participation in the events and celebration of the weak. r a�#bi4tc John E. Cook, Ifagor ,,T April 14, 1986 . MEMORANDUM CITY 0E TIGARD, OREGON CITY COUNCIL April 10, 1985 TO: Acting Chief Ten ingt, senior planner Elizabeth Newton y� SUBJECT: TPI 1985 Cruisin 'Tigard. The TPI Cruisin Tigard 85 event' that was held July 27, 1385, proved - be quite successful. Approximately 15,000 - 20,000 people participated, Captain � Jennings utilized additional reserve farces for crowd control. There were no .problems ms resulting from increased par-king in the downtown. The only complin during the course of the event were received from 9:50 on in the evening by, the Tigard Police Department. After 9:515 PM, 18 complaints Were rec eived by the Police Department from citizens concerned about the noise from the evening;dance held at the Crow Building parking lot. rious activities did not create any problems The closure of Main Street for v . for emergency vehicular traffic. -me event was well attended and `the individuals connected ng TPI' were well organized and should be commended for planning, and �ranaging all the details that rade Cruisin Tigard '85 a success for all who participated. 2A51P darts CITY OF TIGARD; OREGON tr COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUP1MARY ti AGENDA OF: Atsril 14. 198E AGENDA ITEM GATE SUBMII'TED; Aril 9 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION- Passed Resolution ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 99kJ Frontage Calling For Public Hearin ?gad Vacation Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Loreen Wilson REQUESTED BY: Mercury Development DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Council. initiated Street Vacation request - consistent with Council policy as adopted;by Resolution No. 85-30. INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 10, 1.986, Council passed Resolution Pio. 8E-2€2 to call for a public heating .on Council initiated request to be 'held at 7:00 PN: on 4,°14185. Staff requested a Council initiate+.1 vacation to vacate a portion of the 99W frontage road in the vicinity of 'Sark Street. Pio objections were t=iledby utility companies. Planning Commission and the Engineering Division have recommended approval.: The haaring was; published in the Tigard Times according to City and State requirements and all abutting and affected property, owners ha.ve been notified by mail.. All ferns will be paid by Mercury Development prior to recording of the ordinance. ALTERMMIIVc S CONSIDERED 1. Approve vacation request as shown. 2. Approve vacation request .with amendments. r 3. Request -staff to prepare resolution denying proposed vacation based on objections and remonstrances received during,the public hearing. uUGGESTED AC7LJ0 i - Staff recd mends alternate #1. Motion to approve ordinance as presented. lW3750A } i fr MEMORANDUM ( t TO:, Mayor and City Council April 4, 1985 � FROM: Randy Wooley, city Engineer t SUBJECT. S.W.' pacific Hwy. Frontage Road Street Vacation I recommend the vacation )mown as "S 1. Pacific Hwy. Frontage Road Street <-acatIion" be approved without special conditions. t, This recommendation is based on the following findings: (a) There is no effect on traffic., pedestrian, or bicycle circulation. No response was received from fire or police relative to response can beade adequately rovided for; ' time. Drainage in the area a ci y p without use of the street right-of-way. No response was received �r from any utility company relative to existing or proposed *aci19_ties; r<< (b) The proposed vacation is not contrary to the transportation element of the Comprehensive'Pian; and, �A4; (c)I The vacation is not contrary"to the Capital Improvement Plan. * Y` 52 100 e 4=C {T MEMORANDUM ` April 9; 1986 TO: City Council 01 tv FROM: Keith Liden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 99W Frontage Road (South of Park Street) Right-of--way Vacation '1986, the Punning Commission reviewed the proposed street vacation On April 8, recoinnend approval of the request to City Council. The information and voted presented to the Commission is attached. z { 4 - ;k w � MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD_, OREGON TO RandyClarno eith E tl n ?larch 14, 1906 FROM:, Loreen Wilson, Recorder SUBJECT: Street Vacation Reports The attarhed letter was sent to property owners today, advising :them or the proposed street vacation publichearing scheduled before Council on April 14, 1935. phase �rrepare an Engineer's Report and Planning Commissi,en Recommendation'for the 4/14/86 packets' �r A �p� 11�/�aqO:.' ply.p+�p{��.+' FtlIL17y�iCi,Rii's.�'i® 9.i�..L.BREG March 14, 1986 Re: 99W Frontage Road Right-of-way Vacation Public Hearing (Vicinity of Park Street) Dear Property Oarner The Tigard City Council will hold a ;public hearing on Monday, April 14, 1936 at 7:00 P.m. at Fo` 1er''Junior HighSchool Lecture Room, 10365 SW Walnut Street, Ti;ard, Oregon to consider the proposed vacation of the above mentioned ,utility easements. ('See enclosed location map.) Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said lands. Any written objection or remonstrance shall be ft1ed with the City Recorder• by April 14, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. at Tigard City Hs11 at the address listed.beiow. The vacation requested was initiated on March 10, 1986 by the Tigard City !!t 888 Councilat the request of 'Mercury Development, Inc. to returns the land to !� private ownership which is needed for development of adjacent parcel for commercial buildings. The 'legal description of the parcel to be vacated is also attached'for your information. If you"need "further information, please contact my office. Sincerely, f v Loreen`R. Wilson City Recorder 1rw/3751A CC: Planning Department City Engineer k_ 2755 S.W.RSH P.U.BOX 23397 TIGARD,OREGON 97223 PH:e394171 _� IV MINE Is X r7 STREET VACAT ION ! GJUA4 TY ROAD lw4-77 ' �ITUA"T.Tin Irl 1IAS :AV vyMn1t011,XIW,W.H. In&Aspt WASq, opens" � rEP-RurtFeY Z5, t9� 11111 S iF w/t�P°ns E'7J' R 27a��55 t rn t � i ". " to I � c. .� 'rL 39f ul LAND SURVEYOR GIST/ PROF£5314JNfaL JI io t'S/haZ t n x yy'i OREGON Y �� '•3F} ki sRo�9R°�tt>,ei�`oar PONIED ! .. �.� ft SC:.�/�iA(��.Sat 5 L'"7;�• FEB 2 96 WETS e LAKE CONM iAA77a,0ldC. e s ieTr,e.r. ngrnetr P4 TIN- >} - 73a5 5 n varnf u,, nA 0Lt1ed�" an �iL_:�T:e.�&' 1E�.. Am•fErpsaiq, ' ss�se F ` P ea.,s �',.f 0. �ji +S• p !� e ax t:" E.m. MI clu gal ..4 � ._. �.; 1� ;�I "_`7 ."-.'^s+.�� Y �s &LY4 SM'!°`•,h 9,�,yf \�'� � 8.�• J i. N " ORTN aCrA a 3. a 3 I ar uN _ xw. Win•t� 11 �. w�ni. g ..se; T` ax a i rt+ a 41 S' LMS a� 3y ya SS"i T it #aE_� s Q` 11 C.Rf f a J —_-• El. � '� � � � yG , ^ O t \ ALtluT �aT. � C' 9~ LV �OL STJ " kv. qa a w S.1z. r-mm TT, d5 1arXwi: 02 aP `�,, da tH/� ^•y SY r W I y1 / r am am t� r TM � LN. -a+ 1 4�..eCt - ECr Y➢ T. J/ LAr �� rgyR @ •?' .. ,; i te7.: l M raAnav NML,. ST. 3 .y �S 9(e'•-!A A s � ��.-.�$y. 1.�...�xr_• aPz�r 5a P x P!. !.t '" "13 � � IfsncfM �ar 6 a i %:- Ny—...,..._.,s�••� n SW ):,. 9 i-- EI.NGFE C!t£'1 CT @' 11i�I Juu.w M AYIMiEN l4N[ 4 iE a iE &as sL Q Grp vk�a. rf m fr g EJ .m e _ . F as m+C z✓ E v. PCT ass. $'� > � e a sST ..1 PINE a US. ai ._ r•s^' 1� -sso:rcf .,.,.. r tna.nk .A ..e^ tt Cr Et�N O krf �ry lip` .� ✓ u,�^ j� sr. tkmtr:+<:x s u - aTTt x `"ST aoSA sr.�F Ili ��{*/, 65G ILA ( Y �A _ �o as enr [,u_�,$lJr....s•.a'+�aa`-rt`W'Y A �aays2uaa re. Sh. -.OiaiN6N mi. � ��.'. V (�-�^� i..Si\:La'7H. --.•.! aQ !--•.,Y.-ryne_.s-.., „,�—y�._......_.....�..,..-.-•��''}ji ��q+•� 1 - "j I IF— sf Tl✓Y"".. J sa COW' f7aNTM «...Sd x-•1 7 y ' y CITY OF TIGARD, _ORE'GSN 4 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF: Aril y 4, 1986 AGENDA ITEM ,"l: BATE SUBMI?TED: April 9, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission ISSUE;AGENDA+ TITLE: S 1-86 Approval on February 25, 1986 Kneeland 'Estates III PREPARED 3Y: Keith Liden__�_%_ REQUESTED 8Y: a DEPAnT1 tEz�!1' HEAD OR: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: --- - 'POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On March 10, 1986, NPO 06 appealed the Planning Commission decision to approve S 1--86. on the same date, Council tvaived the fee requirement for NPO #6. A hearing based upon the record 'must occur before the Council`. Copies NPO #f6 appeal letter; -aletter from the Audubxn Society; Planning Commission Final Order, Transcript -and minutes from the February h 1986 hearing; Petition and letters submitted at the hearing; list of speakers; staff report; and affidavit of mailing with notice of public bearing, site plan, mailing list and maino from Randa Wooley, City Engineer are attached On 3/28/86 Randy Tooley and Keith Liden met with Pike Fouck (Audubon Society), Dane :Seigfried (Army Corps of Engineers), and Worm Barker (Alpha. Engineering) at the site. Mr. Houck and Ms. Siegfried agreed to formally submit comments by the 14th. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Commission decision. 2. Reverse the Commission decision. 3. Modify the Commission decision. 4. Remand the issue back to the Commission for further consideration. SUGGESTED ACTION Review the record and make a decision as appropriate. CITY OF TIGAM CREGM 9 Aprily�it �..i.y y yy � 3, TO: "amhers of City council yoolw city Engineer , I SUBJECT* Proposed Pliat of Kne2land Estates TTT aard�.aq the,proposed alit of Kneel, ed ��taata�� IIIA s�e;� l Icy day ea i s r rdi traffic nand stg-aets, am"d *n a'V concaa�aaa hue bean mined reg ns of 86 peso the and an dis_ussions gat the April ' 2. 19�� € �ti foll, ioj comeants: 1. vQ is a gr�:at dog l of conce"I about Vehicle tr���li at rk.' is q s can 92ni Avenue ��et the ��� �t�t ! �School � s ivi�si�are. It is aa��°aantly an; existing l Crich to that this is a t��ffzt � law, r thanadd rass this as city - sxabdivisioa condition. There i� � �r��rt de�3 0^� concern about th�-raaa�+i� traffic c�;% neighborhood a streets. Of s�az Aaal minoconr collector- connection is the comprah ns�between ve designation 92 Avenue Riva a oa Lane � t 'sw toots, Avan e. I rQcd snd a ruui of I feel that it is a valid concet tea. Therefore, 5�r�r ��si�rl� this portion of the a�sr�xhensiYe Plan Transportation ftp Ms several atad sit. r�ea needs, to be ini�iatgid �arsae�rctiye t a�e� to nt€a cor t lated in the are& in the near future. L- ne should bQ extqr4-ed east of ustio etherRiverwood SW 92mi. gaview shows thatsuch an tension vao a d rw. jui b�anti l er fill i n for an dee floodplain and wetlaand� &ra .A t3�l forat�$ iia of las rd mccas3 roadopoappears o �aapproximatelyLa ne River+aor�f �,asrae at the toga of �a��.hill, .I �c �� tFeaat Ra��ra+a4sod not ba axlended easti rd from SW 92nd AVQ"am. The concQPt of constructing Riverwood Lane As a nar~rowOr -t6 �standmr rt the idea. ztraat s disThftm7aracus e . Mpo 6 orad not SUPPO Kneeland st�ts�x IIT � ned•*t ot.. is thu sprM width as ttle QKi5tiM R•iverTrcd Lane in thQ iEainiM ,bdiulsian (approximtaly 34 feet) i Mees fi-- Council April 3, 1986 Pagge I 5. Them. was concern that adequate sight distance be provided on SW 92nd Avenue for safe traffic operations. A traffic study, was suagasted to cress this concern. I feel thmt we can achieve better resin` t by xp4�cifyin ,ceresin dasign criteria. Therefor I recome that Planning commission r0ition No. 12 be amended to 7 ad as fellows. 12. a he public improvement plats for SW 92nd .'Avenue sh-mll provide a minims stepping sight distance of 300 feet along SW 92nd Avenue, and a minimum intersection sight distance of 350 feet for vehicles enterirw fron, River Lane. s= `hese criteria are based on national shards developed by the Amerricen 'Association of State Highttwy thrid Tmnzpas tion Officials (€hASHTO). Th& AASHTO, statndards Are same-what coni tervati.ve, therabg providing for the fact :that some vehicles will exceed the design speed of 3B RPM (tin current speed limit). Mase requirements are greater than shat um would usually require ears a minor collector such as 6 92nd. 6. s a c°emzst ` hs foradditional traffic studies to determine eri.sti*W3 traffic volumas wd traffic speeds on SW 927wd Avenue. ' Such studies would be useful in addressing existi.ng tmffic concernz; an SW 92nd Pue nv , but would probably not help •much in deciding how to design Kneeland Estates 111, Therefore, I would ,questions whether value/speed stu4ies should be a condition'of subdivision approval. (RRW:brf 2436 " 6,. 77 CITY Of TIGARO; 0RE(LO f LA C04C04J HCIL AGENDA ITEM i"ARY �-KGEOA OF, 3L24186 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE WaMITTED: 3/17/86 PREVIOUS ACTION: Commission approval ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: S 1-86 214x'86' - Iinccln 5--vinRs. & Loan PREPARED BY: Keith Liden , (Knee lansi Estates III) REWESTEO BY: 0EPARTKW HEAO OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR, POLICY ISSUE On March 601986, NPC 41 6 appealed the Planning Connnission decision to approve S 1--86. On the sauce date, Council waived the fee requirement for NPS ## 6. A hearing base'a'v pon the record must occur before the Council. Copies of NPO #r 6 Planning Commission—E x ar; jZdnZgriyt artd m" euttg,�, from the ' February ,fie, 1986, hearingL iora and letters submitted at the hearing; list; of speakers; stafa f report; and affidavit of sailing with notice of public hearing, site plan, r-ailing listVare attached. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Commission Decision. 2. Reverse the Commission Decision. 3. Modify the Commission Decision. 4., remand the issue back to the Commission for further consideration., ==sTro ACTION ;; 1{eaiew record and make a decision as appropriate, n PvutAPPC k Planning Commission Case Number S 1-86 Appea.lr Party: Neighborhood Plannin organization ty PO , t } eta Ig y �A _ a Wo fC �ii �i� Pavy �aqf,e� ' . �� �S Final Decision Date. March 10, 1986 ° ,3Clpnn 1^,A0 � planning C3roanization (NPO) is appealing Planning . The Neighborhood Plan, g _ 1986 � Commission Case Number S 1-86, addressed at the February , Planning Commission meeting. The NPO requests case number S 1-86 be remanded back to 4 , citing the followinq provisions far this action 2 . under seotion 18.32.3=0 of the development codes Planning Commission public notice, the l Due to the timing of the Pla g landowners were,not able to meet with the WIPO and voice their- concerns. heirconcerns. Meetings held after the Planning Commission decision with the neighborhood and NPO chairman have resulted in very constructive involvement regarding development of the proposed land. The NPO did not have the required input to make an informed decision regard-iog this devejopment, thus the request for denial at the Planning Cfli�riMisiOn meeting. - 2. Research conducted by residents of the neighborhood has produced evidence of the unique physical character of the lan-' ;lot available at the time of the Planninq Commission rneeting. The evidence is the result of a preliminary examination of the proposed site by Mr. Mike Mouc'r:, urban Naturalist of the Audubon Society. 9 r. Houck has deter- mined that several lots are clearly within existing wetlands and should not be built on 'see attached letter? 3. Several other topics were inadequately addressed at both the NPO and Planning Corrrnission meetings. These include a. The character of the proposed neighoornoLa ,s net in character with adtoirtina Cooper Cr-eeL' and Kneeland Cst;3tec developments A more apporopriate layout of the iotr ,u 0t C:lr,s tett Lv r? ' shape and character of the lots o should be considered. ( b Transportation issues such ae. 12, .,,: rpt• { Lane and 92nd Avenue will require a traffic study addressing sight distance concerns. The neighborhood agrees with this request but is concerned with the lack of a specif is time at which the study may be conducted (whiter, low use, summer, high use; weekday or weekend; day or night). Also, no specific direction is'given to the pedestrian aspects of the study. 2 The character and volume of the increased traffic from Tigard High School and Cook Park on Piverwood Lane through the Picks Landing, Kneeland Estates and Copper Creel: residential areas was not adequately adaresseo. 3. No specific proposal was made to address the problem of private driveways on lots 17 and 18 which may be directly across from Riverw03d Lane and interSeCt with 92nd Avenue. 1. Parking Problems arise when events are held at Cock Park during the summer. irisufficiei�t parking space �� the Park forces park visitors to park along 92nd Avenue as far away as Tigard High School. This overs low parking would be diverted to Riverwood Lane. The NPOa: .3 city r?i C�gr.iL'a l ,-epresentative o the neighborhood r:'quests waiver of the appeal fees: Respectfully submitted: LAU Phil Pasteris; Chai,;. an AI C: SI r RTLAND`• X01 AU, ON soCIF .4 branch �j National .9udulnn .CaCtr({ Fav oro ^' 5151 NORTHWEST CORNEA ROAD pC'KTt:.NC oEr:ON a?,t p pHONE 297-6855 , March 3, 1986 Cit}r of Tiga,2:6 'De artment planrairlg � � P. 0., Box 23397 . Tigard, Oregon 9 223 He+.Kn.eel,and Estates e Nu 'e 3 .cif is concerns about visited the site receaztl at t�aeGomes request os a focal landowner and wanted to let you'know 1 have andthe placement of lots in obvious wetlands. existing watlands fiats, . 2,E :18 . 17 axxd, 18 are all clearly o ahea�.;'with aPd should rant be built of 1f the dopinion that404permit f '', plans- to deaelop; them lots it is n °� applicant that this �. 'would be required and you d notify the aPp � . is the case'. k s 1 have �; addition information at this tune zect� await more ir�xo�tion' fx0rA eau about. the status Of this proj � SiXaCere'-Ly Mike Houck t cc lack 3.rOome, V4-etlands Conservancy Gene Verb, DDF'WU. S. Array Cons Briars Lightcap, Joe Pesek, GDFW � z r a 7 ���-�`�'�:a's"��,,,''z '�t.�k.,.:u"i. .t-+:�'sr����"f.��a't�-'"�r.-.sfi��,.'I .v. '.`:. ��f�•�a'�'�`�= •n 'aS.��x,..�'�'�ap"�..,�"v�r'_��'*'e-.. e-€i �'`«�.�iF.��._ •" �-:.:..:�; '�" `ux'r:'w; .� ..9c- ���=�r:� l+ 'r'3'#.� tis�i`�. tT � J aCivs 4��+1 � G - fit: .:., �,.• ,�' x , y. Ytr s fi 3 a, Z 5T€ - .n 7-"'" --F.•F, ..�;.ax.+, -ls ;._`' a ^�;,� ,fs'i 2 « "", ,'';.Y S+S'ta:.. _•.::.''`e �.,..,r` V i 1,„s a3:h `s'S�`il ''s"s t %E'x}} �aw[%, .W%y?,75+.- s i-.•w.'�.., .S., „�d. ... +;..3',--.:.'»�. .. �, 'aUF�.dy ''_, ,..k,� �>•~.F� .� �«_. '�' _t„_�r,`�,a-" F?.. � 2� x,,...� u�c'_'s•.". f ,�;�. r��''�q'.xw'�,,.;-�r'�`"';�i." ..j'.""_.} .'�„'�;`-�3. Will " �.i�.}�._=sa• a:�s";.$�,*>.�r�"'���x�` �..ir�� as =Ki. �"�^' ,� ,si�,''s- ''�^.,.F x, �' yyr: ^'���.5.. �i� .��3�`�'".�.`:.�.. �� �,7:�'a.1�i"'}m ',t� '�s' n'rir. @ •"S�.,a Ti. .�F. v«�. S,ti��a_�°.t�-. a d;_" t,� `•.i7 f �i! J'•L ..� �'tie: �... ! ��°R�`.q� 6�5� '.�va� �((/^ tl,���-' .: �• ��2`Sr.'LSn,.� �� �"...c z-+.•,� Z�,—,u P rela•.�:lVX-r..t' d•as,lz. � a' t"��..h..L.� !�'��L=t.t::� i"_`3�•�i .yt fi r ' �fi•,{,�%t:.L4,"�.',v� �!Z. ids.. /.i1C .�i./�� •�'f=�i.`t '_:°_'C �t.=t g 1 IOU� {;-'�,,,, �.?iL'Z1 '�zh, !u!Y�'°4c°..fiv'i°4' id•is a Q ,� a.0¢k0. � �6���/, J/!J dI' �&�l� l�f��9��a•t'.t�L i�+"�-•. ® ��'.�sv�..9. ,�,•�-.to4-�- I� r •6� ..?L41 �f d�a,.•°i�/,;'s Sas' ��t�, S.h�s •'�e.m.�asr; P..•�.3P N•.�5.�s /«L -�5.'�e1P6.,� a`Sa•�7 f^`.dR+���,. �e"i#• d: Cv Ea �i•,.•.", ,s'_.,�•�f j, •(..� s :Jr") =3 (."--� ,�—_�."iJ'°�—f_,.°"+•JJr"" I; t. f. i 51 I 3F7 €g' t is i Uf 71GARD ' Washington aunty, Oregon ' NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER By PLANING CGE�i41SSI0N 1. Concerning Case Number(s): 1-86 ! 2. Frame of Owner: Lincoln Savin s h Loan 3. Name of Applicant: Same Address 10250 `SK Greenbui Rd. City Portlandsta��OFC zip 97223 4. 7Dcation of property: ' between Estate Address West of 92nds ZZ and Cook Park 13o(s1» (�2-S00) I 14A lot X Tax I-Lip and Lot ,: Nature of 1pr.?iestion` ?e nest to divide 8,08 acres into 18 Tats with a niniBua ss;e of 7,500 siq_ rLt, £,. Action: Approval as requested Approval with condItions _ _penia. % 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, zaostea�aa at p=ity Ball maid t -- wailed to: 1SX The applicant & owners Viers of 'record Within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization y� Affected governmental agencies 8a Final Decision _...__� 198b 'UNLESSANAs 1�s.PL :IS FILED.DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON March 10, t of condition czar. he The adopted, findings Of tact, decision, and statemen obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 11755 STS h* Box 23397, Tigard, 'Oregon 47223. 9• weal: 4aay lard` -to the decision may aF,Peal this decision in accordance e Pea]witk ifI.32.29C(eh� and Section 38,32.370 which ugx eanr3 hsznt Nritten APP ea] he filed within 10 days after not' _e given The deadline for filing Of an Appeal is °iarct: 30, 1935 4:30 PM - �isestiars: It you have any y uestions, please call the City of Ti.vAxU Planning Department , +�3�3 -oI7i (0257P) w • ;CITY OF TI`G"ARD PLANNING COMM SSION FINAL 'Oi2DER WO 96 � ,t PPROVES AN 'A :FINAL ;0RDEV INCLUDING FINDINGS p.ND -r pofj ;LUSItONS; �RPPLICATI06 FOR A SUMI ISL+OIi ((S :1—fab) R 6,U STFiJ �� �LIP�I"L3U� SAVINGS ',,'AND The `I'i �r ;Pl gra r :Cs� iz�slon rev. .-owed thra zibovu -ap;Atc�ti�n -�� � ;psa�il:ic ae:kr~ srr F r€� o �: is3 The •C,afns,i.s:s'ion` based :��s i���,i.sser�o a�an 'pita i���ts, firs�if?3 .. r;g,s 'Tc�s;iorrs incated .Sa'iaua: F-ACTS c CRt;E:: a areas-ion S R 1&f~ �ainrad� .�. S cera s :ir7:ta x;9 16z -5 .wi.t fa <riifiaanurss ;sizes oaf 7„SDD C ,Rf9S �t� dl� nl 'I� SIf � T ,how rC+e�rsIty ;Resaxiersti�°i R--45 ':(,Res:identIaA., 'A.5 u6iisl Sa)aa s ;and 'Loan OWNER:: ;SSC if °"w -3r�etTTs'burs DZW vss�a�a ' n 'Kn `iane itts ;fie.. :Ie '€ �C , s F prelimi a� r *. s ra.frt�d "in 1� 1 f(:;S 3I oZCPR .12-�21) or -22 -attached esti ;zi �< 3ice?t �m`a�y ;r wS nt �iI I.ca`t .. "� e� ,f�-nal �s3 -t r-evorded � tits ;�z�peavaj tsar ;�-x,par�d.. s Y e 3.. Ixia: 3s nftsrta?a } `�lo.. ai•� to the art r Ti_gard Hij School is rr n s awe* ti^a .� 'a i s s de of �� nd Avenue- The f2 ±1...5 .�sarf� �i��i��� �s� e . ' R S (,(Ply) areaThe iCopper 'Creek Aevelo nt �ah .�' 2 cest ean (Rewe entia1, a :unitsfa rta. planned -�€ve:lapm-ent) 1Ms i edl�t d�Ctca r aibuts' 'he 'Southern !b.�f dory .af the arsjpen y. 4.. ShA_ , Info M' stuns The F�ffa; rt iz ,�re�ertl .u-tde isrpad., The@e r«in slopes ;da�ar�aarcl fr..sasn part- north to south with .grades cad ;uu-P to "St1� ire thv morthern ��at�f-O'ian ref �i�2 s�x ;te. Tic? 'fseat�aea-n `tc�ai :a3 the ;pr. p�}rty ;is arathZn 4the 1 year i i i } I L4i�Fi �7§nt}f �? I r '-8,6 �� rr _ 3.Ai�f �2'. a zi The ,.aprrLiratlt', ;prupaases oto jj,i,VddQ 'the ,Prr)perty .into :l.H :sin, le family re a ierrti l ;lot aLl ;.with •a fminimum �si'ze of 7 SQC1 _�squaro ffaet. Ri- Wood r +aes3 cane --Will 1b� .; extendedfrom :its "terminus at =..copper i.Crm2k -to �2rx+ Avenue. In =�add,i.tdon 'to =Riverwood 'LLane, ifour a«otts wil. throve � frontage c.;n .the gird Parerue =cu.l-aie-.xac •in tf�iealand statr�s X30. i'= ;lthough`�th's ;l<sroposal Frepre:sgnts ::a=reduction :in 'the -nurhb,2r ssi ilots ie rom to ?1Ta, :the .sr.ibd�.Vis:ion ?la,yoUt .and =s.tr -it -tel gnmont ._ajury Fsimilar tro tthe ; r-gpos l that awaz ;approved do 1.1981. 3., f.5.' �4�q�enca� �rrai" i?O; mrac�rits Ilse Etng:i�+e�ia1 t6}.i.vssir�n:has the tfasllo�rrr sz ;r_omments: 'a. :Lsxt a1.7 ;and =1:8 con `-the ;p-&st -. ide cof .92nd `AVerue W:Ul ra dlude .the r oxtemiion Cof Misvc-mwood Lane ton `:the f,e'ast. ;--he :-a�3i1.%cant a.shsill =-be aisle o show Lthiat neither eagonatile 4Lternat.aVes' ..ex.:. :t ;far• cpro%ft inq -,Acce?s:5 ,ta ,the <pr gPe;^t<y to ",the t-aast. ` ;o. The iissue :of : tor mater- ;-runoff :presents several ;problelgs a7b'8ust Ibe :61-ar Teed. Mtormwate-r :?thrraq h "Tr-am-A =A" ,Tr.om Ithe .rsrhodl r. rope y ;nand ag.2nd - venue; =•needs to ;:pad advs^esse aIai-tq ,_with the �,Wley ',throggh :_Lints TO, :1i1, -and 11-2 :-and ::the £i$ridmiuge .-saver slot .S An `the seu.ent c6fa�w tch si's rfai.lure .on ithe :; 3rd�-Avenue cUl-tdo :.vac. is ;c.. ,.pond aslmcatna G. basee 'L64, Tg2 l nasi li y lftr ��4y 1TMlas�eri� x-ausedi 11by t-the nd ari ,the,,r,,sSht craf.thn�s .r en 'to ra ale n cwater canto 8 rat 12 Us auni nown, f_ asaments z g .eti jveung ;t o F. ..t fl :ice;raece scary. e, zT Tarte -doez :rant ann°uct :.,Qi th :the =:((jomlisted ;paae.timn Kira .mapper-,xad .., za Iteslaporrae-1 "turn ie sne:cessar, s; f. it ssts 7.assn :9 ave ;.sioit .3.rn `f�:crtitagQ .ansa :access ,shmsaZi9 'be .l ms.tti vita Fs Hansa treet. The t,acca zs ff-or i-Lot be III, 'to a�.i,sror�cetoo:# Lq. "traffic :rgport -Is .-needed iindir_&ti:ru� ;auhat rrreasus^es shod.ld :be `taken �ta atzgate the csite .distazice ::lim atiarrs .at F.the ,prQposvc# lZi-ver-wood :LuneMnd 'Avenue -iintersection e :aa sgl< nt Atst st pmeaide :motor-nmAter .,irundff ;,report .addrasi.irla� Mr9pas.ed non -and 4f;f si tQ -storzrmater and =:eros.ion ccontro_l:during=Sni s r co�astt^ra :or . Ttii._s mzeep yr^t i-,melt ,addrzzs the in ct rof ze roc Us: a � a.dr�"gge 'iftd.jlyit:ies <an.d rii"_t.A atrion .z_t.cr inter iiarapacts .upon City i:Rark aa^ad greenway e:3rmas. A00 ;,yeiii- zf' oo-d ;plain -.sizc3eilo ',be tiedi.cated-4_to tthe 'City as t ,a • avast+=isre 1,L-ands Te M- Lt .<i 11 Ube =necessar=y .;for any :.cons.trurIt on or g tia cig ite?3CLhin {t4src ;i.l:a�c ;:ialaain, _or-a.rrsa,gat+aay>s.: ;ayr ;s.lopes uer . A a la rredu.i�kion :in1the .idth «sf 'the cojty'-s �standascd s.ir-esi.t ;a_Qstion gp}�a .vaeli za.;e�ax Wince. . sati:Y;I ire d rtE 't�se i- F 1CVRi:; t7fi`E}E#? °NO 46-0apC - rPRACrs <2 Tire 8uiiding .Traspection .Division notes that -the slopes on many of the lots are Lsteep sand '.that development a.nd 'meeting setbacks standards may t r =_be,:-difficult. 137he'"Tigard-sScho6l.District and ,NPO ,46'have no objection. No 'other :commentshave been recgived. ,8. 'FINDINGS-ANOXONCLUSIONS :The :relevant -criteria :in Ahis case -are Tigard Plain poticiaes 42__1:1, '-3..1'A, `3:2::1, 7:1:2, ;7.3 i 1, "7 A, 8.k..1°, and '8.1:3 srid ,-Communi>ty ,Development ''.Code :Chapters .18"150, 1&:16C, t.-and 418:164 Since =the t-C mprbhens:iva ,'.Plan has t:been .�a6knotNleda3ed, the :,Statewide ', Planning ; Goals.-arid :Gari'delistes<-nollonger� need, to'�be addressed. p, The =-Rlanning ''Coirz:nission <conr_ludes that fhe "Proposal Faith minor f ir,edifications `is :condistent with the relevant' •portions of the :Gonpreheniive'=Plan"-basred,_�;pon'ct.he;fi idinc s noted b lrsva: Vie. 'Policy 22:1:1 :is -satimfied ..because the . %iighborhood "Planning 'Organization rarid suarradnding property .miners +erre given; notice •of ::the 'hearinci .and -an .opportunity to 'comment on `-theapolica aV s proposal. b. P61,i c ,3 "1:.1 wi ll be �Isat isfied--pro4ided that->--any ::portiion s c.of the fasts ,i i6h {,exceed :_2T. .slop.�e .are nnot :gnda3ed ;::or filled .witho"t.,a / Sensitive�_.La6ds `Percfaat. ,� tv ='►blief .3:2:.1 - i11 'tea .°satisfied .be6ause 'devcloprssent-withica .the 100 ;year .flood plAin 11 be avoided. FIf sand �of tie -proposed . strut da-as lencraa6hupon ..the.-flo d,'plain. -a 'Sensitive La;,ds 'Pereiit-mill ' -tae r ekqu r d. ' A. Policy >7 131°l,::can"be -met -when additional information, -'.noted in .:the � :_£rrgineer•ing 'Division <,ca wrmients, iis submitted and -appropriate siai.tiation�,measures HtaVen. e. 'Pc'slicy ;7.;3:.1 .and ;7.,4;'4 t are :satisfied `cbecause . adequate .water :,:and ,.sewer facilities ;pare:.availabla_ -.to ',the development. ;The.-:applicant 141so ".indicates :_that these 'facilities :will zbe ;-.provided within the >so z-vxsionr--a,s�requirdd:by '::the :City_standards. r _61 icy 8 A1,willi--toe .met oneetthe a aerantnation�;of Ri.verwood Lane .,at i9.2rid r'Avenue iis ,,justified -or ,provxsions,'for•faitaare_extension to'::the g. FP61iry 8 1 3 :-will :be satisfied ,when the :conditions of approval relating Pto'2str eet,limpravements are:completed, 'The Planning -.Commission has 'determined '.that the ,,proposal is ~.consistent ' w:th :.the r a+lpvarat rportions+of .the t"Community''DOevelopment"`Code'-based upon theofi:Mings nbt'2dLbdlow: i€ t EIa1AL(.OR0ER'°,AtO. 4146-4)7 Ru PAGE ? • N. Chapter 18`.50 of the Code is satisfied because tta� pr-oposaI -meets 411 •of the requirements of th> P,=4 5 zone b Chapter: :18'. 1,60 "of the-C`ade is satisfied because the proposal :meets the 'requirements Set' forth "for the: submission. and approval of a .°Pre liminary plat. :�c. .Chapter-' 18:164,oV:the-'Code.:eoiill'. be satisfied . during:,. the °raE,}�reas�l ' process" for °the.'final=plat. C. '._DECISION Based,1upow the findings, "and,:conclusions.:'above,",the Planning-.:Comiss.ion a approves.of. S' 1'=86 subject'o the fol=lowing conditions: 1. :U1�1_ESS tTlisRf�€I?[ NOTED,I; RII C7i�DITI4�JS SHALL BE' i"lE =:PRIOR ` TO RE C{5Rl7MCv i RE FINAL-PLAT. ti 2. nStarda;rd hhalf-street sand _,full street , 1roprovements :-including sidew�,Aks, ' cu'rbs, streetlights, .';drivewa, .aprons,_ storm 'drainage and.<utiil items;s ,shall be installed-`along the S&1_92nd `Avenue frontase. Said 3mpr-ovement3 Puenue =E shall be ibui,lt to RlW, = •86' ,"Pumt-.j'.•Ci.ty tandaHs iesciui:irnc, .`„an :.8 'ft ' alk :on the"..west . side and -conform •to ,-the` alisrnms9rat: of ea€:is�i `:imprs�vezEeeits. ; ..not the =:' ttactned° 5ectio,n k hich'n s :approved.v:ia,L Kneeland-Estate 3 gubdav-ision development). 3. Seca 7� -sets; of plans orbfi.le' public improvement eorista^csction awar s§-'sections rrsi."onal '(1� plans..` - temized cons ruct!on :cost estixaae, stamper# .:try a Reg i3tered Preifessiona ;Carai3 = E�- irreer, detailing all ?,proposed :.p.slit :Improvetnents -,shall =- by s ebs fitted '.to ;the” Ergineerin+ Seci.ion ' for aPPz-ouaLl. 4. Wani:ta_r aced storm.,=sewer• lan. ro�file:'de.,aa-1s s1ha:lI,be• rouided as yt�.. p _P ' t P ."partr',of:the,"'¢'?ubli.c-.dmprov ement? 1-a'ie ns S. ;Slope `ea:sements-:alo.rss ':Sb! <c;iuersvood. Mane.=;shall::be; pro u:ided to_"the Public. `.`Documecntation...shall.g be on.City forms or :on'_the::plat :and approved)by the:Engineering`",,Section. 5. Tose-•.appldr_ant " shal l:..prov_ide.a"stormwater, runoff .repor w ,.address irec� pr-aposed,-onsite:: arsd •-:isffsite •"starssa.-iaf.er_:control .and ;sa'i1" ercasican, control `Adu-,in and :after construct.iosaid -. report . shall; also addrai,a ;the°.impact°"_ �f, ups r-eas�'ldralnage facilities on 'the- s1te and '".the•:i:nitigat"ion,6f "storrrwater.damage' to "thew down"slope ':City :park €' opens spacei.lands ?. `Crrnstruct,iun_of -proposed public improvvments . shall gnat cs� anencre annWil aF•ter r the Engzneer•irag anctson :has tissued :approved,' public :.impr oarement . plasms. , The Sections.. wi l I rr quire�,po'stiuc of a 100'a 'Peirforrs ante :.Facxrnd, the _payment ,of -;a •pei isni t fee ;acrd ">a ;1 s s gn :;i nsoail :iorslstreetZaghi °'fee. =Also, ^ithe execution :-_of :a construction .com0liancQ shall ,_occur prior to, or concurrehtly ­=with 'the .issuance -of ..approwed .,s'pub.lza airnpr^raxrerrerafi =p4ans .1HE` itNCifDOUT6 GIV NG :'IIDRE SPFCI "INMRMATION TI REGAROcNT FEE"_aC-HED LES, �BONDINGs`AND AGREEMENTS. F ¢ _ A G Rsverwood Lane will connect with ' 'R�vp­wood lane 'in the do='rc3topmont .to the west (Copper t rk-ek) 9. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Public sling the SSd• 44ndi_Avenue frontage to increase'. the right of-A;a y to 30 feet fromcenterline. ' :The description for said dedication shall hie the +oxist ng right-of-way 'center•line ,as. established' by �Washir:gtonCounty. The dedication document shall be on City forms am ,,approved,-by. the Engineering Section. DEGICATI FORMS AND -NSTRUCTI0NS�RRE'ENCLOSED. ZC+: e�rzia ile froa�tage lt�ts, namely ff 7 and ^a, shall both 'be restricted to only :one .access each on.the same—public-roadway. iZ Lot x#16 shall only.liave direct access onto :SW,Riuerwood Lane'. 12• .The `a.60i.cant shall'; provide. a,'traffic report indicating _measures to eye applied to mitigate . sight distance concern3, apt the i�tersQction ;af. Rivera,sood. Lane•and':g2nr� Avenue, :;,o-the:Erlgineerisg Section. ""`The :Riverwood Lane easterlyaccess `shall be 'addressed in conjunction with: this study and Lots >17 ..arid Z8 shall be 'platted orad Tract "°°A", shall be dedicated 1,,to the City.'onco.-the ,traffic study has been reviewed and approved by the Enginaering-Division. Z3. �!The.:applicant shall 'dedicate laznd.s .within .the•.100 year floodplain ar c: thc.;prhlaerty:,-south Jof: -the rroad .riot platted ,into Lots Z", 'and .for-green y ,purposes. � Z�.' " ;;tr,�±et: �sttc+;^1°ire �toeaaeretation _. a. In accaarlance ,with i ORS 92.060 + subsections (s), the canterlinei sof-'all street sand ..roadway r• ghats--cif-way: shall 'by r rasp ont'es brafon a the City, shall-accept ac-street ,improvGment. b. AIZ:_ centerli-te -nonuments ';hall` be _Placed in a monument :boy Conforming fio: City standards, -a.nd the top of iall- .Monument 3 =boxes 1 shall be. set tat dcis:ign finish,-grade of:said =street or roadway, r C. Thef llo,�ing centerline Monuments shall be set: Z) All centerline cereaerline inte=rsections Intersections created with "col lector" L or r other exi'stinq_ xtreets, shall be .set when the centerline 3l;ic�ntlent bf,said "collector" or other street 'has been established by or ;for the '.City: 2) Center of all cul de-sacs; nts ue ' ." p o points f intersection 3) i..urpoi (P 'i . ) wtr,r.•n their ,: position `alis inside'; the 1 iml t.s of the pavement othervaise trgginnirsg and ending paints (8 and E.0 } q) �+ll sanitary+ an storm location ;shall be placed in positions that., _io not interfere with centerline ,�onumon`tatiors. Y. l5, ASensitive t ands ''Permitshall be required for any encroachmentin€a the Io(, year floodplain or 'crc s:r��tion' in drainageways or slopes over 25%. 1 ${. fret-.2 shall be subject 'to the setbactt a height requirements for flag_lots contained in:Sections, i8.96:090 ar►d 49. 0 of the Code. ., 17. R tree cutting permit shall'' be obtained from the City prior to removinsa"�.ny trews over 6 inches in diameter. r- �. 1&. Potter review and approval by the Planning Director and pity ,. Final Plat Engineer',- the shall be recorded with Washington County, k kg phis' ap,�roval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decisiondate noted below. it is:.ft3rther 'orderedthat the asPlicant be notified o the entry of ;this order ' { r of.��?� A 8986,' by the sia ' Plarsning y ` �� Y:o i sign of th6 City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen,; Presidznt Tigard Planning Lamrttrissi01 1.: EI�iFst: C7�?�)i R E'AGi' 6 T R(sNtii,h I t>i TlGARD PLANNING COI' IS�)`lOP! February h 192t) f TT EM 5. 1 LINCOLN SAVING n LOAN ' (`) 1- 8b) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Moen; Commissioner : Butler, Peterson, Bergmann, Newman, and Leverett. SUBDIVISION S 1-86 LINCOLN SAVINGS AND :LOAN/KNEELAND ESTATES III NPO f 6 Request to subdivide a -8.58 acre parcel into 18 lots, with a minimum lot size of 7,500- sq. ft. , on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre) Located: Between KneelandEstates and Cook Park, west of Tigard High School: (2S1 `14A, lot 900). President Moen, (Read procedures into the 'record) "With that we move onto item. 5.1, staff do we have a report. Senior Planner Newton, "Item 5.1 is a proposal for a subdivision and the proposal is located to the west of SW 92nd just north of Cook Park, There's 8.58 acres invol.jed anal the applicant's proposing to divide that into 18 lots, consisting ' of approxiaeately 7500 sq. 'ft, each. A little history on this application. A preliminary plat approval was granted in 1981, however` that plat :was never,'recorded, and the approval has expired. Uh, basically the applicant's proposals meets most of applicable planning conditions and zoning code requirements, if certain conditions are attached to the aplaro�+a1. We got {� some :}problems with steep slopes, which would require a sensitive lands nem.st, particular is the north section of the lot and perhaps or the property, .nill perhaps in this; area here. Uh, any drainageway ;areas would also require a sensitive lands permits before development could occur. Riverwood Lane is mother :concern and Riverwood Lane cods here and staff and applicant would propose that, Riverwood Lane be connected in this area. You'll notice in your staff _report, 'condition number 8 and 9 on page 5, relate to Riverwood Land. This: conditions, These conditions were originall; ;proposed -then staff was a little unclear- as to 'where this property line was. However, the surveyor has dcrtersnined that: proper;.y lines are indeed adjacent and River-wood Lane can be connected, So I Mould suggest that the Planning Commissioner make that a condition and not leave the option available to the applicant in conditions 8 and 9. Several, Tax Lots, or Lot 7 and 8 have a double frontage here on 93rd Ave.- and on Riverwood Lane. The applicant will need to make choice as: to which street these lots will be oriented to and also take into consideration, I believe there are sos+ae special setbacks ;involved, and we got to and we'll have to :make sure that they conform to those. Lot number 16 shall access onto Riverwood Lane, that's another -important condition. All land in the 100 ;year '-flood plain will need to be dedicated :and the Engineering Department is a; little bit :concerned about:this access of. Riverwood Lane onto 92nd, how that connection is made and we would like to see some more traffic information on. how- _vision and access impacts might be mitigated. So staff_ recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report with the modifications to 0. and q, and also we need to be a little bit 'concerned about some of :the trees in the area and obtain a tree cutting per-sssit, because with the ;steep slopes in the area, we could have some problem with erosion if We not careful. in the remai'val of 'those trees." TRANSCRIPT LI[,,i SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-86 Page l (�tt�raJ F>tr�Ei;rt.,�Jktry, Commissioner Butler. "In th(, Engineering Division page, in regards to Iti, 17, and.18, rruld you addr(3ss that. The 'lots exension of Rivnrwood t Lane Senior Planner Newton, "bell, `yeah, Engineering Department did bring up a extension of R vet-wood Lane, 'from concern about the 92nd into this area. The Transportation 'Plan : adopted by the City Councils shows Riverwood Lane connecting from 108th to 92nd. That connection is strewn and that is something than the Commission should be aware of, that we don't ;really want to preclude ctions is not that option. However, from 92nd Ave. east.' is not, that conne shown on the plan. Rhe aucaht to look at possible connections to serve that area. The Engineering Departments primary concern stems from the fact that they don't want' to see any kind of a offset to Riverwood Lane that would make a T intersection: and-,cause' some -conflicts there. - However, if the connection were made to the north, a -couple hundred feet or 300 feat north, that wouldn't` be as big of a,concern. There concerned about a close offset here, and also serving the area . . . . . So you 'might want to consider `a condition that would ask ' that the to come up with some sort of circulation plan to serve that area to the east. President Moen, "Would that i Senior Planner Newton, "There's sosTse large lots, its pretty large lot h6niisites, it not President Moen, "Okay, thank you staff. Can we have the applicant's presentation please" ; "qtr: C9sairasan, member of the Commission, my name is Nownan Parker, H A R K E R, I'm with Alpha Engineering, representing the owner, Lincoln Savings. I would- like to, I guess Liz has given you background on this project pretty well. The prior approval was, uh, completed by our firm and we did go through the engineering plans and went through the plat, almost to the state of and at that time, 81, the bottom of -the market fell out and the construction nded uta with the property through a project was not cumoleted. The bank then e I would like to clarify, uh, in Sheriff's sale. A couple of items' that talking to Randy this afternoon, with the Engineering Department. He agreed that that connection to north, ,towards the east would be acceptable, uh, there . . . . . . its not shoran on your map but at the very isn't, if you leek right at top of tract "A", going to be south bounded by the Tigard High School, 15 foot right-of-,,r.+y, that serves that parcel back in. And, uh, what I discussed-with Randy was the idea of just giving tract "A" ,uh, which on your map I don't Should be a line, right-here, thank is very well defined. Poen, „fan the 160 ft. Harker, "So that gives a couple, 'a@@ .(cough). . . area in ther¢_to play with, its not really useable dor the applicant and they are willing to deed that to the City, dedicate that to the City.t . . . . . . .(coughing). . . . . have quite an area in there to determine wherethe access should be. And we would also and the offset is still 5300 feet, we have no problem with that. The . . (pause) guns on the- floor (laughter) The neighborhoodassociation, TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-96 Pale 2 z r 20 IS R HAW T ',rjmtsr,rw t.aIl t*iia in ta:xr.k(jr'?�,nd, ,an' t. hocir• Okay I)h T w•uit. tr• at3tirC•', i'„-e JIJ1Ii+l. ?+tr•r thw.n: E3<•,si :.11y' we ttj1`:•a report, we even reviewc>d it «nd talk with the staff about the report What we would like to do is, r) of the conditions, we would like to make sure that: we clarify now. I was talking .to 1_i`z, cause apparently one of the big problrtms after we get approvr,d and go back in for the nit.ty ,gritty, is making: surra Lh60. we are in accordance with what we understand, and what the Commission unders'tands'. Item number one regarding the conditions prior to final approval. It's our understanding ;that we can assure the property, which is guaranteed through a bond, for constructions of the streets and so forth to be built prior' to filing. There is no problet with that?' Okay, just want to make sure that we don't have to 'build` all ''the streets and the sewer lines before we can plat. . . . .comment from someone not transcribable: . . . . . ' On item two, ;street improvements along 92nd Ave-. frontage. I would like to add shall be installed along the SW 92nd Ave'. frontage, like to add "lot frontage, to clarify that that is the frontage in front of the lots. ” Senior Planner Newton, ' "It would be in: front of all of the property, it may not be lots, clarify by the engineer condition, but;' my understanding is that he'd be responsible for these, :. . . . . . . . along "open space, we can double check that." Harker. "ghat about tract "A"? In otherwords we would have, Newton, "Anything, its, my understanding that anything, that are ultimately, or originally was:part of property is what you would be responsible for. Parker-, "Even though we f- k newton, "Teats standard Butler, " dell if it was a street, it wouldn't make much sense to put a sidewalk on it. if 'its suppose to be a tew^iwwinus for a street. ewuton, "N2 can discuss the improvements with Moen, "That something he would work out with the City, normally he would be responsible for all his property. . . (several people talking) "Moen, "Okay,'go ahead." Harker, _ "Is there a mechanism for a waiver or a remonstrance in the City. Uh, for a-LID. Newton, "Well we're not using them as much now. . . . .. . I just, uh, I think the conditions should be written the way it typically is and if you want to appeal that you can. Harker, "T"hats fair, . . . . . . . okay . Item eleven, regarding the two lots that have double frontage, would like to allow the builder the option of deciding which way to :face his home. Uh, suppose we could put a condition on the plat that would specify that there would be only one frontage on those two lots." t TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1--£36 page Pr ;!fn wI'.h er+dr 5 whit�.�.-h it why wo would 'iik- to - !t. FI�dV i' `ret ��t if r, ; i_ti n .O Sl,r CPt xrtSi ',4J k' thuili �. Wi' •jfift t- wd.lt oriented to Lhe other. ss�rious prribla�ms whran we ass iyn addresses before. . . . so thats the concern, Staff to take 'c�ith(�r 7 and 8 ,xnri fafJ£? Moen, "All thQre asking is, staff wants you them one way or take 7 and 8 and face them the other way." Harker, "What would happen if the builder wanted to come in and face his house the other way. Newton, "You would have to do an address change and you would have to notify 3 all the utilities and everything." Harker, "That's not a big problem.' Newton, ,Well, yes it is a problem, its real time consuming, it would hold up there permit process. Its not impossible, its not recommended." Moen, `"Do you as a developer have a preference?" Harker, It not as a developer, "we wouldn't. It would be the person who's building the house would be the ore." Uh, number fourteen regarding the 100 year flood plain. I have no problem dedicating the majority of the flood ` in order to square the lots up somewhat- we Main, o do have three lots that, encroached a few feet -i-,It the flood plain. we would like to clarify that as saying that the applicant proposes to dedicate the 100 year flood plain for the preliminary plan. greenway purposes, except those areas noted one Newton, "We've done that in the past and uh, Picks Landing, there is some lots that have a portion of there back yard is in the flood plain." "Harker, `'Basically th&ts it, we, the other items Liz has covered and we agree :with standard subdivision assurances the public works projects and so forth. Any questions. Moen, "Any questions? "Okay, fine. Is there someone here from the NPO?. , Newton, "I have a letter. To Tigard Planner Commissioner from Phil Pasteris, 'Chairman NPO # 6. Recommendation for denial and referral to 'f4'PO 9 6 on t36 Lincoln Savings and Loan. Trse ftiP6 Chairman application number S 1_ above erenced received numerous calls from residents concerned about the application. These ;calls resulted from the City of Tigard public hearing notice being given after the PPO meeting which addressed these, this application. It is -clear to me as Chairman, that do to notification timing that the NPO lacked the input required to 'make an informed decision. - Subsequent to the NPO' meeting the Chairman ;has met with residents and has determined that they hive a sincere interest in the planning process and are willing to aasorl with the Developer and the ;SPO in resolving t their coro�cerns. Therefore,-.I am asking the Commission to, number one, -deny the application, and-`number two, rert omrr?end that the developers and citizens meet with NPO 6 an February 39, 1986, to review the proposed development. Moen, " s there anyone here from the CC?? Uh, with that we moue onto the he neeting, uh, for those in favor, fir. Harker has public hearing portion of t already spoken, uh, Til Patrick. TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS f, LOAND J 1-8fi Page 4 a �?rf k, "Un r<imc�rlt. Moen, "Okay, L.:ith that we will .m(,)fife onto those in oppositi.nrt, uh; first Guy ` Mount. "My name is Guy Mount, and I live at 5500 SW Rivenuood Lanes which is right, my family " is, right next to adjacent to the proposed sub development. I` appreciate the ,opportunity to speak uh to the Planning Commission this eJening and I will be briefUh', before I get started I want to do two things. first, i want the people present from the Riverwood, the Copper Creek area, the Kneeland Estates, and the 32nd street people who are here to stand and be recognized. Uh, secondly, I would like to do two things, one is uh, present a petition "that the residents of the area have signed' stating some of there' concerns; and also distribute to you our brief critique of the staff report that you all have dated February Vis. (pause) - Newton, "'You should read what the petition says for the rocord." Secretary,` "I also need a copy of what you wive to the "Commissioners." Mount, "The petition says,; we the undersigned residents asked for denial of the proposed Lincoln Savings and Loan 1 - 'E6 J Kneeland Estates III proposed development for :the fallowing reasons: I. Notification was given after the NPO meeting. Therefore, the residents were not part of the established planning process' at the NPO level. Number 2. Oncertai.ne_y of traffic safety on the proposed intersection of 52nd and Riverwood' Lane and 'increased traffic flow on Riverwood Land and the proposed extension. plumber- :3. Concern regarding the use of the flood plain and the development of existing natural' greenway. Does everybody have a copy? short one (cause) I just have two short items them I will turn it over to some other- people who would like to talk. % have ; numerous concerns with respect to the planned subdivision, because I live adjacent to it, my family lives adjacent to it. Some of those issues are going to be taLlked about tonight, but many of them are not, which leads' me to my everridi.ng concern, and that is that, uh, the residents in 9f general were not given notification prior to the NPO ff 5 meeting that I believe was Janumi�a� '22nd, and as residents we feel strongly that we should have the :right to enter the process at the 'NPO level. We got are notices a week ago and we feel that its just not right to be able to walk into a process you- know nothing about and try and uh act in the ;property manner. We sort of feel the meeting this :evening is premature and we emphasize our support with Phil Pasteris, the C:hairpprsor. of 'NPO ## 6, uh, that we should that this, for lack of a better word, meetingset aside till the residents, 'the developer, and the NPO organization have a chance to get togeth and go over some of these critical issues. Uh, I, 1 re-emphasize that. If you 'don't -have any more questions of me I would like to turn it over to Liz Collins who is the uh, head of Copper Creek _Homeowners Associations. She_ has a couple things she wants to ,talk about, unless you have any -questions. Moen, "Fortunately Liz Collins is the nextoneon the list," He 'knew that. (laug3.-eter) Uh, fly name is Liz Collins, I'm President of Copper Creek Home Owners Association and uh, Kneeland Estates Homeowners has also asked us to represent' them since' we have a viable organized Copper Creek biome Owners Association up and running. We are not aware of whether Kneeland " 4 TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1-06 Page 5 115 1121,111 s,c Cst•ut.c.', �:eS' ,.;u r +t:. ,)h; yrr. 't'i..rd Lu ar.ht uri r,,,.+ ;Trtr abur.tf thi! r_r nr,l•r ns about tr'affi .,c• arc• vr,r'y e`-rn,,;a:>` r] bec',au ct ;rt „a t.,,s r.t.i+lit d a"rd 9 ' t had irid is;rxLc•d t.hoaL there was joing to be la turnabout in RivRrwood Lane, thcareforo it would be a cul.--de-sac 'area, it wouldn't be a thru street. on 92nd and Rivcsrwoad Lace. But the proposed s to map, a`s we I as the developers application indicates that there wi13 be a thru street so 92Nd grid Riverwood +_ane 'would intt rsect. We have a real problem with that because 92nd on the up side is blind hill and if that intersects in any way, we feel that 'could be, there could be possibly potential for traffic fatalities with children and pets. So thats one of our concerns, I think we need to discuss if we "sit down to talk about' this at a later time Uh, the next 'thing is, if indeed this, this at any time is approved, you know, we would like to have some type of traffic study done because C;.ipper geek, 'excuse me, Cook's Dark is a very busy park, one of the largest in the state of Oregon and if at any time if any of you have seen that park of have enjoyed that park during the Summertime you can imagine what type of traffic flows in there. Many of those, people would probably like tn' take their' shortcuts thru Rivet"wood Lana, which would go thru Copper Creek Develooment and uh, so thats a real concern of ours too. Uh, I would like to turn it over to someone who wants to talk about the educational blows by adding property or houses to 'that. Oh, I'm sorry okay now where going to talk about the flood plain. Sally. Moen, "Before we get started with Sally are there any questions?" Collins, "I'm sorry was there any questions?" Moen, "I had one question, uh, with respect to the streets here, uh, are you saying that, what would you propose, do you have a problem; with this connection to 92nd danger of the intersection. Collins, "Yes, because on ;the up side of 92nd, its a hill, and it, it come down, I can demonstrate. - It comes down like this and River-wood would intersect this waxy. Thais a possibility that people could be driving very quickly alora 92nd and there could be a problem." Moen, "What would be your proposal or alternative?" Collins, "That Riverwood would not go thru." Moen, "Would not go thru on this end or this end?" Collins, "That end.+ Moen, "This one, Collins, Well. we would hope -that maybe it wouldn't coo thru at all, we like it the way, it i s. We don't'iwant any changes." Pcoen, "I understand that, Okay, Uh, next Sally Arroyd•+, Sallyi Arroyd, "Arroyd, .I live at 9505 'SW Riuerwood Lane, I'm on the -other side of the €aunts but adjacent to lot number- four on the plan. I would just like to say in ,speaking for the citizens of Copper Creek,, Kneeland Estates, and 92nd, uh of who were recognized here. We have a concerns with the findings _arid conclusions of the staff report. With existing water and sewer TRANSCRIPT:LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1-86 pace 6Effmas M. 3=1' 9 fsu.ilit , } w 6r,t. t0 n.,,kra sura- tk it nr t , ;t ri,•(qu4t� Wr ht)rr,,r t, ic••, t.r�•t• `wat.er preS`ure 90(.'s d,-I wn ,xriC w,ater' towr rs and YOU yet into a whole mess of thin<35 Wry: would 1 ikt? a study done to:make sure t.e,at there is more than adequate wrier and sewer fat.iliti:cs tri handle !.hr, nn pandir+g development. Arid we also dO have a concern being on the flood pl3 ,ijn and thz•' impact of building within 'the srr,sitivE areae. Liz mentioned uh`, treo comments, erosion, things like that, as far as the engi:heering plan. We do what 'a study of that. A geological study, whatever you call it, We want: to make sure that there is going to be no unnecessary erosion that will cause anything, any of ours to all of a e sudden disappear. I'm not making myself very clear, but we are concerned with, in a nutshell. with the sensitive land area issue as well as the 100 year flood plain issue. Building in, if you look at the plan there, of course there are three homes that will built in the flood plain, but also, part of the street will be in the flood plain, and I believe in the Engineering findings that they do mention that none of the road Moen, "According to the map that we have here none of the streets are in the flood plain. Except for 92nd which goes down into the Park."' Arroyd, "Oh, okay, alright. its close. Its close. We do .want to make sure that of course the flood plain is maintained, turned to greenway, whatever. Thank you. Those are my comments, Moen, "Okay," Arroyd, "Any questions?" Moen, "I don't believe so, right now, thank you. Uh, Dan Leslie "MY name is Dan Leslie, I live at 4544 SSS Riverwood Lane and I'm a concerned member of the Couper Creek Homeowners Association. I uh, being an X educator I'm concerned with the growth of Tigard in general and in that area, having young_ children that will be attending school, and knowing that the problems that the district is having might now with the growth, (coughing), .' Superintendent addressed this very issue today at the high school levet, with the high school teachers, trying to get some input onwhich new direction they are going to take with, the growth of Tigard. It seems that it is going from a very small City, 33rd in Oregon to like 13th in the State, as far as states go and population and I don't think this district is able to keep up with this continued growth that has taken place. Uh, .this, this new subdivision would be a optional area, which means that the district can either way yearly on which school the students would attend. They could attend either the Durham. Elementary School or the other School, next to the Junior Nigh, Templeton. And, this, the High School right -now is experiencing terrible growing pains in that it is built for 904 to 1,000 students and its curr,rttly enrolled 1600 to 1600 students and they are going to have tc, build additional schools, as it is already, and I'm concerned about the growth _ there. Another issue, dealing with the Nigh School is the traffic created by the Nigh School and the driving habits of young High School drivers in that area. They already tend , to use the hill quite a bit for 'different playing, laughter. . activities, and they do race up and down the hill and they do, and there is a lot of foot traffic going thru there as well, because they Eike to the access to the park during the titties that they are not in class, and we I feel that this would &1,363 bringabout som. c, unwanted high school traffic thru TRANSCRIPT"PT" LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-36 Page 7 ?aur subd i v I a':.ir� aru; R Ivr!r wood is it. stands h.r> 10 t,opt ;jgn5 Evrevythinrs C::!m:r,y ,.1 Yr lY� 'RJ u<'r Wf!r!d aria:. ,top sign, ':I r 9 0, I L � t.5t f rr,n•, .� :ttxnd dt!•_ . is>ave itself' r,pe_n to quite a' bit 'cf fast rnnvirry t.raffir_`. Arld we fcrnl like ( during, t me, that there are soccer games, and football games, Uh, bc!ing «ttendr,u •-it the high school that there would br, an exces'S of :traffic coming thru that area, where• itisnot accessible at the current. . Any q,uostions? Peterson, "This information your expressing about the schools, is this coming from the school district ,or is this just your own opinion? Leslie, it, is from the School District I tried to talk to Superintendent Joki myself today, he was not available because he was speaking at the high school. 1 get my information thru a teacher there. My _wife is ,a teacher at Tigard High School, currently, and is also very;aware of the problem there. Moen, "Do we have a letter from the School." Newton, "They were notified and had no objection. We always notify the .several people.;. . . . Leslie, "If I may Make a comment. The high school principle did: make a comment ' that they coo not get involved in this type of situation and thats ,why they made no comment; because they feel like they can't they're straddling two sides there, they don't want to have anymore growth there. Moen, "What We do, as part of policy, staff is required, actually requires the applicant'actually" 1_ Neviton, "No, we natify the School District Office, and generally we will get either no comment -back or some information; on the in this particular case we have a, standard Moran that goes out and its mailed to them with a copy ,f the proposal, and an explanation, and in this case, uh; let see. uh right Mere, yeah right hear, they have checked it and says we have reviewed the propo'sal have na -okb ectfons and then its signed by the person who and these go to the district office. Moen, "Just an opportunity for the District to Leslie, "I concur with what his secretary, . . . . . . she did say that they do get these forms and unless there is any extreme problems they do have no comments. Moen, "Commissioners, do"you have any questions?" Butler-, "1 do." Moen, ''I have time for Rebut &I, you want -you ask your question now or do you Butler, "Lets 'bring him on." Moen, "Okay, That is it as far as those in opposition, uh, let me go ahead the rebuttal and then we can ask our questions." several People talking. . . . . TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & 1_t?AND S 1-86 Nage 8 address thz. issues that havc. been sp r_iEical.ly rased.' Harker "Oka, `Jery Lriefly, regard ing the 'Neighkusrhuud Fassar_iat.ion, T 'di.d call Phil paster•is, two wr.eks ,xgo, uh, hr was.- awarr! of t.ho proj°tct. T asked if I could come to the NPO meeting and _I. went to it and explained the project to LRec Neighborhood !isSt?Ciati.on, at that time they passed a motion to forward I talked a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission and today, to staff", they had apparently changed their mind. I did also, uh, on friday, was in the 'City office and met with staff, and at that time, purposely to find out who the neighbors would and how to contact some of the neighbors and at that time met with Sally Avrroyd, and explained a little bit of what the project was 'litre and gave her my card and offered to meet with the npigbhors. uh, onMonday in `the day or in the evening, whatever, and asked her to dive me a call and "I didn't hear anything, but I did offer to meet with them, so as Far s the applicaret'•S concerned we tried to work with the neighborhood association and the neighbors. As far as the issues brought up. Its not a whole lot different from neighbors who buy on a dead end street, Chats stuck into the woods, its a nice place to :live until the inevitable comes and we, soh. Several itessis were brought up, ane is that Riverview Lane being extended onto 92nd zAioca'ld provide a shortcut. And I'm, I'm not sure just where that would shortcut to. 1t seems like', rather a no factual statement to say that it would be a shortcut thg�ough somewhere because I'm not aware where Riverview Lane ';should shortcut to. The connection point, is ,,asically gives' , there's, if we move further away from the top of the hill there would be 'a into the flood plain or a+se sa+sitch the connection with Riverview Lane on 92nd as far flood as possible, there is about 3DA feet of sight distance available. We souagree heat 'Caere is .a ;�riikl at that top, and uh being an 'observer that the high school students . o come o�+e^ the hill fairly quietly.. And our basic 'feeling is that thans an enfor•cemont problem, and I'm root stare"'what we as a,developer, representing a developer, could do about haat, that type, Of situation. I ot sure w�nat cour perimeters are in there, I don't knout sympathize, but, I'M. ra to much about that. Is there any questions Butler, "Yeah, I had, was there input from the ,Tigard tauter District about service. Newton, "I don't have the copy of a response sheet from them. Marker, "We diel receive plans previously when we went thru the process in 21 they:' at that time, 'drew their own,plans up and, uh, drew up plans to service the property. There is, there is water< at both ends and they, and there would be :an intertie, is what they would like to see happen, between 92nd and Riverwood Lane. -Butler, "Okay, There weren't any sewer plans, where . _ Harker, Sanitary sewer i.3 in an existing cul--4e—sac and it goes-do south.- sevs Pal talkinf�. . . . The line does go dorso irtta_ the trues; line, down by ;'Gen, "Commissioner Leverett do;you have arty questions. ' TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & I.6�iiip t age 9 i_eurrret.L. r,L'> Arid 3 thc,'rc , the't'a i', .� •,m,+', ter,r Jr r in th(' 'f ic,od ' l;) yr}U hi vc? ,nv 'dr•-A tf you Conk t uu• t !.hii t 1, rxa T>>a1rk, if the r e wou]:d be enough-th;�rc to iii E't. the requ i,e c'mc,rrt s," Harker, Se-nsitiv;� ar,ea? We could provide the area without 'a problem, what you would end up with is a lot that has 'a ]ot, of jigs and jogs in it. Leverett, "'Yeah, I understand that." Harker, `:'For the person who buys the lotand try to build a fence, that< really frustrating. Newman, "The land between the 100 year flood plain and the street between lots 2 and 3, between 1 and 92nd :Ave . " Harker, "We'd dedicate, If I read you right, your talking about the small' portions, everything from ,the street to the south with the exception of the lots would be dedicated to the City. There would be no reason to have flag strips." Newman, "-Sere it says, you will dedicate area in the flood plain." Harker, "Right, Wo', are intention f cthe r•;ight--of-wwould be to dedicate everything to the south o �:.y. Nrewrnan, "Arid my understanding is that street improvements would be included along those areas?" Harker, "Thats correct." Neuman, "Evert though they don't abut a lot." Harker-, "Thnats right." Moen, "Okay, any other questions?" Leverett, "I was wondering about the sight. . . . . . I know the county several talking. ! i Harker, "I'm not sure what the speed is on that, on 92nd, I Leverett, "No I mean sight distance over the hill, Harker, 1%4ell again thats predicated on the speed. -if you have a 50 wile road then the sight distance is considerably longer than for Z5 miles per hr. , I _don't know." several talking. . Moen, "Z have a questions for Mr. ?fount, ash, give you a chance to address that, I would like to know particular what . . . . . . . . _shortcut, where would the short cut be. Ttourat. "i�All, I wasn't the one who brought that up, but that brings up ' anothergogd poiwat, aih', d-irecrly relating to - what the gentleman said concerning his efforts." i—$5 Page 1O TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAV151 ,S & Li5AND S _ T b Mtir •i ; havo to a sn Vuu t u' .yddr os:, my'qucstiuri Mount, "Oh, 1 would be more than happy to do that. Uh,' the, what you get, is you get kids going 50 60 mile per, hour up and down 92nd Arid whit wr don't what have happen is to have, after football games and after soccarr parties down at Cook Park, having them short cut through Riverwood Lane to get up to Durham down by the King City side. Uh, we also don't want to make that just another avenue out at excessive rates oil speed, regardless of what they are posted at Uh it brings back us to another issue, and thats whatthe gentleman said, we didn't know about any Neighborhood Planning Organization meeting. If we would have had the opportunity to go to that, uh, I would venture a guess that he didn't check to see if anything had been sent out to the people who where affected, which it was not, because it was done after the actual meeting on January 9-2. Moen "Meeting requirements for NPO's is not a requirement." Newton., "May I-address that one sentence? When an application comes in we notify the applicant to contact the NPO Chairperson. The NPO' Chairperson, who is a: citizen like all of you, who takes his time and his committees time to hold this r:eetiang. They ;gave regular meeting nights, in the month and their agendas are always posted. They ;call the meeting at their convenience, often they are 'held 'before public notice goes out on :the hearing, because of the schedule of the people involved. It often happens, its unfortunate, but the way the system its set up its between them and the developer when they want to hold their meeting. f Mount, "Oh, and I appreciate that, and that just reiterates my feeling that as a; neighborhood we 'ought to have, we ought to be down on the ground level, because that directly, effects us. And, uh, regardless of how much time it takes or how difficult it is aye feel it should be done." Newton,"Okay no specific uh, There's no specific sight distance requirement, and I think thats probably why the >Engineering Department asked for the traffic study. Secretary, "President Moen, r would bike to make one comment. That use are looking for people who are interested in becoming members on the PPO and if anyone would be inter'este�l, that if they would contact sae at City Hall I_ would be happy to give their, an application." Moen, "What it boils down to is Chats the way you find out whats,going on in the NPO is that someone from your neighborhood organiz,:;Llon be active in thait, We do have a problem., you should all be aware of that state law puts us under a constraint that under a certain amount of time, from the time the developers submits his application until we have to have it completely processed with all. appeals, and if we don't process it in that period of time with either a yeh or ney its automatically approved as submitted. So we are working under''a tight time constraint. Its for everybody, to help the developer and to help the whole process so we don't get burdened down." TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1--86 Page 11 3 t + e nk i h i , 9' jht. Wrot. to `b" awarre Mount.,. "Th; t `br'ings u .p rurtha r .�:. [ . `t n 1 : of , «r,d th dt. a yry,! niit ht .NY«L ;:u Y,iAVC' t r,t Lr rAf f, study jLna• dtar i ny ;Lha• �ple in ;,ul Park summertime ,period of time, ,whQrk! you gr!t a I Q L of pe;r Right now you don't have the traffic flow going back in there. Moen, "b1e will have 'to take that into account as part of our decision process. Any other questions Commissioners? With that I close the Public Hearing Portion of the riaaring. Commissioners?" Ne"man, I think its appropriate, its a little late . . tape ended. . . . . I live on the extreme other end of Riverwood Lane, threelots from the other end, so I probably should just state the fact that I don't' think that my living that close to the neighborhood will affect ;my ability to be objective in this particular situation. Although I have had a lot of input from people in the neighborhood. Moen, . "Okay, maybe you could if there has been anything that hasn't been brought UP; maybe you could enlighten us to some of that input when the time comes. Commissioner Butler', do you, I'm going to go ,down the line to; get comments, then we'll make our decision. Commissioner Butler?" Butler, "I have no comment.,, Moen,' "c=ommissioner Peterson" Peterson, ,S=ell I was a little concerned about the possible Zack of notice, the citizen had, but there does appear that there was some attenpt made. The other concern I had is uh, possibly, there is some problems with, the traffic ' on Riverwood Lane, but I do believe that that street probably has been shown that is was going to be :a thr-a street and if anybody would check, they ,would have seen'"that.' As far as the rest of the ,subdivision, would be flood plains and such, I don't have any problem. aloen, "Okay, I have one quick question for staff? If I understand it right, the rest of, the adjoining subdivision is developed right up to this lot at this point." Newton, "It's a developed subdivision." Moen, "The road ends right where . . Newman, "And there are houses built on those lots and they ace occupied." Moen, "Coms1assioner Bergmann? _ Bergm_atnn, "We have two or three points, one being 'those two lots that potentially have double access. It would seem logical t-o me that all . -the houses should front the same street, Riverwood Lane, but _there (sight be some reason why I'm not zaware of, as to why it would be better to have them front on Bard Avenue. But it seems that neighbors adjacent to them. -and that they caught to have street house numbers and houses that face the same direction- instead of having back ;yards faring Riverwood lane. I don't see any problem with lots 1, 2, and 3, slightly encroaching in the flood plain, that going to be just lawn and fence, and in most cases the house could not be built in the flood- plain- area. Engineering Department has required traffic study, even TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1-86 Page, 12 } a �_hr:u•:`,, that is #.1gF,. :nt.ttr5c r ,-;n r ,atoll Thor— w N t d4flut- nu would 8 .;nd a re •t t.hru street, th.: + t would bath ba strir_ken frum the rc_-commendZAtiun." Ptewton, ",The concern was that we might not be able to make this improvement g because :actually whether or not the two improvements- would meet; physically meet because of the property line. The survey Department has determined that they will if germane, So, I talked with Randy Clarno this afternoon and he had asked that the imprevements be rewired and that the streets be required to connect." Bergmann, "So that would strike number 8 and Butler, "So we change slumber 8 to Std Riverwood Lane would connect to the Copper Creek Development and in number 9. several people talking. it says something about a turnaround in number 9. several talking not transcribable . . . . . Bergmann, "I don't think it would be possible to let that dead end , o� much, much to long for safety for emergency vehicles Moen, Commissioner Newman?: Net.-man, "I only have two concerns, I think, knowing the neighborhood, I think the lot size are in character with the layout and fits in real well. But, I do have some serious concerns. The connection of Riverwood' Lane to 92nd will make a major change in the character of the neighborhood thats already there, t- because of the charge in access. Uh. ' Regardless of whats suppose to happen on t 92M4. in face there is a lot of traffic that goes very fast them, rhe neighborhood has a lot of very young children, and there is ; very little traffic down in the neighborhood that isn't people who live there because there is no connection, its not on the away to anywhere. If you connect Riverwood Lane through your going to open that: ups very ea-silt' to allow the traffic to coring out of rook Park . . drive around the high school. Not that I. have anything against the Nigh School, I spent the allotted' time there myself end drove aroused a lot' while I was doing it. But, I have some very real concerns with River&sood Lane being connected. The second thing is that. where it connect on 92nd, uh, T_'m familiar with 92nd in that strip, and, I don't think thats going to be a good intersection, Because of the nature of the traffic on 92nd. 1:'ve find it hand to envision a connection there that going kee safe.' And those two concerns are very real to me. The rest of it scums miner. The encroachment on the flood plain is as was mentioned -is fence and lawn, It makes a lot more sense to do it that way than to make it all twisty and turnie . . .. . . . . . . doesn't do anybody any good. out I think that I` mean, my feeling is I think that maybe the developer needs to go back, get together-with the people in the neighborhood and work out some way- to meet the concei^ns of the traffic. lfh,- because as I say, I think it make a substantiail difference in character-of that neighborhood. (,foam, "Com-missioner Leverett7'° Leverett, -Well. , It appears to meet all the criteria. I also have concerns for the intersection, I don't exactly see any way of . . . . , . I don' t knwae aahat the speed limit is, but I know theres some pretty fast traffic -86 ?age 13 TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1 � { - d L0 .t 71t ,.I)W; q '�47 I r e,xi d G';in t. kfinw ra L 3" T the rs.hr r Way 1. .as. .t, .{i l the cr suggC >tiur„ I only concern and I. don't know'huw to deal withan y Moen, the the applicant' mentione>d this tract °'A" does staff have a he . I don't quite problem with making tract "A" an access tohad t the¢facctrth aroble=m with Riverwnad would understand Well, you p not continue across to something. Right?" ,s Newton, `eyes.'° � something should be done with lots 17, ; 1$ that g€ Moen, And you where saying i, to allow forthat." Newton, ,well, the concern is that we don't just deadlock this area and treat 1 it as a. no mans land. This may not necessarilyC noof the Engineering Oivisontion. If e could get a offset of, according to Randy 3 of at bast 3t}0 feet, or about ' 300 feet, that wouldn't be as major of a concern. s Moen, "Right, but we're talking here of a offset of only 150 feet. ` cess, on that, since I don't have a map 'that deals Newton, ,My suggestion, I g I think the suggestion I with ;that 'whole area, is to G.tie it UP would t, t the condition on the too. ' d be, if you do decide to mitigate o adopt traffic study_ that you haus the applicant look atseve�ral talking would have t tur€ii;-igfrom 9 s2ynd onto Ri.veood bane. Hoen. tGS"�ekP13'a'wri(" et n� "0h, if, if the recommendation from traffic was that lot 16 only be Newessed from €tivers+;oed, ,my gtic�ss is that partly 'because of the steepness of the street." . . . . a minor collector.°` G'!oen, ,plus the fact that 92nd is Newton, "Sut then so is Riverwood, I might add." . .several people talking • Newman, °'wV.at about lots 17 and 18, inheres there access? I mean 42nd is still' 42nd. .several people talking Some one from audiences asked if Commissioner could release speak up. Moen, t1I1.11 try talking louder." laughter. . . Newton, ,GI don't see anything in the actual condition 1s Butler, "Remember when 2 asked you in the very beginningabout that? ' Engineering Department had a concerned with it and it hasn't really been addressed. TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS & LOAND S 1-56 Page 14 N(awton, "Riy}',t., tt.:a no !.ho Moen, "I guess I' would I i k to take thI a oF,pur tur,�ty to make a couple �f comments, Uh, I, we have a responsibility to the whole neighborhood .to provide access for emergency vehicles and a lot of other things, we. try to cut down on the number of cul-de-sacs, ;if at all possible. I can unders tand the X..._ neighbors concerns; based on the fact that this is Cook Park, but I think that the overriding concern is that we need the access from emergency vehicle standpoint. one other comment I would make is, requiring the developer to put sidewalks down the length of '42nd, basically on both side,, uh, would have a strong benefit for the ;public, in terms of access,, for example between the soccer fields . seen people walk up and down that all the time, and it is a problem. With that I would like to see ;some condition on lot 17 and 18 to be, there 'approval to be reserved until such time that the traffic study shows that we don't; have a problem with connecting up I think thats a good idea Traffic study should find ways to mitigate the impact can River-wood Lane. . . . . . . . . . . I think : that the item on lot 7 and 8, should be restricted to access on one public roadway, uh, the same roadway.;" Newton, So you would like to see it on Riverwood Lane." Moen, "I think it ought to be Riverwood Lane. I guess' what we need is a motion.. talking among Comtnissaoners not transcriable. . . . Newton, The traffic study is doing to wave to be approved by, realistically E, f` by the Engineering . Division before they record the plat. Uh,< you know they will have to have gone thru public amprovement drawings and all that. Da you 5 have a problem with that. f`s several people talking -. ' Moen, "Commission Butler would you care to make a motion." Butler, "Yes." : Moen, "Your Busily scribbling away there, so I"going to put you Butler, "Yeah, I make a motion that we approve Subdivision S I-86, with the r' E. conditions submitted except those that rye are going to change. Okay, Humber 8 we're going to scribble out, and were going to make it "Riverwood Lane will connect with Copper Creek Development. Now is that clear? r Moen, "Is Copper Creek the adjoining development? Butler, "Yes, to yes to the west. And number 9. we're -going to scratch out completely. Slumber 13. After the period. to the Engineering Section period. Then we'll - put uh, River-wood lane' easterly access shall also be addressed at s` this time, uh.- and then, I secant to say something, I didn't get this far, this t is where I" stopped,, you *aunt to address lots 17 and 18 platting, once the l traffic report is in ,they can decide whether they want to or not plat 17 and 18 or take Track "A". So somebody can be creative and TRANSCRIPT LINCOLN SAVINGS LOAND S 1-86 page 15 , Nlcarr ; "n'i Vv wood Banc tr,ect ,1on,a wi 01 tkr<, p7, of ]nts 17 and 18 and Tract Butler, "plotting, of lots 17 and 19 and Tract °'A" and the dedication Of tract "A". several talking ;Koen, On 11. we would like Newman, "Access onto 'Riverwood Lane." Butler, "Okay, 3 and S, Is that how the City has it planned for Riverwood Lane. Newton, '"It doesn't rea.11y> matter" Moen, "Why don't we just say that they are restricted access one way or the f other." Newton, "they both need to face the same direction." Butler, Okay, theme U. should be, restricted to the same public road. Then 14. Applicant shall dedicate lands within the 100 year flood plain, except. Newman, "Can we reword that to say that anything south of the road that is not is not in lents 1,< 2, and 3. Butler, dight,; ani then: also he will still have to go thru the Sensitive taads Bea to get thatcxoared, so there shouldn't be any problemavitF� that. Because he even though he is going t4ithin in ' that, he 'won't` be building within that, tie,11 still have to go for a Sensitive 1.an3s. Newton, "yens "Sensitive 2 rds 'only goes for any kind of development, platting of the 'lot is not development, digging one Shovel of dirt is. Butler, "Okay:" Netaton, "Steep slopes, x.irainageways, doesn't saatta�r what it is, sewer liras drainage." q Butler, "Some of it is." j Newton_ "'fes, and thats addr'esspd to." .several''talking. Buhler, - Other th r5 that 1 didn't have anY more that except to include that thsa staff prepare the final order Arad president Moen sign off an that final order. a - ' Moen, "We have a motion, do hie have ah second." x 1.r4s5ltti'+issionec- Pet£.Zrson, ' C.ond,6P TRANSCRIPT'CST LINC+JLit SAVINGS 6 i_OAND S 1-86 page 16 c .t, n:�i i•>n tie �r:r�•y .anis. ,r t.`ri.r �j t 5< r� .: Jrt Moen, -opposed?" Nowalan,, Coen, "We have one in opposition, motion carries five to one. z fiR(S iCtYP"T !_If+�dvC:{_M ! P.11IN G5 LOAND ", i.— ti page 17 t - F w .. rIGARD PLANNING COf"1+"1ISSION REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 4, 2966 {'f 1. President 'Moen called the meeting to order at 7:33 PM. The meeting was held at Fowler Junior High School, 10865 SLa Walnut, LGI Room. 2. ROLL CALL: President Caen; Commissioners Butler,' Peterson, Bergmann, Newman, and L.everptt (arrived 7:40) Absent: CornlissionerQ Fyre, Owens, and Vanderwood'. Staff: SeniorPlanner Elizabeth Newton and Secretary Juane �. Jelderks. 3 . APPROVAL OF t.I�NUT'E'S Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Newman seconded to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried by majority vote. Commissioner Bergmann abstained, 4. PLANNING C MISSI CA2*IMUNICATION Pre%idesnt :teen announced that item 5.6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ;PO 1-86, ZONE CHANGE ';ANNEXATION ICFA 1-86, SUBDIVISION S 4-86 had been withdrawn from € the 'agenda. a F 5 PUBLIC :1EARI 5.1 SU50T VISION S -j-U6 LINCOI M SAVINGS AIND LOAW/19NEELAND ESTA-S III NPO ry 6 Requez't to subdivide a 6.,68 acre parcel into 18 lots, with a minimum lot size of I., t3 Esq, ft., on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acra) �, �� : RQ en neea as�d' .Estates and Cook 'ark, west of Tigard High 'Scihq, l (SSI 3.46, lot go") Senior Planner Newton reviewed the staff report Raking staff`s recomendation for approval, modifying cgnditions number 8 and g. APPLICANT'S PRES'E#-TAT'IO NOMA Harker, 1750 SW Skyline Blvd., Portland, representing Lincoln Savings and Loan, agreed with the staff report. He stated they would be ,willing "A" dor right-of-way. He requested clarification on to dedicate Tract bonding for streets, if public improvements were limited to lot Frontages, it ;builder could determine frontage for condition 11, and if dedication is only limited mo lend within the 100 year "flood plain, Staff responded that public -improvements, could be bonced. That the public improvements that" required alon�'eratire Property line not just lot frontages: If the builder determined access one lot could end up one dis^eci€rn and the other lot could face the' opp03ite direction, which is what staff wanted to � avoid. Alsothe city had in the past ,accepted property which was not within the too year flood plain. € PLANNING CX"1I ,!;ON i�ilN'l1t t f t1RUApY 4, 19116 t5agv NPO COf-VENT Senior Planner Newton read into the record a request from NPO 9 6 Chairman to postpone the hearing to allow for another NPO meeting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY , o Guy Mount, 95oo SW Riuerwoo€! Lane, requested the people stand and be recognized who ;where here to support aa' denial of this application. He read and subrrritted a petition, signed by 27 residents, into the record requesting denial of the application. He requested that the meeting be 'set aside to allow more citizen input. a lig Collins, 16545Sw Copper Creek. President of the Copper Creek Association,- also representing resident from Kneeland asked that the that Riverwood Lane wouldbe aapplication be postponed. They understood ` ; cul—de—sac. They where concerned about traffa.c auto 92nd, that followed from 'Cook Parc would use Riverwood as a shortcut. Discussion ftllowc9 regarding the `street connection at 92nd and Riverwood Lane. SW Riverwood Lane, adjacent to lot # A was concerned o Sand Arroyo, 9505 that the existing water and sewer were adequate. She wanted a study of the Serrsitiu Lands as ;yell as the ZOo year flood plain to be maintained. 0, Dan Lesue,. 95146 Sw�Riverwood I Lane,. Fisas concerned with the growth and the effect it wculd have on the schools. Tigard High School enrollment is already above the number of, ` tudehts that the school was built for. He _l . was concerned what affectthe traffic would have on Rarseca csE6 during games. Discussion followed regarding the School District not having any objections. REBUTTAL Mr. Harker stated they had neighborhood participation through the NPO �rrocese ares they had 'moved to support the develorrr-rent. He had also offerAd o meet with other neighbors. He questioned where people would for the speed on 92nd, that was an short cut to from Cook Pari:. As enforcement issue a"d did not know what he as the developer could do. r, Discussion folio+ f'd regarding the Water District response (no comment was received), portions of lots ' 1, 2, and 3, being in the flaod plain and what would' happen if they were reproved. Lengthy discussion lane: Mr. NewmanNewmansion regarding the traffic study ;and. connection of Sad 92nd and Riv2rwoo commented that he lived at the other and of River`anod Lane. PUBLIC HEARING ;CLOSFD " o Commissironi r Butler,had no comtPent. VJt1RUA1.Y 4 , 1986 P.egf`NOM, X111i , P: t o' Commission.=_r Peterson was c6ncerned with traffic if Riverwood was mach a through street. o Commissioner Berg mann, felt the two Tats with �uwithble aclots should both front on Rive Lane. lie had no problem discussion` followed regarding encroaching into the flood plain. Lengthy A l striking .coditions ,numbers 8 and 9- d be a o Commissioner Newman felt iter of they development a d was onon at 92nd and cernedlbecause major change o 47he character of number of young children in the neighborhood. He was concerned whore the connection would be made onto 92nd for safety reasons. He supported having the proposal go back to the NPO. u .{as concerned Commissioner Leverett felt the criteria e how haddeal with ibeen met and e with the 92nd connection, ;but not o Commissioner Moenasked about dedication of Tract "A" and the problem the with access. Lenrthy discussion followed. Commas5ioner Moen felt it was cut don on cul-de- acs, responsibility o �hssheentire neiorhood a� ency�behicles to a feltw side a1Rs 'on s92d because ;of the acce would ,b a benefit. Further discussion on a traffic study. COm€Tissioner butler m ed and Commissions^ Peterson seconded to approve l 1-86, inner ;ang cr dition number 8 to read: S+IA Riverwood Lane will connect Riverwood Laane with the moddev' opmentaccessnumberto the ed to mad st (copper C£�ssi�4sle Eliminate con iition number 9- moo y same ` frontage acts. n;a ay °� ad �. =ha11 kat restricted tss ac ss the public roadway. The i if condition number 13. to �e°sd: o public access to be addressed after the traffic study, also lots 17 and is be, platted and that 4ract �,A,, be.dedicated to the City on�dtiing:ce the 4r ctoand study had been done. Modify conditions number 14. by d E Also, property south of the road not platted into lots 1, 2 and request staff to preparethe find d President afor to sign that,final order. motion carried by majority vote, commissioner mewman voting no. nimum lot size 7SOO 5.2 SUBUIVISIUN S Bts VARi +t�aCE V i--Eii ELIZABETH BUTLER/SAMUEL {tel (ER NPO # b Request to subdivide a 1.37 acre p ow �a1GUU ft�nto 7olong�Tcul-de-sac where 400 q. ft. ; and for a Variance ;to all ft. :is 'required, on property zoned R-4.5 _ (Residential' �.a. units/a�cre) Located- 335', west of S' 93rd and SIA Inez (WY 'TMl 251 13134 lot 1�St3U). Srriior planner Newtonreviewed Y;he staff report noting tbk blom withethe regarding the cul-de-sac versus a through street; the _pr' a=Td Size of the lots, the need for a tree cutting perai.t, the bike pati; {s�au'e 'staff`s rer.�,mss�s ndatirin for ;apprr�val with 13 conditions. - WPO CUs` IENT'S NpO di Chair Senior Planner P6rAttbcirt rand a }r•Y.t< r irtt.Ut �{?�rEt.urn{.;t11t- Lhsa =I�l-4)t.r,j tis {.:,t i o rt ref.ot:a(iefT.ifirlg d{xi2lai t-ar,d Lhat the �aY3plz ..,'` ey iewed by OKI cor{ierr;vd .rTi iuhts{er s. S 996 t�t.APJi�i3�i (:rf{E11`3; t;to.t C tiltat 3 ! f t1t2YJflhY h, PT Aqr. l ggnam,,tm nteggg-m—� awoffmiaZm�wOM MH 7LI' �mwmwwyjd pi 11 ¢ ILL '�' �i`�.�L1 JL.L) ;.iGrii'.2.d,�.'Ti"�C.�\� b•`�Ii >� 7 Z - iz,i •'� !l�'u i: .�lC ,%l tt '• Ate-, `f.,,.--�m:-- . ✓ se'd rl- r Febuary 4, 1986 Tigard Planning Commission { Fowler Junior 'High School--LGI 1.4865 SW Walnut Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: ,agenda Iters 5.1 Subdivision S 1-86 on behalf 'of the homeowners of Copper Creek Development it is our desire to address the staff report regarding issues which have been raised. 'We are unable to support any development in the proposed area until specific issues are clarified and expanded upon. SEC`l°ION D Finding:: and Conclusions Sub Section A: Surrounding property owners were not given notice prior to the NPO 46 meeting. As owners we were not given any opportunity to consult mlth the NPO concerning hoer, and by ghat. process the NPO deals such issues. Sub Section C: Section C states "Policy 3.2.1. will be satisfied because development within the 100 year flood plain will be avoided.w ,After reviewing the proposed site :nap it appears at least lots 1,2,and ? will directly be within the 100 year flood` plains Tbese inconsistences are at best confusing. Scab Section Ea Section E states mPolicy 7.3.,1. and 7.4.4- are satisfied because adequate water and sewer facilities are available to tae devel opmenta� Question: Has the developer had any studleB done to show what the impact sof the proposed water and sewage facil.i.'tiez will do- to the existing supplies of Copper Creek? SECTION C: Recomendations - -a...b 3.....,.,.r.M1r,s v :aar%a ai 'sacsc.ts scr-t.r.5`3FA�i" indicate the potential of having a tszrn®a--rs�aad,f®ne ,�l a ) foot reserve .strip at the end of Riverwood Lane in the event Riverwood does not continue/connect at the we-stern section. The proposed, site map as ,well as the developers. applicatiaon ;indicate that Riverwood Lane and 92nd €gill. be 'pushed throughu and connected. As 'Homeowners we are very confused as to "whish is being proposed--connected or not connected.; _Sub Section 13: 3t is the Homeowners extreme concern that, the - increased traffic flora from co-ok park could be a very .real problem. Cars will,:reach- speeds of 60+ miles per hour on 92nd at times. In the event Riverwood Lane is connected with 92nd the potential. for traffic fatalities fnvolvinn children ,could be enormous. ;The upper portion of 92nd immediately Mabove'the t s a proposed development is a blind hila.. The potential of cars t coming over that "blind hill" :at excessive speeds down into Cook Park again causes the 'existing Homeowners grave concern. die again wish to 'state we are not in favor of 'the proposed development .as it stands today= We are very concerned that secific issues nave not been discussed and or have been confused and over simplified it is our desire that before any further action is taken on this asaatter we the Homeowners of Capper Creed: as well as other 'adjacent landowners affected have the opportunity to meet with tae developer in conjunction with the ' NPO 06 to discuss specifics in greater detail before any plan is brought before The Tigard planning Commission. Respectively Submitted, Concerned Citizens of Copper Creek r 5 TO: Tigard Planning Commission February 3, 19$6 n19 FROM Phil Pasteris Chairmen 14PO ,# a ( U.k J SUBJECT: Recommendation for denial and referral to NPg # .6: Application # S- 2"86 &-:V 1-86 Samual A Gotter III' (WCTM 2SS 1IBA; legit 1400) Application # g 1 .86 Lincoln Savings & Loan (WCTM,'2S 1 14A, lot 900) The NPO # 6 chairman has received numerous calls from residents concerned about the above referenced applications. These calls resulted from the City of Tigard Public Hearing notice being given after the NPO meeting which addressed these applications. It is clear to me as Chairman that due to notification timing the NPO lacked the input required to make;an informed decision. Subsequent to the NPO meeting, the chairman has met with these resider-ts and has determined that they have a sincere interest in the planning process and are willing to work with the developer and the NPC? in resolving their f { concern. Therefore, I am aAking,the Commission to 1) deny troth applications and; 2) recommend the :developers ;and citizens meet with NPO # 6 on February 19, 1986, to 'review the proposed developments. s Al i �3 f 0OTICE ALL PERSONS DESIRING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM MUST SIGN Tit t.ttt U A M t. and note their address on this sheet. (Please Print your name) ITE M/,DESCRIPTION: PROPONEOT' (For) a OPPONENT (against) - Name` ddz�ss and P.Ffiliation Name, Address and Affiliation' �(btlov�a... � t�-a-+�- l7rn sw'Jc l���)o�+ �e--'�R.- �€JlvtC�,.t->,� �IS.%C•5,i4'L�tvc�cu•c�;1 Lr�. /7C9-+�(�. PbX otf /01 S6-rr,o.r,,� I 7- �f7-77�.,�.-: } FiuLNUA I ILM S]Ak'k 'rt1;PVR1 t E$RUAWY 4, 19}1si 7 3t) p,M r TIGARD PLANNING t_OM11:;SION ' �{ F-OWLE€t JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - 1_t,I �.. 10865. 'S.W. WALNt11 TIGARD, OREGON 97223 �r A. FACTS 1. Gaeoer'al information CASE: Subdivision'S 1-96 REQUESTTo divide 8.68 acres into 18 lots with a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. C0S1k-RE'siE1L,,TVE PLAP•! DESIGNATION:SIGNATI.ON: Low Density Residential x ZONING DESIGNATION, R-45 (Residential, 4.5 units/acre) APPLICANT; Lincoln Savings and Loan OWNER, SAME r 10250 sw Greenburg Road Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: West of 92nd Avenue between 9neeland Estates ;Uo LI anal Cook Park _71 Preliminary plat approval was granted in 1881 (S 11-80/CPR 12-:}1) for 22 attach ed and 5 detached single family residential lots. The final plat was never recorded and the :approval has expired. . Vicinity Information Kneeland Estates No. 2 lies to the north and Tigard High Scttooiis lies northeast 'ori the opposite side of 92nd Avenue. The R-4.5 zone apP to this area. The Capper Creek development which is zoned R-7 (P®) (Residential, 7 units/acre, planned development) lies immediately west and Gook Rask abuts the southern boundary of the property. 4. Site-.Infor_� matign - The proper Ly i5 presently undeveloped. the terrain slopes downward from Yu�r•tte Lu. ,rwth,+Ni1.t, yradrfs. of up to 30 in: thue northern portion of Lhcr site, the sciutkicrri half c;�f Lhe property- is wiA.hi.n the 100 year - flood plain-. ' 5 S 1_86 I'AGk ! . iiu•s .wpT}i 1`,,,v!,S Fx , r.,t... ,]; d,a.l..' Ic •J�tvr ty Ir,j I 4fit I rc! Idorit j r,, ,A11 r,t;IQ s au:er o f c!o Riverwuod Lilrr wi l l be ortc•nrjod from I t s ternnrfus at. Copper Creek to £ 92nd Avenue. In addiLion t4 Rivc?rwricsd Lane, four lots will; have frontage on the 93rd Avenue c ul-de-sac in Kneeland Estates No. II. Although this pro€osal represents a reduction in the number of lots from 27 to 18, the subdivision layout and street alignment are very similar t the proposal that was approved in 1981. 5. Aaenc_y and NPO Comments The Engineering'Division has the following comments: a. Lots 17 arid 13 on the east side of 92nd Avenue will preclude the extension of Riverwood Lane to the east. The applicant should be able to show' that other reasonable alternatives exist for providing access to the property to the east. b. The issue of stormwater run-off pros-nts several problems which must be clarified. Stortnwater through "Tract A" from the school property and 92nd Avenue needs to be addressed along with the gully through Lots 10, 11, and 12 and the drainage over Lot: 8 in the event of a catch basin .failure on the 93rd Avenue cul—de-sac. . C. A private pond is located above Lot 12. Liability for any flooding caused< by the pond and the right of this owner- to release water onto Lot 12 is unknown. qF^ , d. Slope easements along Riverwood Lane will be necessary. ; e. If Riverwood Lane does not connect with the completed portion in ' Copper Creek, a temporary turn around will be necessary. f. Lots 7 and 8 ha,ae double frontage and access should be limited to one street. The access for Lot 16 shall. be limited to Riverwood a' Lane. g. A traffic report is needed indicating what measures should be taken to mitigate the site distance limitations at the proposed Riverwood Lame/92nd Avenue intersection. = n h. The applicant must provide store-later runoff, report addressing proposed on and off site stormwater and erosion control during and aaft.Lr construction. This rcporL must address the impact of upstream drainage fwciIitios and the mitigation of adverse ' storm"ater impacts up(.)n t.iLy Park aril gro(inway areas . { s i . Iht+ IOf) _ve:.e t lrlc,ri TI!.a i.n Should k,v dedie aler! tcv ttvt• City s g ra rinah'a y �', A Sensitive Lands Permit will bc, nocvssary for, any crinstruc.tiorr or grading within the flood plain, drainageways, or slops>s, over '25%. k Any reduction iit the width of th.• City 's ;T.&nda.r(J tsLr'evt sfict.iori will r9quiro Ow approval cif :a variance. ;I AV I IN VOP t t 36PAO �. l.; rlv UUsss�lrs'.i u-•}s....!.trsrs i):d1 �Putr ;rrl zst. sA.i:, ,1 a. !hr,,t r]rvri.4 ptut•ut: >,r..s .r r... s +`, be difficult f'` i The Tigard School District and ;NPO 116 have no objection. No other comments have been raceived. 0. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1: i, 3.1,1, 3,2.1, '-7,1.2, 7.3.1, 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and 8: 1 . 3 rind Community Development Code Chapter lH.rfl, 18. 160, and 18. 164 Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged,' the Statewide Planninc3 Goals and Guidelines no longer'need to be addressed Ttie Planning staffconcludes that the proposal with 'minor modifications is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive• Plan based upon the findings noted below: : a.; Policy 2.1. 1 i.s satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding 'property owners were given notice of tate hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b Policy 3.1.1 will be satisfied provided that any portions of the Lots which nosed 25% slope are not graded or filled without a Sensitive Lands Permit. Policy 3.2.1' will `tae satisfied because development within the lOQ year flood plain will be avoided. If any of the 'proposed street does encroach upon the flood _platin, a Sensitive Lands Permit will be required. d. Policy 7. 1:2 can be. met when additional information, noted in the Eriginaaeririg Division —comments, is submitted and +pproUri;:t.>: mit;igatir,ri reotsures taken. e policy. 7.3.1 and 7.4.4 are satisfied because adequate water and sewer -Facilities are 'available to the deveIopme,n t. T"he app] icant also indicates that these facilities will be provided within_ Lhe suhdavision as required by they City staxidards. f folicy;8.1. 1 wilt be met once thce ter minatior,-ref h Vi;r�n:gri '. .gin 92nd Avenue is justified or provisions for futur-o Cxtci :irsr thsi east 'are made. i - c};. d7clir_y 8. i. 3 will be s&tisf-Lud wh,--i tht• c_r>1•idit,i•d rc=l.tt.iriq tn; street improvcamunt:s ar;, cumplcteri the Plannir!c stkff fir:a!> determined 'that, the propf sal is con !s:.< rt', wi !h " Community Oc_ve_upf _rlt t;r:dc- r i_1ir. r•n1.=v:ar�1:" prtr't:' c�ns _<?¢� the � Z � c> � 4fsgrt u!•yn'c rir: ' f'!nd i 1,{:, nr!t.�c. bc•izaut Rf 1+t1ti! 1' tri PWA °XJ tri.• _,aim 1• at, 'N• bu 18. 160 of the' Code i'ti satisficrd ber.au5e tJw+ Prrtp,is•,,i McOt.s the ' r oquirements set forth fur- the submission arm, approval of a pre'1 (r„i nary plat.. C. chapter 18. 1.64 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. g C. RFCOttit,MENDAT`10N Based upon the findirig s, and conclusions above, U - Plarrni.ng . staff recommends approval of S 1-96 subject to the following r_unditir�ns: I. UN -FSS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDI f IONS SHA(-1 t3! Mt_? PRIOR 10 ; RFCORD1Ns; 111E FINAL PLAT. � 2. Standard half-street and full street improvements including E. sidewalks; curds, streetlights,: driveway aprons, storm drainage aria utilities (delete inapplicable items) shall be installed along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage. Said improvements along SW 92nd Avenue shall be built to (60' R/W 36` Pvmt.) City standards' including an 8 ft wa.ik on the west side and conform to the x alignmentof ekisting improvements. (i( note the attached section which was approved via Kneeland `states subdivision development). a 3. Seven (7) sets of plan—profile public improvement construction .` plans including a. site grading plan and cross sections 'and one (1)' itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval 4. Sanitary and storm sewer plan-profile dotails shall he• provided as part of the public improvement plans. Slope easements along SW, Riverwood Carte shall b(' pr+;vided to tF 5. ,e mm. public. Documentation shall be on: City forms or on the plat and a approved by the Engineering Section. 6. The applicant shall provide a stormwat(,r runtillf r(jport addressing proposed, onsite and offsite stormwaLer cont.rul aria .soil erasion r-or lrril : ((juring and after construct:ion);.`- - ,rid.” res part shall also address thc• in,fja(.I. ()f upstream drairtage f,,iriIities on the site arid Lhe mitigation ut' stort(!wat;+r damage to thrx downsloprt City park d s{gist.ur_. -r, + t proza'.; c_ public r,r)tramsenrc _ unLi i ai t( r tis( f.1190notir'irig `;s i_Lior, t,,as ( ;u(e'(i +f,�i( ov(d public • improvement. plans The !;oct ions wi l t r oqu i, • poo L i rig of a 100.% Per fnr°!trance bo, th(� uzmymc,nt u{. ( p(Jrit,it f, se n,1 a stc}r, install:xt.(+srt/st.r•:•<,tllght f+•+• F+l"it, th,• 'xrr• it i• `f a � +r craelSts't(c.fi:it�n r.+�stvpliancdr :3rottmnrtL s},.a1 L ,r+.,:ur Hrr';•Jr LiJ• �t ,. .1 <; - .cOrt4urr'ertt3-y With -tr((• ;•�su<-nr.s.> +.tl �apfer<iir(`(i ;,i(t;) (+ (n,Eit tavenwrt plans. SEf IfIF E;tit,t ayStjD HAN001.1r GIVING 1100 A r If 1t� 1�! 0Ftt1AYIOtJ f.''' t- REGARDING FEF f SCH t U h_ � BONDING Ate!() 63c3Rt'(Mf rJ t l,a( t lit :`Ok ih t-ACA +� } �ttiI1 r,r, prriv;dod v t! , 1 :J 4 r vi!rwr „ct1- r!, f hr L ,.ijr!ri(, L wJ L!r Lr,, w,•'. .•r r t,i r vt• „t •n.)vt.,r'Wrl ,d t.dnC•- '{ y- If applicable, W tcen!purary turn a-r'uurid shall be installed at the terminus of SW Ri.verwuud lard, 'saidturn--a-round to bo approved' by the Gust uffir_e, fire dapwrtmer!L cared Erig anceering :,ectic,n. the turn—a-round shaI l be removed, i f` deeme'd< necessary by the City Engineer,n. 9 r, at Lhe applicants expense. A bond shall bv- posted with the City to assure future Compliance. 10. Additional right--rsf-u;ay shall be dedicated to the Public along the SW 92nd Avenue frontage to increase the right--of--way to 30 feet. from centerline. fhe descr-iption for- said dedication shall be tied to the existing right of-way centerline; as established :by Washing, County. The dedication document shall be on City farms and approved by the Er!gineering Section. DEDICATION CORMS AND INSTR1JhTJONS ARE FNa;LOSf-, 11. . Double frontage lots, nramt•]y j/ 7 and 6, shall be restricted to access to only one'publie roadway. 12. Lot x`16 shall only have direct access onto SW Riverwood Lane 1.^,. The applicant shall provide a traffic report indicating measures to be applied to mitigate sight` distance concerns, at the intersection of P,iverp,00d Lane and 92nd Avenue, to the Engineering Section. M 14, The applicant shall dedicate lands within the 100 year flood lain for greenway purposes. �° 15. Street Centerline Mcinumentatiort a. In acr_r,rdance with ORS 32.060 subsection (2), the ct:ntt r Ii-i t 5 5trec!L ,xrrd r-vadway rights--of-way shat]. be monuments d bufure thq t;iLy steal]' accept a street lmprovf=_-hent. b. Al]. 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: c. The fo].lowi r!g ct,ntrtr'] i r c niunud!er:t 4 set.. l/ All crarrtt rline -centerline r f?ctlons'. ]r�tt,ry„r t in :. r, ;.;f4d cart}, txi51.1fvi t r, ;,r awl hi,, ,qt whorlthr: a Ti.gnmt,r+l ,..I s.lrrt "c:rr crit. r :nee ) ,t,ctr+r " ur ut.}tc,r :tr'Cc�Y. rt�a :rc,ery S t:..,J. l :,tr.•. bli �r )r 1:U• 1 , 1) -entor r,t al i c,u]-.d4 . aac,:,; 1 t2i t PI Of tfi I 1 :1fr i'rtC e�. f j ,;urvi ;mint. , F,,,,nt - „I II r5< =.t.,,,n P,j S i t-n,r. (.m Y r+5 k,.=e - utherwiscbc,=dinning'arxl ending points 4}' ° r'v and toren lo=:atic,n shall be placed ir, All 5a ita pos r tions that do riot interfere w th center l i ne m6numentation: 16. A SensitiLe' Lands Permit shall be required for any encroachment into the 10U 'year floodplain or construction in drainageways or slopes peer 25%. 171 Lot 1.2 shall be subject to the 'set.back ar,d height r( qui.remer,t.s for flag lots r_ontained 'in Sections18.96.090 and 18 .98 of Lhe Code. 18 A -tri!e cuLtinq permit shall be obtained from i.he City prior to rr moviric ' any trees over ti inc :es in diameter. 19: After rev i.ew arid approval by the Plant=ing ?ire,c tor• and Ci Ly Frayinczer, the 'pinal 'Plat shall be rer_ordeG with Washington County : 20. This approval i.s valid if exercised within one year of the final derision date::noted r.below. lt� I tv _ : PP.EPARED BY: Keith Lid APPROVED €3Y: William APionahan Senior. P144ner Director of Planning fi Development (K,SL:bsd7' t, - KNEEl..F9ND 'EST'ATES III .. APPLICANT STATEMENT 6 , Kneeland Estates I11 was given preliminaryapproval for a subdivision in 1981. The approval iia- for a combination of 22 attached' and 5 detached single fniaraly+ lots. A final plat and construction plan were completed ' but this `project was not completed because of the change in economy. The p4' nt pr i s to subdivide the property into 1:3 single famiIV lots.. The ;present zoning is R 4-5. The propose' project will comply with the requirements tints fo this zone. The minimum lot sire 7,500 square -Feet The proposed nubdi vi si n abuts Kneeland Estates Na. 2 to the north. This project will complete, the cul-de—sac on SW 93rd Avenue. Copper reek Stage �u�adivi i 1Ies to the west of phis pr aper ty . The roadway construction tvill, complete Rivervi and Lane out to S.W. 92nd Avenues thus improving the traffic circulation for the area. The property{ slopes- from. north to south. Slopes up to 30% exist in the the northern portion of the --i tis The southern i one half of the property is within the i.00 year .flood plan and i s pr oposed to be left in' i tom. naturAl state. —Water—:l-Water: ls available in SW 92nd Avenue and SW Ri verwdod Lane. Sani ar^yr ewer ? uai1' ole* frog ; Brie running south through` the project ,-roma Kneeland Estates 2. Storm 'drainage ,wiII include collecting drminage 1 ORE 11 112! 'UK=- I $r6m the north as well as the site. The storm drainage will be carried to the natural drainageway running through the site. R fes. �4 AFFIDAVIT OF !+AILING s STAVE OF OREGON } County of Washington ) a's. i City of Tigard } I t o being first duly sworn, on oath depose and 31, Please Print) That I aim . s: � -4- - for 'Itee City of ,� a Oregon. That I served noci.ce of Public Hearing for Tigard Planning ,Co=iissinn. • of which the aactached is'aa copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following a:amed persona on the a�.r. day of lg$ o by mailing Ccs each BE sons set the address shown ore t �tCaached ;last Hmr$ted £x@�i�at �), said notice as hereto attached, deposited in the united States sail on the day of ��� -� lig '� 5 postage pr`cp�ad9 6! ;f } Sag, tura �arson who dela exed to POST OFFICE Subscribed and sworn to before me on the day of My Con=issi.on Expires: �� A0 257P) €y a 110T' 11;1; 11F Pti B d I C � � AIt'TNG Notice in hereby giver that the Tigard Planning Commission, at its meeting on `i C"' at 7.30' Tuesday, Februar P.M., in the lecture rooves of Fowler Junior High School, l0$65 S.W. Walnut Street, Tigaa d, Oregon, will con3ider the following application: FILE NUMBER: S 1-85 APPLICANT: Lincoln Savings e4 LoanOWNER: Same 1{1250 Sw. Greenburg Rd.' Portland, OR 97223 I t)e3 FaT; To sub divide a 8.68 acre parcel into 1$ Lots, with a ..` xssir� a oi• of 7,500 aq. .ft. , on property zoned R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). j LOCATION: Between Kneeland Estates and cook Park, west of Tigard d High School. (WCTM 2S 3 144 - lot 900) (See map on reverse side) The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordode a accordance with rules the rules of Chapter 18..32 of the Cc�e�raacnity Development procedure of the Planning :.Coarmission, Ary persons having. interest in h to be matter may. attend and be heard, or testimony may be submitted in writing entered into the'-record of the initial hearing. he t at 71. For further infomiation please contact�,��rauePl(Cornes �atf$r lar r'sve ueg&al Burnham TI4�I�IYD CITY HALL., 1275.5 S.n. la Street), or cantact. your H*ighborhood Planning Organization (NPO) � 6 Flaoaas i�u�a3�er b39-7342 1{{ ChairpersonFlsil l�asteris �L (PM/0257P); - ,ff ;� �,.;,� ,tea, 'j , �• / � - t a..IPJ� ���C ,� �P el•�. ``I. f t '-:��':- 5tr.•.^^n. ��'rtrjl .er. Y-� , ti i M19FRM .77 ti��i ;: - '°-,' nr.,�ti yY�f •t' S.f' } t'/r ���e ...i lq l.` tl - i 'I ,1 �' r ' -tt%fit/• ` '��_ , ' .. P ANT ,l ;i- COON A i 0 NO IS REP MIMRIFRP� 'ERE W� 01 `. KnFEI ,nd Estates III VZ U6 "jo pe5}1 c; Clark Lincoln Savings and Loan . `ZAV PUZb F95 58 91 Harold and Edith P.O. Boa: 23457 ueav s poo }sang 'Mj seaoyi 9410 S.W. Millen >Drive Portland, Or U}.A-aad Tigard, Or =.17224 97223 e y Custom Homes by Dave English Rte: 3, Boy: 25t Joan i Newberg, Or 16495 Sid 93rd i 97132 Tigard, Or- IYZZI.6 JO cP JPF $i i 4wo Ain4uso MS 96201 •d U1ZAVW Kel say Manning � Cl i+ford and Phyllis Patrick and Mary L. 9580 Sid Ri verwood Lane 9560 SW Ri verwood Lane Tigard, Or 97223 Tic ard,Cr 97223 e' 11 Mao jada-00 MS 02991 Kelly P ount A:� g4 puw -r t3CA64S Mark Ba and Sail E. Guy III and Diana L. A;.4noO 952 ► SFS Riverwood Lane 9500 SW Riverwood Lane Tigard, Or 97224 Ti gard,Or 97224 UWJ A;U MS G;026 ..Taal tin De velopment Mint H ampm Inc. es Ajj � A 814 116th Av6. 16690, R 81 annvj fit. Ti ard� ,Or Lakm Oswego, Cr -17033 972_23 i _ C6 J3 'P'AWS 3I t"_10 AS-43 0UUV_q me U26L Baqua Peterson uAid.aivo p .S 107uwcl Frei M. and Dana Lynn Terry mnd BarbaraM1I `i 16540 SW Comped~ Crk Dr. 165.20 SW Copper Crk Dr, Tigard, Or 97223 Tigard, Or 97223 $ r PAS:b NS OZ9.91 Kameda Kirk MUT40Tr'l PUT CAUG Daniel Ken and Marie Kenneth H. 9=0 'SW Millen Drive 9510 SW Millen Drive Tlgard, Or 97224 Tigard, Or 97224 ! znwoo 992V Wilson Dougall wnbegaU puv uagdm,;S Laren and Connie Jahn and Marilyn 16500 SW 93rd Ave. 10180 SW Laurel `Fi gard�Or 97224 Beaver ton v Or 97005 v7- vis. � t.a s x1, 0AT�J(lrU&TTTW MS 00V6 c T-jwV puv r t4da zor Tigard School €istrict 23J '!C'_z1l37 SW Pacific HWY_ sigard Or. 97224 aals�la� Mam ib , I-VI-.5lon 1 -96 Kn CPJ nJ Estz L4as . 4 i �liala�s�tia�ata rtt�aia tit lis ait lit sit ait Iii t1s 1 1 it l I DRAWING IS I nTmj i- - -fi n7��.ii>iilljtlt�tli(t���titjUlJtltjt�T�IirjltlyaiIIIttlal'itl-11aNitititsa�tlaitfr'ria�suI!' •. NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED12 •: LESS CLEAR THAN - THIS NOTICE. IT IS DIE TO ! - THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL low 0£ 6z -a32 tz az sz -b_z —Sz zz Iz oz s�ei- [i 9� s'I{ bi £f 9 - 5 -b— e .-._i a �raalan6u11aw6naluui1M11aruluM{mt i1pH ® �• MARCH 71 5 199 a w_ a DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION R - CURRENT zONING. R 4.5 50' IL �i PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 18 Single Family Dwellings Px.e. 6' ' LOT AREA. 8.68 Acres 16' 16' •u.e. FLOOD PLAIN AREA. 4.12 Acres `• .5 0.5 or �b�1 ROAD AREA . 0.86 Acres >— NET AREA. 3.1 Acres utter MAX1=4 NMER OF UNITS ALLOWED 21 Units s/W by others " A.C. Class'C' s ! DESIRED LAMER OF UNITS . . . . 18 Units •.iM• I \1 2'-(3/4'-0') Crushed Rock � c•I ,� H r r��- . Metzger Water District ✓- WATER SUPPLY. . SEWERAGE DISPOSAL 6'-(2'-0') Crushed Rock k;.�'• 1�� r U.S.A.; Washington County _=' a• RH s �� w PROPOSED UTILITIES WTBIN PLAT. Underground Elec, Telephone & Cable TV Z FLOOD PLAIN . . . . . . . . . . . Area to be dedicated to the City of TYP, STREET SECTION' W Tigard as Greenway. © OWNER/DEVELOPER9-7 . 5 AV 1 N 4,5 E L OA Ns,y1`� 5 5t^/ Cn BEEN :�VR4 -C, \ � \ ♦ }�\yam � � /� / i I I ,/ / Po2TL AA�� oRE �` `fir,: s' r •u'z>2, k /, ENGR/SURVEYOR/DE_ $tGN �`\ '- - l.� h t /i / /i \ `1 � I I I ALPHA EfJC-xI1�f1'EIZING, fnJ�. ��--- wJ ' i/ / 1 1'�J I 11 1750 5w SKYLINE r3u✓n�fq \ �� \ ,\I�, 1 \ \ L 1 \ Pc¢ TLAN �, �2Ec,on' g7zzf �`. ITo �, �o \,,, \ TEE: Z-7-1456 a 2 __/ ! li ! !.�\ \ \,\ \\ \\ hl\\\• _ �. \\/ - -� - Iw(j' / ,/, \'\ \ \\; _ to \_ /I TRACT 'A 1(0 ray - _ 1 7 J -- -- -- I ,' II - --- --- YEAFt-FEOOD PLAfe!_ 11/ --------------- I 1 JAI\ 1 ) o Zj0. / \ �� ' i /' \'•I �: loo Y2,F1,000 1 ,/ /-�1-- - ELE VArIoN OPEN SMO i ` �� _OPEN SPAS - FLOOD PLAIN IN NATURAL STATE I No DATE REVISION BY DESIGNED ._tt..Iv. DATE DEC 1985 ALPHA ENGINEERING INC. PROJECT SHEET DRAWNO_ SCALE 1':50' 1750 SW. SKYLINE .LVD. CHECKKNEEL-AND ESTATES NO. 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT 0 PORTLAND, OREGON 97221 lalf� PROJECT N85-728 e Ph ( 303 ) 292- 9774 APPROVED TSL 900 2S 1 14A OF - _ I(111(11rlIN�III III'I{r I{t�l{I Ilt�t{1Wi If IIII 11 I1111I'IiY► T 1T1 -m- iIII_111 r11T fI 1 Iii.I 1l 11 1{ I I��t►11II� THIS MICROFILMED 2 3 4 5 6 7 lItr{I�IIIB�JIII,1{1'I��,.rll9 lltll111'Ilr�Il'0 I1�111�rI1�lII'III�IIr'HI�1a2NOTE: IF DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN -..� THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. __ _ __ OE 62 9t LZ 9Z 92 4Z ea ZZ 12 OZ HS! 91 LI91 SI' bi EI' ZI j1-- 01 6 9 .E 9 S b C 7 I;+•�+ c First Interstate'Bank i of Oregon,N.A. Asset Management and!advisory Services i P.O.Box 2971 s w Portland,OR 97208 Bank �e .A.pri- 14, 1986 . 'Tigard City Council Tigard,- Oregon Dear Council Persons: First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., Trustee for Mary Goodell, endorses the site proposals as approved by the Tigard Planning � Department for the etite at. Cr eenburg Road .and Highway 99. Sincerely, Marvin Hmson Investment Officer First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., Trustee ` Cc: File N t CITY OF TIGARD OREGON AGENDA ITEM '- AGENDA OF: Al24/136 4f DAT E.'S,UBfilI TED °x/95 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISS!#Ef3C£i Df9 TITLE: SDR 6--86 E3ic^ec` sr P�ra�s�.l : 3/I4/flb First Interst ue PREPARED BY to Tr REQUESTED By!------------- ------ —� —�— CITY ADI�+aISTRA:TOR -= POLICY ISS - --- — I F ----- On March '14, 248£,, the plannirag Director approaed 5DR 6-35/v b-8� Sreview ubject to a the Council called this stem'up for breakdown, cons33tics s. On March 24, 236 +, x is to be bald Conschditio a hearing date For rywas 4€sot sent.to If a hearing Tan bratakd�� er notice :',a nearby property oavners copy of a;lett At- this item roust be continued to 'April 28, 1955. Attacto review this item be rear the applicant rega:estirng that the decision original 'narrative, a reversed, the Direc'tor's Drci si�sn, ' the applicant's set Of lens which are intended �o traffic -study by Wilsey ,and ""'ml noted in the Director's Decision, orad a address the conc'itions of approval m:amu resaardinq CU 4--92 for 7i�a Sattlemira. ALTERNATIVES COMsIDERE0 con the app licant's request (do not review, leaving Director's D cisio., to stans9 approved). 2. Decide to proceed a�ai.tia review. open public hearing and move to continua the he�riny to April 28. 2943 , and request s�af� to prepare a Public hearing notice ;to surrounding property' owners. GUGG££"�ED, ACTION Jt2 per f;a3unc3,1 previous diraction, if still appspri is . 245,0P/cin,11 IRS 11 is 1 11 ERH 'air k V- GIRAMORE,INC One UnCCin Center.fi470 50300 SW Greenbury Rd. Z;LT58PA Vf S PortVana,OR 97223 (5031 245-1976 April lo, 1986 ,. �+°.Ioge�rt� City council .L � P.'6 Br, 23397 Tigard, Oregon 972RE 23 .SDR 6=86/v5_86, First Interstate Trust Dear councilors Inc , re pest �':Ll requests that the motion by 'city Cr c��ee captioned -application be rescinded. council to review theabove, ancated below: The reasons for the request Access ,and sed by a traffic i sues have been en fully ad6res DiViSion, 1. 'ilsey & Ham, Study prepared by and were completely end rhe Cty . i ineriric� �ivisiora, agreed upon in a rt�o�t�aveng h�ae�ns�s�Lte�d a�state hpe��t and sthe as C�adaskL"il SEl3'ating. We1 -the access �01jancilrme �r art aunt has approved al ve ,worked had to are shown in. the revised draorirags � t 1�e��rtm�r_t and incorporate the ide from the state �liproje the City Engineering Division into our project y Pet,?Yaits�,e�,a are not only just �ail.l ing to issue the necessary � but are quite ,pleased with the project as proposed.Extensive considerate r3 businesses areview nd their traffic relating to the propose, generation characteristics, All the proposed, uses for this project are out right erM2' s in the 'CGJ zone. We are �aroviding the city, with this ,development, „ite i�zpxssve:nea�:ts, 3. i.e. , �,pp oximatel $0,00o worth, Of off-s LC& 6nTzat 't�s, road Work etc. This :includes � new right turn lane can 'Cx�c��starg ' Goad'. Zbt�hi improvements sill significantly, imp:cage the v�hi�u lar_ end po�ietri an movements around the intersection. Mernber of lnternat;on3t Council of 5b:)oping(2niers o CALGARY ' SEAT !.E e pow, R DALLIAS � �/Af}COt3`�EH j a' �b d page l Two y y y iS G T e existing right--of mwray and building set Sack pro�zlern alone Gr:enburg Road will be olix�i natPd by this project. , o objections or concernshave been raased by any of the surrounding property O vers of anyone else. 6. the proposed variance to the sidewalk requirement on Center Street is consistent with ,t ie code requirements ��zd appropriate pedestrian access wrill tae provided. 7. The project has been delayed. :for several weeks and thefailure to sent the necessary notices for the April 14, 1986 hearing has postpone the Council Review to xpril; 28, 6., Due to these delays we have had to paw additional funds toward options on t:he l and. 'this ha.s .increased our costs significantly on., ar a.lready marginal project and could put a stop to the development entirely. In closing, we have worked di is eptly to develop a good project: for this corner. There_should be no, doubt that this Project will greatly appreciate the co ner aesthetically. We have stet all of the ;concerns of the City aid. State officials ,c4�arc3vd �aitka monitoring and>�ontrol.ljing the development of coanrn�rci al projects. tie .have revised our plans numerous 'times to ;acconurtodate them9 We ask now that the Councelors trust: these Prof essi on to do their job, and allow us to Pro- ed with tai the devele�p�ier�t. yev 'incet Yt Barrl Cain BAC s ki s CC: R2 E. Beaupre' ThomasBa.rghr` usen i J a' d, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council April;9, 1985 FR41��: Reith Liden, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CU 4--82 'Jim Settlemire s noted on the staff report, conditional Use approval was granted to ;allow `a flawer shop art the subject property. The conditions of approval where finalized in Resolution ®. 8?_-2$ which imposed the following conditions: } 1. All curb cuts onto Pacific High+hay shall conform to City of Tigard street improvement standards. 2 R standard curbsti 11 b constructed to align with the existing curb along Pacific ;Ri huaag'. 3. Construction plans for the curb improvements shall be submitted to and approved by the I City, of Tigard Engineering Division, Site, drainage plans shay! b 3ubmit�ed with the curia improvem , is plans to insure adequate on--site drainage. 4. The parking spices in, front of the existing building shall be restriped to indicate head—in parking rather than angle parking. 5. Potholes in the existing parking area shall be patched with asphalt. 245QPJdwj i LIN •, r, 1 4 CTTY OF ,TIGARD NOTICE OF €DECISION! SATE DEVELOPMENT :REVIEs, Si?R g .A5 ,. VARIANCE V 5--55 �£3t3 �, ft. Request by First Interstate Trust to developVariance is also APALIC TIM. ark an .automatic cap-` wa_ street rata illa?atq service ildin part .o- public sidea�l6t Center r�ares�sortyai� qu:�tted for deletion' of a p tollzaaa landscaped area of D3.F1% t4ahere 15`S is required. C (Cc�rr:ierc ill General) aekd is loafed at ther4orttmy cil $ of zoned �-. Rdxd ( lam 2Sl d.AA lots D.000, pciic -0is�@V and ,�,.menarti3 f or the City Of Notice is d haereby ,.t�+�h that the Planning Director-subject to c stain 1 CDECIx7[ '. a above escribPd ap,plications sarDa3 Tigard has APPROVED which t �or+cl+asic�ns or. the Director based his d conditions T findings and decision are as noted below- f:. ,A. FINDING OF FACT t 2, �ac€groaarai property. applications for tie Dir"oP Th City lyes reeaisc d Several land use ( U 4—�2� to approve a Clo+ger � the most recent being R conditional Use t: shop. vicinity Information sand p the property i urrounded by Pacific dliq y. Greenbur'g D2uad. �;ee p per�eti. ��e zcsnir� on the south side of Pa�.cific t�s9 is ;. The properties east of Gree^burg €. CgD (Centrad Business District)• and the parcels north Of € Rom are zoned C-G (C C_p(Commercial Gerrcial P Center Street are zoned C P (Coc a c^cial Professao�€al)• � 3. Site Infor nuAtaor, ansa Proposa_l Description the subject f e y consists of three tax lots Which act sus is Grp+ commercial building ax sale �a wily rsasiderreeflbas�+3 Driveway a�:nd Center presently agail�ble from Pacific Street. sus tca rem+av thea Qxi�tir� building ash e�� c� The aPPlicant pr�opo portion of the PrOPu y nd a car wash in the uses€Grn PP Road. one driv y retail/automo'tive ser vice buildir� near Gr reaiarg tT-aQts abutting the entrance is intended for 'acbhof te fall�e tcsh Qraa �rlQsely se bl the rc rt< The ,ark sty Will property. rade y. The is part . This will rfiquire a rQta3ni 'a�A Which ~a i^n,has al,_o b�a�n pr�asentsad 'dor apprsae�ai�. is as cis h as 10 facet nsar' the wester sr er+ci of the tercel. r� 20 foot oil,ount Of high 10£D qua re foo S Variances are alga requested to xi t®lit 13.5% t r�reduce the oto M$ the l €daca d ares froom la`s to ; ' deletion of a sidewalk ala;�g �v of the Center Str�eQt frr�rsta�gs�. O :3EC4DR I®EISZO+'! Suit S--Sfr ! V5—i°� Pale I ;T 4. Pgency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the folloail:,g cnmnents:- A sanitary sever connection perm.it for any now additions. b.. All work performed within the Pacific Highway right-o%- 4ay Will re�uire a permit from the State Highway Division, c. visual clearance mustbpl maintained at intersections and driveways. d, Wheelchair ramps imust be installed at all corners` and on the proposed traffic signal;island. a,. A traffic control pavcm.ent marking plans must• be submitted for City and State aPProval, prior to installation by the applicant. f. The proposed driveway can Greenberg Road should not be installed becausemf the existirk congestion at the Pacific Highway intersections, the difficulty in prohibiting left turn attempts onto the property, and the Citgo Policy uthich calls for minimizing than number. cf access paints on arterial. and collector streets. c�. The ,todrain catch basin and Eine proposed to be installed at tmaa the intersection of Gre-enbur^g Road, and Center street needs to be rerouted to avoid crossing private pra�erty. at is suggested that the catchbasin be cOn.-tected directly to the manhole at the intersection. h. The guardrail along ' Pacific Highway shall be relocated not removed. i. The proposed retaining small near ` Cpnter Street is a potential eyesore, pa ticulmrly if it becomes a target for graffiti, Care should be taken to provide landscaping which will act to minimize the proble-in. j . No objection to the wariance requests. The Suildin, Inspez.tion Division sena Tigard Water 'District have no objection to the request. The State Highway Division states that a traffic impact report is necessary 'to evaluate the imps<t of access alternatives. s3 Road Approach Permit is required and the 'necessary street improvements shall. be detar-mined after the report is completed. PGE notes that several utility poles will need to be maven p Flo Esther compel ats have baQn received. DIRECTOR DECISICAJ SDR 6-86 I V 5-86 Page 2 Y ' B. AssL ;alS ANO tit 4C<LUSI p Tsre proposed commercial development is basically consistent with the � relevant standards and criteria contained in the Community ®evelOPtnent Code. Hot�aever, several asp Cts of the proposal including the variance request warrant further discussion. 1. Access �. The Czreenbu Read driveway :is not appropriate for the reasons noted by the Engineering ,oivision. Tris driveway should ;se removed 'ar6d it is r+ecozxaaended that a pedestrian; link between the public sidewalk and the project be provided in its place. � .1. Visual Clearance Chaster 15.102 of the Code required that Objects tallerL than three feet in height c�anrrot be rithin 3t3; feet of intersections ane! driveways. This parartior3 of the Cede is parti+cularly iw.padrtant;nea.r busy intersections. It AS recommended that the two Red M5,ple3 that are shown cicasest to the Pacific Highway and Center Street driveways be eliminated. Also, the mature height of all other 'landsc1pia-4gmaterial should not exceed three feet. 3. LarOscapim3 its The proposed land3caping pl;.n generally conforms with Code requiremes, The the exception ,Of vLismatl clearance (discussed above), lot coverage , (noted below tender the variance review), street trees, ar;d the treatment of the proposed retaining ill. The Center Street frontage noes` not include street trees as required ,by the trade, presumably because of the proposed retaining wall. The deletion of street trees appears ' to be justified, however, the landscaping tr�eat€rae"at in this area needs revision. The majority of the 255 n retaining wallwillhe over six feet in height and Potentially could have a detrimental visual iWiPmet. pies rsec�et�ation is proposed to soften or screen the wall. A revised .Landscaping plan should be prepared by -a landscape 'architect for the retaining -wall area,. The plan should contain a justification for the proposed height 'ref 'the +mall, plant materials that will screen all or most of the retaining wall, an elevatican drawing illustrating the wall and proposed .landscaping, and 'landscapinom treatment of the right-of-way area between tato ret,ainirs g`wall ani the curia. 4. Variance As mentioned earlier, two variance regnests have been rade to reduce the landscaping coverage to 13.5% and to eliminate a sidewal4 from the Center Street driveway to the western corner of the property. Section 16;134.Casi7 Of the Code contains the following approval criteria for granting a f variance. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6--36 ! V 5--86 Page 3 a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Goole, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any ',otherapplicable "policies and standards, and to other 'properties in the same zoning district>or vicinity; b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the sqt size or shape, topography, or other circumstances ever which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted sander this Codec and City standards will be maintained to the ,greatest extent that is reasonable possible, chile perscaittiN some economic use of the lard; d. Existing physical and natural systems,` such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, drsodatic land forms for parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code and e. The hardship is not self-impose and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate -the hardship. This ;proposed variance to the landscaping coverage requirement' is minor and it will be difficult` to notice a difference between the required minimum (6,31 square 'feet) and what is proposed (5,600 square feet). The property is long and irregular in shape with street frontage' an virtually the entire perimeter which has presented Unique problems related to right--of-y dedication, street improvements, and internal circulation. � 7s The proposed uses are permitted in the C-G zone and the request will not adversely affect physical or natural systems. Finally, the hardship is not self-imposed bemuse the primary reason for the variance is duty to the irregular 'parcel configuration. The request appeG rs to he the irinirisum necessary and also, the required modifications to the site and landscaping plans will cause a slight increase in the amount of landscaped ;area. 1 The proposed sidewalk variance also appears to be justified for the following reasons: State 4ighway right--of-way and the embankment for Pacific Highway lies to the west .of the property along Center Street and the potential for any extension of the sidewalk is minimal. Because of the 'large amour+t of 'front7.ge, the applicant is responsible for a substantial quantity :of street improvements area this portion of sidewalk -would be of minir l' value and it could actually cause problems by encouraging pedestrians to cross the street in the middle of ,the block. 'DIRECTOR DECISION SCR 6-06 l V 5­86 Page 4 The ,applicant is providing all other half street improvements as required by City Code anc3' the development will be able to :adequately accomodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the perimeter of the site. a'. Signage Tice applicant is proposing to install one 20 'foot mail, 100 square foist sign and the stag-:lord Code requirement's allow for signs 20 feet in height and 70 square feet' in area. However, during the Site Development Review process Section 19.114.130 (g) (3) allows ups to an additional 50% increase in sign copy area for developr�ents which have multipletenants. The project will have four businesses' and the proposed` sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with City standards. 6. Pacific Highway Offtp-to Commiercial Street As part' of a long range plan to alleviate traffic circulation problems in the downtown aria and on Pacific Highway, an exit ramp has bean proposed ;from `'Pacific Highway adjacent to the subject propert to !'^ntWr , v ey��Gt and ups, t^ v ^a Street.- ;;;r. Engineering Division recommends thRt the to- of this site does not preclude the eventual construction of this exit. C. DECISION The Planning Director approves SDR 6-06// 5-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL, CONDITIONS"SHALL BE MET PRIOR Tal ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Starndsard half•-street improvements, including sidea:salk, curb, wheelchair ramps, driveway apron, stow�,s drainage, guard rail (partial frontage) and utility signalization relocation shall be installed along the SW Pacific 'Hwy. frontage. Said improvements along SW Pacific Highway shall be built to Major Arterial standards and confomi to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the State Highway Division permit. 3 Standard half-street 'improvements including sidewalk, curb, pavement markings, wheelchair ramps, storm drainage and utility relocation shall be installed alone the SW Greenburg Road frontage. Said improvement, along Sirs Greenburg Road shall be built to Major Collector standardra and .conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the City's Street Opening Permit. 4. Standard half--street improvements' including' (partial frontage) sidewalk, curb, retaining wall 'driveway apron, stoma drainage and utility relocation 'shall be installed along the SW Center Street frontage. Said improvements Sal Center Street shall be built to Local Street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the:City,s Street Opening Permit. t { DIRECT6R DECISION SDR 6--06 / V 5--96 Paige 5 5. Five ;(5) sets of plan-profile public improvement construction plans and (1) itemized construction cost estimate, 'stamped by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public ~ 4 . improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. �. SWlitary sewer connection details shall be previded as part of the public improvement plans. 7. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence Lentil after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvements plans`. The Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a �saMit fee and a sign installation fee. Also, the execution of a street opening ;permit shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. SEE TFE ENCLOSED hiflNC9OUT G1VIE1 'WRE_a P�CTi r IC Ie"�'r1iP:i ar�TIC3?9 Pi�GARDING SEE erE$ tJl6LES D�Fd2 AND AGREEMENTS. 0. Additional right-of-Way shall be dedicated- to the Public at the Pacific Highway Greanburg Road intersection to provide for a turnip p._. •�:,. i t,.. frog; rreenburg Road, The description for $x?.`fEfu' 'oil bfl 'f�L ii ay. yvv.+.*.� .... said dedication 'shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline as established by washington County. The dedication document shall be on City forms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION EI tMS_A&'q Ie'�'STRUCTj0PJS ARE EWC�GSED. r. A, re it shall be obtained by the applicant,,, for work proposed to be dame within SW Pacific Highway from the State Highway Division. A copy of said permit shall be' provided to the City. 10. visual clearance at drivewaays ;And at intersections shall be provided for in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 18.102. 11. Pr traffic and pedestrian control; pavement marking, signal and signing plan prepared by a regilsteread civil engineer, detailing a proposed r rking, signal and signing improvements sh:211 be submitted to the Engineering Section ,for approval and to the State Highway Division for approval, 12. Direct vehicular ingress-egress at Greenburg Road shall not be permitted 13. Concrete sidewalk shall be installed from the proposed driveway -apron on Pacific ° ,Highraaay, along 'Pacific Highukly, along Greenburg Road, along Center Street, to the proposed drivevay apron on Center Street. 14. Relocation of any existing utilities, poles, pipes, wires, signals, signal loops, or any such equipment shall be at they expense of the .applicant. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-96 / V 5-06 Page' 6 15. A revised site Calan shall be submitted for Community Develr PMOnt Director,,approval which deletes the proposed driveway on Greenburg' Road and illustrate$ the location of the proposed free standing sign. 15, A revised landse:a�sing Plan shall 'be . submitted for Cor eanity oGvelopment 'Director approval which is consistent with Chapter 18,102 visual Clearance. Srsecificad3ly, the two Red maple trees adjacent to the Canter Street and Pacific: Highway dr-ivewayz shall be c3elet grad verification staall be provided that the mature height of other lasapirag materials will be less than three 'feet. Also, the landscaped area shall not be reduced to less than 13.5% of the total lot area. 17. A landscaping plan, prepared by 'a landscape architect, shall be submitted for Cee:sseay.nity Development Director approval which deals with the rvtainieng wall, including the follow ing. a, Landscaping materials to screen all or most of the wall. b. Elevation drawir'ig of the proposed retaining wall and plant materials. C. Landscaping material between the retaireirag wall and the curb. d. Reduction of wall height as much as practical, Is. Maintenanceof the landscaping within the Center Street right—of--way (( shall be the responsibility of the applicant/propertY owner. l� 19. The one frame standing sign shall not exceed 100 sq., feet per side or a total of 200 square,feet. 20. 'frau ,lots 1000, 1001., and 11'.90 shall be combined into one parcel. 21. This approval 4 valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. 0 PROCEDURE aao ac : r4otice was published ire"the newspaper, posted at City Nall and mailed to: XX __ The applicant & ow:ners Ch*ners of record within the required distance X -The affected Neighborhood Planning organization rMXX Affected governmental agencies 2. Ei�a„nal Decision: THE DCySI:f39 g}iFl{_L BE FINAL-Oi1i4areh 2f,. 1ikQ5 2bLSS: �3 APPEAL IS DIRECTOR DECISION SOft a--86 A V` 5_M Page 7 ' t 3 t: tiny party to the decision may appeal this recision in accordance with i SectionlS 32.2?��►( e� and Section 113.32..370 of the Community, h oayslopmant 'Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed Wit h the CITY RECORDER within 10 nays after notice is givenend sent. Tho damdline>for filing of an appeal. is 2:30 PM—march 26. 1966®. 4. + uesti res: If you '.ave any questions, y la.150 call t�sQ City Of Tigard Planning ,Department, Tigard City Hal'. 12755 SW Ash, PO Bois 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. PPEPP M BY: . a th oder, Senior Planner f OA f p Willizim A. Monahan, Director of Community Development DATE APPROVED � (KSS.241SP/dma) z 3 t, � r ® !a S -718� �IREC'TOR OECISIM SUR 61--86 f V5-66 Page � CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISIMA SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW S€iR 6-66 VaRINCE V 5-86 APPLICATION: Request by First Interstate Trust to develop a 6800 sq. ft. retaxil autq service building and an automatic car wash. -A Variance is also requested for deletions of a portion of public sidewalk along Center Street and to allow a landscaped area of 13.5% where 15% is required. The property is zoned C--G (Compercial 'General) and is located at the Worthwest corner of Pacific Hiighway and Greenburg Road (WCTH 2S1 ZAA lots 100O, 1001, and 1100). DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above described applications subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on 'which the Director based his &eL E'38(3f1 are as iZlf t' U 'Glow. 5 A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background The City has reviewed "several land use applications for the property, the most recent being a Coviditional Use (CU 4-52) to approve ax flower shop. 2. Vicinity Information The 'property is surrounded by Pacific Higtway, Greenburg Road, and Center Street The zoning on the scu+.h side of Pacific Hig@may is COD (Central Business District). The properties east of Greenburg Road are zoned C G (Commercial Genaaral) and the parcels north of Center Street are zoned C--P (Comercial Professional) 3. Site-`information and Proposal Description The subject property consists of three ta:i lots which contain a connercial building a single fanily residence. Driveway access is presently available from Pacific. Highway, Greenburg Road and Center Street. The applicant ' proposes to remove the existing building and construct a car 'wash in the western portion of the property and a. retail/automotive service building near Greenburg Road. One dris+apl entrance is intesled for each of the three 'streets abutting the property. The property will be filled to more Mosely resemble the grade of Pacific Highway. Inis 'will 'require a retaining wall which is as high as 10 feet near the €eastern ;grad of the parcel. A 20 foot high 100 square foot sign has also been presented for approval. Variances are also requested to reduce the required amount of landscaped aroma: from 15% to approximately 13.5% and to fallow the deletion of a sidewalk along most of the Center Street frontage. DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-85 A V 5-86 Page i r G r c 4. Agency and. NPC Com-merits The Engineering Division has the following comments: , a Q, A sanitary sewer connection permit for any neva additions. b., All work perforinedwithin.the Pacific Highway right-of-way, will require a petvit from the State Highway Division. C. visual clearance must be maintained at intersections and driveways. d. heelcha,ir rasps gaaugt be installed at all corners and on the proposed traffic signal island. e. A traffic control pavement marking; plan must-.,be submitted for City and State approval, prior to installation by the applicant. f. The proposed driveway on Creenburg Road should not be installed � because of the existing congestion at- the pacific Highway intersection, the difficulty :in prohibiting left turn attempts E onto the property, and the City policy which calls for mininnizing the number of access points on arterial and collector � r streets. y I g. The storm drain catch basin and line proposed to be installed at She intersection of CreenburgRoad and Center street needs to be rerouted to 'avoid crossing private property. It is suggested � that _the _catchbasin be connected directly to the manhole at the � - intersection. h. The guardrail along Pacific Highway shall be relocated not S removed. i I i. The proposed retaining wall near Center Street is a potential eyesore, particularly if it becomes 'a target for graffiti. Caro ahauld be taken to provide landscaping which will act to € minimize the pmbleme. j . No abjection to the variance requests. € The Building Inspection Division and Tigard 'Water District have no fr objection to the request. i The State Highway Division states than a traffic imp�;ict report is necessary to evaluate the impact of access alternatives. A Rods! Approach Permit is required and the nese nary street improvements shall be ��- determ.ined after the report is compsleeted. PGE notes that several utility poles will. :geed to be moved. Y t No other cogwmirits have boon raceiued. r DIRECTOR DECISION SSR rS 06 E V 5-86 Page 2 MIR x .' ANALYSTS AND CONCLUSION The proposed commercial development is basically consistent with the relevant standards and criteriacontained in the Community Development Code. . 44ovaever,' several apects of the proposal including the variance request warrant further discussion. 1. Access The 13reenburg Road driveway is not appropriate for the reasons noted by the Engineering division. This driveway ,should be removed and it is recommended that a pedestrian link between' the public sidewalk and the project be provided in its 'palace. 2. visual Clearance Chapter 1.8.102 of the Code,required that objects taller Than three fees. in height cannot be within 30 feet of intersections and driveways. This portion of the Code is particul�.�arly important near busy' intersections. It is recommended that the two Red maples that are shown closest tO the Patcific Highway and Center Street driveways be eliminated. Also, the I mature height of all other landscaping material should not exceed three feet. 3 ' Landscapingx The proposed landscaping plan generally, conforms with Code requirements _.: lot coverage with the `exceptirn °serf visual clearance (discussed above), g (noted below under the variance, review), street trees, and the treatment of the proposed retaining wasll The Center Street frontage does not include street trees as required by the Code, presumably because of the proposed retaining wall. The deletion of street tees appears to be justified, how the landscaping treatment in this area: needs revision. The majority of the 255 Tout long retaining =mall will be over sic feet in 'height and potentially could have a. detrimental visual impact, No vegetation is proposed to softener or screen the wall. A revised landscaping plan should be prepared by a landscape architect for the retaining wall area. The plan should contain a justification for the proposed` height of the wall, plant materials that will screen all or most of the retaining wall, an elevation drawing illustrating the wall and proposed landsca�aing, and landscaping tr•eatma nt of the ria�ht-of-may arca between the retaining tai l a@id the curb. r 4. Variances As mentioned earlier, two variance requests have been made to reduce the ;z larar3sra ing coverageto 13,5% carat! to eliminate,a sidewalk from the Cea�tar E Street driveway to the western corner of the property, ;'section 3 antro 43�sa of the code contains the following approval criteria far granting a variance, 3 DTRECTOR DECISION SOR 6—€16 V 5--96 Page 3 MON Mi HIM s; b a; The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the se purposesse this Codi, be in conflict wide the Policies of the licies andstandards; u4pi en,4nsive: plan, to any other ,applicable po r,d to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; h are ecular to the b. There are special circumstances ncot exist a rcurr4tancoeswhicpover�which the lot size or shape, topography, applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this code and city standards will be maintained to the 9a^eatest extent that is reasonable possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 'Limited to c;. Existing physical and naturalsystems, spa sass nsuch as but or pans will not be adversely traffic, drainage, dramatic affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the code; and Q. The hardship is slot self--imposed and the variance requestesi is the minimurEt variance which would alleviate the hardship. The proposed variance to the landscaping coverage requirement is coiner and 5.t will be difficult to notice a difference between the; required minimum �f,s17 square feet) and what is proposed (5, 803 square deet) The property is long ane irregularAn shape with street frontage an virtually' the entire perimeter which' has presented unique problems > gelated to aght- f wa dedication, street improvesrsea�ts, and internalcircaala ion. The proposed ups are "pamitted in the c- zone and the request will not advers ely affect physical or natural systems. Finally, the hardship is not self-unposed because the primary reason for the variance is due to the irregular parcel configuration. The request i appears is be the minimum necessary and e*-so, the required madifications j to the site and landscaping plarls will cause a slight increase in the amount of landscaped area. t' The proposed sidewalk variance also appears to be ;justified for the 4 follawinq reasons: i State Highway right--of-way and the embankment for pacific Highway lies to the vasal of the property along center Street and the sion of the sidewalk is minimal. potential dor any exten Because of the large amount of frontage, the applicant is responsible fora substantial quantity of street improvements and this poi tion of * sidewalk would be of minimal; value and it could actually cause problems by erpcouragan pedestrians to cross' the street in the middle �. of the block. t DXRECT R,DECISION St3R 6-06 d !1 5-86 page 4 The applicant is providing all other half street improvements as required by City Code and the development will be ableto adequately (` accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the perimeter of the site. 5. Signage The applicant is proposing to install one 20 'foot tall, 100 square t=out signs; and thy+ standard Code requirement's allow for signs 20 feet in height and ' 70 square feet in area. However, daring ,the Site Development Review process Section 10.114.130 (9) (3) allows sap to an additional 50% increase in sign;copy, area fear developments which have multiple tenants. The project will have %four businesses and the proposed :sign appears to be appropriate and it is consistent with City standards. 6. 'Pacific Highway 0ff--rasp to Commercial Street As part of a long range plats to alleviate traffic circulation problems in the downtown area and on Pacific Highway,` an exit ramp has been proposed from Pacific Highway 'adjacent to the subject property, to Center Street- and then on to Commercial Street. The Engineering Division recommends' that the development of this site does not preclude the eventual construction of this exit. C. DECISION The planning Director approves SDR S-06/V 5-86 subject to the following cont i'tions 1: UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL, CONDITIONS SHALL 8E MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 2. Standard half-street improvements, including sidewalk, curb, wheelchair ramps, driveway apron, storm drµin�;c�e, guard raid (partial frontage) and utility signsa,lization relocation shall be installed along the SW Pacific Hwy. frontage. Said improvements along SW Pacific Highway shall be guilt to Major Arterial' standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent impnrovements, and conditions of the State Highway Division permit. 3. Standard half-street improvements including sidewalk,' curb, pavement mmurkings, wheelchair snips, storms drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SW tom,eenburg Road frontage. Said improvements along SW Greenburq Road shall be built to Major Collector standards ;and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and condition, of the City's Street Opening Permit. d 4. Standard half-stns t improvements including (partial frontage) sideu al , curb, retaining gall' driveway apron, storm"drainage and utility relocation shall be installed along the SMD Center Street frontage. Said impravgmenttt SW Center Street shall be built to Local Street standards and conform to the alignment of existing adjacent improvements and conditions of the City,s Street Opening Permit, DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-86 f V 5-06 Page 5 a. Five '(`►) sets of plan-.profile public improvement construction plass and ,(1) itemized construction cost estimate, stamped by ;a Registared Professional Civil Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval. a�. Simi trary sewer connection detailsshall be provided as ,part of the public improvement plar's. 7. Ccinstr.sctia s� of proposers public shall not commence until after than Engineering Section has issued approved public 'imps-ovements plass The Section wiil require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a parmit fee and a sign installation fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit shall occur prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public improvement plans. SEE. THE -ENCLOSED .HAMOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INF Rt9;UON ,REGARDING FEr SCHEDULES_, `SC#�aIP�G. Pi9i�''�CaREEP2EE13 T�. 0. Additional right-of-way, shaill be dedicated to the Public at the pacific Highway Greenburg Toad intersection to provide dor a turning lane 'onto pacific Highway from Greenburg Road. The description for said dedication ?small be tied to that existing right-of--way centerline as established by Washington County. The dedication document shall be on City; 'dorms and approved by the Engineering Section. DEDICATION FORMS AND ,IWS'TRUCTIQA6aS ARE ENCUCSED. +. permit �3all be obtained by the applicant, for work proposed to be done within SCJ Pacific Highway from he State Hig,'moay. Division. A copy of said permit shall be' provided to the City. 10. Visual clearance at drivewziys and at intersections shall be provided -for in accordance with municipal Code Chapter 18.102. 11. A traffic and pedestrian control pavement marking, signal and signing Calan prepared by a registered civil ,engineer, detailing a proposed marking, signal and signing improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Section for approval and to the State Highway Division for approval, 12, direct vehicular ingress--egress at Greenburg Road small nod: be pers7sitte,4 13. Concrete sidewalk shall he installed from the proposed driveway apron on pacific HicWojay, along, Pacific Highway, along Greenburg Road, along Center Street, to the prognosed driveway apron on Center Street. 14. Relocation of any exicsti.mi utilities, pales, Pipes, wires, signals, signal loops, or any such equipment shall be at the expense of the applicant ��tV DIRECTOR DECISION SDR 6-06 V 6-56 Page' 6 f t small be Submitted for Cot%munity Development la. revised sate plan the prO�sose~d drivews�y can Greenha�rs Director mppra�ual which deletesssad free standing sign. Rom a illustvate�s the loc tie3n of the rar i plan shell her , sub witted for Gtsmuni.ty 16. ' A revised land3capincl p Development <fJirt�ctas� a�pr°ocally,, t which a=two died cOnsistent pIP-with es adjacent to visual, cle:mr�ance. Specs � � m dr ivssa�ays shall be deleted an the Center Street sand Pacific t"hLmy verification shall be` provided that the suture height o� other landseapinc3 materials will be less than three feet. Also, the landscaped area shall rant he reduced to less than 19.�5� of the total lot area. 17. is landscaping plan, prepared by ;a landscape architect, shall be sea i�fitted for aaas sutaity Development Director approval which deals ,with the retaining wall iraela&dit� flee faZlawira�: a. Landscaping materials to screen all or ust of the wall. b. Elevation drawing of the proposed retaining wall and plant r�teria:s. C. Landscaping material between thz: retaining wall and the curb. d. Reduction of wall height as much as practical.. ? iS. a3,ratenarace of the landscaping Within the Center Street right-of— 1� scall be �t e re�sponsiit3ity 4f the ppiicant/property owner. 13. The one Free standing sign Shall .not exceed 100 sq. feet per side or 4' a total of 'cam square fealt. 20. Tax lots it3C3 +. 123;332 and 1100 shall be combined into one parcel 21. This rpprav l as valid if exercised within Ongyear aF tfia final decision date noted.below. . i D. RROCEDURE posted at City Hall 1 3. �9aatice: Notice was .published in the newspaper, and mailed tee: K _ The a plicant & owner s },X Owners of r•a?card within the required distance The affected on Planning'organi:cat-1, 3S Affected gove rnmental agencies FinaI DDecisian 3"W DECISION SHALL BE ,FINAL {.N t'�arcE1 2b. 1986 UNLESS AN p��epEAL IS - FILED. i' e x� x DIRECTOR ClRG i.SI2i GoR 6--6x6 ! V 5-96 . €age 7 :�s Any party to the decision may appaml thi decision in accordance with � Section j2.290(A) and Section 1;3.32.370 of the Co sanity Volo ment`Code Which Provides tn�t a 'ir3c�ittc�n app �1 must be filed with the CITY RECORDER "within iQ daxys after notice i� given and sent. rhe efli i for filing of asp aPPGal is g;3=a ma P.M. rc@r 25, 1986 If you have any questions, Please c&12 the City of St ard 98lc Rr3Sn Department, Tigard City Hall, .12755 Sib flea, PO Box 23397, Tigard Oregon 97223, 639-4I71. PREPME6BY: ith �iden, Senior- PlannerDA William A. Mona as n, ,�ir�c dor of�Cpgunity €3eveifl +lentCD�e'�"E APPROVED (ISL:;41GPIdmIj k +t 6s % € g 1A } a yA G t CD RECTOR DECISION SUR €•-86 I V 5--96 Page � AU EN %,-FONSULTING IMNGINEERS9 C. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" January 31, 1986 Mr. Keith S. Widen Senior planner- City of Tigard' Contiunity Development Department 'P.O., Box. 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Rei Site Development Review Application for 60-Minute Tune/Retail Development for Gramor•e, Inc., at the Northwest Corner of Highway 99W and S.W. Greenberg Road Our Job No. 1898 Dear Mr. Liden: Pursuant to our pre application conference held on Thursday, January 30, 1986, 1 :cant to take this opportunity to supply your office with the fs�i i cw i ng ' ccs m�er�ta t i un and request o a formal review- in accordance with the City of Tigard site development review process for this project. This Information has been compiled based upon the application information a brochure provided by your office, together v:lth' the Standard Site Develop- ment Review application. 1. one (1) original yellow copy of the Site Development Review application with the Informal' appropriately Provided and the signature of the owner and/or agent indicateYou -t should�be advised that this office is acting as the ; a�pre- sentative for the applicant, and we should receive copies of all documentation and any notices issued by;your office. This Information should be submitted to our Seattle office at , the following address. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6626,South ,150th,' Suite 102 Kent, Wash 1ngton 98032 6625 South 190th, #102 a Deng,Washington 98032 (206)872-5622 a. ir. Mr. Keith S. Liden Senior Planner January 31, 1986 Community Development Dep arfrrent �Zm 2, One (1) check made payable to the City of Tigard in the amount of $300 for the processing o, the site development review package. 3. Five (5) copies of the site development plan for the project at the scale of 1" 1= 20 providing all of the appropriate site development details for the proposed project. ` 4, Five (5) copies of architecturel elevation plans providing basic information concerning the "architecturallook" for the , buildings on the site, 5, One (1-) copy of the Washington County Assessor's map for the property with the parcel outlined in red. 5, One (1) list of the names and address of all persons owning property within 100 feet of the subject site. 7, One (1) Copy' of c title transfer instrument/deed to the site verifying the legal description and The current ownership. 8. Five (5) copies of a site grading/drainage and utility plan for the project providing Information regarding storm drainage improvements, site grades, and sanitary sewer service for the project, Five (5) copies of a site survey worksheet completed for the proper providing existing topographic information and location of all existing public and private Improvements. 10. Five (5) copies of a preliminary landscaping pian providing the required information incorporated within the application requirements. 31. Five (5) copies .of a proposed sign applicationP together with the justification for the pole sign providing advertising for the proposed project. The sign being requested is larger than that which is allowed under the standard provisions of the code, but I s w I th I n the 50 percent'i ncrease I i mri i is a I I Ow- able under administrative review by your office. 12. one (1) copy of the variance application supporting the requested reduction in the landscaping area on the site as set forth i n the site plan. A" Mr. Keith S. L i den Senior Planner Community Development Department --3- January 31, 1986 Would you please begin the processing of this S1te Development Review application and forward to this office yourwritten response and approval : as soon as possible. The application documents incorporate the comments that were made by your staff at both of our previous meetings and, hopefuily, the project as It is designed will meet with your approval . we are also aware of your rdqulrements for the building permit review, and we will be sure that our ficial plans, which will be;prepared at the same scale, will bIe complete In the necessary details for review. It should be noted that the unique conflguratlon of the property, combined with the large amount of street frontage around the site, has created `a need for several variances from the existing code regulations which need to be addressed in the site review process. At the same time, we believe the design of the project has hopefully resulted in a creative approach to the use of the site. The following specific comments should be taken into consideration in your review. 1, We will be bringing the entire project approximately to grade with highway 991+1. 'This particularly applies to the westerly portion of the site which is currently vacant'. The filling t , of the s i fe w i l l resu I t In the need for a slope easement on 41 adjoining 'properfiy to the west from the Oregon Department of Transportation, and a retaining wall along the north property boundary adjacent to Center Street. This retaining wall will be variable In height from a minimum of 2 feet to a i` maximum of approximately 12 feet. A guardrail aril ! be provided along the edge of the asphalt, and the design drawingsprovide a cross section of the proposed construc- tion. As agreed, the wall will be constructed on ,the property line with the landscaping strip lying Inside of the wail on the site itself. Specific design calculations and a report ,from a certified soils engineer will be provided with the building permit plans for this part of the projecfi. 2. The,filling on the site will be completed in accordance with standard geotechnical recommendations for the pdacererant of structural fill . Once again, a report and recommendation will be provided with a building permit for this part of the project, and continuous reports for compaction will be available during the.filling process. All of the work in this regard will be completed under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical consultant. 3. The amount of street frontage on -the property has resulted • In a level of off-site Improvement being required for the development which far exceeds that which is reasonably ;_ expected for normal commercial development. The developer �•;; Mr Keith S. Liden Senior Planner' Community Development Department -�4- January 31, 198E E is proposing to complete these improvements and dedicate the additional `right--ofaway necessary to accommodate the street improvements in 'accordance with the requirements of the City of Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation. At #hP lama_ tlr�e.¢.��i s_��r�I a�err. 31.I.�-9Il-�h.�--�.p i i _.anfi •4.0 hQ Qx of CQPf frontan� �i h g,4�1 Ca!i v. cQOs i dered excpqnlve f r this t)( of 'eleve l o�?m n_i_,�snd we that thisi n tortnat i ot�yL I! b® taken into consi Brat 10n in the rThe property boundaries are quite irregular, and present; unique problems for developing a usable layout for the site. Due to the;unusual configura- tion, accessibility to buildings and placement of structures in parking areas becomes chord difficult with respect to existing,city codes. We have been able to meet all of the requirements of the City of Tigard Zoning Code icy this regard, with the exception of the landscaping requirement. The required amount of iandscaping for this project is 15 percent. The gross site area encompasses 42,115 square feet, and the required landscaping area would therefore bo 6,317 square feet. We are proposing to provide 5,680 square feet, which represents 13.5 percent of the gross site area. We are therefore requesting an administrative variance of this landscaping requirement In accordance with the attached variance application. We are providing more intensive landscaping within the areas on the site than Is required by code, and we will also be landscaping soms property within the existing right-of-way, which increases the gross area being landscaped as a part of this project. We assume that these points will be-taken into consideration in the review ' of the variance application. 4. During -the pre-development application conference,, we discussed the requirement to install sidewalks along the property 'frontage for the length of Center Street. The site plan that we have submitted proposes that sidewalks be extended along Highway 99W from 'the,proposed curb access to this state highway, and then extending east and north around through the intersection with S.W. Greenberg Road. The side- walks would extend conf,inuously along S.W. Greenberg Road, around the intersection with Center Street, and up to :the curb cut into the project on Center Street itself. Beyond the curb cut, we would propose to simply widen the arses# to k . . a ,distance 17 feet from the centerline, and 'then Installcurb �^ '. and gutter. This would leave a strip of land 7 1/2 feet In width within the rfght�-of-sway, from the back of the curb to the property lien, to allow for the future construction of a 1• y Mr. Keith S. ! 9den Senior Planner ` Community Development Department -5- January 31, 1986 sidewalks in this area. Our reasoning not to install the sidewalks at this time Includes the following points. a. As Indicated earlier in this, letter, the developer Is already being required to participate in an excessive amount of public ;Improvements due to the configuration of the site and the extensive frontage. if It is not absolutely necessary for the public health, safety and welfare to install a sidewalk along Center Street, then we would propose to delay this construction. This would ;provide some re'lief for the developer In re- cognition of the unique configuration of the property and the hardship that it presents, which :is not applic- able to other parcelsInthe area. b. We are proposing a retaining gall along Center Street for grcast of the property, as shown on the site :plan. There will `therefore be no access from the site onto ...,, Center Street for vehicular or pedestrian traffic until near the intersection with S.W. Greenberg; Road. There- fore,'pedestrian 'movement will not be encouraged on this side of the street. This would reduce the need for a sidewalk at this location. c: • :Sidewalks do not exist west of 'he subject site on Center Street on either side; and'there `are no side- walks on the north side of Center Street adjacent to the property. All of the businesses and houses which exist along Center Street lie to the north of Center Street -across from the subject property, and the appropriate place to install sidewalks in the future would be along the north side of the street, If side- walks were installed only on the south side of the street adjacent to the subject site, this would encour- age pedestrians to potentially cross In the middle of the block on Center Street to reach the sidewalk, which would not be in -the best interests of the City of Tigard. d. Traffic on Center Street is not considered significant, since it Is a relatively minor access ,streetcompared with S.W. Greenberg road and Highway 99W. Therefore, -the meed for 6 sidewalk along S.W. Granter Street would be I l in i ted _to provide for adequate pedestrian safe)",r n Mr. Keith S. i_iden January 31, 1385 Senior Planner artrcent -6` Caruur+unity Develousrent Lep this reasoning and the information provided, P l ease rev i e � not the req uiremeot for s;dewaiks and de+ermine Whethsr o waived for this project we �• along Center Street can be x of the 'curb cut near the northeast corner of the site. pre-development re view 5e ra used ,right in/right out Another issue of concern during the ! conference related to the p p alta cess to S.W. Greenberg i2oad near ttSA southeast corner of ac This curd accyss location is considered q the property. operation on the site andsite Itself critical to the successful©oce again, v�Ilhin the estlon, limit traffic coag • t ' tial left-hand turning mavem� S.W. and at the ether two access 10 ling t�'e understand your concerns regarding poen to turn `i eft into the stse tonstai 6 a traff lc. trying I Greenberg Road. Ne v�auid thereeI!n p p the northbound and „ 90 curb l ng de i !neat Ing limited length of C Road for a ;limited southt�aund "I encs on S.W Greenberg would not d oat of the bank parking lot east of a a utance Werth from the d ntersection. The curbing prohibit access into d 1rove.ner:'t art but trou l d prevent 4 eft-lea 'Cher same time, it F the prep yy, Gesb'ect project. Al ,. into and out of the J ld aIIow for ,the rnovernEret � 1 to a oIdd dditdionaeic nvehl3cuy wou Road into the proper , Greer, ins moven ent •through the i n'tarsc� r sLb eclt s iii e efhway �of t aces and then would also alla°� cars. entering thus giving High 99W to park "i n front of the retail spaces exit the property none of the ratherwttha+�requiring all of the x option to the cus.-omer, r ian at the property severely the traffic to enter and exit i t the site at the same location- an Once again, .the conf�g possible for development i Y rn I is -the layouts that are Q streets i s critical site, add curb acc�=ss onto the adjoining if the Eor the successful cave I�:'ment a r the Project. on 5. d. o eyour Transportatero Road ioelirnin center curbing proposed Roads then ate the Ana yor i s y of the concern r �' Greenberg Dep a+tment for a curbmaccess would be approved as we would# hop shown. t far a larger the application Includes a rec�ues 9 encom- 6. Flnally, a normalIY allawed render,the tonin code, sign than i a The reason for the reoa�esfi 15 pass i r Q 105 SgUa,re feet- PPss fcs tu. First rsi of all, , heavy traf f l c v l ashes 'a i the l eter- s section and the r`eiatively high speed allowed on highway o fends d limit the p�srception time for motorists near the �3_� I t Mr Keith S. !i den Senior Planner -�- January 31, 1986 Community Development Department site to become aware of the project, and due to the channeti- za#ipr and Inters ection control at;S.W. Greenberg Coad, the potential custorners of the property's businesses may not realize that the business exists until they are past the proper 'to ab#airt as�much ty, It is therefore ncom- advertising as possible to attioty people amp rly.y. Secondty, plete their lane changes and enter the proper there area number of businesses built close to the;street an Fiighnay 99W, and there are a myriad of poles and other obstructions Which iirlt visibility along this street. once to obtain reasonable exposure9 again, it ��li be in order necessary to achieve a larger sign area to the extent allowable within the administrative guidelines of the City of Tigard. I hope this provides you with a complete package cif information t. ;# you have any questions or wish to necessary to review this projec discussit in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at (20 ) 872-5522 at your convenience. i certainly apnreciate e assistance effort on #�Ispr®ject, that your staff has provided fit us in the preppyrovai within the next3a and I look forward -to a successful devetopment a�pp ' days. Thank you Respecfiffy, Thomas A. Barghausen,, `a • President TABJsn 0152,05 enc: As Noted dc: Mr, Barry Cain, GramoreII Inc, {wlQnc.3 Mr. Bob Beaupre', Gramore, Inc. (w/enc,) Mr. Dennis- J. Donovan, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc, i i ' y ATTACHMENT `a0 GRAMORE, INC., LANDSCAPING VARIANCE t SUMMARY OF RESPONSE TO VAR IAilCE APPROVAL CRITERIA, This attachment provides the summary arguments for the request for a landscapevariance' for the above-referenced project to reduce the required landscaping area by 1.5 percent. The required landscaping for this particular project within the zone classification Is 15 percent, or approxi- mately 6,317 square feet. The requested reduction amounts to approximately 10.1 percent of the gross required landscaping area, which 1s the limit of the requested variance. The specific approval criteria for a variance., Identified as Section "All through "E," are summarized below. The actua E amount of on-site area provided Is equal to 5,680 square feet, which is 537 square feet less than required. A. The proposed reduction will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the code or In conflict with any comprehensive plan policy. The 1andscapIng that has been prow€dad is reasonably close to the required landscaping, and with -the supplemental landscaping proposed w i•s'h i n the excess right--of-spay a E ong ij ighway 99W, which amounts to an additional 4,300 square feet of arab, we would exceed the required landscaping percentage on t-he site Itself. There are no surrounding uses of a residential nature I which would necessitate more significant landscaping standards or buffer areas, and for this particular project which is completly bounded by Rib1 €c streets,;i•he primary purpose of the landscaping is to develop a more aesthetically pleasing project In accordance with general development principals The specific percentages are not necessary to buffer the project from surrounding properties.` s B. This particular, parcel is unique t0 all other p aparticis In the area since it is bounded on all sides by public right-of-way. The parcel itself is approximately one acre in size and not only has over 800 feet of street frontage, but it also has a long narrow conflguration which requires an excessiYe amount of per l wter landscaping, coupled with an excessive extent of off- site improvements.. The applicant has no control over theproperty boundaries, ,which also makes It extremely difficult to place buildings and Improvements on the subject site within the node regulations. As the property becomes more narrow toward to south, II,- Is necassary to Increase the asphalt area In order to gain access to proposed structures. it Is clear that other; properties it the €remediate vicinity are not affected in the same manner as this parcel, and this parcel must be considered unique. C. The uses proposed are identical to the uses allowed within the code, and no variances are being requested. Extensive pubiic Improvements are being provided by the applicant for the surround Ing street system, and this presents a significant economic burden to this particular applicant based on'the property con- figuration. To the greatest extent reasonably possible, City standards have'tieen mel, while permitting the economic use of the lend. The requested variance in the landscaping area is therefore being justifiedto offset the extensive public improvements being required. D. Existing physical and natural systems will not be 'impacted one way or the other by the landscaping on the project and, therefore, the subject variance will have no impact on these systems. E. The hardship that would be created by requiring the applicant to meed the 'code requirement is not self Imposed and is due specifl- cally to the fact that the unique configuration of the property necessitates carefui' revi w of development alter•natives' in order to meet other applicable City standards. These ether standards include access driveways, parking requirements, and other restric- tions. The variance''being requested, `which`amounts to 10 percent of the gross amount of the required landscaping area on the site, is the minimum variance that Mould alleviate the hardship and would probably not be noted by any surrounding property owner or ._, person in the area. In addition, the 'extra landscaping which will 6e provided by the applicant within the right-of-way will help to compensate for this loss of area. 1fSgl3. 2 2 C i� SOur�MMS r - BARRY A.CAIN 4 ., GRAMORE, INC. One Lincoln Centel.#470 10300 S W Greenburg Rd (503) 2d5-1576 Ponland-'OR 97223 TRAFFIC I-IMPACT;STUDY FOR S.W. PACIFIC I9GI-IWAY (99W).AND CRI<EN(3I3RG ROAD D Prepared frac Gramore, Inc. a March, 1986 J4 1966nppf IO 0 I:6M 'y ' � IAN I INTRODUCTION, Scope of Study ' This study was undertaken to analyze the traffic impacts 'associated with the proposed development of the 60 Minute Tune retail project located at the northwest corner of S.W. Pacific Highway (99W) and S.W. Greenburg Road in Tigard, Oregon. Figure l shows the general location of the project site. Specific issues discussed in this report include: o Trip characteristics expected from the site for the proposed development. o Site access location and operations. 6Traffic impacts to adjacent streets. ® Internal site circulation. This study was prepared following the guidelines set forth in the Oregon State Highway Division "Minimum Requirements for Traffic Reports - Proposed Development" and discussions with Cityoi Tigard planning department. Project Description This proposed project consists of two separate structures containing 9,100 square feet of retail space. Twenty-five (25) parking spaces will be provided on the site. Three access/driveway(s) have been,originally proposed for the site and will be discussed later in this report. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the property. The developer is in the process of securing leases for the floor space designated Retail/Service 'A' and 'B'. Possible tenants include other automotive-related retail operators to cornplirnent the 60 Minute Tune and carwash facilities. The commercial zoning does allow other retail uses, so for the purposes of this report a "worst case" condition in terms of site generated traffic, will be analyzed. The "worst case" condition included 4,350 specialty retail use, 2,450 square feet of the 60 Minute square feet of convenience store/ Tune retail space and 2,300 square feet of the carwash facility. EXISTING CONDITIONS Adjacent Land Uses The project site presently contains a copy shop, a radio and television repair shop, a small furniture shop and a vacant retail space. A single-family home is located at the northeast ross Center Street is adress shop in a two story residence. portion of the site. Northerly acj Easterly across S.W. Greenburg Road is a branch of the Oregon hank with two drive-thru exits. 'Southerly across Highway 99W is a small piece of landscaped land. " cij .ce dt Street Network S.W. Greenburg Road is a two way north-south local collector linking portions of Tigard, southwest Portland, Metzger and Progress to Main Street in Tigard. intersecting Highway 99W at the site under consideration, Greenburg Road is a two-way street consisting o€ an i r exclusive right turn lane anJ a through traffic/left turn lane in both directions. 1-iighway. a ( 99W is a two-way east-west state highway consisting of five designated lanes west of the ` intersection with Greenburg Toad and six lanes on the east of the Greenburg intersection. � Highway 99W has four lanes approaching the intersection from the east with exclusive right turn and left turn lanes and two through lanes. This side ofthe street is separated by a one foot wide concrete median. The Highway 99W approach from west has an exclusive left tum lane with two lanes for straight through and right turn movements. This 'street has a posted 40 mile per hour :speed limit and parking is not ;permitted adjacent to the site. The trolled by actuated' signals. The five-phase :signal described intersection is currently con operation has an approximate 120 second cycle Fire pre-emption controlled signal heads are located on the Highway 99W approaches, The traffic and pedestrian signal heads are mounted on°mast arm supports. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour OperatiGns To obtain existing traffic count data on the adjacent streets, Wilsey & Ham conducted peak; ( hour -turn movement counts at the Highway 99/Greenburg Road, intersection on Thursday, March 6, 1986. Driveway usage count data at the present site during the rush hour was collected on Monday, March 10, 1986 during the p.m. peak,hour. Figure 3 shows the existing p.m. peak hour traffic movements at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road and Greenburg' Road/Center Street intersections. From the traffic count data it was determined that the p.m. peak hour (4:25 to 5:25) would The be typically the period of highest volumes on the streets adjacent to the project site. intersection capacity analyses to be performed in the study will examine traffic operations only during the p.m. peak hour. The current level of service of p.m. peak hour traffic operations was calculated at the two tersections adjacent to the site. The signalized Highway 99W/Greenburg Road key in operations and design critical movement technique intersection was analyzed utilizing the described in the Transportation Research Circular No. 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacit . The s yhtop sign controlled Greenburg Road/Center Street intersection operations were analyzed using the CAPCALC microcomputer software were by Roger Creighton Associates, Inc. The existing p.m. peak hour level of service at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road intersection is IDI, with a corresponding volume to capacity ratio of 0.81. The north and south approaches of Greenburg Road currentlyoperates at level of service 'A', while the Center Street approaches operate at level of service 'D' during the p.m. peak hour. (Capacity analysis worksheets are included at the back of this report,) Level of services for a particular roadway or intersection is a qualitative measure of various factors whims influence traffic operations. The factor which influence the traffic -traffic interuptions, freedom to maneuver, driver operations .include speed, travel fimt., Six levels of service have been established and comfort, safety and vehicle operating costs. are designated to the letters A through F, providing the best to worst service in terms of driver satisfaction. forsignalizedintersections, the level of service is generally evaluated in terms of an equivalent range of a quantitative measure, the volume/capacity (v/c) ratio. The level of service D, with a corresponding vdc ratio range of Oe8 - 0.9, is the desired level of service for design by ODOT and the City of Tigard. For unsi.gnalized intersections, the level of service is evaluated in terms of reserved capacity at each approach to the intersection. The level of service 1',, with a corresponding reserve capacity 0 to 10 vehicles is acceptable for the minor street approaches, if-signal warrant conditions are not met. ISa Transit Tri-Met busline numbers 5 and 77 serve the site every 15-30 minutes during weekdays. These lines provide transportation to downtown Portland and Dake Oswego. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Due to the existing intensity of development in the vicinity of the project site, no major changes in the traffic characteristics along Highway 99W and Greenburg, ;Road is anticipated. Historically, traffic volumes on Highway 99W has grown annually at a rate of about 2 percent. The proposed project is scheduled to be completed by early;summer of this year and the existing businesses will be closed as soon as construction begins. For the purposes of this report, the existing peak hour volumes will be used as the base case volumes. Site--Generated Traffic Forecasts The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Third Edition code numbers 814 (Specialty Retail Center), 846 (Car Wash) and 851 (Convenience Market) were used to estimate the average ,weekday peak hour trip-ends to be generated by the proposed development. The trip generation characteristics for -the 60 Minute Tune facility were not. available from the ITE report, so the generation rates used in this report are based on count data from an existing 60 Minute Tune facility in Vancouver, Washington. Table l shows the;gross number of p.m. peak hour trips that are expected to be generated by two develornent :nixes of possible tenants. As previously discussed, this study will examine _-. a "worst case" condition in terms of the 'site-generated'traffic volumes. The development mix'A' will be utilized during the remainder of this study Sine the: convenience market use is expected to generate about ten (10) times as many trips as a specialty retail or automotive retail store-. Table I also shows the significant amount of the site generated traffic that would be attracted from the existing traffic flows passing the site. According to the ITE Report 45% of the convenience market trips and 58% of the car wash trips would be comprised of motorists already on Highway 99W and Greenburg Road. v TABLE I 60 MINUTE TURN DE`7E€ OPh+iL-NT-TIGARL TRIP GENERATION PINI PEAK HOUR TRIPS LAND USE SIZE(GSF) GROSS DIVERTED NET IN ' OUT IN OUT IN OUT DEVELOPMENT MIX A 1 60 Minute Tune 1,210 3 3 - - 3 3 2. Car Wash 2,100 55 55 32 32 23 23 3. Convenience Market 2,250 52 52 23 23 29 29 4. Specialty Retail 2,100 �5 S S 5 Total 7,660 115 115 55 55 60 60 DEVELOPMENT MAX B 1. 60 Minute Tune 1,210 3 3 - - 3 3 2. Car Wash 2,100 55 55 32 32 23 29 3. Specialty Retail 4.350 12 12 _3 3 9 9 Total 7,660 70 70 35 35 35 35 Notes 1. GSF - Gross square feet of building 2. Source: ITE Trip Generation Report, Third Edition The site generated trips were distributed to the surrounding area using the following general directional distribution: North 30% South - 20°i° Gast - 3496 West 1690 This directional distribution is based on population estimates developed by METR0 and the percentage of passing traffic volumes on the adjacent street system. Alternative Site Access flans Two alternative site access plans have been examined to identify traffic impacts of the proposed development. Access Ilan I consists of the driveway locations and turn movements allowed as shown in Figure 2.- Observations of the turn movements into and out of the ly match the movements cello wed in Access Plan 1, existing site development, which close indicate the following: No .ef g t turns were made out of. the. Highway 99W or Greenburg Load driveways - during the p.m. peak period due to the high,volume of opposing traffic and k limited paps, {~ - About ten (10) vehicles used the site as a by-pass to the left turn movement at `-- the Highway 99W/Greenburg,intersection. - Only one vehicle exited the site from the Greenburg !toad access driveway. No vehicles turned left into the site from Greenburg Road. Due to these existing motorist tendencies, Access Plan 2 was developed to improve potential conflict`areas. Access Plan 2 has the'same driveway locations and configurations on the Center Street and Highway 99W sides as Access Plan 1. However, the Greenburg Road driveway has been modified to be a right turn in only driveway. A right turn in driveway on Greenburg Road alloys customers to enter at the front of the buildings without having to go through the Highway 99W/Greenburg intersection. The site generated trips were assigned to the site driveways (Access Plan 2) and, the adjacent intersections as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 'illustrates the total traffic volumes at the adjacent intersections with the proposed development. Traffic Operations Analysis The p.m. peak hour operations, with the total traffic volumes, at the Highway 99W/Greenburg Road and Greenburg Road/Center Street intersections were analysed using the intersection capacity techniques previously discussed. The !-Highway 9911/Greenburg Road intersection would continue to operate at a level of service 'D' with a corresponding v/c of 0.88. The Greenburg'Road/Center Street intersection is expected o operate at;fevel M of service 'A' for the north and south approaches, 'D' for the west approach and 'L' for the east approach. The wGigheed average level of service for the intersection would remain at W. A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted for this intersection, but current'plus site-generated traffic volumes do not meet the minimum volume requirements to warrant signalization. Review of Site Pian and On-Site Circulation Access Plan, 1, the original site plan, was exan hied to identify potential traffic impacts. The visual barrier of the retail space/60 Minute Tune building will minimize the number of by-pass trips currently using,the existing site. Motorists Corning from the east and south will continue to use, almost exclusively, the Highway 99W driveway. The two existing driveways will be consolidated into a single driveway about 200 feet west of Greenburg Road. This driveway will be used by motorists coming from the west. The existing left turn storage bay striping will provide storage for the vehicles entering the site from the west. (About one vehicle every two minutes.) The Center Street driveway will be relocated easterly to about 40 feet west of Greenburg er Street should not impact the left Road. The light amount of traffic on Cent "turn � movements- into the site._ The relocation also minimizes the impacts to the site grading limitations to the site. !! The proposed curbing shown in Greenburg Road to prohibit left turn movements into and out of the site is not a desirable solution. This type of median barrier curb would probably become more of a traffic hazard than safety feature for the following reasons: The narrowness of this curb is not a typical median installation. Motorists do not expect a_small curb to be in the middle of the street. Also, visibility of such a small obstacle at night may a hazard. >,F 0111 M-W The curb restri=cts bus and large truck turning movements onto Greenburg Road. To eliminate the potential hazard created by the median curb in Greenburg, Road and to minimize turn movement conflicts at thle Greenbury Road access driveway, Access flan 2 was developed. Access flan 2 differs from the original site plan in its modification to the Greenburg Road access driveway. This driveway =could be designed as a right turn in driveway. Figure 6 illustrates the geometric design of the proposed Greenburg Road access driveway to' accommodate only right turn in movements. Also, modifications to the proposed concrete island surrounding the existing traffic signal span wire pole are shown on Figure 6. CGN Ct.USIONS The traffic generated by the proposed 60 Minute Tune development will not adversely r impact the traffic operations of the adjacent street system. By consolidating the existing two Highway 994t` driveways into a single driveway, eliminating the turn movements out of the site along Greenburg Road and minimizing the convenience of 'using the site as an`illegal; "left turn" ba-pass route, the redevelopment of the site will reduce vehicle conflicts in the area. The p.m. peak hour operations at full development"worst case" conditions is expected to be within the acceptable level of service limits at both the Pacific Highway (99W){Greenburg Road and Greenburg/Center Street,intersections.' �4k t; �t {Cir �ht �y G: t: r .e r 2 '..'G( S /y ` (')(�i (;. x ALki[i✓ -. Sha.715E ♦w t� a _� _K � ttt� .[lout i .�', '..� .� � 8' - s,vpawwti r �I. @ ' sp •A 11P � C la " "Gi �l 6ENruF� £T �wc cP $7TH .xaram ST }qP pq ! we"S9 erlH x Cra . A �, r Ni- '" DRQ '�'-Td�t'-zT'7� �.. � '�-- � cua.s � 3t ••..�`' - �` ` Y r•is '� tA T �9"�('a•�� �.* �;+ ii�'�7 ^vt �ci caPa*'ark AT tr.•r. cA A �. ,�, to a9srAl unvo¢a '.�a :aEs �y n.0 - d`" ° � stuEl+ si C • • � a( e wfMl�", fw.n G.••ae �'_}.`+_.. 6fL.•aAW�. &C Com' �� �L' SU tasty Up0'�' Atxsi .ut P g °ct ,a <- CIA cl w s? r h sT i� _t . 3 4 3 I rAr Eta wxs -`natAaif�¢ @ ( rn uaze at unci .S itvw MANvxn w.\ * ♦t Rtt 2 � g Atx+1 to 4 Low aE 6 !lr'tl O SCWS Q K L ^ Et yi r UM . � �� -w5�M i-�t C ¢ 1+ "� a VcwTUPLI, yC t' n e � [Dcu mei• f Pf ?0.tx a w» vA�' a9ww �EFifli'•~ wsel. xs ' wa SOAK wt ST �� cr a t9}sT tw 1 P-1 , A tm$ties _L� i 1 r1 £ situ.Lsta4fiT (!1 J A is sv T ��� uta .`ms u rry * s -APff S7 ATuviAJ .4 Sous smssl J!C 1 1 y ) x qor amu w PROJECT SITE� E _ rAs}r3r aP ! srkte Utit /pL•,�^+`` Jj E =�i .J S � 1_i F9HetfA i` q C ! ao � �� • tL LCptS'/A gryy,wEi Si' •- }4w�A 5 9. ,jTigar ' GSESMkik'" ;. s9 w ?ARKS n J 4AA'SI SS �, /a. �(��}i�'=�CgW `p ,�•+° .tr G. Bun Mtn F MIAauta ♦nw ' 7 AARQE S7 m n ON-ALD S7 1 i� - - '� BONITA s e ¢` R o-tRi I-f re '7 d S"' .�.1N. ... '9C9PONco j.l 6 A M _�Jyy ksa�Foci c$ P�cv I L.'a �awEa Cry _ �, g- °' 'K. }i mwe r 'q• _ f'"l mug I ~ S i sKnovaa" t 1 6r •a •Sp i t RR 'itdliAP. c Rt) L r� FIaat iNYlI IsI"A &I--°LNI :Y gg i p..... p ) r • _ t ` Tot' •!� I�SFI�.,.� \�iJ�� �\F �%J/7.. �4�j J.l"S..Gv .L`-�-� li iR�111111i id t c,:A-__:(�I \ +�m --•7--�}�f�Jr�^� ,. c� I! 11 �. I t t�Isti�t gyp_ \• a• \� ( � � ���" 7 � i �iffuln ,�._ .� � �CA e .3�a� ;Iji17 `_• ���---�� 7 "��, - 1 3F��'\ F�o � �ya �� 3®®e: $ RRk ep#i U7 ' s cm s•4 f s t � ^e 51 T Ct9 ?5 aj� • ��a�l I p' d . Ba��$i�usK.,'3 w a.F ca.AIACM ,.Eir�o vaoa.«FMr n.ara. O+e tlry'+C wa77 S;q M. 4'7umk aL�TAA.?Rdr.GT, S3 H62� @Ply �t5�tfttt�rs ii$C.CH ._.,, eo�oo'W a•.—Mr a Pc--ti 0,:a, 07223 1 �" FIGURE 2. SITE PLAN N -70 V� w 10 4o CENTER 5T. 1O 10 :Ire fl m m Z + 10 o1 "® o 12oo 2- HWY. 94 `N. 10 l l E: . �5�l �AFFIC VOLUMES (IN PAS' EGFR CAR Et�1J1�,�1 E�rs. 9 y y p p e y N i Ut 1XI _ CENTER ST. m . C N N sn 5� HWY. 99 W. 3 0 tilf.4Eml1�•A�.� �' FIGURE 4. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES x P: N. 1F: wi Q 10 10 405 d CENTER ST. 20 ' ® O p R z C� 2iv 40 O. vi 725 HWY. 99 W. 3iB :770�173 � 10 h FIGURE ,5� TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1. DEVELOPMENT (CONVENIENT MARKET) g m 'Y `\ / A.C. P.l1VI "` T ', •�, CU � �:?O��IDE. CIT. 2.5' LMCSyZ,(! �CURB aN'D/SIDI it - a oAV ? es� . °. y� SGtt�E r,TftTF S 629' 37' c.$-F- SIi� O COV tiF� --! i' — .-IGURE 6. RECOMMIMEf SITE ,FLAP MODIFICATIONS [ONS uritical iviuvetl e it ,{-analysis: ut--;-h A i 1UNb ANN Ut6IUN Calculation Form 2 tersection s. .►�- �c a a wn�r w) -,z, Design Hour t 'roblem Statement Ext��l�r� Step 1. Identify Lane Geometry Step a. Develop�assen� L' gzr Car step F. Mels 9a. : dporoach 3 f Volumes PCV in ch dIIlESflate k Approach 3 .Lane FIT= Zto' Adjusted Vod�r es Volumes TH-.1ZDt� Total Adjusted No. PGV H€,Y ia� � Piave- PCV PCV of per "r'®aase� x LT= Z13� mcnt (Step 7) U W tt9RWPt;V Lanes Lane d--m W c r _ Bl'' tS t 3tS 'C4az t9G l 19a CL a �¢ A7- AZ b4- v 295 i 295 14]- 01 $� 18 1 ISO Approach d LT= Lf H= Q h {({ ` x xI 'r-+` A'S'S.@ O� �T Step�. 1flf=aIIFifycar�rlyrsistrya�s RT, H!/ in v la � � t�RST sten lyv Approach 3 Ha= 205 Approach 4 - `+=t. 7 -T, t3ca Step 6, Calculate Peq o €�olaxs rs step 9b. Volume Adjustmentfor (PV) in v h Ii ultfpha a signd Overlap r- ' L7 LPA = Possible Volume Adjwted r .tlk- Approach 3 PIiF= O'�tO Probable Critical Carryover Critical O O ISt Phase YOU= to next Volume 3= ty V- 11 Q M� ijl RT= ZES in pch : phase in pch LEr T= ; o x : x x x TH LS �� a g t- LT= 31S C'iit3Z t�t7tbZ� 315-i1g{std i�dlY `" S'h LT 43[3 �,5.ftic hi A?- 5ti6�A�� T" ppa �t roar.A ddfd:-:1z n1,- a: alt � ISO -- AA 8l� Ilelo Sep 3. Identify Phasing S$ PHF- 0-20 � ztl y a^ Ai.®R3 t_T= 1901 TH= e, -= Step.E .'seers of Critical L—Jf,9 BL �, AaB4 a RT tb pproech az �. ®1IIdFfigeS h r amt A 13 82 84steta, ts 7 TurnAcdy�ustmenfs 4 i33S_pch sP--p e,'tT—Um eck Rpproaehstela 11.. Interseetitxrt cued o r�pgranah $ a Movtmcnt 5Z.�6a`�Xs r. Service A,pium4r�a Tum f (compare Step 44 with Table 6) cl;;tart intervals Turn volume b.rt�Eurn ta¢vcit1'G-.PNUp'TE sr7. (Pv from Step 6) VIS.. y on Charge inte.-val, opposing vol.in •L—..'`' f -- — ✓ in.V;b I•Ar"-0?FOSEti Vph from Step.2 -,Dw. tkS� Ped.vol/hour Mels 12. 'Recalculate Ratio eF-c wq"s PGE LT from �a�',eca �,�i nJ` d. ng volurne. 'fable 3 Geomctre Change in YOiX� �.s„2s� LT vol.in h .lc2s turn l E# �13F.$C� Aa'T Signal Change pxeitp on PGL RT from area,in vpb i f3i� �{ �61Z5 Tabic 8 Volume Change — t tort+ RT vol.it.pch a39atity in vgstt 9�$C - s�e) ��GZ'4�t29�+1 TM Vol.in pch C'9Rts tft rozr»vbtumroe from Step 6 1Total PCV in pchh.!a%Volume P capes- — __� 1; WILSEY HAM -- PORTLAND. OR EXISTINGCONDITIONS GRNCiJTFM86 GREENESURG ROAD GREENBURG ROAD !1I/8b CENTER STREET CENTER STREET AVERAGE WEEKDAY F'M`FEAT: 1986 VOLUME ALLOCATION TO LANES TRAFFIC LANE 1 LANE LANELANE 4 FROM t_ S R L S R L S R L S R NORTH 7t:) 530 5 0 i> 0 C r h U U 0 i.• EAST 40 10 70 Cr Q 0 i, 0 Cr 0 i 0 SOUTH 10 '; 460 60 fr al ca 0 0 <> C) WEST 10 5 10 UNSIGNALIZED TRAFFIC FROMLANE 1 LANE LANE LANE 4 ------- ------ . "' NORTH PRESERVE CAPACITY 625 LEVEL OF SERVICE A l�1E1G1.�"cl? ++ �faE LvS a EAST RESERVE CAPACITY 104 _ / y '} LEVEL OF SERVICE D 625�i �t 9 � ~!si'r�azse/' i�4�1ZBO 'SOUTH RESERVE CAPACITY 673 Z49S q 101, LEVEL OF SERVICE A WEST RESERVE CAPACITY 134 LEVEL OF SERVICE D MAJOR STREET'— NORTH/SOUTH UritiCal Movement Analysis: (-)HtZt- A i IUIN6 ¢2eN U i_}t5i61N Calculation Farm 2terc � ! r© tem StRtenlent Lu,zN �a�o � Stip 1. �leastr""�` Lane �e©rrzetry tep.5 Develop Passenger Car Step S. Ste Orr. r ,o cr.3 ' Volumes(PCY) in Pch � Calculate V Approach 3 Lane �w to —F— flT= 2(o Adjusted Volumes Volumes i t TH= tZZSa -Total Adjusted P7o.PCV , ROX 011 '� htave_;PCV PCV of per FieeaC-u: LT= � meat (Step 72 U PCV) Ldne4 lane. c i 2 f t I i a �a 1 �lZS Z at63 PCZ Approach L LT e I�Q JI ai ASB4 'a1iQ L f T1i Step 2. Cler ti sr:�ourly Volumes AT= I® y a � 6�5 i X95 in ���� g -A y a- I. L� ,IHV) Approach 3 AT= a hs*ia�t£S AT LEAST MG r.:`.ToK R`3�—1—1 I r Tl�= t7o�a; Step 6. Calculate Period Vaalfs s Step 9fi. �'atfsrrre Ad lrnst epi ft�r a x . (PV) in ch Multiphase Si6wMl Overlap f l-. LE), �? LT= c� 0 � � Possible Volume Cj'-ted 3 i Approach 3 PHF t?.gC9 Probable Critical Carryover Cn r .l � 11 T,Z�+ 23S "ase Yatume to rext Volume S AT- in peh P;iast in peh f LB 2. ' a a e ;m x T1i= aCS ; T. l- 2 l- SIS 315=6`iOtBt� ....,� _ Fal BZ �0(BZ) OL -y is a- _J LT= AZ la 4L;a(a36) 6SO_1ZS(AZ) ILS } a T- a o f.l dsc3. 5aS(Ax) _ SSG f Ti =� LF3=___ o AT = tCr n _ 3f3 s7 �tpgroach a J Q < 6364. 3S0 ¢ ( Step I ,identify�'hasing �� PHI _�.�© c1� �yi� r't4r 53 t95 1�►� 1�z �e aez Al—A3� LT= I9 Toa_ `! t x t` Step 10.-Sum of Critical —].E82. 5 i•�8d A2. Ag AT s 1C: prourh ux Volumes s" 81 f-sx—I3tS G .,,te 3, Asa Ad%cstrrat�aats ,S��_,� �� !9� � i. Re ,d. Left Turn Check Approach Step l�. Irrteaseetios?�Level of ( . Approach 1,Sovctnrnt e,Slumber of 3 TurnPF4�PC{� a Service cbaage intmala Turn volum, (compare Step i©with Tabic 6) =capacity (PV frwat Steen 6) ta-^C>pP0a 5aT D Left G=tn capacity 'seP4.9.h:E f�9t C) Gx J r se chat%"znresoal. Opposing vast.inin G i vah from Steo 2 C.rIc h t�-t?Pa'h: I� p..d.vol/hour Ste . • efrrlcdalatar Etatio arc L T fraat ).�eppeh ng voiume J9N`_s Table 3 � 4 L�4 Cr ometric Changein kn: Lft turn LT vol.in Pch Signal Chang{ty ore PC[flT from. 'binsoAT ut v7h crTable attir8SteYt^, u�Yc'i F44�J l cei� tfs;'.i�:63•,.ttf'i� -- pnnty iR roped from vol to pa h -- c) TH vol.in Pch �f3it2 r�'6§�S Ecft aura voiuvae a3e9'`�e��.f..-'c'i�')� frons Stip k , isVphTotal PCV in pch �— i u!iLSE`r & HAII -- NORTLAIAD. OR 60 MINUTE TUNE DEVELOPMENT GRNCNTPB P GREENDURG ROAD GREENBURG -TOAD CENTER STREET CENTER STREET' AVERAGE WEEKDAY PM PEAL- i98o VOLUME ALLOCATION TO LANES TRAFFIC LANE 1 LANE LA14E s LAKE 4 FROM L S R L 5 R L S R NORTH 7L> vV 1a:r it i p 4 it i f it iz 0 EAST 40 10 70 ':iy 0 0 p:. it p p it SOUTH 10 60 <r Q it - U Cr it 0 WEST 20B 0 f-r i-r it �r it fr UNSIGNALIZED 'TRAFFIC FROM LANE I LANE 2 LAPSE 3 LANE 4 NORTH RESERVE CAPACITY 625 LEVEL OF'SERVICE A v3Et4 � AUS'-.tea= lrJ�a EAST RESERVE CAPACITY 63 LEVEL OF SERVICE E 'ZzsGslod� Y0�370) 1 SOUTH REr SERVE CAPACITY b7 LEVEL OF SERVICE A 2.75+ a WEST RESERVE CAPACITY l01 Ss c , LEVEL OF SERVICE D MAJOR STREET NORTH/SOUTH t z 1 J 4 First Interstate Sank of orogori,N.A. 1 Asset Management and Advisory Serv1Ces RO.Box?4975 Portland,O4 97208Bank ( � April 14, 1986 Tigard City Council L Tigard, Oregon Dear Council Persons: First Interstate Bank. of Oregon, I .A., Trustee for Mary C-oodell, endorses the site proposals as approved by the Tigard 'Planning Department for the site at Greenburg Road and Highway 39. Sincerely, Zjarvin Hanson Investment Officer First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A., Trustee , CC,. File File A s ,f y y � u; s r. ------------------ ---- 7N }m. d.' u.^ CITY OF_TIGARD OREGON t COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY t AGENDA OF: 14, 19e6 AGENDA ITEM .,��r, eanar rcn : �,,, ,�,,,,�1-TED AYar a7 e, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Directed day t..ouascgl o�± .,.. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: 100th & Inez 11I25f85 hat a'PE report be prepared _ Serer LID Raisolution of Intent_ PREPARED BY: City+ Engineer " REQUESTED BY: C?EPAR71°iEh T HEAD OK,.' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Siaall a local improvement district (LID% be formed for construction of ;. sanitary sewer improvements in the vicinity of 100th & Inez. - - IiFORIATIO £ SUa "4ARY Per Council. direction, a preliminary engineer's report has been prepared. A copy of the report- is attached. The report recommends formation of an LID. A Resolution of intent also is "attached for your review and action. Since the hourscil has not ?tet established standards for prioritizing projects as called not k for in Oraie' No. 85-4th, staff has followed Resolution No. 85--37 in assigning First priority to this project. Resolution No. 85-37 states that ' "first priority are projects in developed areas." Bob Wright :will. be present to answer Council questions. ALTERNAnkggS cows or_RED� 1. Accept the preliminary engineering report anti proceed to the next stage of the LID process: Adoption of a resolution of intent and } setting the date for the public hearing. 2. Alter- the recosrmendation and proceed. .t 3. Decide not to proceed with adoption of oa reso ution. f rIIGGFSTED ACTION Adoption of a sreiolaution of intent to farm the LIDas r€�cossst�enried in the i R } go a pt_,L-Ji.c hearing on engineer's report. The resolution will set the date the propr sad LID formation. ! .: (244330 { .. a :.-,- CITY OF TIG_ IBRD_OF_'EG49d ( €OUNCIL 'AGENDA- I_ TEM 5Mi"�'tf y AGENDA ITEM 0: ------— AGE JDA OF: April. i4 i986 ' DfiTE SUBMITTED: t��riZ�B�79u6 PREVIOUS ACTION: Qirected by t�ounciZ on �. 1i125/85-r7at a i�E report be re�aared ISSUE./AGENDA TITLE: s4th Cherry _ ---- PARED BY: Ciy En9inear Sesser LID R-solution of Intent � PRE REQUESTED BY:CITY ADmINISTRATORDEPARTMENT HEAD OK: : � - POLICY ISSUE Shall a local improvement district (LID) be formed for construction of sanitary sewer improvements in the vicinity, icinity of Wherry 74th. Per Council direction, a prelirni:nary engineer's report has been prepared• A' rosy of the report i attached. The report_;recommends formation of an LID. A Resolution of Intent also is attached- for your review and action. Since the .` ects as ed Council. has not yet est bli85-=4Q�d prioritizingstandards for staff has folle-i Resolution No. 85-3711 in for in Ordinance .5a. assigning first priority to this Project. Resolution NO- 85-37 states that "first priority'are projects in developed areas." Rota Wright will be present to answer Council questions. -=-- - _ ALTERNATIVES cowSIGERED - i Accept the preliminary engineering report and proceed to the next stage of the LID process: Adoption of a resolution of intent and setting the date for the public hearing. 2. Welter the recommendation and proceed. 3. Deride not to proceed with adoption of a resolution. - SUrgESTED_ACTIQP Adoption of resolution of intent to form the LID as recommended in the n doptengineee 's report. The resolution will set the date for a public gearing on the proposed LID formation. ,. (2443P) CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: Aril 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: Aril 9, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Council Review on ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: December 11, 1985 Civil Infractions Ordinance PREPARED BY: City Attorney REQUESTED BY: William A. Monahan 1 DEPARTMENT" HEAD OK: l '\� 'CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should the City enforce its municipal codes as 'criminal offenses, or civil infractions? If code violations are made civil infractions, service of process and enforcement will become easier to accomplish. INFORMATION SUMMARY The 'staff has worked with Chuck Corrigan and David Fine of the City Attorney's " office to draft a civil infraction ordinance.. At the last discussion of this type, in December, the Council indicated its support of charging the hearings process to eliminate a role for the Munic: pal Judge and to replace' that position with a hearings officer. The attached ordinance 'acco-mplishes this' and includes other corrections. Chuck Corrigan has discussed the issue with Judge Pelay who has agreed to the proposed process. Judge. Pelay will execute an agreement prepared by Attorney Corrigan which delegates responsibility to a Hearings Officer to be selected by Judge Pelay with City Council input. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDER=D 1. Review, discuss, and adopt the proposed ordinance, 2. Review and discuss the proposed ordinance incorporating modifications. 3. Take no action. SUGGESTED ACTION The Council should review and discuss the ,proposed ordinance and adopt the . "ten, to effective thirty d fm R10inancea-, w i 2,4k3P� k CITY OF TIG€ZRD, OREGON ` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEC! SU M' ARY AGENDA'OF. April 2�d, z a6 AGENDA rrE�1 #: _� - � - .; DATE SUBMITTED: April 2 �86 PREVIOUS'-ACTION' Pass&M of Orda.nanc: ISSUE nGs.iyDA TITLE: ORDIN1AsaCE - 85_40 - - f MENDING ORDINANCE'SS-!O RELATING TJ PREPARED BY; J, Widner/T. Rami s Lt;CAL Ii'PROVFPRENl S _ REQUESTED BY; Cit it r a DEPARTMENT BEAD OK. ~"^ (•f%l "^ CITY ADMINISTRATOR:,, MPOLICY ISSUE, To continue local i€aprovem�-nt districts in a timely and appropriate manner, d; _ INFORMATION SUMMARY Pursuant to the Dartmouth loca' ztrsc�rove�erpt district: court case and the ever � changing Oregon Revised Statutes regarding localimprovements, tete City Attorney's cIfice has suggested the attached amendment to our local im prove-ment district ordinance ,(85-40) to allow soma additional. flexibility for City CounciI. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do nothing. 2. Adopt the amendment SUGGESTED ACTION I recommend 'passage o'F the attached ordinance. Y285E _ :v f CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMI SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 14 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: April 3 19-86 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE1AGEiIDA TITLE: Resolutions sting Jurisdiction of Certain PREPARED BY: Rana C_+s� larreo ��~v g2gnt'y_Rf?adS REQUESTED BY: CGmmunit Develop,,, DEPAR1TIE€a3T HEAD OK: f CITY 'ADVIINISTRATOR E01-ICY ISSUE The Council, ,within the last year, has expressed its desire to 'assume jurisdiction of all 'County Roads wholely ioi•thin the City limits to improve CIR planning', Development and Maintenance Services. INFORMATION SUMIARY 1. The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (DL.U.T'.) has expressed their desire to recommend to the Board that jurisdiction of certain County Roads he transferred to the City of { Tigard. 2. The City has desired to assume jurisdiction of certain County roads. 31 Both City and County staffs have recently met to discuss what County Roads or portions thereof the County would consider transferring. The Washington County D.L.U.T. would consider transferring, jurisdiction of all. County Roads wholely within the City with possibly two exceptions. These exceptions being S.W. 185th Ave. and S.W. Durham Road. They are considering attaching conditions to the transfer of these two roads. The conditions,i.f any are unknown at this time, 4. Two Resolutions are recommended given the County's uncertainty on "conditions of transfer". One will be pursued. It is ultimatelV necessary to file two resolutions so that one can be acted upon by the County without revision. Arty revision would delay action until August. SUC�GESTED_ACTI.OT The Community Development Department recommends that Council pass Rooth Resolutions requesting jurisdiction of certain County` Roads. We will then be !� able to pursue the best course of action of the two, Bance the additional information ;.s available (7445P) r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUM19ARY i - AGENDA OF: April 141 - 986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED April 0:; 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE, Community Develoonent Code Revision PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD O€ : t �A � ��_ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: v, -- POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council initiate a revision to the Community Development Code to extend the 'review and ;appeal periods of Director'sDecisions and Planning Commission Final. Actions beyond the ten day period now in place? INFORMATION SUMMARY _ Section 18.32.310 provides for a ten dal review and appeal period for all land use decisions. Recently some land use decisions have been made where an NPO at- the Council stay have 'been able to avoid an appeal- or delay if additional time had ''been available for discussion by all concerned parties. A possible solution is a longer appeal period„ perhaps Twenty days. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Initiate a review of the Community Development Code, Section 18.32.310 and other pertinent sections to extend the period for filing a notice of appeal or Council review. 2. Take no action, retaining a ten day period for filing a notice of appeal or Council review. SUGGESTED ACTION The staff suggests that the City Council initiate a revision to the Cnvpm inity Development Code and direct staff to evaluate possible appeal periods and - their potential effects. (2446P) MEMORANDUM i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Members of the City Council. April 9, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Community Development Code Revisions Lately the Development Services staff has processed an extremely large number of land use applications. In each instance whore a Director's Decision or Planning Commission Final Order is finalized, the City Council is given .1 copy of the decision to examine and call up for ''review, if it wishes. The established review 'period of ten days coincides with the apreal period available to the applicant, adjacent property owners, and NPO. ' Given recent concerns raised by our Ng0's concerning the amount of time needed to review such actions at formal NPO meetings, T_ felt that the Council 'should be asked, if it wishes to initiate an ordinance change to revise the Development Code to extend the appeal and review period. An 'amendment to allow twenty, fifteen, or some other period longer than ten days ; could accomplish some or all of the following: 1. The WP0's and property owners would have more time to meat and discuss the issues prior to determine if an appeal should be filed. 2. Council will have a chance to read the decisions and contact my staff for clarification of concerns relates: to the decisions- before the need arises to either call the matter up for review, or lose the opportunity to do so. Potential dralobacks to the change would be: 1 Delay in -finalization of approvals affecting property owners and developers. 2. The Planning Commission may need to regularly schedule two monthly meetings so that they can accommodate appeals of Director's Decisions within the 120 day" limit for processing land use decisions. If the .City Council wishes, I will 'process as review of the Development Code :.sections which pertain to appeal and review periods. Commission and Council reviews could take place in May for implementation by July. During the review process, my staff would further define the problems and opportunities associated with a modification to the appoal period. Sections 18.37.310 and 19.32.320 of the Development Code are attached_ for 'your review. (WAM:brl2446P) r i (b) lri computing ,the length of the petition for review period, the 4, Hwy that notice of tha decision is mailed shall tae excluded mind the last day for filing the petitionor review shall. be included unless the last: day, falls on a legal holiday for the City or on a Saturday, in which case, the last: day shall be the next lousiness day. (c) The Director stay grant: an extension` of the appeal period on a Director's decision for `a reasonable time only if requested key the applicant and in the condition where no ;appeal has been field to that date. 18,32.31t7 Decisions ut►ich may,, be Appealed ar fteviewed (a) Any decision by the Director made pursuGari. to Section 15.32.ogo(a) may be appealed to the appropriate approval authority as provided in Section 19.32.110 and ttyn approval authority's `decision shall be final. fan appeal. st'sali be taken by: (1) The filing of a Notice to Appeal as provided by 18.32.340 by any ;person c!ntit:led to notice under 16.32,120 or the decision' by the close of Ci.ty business day within 3.0 days' after notice of the decision is published in a nawspa.per of general circulation as provided by (2) The Commission or Council, on its own motion, seeks to hoar the matter- by a resolution filed within 10 days of the p:iblication of the notice as provided by 1E.32.240(a). (b) Any decision made by any other Approval"Authority under Section 18.32.090(b) or (c) maybe reviewed by the Council by: (1) The filing of a. Notice of Review a.s provided by 18.32.340 by any party to the derision by the close of City business day ajithin 10 days of the sending of Lhe notice of final decision as provided by; or (2) The Council. or Commission, ran its motion, seeks review by resolution t=iled within to ,jaysof nailed notice of the Final: decision; or (3) Referral rff -a nmdtter under Sccti.on S.S.32.090(d) by the initial hc.�arinc3s body to the Council, upon c:losur-P of the hearing, when the case Pr£Suilts ig Pali.cy issue wtli.cFl requires Ca�t�ncil deliberatia,R and determination, in which rase 4Fae council shral.l. decide Life application. (C) Failure tofi.l2 aro ad^.'.}n?1 or pe i,tion Tor revit!w shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remodics. l:t i.s the purpose a�f thisst>_ctiun to pr•ovidrr tFor r> arti.es a�vr=ry rr.?�tu_c4y p(�ssitale. ..j The filing Of Ori` aptzeal or pot itjon for review is �A condition y, precedent to litigation. 3' : 7 18.32.320 l yof 'fip;seaT or Review Hearing Limitations of Review (a) The appeal of a decision made by the Director under Section a 10.32.090(a) and Section ' 15.32.110 of this Chapter shall be de novo and conducted as if brought under Section 18.32.090(b), or (b) -The review of a decision by the Commission or Hearings Officer by the Council shall be: (1.) Confined to the record of the proceedings as provided in Section 18.32.320 of this Code tnd each membter of the Reviewing Body shall, he provided with a+ transcript of the proceeding on Appeal; (2) Limited to the grounds relied upon in the Notice of Review as provided in Section 19.32.340(a) OF this Chapter , and conducted in accordance with the q:ruvisions of Sections 18.32,250, 18.32.260, and 15.32.160 L•hrough 18.32.230 and Sections 19.32.240 and 1$.32.310 of this Code. (3) The subject of written and oral argument. Such written argument shall be submitted not' less` than 5 days prior to Council consideration. �` (4) Reviews on the record by Council of Hearings Officer or, Commission decision shall be completed within 40 days of when notice of review is filed. 15.32.330 Transcripts (a) Within 20 days after the filing of the notice'of rc -j, the City shall provide reach Council member•, Lho appliccul <ano Lhc NPO (if requested), a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing and ,a copy of the mi.nuLes,'. (b) Jhe appellant shall be responsible to satisfy all costs incurred for preparation of Lhe transcript aL a rale of actual costs up to $500.00 and one-half costs for any amount incurred over $�aW CO. payment shall be made in full at least' 5 days_ prior to the hearing. (c) Any other party requesting aE copy of the Lr-aAnscript shall be c•hiarged the ac•ttEal copy (.r.)sLs. 18.32,340 '�_ Notice of ftp eal orPetition for .Review (a) The Notice of Appeal or Petition for Revir_w shall (onl.ain: -ece -he ation srughL Ls'a be Appe�11'ed of(1) A refer j r^nv eaar,1 (2) A statemenL as to how the petitioner qualifies as a parLy; CITY_OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMA AGENDA OF Abri l 14, 198€ AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: App l 2,_1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Personnel Manual ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Job Description _ Au'oRtion 11979 ft oroval. £, Implementation Authority PREPARED BY: Lmreen Wilson _ REQUESTED BY: Bob Jean - DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE City council adopted their personnel policy via; Resolution 'oto, 79-•38. This requestedaction further, details -the approval authority for job descriptions. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City teas now completed a review and update of the job descriptions for Exacut Vie` Staff, Management, and 1T4EA/OPEU. n resear Chang the record to develop the appropriate docurientation ,for aaproval of the jab descriptions it was 'noted that the Personnel Policies and Procedures tlanual was not clear, As you will 'note+ on the attached resolution, the Administrator`has the authority for " Sra aa^atiran of posi`tir�n classification plans and directing the administration of these plans". To make the record more clear, staff has proposed the following addition to -the Personnel Manual "Classification plans (job descriptions) are administratively approved and " implemented"..... . Since the job descriptions are necessary for the efficient _operation of the personnel function,''staff would recommend taking action on this matter 'prior to the adoption ' of the Personnel Manual Update which is currently being drafted. ALTERNATIVES`CONSIDERED 1. Approve attached resolution. 2. Modify attached resolution. 3. T.. ke 'r action at this tine C SUGXpESTE0 ACTIW4 Approve attached resolution. IW/3 5e5 n r— CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON rC COUNCIL-AGEMDA ITER '$UM `aY AGENDA O:a Apri 1 14, 1986--- -- AGENDA ITEM �� � � Gam° DATE SUBAITTED. Aril 7, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGEEND TITLE: Director's Decisions tl 7-85 Michael Davis; HOP 5-86 - PREPARED $Y: Community Development Clifford Leonard; HOP 11-84 _Renewal - REQUESTED BY: Kyong Suk Snyder DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: ������ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: r` S�r��affis it1q�B.^t.�:33i���...^3iS8aiffi���YHSSffiTd�39�''Gb:rG�S�S.�.�..���5.`^..��.•^..J:�6�53��&.a.�•3�1i SST.L.f&:L�'l3LTbl+ZR SY�f8t3 POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SU`11WARY Attached are Director's Decisions for the follvwingz. V 7-86, requested by Michael A Davis for a rear yard setback variance for 10 feetwherea minimum of. 15 feet is required, and a front yard < setback variance for 18 feet where a minimum of 20 feet is required . on property zoned R--4.5, located at 11155 SW Eden Court. HOP 5-86, requested by Clifford Leonard for a Home Occupation Permit for his residential construction business ("Clifford Leonard Construction") , on property zoned R-4.5, located at 1.2810 SW Walnut St. HOF 11--84 RENEWAL, requested by Kyong Suk Snyder for a renewal of his fiome occupation Permit (KDT Soldering Services) on property zoned R-4.5, `located at 12300 SW Knoll, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council, is 3 4 erezraffiararnraxxrey:xt veaxsnsecmyaa rs�-zss--------acre-----a-aatxwu_^.ra��astx�a�rncrosexsxrssxays�asrsnr.A�ucs�ia��sY��a ru s: SUGGESTED ACTION r Approve as written. r CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF,€DCIS s.0LA VARIANCE 7-E5 r" APPLICATION: Request by Michael A. Davis for a rear yard setback variance for 10;'feat 'where a minimum of 15 fest is required and a (rant ,yard setback s variance for I8 feet where a minimum of 20 feet is required on p~operty monad R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Location: 1.1155 S.-W. Eden Court (WCr.9 2S1 309 Lot 7300). oECiSTord: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director fog the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application su�sject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. fit. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background No previous land use applications have been reviewed by the City,, for the subject parcel. L. Vicinity Information Properties in all directions are all zoned R--4.5 (Residential, 4:5 units per acre). Land iiumadiately, adjacent to the subject property to the north is to be utilized as common open space. 3 Site Infos ,tion and Proposal Descrioiion The parcel is presently vacant. The applicant proposes to huild a single family residence with a front yard setback of 18 feat where a, minimunn of 20 feet is requireand a rear yard setback of to feet where 20 feet is required. The horua mould be consistent with neighboring homes with respect to size and character. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Building Division has no objections to the proposal. he Engineering Division has the following comments. The lot itself is probably going to be a building, construction problem Niue to topography and proximity of wetlands. In the case of this type of request, however, no public` improvement issues are in question. 9. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Sec' iorl 16,134.050 of the Code requires 'the following approval criteria for variance proposals: NOTICE of DECISION V 7-86 - PAGE 1 r- The proposed variance will not be S�caterially detrimental to the a�` xa3. conflict with ;,the policies of the purposes of this Code# ®then applicable polxci�s ar,� Comprehensive Plan, to any district or standards; and to other properties in the sane zoning T vicinity; re special circ khat exist which are peculiar to . There a p raphy cr other circumstances over the lot size ow- shape, t®Peg and aayhich are not 'applicable which the applicant has no control* to other prop eproperties in ths e zoning district, , The base proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and gr extent that is City standards will be maintained to the economic us of the reauGr�able possible, while'; perrsittirsg, - !and; h sisal and natural systems, such as but not limited s. �. Existing Km y fogs or parks will not be traffic, drainage, drr�mare an �. adversely ' affected Gray more than waaalc� r�cc:.tr if the development were located as specified in the Code; and The hardship is not self—i POsedevia-te the hard hi the 'variance requested is the minimum variance which would , �zrpose of the se b ck standards for the R--A.5 'zone is to alloys �' The prim y 1� light, and piva r t y for resids=nti�al. structures. The aaies u to spacing, air, on the existing properties in .will pot have an appreciable effec� sap ens space araia, the the area. £i€cause the reap pa^t+perty line abuts, residential lot. P Tie variance ,- strucI1 ure' wil not int upon intenan t of the setbaa k standards com^ntained in proposal :is consistent the Code. and The conf iguration and sig t rdero Iforimi i the residencestioto�have a ndesir atrle possibilitie3 on the Lot. n p size, the proposed variance is necessary• e4 anted arse ia� tile zone ar,,d all other aspects of the The residence is a Pe building' will conform with the Code. The variance will have no effa,cr_ upon existingphysical and natural systems, C. DECISIOf following Planning Director approves v 7-9'6 subject; to that conditions: Y s- aintain The house shall 10 foot rear yard and 1Q feat front yard setbacks as; shown by the apPlirarnt`s site plana The necessary permits shall be obtained from the City €wilding Inspector. 3 Any other adc4itio +al studies or permits required by the C:ty � Building Inspector shall be obtained. NOTICE or DECISION _ V 7--06 — PAGE 2 4. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision' date noted below. D. PROCEDURE i. Nautica: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at`City Miall and mailed to: X The applicant & owners owners of record withisa the required distance The 'affected Neighborhood Planning Organization , `XX Affected governmetnta. agencies 2. Final Decision: 'ME DECISION SHALL DE FINAL ON 4--14-86 —_ UNLESS AN APPEAL 1S FILED. 3. .mal: Any party to the recision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32,290(() and Seat.an 19.32.370 of tae Ctaw'+�se5anity Development Code which `provides that a written appeal must b�a filed with the CIT`: RECORDER within 10 days ,after nOticQ is given and sent. The deadl.ina for filing of anappeal is 4:30 P.�1 4-14-86 .., 4, 9Ae!ti6ns: If you have any questions, Please call the City of Tigard planning Department, Tigard City. Hall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Bax 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. art 'p ant Planner €� BY: sA�soran A. St u , it iam A. Manahan, Director or Planning Development DATE APPROVED ;YOTICE OF DECISION = ;i 7­66 - PAGE 3 - ��� y: f CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 5-8£ t APPLICATION: A request by Clifford Leonard for a Home Occupation Pernit for his residential construction business (d.b.a. "Clifford Leonard Construction") on property zoned R-4.5. Location: i2sio sw walnut St. (WCTM 2S1 4AD, Lot 3502). DECISION: notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. i R. FINDING OF FACT 1Background No previous ' applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department for, this Property. 2. Vicinity Information Properties to the east, south and west are all located in Washington County and are zoned R--6. Properties immediately to the north are also zoned R-4.5 (Single Family Residential, 4.5 units per acre). y 3. Site Information and Proposal Description Thera is a 1658 square font home on the property. The applicant proposes to use 272 square feet for the business. The 'applicant K will occupy the remainder of the home. The business as proposed will not occupy more than 25% of the home. 4. Agency and NPO Comments WPO #3 will be notified of the Director's decision and will be given the right to apPaal. B: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.142 of the Tigard, Municipal Code. C. DECISION Glome occupation Permit HOP 5--86 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no poople working in the homer in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home. N1 TICE OF DECISION - HOP 5-96 - PAGE I Id a 2. Where Shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior: of the premises. k 3, There shall be No customers or clients coming to the residence in: conjunction with the business. 4. The dome Occupation Permit shall be renewed annually. 5, A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business. 6. There shall be no noise emitted from the home connected with the business which is audible to abutting residences. 7. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products; on the premises. Indoor storage of ;mterial or products shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health area Housing Cosies. 8. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice G4as published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to XX _ The applicant & owners XX Owners of record .within the required distance XX The affected Meighbor•hood Planning Organization XX Affected 'governmental agencies 2 Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON �aha it_14, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS a=ILEI?. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with section 13.32,290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. April ids. 1986 , 4, tions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 1.2755 SSS Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. 31 DATE /.JMPAED F3Y: Debora a,A. Stuart, #. Planner �,li, :lien �i. Monahan,. t3i.rec;'cor of Planning � Davalop;reers'� '" DATE AKPR0IFED (DAS:pm91) NOTICE r DECISION - HOP 5-86 = PAGE 2 f Is CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 11-84 *'. R ENR4AE APPLICATION: A request by Kyong Suk Snyder for a renewal of his Home Occupation -Permit (d.b.a. KOT Soldering Services) on 'property zoned R-4.5 ( sidential, ,4.5 units per acre) Location: 12300 Sw Knoll (WCTt� 2S4 18C Lot T3S3O). �Ec,�61ONa Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above .application subject to certain conditions. The findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below. A. FINDING OF FACT i. Background HOP 11-84 was approved and made final on �!ovember 13, 1984 subject was to certain conditions. 2. ?vicinity Information The subject property is bordered an three sides by parcels that are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). Property to i the north is zoned C--G (General Commercial). 3. Site Information and Proposal Description There is a 1,900 square foot home on the property. The applicant proposes to use -200-236 square feet for the business. The applicant will occupy the remainder of he hone. The business use will be limited to less then 25% of the home. 4. Agency and NPL Comments NPO #5 will be notified of the Director's decision and will be given the right to appeal. BS ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The proposal appears to be in confurinance with the provisions set forth in Chapter -48.2 2 of theTigardP�unicipal Code. No changes relating to the business have been rade since the previous application. C DECISION Home Occupancy Renewal Permit HOP 11-84 is approved subject to the following conditions: woT,cE OF oECISION - NOP 11--94 - PAGE 1, a I There shall be no people employed at the home who are not f . residents of the home. k 2. There .shall be no signsor advertising visible from the exterior" of the premises. 3. ,There shall be no customers or clients coming :to the residence in conjunction with the business. 4. There shall be :o outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of materials or products shall not exceed the Iimitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire Health and Housing Codes. 5. The Home Occupancy Permit shall be renewed annually. fa.. A Business Tax shall be paid annually ,or the business. 7. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. 0. PROCE0URE 1. Notice: Notice was published in the 'newspaper, posted at City ,all and mailed to: JXX The applicant owners L; XX €wners of record t aisthin the required distance XX , The affected Neighborhood Planning organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final 0ecision: THE DECISION SHALL. 6E FINAL. Oro April 14,, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32 290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Coafiaanunity Development Code which provides that a written appeal must be filen with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after, notice is. given and sent. The deadline for riling of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. April 14, 1986 4. igaliions If you have any questions please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 1.2755 Sal Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171, ...ate' ' � _,.... --• -'���'����' ?EPA BY— ftborah A. Stuart', Assistant Planners DATE Prlillxam A. Mon 3�an Director of Planning & Davelo�amerat, DATE A P�sOVEO (0AS:bs2O7) a ! O'91 :C.E OF DECISION — HOP 11-8 _. PAGE 2 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i` COUNCIL AGENDA ITE:3 SUMMARY GEtv'DA OF: April 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUB14TTTED: April_8, Z98_a PREVIOUS ACTION: r I,c,SUEJ GEa�'t3:i TITLE: Director's Decision HOP 6-86 Linda Pratt PREPARED : BY: Community Developntert _ _ REQUESTED BY: DEPARTME14T HEAD OK: � ' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: ssaersr'sae3aas...escesxsa:sa�axm+iazscx fa:..x: s POzICY ISSUE esasa=y'zr:��rsssrsnaixesa��a.asac�aa�saaa a�xen:�.Ya:s:�axM�c=rsee:�.�r_��.ss�m'.-s....»--a=:aa�saassmxss>csax:=aum.ess:x.: IP-FOFsTYON SUMMARY g Attached is the final order for HOP 6-86 - approval, of an application for ` a Home occupation Permit for an automotive test equipment repair business (Pratt's Repair) on property zoned R-9.5, located at '11945 SSV Eurlcrest Dr. r..Cd:iTRS.SYSPJL.ZG�.S^..r2t5�F9�^�Si 31 A^�^._rA6ffi£qi]YSIILS?LRt°�1Sa�ai3x3iffiYdY:t'S•�SBS�SS3S�=.�...�a--^'t»^...�.•���L¢.�.��R WTS^_3ffi•1t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED t 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. rasx�xr<nxa wee2s�m�avr�esaaaassaamtmax¢sucar��a�mns�ssxtmassivanssaxa-zs----m:.s-aess�eesacxr�=e�svr+�saraxassz�.-�renamrs smisaan SUI GGESTED ACTION xE Approve as written. 111,i,,''mi: I=- imE v i CITY OF TIGARD .' NOTICE OF DECISION HOP,'t-9b �y APPLICATION- Request by Linda A. Pratt for a Home Occupation Permit for an autoative test equipment repair business (d.b.a. "Pratts Repair") on property zoned R-4.5. Location: 1,1945 Sal 6urlcrest Drive ( TM ISI 34CA Lot1700). a l3 Cla Notice as ;herb given th-it the: Planning director for the City of 3. Tigard has APPROVED the above application, subject to certain conditions. Tha findings and conclusions on which the Director based his decision are as noted below., A. � FINDING OF FACS � 1. Background No pre:sious applications have been reviewed by the Planning Department for this property. 2, Vicinity Information Properties to the north, east, swath and west are all zoned R-4.5 (Single Family, Residential, 4.5 units Per acre). 3. Site Information arA Proposal Description There is 13668 square foot home on the property. The applicant proposes to use 35 square feet for the business'. Th* applicant � will occupy the remainder of the home. The business as proposed will not occupy more than 25% of the home. 4. Agency and NPO Comments NPO #;7 will be notified of the Director's decision and will be given the'right to appeal.. 8. ANALYSIS AND C YINCLUSICN The proposal meets the pro. inions set fortis in "Chapter 18.142 of the Tigard Municipal Code. ' �r C. DECISION ` as3e ticcupation'Permit 6--86 is approved subject to certain conditions: ` < 1. There shall be no` paid ampla ees working in the homey in Conjunction with the business who are not residents of the hama, �F _ t3T3£'E U€ FCI IC}Pd - HOP 6-£3 — PACE 1 Y 2, There shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior or the premises. 3 There shall be ado customers or clients coming to the residencaa in fit; : conjunction with the business. _4 Tae 140rse occupation Permit shall be renew-vd annually. 5, A Business Tax shall be paid annually for the business, 6. There shall be no noise `emitted from the home connected With the business which is audible to abutting residences. 7, There 'shall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. Indoor storage of tenial or pr oducs shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the pr-odisions of the guilding, Fire, Health, and Housing Cordes. This approval is valid if exercised within one ya?ar of th►e final decision date noted below!. PROCEDURE 1. oti e; pJotice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant owners XX t'aaners of recti rd within ttje equired distance LXX The affected Neighborhood Planning organization y.K Affected governmental agencies' 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON 1980 _ UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. ' Any party to 'the decision may ag�peaA this decision itis accordance with'section 1a.32.290(A) and Section 15.32.370 of t Q Community ity Development Cade be which provides than a written appeal filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of anappeal is 2 :30 P.i`4.. A21il 17ID 9986 aa€�stions If you have any r�ieatir�ns, please call the City Of $, Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Fall, 12755 Sod Ash, PO Box ef 23397, Tigard, Oregon 9722 39- `1 Stuart, s�istant Planner 0 TE r E ABED BY: Deborah A. , W-T- PROVED l" Aa 9 or" rzn. Diretoy^ of i�l a�nie (eja€jlop�nr�:�t DATE €�P (D€S:bsZ24) t'dol'IfE OF DECISION - 990P 6--06 - F�ACr 2 i CITY OF TICLRD OELGON COUNCIL A=(s%NDA ITEM $ LAKY AGENDA OF- Aril 14, 1985 AGENDA ITEM �b CA— DATE SUI)MITTED: April 14, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION. Res. 82-132 - 11/22/82 & a ISSUEAGFNDA TITLE: Director's Decision_ SDR 8-86 - Tigard East Associates PSEP�D BY: Community Development R--QUF.SsED BY. DEPARTMENT HEMl3 S i° `m OK: �.�:���� :z eaceasLxamsmcaasmisaeamcaxar�:ka�a�aa�sa®zxxeeaasemm�xz��aes,eas�ass �axaxsanoxzsm�aesu aaemaxeaaaranx---- -------- �•- POLICY ISSUE 4CF4T3ASmbR.^rTJ�LR:i3SSY t�CII�I«�Z4R3�CL�iRSCt�i21Q��tY�.'K fS14E�YSIILS�d FS -SD----AY.31'lT3-'----Y69E3C1PC.Mt........ INF, 1014 S Y Attached is the Director's DQ ision, for 8--86, a Site Development Review Approval of a request by T' and East 4% iates' for -a 157,000 square foot �+ retail center and relate facil-1 'e n property zoned C-G, (Cornmerci.al General) and located on the sotbth - side of Pacific Hig >, 300 feet south _ df Park Street, with �er_tain c_ x id s, + _ // rd sxssrunsxxaaz zr_msx� �aazc ascu saanmwasaxa:---- ----exeeznm�us saauzem��»emaox-:sac z��e�ssaes x.gcz�ase xa.as�m _�� ALTERNATIVES CCS l/ ApprovS as written- 2. ritten.2. Call tip for review at a date set by Council. ,,,' muster rtawc,wwasnxeamas savzm:nss.�smz,�waes�sexww<x�mea�wia�as............. -------------------- -------- - SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as written, t. CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION � ' ST �' i'E UEUEtA �IENT RE1FIEtn, SDR 8- 8 g APPLICATION Request �iy Tigard East Associates for approval of a 1,2,000 square' foot retail center- and related facilities on property zoned C—G (Commercial General} and located on the 'southeast side of (pacific Highway ;300 feet south o," Park Street (WCi'm 2S1 2C8, T.I_. ,Oo, 200, 500, 800, 801, 900, ` DECISION: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the above applicationsubject to certain conditions. The � based his decision are as noted findings and conclusions on which the Director below, a; A. FINNING OF FACT t 1. Background On November 22, 13.982 the Tigard City Council approved 'revision to the 'NPO $1 Comprehensive Plan and a (Res. 82—b32) a Zone Change for the subject property from Commercial nos- Professional/General Commercial to General- Commercial (file nos. g, CPR —821ZC 19-£i2). This change was approved subject to the following conditions: g. The design and config�sr .tion of ir�pro�aemi nts to Sof Pacific Highway and the access points from the :site to Sa! €pacific Highway shall be approved by ' Oregon Depar-went of Transportation prior to issuance of building Permits. T1z Oregon Department of Transportation approval shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a plan. 2. A maintenance agreement and plan for the frontage road and island sE3all be submitted swith the application for ite Design Review. 3, The applicant shall apply for Site Design Review. The Site Design Review application` shall include elevation sketches showing proposed screening frogs abutting residential neighborhoods and a 'letter outlining the disposition of the existing right--of-ulay which the State Mtends to dedicate to the 'property owner. _4. The applicant 'shall., in 'ti-ie Site Design '' Review Process, address the need for buffering of the proposed' development from residential properties to tcrc. east : of :the subject property, including :tkre possible reed for fencing in such buffer area. SLich :buffering, as isdetermined in the Site Design Review process to: be appropriate, including a si.x foot high chain link fence with sl.�at$ 30 as to be site, obseuring, shall be substantially constructed prior to the s issuance of building permits �v NOTICE OF tlECTSIOM — Sop 8--86 - PAGE 1 i ' i 5: The applicant shall not cut or remove any trees within the most easterly 26 feet of the subject property, adjoining the residential neighborhood to the east of the subject; property, prior to Site Plesign Review approval. 6. The City 'staff shall, provide written notice sof the tisoe and s. place for consideration of the site-.design of the subiect property to an authorised representative of �' 1 and to all parties of record in this proceadirAwoho appeared either in person in writing before either Planning Commission or City Council in connection with the subject application. In duly, A9S5; the pplic�aaet received Sensitive 'Lands 'appr oval to . fill the existing ravine and rove a 'public sewer line (Si 6 85) r subject to the following conditions: 1. R soils report and detailed grading plans shall be submi.ttod ! . `•. to the City for review prior to issuance of any permits for site work. 2. The City Engineer shall be satisfied that the applicant's }, proposal for on-site storm retention is adegaaate to hold f runoff to current levels, or at the laity's option, the City Engineer shall specify off-site improvement design on downstream facilities to accommodate increased runoff. 3. Detailed engineering glares for storm drainage and sanitary t. sewer lines shall be submitted to and apprcved by the City's r �: Engineering Division prior to issuance of building Pe"i its, t City public improvements shall be bonded for 100% of ,the �. estimated cost thereof priorto _issuance of building per-m.-its. 4 site Development Review approval shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 5. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final derision date. r: 2. , Vicinity Information The property is adjacent to pacific flighway along the northwestern f=rontage and"properties_zoned C--G lie on the opposite side of the street. other parcels zoned C-G are situated -immediately to the 4` northeast and swithwest along Pacific Highr)ay. The area to the east and south is committed to single fawdly and multiple family e^e�iciences. The homes to the east and eoutha a'st are zoned 2-4.5 (Residential,, 4.�5' units/acre) and RM3.5 (Residential 3.5 unit!5/acrej, respectively and the apartments along the rem4 inder of the southern bouridary are non-conforming units which are zoned C--G. M, NOTit:E OF DECISIOW -- SJR 8-66 PAGE. 2 S 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The >property is presently undeveloped except for one 4,644 square " foot retail building and a drainageway% slopes dowtihi7.l toward, the northern end of the parcel. A frontage road situated betwazen the property and Pacific' Highway 'is in the process of being vacated and 'the land will be incorportated as part or the project. The applicant proposes to develop a shopping center with 156,995 square feet of floor area. It is intended; that the center will contain a <groce^y store., restaurant, and retail ':stores. Access will be provided at the ParkStrQet/pacific Highway traffic signal, a proposed traffic signal located in the approximate center of the project, and ''a right turn in/right turn out driveway at the southwestern corner of the pruperty.; ehe` second traffic light is also intended to provide access for the vacant commercial property on the opposite side of Pacific Highway. 4. Agency and NPO Comments 'Che Building Inspection Division, P.G.E. and the Tigard Water ; District have no objection to the; request. The State' Highway Division states that an agreement has been signed by the applicant for- the installation of the new traffic signal. An access permit and roadway improuemen plans hay=e been approved. Landscaping within the right-of-sway can be allowed with, a permit Ind is encouraged. MPO #2 has the','following r;omasents. a. Previdd visual`and noise buffering for the roof mounted HVAC' to direct any noise toward_ the parkins lot. b. Limit hour of operation with no activity prior- to 7:00 At;. c. Move the fence to be located between the landscaped buffer and the building. d. Construct the fence prior to starting the site work. The fence should have redwood slags e. Assure that the lighting on the site does not adversely impact nearby residences. The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. A permit fr6m the State Highway Division is necessary prior to perform any work within the Pacific Highway right--of-sway. b_ All conditions of SL 645 shall 'reriain irr effect. k, p NOTICE OF DECISION SQR 0--96 PAGE 3 a c Site grading ;should be approved by the City. d. The site should be developed so that adjacent parcels continue to have legal access. ' e. The applicant shall assure that downstream/upstream properties are not,adversely effected by stor+n aster runoff as a result of any site improvements. S. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSI0N The proposed s project is consistent with Community Development Code provisions pertaining to vehicular access, building setbacks, lot coverage, visual clearance, and parking. , The following topics warrant further discussion, regarding conformance with Code requirements. 3. Landscaping and Suffering The proposed landscapingCalan indicates that a ,buffer strip of at least 15 feet' in width will be provided along all properties that are residentially zoned. Along with the vegetative screening, a chain link fence, as called for by Resolution 82-132, is also proposed. The staff concludes that modifications should be made to the proposed fence in order to adequately deal with the potential for adverse noise' impacts. The site plan indicates that six loading r or, trash collection areas will be situated along the rear of the property. NPO, 01 suggested that the fence should include redwood slats and that no loading should occur prier to T RSR. The fence and landscaping will provide sufficient screening but will have a minimal effect relating to sound deflection or absorption. The restriction of truck loading and trash pick-up could be difficult -to enforce and it appears that this problem can be better } addressed by constructing a noise barrier" so that adjoining residences are afforded protection at all hours of the day. Although the City Council action calls for a chain link fence, the intent of the Code will be better served with a solid, eight foot high fence or masonry wall along the residentially zoned parcels. In addition, a loading and delivery curfew between Lhe hours of 10 PM and 6 AM should be observed. NPO #1 suggested that ,the fence should be located nerd to the driveway and loading, > area with the landscaped buffer situated between the fence and the property line, The, applicant investigated this request and found that a liability problem would exist if the landscaped strip was, as a practical matter, incorporated :as part of the track yard for the adjoining lots. They staff concurs with this conclusion and also the maintenance ;of this landscaping would be more difficult. s ' NOTICP OF 1 ECT'SJON - SDR 8-96 - PAGE 4 A second issue related to landscaping involves a Cods requircnzent which calls' for trees wichia+ petr'kny areas t a ratio of one tree for- every 'seven parking spaces. Based upon the total parking .. space: figure of 592, 85 trees are . needed in xrid adjacent to the parking lot. The landscaping plan shows ,approximately 60 .trees devoted to the perking area. The staff would like' to review this aspect of ' the 'plan with the applicant and make revisions' as necessary. s 2. Eloise' A second noise issue which is unrelated to the above discussion deals with the 14VAC units that will be; used to heat: and cool the building. The site plan does not indicate where, these units will be located: This information should be submitted for review. The primary concern :will be the impact these units will have upon � nearby residences. 3. Bicycle Parking. The appropriate number of bicycle parking spaces is shown on the site plea. The Spaces should' be redistributed so that a proportional number of spaces are located near restaurant and pad sites adjacent to Pacific Highway. � 4. Signage the applicant proposes one free-standing signfor the shopping center that will be 31.15 feet high, 135 square feet in area and 20 rest east of the property line on Pacific' Highway. The Code allows such signs with a 20 foot setback to tie 22 feet highs and 90 square feet in area, in this situation, the ;Code permits that during the, Site Development Review process an increase in sign area of 50% may be allowed to advertise the different tenants in the shopping c=anter. Also, the sigra height aaaaii be increased by 251. when the � ". . .sign's visual appeal' and overall design quality would be served. . .", The center will probably accom.aacd - at least 14 businesses and the need for the 'additional sign area appears to be justified. An additional 25% siren weight would allow a maximum height of 27.5 feet which is four feet lower than the proposed , sign height of 31.5 feet, The applicant also has not provided any justification for any additional. sign height. C. EIECISICUN The Planning Director approves SDR 0-66 sub,jsct to the following conditions: I UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF WILDING PE=RML T S. RO :SCE OF DECISION — SUR 6-05 PACE 5 .a 2. Street improvements including sidewalk. curer, streetlights, .. drivewaty $cC�°Ssa si�gna-liza+tion, signing, pavement marking, storm drainage ,and utilities shall be installed "aalong &Yeas SLS Papifi6 Highway frontage. Said nipro va?mahts along Sid"Pacific Hig y shall be builtto arterial st"ards and corefom to alignment ! approved by the city and State of Oregon. 3. Seven (7) sets of Plan-profile public improvmQnt construction plans and one (1) itemized con5tructiora cost estimate, *tamped by a Registered Professionml Civil 'Engineer, detailing all proposed public improvements shall be sukA itted to the Engineering Section for approval. 4. Sanitary sewer, and storm reser plan--profile details shall be provided as pari of the puolic improvement plans. 5. Construction of proposed public sanitary and storm seer relocation _ improvements shall not co=ence until after' the Engineering Section has isses'd .approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a I cA Per'fa rra.nce Sand, the payment of a permit fee and a 'sign i.nsralla'tian/street light fee. Also, the execution a street op ening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur `prier °o car concurrently with the issuance of approved public improveq"tent plans. SSE THE E�lC,t.OSED Y6�C�BDOUT GIVING SPECIFIC �i��?�Ri��7Tt�i� ��f�t�Elt��t�G FEE SCEC�!!4 E5 4 �CbIG AND ,6$S'sg cf'iNSS. 6. Documents shall be on City .fermis and approved by the Engineering Erection. DEDICATION EOR14S, ND IfiSYRUCTI S ARE ENCLOSED. >.. 7. 3ai .t use and maintenance ag eQmeirats shall be executed and recorded ore .City standard farrul� for, all coir-,ion driveways (if necessary).. Said agreements small be referenced on and become part of all applicable parcel €3ea*ds. Saki agreement shall be approved by the Engineering Sertioa7. JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT"FORMS ARE ENCLOSED. 8. The conditions of SL 6-65 shall. remain in affect. 9. A solid wood fence or masonry wall which in s fe yt in hizic3ht shall be installed along the property line where the subject property abuts the R-3.5 and R-4.5 zoning districts. Said fence shall be constructed prior to the issuance of building permits. LO. The landscaping plan shall be revised to meet Code 'ra=c3uiraaaia�nts for trees within parking areas. il. She location and method for noise reduction for the 14VAC'systems shall be approved by the Planning Director. 12. iF)e location cAnd design " of Lh'e bicy,:laa nark sgrra):)*y h:al ? t,,, reviewed and approved by the Planning'Director. iY ILoT1,1,1 of nF 4'V1 L N saDP 8 -06 PO GF +) 1 g proposed free– sign for the ;project shall. have a 20 � 13. The p po fro line and shall ,not exceed 22 foot setback from rase r�urst property per side, '€he aOpiicant shall feet in height and 135 square;' feet p obtain a sign permit prior tconstruction. 14. No deliveries or trash pick-up shall. occaar �t the ream of the project between tae hours of 10 PM and 6 AM. j 15: rcised within one year of the fir :l This approval is s3a1sd if exe decision date mated below. c E!. PROCEDURE 1. �4catice: Notice was published in the newspaper, Posted at Citi Hall and mailed to: i. XXX The applicant & owners XXX owners of record within the required distance XXX The affected Neighborhood plas+nisic; organization XXX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final_Decision: l U.N Ecc AM APPEALTME � Ea GISIGrSHALL BEE DIAL ON __ L 21. 1B�S_ � � IS FILED. 3. 8me—al .. Any party to the decisionany appeal this decisions in accordance wgth Sa=nction 18.3-7.29010) and Section ��.3't..�st) o� the a�3�� Develop-pent .Cade which provides that a 1,:ir�itten ap"tel filed with the 'CITY RECORDER within 10 days after notice is given and sent The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:31 P.101• APRIL 21,1986 4, qgestions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Miall, 12755 SW Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard Ore-gon 97223e 533-4171. a AREPA iw ei d9n senior PlpTper DATE William A. Monahan, Director of Planning & Development DATE APPROVED {KSL:bs235} M TICE OF DEC - SOR 0-86 PAGE 7 d' f:1 4 f t y 4 it E S t; - Fd —�i roat '~� :kms ti. ^� .�z-1�)1� .\V `\ ---t- -•—r �* ?M MA+"lDUE`t � 77, t f th (3 �Aprr'i '4> -6 or ;ani City sCodnci.l FIRM: acid jean., �Mty . d1ra:nis:t�^�taz ie ;Counc i Gal near 1l7 adate "Please 7:4t the €"�ryrar„ =Lcsreen .4d isuae or me 1cr�a�a :i`� Yn so +U;e canIbe :sura :om civarums ae CPO ,',04 'Mv.- (Annex�t=sov, a^ed !�#ri�an !9eY*u'ices r rDinner aMe tjrgq,'Uiiadh run2r�,f �ldhr t�_S�nuses7Gaeest :inu���ie�') 7 4 Mon alar fi@e t rad, =f3us. ness itrgenda - �I 1Mon Regular;Meeting, =Stud f�genda 4123et� Bo ramaar ts h p` or kahcip 4I :Sat jCouncx3 ' ra�.,i Y, '.�r�oY'Es.shsp 4`I_7 Sum ir�unc?=1 Trani nr 43:ar' hop is?agular Msetiin , �3u.siness Agenda 47 D 4eta Zur erfi;ald' Town Ma�li�. .�;€gteing 7'S ,"on R4gular 1,,A 'i:ng., zus mesa Ac�enda t m i -gular ip,ee`65Yrg, St y ,Agevida W12_47 �C-ivxc _Cnr,hte Dedlartion _dei 9k 574: "Mom 1Rggular Meetln !Susinass Agenda /'20 Tue Tax .Sass f�?:ectirom `5.:l2� ��crn ariet��ara;�l 'Tidy — r��c� �ra�c�t�inD f�7' 9tom eguiar Meetnes., Easiness ;H end& fiJ 6 an ,Ate_9xi7 ar V��et i r�c�., Stcc _y 'Agenda ci-a' 3 ,ran "Req aar nee4ing„ inusiines.s (Agenda _Sender 77`24. !�'On T3�c�c��.iAr: V Oe �� - �tutl� `fSe�z.sTom 7;7:u� g$�n Fc��s,�3:ar ,�eeti;r� - °Bcasi.ness ;'¢���svetia R d` x i t CN N ✓ �c+ +�-. � �D; ref >v +9'+ iJ'1 .a_ N -'1 L .m2. s l t1! M 'Y7 D ,[]' o o IIIII o e 'U m :� m_�r- !.•t .� h {{ "MTrlIc.'. 7 � ° '�-i.Li 't 'm; a � } a..,m:}-n ;in ' irr f..:� m e 4i. � O ?J 9 et :u"s C t -1 J-D R It �m T 13 �\ a i m In :m mI ;20 0! -5 a :3' IY 3 C)J r m C� .O Fin. y ro 9 It 'lJ rt OJ {a 3 Z a 7 Y N 27 m M !A, Zn et rJ �.9 17( J 1 O -+ m r a �e � a, i :5 ,ti v io min z; m .n tH7 ro W v A c a a 7? q,� n OEq D 9J _ 1S 'mom 7; ^� .0 �' +�r 7 h OIt rj 100 a I t n s rr i+a er j yC} �..M kY N Il9 im ,ib Y r r n r e w a 9J la 7 r .T -7 m 3 n t- i rs. R i-J _.B L7 I et r 1 O 9 a. 9 Q CCS m <. ID �� lrn 13 :7 c ', }`let of 0 �r mm��a 3 91 7. I It r w`}o ,� MO p-, Fo-",P-. su E. 0 10 4123',B:dmnsh E! it �4 2E-27 SCC SD G=;n ! N � �� '0 5/20 Tax'Bas Eleccio _a \� 1 ( { (� f, r r 1 - � : � IIIIIIiIfI1i : lI ; II ! r F fIf I I I I I I I I i I I I i III wIII L ul ! IIIIII! IiI. IIIIifl � IXII .p aqnj 9 L,� 4w cL 7 td d QY N d O a.., -A O Y .,Iv _QJ .n tYcu '- E so 14 s'7 J t: a M LA.wI G E7 - __7 O y J G F 'Y r L :O 251 3. hd dI 4 a. 3I -(U fK W d m tc G (1. L7 9t d 141 J L !> :V O .G d `.Gi 1 .�Ci .rj .r!d uq ssc N 1 re :m ea of .SS T rwc .e,. ..� I.. ,..-,.e ---.�.,I.—I -��,n.�M.��. yy �. w;, �.-r.e�•.N�-A7 wqt-fsbl..�s�'�._v4,9 ,2'A--+re 7 _4• Edi '� IIiI' I1III �� II = IiIIIII ! _Q Z.l �, � 1III! IIIIIIlI II I IIlII Ri`rtlsL;mp:,g.'ul4 e I I �i I ( ( I I I I i I I I 1 I I •ear Kms'• fj Nol,wp`ofc]I_'fAI O Sd-'p•I- CCI .}�-I I fe 41 oj 1-4 � � � � „ � •u -m Ii r, � N �,m � -:a .«, �;.0 a {""•" _ � 3� ,M ,zeta -. q^ - Q pper` tP » P'a •e•1 L7 's9 rP e�.•4 ` G � 11. a" C ': p 'cc O U 6 'Re F1 •. f$ PY ' C ' 6. Md P -•b - i(n L ,.r N .r V f6 "t•i tlt - taJ b .'; G W R?W P°6 •Cy J Gi a [[c i c1 P3 i� C3 4C 41 41 ,f8 n •.+ lC Rn fd l6 GAN iz co •�+ C 9 a ;a rP, 0. ui b 5 C„ c :t1P CPa s ++ PP1 ` 'o R .0 •ra. ..F-p» ' .. u m k• a .-P td •�., -.+ .G ,..0 lo ,ems 'OD ... - -.. -. :. � �-:.wc..+�eP..Pnl�.c `.+r.�.,cr..:r�.R'.Rx a+ .w��.. ..n .e•e�+; . s � � IIlI1ii ! Iill1ll ! ! I ! I hf � f �lflllillll ! ! lIIII � � II 'i � i � ! ! II ► II ! ! ! ! I ! �►w ! Ilfl Il I I Ii I ! I ! I iI �: I . IlIIl , I ! ! ! ! I ! ! I II ii :,,dt� as�� X�� �� � If ! ► � � ! iili � lllll � 'nIn cIlIII ! Ii � Ii � I !' ! 1lIf �1 �� dzgsuupig CZ/,7 _air I I I •!: i I I I. f f I;, 1 I, f f I ( i I D'S �� I fi ;Ill ! I1I ! ! ! ! I I Il II t 12. U I rs (µ .... ;.►� .p ,� •!. 'p ov ,:ra . rY �+ fl. cn Scr ¢r :.a s3. rn warpt - 3c A i CITY 0E TIGARD e OREGON COUNCIL AGENDAITEM 91tn?RY Ata Nth t3F: AGENDA l TES! BATE SEtf3 I't ED, March iA, 29 5 PREVIOUS ACTION' creation of IsSUEJPG* tA"TITLE. E3ts�^ore .Erta, _ utilitiesr� Trs� 62aseso� nitee t�3aauaa"'s t?� t� sg�r,nter+ant ToPREPARED 3Y: L37'-t'r: 9�i_son REUESTEi) Y: Gi r+ Coejrsci s �lt3 hies 6 Ft^�eachises Ctnne _ Q DEPARTMENT'HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTW 0R.��,. Pw`}3IG'r` ISSUE Sit the direction ofCouncil, March 1.0, 1996, sta + has prepared the attached raacslutaora to ; �pooi.nt-Phil Ed in as the Oat Large member to serve as the €'la.�+�+r°s representa'cive. This member will serve as � liaisan. bete?�r� the council and the ,stili ies .a. ad ' Franchises Cot�inittee and will report dirs°c�ly to the Mayor and Citys Council, The position will attvomati. ally terminate on ALT 3N iTI E�, C�l S10ERFD — SUGGESTED'4;Gi"ION {approve appointor--nt per Council-directive. lw/3723A CITY OF TIGARD,_0€kEG2N COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1 1 AGEWDA Off': Apr11_1�8'. 1966 AGENDA ITEM 1`!: i� A L7 'DATE'SUBMITTED A sril 143, '1906 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AC;«WATITLE: Buds et Coma, _ A 2cintmer,t PREPARED 3Y: Loree!n Wi ls0111 � REQUESTED BY: Bob Jean DEPARTMENT. HEAD OK* CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE The OAFS requires 5 Councilors and a citizens--at--large serve on the Budget Ctommittee 'foo, the City. INFORMATION SUtg4ARY OniMarch 25', 1985, the voters elected Carolyn Eadon to serve as a Tigard Councilor. Since .she was a. citizen-at-large member of the Budget Committee, she :i 11 rued to he replaced. Susar: Mueller was the second alternate at the last ;AppointmpntAdvisory Committee meeting. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the .attached resolution and appoint Susan Muellerto the unexpired term through 6/30/26. 2, Take. no .action at this time.and wait until, 6/30/86 to appoint someone to fill the vacancy, 3 SUGGESTED ACTION dation to approve Resolution (Alternate #1) ls�s/3�SaA CITY OF 11GAR_ D L OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUM.'GARY AGENDA OF: April 14, 39x6 AGENDA -ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: Aprii3'_3, 1986 � PREVIOUS ACTION: Sininq of Pr•nli.mi.nary !SSUEfAGENDA TITLE: Dartmouth LID ff4 Engineerin A r•eement in October, 1905 Ej,,a rseeri�r Contract (Fart I _ w_ PREPARED BY: Community Development REQUESTED BY: t DEPARTMENT HEAD OK- CITY ADMINISTRATOR 'POL.ZCY ISSUF_ TNFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a copy of the Dartmouth LID Engineering Agreement developed by Frank Currie and revised ;by staff. The total cost figure is $116,448 plus r construction inspection and special services. The current status of the LID is that it has been remanded by the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Approving the 'contract now uaill mean that engineering may begin without delay. ALTERN TI4lES GChNSIDERED 1. Approve the proposed contract. 2.. Approve a revise! contract. 3. Do nothing. SUG-GE:STED 'ACTION Staff recommends that Council approve;the proposed agreement. (24b3P) i s 1 _ t 1 �M-E&Lll �— _ 4i379 '31 r+ us i I am 4*IB - • 1 1 I � ✓✓✓117 � D Pill I]k . RT V L it; LIN N R3 lij If T3 3u i r*sc (p m x x \ � _1 CAI oil rat) Li A ia9 — v� 'vfi CITY- OF TIG00 >OREGON .r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEH SM1a Y Ate`?A €F: _AREil 14 1986 AGENDA ITEM �a ,� •< � �� °�`" a DATE SUB-MrTED. �April 41986 MEVIOUS ACTION: 5rgning ofPreliminary ISSUVAGENDA TITLE; 69th <Bastmeutt, Engineering Figreersent t3ctohes, 39x15 +�a''n��rinv ^ontr ct Part II) PREPARED BY. Community Develop:►pent REQUESTED BY. EF T S HES Olt. � � CITY INIS:�iBA.i R- POLICY ISSUE X�t�+L9ti'�492FIIiA'uC0'1®'��ffil4iSS'ie•LR583t.CQSY.�fffiffiSM3E°..m'LY9EIaG8ppP-0�• Pv��lqq��9jHqq!qqT.3PLee3yyyL"6yp9/YPgqI9��2gqRT3�qq1��TiS6�CS1M+(:jtl[�iBC1W�tr8ff9T`Lt5@3YS3�43$84t�IISEB$6�ff3N4ffi6ARffi1q SaS `. Per the direction of the City Attorney, attached is an engineering services contract for the portion of the Dartmouth Street project identified` by 'the Appeals' Court as fallingoutsidethe limits of the LID. Except for _parts of the first two pages, the contract is identical to the Dartmouth LID contract. he amount of the contract is $2,374 plus construction inspection and special services. 'ffi@RY�FStai3[iffiSiA4��M�.�WE��i136EE�i if¢�6ffi3:i1!•40mIR{C9ffiS9CREii�3RdtlY33LS1'S.':f8491�®18H�ffi'S]PiLXgTC]S���Sa96 13a3�BIIS366�i4t0 Yt lfi�fiffilU iiYld'95 3. Approve the proposed contract. 2. Direct staff to modify and resubmit contract. 3. Do nothing. i r, 4 �_,= twssQaa��m�ax�Re>n�nnmu��w�sa�xnais�ea�mxe�uman-aaucaeaasmrn�ausazrsanra�mx�s.-xn:s:ecv�rsrart»sasr2mc�,emas�examas�eeemmvs.aaomx�m SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed agreement. - aj ik i L- — �Al IN rib \• � I �-�_�_ - i 4- '3,-�+J ' �� � ' 1 � � --�_ wIF xY t , yAtl - '` f aw MXj— U .x d a ms 14 I _ d1p , ' S k CITY flF IGf§RD, OREGON ; y (' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SQ-!2 ARY AGENDA OF: 4/14/86 AGENDA ITEM �#: � 1Z DATE SUBMII`TED: 4/x/86 :PREVIOUS ACTION- N/A ISSUE/AGEWDA TITLE: Crusin Tigard Fas2rr_L_– ul: _, 1986 Dari$PREPARED BY:. RRartic� s; REQUESTED BY: Dui i�lE�trtic� _ „. (:il``t ADMIJISTRfT�JR: — D£PARfi ENT HEAD OK' POLICY ISSUE Y The City has allowed Crusin Tigard and other non–profit group activities to be covered on theirliability Policy- INFORMATION SUMMARY A request has been received from Crusin Tigard Committee for liability c insurance coverage to be added to the City's policy to coder this one--day event. The activities are similar to last year and are as follows: o parade 9:00 – 1-.00 A.M. – Start at McDonald and 999 – down 999 to SW Main � st. and disband. o Beer Garden – Night -- Tech parking lot – SSI Ash (gay – Somewhere an SW Main - (exact location not determined) They are 'getting permit, GLCC approval and proper security. (Working with Liz Newton at Community Development) o Car registration same as last year. o Crusin Tigard will pay for cost of additional coverage. Commitee will make presentation to -Council on April 14, 1986 and follow--cap report in July 1926. £RkA T I�vES CONSItg-R.ED 1. Approve request 2. Deny request 3. After April 1.4, 1906 Committee presentation consider request. SUGCR~STED ACTION i§otion to approve addition of liability rider to City's Policy and Crusin _> Tigard to pay for additional. expense. CRei:gym/1�Tt�r Y CIT'Y`' OF TIGARD 'OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF: A�rril 1 1�3Bce AGENDA ITEM _ DATE SUBMITTED. Aril 3 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: lisOn3lE ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: tSreement with ODOT for Hall/McDonald Traffic PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts omm. Dev. Si nal REQUESTED BY: _ DEPARTMENT HEAD Ott ~ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE k INEORna.TION 5UMARX tt 1 Attached is a proposed agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation covering the responsibilities for providing a traffic signal and turn lane at the intersection of Flab Blvd. (Beaverton/Tualatin Hwy;.) and McDonald Street.' The City's contribution is Yim.1tad to $25,O00. The balance of the funds will come from Federal Title Two Hazard El=imination Funds ($1.30,Ooo) and from ODOT ($25,000). The City Attorney's office and thp- Engineering Division have reviewed and approved the agreement. Also attached is a proposed resolution, requested by ODOT, authorizing execution of the agreement. ALTERNATTVES CONSIDERED 1.. Approve agreement and pass resolution. 2. Alter agreement and/or resolution. 3. Reject both. SUGGEST s D ACTIO St-aff recommends approval. of the agreement and adoption ai the 'rlesolutWn as written. - DR:bs225 z . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON r- COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: April 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBM117ED: April 8, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Declare — Library Surplus/Refuse Material PREPARED 6Y: Loreen Wilson 1gJ—. REQUESTED 3Y: Irene Ertell DEPARTMENT MEAD OK: ^_ �� - CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE Council policyis to declare City equipment and supplies st.rplus prior to auction or purge from the City books, imFogm rIom SUW AP.Y There are six ;pieces of overstuffed furniture, one couch and five sectional couch pieces, which were donated to the Library over the last %nine years. These pieces are heavily ;soiled, torn, and/or in general disrepair, making then unsuitable for use in the new facility or for auction. The professional ! movers have expressed concern in working around these large ;pieces during the move to the new facility. it will slow things dowr, and be a source for injury. The wooden shelving which rentains as surplus, after all city departments have chosen what they can use in the new facility, consists of crude lumber and poor construction. Most shelves are nailed to the floors and/or walls and will need to be broken down to be moved. Much will possibly splinter and break. I-do not believe it is worth the extra -cost which would be involved in storage nor would these casts be redeemed at auction. Therefore, I request that these pieces be declared of no—value and that they be disposed of by donation to a non—profit group or as refuse. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. R?prove resolution attached declaring material of no—valve and authorizing donation to a non-profit organization or disposal as refuse. 2. Retain pieces for auction. SUGGESTED ACTION ( Approve resolution attached declaring _material of no—value and authorizing donation to a'nein-profit organization or disposal as refuse. lw/3585A t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGEIV`�JA ITEMSETriARY AGENDA OF: April 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM ,#: DATE SUBMITTED: April 3, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION:, ISSUEAGENDA TITLE:Training Request "A" Level Inspectors, Building Div. PREPARED BY: Ed Walden - REQUESTED BY: f DE'PARD1ENT HEAD OK: ( '�� ` CITY ADMINISTRATOR.: POLICY ISSUE The Council wishes to review and approve any training requests of $100 or more. C5CY3JR�FS,Z4CS&SSm�.�C�13�'^..L 55����TSS�wZGis��...«^tA5^.ew�55�.—�.«3t�•�5^�.-.��3®Si333S8 i5f.'ttaQ,'35�.T..�y'CS 3C�(&LIJYIDMSi�� INFORMATION SU"t Y •= Effective 1/l/85, 814-03-025 Dept. of Commerce requirements for all Building Inspectors: Shall have mi.rimum of 6 hours actual, of continuing education of an approved course each calendar year to maintain certification as inspectors. Both Brad Roast and Tom Plescher are "A" Level Inspectors and need to maintain their certifications. The course offered by Mr. Nicoli will accomplish this Purpose. The cost is $100 for each student. L9ZftLS�1.`l FQSER34SlYY�t56m«Y i1RffiSE LiSIY[.tC��.^.'3�.�M4�[5S�S'3Y..^�59�Y1�5�1^m SCSI.—,.C�5e5pt.—..SCSL",.SmLRSd�.�':�PSS 114ffiffi�ffi 6f Y9 S's . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED l Approve the training request. 2• Deny the request and authorize the staff to find a suitable replacement a course. 3. Deny the request. t SUGGESTED ACTION Staff suggests that 'tile City Council approve therreque �t for'this 'training for both ,Brad Roast and Tom Ple,-cher.' F77 CHAPTER 814, DIVISION 3 - DEPARTMENT OF COdITv4ERCe xk DIVISION 3 Pe�ctice of Engineering 81"3-913 IDC 24-197$,f&:cf 9-1-7$: 1Z£1aled by DC 10.19$0,t do of.9-1(?-$01 4 . CERTIFICATION FOR BUILDING OFFICIALS,PLANS EXA1t+YINERS. t R2vacst6ort or cSc:sperE$ioai €„ STFUCII'URAL IINSPEC"TOM $14-03-020 JDC 24-1978,f&cf MECHANICAL INSPECTORS AND tx�Io-Icf 4 10-80; �.. MOBILE HOME INSTALLATION Ruled by DC 4-1983,f&cf. 1••12-531 INSPECTORS — e Purpose and s©fie Continuing Education �. 814-03-000 Thcsc rules are to promote effective and 814-03-025 (1)To maintain ccrgi47catis�n.building offi- ;:f unifo-m enforcement of the state building code by improving cials, plans ez2ruiners, and inspectors shall demonstrate � the competence of building officials, plan s`examiners and continuum,education in their`panicul�r fields by attending �t Divi- inspectors.These rules establish:reasonable minimum train- ing and experience standards: a procedure to determine cion: 4n approved course is one which has been reviewed whether a person meets minimum training and experience (2) standards:'classifications ofbuilding officials and inspectors; by the Building Codes Division as to course content.objcc- ;cettification of building of icia procedure for cluecc- Is grid rives, scope, evaluation method, and instructor. To be M incl!ectorsand the requirement for an examination of build- a erovcc3: - • , irg officials and inspectors that will demonstrate their A ascn}tuon o the course sna r.suorr ittt tot e knowledge of laws governing access to buildings for Division an a form provided by the Division. handicapped persons- he con enc of a general continuing education course �` St�t.Aush.:C,xSCh, is6 shall be relevant to thf adr3ninisYratioru,inspection,or plans , itis..:tC 24-1478•f. &of 9-1-78;IYC 00.1950,f.&a.9-ID-90,DC examination functions of a Code enforcement agency. 4.19$3,f.&'ef. E-1283 (c)The content of a code ch„-ngcs course shall include � changes to the model code phis Oregon amendments. (d)The instructional time Alia ted shall be appropt;ate Definitions to the scope of the course, 814,(13-002 Ims�ctor.as defined in pest rs and is (c)The text of self-study type cotirsss shall be submitted construed'to include specialty code inspectors an l piers- for review, examiners. In rbcs; riles, the term inspector also includes (f) An evaluation shall be required to ensure that the mobile horns✓ installation inspectors certified Ender the course objectives have been:net. provisions of ORB 446.250(1)and these rules. (g) The instructor of the course shall be recognized in ' SUlL Auih.:0FtS Cit.446&4 6 accordance with section(3)of this rule. Mut.;DCa-1993.f&eL 1.12-83 (3) Instructor recognition is limited to specific courses. Requests for recognition shall be submitted to the Division Certification Etequises9/Revocation on a form provided by the Div cion.To be recognized as an 814-03-005 (1) No person shall be appointed or instructor for continuing education .nurses, the instructor employed as a building official,plans examiner,or structural shall be: e or mechanical inspector or mobile_home installation inspec- (a) Recognized by a university, coll£;e or community for by any municipality unless that person is certified or college for classroom teaching of the specific course, or registered under the provisions of these rules and the cer- similar courscs.at the educational institution;or iificationhas not lapsed or been revoked. (b) Generally recognized by virtme of license, ccnifica- (2)No building ofTicialshall Perform aremployordircct tion, degree, experience or recommendation of a trade or another person to perform any inspections under the State professional association, as having expertise in the sul iect Building Codes unless the pcs•son performing the inspection matter of the specific course.' has the appropriate type and level of eertiflration for the (4)Continuing education requirements shall be as fol work being inspected. Violation of this provision shall be lows: cause for revocationof the certification of the building (a) Building Officials: By December 31 of every odd- official under®RS 456.834(1). numbered year, a certified building official shall attend an (3) A certifiable individual may los employed by a approved course or seminar covering relevant law changes of jurisdiction for training in code enforcement poor-to Cer- the most recent regular legislative session. tification for a period of time not to exceed ninety( 0)days. (b)inspectors and Plants Examiners: Sul.Auth.:CORS Ch.456 (A) Beginning January t, 1985, and in each calendar lairs.:tjC 28-1978. [6 cf.9.1.95:DC it3-1980,f.&ef.9.10-00:DC year thereafter, inspectors and pians examiners shall attend 4-1983.f a cf.1.12.53 one or more appru ped continuing education coarses or seminars, totalling at least 6 hours of actual instruction. Liip�its z n 1t3unirip ilisies Successful completion of approved self-study courses may be 814.0-010 (DC:24-1978,f.d cf. 9-1.78; substituted for course atiendanec. Continuing education DC IQ 1980,f,4c ef.`9-10 50; rcquirerncnts shall be Waived for tho calendar year in which Repealed by DC 4-1983,f.& of 1-12-831 an inspector or plans examiner is initially certified. 1 . Div. 3 (April, 1985) a _ .. _ CITYOE TTt-A U,. OREGOT�3 COt{NCIL AGENDA ITEM S€3fflARY AGENDA OF: �rii 14, i_$� AGENDA ITEM DINE St;9t�3ITfED: 1 9, 1916 pREV•LOUS ACTION: — i!SSUE:/AGE€ DA TITLE: �raining � t�e�E c_ st For �2es:r�c e PREPARED SY: Loreen Milson REQUESTED BY: Lorean -Wilson__T�� DEPARTMENT HEAD OK. CITY A9 i�i'1181TSi R4 Ti3 : .. RoLTCY IS$t3E Council has requested to review Rnd approve any training requests which exceed $100. INFORM,�l O t il° AdY ,� Deputy Recorder has current,..? fulfilled all requiretttents; for , .TIMC (lnterrtatiortal :Institute of Municipal Clerks'} Certification e�cce;�L for me last week oschooling at the University of Washington. This has been a 'three f year pr ograr:t. l�. r _ The Oregon City Recorders Association has a scholarship ps•oSr•�.m available to assist O F2€?cari��r, to attend if_ budgeted funds are limited or tanavailable. assistat knowing, whetoher the Tax Base-will be approved in May, this budgeted line item ow he ned to -fund training needs for next fiscal year also A8_TE�CNATTVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve -training request, authorize time for attendance, and expenditure of City'.funds. Approve training requestand authorize time for attendance with the 2. condition that funding cote from another source. a. Derry,the request SuggE Staff would recoumend alternative #2. 1w 35655 i 3 - 3 CITYOF TIGARD, RREGON COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUt%1ARY AGENDA OF: April 14, 19£6` AGENDA ITES"! DATE SUBMITTED: aril 14. 19Sfs PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Training Rea�uest For Court Clerk _ PREPARED 6Y: Loreen Wilson REQUESTED BY: Loreen Winson DEPARTMENT HEAD 'OR- �L,.� CITY ADMINISTRATOR. : POLrCY ISSUE Council has requested to review and approve any training requqsts which exceed L FORMiA ON SL�;�ARY The MunicipalCourt currently hetes t,,va full' time clerks. One clerk, Colleen Asp has never attended an OACA Conference (Oregon Association of Court' Administrators). Thee conferences are the only place to receive training for municipal'- court personnel and have proved valuable in the ;east.; The total l conference fp 'a�, be approximately '$175.40 Pthis is -estimating ,mileage for vehicle reimbursement to ,Eugene),. Alno on the training form is 'a $20 +ne:aabership 'Tee for 1956 for Colleen Asp. Budgeted Bands are <available for• this training. --------.--- ALTERNIATIVES C0NrsKD R-ED' 1. 1 Approve training request, authorize time for attendance, and expenditure of, City funds. 2. Deny the request. b SUGGESTED ACT1ON Staff would recotmitiand alternative ft. L�►135S5A CITY "fD£ TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGE?4DA—TTEM -CUMMARY AGENDA OF: anril 1.4 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATESUBMITTED: Aril :3 19q§ PREVIOUS ACTION' ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: r1c__cep!xnr� eof street Deaacation and Permanent — PREPARED BY: Randy Clamp San. Sewar Easement from Dick Kadel REQUESTED BY. Dick Kadel & Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD 01(: �`s°`J/` 1 CITY ADMIN xSTRATUTi: POLICY ISSUE -- - INFORz'IATIO'! SUMMARY Dick Kadel is devel.oping property on SW Greenwurg Road, just; north of Ash' Creek, into an Auto Service Center. Dick received a conditional. approval through she Site Development Review process Two conditions <of approval` were the dedication of addition right-of--way on SW Greenberg Road ,and granting of a permanent Sanitary Sewer easement. Attached are the proper execrated documents for your acceptance. ` ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SjUGGESTED ACTION The Engineering Division recommends that Council. accept this Street Dedication x and Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement from Dick Kadel. RSC:bs222 f a� tT + 'ON J _ i �.•` \ s: 1 I SWARF CRESCENT GROVE �ry-! Leiwleu � s 1 I — PALL CEMETARY== = 1 26 ' #a aua+uc44 34 35 _ 3 O ! tip 4N DAKOTA # n W.M •_�. \ \�r WOWTN i. I O34FEET A O Ate_ ILF n R f 71 —j-'YW KAT,W.RPE 4T �. �4 ` \•�'K�...._1 1=.�f � � ��,,�1..I �,,�/%/`J ono^�• t. :FP7.'L4PZ 3'4 2 � AINlO'R f �`••..,� / Mom SCHOOL 'L� a4,.ice. d•.. ,¢ �D2tiU"'� 1 �•! �/ `�7\ a �s� LIs -sok. f •J f %.:l/ :•`.��� �.�`. IlEMCL.L, @T f.••+.A"�` ��,,p f :/. /.. 'f �+ ./. t/-.�� 41 %' r` / � }�,��ar I.__f------ T__TT / �` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 4I14/86 AGENDA ITEM DATE SU8MI1-TED: / f$ PREVIOUS ACTION: Site Design ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Accept Review_Approved_by City Compliance Aclreement for "Davidson PREPARED BY: John �agma.n -� Storm Sewer Relocation" REQUESTED BY: Comm: Dev. Dept._ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION `SUMMARY 1. The proposed storm sewer relocation work site is located at S.W. walnut Place, adjaceti3t' to 5.47. Pacific Highway and is to be done in conjunction with half street and other, on--site construction work (Car Lash Oil Can Henry's development). 2. The attached Compliance Agreement,has been submitted by the di vfloper, as required 'by ,the City, to assure completion of the storm sewer relocation work; the developer has posted a bond,. in the -form of cash, already. 3. Construction plans have been issued subject to Council acceptance of this Compliriince Agreement. All necessary fees have been paid. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED M SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize the Mayor .and City Recorder to execute the stogy sewer Compl'ianre Agreement for Davidson Storm Sesser Relocation work in behalf of the City. CITY OF TIGARD, 0REg0—N K COUNCIL AGEND_�.AITEFI SUt"iP1A€iY AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED, aril 3 PREVIOUS ACTIONS: ` ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resoluta.on conditional'ly access�tknc Da��idsan PREPARED 3'a Sohn' H mar: ?Ets�UESTED BY: Cosnmuni.t�+ Des+. Deft. �. Storm Seuser & t--___ _pa_ s release of the bond CITY ADM't4ISTRATOR: DEPA tTT�ENT "HEAD 01(: �_ - —-- - POLICY ISSUE -__INFORijt'TIOT SUF'�MARY r place south of 1. The project is loeast of Sine bpJSW aansement of�an existing tormpcific sewer Li.ghajay. It consisted of rel.pcati.rig g line. 2. Construction has progressed satisfactorily and, subsequently, the developer, Mr. Davidson, has requesfed �ormas�cef guarantee a portion oamountprbeing guarantee monies, the original per $7,750.00 and the -required maintenance guarantee obligation being $1,550,00. S, Subsequently, staff hereby certifies that the project sewer work is ready for be accepted by council, subject to the normal one year guarantee period, and that release of $6,200.00 is aPPropriate. AL.T_E g ATIVF_S CONSIDERED SUGGESTED AC-'_T_OE isi i�FiSS_TFI k�E OLl1TI0P`_ d f TLEf�: "Resolution of the Tigard City Council. accepting PASS public storm sealer improvements known as the Davidson Storm Sewer Relocation, subject to a'one year guarantee }aerial. (, JH:bs221 CITY OF TIGARD,, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUVMARY AGENDA OF: �" � �� - AGENDA ITES°! DATE SUBMITTED: 3-17-86 PREVIOUS ACTION: Nona ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acsaspt:an,_q the Subdivision_Com la.arcereei;aent PREPARED BY: John Hag;-Aan h3 T. � ^— Project Bond for Morning Hill. 94 REQUESTED BY: _P_erij Development DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: (�'�r' CITY ADMINISTRATOR'< POLICY 'ISSUE INFORMATION SUKAARY This is the fourths Phase of this Project. It;-s located on the Northwest side of Bellwood III and on .the ,Northeast side of Morning Hill T. There will be 35 single family lots within this Phase. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Suggested action is that the City Council. accept theSu4diuisiors Compliance Agreement and Bond, no M. k e. '1 iUFJNl:Et11 ER �,,.,-�-°mss>/Y•_���J ,�'"A,Q� ��I��jj `` G�� ¢Cp7 S�.xA�KS B�AFO sy ~ _ s I N smsraesr n.� 1 f SSH4lE0 EST �_ A a.w.M[FKc C 1 �•--.1���.�r n<ET 11e v9 44T_ � 1 of �, {_JI,LL H I 44 COU�!CIL FSv N0-1TE-SSU �RY ' AGENDA ITEM M: e - AGENDA OF: A�rx1?nth, 1986 � DATE SUBMITTED: aril 3 1ge�____86 ___ PREVIOUS ACTION: Como artce Agreement on (2918 1SSUEiAGENDA TITLE_: Resolution or' & Bond Acce eteci b�� Counci.l : Park II_ PREPARE? BY• 7ghn H- -reap, , : --- Conditional Acce'�L n`cS-2 ndd �. REQUESTED BY: ; Com:slunit x-Dev. Dem• CITY ADMINISTRATOR + a T — DEPARTMENT MAD Oh - - �POLICY IaSUE` JNFQRMT10SUM'S--A�Y 1. The subdivision is located on the west side of SW 79th Avenue, north of SW Durham Road. k items which anormally equired to 2. All Pu improva�mer°t r1rsfruction develripire t, have been completed, be installed at thisstage �incomplate , itemsbring 'listed on the att�chEsc resolution. nal indicated his desire re fog econtinue �they ting so 3, The developer has andeffectthroughout the Surety perfortaarlcP bend completion—guarantee period, in lieu of submitting a separate bond. 4. It is recommended than the Council accept the Project subject to the iters listed on said resolution. SUGGESTED ACTIOP,I ty ot PASS THE RESOLUTION�TITLE cor°stru t"Resolution t!ith ir��Q d gParkC1�S Z1o. C I1'c s,h4ivision. the public improv mans subject to specified conditions." 3N:bsZ18 CITY OF Te.GARD OREGON COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF: Aril 14th., 1985 AGENDA ITEM ¢: DATE SUBMITTED: April. 3, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Cons li ace A_g eeman ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of & BondAcce,ted by G'oUncil on 2/15185_ Conditional Acceptance = Bond Park PREPARE© BY: John Ha=, rman � III Subdi. REQUESTED BY: Community Dev. Dent. visiun { DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY EtDMINISTRA T OR: - POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMARY � i. -rhe subdivision is located west of Bond Parc No. YI: (i.e. west of SCJ 79th Avenue and north of SW Durham Road). 2. All Public improvement construction items which are normally required to be installed at .this state of development, have been completed; incomplete items being listed on the attached resolution. n indicated his desire to continue the �. The developer has, as is his option, existing Personal. Surety Performance Bond in full force and effect throughout the completion--guarantee period in lieu of submitting a separate (reduced) bond. 4. Subsequently, it is recommended that the Council accept the project work subject to the items listed on said resolution. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - SUGGESTED ACTION PASS THE RESOLUTION TITLED; "Resolution of the Tigard City Councll. accepting the 'public improvements constructed within Bond Park No. III subdivision, subject to specified conditions." �: 3 CITY QF TIGARQ `OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEP9 SUWARY ^� t AGENDA OF: April 11th, 1956 AGENDA ITEM fi: DATE SUBMITTED. A2il 3, 1 86 PREVIOUS ACTION: Placed on maintennanc� ISSUE/AGENDA 'T'ITLE: Resolutzan Guarantee Period 'on_S 2Z/80 C Acce�ting ►3elle�aod IIS Subdivision PREPARED 9Y: John Maa�masl___�-� REQUESTED BY: Communis Qev. Dept._______ DEPARTMENT HEAD aK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE k INFORMATION SUMARY` 1. rGellwood III Subdivision is located north of SW Walnut Street at the terminus of SW 129th Avenue.; 2. All public improvements have been, satisfactorily completed and the project k has satisfactorily passed the one -year maintenance guarantee period. 3, Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council. accept the public improvements, for City operation and maintenance responsibility, and authorize release of the guarantee bond ALTERNATIVES CaNSI.EIEREQ SdiG�E STEQ AC"Q_O PP SS l'1iv R 8C3i_ISTI(}�d TITLE: "A resolution accepting public_ improvements k�kuu�c� _-_ _ as Bellwood` No. III Subdivisionpublic improvements." �. 7N:bsZl ! t f `i 4 11109 _ h iCO 3I GI r {p.\� �� � f\�•----- "�,�S*` •r + it - r SW, MARIE C T. (gyp}01 { ° hh J di �tl=. 1 tJ r.�V ci le 111=10 f 30,CO G 6010 44 i { 701 _ IR ICR 75 M / t .SG7�E�S�. >: 3r?zao'r 1100 GG n. mer^ aa'3n•w I �-XJ S 3 GG v ifs 4 ;a a c, l�.. I.. 12.5,PE Rig. 2 L� 4 ..�`;'_ ,N8$° 22.'E, 40 :t ("10 10 1 3800 30 A -30 4r 1 3502 i :.ii 0 u �s ,;fid arc f '6115pp � i { I City of Tigard ` S. !, Walnut SG. Sealer L .D. Easement No.�� Lott Bellwood T/L 1400 ZS-1-4 Ate . MMx Tl'`t OF TIGARD OREG'3f� f COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGEMA OF: Apra 1 14-, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: April �ti1� 19866 PREVIOUS ACTION: NONE ISSUE/AGEMDA TITLE, Paan Lawn Est. No. 2_ Sib. Compliance Agmement & PREPARED BY: Community L;ev, tr:2ptl ___ Performance Band authorize Mayor & Recorder- to execrate in City's behalf REQUESTED BY: John €acoria. DEPARTMENT' HEAD OK: � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE a INFORMATION SMIARY 1. The purposed "Pen Lawn Estates No. 2tl1 subdivision; is located South of Std Springwood Drive at SW 115th Avenue.' The preliminary plat has been approved by the City. 2. The attached Subdivision Compliance Agreement and Letter of Commitment Performance Bond his beesubmitted by the developer, as is required by the City, to assure completion of installation of all public facilities within the proposed subdivision. 3. Construction plans are ready to be issued and all required , public improvement fee's have been paid. Issuance of said plans is pending Council action (ins is suggested below). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED _ SUGGESTED ACTION Authorize tho Mayor~ and City Recorder~ to execute the Subdivision Compliance { Agreement for Penn Lawn Estates No. 2 in behalf of the City' and, also, accept the Letter of Commitment Performance Bond therefor. 3FL:'bs226 CITY OF'_lIGARD. OR�(��1i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SOMA dY AGENDA OF: tmil 14 1986 AGENDA ITEM €f: DARE SUBMITTED: 3/20/66 PREVIOUS ACTIONN.A. - ISSIUVAGEROA 4a=LE: -- Civic Center — - -- Reception - May 13, 19£16 PREPARED SY D. i3artig _ REQUESTED 0Y: Q. liartig DEPARTV,0 T HEP BSK; CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE The City has allowed special noa-profit groups to be named on their liability policy for specific dates for community events. INFORMATION SE.°MARY ' A,request has been received from Tigard Arts anal Gifts Committee (T.A.G.) for liability insurance coverage to"be added to the city's policy to copper the Arts and Gifts Reception to be held the evening of May 13, 1936. This is a one time 'only;event and is pert of the Civic Center dedication activities. ; e The insurance carrier has O.K.'d the addition of the rider for TAG and the charge is approximately $50.00. TAG will taste care of this expense AL'T'ERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the request, 2. Deny the request,, r Council. action requested is approval of the endorsement for that evening. i ,n..' Tigard Arts & Gifts Co�mi.ttee FO &�x X3086 - Tigard, DR 97223 Private -Non Corp, Filed 50103 tax 'exempt status Coverage for named officers and key organizers �.N Tom Brian - C17jairrran `., Joene Brian, Secretary - Treasurer Sydney Hieb - &>ard Director - charge of printing Nancy Carrpbell - charge of auction Floyd Bergmann - food Ron Royce Music Gregg Davidson - auctioneer Tag will pay for premi.Lun - approx $50.00 TAG requested coverage under city liability policy K. IN s CITY OF TIG€#RD, OREGON COUNCIL 'AGEN'DA ITEM SUMMARY {` AGENDA OF: April 14,. 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE 5UOMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION: City Council Approared a ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sign For L.es One Year [conation of Maintenance 3/24/86 'lathers of Grounds Maintenance of PREPARED BY: Elizabeth A. Newton --A. - Oregon REQUESTED BY: Les Mathers _ ✓� — . DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: p CITY ADMINISTRATOR: k oo POLICY ISSUE- Should the City Council allow a temporary sign at Liberty nark to identify tFae company donatwing one year of park maintenance service to the City INFORMATION SUMMhRY r On fiarch 24, 1906, the City Council approved a proposal submitted by i Les ('lathers of Grounds Maintenance of Oregon to donate landscape maintenzin-ce services for one year to maintain Liberty Park and the, small park at; the south end of Main Street. Biased ora that approval, Grounds Maintenance of Oregon has commenced work and a roticaale improvement has been observed at both Liberty . Park :and the Park at the south end of Main Street,' a copy of ' the information submitted by Air. Mathers is attached), at the (larch 24, 1986 meeting, the � Council dad not address the sign requested by Mr. Mathers. Attached is a memo from the Planning Staff which outlines the staf=f's recommendation on the nigra. �- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the sign request as submitted by Mr. Mathers. � 2. Approve the sign with modifications recommended by staff. 3. Approve the ;sign as modified by City Council at the April 1 19136 k meeting. 4. Deny the request for a sign. r SUGGESTED ACTION Approve Mr. Mather's request for a sign with modifications as proposed by 4 staff, The sign shall not exceed 2' 3" by h' ti", shall be on 4" x 41' pressure ' treated posts which are no more than 6" high. The sign shall measure no more than 2' 9" from the ground to the top of the sign. The sign shall he wood with the copy painted ,on ona side only. The sign shall be located as shown on ' the attached drawing. k- (2449P) f Mt_�ORAf�fJUNt CITY OF 'TIGARD, OREGON " TO: City Council April 9, 1986 FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Grounds Maintenance of Oregon Request for Sign on SW Main Street On March 24, 1986, the City CoLjncil approved a request submitted by Les Mathe-s of Grounds Maintenance of Oregon :to donate ,landscape maintenance services for one year to maintain Liberty Park and the small park at the south end of Main Street. Mr. Mathers also requested that he be allowed to install a sign at Liberty Park that indicates'that Grounds Maintenance of Oregon is donating ,maintenance services. City Council did not: take action on the sign request oil March 24, 1966. The size of the sign proposed is 2' S" 'ft, x. 4 ft.' on 24" high 4" x Al" Posts, Chapter 18.114 of the Community :development code sets for the requirements for sic�;as. Signs of this type are not specifically addressed in Chapter 18.13.4 howevar•, the following type of signs do not require a sign permit but must conform to all. other requirements contained in Chapter 18.114. (1) 'Signs advertising exclusively the sale, rental or lease of - premises on which the signs are located; (2) Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and dates of erection, if either cut into any masonry surface or constructed of bronze or other incombustible material; (3) Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor and similar information ,concerning a subdivision or development and placed on the construction site; (4) Signs denoting one - Ame clearance sales of household goods (e.g. a garage sale); (5) Sims promoting or oppusing a -candidate or measure in a specific elQction; (6)' Ideological sign;; (7) Signs of temporary nature advertising events or products for sales for nonprofit orxjniz�ations, ------------ (s) Nothing in this title shall prevent the erection, location, or construction of signs on private property where such erection, construction, or location is required by any law or ordinance nor shall any public agency or utility be prohibited from erecting signs on private property ,when otherwise permitted. (g); Mothing in this title shall prevent the erection, location or construction of directional or instructional signs : on private property when such signs are solely designed to direct or to guide or to instruct pedestrians or vehicular traffic while on the parcel of real' property on which the signs are located, No sign permit or fee shall be required for such signs. (b)' All signs exempt from permit requirements under subsection (a) above shall meet the following requirements: (1) she sign shall be erected on private property with the consent of the lawfu possessor of the property and shall not be placed on utility poles or in the public right—of-May (2) The total arca of 'signage per parcel shall. not exceed 6 square feet in single family residential, 12 square feet in multifamily zones, 15 square feet in C--N zoning districts and 70 square feet in other zoning districts, regardless of the number of signs; (3) At lease one sign shall be permitted per parcel of land'; additional signs on such parcel shall be spaced, at least 50 ~ feet apart in residential zoning distk i.cts and 30 f•ect apart in nonresidential zoning districts. (c) Signs exempt from permit requirement under subsection (a)(1) and (3-5) shall be removed within 10 days from the end of the event � displayed. Mr. E`3athers has donated his services to maintain Liberty Park and the park at � the south end of Main Street for one year. The request for the sign is for one year as well. section 19.114.100 does not authorize the Director to issue temporary signs for any period exceeding sixty days The required' conditions for<a temporary sign are as follows: (c) Rggliired Conditions. Applicants for temporary sign permits shall submit such evidence as may be required -to enable ti-le Director to determine that one or more of the following conditions exists: (1) The need for the temporary sign is the direct result of a casualty loss; (2) The applicant has lost leasehold occupancy rights; (3) The need fora temporary sign' is to bring to 'thy attention of the public a special sale, a special service, or a { special event which is compatible_with the business; (4), Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as follows: (A) The total number of temporary signs shall not exceed 4 for any one business at any one period of time. (B) The total area of one sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. (C) See definition 18.114.015 (c) (42) (TEMPORARY SIGNS) for type approved. (0) Location "shall be as approved ,by Building Official. Signs clutter, blanketing, and shabby appearances of signs shall. be 'avoided. (i) Foundation inspections shall be made after all required excavations, form work, bolt settings are completed and ready to receive concrete. (ii.) All. .anchorages shall be left exposed ; for inspection. (iii) Electrical inspection shall be made by the agency issuing electrical permits. (iv) Final Inspections. Final inspections shall be called for by the applicant when all work is completed. This inspection shall -cover all iters required by the Building Official under State law or 'City ordinance such as the locations, landscaping if required and general compliance with the approved plans and requirements of this 'title. The purpose of the siren proposed by Mr. Mathers is to bring attention to a special service being ,provided by Mr. Mathers. Recognition of performance by volunteers at no cost to the City ' could be beneficial to the City. Mr. Mathers' donation anti recognition of his service to the community may encourage other businesses to donate services to the City. Enough participatwonand recognition of volunteer efforts by business and individual citizens could even result in an "Adopt-A--Park" program using volunteer � efforts. Mr. Mathers is proposing to install one sign only which would be located at Liberty Park. The sign will be 9 square feet, wood with copy painted on one side only. There will be no electrical elements to the sign.' The sign as proposed by Mr. Mathers meets the conditions set forth for Temporary Signs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approue` fir•. Mathers' request for at sign with only one modification. The sign shall not exceed 9 square feet, shall: measure 4' 0" x 2' 3P1 shall be 'placed an 4" x 4" posts ,6" high, The sign shall be wood with copy painted on one side only. The sign shall be removed - ; prior to march 2I, 1937.' The sign shall be located as shown on the attached drawing with the sign copy oriented towards Main Street. 2449P/br^ldmj 1+F i L "The Company Dn the Grow" 5000 N.E.COLUMBIA BLVD.—F.O.BOX 17066—PORTLAND,OREGON 97217 Phone(503)286-6371 m i F � C�1 e. n ' x r� T' a x � v iS6 A E i i C" 4 r r d MEMORANDUM { CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO, Bob Jean, City Administrator April 14, 1986 FROM, Elizabeth Newton, Senior ?ladrine-4 SUBJECT Sign, for Grounds Maintenance of Oregon On ridgy April 34, 1�€t6, at mpproximately 2:00 PM, I spore with Les thers regarding the sign he has prposedat Liberty Pasrk. I discussed staff's recommendation to put the s 1gn on 6" higi-I frosts instead of '24" posts as proposed by Mr. Mathers. He 'indicated that he would prefer 12" posts as he ;t intends to pliant flowers, at the base of the sign. I told him that 12" posts would be acceptable to staff. �k4 z 24566 dm j 'i T, { r' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON! COUNCIL_ AGENDA ITEM SUnMARY AGENDA OF: 4/14/86 AGENDA ITEM 4: DATE SUBMITTED: 4/8/86 PREVIOUS ACTION* AccePtance Of ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Acceptance of Subdivision Compliance A renmen't Krue'Rer Dev. Coro. Street PREPARED 9Y: Randy Clarno Non-remonstrance agreement _ �— Catswald Meadows No. 2 subdLyksj2nj REQUESTED BY: En. ineerincq__ DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: � �� yw CITY ADMINISTRATOn POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMIARY Cotswald Meadows No. '2 is a proposed 21 Lot subdivision located west of S.W. 135th Avenue and Morning dill ©rive. One of the "conditions of approval" of; the preliminary platt,;was that the developer execute a 'street soon--,remonstrL�.nce agreement For the future improvement ;of S,W. 135t:h Avenue. Attached are the appropriate executed documents. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED „ t ._._...... �SUGGESTED vzCitt"rN - ._....__ The Engineering Division recommends that council accept this Street Lon-remonstrance agreement from Krueger Development Corporation. r RC:Pm1O3 CORPORATION - CONSENT COVENANT C+'ONREMONSTRANCE AGREFMUT) Street Improvements The undersigned owners (including purchasers) of the real property described The belu do hereby re their consent to the formation of a the local improvement mpr verve t r ts district by the City of gard ro ertfor the abuts.u~ The undersignedof gerpressly-waive all upon which the described p P pose Y y present and future rights to oppose or remonstrate against the formation o£ a C local improvement district for the improvement of `the abutting street or streets, reserving only the right to contest the inclusion of particular cost : items in the improvement district proceeding and any -right they may have under tte laws of the State of'Oregun to contest the proposed assessment formula. E The real property that is the subject of this consent covenant is described as g , follows: j SEE ATTACHED EXRIBYT "A" � F ! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned corporation has caused this agreement to be executed by its duly authorized, undersigned officers acting pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors. Name f rporatinn Corporate Seal �ai r s By M nto'""-L 1 v SLATE 4F OREGON ) By: - C` } ss. Secretary County of Washington - ) � and the f�vu��c� Personally appeared fC_ s�at - -t who, each being rust duly sworn, did say that farmer is the secretary and that the latter is secretary of Y a o gr I�Z,, the c�oam® _ or �� , a corporation, and 9.t the seal fixed to :- the foregoing ins erumenr is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said instr'umetst aes 'signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of :its board of directors; and each of chem acknowledged said . instrument to be its voluntary act and deed.- - nn lotary PobliC For Oregon z, d (NOTARIAL SEAL) My Commission Expires: Approved as to form this _day of ;:. Bye Cyt Attorney City of Tigard Approved as to legal description this — day` !"/ 9 ( L. By: Tigard Approved this `if1�� day of l9�jls CITY COD'CIL, CITY OF TIGA-M, OREGON By,, amity Recorder - City a£ Tigard Y. (02053) QeTur-n TO' �oreen W �Son Pc,, ecr as3G� EXHIBIT "A" t, Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 33, which bears North 98 '25"03" 'West 35.00 feet from the quarter corner on the South, line of said Section 33 in Township 1 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian in Washington County Oregon' thence North 88025'03" West along the South line of said Section 33, a distance of 595.01 feet; thence: North 0201.4'27" East 83.32 feed: thence forth 88447'x5" latest 50.01 feet; thence icorthwe4terly along the arc of a 17.00 Foot radius carve to the lest (the chord of which bears North 43004'01" west 24.17 feet) a distance of 26.89 feet; thence Worth 88022'28„ Test 1.3.77 feet; thence North 01034'35" East 1513.50 feet to thy: SOuthwOst corer of ''COTS'a3ALQ MEA C70'IS", as said subdivision iv i s ion i s platted and recorded in Book 59, page '20, Washington County, Oregon Plat Record✓,; thence South 0802228" East along the South liege of said subdivision404.00 feet; thence North 59036'22" East continuing along said Southerly line, 150.89 feet; thence South 88022'28" East continuing along said South line, 128.00 feet to a paint on the East line of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 33; 'thence Soutar 01D24'35" West along said Hnn, 330.20 feet ''ta the quarter corner on the South line; of said Section 33; thence North 89025'04" West '35.03 feet to the; point of beginning and containing. 3.383 acres of land. more or Less. RC PR103 6 .y o ' Gn6�9L3 Gl.tdii.5665' 1GC,.\°ei _a t�% z OA76 ON OMOaY AJVnCO J 7AV V,rr! AI T '�—IQ Isle W'CO: :tt � Cl ei.� J a0e1v3M34 tv«9,1,00•t+ ` r� ry g GYto , '[>zm s cs.f « n w _„ oA 40 ,,a ma .off [• '�:. � g7aj+' ~3Q°.�'V .YS£832C,[f°+.+ 'e c� _— y 99663..ZCttZssfi ai« LU c 00 ,Otoo.3 Lt,/c.» as as .. t000� 3_zc,ctde n$ oau9 3_zc mac,, - « 8409,Tic"t Ld w „ n ,0600 3 2Y.[Cd � 3[2 ni v2 C9 wl L a res,. 25 z - t s