Loading...
City Council Packet - 07/14/1986 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICEt Anyone wishing to speak on an .`REGULAR.MEETING AGENDA :agenda:item needs to sign on:the appropriate .BUSINESS AGENDA sign•-up sheat(s)• If no sheet is available. JULY 14, 1996, 6:20 P-M. ask to he.recognized by the Chair at the start' TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda iter.: Visitor's agenda items a- 13125 SCJ HALL BLVD, asked to be 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting "• either the mayor or City Administrator. 0 STUDY SESSION REGULAR"J4cETII}G* 1.1.....Call.To Omar and Roll Call 1,2 Pledge 04:Allagianco - 1,3 -Call..To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Remo: Motion to approve as amended. 2, VISITOR'S AGENDAS (2 Minutes or Lass, Please) 1. ADOPT FINAL ORDER-Waymire Appeal S7-86/PD2-86/SL4-86 -ORD. .986-_ o ,Community'Deuelo�ent Director . A. TIGARD PROMOTIONS. IPS'..REPORT (TPI) a Chuck Martin, President 51 SRO (SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER) PROGRAM REPORT a '.Chief of Police 6. PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-86 -:DOVER LANDING - NPO N6 ' Arequest by Edward and Colleen:Funchass;` Rueben and Elizabeth Nesvold; Patricia ogle. Edward and Charlotte Thoannss; -.Roger SPeeca; Larry:and Nancy^:6issatt;(:and Marie Vandawater• to annex 38:95 acres into the'.City of;(rigard and to zone the. proPorty, in conformance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan as follows! Tmx' Mm�/Tax Lot Number' Current Zoning Proposed Zoning 2S1-.]5A -400 & 401 -: Wash Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1(]SAD 100 Wash Co'. rT-5 City of Tigard R-4;5 2S1'.-15AD 200 ' Wash Co. R-5 'City of.Tigard R-4.5 281 15AD 300 Wash Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 :.. 251 15AD 400 Wash Co.. R-5 City of.Tigard R-4.5 35111146 Boo - Wash Co. R-7 City of:Tigard R-7PD& R-12PD 2S1'149 608 &.601 Wash Co. RS-1 City of:Tigard R712PD o 'public Hearing,opened o Declarations Or Challoryes n Susnantion By Planning Staff a Public.Teatirany::Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination 0 - Recommendation By Planning Staff -- - o Council questions Or Cacaients o Public Hearing Closed. o Consideration By Council-Ordinance No. 86 - Zone Change -Resolution Flo. 96 - Forward Annex.. 7, PUBLIC HERRING-TEMPORARY USETU9-86-IRVINGTON M.00RE -NPO MS. A. request by,Irvington Moore for a one year oxtenaicn for a Temporary UsesPerait issued .for. a mobile office trailar and at request for a "Temporary Use. for an additio".' 12' x 60' mobile office trailer for one year. The pro party is located at 9205 SW Hunziker Road.(WCTM 2S1 IBC, Lot 200) and is zoned I-L. o Public Hearing Opened 0 Declarations Or Challenges 0 Sunvaation ByPlanning".Staff o:. public Testimony: Proponents„Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By PlanningStaff: 0 Ccuncil'Quastions Or:Cotnmants - - 0 Public Hearing Closed 0 Ccnaideration 6y Council - Resolution No. 86 Adopt Findings. 8. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW —DIRECTOR'S ZONING INTERPRETATION ON PRAIRIE MARKET SITE.NPO 01 A rsquast:by pegno--Humphries Company for-a Legislative Review of the Community. Director's zoning ,intarpretation of the: Central Business Dtatrist (COD) Zinn for property loented at the formar Prairie narket Pita on the corner of Hall Blvd, and Comorcial Street. (Wash Co. Tax Ptxp-261.2AD lot 1203). .o LagislatiVa Rovlaw Opened o Declarationa Or CEwllengas 0 Summation 6y,Planning staff o Tosti,=nyt Proponents, CPionents, Crows Examination (COntirwad on reverse side) COUrLL AGENDA- 3ULY 8.4, 1986'- PAGE 1 i ".o Recommandation 8y Planning Staff 'a Council Questions Or.Com ents: 'a Legislative 9aview Closed o Consideration By Council Direct Staff to rrapara final order 'adapting findings for at future mestl n3. §. COUNTY/TZGFRD URBAN pL:'.NNING AREA AGRESMUT DISCUSSION (UPAA) 0 Coksstnity Development Director RECESS COUN-41. METING !O. CONTRACT REVIEW,BOARD HEETTNG 10.1-Call to.Ordsr&:Rall Call 10.2 :Old Award For AspMlt Overlay 10.3 Adjournment RECt1NVEt1E C(MCIL METING li. CONSEN'T AGE�L'GA: Those items are:considered to be routine and may,be b. anactad.' in one':nation:without Yseparate discubsian.:' Anyone may request that an item be romoved:'by motion for discussion.`and separate action. Notion to: 11.1 Approve Council Minutes_ Tune 23, 1986 11.2 'Receive and File: as Cossswnity Dovolopment Land Use Decisions :x: natzgar?ylashington Square Staff Report 11.3 Deny Tigmrd Electric Requast.For Review. 11.4 ;Ap-drove Frontier Markat/Randall Final 0-dor-Resolution No. 86-71 ' 13,5 .Approve Retiree Health Insurance CoveraSe Implementation 11.6 ;ApproveDelirmcent".Bancroft:niternativss Policy 11.7 Approve Burroughs-:Training°Requasts 11.8 ::Aceopt .with Conditions -..Penn LawnEstates No. 2 Subdivision - P.esolution%o.'R3-73 11.9.::Approve Partial Bond Relaaso #2 & Authorize Signatures:- Penn Lawn Estates No. 2 Subdivision "Resolution No, 16_-73 11.10:Appoint Deputy City Recorder For Municipal Court Purposes Only - Roaolution tla. 86 74 ; 11.11 Cmll Executive Sussion For: 8/4/35 - Per ORS 192.550 (1)(1) for :parformama reviou'of the Chief Exaeutive Officer -7:00 PH 11.12 Approve :Special Event Liquor License & Authorize .Signature of :Mayor-Lake Oaaego Elks Lodge, For Cook Park On 8/10/06 12. NON-AGENDA ITEMS,. From Council and Staff 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard 'City Council will go into Executive r Session under the provisions of'.ORS 192..660 (1) (d) & (h) to discuss 'labor ra:ations':and current/pending litigation issues. 14. AD70URPTriEUT COUNCIL AGENDA- JULY 14, 1986- PAGE 2 r F 1 T I G A R C'I T Y C 0 U N C L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — JULY 14, 1986 - 7:10 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: present: Mayor John Cook; Councilors.' Tom Brian, and Carolyn Eadon; City Staff: 'Bob Jean, City Administrator; David . Lehr, Chief of Police; Sill -Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder. 2. CALL TO ISSTAFF AND COUNCIL FOR MON—AGENDA ITEMS a.' City Administrator' highlighted several agenda information items and requested the following items be considered under Non—Agenda: 12.1 LID Housekeeping Ordinance 2'2.2 Urban Services Resolution 12.3 Call ,Special Council meeting 7/16/86 12.4 Special Council Meeting Request From Chamber 12.5 Special Council Meeting Request From TRFPD 3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less,` Please) a. George Shelly, State ;representative for Governmental `finance Officer's Association, presented the National Certificate of Conformance For Financial Records to Finance Officer, Jer•ri Widner ` and explained the process for obtaining the certificate. ' Terri Widner thanked Mr. Shelly and expressed appreciation to her staff for their efforts. b. Michael Scott, Attorney representing Tigard Electric, requested item 911.3 be removed from Conssnt Agenda. He submitted a written request for Council to reopen the public hearing for TU4-86. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by 'Councilor Eadon to remove from Consent and schedule hearing for 8/11/86 at 7:00 APS. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. City Administrator stated there would be no codes enforcement action taken on that property until the Council re-hears the issue. c. Mayor Cook read letter into record noting he would not be seeking re—election for another Council term noting he had actively served the City of Tigard on the Park Board and then Council for the last 24 years. 4. ADOPT FINAL ORDER — Waymire Appeal S7-86/PD2--86/8L4--85 a. RESOLUTION NO. 85--75 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A FINAL ORDER UPON CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 'A PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION (S7-86), PLANNED DE`JELOPMERIT (PD2-•86), AND SENSITIVE LANDS PERMITS (SL4 06), ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS'Or LACI. b, Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to approve. Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — JULY 14, 1986 C. Mr. Larry Epstein, representing property owners, Karina Ryan and David Wessel, requested Council' reconsider the issue noting that density 'changes would be in violation of the City's Comprehensive ` P last. L d. Council noted two hearings had been held and that the issue of density had been adequately addressed. e, ter. Epstein discussed with Council various points of clarification in the proposed resolutions. After discussion, the following additions (underlined) were made: a ##13 Construction of improvements below the 140 font elevation' contour west of 108th Avenue or within the lol0 year; flood Main shall occur only for the purposes of bike�aath and other �,ublic imarovement retuirements only during the period 'between April 30th and October 3st or at other times n writing by the City Engineer. approved in advance and i o ##15 The applicant shall construct interim street improvements on SW '108th Avenue from Sty Durham Road to the paint where full street improvements are required by Condition 2 above. ' Interim street improvements'shall include a minimum 22 foot pavement width. Also`. 3 foot gravel shoulders and drainage ditches shall'' be constructed unless otherwise specifically approved by the, City Engineer and Washington County; in conjunction with Phase I improvements, but not later than October 1, 1987. o Section 3(d), paragraph 2. Also, ,the storm sewer system will be modified so that the P deveiopmerst ,will not have an adverse impact upon the 'drainageway an�round water areas on the west side of 108th Avenue. f. Motion' by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Brian to approve amendments. Motion to approve amendments was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Motion to approve Resolution filo. 86-75, as amended, was approved by unanimous vote of Council present, 5. TIGARD P90fflTIWJS, INC. REPORT (TPI) a. Mr. Chuck Martin and Nis. Judy Christensen from TPI presented an updated 'report on the celebration scheduled for 7/26/86. b. Concerns were discussed regard the car crush scheduled to be held on SW Commercial Street. Emergency access concerns were address by ,City staff. TPI agreed to 'clear 'an emergency access path through the area upon completion of the car crush event would be totally cleared the morning of:the noting that the street 27th. Page 2 COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1.986 C, The location of the sound equipment tor. the Saturday night dance d equipment to angle was discussed. TPI will be locating the soun he sound towards 99w instead of the local neighborhoods. aprove d. Motion by CouncilorBrian, seconded by CouncilorEdhe approval r the OLCC application for the beer, gardens subject oo of the police Department. F, Approved by unanimous vote of Council present.' 5. SRO (SCHOO L RESOURCE OFFICERI PRt33'staW REPORT i a. Dr. Russ Joki, Superintendent of he Tigard Shoot District and Chief of police Lehr presented a report regarding the proposed SRO a Dr. 7oki showed a short. video tape featuring a program. D successful SRO program in the Boise, Idaho area. Dr. ;oki advised Council that the School Board has determined a second SRO officer would be advisable and they have voted h fund he 'second position if an available trained %officer is found. He also noted that the funding; sour e for the second officer would be reviewed prior to commitment to future funding. b. Council affirmed their position that hiring of the SRO officer(s) en should proceed as scheduled. They noted that $?_S,OOG had g budgeted in the fiscal year; 1984-87 Cit budget for this project. c, Mayor Gook suggested that Dr. J'oki make a quarterly written or verbal report on the SRO program so that Council ;couS�hool�s abreast of the progress of the program from the prospective. d. Chief of police Lehr stated he was considering various methods of measuring the attitude change with students and faculty during ,the first year of the programa This would be coordinated with the School District and reports would be forwarded to the City, Council.' e, Dr. 7oki mentioned the School Board is scheduling at, information meeting with citizens in the northwest corner of Tigard who live in the City limits of Tigard but reside in the Beaverton School District. He explained the petition process through Washington County's SSD for a change of school district boundaries and noted the citizens would reed to circulate the petition if they wished the issue reviewed 7. 6�USLIC HEARING-ZONE CHANGE RUNE#�ATION ZCA 1-86 — DOVER LANDING - NPO 06 A request by Edward and Colleen Funchess; Rueben and 'Elizabeth mesvold; Patricia Ogle; Edward and Charlotte Thoennes; 'Roger Spe<ce; Larry acid Mar Bisset: ; and Marie �landewahr- to in nnex 38.95 eonforrnance acres into he City City of of Tigard and to zone the property Tigard Comprehensive Plan as follows: Tax Map/Tax Lot Number Current Zoni.rag PrsiposQt Zos�i , LSi 15A15A 400 & 401 Wash Co. R-5 City of Tigarc! R-4.5 2S1 15AD fOQash' Co. R-5City of Tigard R-4.52S1 15AD 20:7 Wash Co. R--5 City of Tigac^d R-4.5 Wash Co. R-5 S 1 2a1 15AD 3017 City of Tigard R-4.5 2SI 15AD 400 Mash Co, R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 Page 3 - COUNCIL p,3:MUTES — JULY14, 1986 2S1 14B 600 wash Co. R-7 City of Tigard R-7PD & R- 12PD k, ?S1 14B 600 & b01 gash Co. RS-1 City of Tigard R-1°LPb Y x a, Public Hearing Opened rector noted the 'history of the req b. Community Development Diuest. C. Public Testimony; Proponents: : o Mr. Kenneth Waymire, 10185SW Riverwood Lane, stated he was present to answer any questions. Opponents: No one appeared to speak d. Community Development Director stated the Planning Commission k recommendedapproval of the zone change and forwarding the annexation request to the Boundary Commission. e, Public Hearing Closed f. ORDINANCE NO. 86-36 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS PND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZcA 1-66) (WAYMIRE) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. g. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to adopt. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. h, RESOLUTION N0. 86-76 A RESOLUTION FURTHERING ANNEXATION 'TO THE''A°' AND CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED -PI EXHIBIT DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "a" ATTACHED (WAYMIRE) ZCA 1-66. i, Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - TEMPORARY USE `r'd 9-86 - IRVINGTopi S RE - SPO 95 A request by Irvington Moore for a one year extension dor a Temporary Use Permit issued for a mobile office trailer- and a request for a Temporary Use for an additional 12' x 60' mobile office trailer for one year. The property is located at 8205SW Hunziker Road (WCTM 2S1 IBC, Lot 2001, and is zoned I-L. a. public Hearing Opened b, Community Development Director outlined the history of the request noting f mobile office trailer tAould require a 1 year extension and another trailer had been requested for 1 year placement upon the property: C. Public Testimony: Proponents: Page - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1986 i Ralph Luchterhand, Chief Engineer for Irvington Moore, stated he supported the request. He ;'expressed concern about the reference to 16,000 square feet in the staff report when it should read +' ? 6,000 sq. ft, Community Development Director reported the 16,000 figure was the one submitted by Irvington Moore on their application. d. Council questioned staff and Mr. Luchterhand regarding the current application and past requests. e. Community Development Director recommended denialof the request based on applicant's failure to met conditions in the past. a. 4 f. Public Hearing Closed g, After further discussion Councilor Brian moved to tentatively approve the Temporary Use request for extension of existing trailer and approve 1 additional trailer if done in compliance with staff conditions. He also required applicant show excelerated efforts to locate new office space by expiration of the 1 year extension. Motion seconded by Councilor Eadon: Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. h. Staff will bring back for Council action on 7/28/86. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW --"DIRECTOR,.S zMEM INTERPRETATION ON PRAIRIE MARKET,. SITE NPO 91 A request; by Magno-lumphries Cor��pany for a Legislative Review s the the Central Business Community Director' s zoning interpretation of District' (COD) Zone for property located at the former Prairie Market site on ;she corner of mall Blvd. and Commercial Street. (Wash Co. Tax Map 2S1 2AD Lot 1203), a. Legislative Review opensd b. Community Development Director synopsized the interpretation made on the request noting a strict interpretation of the code prohibits manufacturing in the COD zone. C. Public Testimony: Sieve Wasserberger, Architect for the Magno=Humphries Company and Prairie Market, explained the manufacturing use proposed for the property noting that the State of Oregon classifies the production of -vitamins as 'food proce3sing' . He stated that only about 4% of the total floor area of the building would be used for this purpose. Since the area did not seem conducive to Commercial/ retail use they 'proposed using the building for mainly warehouse purposes. Discussion Billowed regarding the processing operation and legal criterion met by the proposed use. d." Public Hearing Closed JULY 1#, 1986 Page 5 COUNCIL MINUTES e. ` Council consensus was that the vitamin production would be classified as food processing and thus the use could be approved with a Conditional Use request through the CommunityDevelopment Department. f. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to find production aspect of use as secondary to warehouse use and consider it food processing with 'predominate use of -property needing to go through the conditional use application process. Approved by unani;so:.Is vote of Council present. g.' Councilor Eadon encouraged Council to re-evaluate the uses in the CBD zone. 10 �a�3 Y/TI�aA€D URBAN p�w"a�JNING AREA AGREEMENT DISCUSSION;(UPAS) a. Community Development Director stated Washington County Commissioners were going ;to consider adoption of the -UPAA at their 7/22/96:meeting. He encouraged Council to amend page 7 item C by deleting that paragraph. ' That section noted that "annexations to the City outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the County or the City." b. The City Administrator stated that other cities in the County do not have this language in their UPAA' agreements. C. Caption by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Brian to delete ALL. item C from page 7 o UPAA and authorize signature by Mayor. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. d. Community Development Director discussed the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County and suggested more specific development standards be addressed as apply to Durham Road e. After discussion, Councilor Eadon mowed to adopt Intergovernmental Agreement re: Durham Road as amended. (Page 3 item 3 add "minimum" - item .5 add "(subject to City variance procedures)" Motion seconded by Councilor Brian. Approved by unanimous vote or Council present. RECESS_COUNCIL MEETING 9:26 PM ill WNTRAC'T REVIDJ BOARD MEETING 11.1 Roll Call: Present: Board Chairman John Cook; Board Members: Tom Brian, and Carolyn Eadon; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Tim '`- Ramis,, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, Deputy City Recorder, 11.2 Bid Award For Asphalt Overlay - City Engineer, Randy Wooley, requested bid award for the Asphalt Overlay noting that it was within budget and the engineer's estimate. page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1996 Motion by Board member Brian, seconded by Board Member Eadon to award to;Oregon Asphalt Paving for $33,285. t't Approved by unanimous vote of Board Members present. 11.3 Adjournment of Local Contract Review Board: 9:30 PM RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING 9:30 PM 12., CaNSENT AGM, DA 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: 12-1 Approve Council Minutes - June 23, 1986 12.2 Receive and File: a Community Development Land Use Decisions` b Metzger-Mashington Square Staff Report c CIP status Report - 6/30/86 12.`3 Deny Tigard Electric Request For Review 12.4 Approve Frontier Market/Randall Final Order - Resolution No. '86-71 ` 12.5 Approve Retiree Health Insurance Coverage Implementation 12.6 Approve Delinquent Bancroft Alternatives Policy 12.7 Approve Burrough's Training Requests 1.2.8 Accept with Conditions -• Penn 'Lawn Estates No. 2 Subdivision - Resolution No. 06-72 12:8 Approve Partial Bond Release 02:'& Authorize Signatures - Penn Lawn Estates No. 2 Subdivision = Resolution No. 86-73 12.10 Appoint'Deputy, City Recorder For Municipal Court Purposes Only - 1`7 Resolution No. 06-74 12.11 Call Executive Session For 8/41°86 Per .DRS 192.660 (1)(i) for performance review of the Chief Executive Officer •-<7:00 PM 12.12 Approve Special Event Liquor License & Authorize Signature of Mayor Lake Oswego Elks Lodge, For Cook Park On 8i10/86 a. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to approve Consent with items .3 & .6 being removed. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. b. Item .3 was set for a public hearing earlier in this meeting for 8/11/86. Item .6 will be considered at the 7/28/86 meeting. 13 MON-AGENDA ;'PEERS: From Council and Staff 13.1 LISA Ordinance Amendment a. Legal Counsel requested Council adopt the amendment to the LID Ordinance which would allow City ,staff to enter private property immediately within a , proposed district for survey or other engineering purposes. b. ORDINANCE NO. 96-37 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ;ORDINANCE NO, 85-40 RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. c. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by Councilor Eadon to adopt. Page 7 COUNCIL MINUTES - JULY 14, 1986 Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13.2 Urban Services Policy . a. City Administrator suggested Council enact a resolution setting out the City's Urban Services Policy. b. RESOLUTION NO. 86-77 DURBAN SERVICES POLICY C. Motion by Councilor Brian, seconded by .Councilor Eadon to approve. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13.3 Call Special Council Meeting a. City Administrator requested Council call a special meting for 7/16/86 to review the Metzger/Washington Square annexation proposal prior to the neighborhood meeting 'scheduled that evening in Metzger. b. Motion by Councilor 'Eadon, seconded ,by Councilor Brian to call meeting icor 7/16/86 at 6PM`to be held at the Tigard Civic Center. Approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 13.4 Chamber Requast For Special Council Meeting a. City Administrator stated the Chamber of Commerce has ,requested a special '.Council meeting to review the status/impact of the Metzger/Washington Square annexation 'proposal. Aft polling the Council members in attendance at the meeting, a meeting was tentatively scheduled for 7/23/86 - 7:30 to 9 AM. Staff will take Council poll to determine if quorum will be available for the meeting. 13.5 Tualatin Fire District Request For Special Council Meeting a. City Administrator advised Council of another request for a special meeting from the Tualatin Fire ` District regarding ambulance services and City of Tigard -- Tualatin Fire District relations. Consensus of Council was to hold a meeting on September 3, '1986 if a quorum was available. staff will take poll of Councilforattendance information. 14, EXECUTIVE SESSIMJ: The Tigard City Council went into io Session at 9:52 PM under the provisions of ORS 192.660 L1)) ((h)h) to to discuss `current/pendi.ng litigation issues. 15. ADJOURNMENT - 10:30 PM ATTEST: cting City Recorder - City of Tigard City of Tigard /3959A - - Page 8 - COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 14, 1986 ;- 9 � _ La w� gt�� �� s x�•t V � `"'. "max k�y q��� � �V�{� lYY X P� - �� � ��f•�`Y((n R'°Fb✓.f _m!y ��'+� Y, ek 511 It 71 Ej AR 11 q to awi a .W 0— co . LAI z da CD N -0 0 13 V CD C7 4-1 12 U O ner C CL 2 0 0 CIS ��gg com "0 �. �.".w co : co• GSE nL IM g CO V. ® a 0 L! Ain �LU c U � m y cc cd CL rdt 06 CD cu [ F. n -0 _49 G $ d p CD 00 cl Z30 M U. y CJ C tfJ s• Q X ti. � 0 P C11 O ¢Z �° B CV C O u9 .� �Cd CC Cl t9 O tffi rd 03 al A W Mill. �' �'6tCrj pa (11) o w o m �, o a I F : i CIT` OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSING , In the Matter of the Proposed COUNT CIL ADOPTED ORDINPUgCES f STATE OF ORE i9 � County of Washington) ss City of Tigard ) w � ALMLA _J being first duly sworn, an oath depose and say ?hat •I posted in e �o110AW public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Wumber(s) Wich were adopted at the`Council l Meeting dated Njjj copy(s) of said ord brg ce(s) being hereto attached a d by referencers de a part herenf, on the ,J day of .C_ 4986. 11. Tigard 'Civic'Center, 13125 SW hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon _. 2, U.S. National Rank Corner of blain and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store,,Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and morn to before Yss€ this 1a� day of qttltu, 1986. aat {i jJ. ' laotary Public for Oregon � e Ely Commission Expires: I s,• z ,,-77 CIT` OF TIGARD, OREGON r ORDINANCE NO 86-- L AN C"RDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 85-40 RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. by ' k nce Cuncil resc WHEREAS, State law in, ORS to$bei�1 owed eiriama�Cingp entr ormndates bupon any land � resolution the pr.c ;,.jithin a'proposed local improvement district; and mend these ordinances and/or resolutions when d WHEREAS, the Council may ae2mzd necessary; and y;N£RE#aS, the Council, has determined it necessary to revise Ordinance II5—h0. THE CM OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: , SEGTIO;m l: Ordinance No. 85 AG shall be amended by addition Section 532 as follows: °eAs an alternative to race outlined in subsection (1� (a,), the Coesanii v"Development Director may authorize entry coon an" pr®Pei ,• withi the proposed distract pursuant to and for the purpose �. outlined in ORS 22*1 Olo. Within a reasonable time after the enter( uAor► the land,' the Communz_•Sr Development Director shall resort to t ae Council on the results of the ent+^y. .;. SECTION 2: This ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Tigard to allow Local publicc�merat Districts to proceed without delay from entry upon property for Improvd in this ordinance, purposes outlined and an emergency is hereby declared to eKis t and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage by the Council and posting by the Recorder. d PASSED: 3y ��•;f2�ttG�' vote of all Council members present afddeay road by rsusnber and title only being , this y of a� .� 1986. f6�c,re�n. Milson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: ThisV711 day of 1986. s rr E. Cook, §payor. ORDII�A�3CE No. 86- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON { ORDINANCE NO. $6 AN 'ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 1-86) (WAYMIRE) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 61 1986 Kenneth Waymire filed. a request to annex land into the City of Tigard: and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 14, 1986 to consider the annexation request and to consider zoning desi.gna.tiorsfor the property, and WHERE AS_ on July 14, 1986 the City ;Council approved; a resolution forwarding the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designations recommended by the Planning staff as set forth in Section 1 below are those which conform to those designations s igned to the properties on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Pap adopted by the City of Tigard. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLUWS: Section l: The recommendation of the Planning staff as set forth below is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Map and Policy ;10.1.2 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Tax Map/Tax Lot Dumber Current Zoninq Proposed Zoning 2SI 15A 400 & 401 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 251 `15AD 100 bash:, Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1 15AD -200 Mash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-Q.S 251 15AD 300 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1- 15AD 400 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 281 15AD 600 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1 14B 800 Wash. Co. P.-7 City of Tigard R-7PD & R-12PD 2S1 '14B 600 & 601 Wash`. Co. 'RS-1 City of Tigard R-12PD Section 2: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the annexation on final order, with the office of the Secretary of State. PASSED: By f✓�Y�ctn!M�`f vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this ./!27A day of1986. U < Loreen R. Wilson, Deputy Recorder APPROVED: This day oP 1996. Jo ri'E. Cools, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. Page A AGENDA ITEM 0 2 _ - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE July 14 1286 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the ,appropriate sheet for; listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from ,you on other• is4ues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. please contact the City Administrator prior• to the start of the meeting. Thank you. I NAME ADDRESS TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED tt.3, i S i i i, `.i DATE July 14, 1986 I wishto testily.before the Tigard City ,Council can the following items (Please ;print .the. information) _= item Deacript:ion= #6 PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 1-86 - DOVER LANDING Proponent (For'Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Nsme, ,Addreus and ,Affiliation Name Addtess and Affiliation �v'C-0 � s em - 97 DATE July 14, 1986 I wish.to testify before the Tigard City Council on thit following item; (Please print theinformation) V..., Its Description: #7 PUBLIC HEARING TEMPORARY USE TU 9-86 - IRVIINGTON MOORE #4�'#I��S'R3���`f���3��t�$�•fl$5��13'����f#�4$e'§�%�f°M��'�63d1+T'}L#��:1�it�i�Y fSYk�CA#Yt�'�t�i$Y�.�'A28�#$S��C��'Y;9°t1"'9'3�������1�9i Proponent (Fear Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation 63 22 7 7=7 t7 k 9kfffilk�t�flt�'$���4#�€'iia°slt���'tCts�i&��Sr#��x&t`kilt'�'tst'�.kt�s§���#k�'�.�a`tt��th'�t'kh�afti4ti"aa&iti7#fSezliit�T��t33�'.a#•«�tska�34ds6t�Sc.�;L4$ r 64 r y t a f _ ! • .. . J .. ....-. -..... ..... �� _ y.. �..�. ._.......:,. ..-... .. .......:::. . ..:... .... :......:...... ... ..... j�"{,�,,� y�es. 4�5 t W- 43 t X37. �`•'s, :. :•,,;ti ;,.., . _"� ��' a r43.. a v,;.-a,��� a- -+�s.,T',"'�,=�`�z-�s.��."'``,c:.Lc" '� �� ,;z• •,,£a �� .s����4 x,$`� a` ��`� . � ��'���',�.v".` Y'��yx.''�'�'-'� i firY�« t;..,.:r,�.-.�¢' ,.,� 'E �* ., x.-,s�ay�: ,: � �k��..3,...�w f^M."':"#sa-u.. ;rn•'�':3a�-5 �,'�� fit'.S'�s.. y ��`.,��. `'_^•is- �'3',-�+e:�i� -.x i _;..�:"w. b;a. � ...:Ni y3 '�a ,�. mac � h ��• _s�� '� �.;�,� �.� s..:r:.s -„-�""'..i k,.'� ^''sr' ' •' � <5i �, ���.�.�. - ��`},:.. .t'^£"'3-.''.S.,r-.ar a'a,:t,+Yww'.�.. >`'rk, 'k .t.«y •" :'.."2�`�'����.€>'i4'". xs�f'-IX•?;.€:�m �`ti.`Ff`y.:yet ^'., ,a °'��-aP,,, .. S k�-.�.;{J .-���'�.Le'kr�"�'xt"_'�`� 3..,_t t-`�y xr& ,s'•{.�.: s, ,•ya ✓e.��� _��as � ..3.�.a .,= ..,f ,r >•Y�;�t6yc�n.,. �i��., t.A^',�. �.�-�.r. 1t-�` f-R°'..i r..t�..�,c'�^a aye at-�K..Y�.. t}.r•.1�.' ,.�„�w. �.r^. ,T�f}t_ �_.m��..Sa,��, ` .-��,� :'t4'�. ���:.��i Gin.�a'a.$,y: ✓a�U.`�-i�':..i+'��{�a:9��3��1�����1 `.'.����5«4��,y.�.rd�"F3c.E nYie�a�`:Jf df,Y.a.:SyYats�3'Y.'u�o�Fi: `-}�=vS`-' � .Y�.�'.Y'• =§f �lSfL..�'.aiF' ak3�t:�i����_I4'„d ��t'.,�`'. 'LX'��ei`; Y After 24 years I have decided to retire from 'active service Wraith the city of Tigard. I will not be 'filing for any political office this year. My service includes ten years on the Tigard Park Board, eleven and one-half years as councilor, and the last two and one-half years as mayor. 1 have enjoyed my years of service with the city of Tigard. Now I look forward to spending more 'Lime with family and other activities. I wish to thank everyone for their cooperation over those years. My wife and childrenaeserve special thanks for their help and encouragement during those years. My best wishes to the new Mayor and councilor May they keep Tigard Terrific. John E. 'Cook CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON - COUNCIL 'AGEB�DA—ITEM SU3 °iARY AGENDA OF: July 14 1586 AGENDA ITEM ft: DATE SUBMITTED: July 10, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: City Council Approval ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Waymire Areal S 7-66/Pp 2-86/SL 4-86 PREPARED BY: Keith Liden REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT DEAD OK:- _ _t_ _—� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY The final order has been prepared in accordance with Council direction. A " copy has been forwarded to Tim Ramis and Roger Anderson for review prior to the 7/14/86 meeting. — ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. 'Approve final order as written. 2. Approve final order with modifications SUGGESTED ACTION Review final order and legal counsel. recommendations and take appropriate action. MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council and Administrator July 7, 1985 k. FROM: Capt. Jennings & Deborah Stewart SUBJECT: Crusin' Tigard '86 Status Report Arrangements have been made with Public Works to have available to Chuck Martin traffic cones and sandwich barricades. Six items of concern to the City as of this date are: 1. The amplified sound permit has not been applied for. In addition, it is eta'f's recommendation the stage and speakers be placed 'facing a westerly direction instead of southerly. 2. Confirmation of.parking arrangements. TPI sent letters but 'the City has not seen acknowledgment from the respective; property owners. : :. 3. Highway Banner approval has not been applied for in compliance with Temporary Sign Code. 4., ?gist' of vendors participating has not been received by City staff. 5. A more detailed site plan is needed showing the areas where the vendors booths will be and the beer gardens.. Also, locations of any special activities such as the "Smash-a-wreck" and "Car cruncher", etc. 4i 6. OLCC Permit application must be received by City Hall for processing no latex than 7/18/86 with the t25.00 process fee. This could be hand-carried to the 7/21/86 Council meeting. � These items will be discussed by 'staff and TPI representatives be the time this report reaches Council for review. David C. Lehr Chief of Police By,: Kelley D. Jennings Captain } f° 'kF F ac MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIaARD, OREGON s z . TO: Mayor and Council July 7, 1986 Fk0>>I: Chief of Police i SURTECT: School Resource Officer Program - Th, e ' following is an update regarding the proposed Schaal Resource Officer program. Dr. Joki, Helen Terry and I met on July 2 to discuss a job description and the. performance d pensions of the School Resource Officer position. Ms. Terry has prepared a job description and the performance dimensions; they are attached for your review. < An Assessment Center has been scheduled for 7/21/86. we will post the job vacancy announcement on 7/8/86, closing acceptance of applications on 7/16/86. We would plan on making final selections during the week of the 21st. During our meting, Dr. Joki suggested that the School District is interested in funding a second SRO position to work in the Junior High ;Schools. This position would be in lieu of an alternative teacher position that the District had budgeted for. It is the intent of the District that in the first year of the program, the District would entirely fund the second SRO position. Funding in the second and subsequent years would be subject to review and negotiation by the School F Board and the City council. f The School Board will receive Dr. Joki's request for the second SRO on G Thursday, 7/10/86. Dr. Joki will be present at the Council meeting on the 14th to ; give a short presentation on the SRO program, and -to discuss the action taken by the Board on the second SRO position. i vg DRAFT -- JOB DESCRIPIIC)N POSITION TITLE: School Resource Officer (police Officer) SALARY RANGE: $1724--$2118/month (plus liberal fringe benefit package)' SUYMARY OF DUTIES- A professional, sworn police officer assigned to the School District who works in the High School and/or Junior High Schools wihin the Tigard School District to provide education, support, and counseling to students with special problems, and serves as a law enforcement resource person to schcol faculty, staff and concerned parents and,citizens. SUPERVISION RECEIVED: Works under : the general supervision of school principal or assigned administrativestaff member while on school premises. Reports to Assistant thief of Police or designated superior officer, and performs all regular work described for police officer when operating out of Tigard Police Depextment. SUPE't VISION ENMRCISED: Supervision is not norl.ly a responsibility of positions in this classification. May act as "Officer in Charge" of special incident on school premises (such as theft, drug overdose, suicide, or other type of student crisis or problem). EXAMPLES OF PRIWCIPAL DUTIES: (Any single position of a class will not usually involve all of the duties listed, and many positions will involve duties which are not specifically listed. The following ' are illustrative examples only). 1. Serves as resource person, providing support and counseling for students with special : problems, such as alcohol/drug abuse/addiction, family violence, child abuse/neglect situations, and the like. works with C students to correct problems and change behaviors before criminal activity has a `chance to occur. 2. Provides education in classrooms or seminars on such -k 2. safety, drug/alcohol abuse/addiction, suicide prevention, rape awareness, and related fitters, as needs of School District dictate. 3 Serves as liaison officer betwme een the Police Department and the School' J District, helping to prevent crimes in the school system, conducting, ninal acts, ' maintaining puce and order, investigations into alleged cri and assistingstudents with special problems'. (Normally does not conduct investigations, but serves as liaison between the Police Dopar` A-it and school officials). As directed, ;'teaches classes and/or makes presentations to students, faculty and staff, community and civic groups, etc., regarding safety, drug/alcohol abuse prevention, functions of SRU program; and otherwise promotes both the School District's and Tigard Police'Department's image in the community. 5. Farticigates as member of the acul-ty in school. activities and training and staff development programs. Also participates in athletic and social events, etc., both in official capacity and as interested citizen to mote well-rounded image of law enforcement officer to students, faculty, and citizens, and to develop relationships with students who don't normally conte to this individual with problems Functions as member of faculty "team", especially with dealing with student problems and/or participating in training or staff de,,, pnent programs, 6. VLaintains "high visibility" and serves as authority figure on schcal ca us, both to deter criminal acts and to promote a positive image of `: law enforcement among students and faculty. 7. Functions as coordinator or resource person between investigative efforts of the Tigard Police and/or other law enforcement agencies and the School District in criminal or drug investigations. Yokes arrests as appropriate when viewing criminal acts on school premises. S. Performs all duties described for regular police officer, and assumes such additional responsibilities and performs related duties as expanding' needs of the School Resource officer program dictates. QUALIFICATIONS DESIRED: Baccalaureate degree preferred, or combination of education, training and experience equivalent to'a bachelor's degree in law enforcement, 'psychology, sociology, education or related field. Skill in investigations, juvenile police work, family and/or individual counseling. Effective verbal and written ccmmuiications skills; self- eonfide.�it, assertive; positive -eahun 'relations, public relations, and interpersonal skills. Skill in dealing effectively with diverse citizen publics, business/civic leaders, news media, school officials, faculty and staff, and students at the junior,and senior high school level. Ability to nark effectively with school officials and faculty, prating best possible image of law enforcement within the oc manity being served. SPECIAL Ur_22 fns a blast met Oregon BPST standards for police officer. Attend School Resource Officer training within months of hire date, and attend school inservice training and staff development programs provided by the School District. Participates both in official capacity and off-duty in athletic and social events sponsored by the School District. Requires Oregon driver's license; residence within Clackamas, N?ultnomah or Washington Counties. d J DRAFT -- PERFORMANCE DIME ISION DEFINITIONS k SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER`-- Tigard Police Department Oral Communications Speaks in a clear, understandable manner so that the listener(s) grasp(s) the message. Can summarize and justify effectively. Draws others into conversations. Elicits feedback and really listens to what others have to say. Has good ccmmand of English language; i.e., grammar, word fluency, sentence structure, phraseology, etc. Doesn't use slang or swear words or other inappropriate words and phrases. Gestures, non-verbal corrnunicators enhancedeliveryofmessage. Written CCBmnunlcat3ons Expresses ideas and reasoning clearly in writing. Can effectively organize, prepare and presnt written material suitable to the individual or group for which it is intended. Ideas are expressed in 'clear, concise, 'factual and sequential manner, with smooth transititions between thoughts. Spelling, syntax, etc., appropriate to this position. Public Relations/Presentation Skills Self-confident, assertive. Car. establish and maintain effective relationships k-ith diverse levels of citizen public, parents, teachers, school officials, press/news media, business/civic leaders, and the like. Particularly sensitive to youth and problarns inherent among juveniles. Effective in teaching or speaking before large groups of students, civic leaders, or others, . educating them about the SRO program and issues within the school cormamity. inspires respect for lair enf_orce;nent officials. Group Process' Skills Effective in present' ideas and getting them accepted. Listens to and pays r regard for contributions of others. Demonstrates mature, self--confidence and i assertiveness. Draws out less vocal members of group; encourages cooperative i attitudes and instills confidence in others; overcomes negative factors and deals with conflict in an open and positive manner. F Hjann Relations/Inte rsonal Sensitivit Deals with people in a tactful` dipltic and Mite manner, Interacts with 7 others in`a way that demonstrates sensitivity to their needs and motives, and t. tive feelings. Has a genuine interest in, does not arouse antagonism or nega empathy and ccapa ssion for people--particularly sensitive to needs, Vis, feelings and special problems inherent in being a teenager. Treats individuals in a fair, consistent, impartial manner...non- judgIneantal...cooperative in dealing with others; maintains a' positive attitude; inspires enthusiam. Problem Solvinc /Decision i4akijia p Ability o � a y identifproblem, secure the necessary relevant information, interpret and analyze the situation, evaluate alternative solutions, recognize'' the possible ramifications or impact of various alternatives, and render appropriate judgement or decision. Can Perceive similarities and differences, and separate important from superfluous information. Can identify the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to achieve desired objectives. Displays willingness to make decisions, render judgements, take action, and,ccmrnit self `Planning/(lrgani.z ing Able to establish an appropriate and efficient course of action for self and/or others to accomplish a specific goal; makes appropriate use of resources. Sets ,priorities; coordinates and schedules tasks and events in a logical manner so as to increase efficiency and effectiveness Anticipates 191Al small A RUN problems and is,pro-active rather than reactive. Has good sense of time m�mgeFent, order, structure, process and continuity. - Adaptabil L:/Flexibility Ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Behavior and/or responses are appropriate to the situation. Remains open-minded; can separate personal feelings from. the issues at hand. Eychibits'a willingness to listen to others' points of vie a. Receptive to suggestions; drilling to admit making a mistake, moirtains open, approachable mariner. Not defensive-reactive under criticism. Stress Tolerance Ab_i liter to remain calx. and to function in pressure or frustrating situations. Maintains control and self-composure when placed under conditions of pressure or crisis-.-wren "under the gun." Retains effectiveness of performance under; stressful conditions. Pee-sonsiCharacteristics - ' o -1; honest, self-motivated; enthusiastic, positive attitude; well-groom; neat appearance and dress; physically fit. R CIT_ Y OF LIGARD., OREGON COUNCIL AGE-NDA ITEM TEEN SUI�tlARY �R r AGENDA OF: July14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: 3uZv 2 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Atone f ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: ;Lja mome Annexation 2CA 1-86 — PREPARED BY: l'izabeth Ann mewton REQUESTED BY: Kenneth Waymire r� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: DEPARTMENT HEAD 01:: POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council forward a 38 acre annexation of land located south of Durham adjacent to S.W. '108th and north of the Tualatin River to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission? INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is « staff repos^t which out a proposal to annex 38.95 acres into the City of T'iard; The property is located south of Durham Road adjacent to S W. 108th and north of the Tualatin River. The Dover Landing planned ' d��eeZopment was approved for; 19 acres within the annexation area by City Council on June 23, 1986. Alsoattached is ' a resolution to forward the proposal to the , Boundary Commission and an ordinance to zone the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. , AL LTERNATIVES CONSIDERED y 1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the an � proposal to the Boundary .Commission and zone the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Deny the proposal. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation proposal to the BoundaryCommission and zone the property in conformance with the Camprehensive Plan, ff sb58, NEI STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM JULY 14, '1986 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD CIVIC CENTER 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 . A. FACTS 1, General Information ` CASE: ZCA 1-86' Zone -Change Annexation' . REQUEST: A request to annex 38.95 acres; into the City of Tigard and to zone the property in conformance with the City of 'Tigard , Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as follows: 6' Tax Map/Tax Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning �t 2S1 15A 400 & 401 Wash. Co. R-5' City of Tigard R-4.5 �. 2S1 15AD 100 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-45 2S1 15AD 200 Wash, Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4.5 251 15AD 300 Wash. Co. R-5' City of Tigard R-4:5 2S1 15AD 400 dash. Cu. R—b City of Tigard R-4.5 2S1 15AD 600 Wash. Co. R-5 City of Tigard R-4'.5 X 2S1 14B 800 Wash. Co. R-7 City of Tigard R-7PD and R-12PD 2S1 149 '500 & 601 Wash. Co. RS-1 City of Tigard R-12PD n. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: b: Tax Map/Tax Lot dumber ; 251 15A 400 & 401 Low Density Residential 2S1 15AD 100, 200, 300, 400, 600 Low Density Residential ZS1 143 800, 600 & 601 "tedium Density Residential APPLICANT: then Waymire OWNERS: Eduard & Colleen Funchass 10185 SW Ri.verwood Ln. Reuben & Elizabeth Nesvold ` Tigard OR 97223 Patricia Ogee Edward & Charlotte Thoennes , Roger Speece Larry & Nancy Bissett Marie Vandewater LOCATION: The property is located south of SW Durham Road, north of the Tualatin River and east of SW 100th 2. Background On June 16, 1906 the City Council tentatively approved a : planned development subdivision request for 84 lots on 19.64 acres of the ; ° . property to be annexed: ` STAFF REPORT — ZCA 1-86 _ PAGE 1 e 3. Vicinity Information A. Site Information The land is 1% to 20`X, slopes in developable portion. The site is partially wooded with than majority of the trees (fir, cedar and ash) coracantrateai near the Tualatin Risser and the east side of the;property. Thea property is bordered on the south by the Tualatin River. The " floodplain elevation, according to the applicant, is 127.5 feet. 5. A nc andSPO Comments Wo written comments had been received at the writing of this report. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1 and 10.1.2 and Chapter- 18.136 and Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code. Thei Planning Staff has determined that the proposal as submitted is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based spun 'the findings noted below: a. Plan Policy 2. 2.1 is -satisfied krecause' the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surround property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applica-rit's proposal. b. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is 'satisfied because the Police Department has been notified and the land is located within Tigard's urban Planning Area. The Planning Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the findings "noted-below: a. Chapter 18`.136 is met because the applicant has met all of the approval standards. b. Chapter 16.138 is met because the land meets the definition for buildable lands as defined by OAR 660-07-000 andshall be designated as "developing area" on the Development Standards Area Map. STAFF REPORT -- ZCA 1-86 - PAGE 2 C. RECOWIENDATIOM Based upon the above findings and ' conclusions, the Planning Staff f recommends approval of TCA 1-616 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be designated as a "developing are" on the; Development Standard Areas map. 2. All development on the property shall be reviewed and ,approved by the City of Tigard. 3. The City of Tigard Police Department shall review the proposal. PRET>ARED RY:, Elizabeth Ann Newton AMOVED BY: William A. Monahan Senior Planner^ Director of Planning & Development' (sb58) s Al �a STAFF REPORT TCA 1-05 — PAGE 3 7 r - ANDERSON & DITTMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW TIGARD PROYESSIONAL:CENTER: . f:..; 8085 S.W.CENTER STREET P.O.SOX 29006.TIGARD.OREGON 97228 ((303).-639-1121 DERRYCK H. DITTMAN ROGER F. ANDERSON July 3, 1986 William Monahan, Planning Director City of Tigard ' P.O` box '23397 Tigard, Oregon; 97223 Dear Mr. Monahan: With respect to Dover Landing Project on 108th in :Tigard which the City Council was kind enough to hear on June 16, 1986, there was a new condition imposed at the last minute, apparently, at the suggestion of the City Engineer which required the developer to pipe the water from the subdivision down to the river or flood plain level. '; The area involved is at the north end of the subdivision where there is a water course that is carried under the road by a culvert. I have looked this situation over myself and in my opinion, the channel there would qualify as a natural water course or stream, even though it does not actually flow year around. I am told that a permit was obtained to build a pond some years ago .into which this water flows and certain residents in the vicinity have water, rights to irrigate and pump from this pond. I am genuinely concerned that both the developer and the City could be liable if this water is diverted away from its natural course. I have prepared a memorandum for my client and am enclosing a copy for your reference. I would urge the City staff and attorney to look carefully at this matter before the City imposes this condition on the developer and liability on both the developer and the City. If you have any thoughts or comments I would be happy to talk to you at your convenience. Very truly yours, ANDS N & D TMAN Roger F. Anderson RFA:sr Enclosure cc: Waverly Construction Barris--McMonagle j Timothy V. Ramis - 1 .x . r ANDERSON $k DirrMAN ATTORNEYS AT.LAW TIGARD PROFESSIONAL CENTER ## 8865 S.W. CENTER..STREET t N.O.BOX 230OZ.TIGARD.OREGON 07223 :(503) 630-1121 OrRRYCK M.'OMMA14 ROGER F. ANDEnSON July 1, 1986 t T0: Waverly Construction RE: Drainage of Water PROJECT. Dover Landing I have looked at the drainage at the location where it crosses southwest 108th and floras from East to West through'a large culvert. Within the subdivision on the East side of 108th, there is an existing natural water course where the banks are up :to six feet high and nine feet across from one side of the channel or water course to the other side. Or, the West side of the road, after-water leaves the culvert, there is R_ a'-sell-defined water course with banks approximately three ,feet high and width up to eight feet from one side of the channel to the other. Tn'hen viewing this channel at the end of June, 1986, water was not then flooring but there is evidence that water had recently flowed as there was mud in the bottom of the channel. The natural water course generally consists of a stream with well-defined hanks and channel. Simmons v. Winters, 21 Or 35 (1891). The water course need not flow throughout the entire year. The test for defining_a water course which has dried up has been stated as the ability to go upon the land and say, "here it flowed; here is the track of the water; in this course the stream habitually runs." Borman v. Blackmon, 60 Or 304, (1911): The water course or natural stream for the drainave in and near the proposed Dover Landing subdivision meets the definition of a water course or natural stream as set forth in Oregon law. The law regarding watercoursesor streams is distinct from surface water law and the rules of appropriation and diversion are different. In the case,of Borman v. Blackmon, cited above, Boorman sought to enjoin Blackmon from`blocking a ditch which led from a gully. The gully was a rr' conduit from melting snow andrain water, but was dry much of the year. h MMM M- M, July 1, 1986 Waverly Construction Memorandum Page Two The court held that,such water was considered to be a natural water course with the same., priorities as to water as,a stream or river. The defendant had improperly appropriated the use of the water after it began flowing in a natural water course. In Haves v. Adam sr 109 Or 51 {1923), the court held that an upland owner could not ditch down through an underground stream and divert the water as such waters, even though underground, were stream waters and could notbe interf erred with as the lowland owner had a right to appropriation of such water.; In Simaor_s v. Winters, the lower owner sued the upper owner for obstructing' and appropriating a natural water, course to which the lower owner claimed a : right of appropriation. In that case, the upper owner claimed that the waters were merely surface waters to which the lower owner could claim no interest. However, the r_ourt held that the waters were those of a natural water course and dhe. lowland owner was entitled to his rightful appropriation of such waters. The upland owner could not -interfer with the flow of .such water. The case of "Bush v. City of Portland, 19 Or 45-- (1$90), implies that cites may affect the drainage;of surface water but may not affect the course of natural streams or water courses. In the Bush case, the city was held liable for changing the course of drainage and channeling water across plaintiff's property into a stream. In Dover Landing;area of Southwest 103th, there is a pond which has been created to accept the flog of this natural water course. Th :e are people using water from this pond who have the right to do so and any interference with that right by diverting this water course could result in those causing the diversion to be liable for damages and subject to an injunction,for interference with the course of the flow of this water. ' If this water course is obstructed or diverted as.a requirement of this subdivision, then both the City of Tigard and the developer, could be liable for damages as well as being subject to art injunction from blocking or interferring with the natural;water course. The lowland owners have the right to see that this water continues to flow in its natural course and that no water is diverted by upland owners. ANDERSON & DITTMAN By: Roger Anderson RPA:Jas } F � .9 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM-SUMAMARY AGENDA 0F: July 1�;L 1986 AGENDAITEM : DATE SUBMITTED: jqLy 8, 1986 PREVIOUS AC'T'ION: TU 6-85 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING PREPARED BY: Deborah A., Stuart TU, 9-86 — Irvington Moore -- REQUESTED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: /', ^ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY In August, 1985, U. S. National Resources (Irvington Moore: Forest Products Division)_ requested and received a one—year Temporary Use approval (TU 6-85 for a mobile home office -trailer. Approval was granted with the condition thatall Code parking requirements be met.' it was subsequently detes^imined that more than adequate parking was available to accomodate the addition of the'mobi.le office. No occupancy permit was ever granted for the first mobile home office by the Building Division. The applicant now requests a one--year extension as allowed by the Code of the above approval and requests approval for a second 12' x 60' mobile office trailer. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve the recommendation for denial made by the Planning Director, 2. Approve with conditions. SUGGESTED ACTION Deny the application. (SIAM:br48) ft ' F77 ` STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ,7uly 14, 1986 -- 7:00 P.M. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER TOWN "ALL 13125' S.W. hall Blind. Tigard, OR 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Temporary Use 9-86 REQUEST: Request by U.S. Matural Resources (Irvington Moore) for a one year extension of their Temporary Use permit (TU 6-85) for a mobile office trailer and a request for a second 12' x 60' mobile office trailer for 'a period of one year. q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: Light Industrial � APPLICANT: U S. -Natural Resources 0WNIER: Same 4800 S.W. Macadam Avenue Portland, OR 97201 6 LOCATION: 8205 S.W. Hunziker (WCTM 2S1 IBC, Lot 200) 2, Background In August, 1985, Irvington Moore Forest Products Division requested and received Temporary Use approval (TU 6-85) for a mobile office trailer to be placed on the site for one year. The justification for said request was a surge in business requiring additional administrative and engineering personnel. The addition of the office trailer eliminated 5 ; parking spaces. Approval was granted with the condition that all Code parking requirements be met. 3. Vicinity Information Properties to the north are zoned C-G (General Commercial); properties to the east and south are Roned I—L (Light Industrial); properties to the, southwest are zoned I—P (Industrial Park) and to the west are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre maximum). xM1 `$a TEMPORARY USE TU 9-86 Page 1 , 4. Site Information The subject parcel is 4.2 acres in size. Presently there are three (' layer structures on the site plus the 720 square foot mobile office trailer. The Irvington Moore building (used for fabrication) is 20,000 square feet. Additional manufacturing occupies 20,000 square feet. Office space utilizes 16,000 square feet and the existing office trailer is 720 square feet. No occupancy permit was ever granted ,by the Building Division for the existing office trailer. It is set 7 feet back from the building. Approximately 79 parking spaces are provided. ' The first mobile -trailer removed 5 parking spaces for a net total of 74` The second mobile trailer would therefore subtract another 5 parking spaces leaving atotal of 69. The parking requirements are as follows: Manufacturing 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 20,00 sq. ft. = 20 spaces 12,000 sq`. ft. = 12 spaces Office — 1 space per 350 sq. ft. 16,000 sq'. ft. = 46 spaces Two Office Trailers — 1 space per 350 sq. ft. 2 x 720 sq. ft.` = 4 spaces TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 82 TOTAL SPACES AVAILABLE = 79 The above floor space allotments are different than those indicated by the applicant in 1485. At that time only 37 spaces were regUired. The applicant states that the mobile trailers are needed due to a continued surge in their output thus requiring additional personnel. Future trends in the forest products industry are unclear and so make it difficult to justify permanent expansion of existing office facilities. ' Applicant states that the alternatives are temporary office spaces or relocation of the workforce to a sister company in Woodland, Washington. 5. Agencu and klPO'Comments '' The Tualatin Rural Fire District has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: When the first temporary trailer was placed on the property, it was 1 placed so that an automatic sprinkler system was blocked. The office ` accepted the mistake and made the decision that this was a temporary situation not requiring the trailer to be moved. At this time, since , the time is to be extended for the use of a trailer, we would ask that r» the trailer be moved so that access will not be hampered by the fare department connection. _ We would also ask that trailers, temporary` or : . not, be placed in compliance with Building Code Regulations and Requirements as for set—back from other properties and buildings. TEMPORARY USE TU 9--06 Page 2 � i logok As you can see, "temporary" at times becomes stretched into long term. Temporary is relevant to each person. I believe that the second year is more than temporary, but am willing to work with Irvington Moore on re—locatingthe first trailer to a better position and allowing the second to be placed. The Building Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: It is suggested that as a condition of approval a scaled plat 'map showing the exact location of the temporary trailers in relation to ' other building and floor plans be presented for approval by the Tualatin Rural Fire ' Department. It : should also be indicated whether sanitary facilities are available. The Engineering ' Division has reviewed the application and hs the following comment. The subject property should be required to connect to the sanitary sewerage system. No other comments were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case is Chapter 18.140 of the Community Development Code. The Planning Staff concludes that the relevant portions of the Community Development Code are satisfied based upon the findings noted below: 1. Chapter 18.140 states that the following criteria must be satisifed in order to approve a temporary use for a mobile home in a Commercial or Industrial zone: "(A) The need for use is the direct result of a casualty loss, such as fire, windstorm, flood, or other severe damage by the elements to a preexisting structure or facility previously occupied by the applicant on the premises for which the permit is sought; or (g) The applicant has been evicted within sixty days of the date of the application from a preexisting occupancy of the premises for which the permit is sought as a result of condemnation proceedings by a public authority, or eviction by abatement of nisance proceedings, or by determination of a public body or court having jurisdiction that the continued occupancy of the facilities previously occupied constitutes a nuisance or is unsafe for continued use; or (C)_ There has been a loss of leasehold occupancy rights by the applicant due to ` unforseeabie circumstances or other hardship beyond the foresight and control of the applicant; and { TEMPORA€tY USE TU 9—E6 Page 3 (D) There exists adequate and safe ingress and egress when combined with the 'other uses of the: property; as required by 18.108 Access and :18.102 Clear Vision; (E) There exists adequate parking for the customers of the temporary use as required by 18.106 Off—Street Parking; (i=) The use will not wesult `in congestion on adequate streets; (G) The, use will posP no hazard to pedestrians in the area of the use; ( !) The use will not create adverse off—site impacts including noise,; odors, vibrations, glare, or lights which will affect the adjoining uses in a mariner which other uses allowed outright in the zoned would not affect the adjoining uses." The proposal does not satisfy the criteria necessary ; to approve a tes porary use. No criteria Presentl}� exist in the Community Development Code to allow a mobile trailer temporarily ;n a commercial or industrial zone as a result of financial hardship —;although the Council approved such a use fair this applicant in August,_ 1985. No criteria exists' in the Code limiting the number of temporary trailers nor their purposes (storage, office space, etc.) in a commercial' or industrial zffice one. Ido occupancy permit was issued for thQ existing mobile deteamned trailer• and a field inspection by Planning and Building staff that the trailer does not meet required setbacks. The ;Tualatin Rural an Eire District has also indicated that the existin trailer entl blocks has automatic sprinkler system. Finally, a surge in output appa y caused the applicant to expand into his existing manufacturing and office space thereby requiring three additional parking spaces, which are apparently not available. C. RECOMENDATION Rased aiIpon the findings and conclusions, the Planning staff recommends "DENTAL of TU 9-80. lr Gf� P PARED BY: Deborah A. Stuart A ROVED BY: William A. Monahan Assistant Planner Director of Community Development (dj/br48) 3 Y TEMPORARY USE TU 9-86 Page 4 i i _ on MOOM FOREST PRODUCTS DIVISION June 12 th', ':'1986 '. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT Irvington-Moore has had a facility at this location for 25 years ',and has built up a work force of over one hundred people.' Our main product-line is Sawmill Machinery. Our impact ,on the economic well-being of Tigard remains' significant. ,' We are continuing 'to experience' a surge in our output that requires maintaining and. adding; more Engineering and Adminis- trative personnel . The questions concerning investment tax credit in regard to capital expenditures ;still leave an '.unclear vision toward the trends in the Forest Products Industry, It is difficult to justify' a permanent expansion of our office facilities and we are therefore forced, to look at either temporary office space, or possibly moving our workforce to a sistercompany, in Woodland , Washington. We are therefore applying for a permit for an additional office trailer, on a one year basis, plus a one year extension on the existi,ng . trailer, to accommodate this increase in business .- We are attempting to locate both units in the most inconspicuous location possible, to afford our production requirements and yet not have an unpleasing atmosphere for our neighbors , customers and personnel . P.O.Box 2�i33B/Portiand,0re9on 87223/'hone (503) 620-0800 Telex 155-1141 e r �t 1 s��°`I`w•� ___— y / ars A lot Iv Y': .• e fi s� tGal,f' rF r" SEA FORT ASSOCIAT S Suite 133 Queen Anne Avenue NO- Seattle, °-Seattley 144 98109 (206) 284-3222 3uiv 8, 1986 r Planning Department City of Tigard 1w1;5 .S.W. Ball Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Fil.=_ No, TL, 9-86 Re: Notice of Public Hearing Gentlemex_: itll As owners of the adjoining praperty we are very much concerned Vi �. the above request- granting with the granting of the first request to U.S. Natural '2esources approximately, one year agos personnel from the company W aut'rorization; nor did ._ commenced. parking on our property , they make any attempt to get`authoxizatian. Aitho'sgh we recognize and are sympathetic to the problems arising Alth the we rec or changes confronting many aggressive businesses er if allowing the current request today, we cannot help but a,ond will result in additional invasion of our premises. We therefore petition that the U.S. Natural Resources aiven,this their parking problem before serious consideration be a neva request for an extension and for an additional use permit. , Sincerely, SEAPORT ASSOCIATES Harry H. Horowitzs CPA Treasurer cc: U.S.,Natural Resources Moore FOREST PRODUCTS DIVISION! (( ti=k'S vntl.i kfti NC:f.`i INC July 14th , 1986 Tigard City Council Tigard , Oregon 97223 FILE #TU 9-86 APPLICANTS STATEMENT Irvington-Moore, a manufacturerof Sawmill Machinery, has been at its present location on Hunz'i ker road,; for approximately 25 years . With a work force in excess of one hundred people, and a pay roll 'in excess of $3,000,000 our impact on the economy of Tigard is significant. Being associated with the Forest Products Industry, which has , . been in an economic slump for several years , we now find it difficult to believe .that the current increase in business will continue for any extended period of time. The current increase appears to be related to concern in the industry on elimination of the investment tax credits in regard tocapital expenditure. The last time the Company experienced this kind of rapid increase in business, was in 1973 and it reacted by building a new office building. This turned out to be a terrible mistake, and the -building was sold in 1978. In addressing the concerns of the planning staff, as presented in their recommendation for denial , we would first address the issue of parking. The report states that the company currently has 16,000 square feet of office space , .when in fact it has only 6,000 square feet, using a parking requirement of Manufacturing - 1 space per 1 ,000 sq/ft. Office 1 space per 350 sq/ft We have the following : Manufacturing - 46,350 sq/ft = 46 spaces Office - 6,000 sq/ft = 17 spaces Trailers (2 x 720 sq/ft = 1 ,440 sq/ft 4 spaces Total spaces required 67 spaces With 79 spaces available we would be well within this requirement. P.O. Box 2:3038/Portland,Oregon 97223/Phone (503) 620-0800/Telex 15-1141 -2- Tigard City Council July 14th, 1986 All other i teres mentioned can and would be complied` with. It would appear the major question is whether there' is provision in the code to allow a' temp,orary trailer for this type of use. Our only comment on this is past practice. We refer to the permit granted to Irvington-Moore in 1968 for two temporary office trailers (copy attached) , Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 'r ; '.< �'.s x ♦ci br4? ` � P D 1� r�L L Y J`k T •aD s, � ,�� " �yta'` Lr<�x i� '"r.R,, i • 7.. �fJf �'�ttyaa if4. ttd,t �r,�'. �d.:. Y ht�i� � -J ��Yt� r S• T '�'.�c�< ��nr �x Y' a t r t r 't �r. r�s� Z� rtf' �.ts .fit �t:� ''-,s'`" ,. r Y�`4.i x' ey ver a y' E� '•' t:. Sa a�.t"E q LY � 1`•<'.. ��,'t "��- '� s +.ty�,,.ice _-erg +r� • �w t t )v 9 � � r. .t,. yv �,. �,��'Ail �:Vit, ..d ,-� h tb •'F t � „� _a�.y �}�� k ,l.t`- * ;�•' f t � 3. ,�• �s u< �v .r y` 5 &.i tYJ i.1�.ls r �( � f 'S•f t r d v:. a p F rd's '�`t-�� �+`Y :;a,C-s��t•3 P�✓i '�,,. , .?Y"T �. �:Y.2 �' :i,�„��� }F*g Y�� t+'�' f�`'�a w,+1��✓ ..Sksf 4 t .. t,S��u t t.Se �.vty�Yf +1stdi � �h t'��'�`-mss .+ `�, s +.:. � M.� s •wx--�a X i � s„ �. s'ti sJ,fe4r� '• ; Z t f A 3 x 4R i¢ Y }?• F. i�£ 7 t�DY ,7, «E +p -J �•' k. i r����� r• � �"�`,+C'.r�rx '+t i F ,.r �{ T-L+' �$y '..�r �YI�1i3 �"..?c YVk4r '���"•Fo-£- -�^:w R�. 2•. r .y s K N S•a <.. ; ,ha' ti'k ,u 4 Y *Y : ; t r`,K { +yr• ''ci�.�4,�i .�'ry.tExw �[X.,�� �� .�.,.,.. '�.,t+ Dvtx •. ''a y'Kx :C{'�? e.r:� �~e �. t S, se'+ ,'� { r, e L•7 v t cT ' f'� �� �'rf r• rft � Tt- R'�• •raiM4 ¢ ,"�,^�yp,4s�' - '.- ii '� Il 4. .t} ',,k Cdr - .+at t 7' f.. 't ♦ F ss `.�` -yr' 3 y tSf. :?,�}i�,�r°.�.•5,�''"t•`iV• �#'.'.'.r< y$� "nib,.�� �.��r : * `t� �4,�"5� "�<„2 {.� by�$sry s r•-;., Is't- tl^'� ':fd f ,'z`T i f d;.4`Y� -:�d"�'.." i��_�+ r (.: g M� � � � ,� •> �y s !� � -1, t K .,>` any ro } .. i# �:f; �`*,. t!'a�•:'<cti, cycy3 �'9. ��.1`{� y7 3t .t > 4 `` 't.�v 'x ti.{ a,.,°�as�.a?:...:s,`i..> �` r. � .�..�.zisr:l:..i:L'�......'J._�v,`."`� �...'s �moi.. ..:i s.r.'..•p.u.+..a er...-.,_, ,..c..e.ri.'..a... ,y..x_.« ,s.c_. Y bBUILD NG PERMIT s i r CITY OF TIGARDr OREGON K IiL. t ''r ui r. i?F r Mr No.. bate_. ...._ ..... ...........lim ... A 4< .t Contracto . .. ......... .. .... - Building Address. .................................. This permit expires at 12 P.m-_..----•--- ------------------- --- ----- .............. Notify Building Inspector 24 lours prior to the following required inspections: 1. Excavation sir Fill 4. Porins T. Seder Connection 2. Footing 5. Plumbing 8. Sewer Test 3. Reinforcing Stee-1 ii. Fraane .c=• t �<! at •xK CgGY 'NA'•R�"'"'ti +_ ��1 1� y'" r �yb` v r y <` �'t)'a f+r S ,SSx' a ti, .�a2r9- ,f y'i• Se 1.� t.•. ti X al•,G' ! �Y "x�. t;yit�� '"'' k .�.,g'Fv' �C�.r,+ r ° + '5.1513 r .4.i,+/, .>' �5� z i t .rho S. y � �'i fr'ZIA t ... .�,.. XLs 'X �:p <,' Sr q }2..;.�-.,�. '�RC'r�,,}.. .t'/t�:sr�'�,Y�hr� �•F�' ':- ,< <,,',} -�+ � :�y a l-a i 4 i S <f t i.:'r .k a t y c'f" t,�,��tin r';,,�+„ �f♦.".+.it'srr 1 W �ft��`'.��1T t/-,•,y,141,ia rt ?�+ tc�� � �7 { rr'�f. .r dam. r `s-t° � .r L� "f r~� iZ )}���.(' S-.33c.tf;t,l t � :.:f ib�' .. ;t c i<"� *'+'C 9� Myf t.�X ,c yy )2• (", xr � '�' rl+r a �, ' c a f �.'ff`.Jy�L; }✓f F,Y,.ly ; ` }t'r l a�'�'L 41 J "�,-. �-. ig c },r}s r a ."r'^ (a+r x _.. r n c l.: v t l'._�a sx ♦ 't ,i'•i a a� s' 3 e . 1 yt T ,fei l,�. �.!.i ts+9 r _. Rt♦ �i F 1�'��,. }fi+ f t tt:t �, lf�`� F rt�._•<$.f �r ��,tf r�.� �c J ��� t r 5 � _, c ,�'i- ,;£ ♦ }'y`. {�.sT,{tl���Ya �,.f', it •s spy S? 'f i s r rsyi t yt(D -F � <�)A� r t.. + t� r�� �:f 1 0 �. t 't,¢,;. f e�j S<r t r� :tk><" F�.�'tr &'��`� .yst{ ���3 'I .'Y{ ! -• � i. t i -� t f f c Ai �: f 1_; q T,'S- r �f}t-r.{ . Y c +` ��f - � S'1 t ts±dTJc.- L,. F 'iy i1 � j t ..wC- .. .� 7� -: < r .. j .l t t �.�•r c <t i-a ',,. b r r t -� F � M1i it f�A,"Er t � rt`f. ty j4y>d },rfLt J4Stsk r ty3"r6 nT;F a'�,t re : f t'f'ti. �t i ♦ 4 e a�`��`�`r M Sa 6 �6� ,S C:TY OF TIGRRD - 14 :O S. W. Main RPN-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT Tigard, Oregon Pusi•tding Pgrmit No. Date Issued Sld.stg `.r/ A Locality --- :VALUATItSIN -D1dg::Fee ' Nearest plan Crass St. _�, $ Checkin - NAME g� �.�ci,t ply Receipt No. Fee z ddress�_a a Total' City Tel N0. NAME No.and type of V Secondary occupancies `p $Address V F city Tel.No. No.of Dldgs..now on Lot -• -_ Use of Bldgs now on Lot NA!ye ��. SEWAGE - Address ICa t Tel.No. L .Septic Tank 2. Sanitation District ' ( } State license No. A ( ) E 3. Number of Employees t 4. Types of Waste i NR?AE i � - 5. Address . Tel.No. Sanitary , at State License No. A ( ) BY: E Date- -Plans Checked NA'fE Address By. Cit Tel.No. Date; State license No. A ( } t E f l Zoning BY: iSubd Block Dare: C 1'Oj-ti— �— Permit Issued: °-a Tse,R N MUST DE..ATTR .ED 'SO APPLICATION r •c MUST TO APP OXIMA'l'L•'SCAS.E US£ Z NET RTIFICATE O Qc[�' ,PLANNg•¢jBTL.�..� ep-fdn��� .. Lot Provides Lot Requires Qtr.Sec. NO.— Census -- Arza of Int _ rost Yard Field Check Pty — —• Side Yard L. Date Side Yard R. Approved: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rear Yard Typeof Ocat ane 2• By, i Total Fl. Area 8,. 1• New Const.. ( ) Altera. ( }.. Addition_(. ) ( ) . { ) _ Approved: . 'CHIEF.DEfdLDING:OFFICIAL De®oHsh Repair ! f chasSC of Occupancy To: i pmen.' By; "SIVEC A AATION -ParMn�Spaces -�.� Lead.Docks and Area Type of Construction 1'. II SlI IS4t `.V VI .,/ •=�. :_-- _ •`^ _ (-r'• .tet'_ - �-es-•�-=,°z�-ie 3' *.Dccupaucy Group A:..D C D* EF. G H J Division 12 3 4 Fire Zone 1 2 3 . 'Fire Matrhal::. - — Date hereby acknowledge that I have read this application and state that the above is correct and agree to comply with all City Ordinances and State Laws regulating building construction, sigttattue of / Fermlttee z ter. CITY OF TIGARD, OREG2N COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMI'iTED: June 13 1996 PREVIOUS ACTION: None ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CBD Zone _ Interpretation PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPARTMEINT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE is the interpretation made by the Director of Community Development that the proposed area. of the former Prairie market in the CBD zone for the processing "distribution of vitamin tablets is; prohibited correct? INFORMATION SUr':,NiARY Mag no-Humphries, a company which processes and distributes vitamin tablets wishes to use the Former Prairie Market site on Commercial Street for its business, operation. The CBD was created with the intent that industry be phased out and Eche City center became commercial only, The CBD allows some warehousing and storage on a limited basis. The Director has interpreted the code .to prohibit; any , manufacturing in the CBD. The applicant has appealed this interpretation. Since the adoption of the CBD zone in 1983, the Council has been asked on more than" one occasion to allow industrial uses in the CBD, however, the Council has felt that insufficient time has passed to change the zoning. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Uphold the Director's interpretation. 2. Find that the proposed use is allowed under present CBD zoning as either a permitted or conditional use 3. Find that although the use is not allowed, the intent of the CBD zone is met to allow this limited processing use as incidental to the dominant use, warehousing. A. Find that the CBD zoning should be modified to allow industrial uses SUGGESTED ACTION The stuff suggests that the Council evaluate the intent of the COD zone and give staff direction on how uses such as that proposed relate to the CBD. (br2a) d MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Members of the City Council lune 13, 1986 FROM: William A. Monahan, Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Zoning Interpretation —' Prairie Market Site Magno—Humprhies, manufacturers of; food supplements, would like to, relocate from Wilsonville to Tigard. The company has 'selected the Prairie Market site on Commercial Street in the CBD zone. The proposed use as a warehouse and distribution center would be allowed under 'a conditional use permit. I The proposed 1,500 square foot manufacturing operation (since reduced to 800 square feet), does not qualify, in my opinion, under existing zoning. The applicant feels that the process of manufacturing used by 'fMagno-Humphries is not actually ; a manufacturing use but is more like a food processing operation like the Albertson's bakery, ;a use now ,operating in the CBD. The applicant cites its license issued by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture for its present location which terms the facility as a "Food Processing Establishment". Since the CBD has been an area of;great concern to the Council, I suggested to i the applicant that an appeal of my interpretation would prompt a policy ' discussion.= The origin of the CBD zone and designated allowed uses was the TURA program of 1982 and 1983. The members of the advisory committee proposed a prohibition of any new industrial uses. The Council concurred. Since the TURA program was repealed in 1983, on a few occasions the Council has been asked to consider changing the zoning to either 1) allow new industrial uses, 2) allow expansion of existing ,industrial uses, or 3) designate the area adjacent to the railroad tracks as an industrial zone. The Council has rejected these proposals with the finding that insufficient time has passed to reverse the zoning. The Council wanted to give the area a chance to revitalize as a commercial center. While economic growth has occurred in other areas of Tigard in the past three years, little new activity of a commercial nature has occurred in the CBD. I feel that the Council may wish to again review the zoning issue as the staff prepares a downtown action plan over the next year, with the assistance of the Economic Development Committee and Downtown Council. In the meantime, Magno-Humphries is proposing to locate a viable business which appears to be prohibitedby a: strict interpretation of the CBD zoning. If the Council feels that the use proposed is allowed, the use would be established and operated. It is entirely ,possible that the use would be an interim use until such time as economic pressures make the land too valuable for this use and the operation is replaced by a commercial use. The attached letters show the history of this issue. A copy of the CBD zoning is attached for reference. (br25) StephenWasserberger A R C H I T c C .r P C Architecture acid Interior Design 1318 SM,12th Avenue Portland,Oregon 97201 503%228-2511 uune 3, 1986 City Council' City of Tigard 13'125 `S.W. ''Hall Blvd. Tigard; Oregon 97223 ' Re: Zoning Interpretations Prairie Market Site As representative for Rick Humphries, I hereby appeal the Director of ,Community Development's interpretation of Chapter 18.66, CBD (Central Business District) as it applys to this project. Mr. Humphries' business, Magno-Humphries, processes and distributes vitamin tablets much in the same manner a butcher processes meat or a baker processes loaves of bread. Both of these uses are permitted by the Community Development Code. Magno-Humphries is regulated as food processor (restaurant) by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The processing area will assume a very minor portion (800 square feet) of the 19,840 square foot building. The site in consideration borders railroad tracks and sits well below the adjacent street elevation and is ideally situated, for the proposed use. My client will upgrade and maintain an otherwise depressed property which is definitely in the interest of the community. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $50,00 covering the appeal fee. Sincerely, Stephen Hasserberger SDW:ggw Enclosure Igg7 "Jim; MR. AR 011-1 CAN- Iowa- an IN MW FIN -5M _L4 NOTE INTO RED" TWIN moms BLI Wt ............. ...... .................... May 30, 1986 OREGON 25 Years esf bra 1969-1986 Mr. Rick 'Humphries Magno-Humphries, Inc. P.C. Boat-25043 Portland, OR 97,225 Reference: Zoning Interpretation - Prairie Market Site Dear Aar. Humphries: I have reviewed your letters of April 29 and May 19 concerning the Prairie Market, and your proposed use of the property for the distribution and manufacturing of food supplements and'O.T.0 remedies. I have determined that the proposed use does not 'comply with either the Permitted Uses or Conditional Used sections of Chapter 18.66, CBD (Central Business District) of the Tigard Comtuuity Deivelopment Code. The intent of the City at the time of adoption of the doamunity -Development Codewas to prohibit new manufacturing uses and eventually phase out existing industrial uses until the area becomes fully a commercial center. You are entitled to an appeal of my interpretation by filing a request for interpretation prith the Tigard City Council. Should you wish to do this, please notify Keith Liden of my staff. Sincerely, W :. am A. Monahan, Director, Community Development (WAM:br/2582P) efih Liden, Senior Planner 13425 SUV rials Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Ttgard.Organ 97223 (503)639-4171--- Ince 9 Manufacturers of Perform�c 00to.narn � Food Supplements May, 19, 1986 Wiliam Monahan City of 'Tigard PO Box 28397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr`. _Monahan, This letter is :to further clarify my earlier comments addressed` to ms. Stuart about Magio-iiumphries proposed use of the former Prairie; Market. After my initial letter it has come to my attention that we are licensed key the State Agricultural Department (see attachad). as a food processor. ;tie are subject to the same regulations and have the same license as that of a grocery store or food Thole- , safer. above also please keep in,(mind that our food � < considering .tha,. a processing allocated area would not take up any more room pthan a roces in a gro,:ery outlet and our proposed renovation of the existing bakerstructure and site would significantly enhance the area. We are obviously anxious to make the mo We Tigard. It is our hope that :we can obtain from you a favorable 'administrative ' decisiono If you need any further `clarification please don't hesitate in giving me a call. Sincerely6l 1 F7 Rick Humphries cc: mms/RH Mll,�', k-P P.O.SOX 250430 poRTLAND,OR 972256 (503)682-3225 k o us w Ur W `4 cc 3 LLyUA J a w n3 ce ua a t9 x ul z N X040 c Q 00 -j v� U tu LU 9 c�3 cL ttP°n vd .90 6 4� CL 0. 39 75 m' A O LA g M d1 � n m • to E ® � c Ir w 63 h! 65 LU O N (g1 CwY G N 6 Y N Cc 0 �Q (g U �® _ 2 ® M P S 0 z z F^ tU2c ui Q Ix u� 3: W Z a: M 40 w N u! Id O z co F LS! ul 0 M ~ La ul uj 0 ul t 6d z a u M IL tL. C N ^ w G Y $ I MAGNO-HUMPHRIESg _ c. Manufacturers of Perform'&Optimum Food Supplements E April 29, 1986 Deborah Stuart Assistant Planner City of Tigard PO Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Ms. Stuart, Magno-Humphries Inc. is in the process of purchasing' the vacated Prairie Market on -iall & Commercial in Tigard. Magno-Humphries is a distributor and manufacturer of food supplements and O.T.C. remedies and is presently located in Wilsonville. 'f Our 'tentative plans for the site in Tigard would include the full - C; owing allocation of the 20,000 sq. ft. of the former Prairie Market. 1.) 16,000 sq. ft. used for general warehousing of product. 2.) 1,500 sq. ft. for office. 3. ) , sq. ft. for manufacturi Tng. 4.) 1,000 sq. ft. for packaging. �- 5.)' 500 sq. ft. for laboratory. Manufacturing or white room area would be where the present meat pre - paration 'area is now located. Machinery-would' include four tableting presses and one two.-piece encapsulator, each enclosed in clean sealed rooms'. Magno-Humphries manufactures approximately 60% of all products distributed. The remainder including O.T.C. remedies, soft gelatin capsules, and calor coated tablets, are purchased outside. Packaging area would also be in a clean sealed room and includes one line of packaging ,equipment. Magno-Humphries is inspected by both the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture and meets all current regulations. P.O.SOX 25043 0 PORTLAND,OR 97225+ (503)582-3225 In applying for a conditional use permit please keep in mind that the majority of the building would be used as a warehouse far finished goods storage moth for our optimum brand food supplement line and a variety of private labels. Manufacturing area non- polluting and noise free. If you have any questions please don't hesitate in giving me a call. As our offer is contingent on getting zone approval from the city. your expeditious handling of this matter is greatly appreciated. S i�rnc'e r 1 Rick mphries President' cc• mins/R11 t K Y r3` i t4 v S", s+�';`+'- )i:�¢.i F;lsS � �'�b+tt„°I+�,tt'xF�T��}�rdrst'A4?r?6t�.+� .t,n r.:.. L,4� - '*^fi •'Y' htla",r:�.i'1r � _ I 1 n I D� C j I, ago • Humphries ._ •"`+Y�� � �_"'a.� ,.ti der-: a���x +�r" �f 1az ftMll: � ' ®-� mist. d l i d rFra6 1 Pl2nY ! '(tlrJ�lrOrtriplt=rlrirlr(!1'Jtl► tl9erit4tlfiftr f�f.it�7 t7�7��Tnjm tlt !f t(FfT fir fait t r r r � i� � � g � 1 � I i � ) _...._ .,,�-���. � � � � t � .� C � � t--1-i r L� i�rif oliltiF g►jt(1 tltil�r ftaialr rhilll rlrirl''f(r e!r f!r ttr�rlr rtr rye aif y NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED IZ... DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. _ oe 6z as iz sz sz oz_ez zz tz oz"61 ai—ci 91 �nfltnduN�saduu�NulkerlomisoiJn r Ott vvu MARCH -7fl f' i I i _ I a NTS or+i� � /17,,coo sf. M� xIvN I i cl ca -13 M, I IT I0 • f�i"i► tly� _ - 7} _ . I , , _ , . ., X11 III 111 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r l l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 7 ► I-1 r 1 I 1 I I l I T-1 f i 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 �I I PT� �r 1 I I t r I I� I I ( I ( I I I I I I nII11111111111111111111111'1111.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrII111111111j11111 , NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 ] 8 9 10 II 12 DRAWIl,G IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z 82 LZ 92 SZ 92 EZ ZZ IZ 0Z 61 91 LI SI S1 bl EI 21 II Or 6 9 L 9 S r A- CITY OF iRD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA. ITEtj SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: ti DATE SUBMITTED: PREVIOUS ACTION. _ ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: -uRA& &lam Tn �rnvarnms_n_P��$g ��mn PREPARED BY: william A. Monahan REQUESTED BY:: DEPARTMENT-HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should the City revise the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County. a INFORMATION SUMMARY �^- The staff suggests that the City council modify the language of the UPAA .to prevent a potential conflict with the Metzger Annexation. In addition, the Durham Rd. jurisdiction transfer is conditional on acceptance of the City and County of some development terms. The staff will present the detailed conditions to the Council on July 14 a ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED t 1. Revise the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement. 2. Modify the staff modifications. 3. Take no action. SUGGESTED ACTION Revise the UPAA as suggested and Intergovernmental Agreement. To: Members of the City Council n, Director of Community Development From: William A. Monaha Date: July 7, 1986Area Agreemnent and RE's Washington County and Tigard Urban P arming intergovernmental Agreement: At the Zast City Council meeting the Council modified the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement suggested by Washington County for the transfer of urisdiction' of Durham Road, The t athe modified language, as a re County could nosult, gree with the transfer has been delayed until the July 22, j98I expect ,the e. allow staff to arrive at some alwhichtw`illloutline the specific bring,you some revised language l ed to Durham Road, This development standards to be app approach will allow us to accomplish the same arrangement that we reached for 135th. I will meet with county staff during the week of July 7. We also are proposing a revision;to the Urban Planning earlier adopted. Area Agreement which the Council t is still 2 the County and will be c pending before onsidered at file July meeting`. The :City is proposing to eliminate .the General Policy which states "Annexations to the CITY outsidehtthe Urb anPlanning Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or' change s needed in order o avoid any conflicts which our UPAA for or APAA with Beaverton could cause if thetMetzgerhe dary community is the Metzger Annexation p , P certified. The County Planning Director has verbally agreed with this language revision. Copies of the UPAA and Intergovernmental Agreement ofthe attacre hed for your review. 'The UPAA contains 'a hig g leted. The Intergovernmental Agreement has the area he be de language which the Council earlier agreed ow ll�present4�tolyou-at further modified with language your meeting on July lel. .: 1 - v t June QCs-, 1986 ' REG ON _ s 25•Years of Same 9961-19.58 Mr. Rick Daniels, Director,' 'Land Use and Transportation Washington County, Y Hillsboro, OR 97124 $a � Subjeot: Urban;Planning Area Agre4n1ent.µ(UPAA) Hear Rick: -• . The `Czty�-of Tigard requests Lieletion.or. Page 7 of,Section'C. - General Policies and cede signation of >Section D. as uew . Section C. Special Policies. We will then redrafC as, revised following Commission approval an the Ju3j� 23-, 198b hearing. a ' Sin Robert W. J&an, City Administrator _ 1yo /br Encl. 3 �i V25 M kali B'vd RO.Box 233597,T{garel,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 - bf86 WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is 'entered into this day of 19 by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political s ;vision of the State o regon, hereinafter referred to;as the "CMITY," and the CITY OF T GARD, an incorporated municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY." WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements, for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the; agreement, its officers or agents have 'authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be consistent with,the comprehensive plans of the cities' and counties and regional plans 'adopted under ORS'Chapter 197, and WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means :by which comprehensive planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre- hensive pians, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: 1. A site-specific. Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; 3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4 A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I . Location of the Urban Planninq Area The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. 11 . Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensivv Plan or Implementing Regulation Page 2 i 1. ` Definitions i Comrehensive plan as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5)=means` a k generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of l ands, including, but not 1 imited to, sewer and grater systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recrea- tional . facilities, and natural resources and` air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes. E I�lementing_R�egulation means any local government Zoning oadi- narece' a a- Tc ivis�om ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 42.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for imple- menting mple-menting acomprehensive plan. "=Implementing regulation" does not include small tract zoning;map amendments, conditional use per- mits, individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit devel- opment approval or denials, annexations, variances, building pet-nits and similar administrative-type decisions. 2. ` The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate oppor- tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or ,adoption of the COU14 Y comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the � appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: . a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the other agency, 'hereinafter the responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini- tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "Memorandums of Under- standing" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the :CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly,outline the process by which the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at 'g the time of being notified of a proposed action, the responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption-process, it may waive the requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding." b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding IBM Page 3 agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to submit cotrents orally or in writing. Lack of response shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. C. The originating agency shall respond to the cents made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final reeom- mend ati ons, or b) by letter to the responding agency explaining why the caments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding `agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate :appeals body;and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi- nating ;agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written docurnen- tatian is available to properly inform the res ponding ,agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners ,= Definition Ueveiopzaent Action Re sarin Notice means an action 'by a local government w ie requires notes ging by mail the owners of oro perty which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited <to small tract zoning or; comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special- use Pel_'*�its, individual 'subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit c!eelopmeaats, ariantes, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. 2. The COUNTY will ;provide, the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide theCOUNTYwith the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY iimiis that ` may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be fol l owe(i by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of proposed developtnent actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by s u Page 4 first Class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development °action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive a notice shall not, invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. ;respond at its di sere- b. The agency receiving the notice maytion. Commrents may be submitted in,written form or an oral : response maybe made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . C. If received in a timely manner, the originating agency shall include or attachthe comments to the written staff report :$ and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing, d. Comments the responding agency; shall' be given con- r sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts ;contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency: may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate`' appeals body and procedures. C. Additional Coordination Requirements l . The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify; one another of proposed actions which may affect the ccmrunity, but are not subject to the notification and participation require ments contained In subsections A' and 6 above y a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall 1 send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen- das which contain the proposed actions to the other ,agency, hereinafter the 'responding agency, at the earliest oppor- tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the datQ'of the scheduled public hearing`. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a 'good faith attempt was made by the;originating agency s# to notify the responding agency. x b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an.oral response may be made at the publ is hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . Page 5 C. Conments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a "part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures III. Comprehensive Planning and `Development 'Policies A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and 'certain unin- corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and ;seeks :to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A". 2. The CITY shall be responsiblefor comprehensive' planning within the Active Planning Area. 3, The CITY is 'responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend went of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water' service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban densities consistent with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY's Active Planning Area. 4 u Page 6 8. Area of Interest 1. Definition Area of Interest or Primar Area of Interest means unincorporated an s contiguous to t e ctive anning rea in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in; which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the public facility pi an required by OAR 660-12 within the Area of Interest. 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations° in the Area of Interest subject to the following: a. The CITY shall not 'require annexation of lands in the:Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for development. b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre- sentative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square,_ within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the fore- going, the CITY reserves all of itsrightsto annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITYpursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d. Upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY,-the_ CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY_ designations. -Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one ,year after the effective 'date of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agreeatthe`time of ar annexation that the COUNTY designation is outd ted ,,,,'' 's aminendment 'may be initiated before the on ytar pts over. i Page 7 {, 5. The City of Beaverton and the City ;of Tigard have reached an agreement on' a South Beaverton-North Tigard boundary establishing future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary'shown on Exhibit "A". Washington 'County'recognizes that the future annexation area of interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual agreement of both cities'. C. General Policies 2i 1. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY. D. Special Policies - 1. The, CITY and the COUNTY shall `provide information of comprehensive 'planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce- dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement. 2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt anew plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to the following stipulations regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street: a. The City of Tigard, 'City of Beaverton and Washington County agree to amend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect the Following functional classification and design considerations:' 1. Designation: Collector 2. Number of Travel 'Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major intersections) 3 Bike Lanes Yes 4. Right-of-Way: 50 feet ,(plus slope easeirtents where necessary) 5. Pavement Width: 40 foot minimum Page 8<, 6. Access: Limited 7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.H. 8. Minimum .Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street A. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec- tion may be planned to eventually accornmodate additional lanes at the Murray/Old Scholls Ferry and Murray/New Scholls ferry intersections. 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue terminating at the Murray connection With a "T" intersecti0n. 12. The general alignment of the Murray Boulevard connection is illustrated in Exhibit B. b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that `traffic impacts are adequately analyzed. c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County shall support improvements to the regional transportation system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) . d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street. e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec- tions in 1986. 5. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and review notices required by Sections 1I A, 6' and C of this Agreement. P age 9 IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement:or the Urban Planning Area = Boundary: 1. The,CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement describing the amendment.` b. A statement of findings indicating why the ;pro posed amendment is necessary. , c. If the request is to amend the pl anni;ng area boundary,; a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held Within 45 days of the date the request is received. 4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve I. requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the; request, deny the request, or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in' he t-evie�a process as outlined; in Section III (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such: a study shall commence within 90 days of the date it is determined that :a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CI,Y and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study,' b. Upon completion of the joint study, the :study and Che reconnendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of the review. The agency 'considering the propose4 amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making ;a final decision. ' b .R } Page 10 B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following topics: Urban services provision by the'County and City; the possibility of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the Metzger-Progress Planning Areca as shown as an area of interest on Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III 8.4.d,, which now requires the City to maintain County plan designations for one year after the effective date of annexation. Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the parties as data is available as soon as possible after September 1, 1986. C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2') years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluatethe effectiveness of the processes set'forthherein and to make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may, terminate this Agreement. V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning Area Agreement dated September 26, 1983, Washington County Resolution and Order No. 84.73, and City of Tigard Resolution 84-196. This Agreement commences on IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD ByDate _. Mayor WASHINGTON COUNTY By Date lairman, oar o ty oun0 nissioners Date Recording Secretary 1 tir�: `� '" el• t US � �' it ,P '_ .;..��•J—f •kms-tr-�'r'�'� _'-�. ,;``� ;I.JUS �-`�JR.�,`{��yY �W�'+y_ �y, �1 l�,'�� {� `�;may, i G s , ul uj < I LL a - o� ® ui a m cc x I� r JJ m LU it -K Z > a co M0 W 3 F� T� w�"c '�F r �� � �,�'�,� +`3 ^m. '�.� �.:>,x�..�w✓sv�yix,'.!s .p, x FF•-"�}' ter` `+� �a,°+47.+k',fit�•` ae'�" r.'� �'� Sys' �"M �^.f' r� .Y �a s t� �w t fi S t f s Z�, ,..s-. 9^ .s =� PsKs Y a s «. irk,c x as ' '��*' x'' '" ...;.; � Ri: � �r'x c.�� ��. :d. x �,3'''�:x��v��- »'.,�'�Y' z' �t s:,a^« � .v, ,F �"+.. .asr, �-v.! '�' t�, ��ti-�a�' ...��xl r+s"�`•. �,,. '7�„�'�`�t fin.-. t 3�97ERS�OVERP3E�S7Fli F�GREE EMT This AGREEMENT, arcade and entered into as of the day of 1986, by and, between the CITY OF TIGARD (hereinafter referred to as ITY'°) and WASHINGTON COUNTY', a home rule political subdivision of the State of Oregon, (hereinafter referr ed to as '°COUNTY'°). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY is desirous of obtaining jurisdiction of a portion of S.W. Curham Road (County Roan! No. 429) lying between S.W. Hall Blvd, and Oregon 'Highway 99W and WHEREAS, COUNTY is considering the surrender of jurisdiction of said road, either in whole or part, based upon the execution of this agreement by CITY WHEREAS, COUNTY has adopted policies to guide the surrender of jurisdiction process in the interimperiod prior to updating COUNTY'S Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, COUNTY in the, transportation plan update process is determining roads which provide ` county-wide circulation of which the maintenance, ' improvement or expansion should be funded from county—wide revenue sources; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY transportation plan update will be coordinated with adopted CITY transportation plan, thus resolving differences and establishing uniform classifications and standards; NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to ORS 190.003 through ORS 190.030 and in consideration of the mutual covenants' contained herein, the parties agree—as follows: 1. COUNTY shall: A. Diligently pursue the completion of the process of surrendering„COUNTY jurisdiction for all of that portion of S.W. Durham Road as previously described as well as endorsing the City's efforts to administratively annex those portions of Durham Road outside of the City limits. B, Diligently pursue the completion of the process to surrender , jurisdiction for all of the remaining portions of Durham Road to the City upon' adaninistrative annexation of those segments by the City. i ' 2. If said road, in whole or in part, is surrendered by COUNTY TO CITY, CITY agrees to the following: { ,, t, PAGE 1 or any A. That the standards for construction, reconstruction improvement whatsoever on said roads shall be in accordance with those standards of the COUNTY, erdorsed by the City: an February, 24, 1986 in a Memorandum of Understanding. Said standards are entitled Washington Co unty ' Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards (Exhibit A), (i.e. section depth and paving thickness but not access or' other Caunty, Development Code requirements). B. That the CITY will initiate Administrative Annexation of those 'segments of Durham Road not Within Tigard for the purpose of requesting jurisdiction of the entire length of Durham Road from pacific Highway (Hwy. 99W) to Hall Blvd. 3. This agreement shall be in affect for two (2) years from the date executed by CITY below and shall' automatically be extended for additional two (2) year periods unless at least yQ days prior to the end of a term, CITY delivers to COUNTY a termination notice. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF TIGARD FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Chairman vayo Recording Secretary City R c rder/ O DATE EXECUTED: DATE EXECUTED: K llz APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel Office City Attorney's Office f (br23) PAGE 2 4 : t if [ 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT - 1 ' day of ` This AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the _.--------' b and between the CITY OF TIGA,RD (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") 29� y and WASHINGTON COUNTY, a home rule political subdivision of the State of Oregon (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"). WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, CITY, is desirous of obtaining jurisdiction of a portion of s.W, Durham Road '(€:ounty Road No. 429) lying between. S.W. Hall Blvd and 01regon Highway 99, and WHEREAS, COUNTY i considering the surrender of jurisdiction of said road, either in whole or part, based upon the execution of this agreement by CITY, WHEREAS, COUNTY has adopted policies to guide the surrender of jurisdiction process in the interim period prior to updating COUNTY°S Transportation Plan® and WHEREAS, COUNTY in the transportation plan update process is determining roads which provide countywide circulation of which the maintenance. ountywide revenue sources; and improvement or expansion should be funded from c PAGE I ff WHEREAS, the COUNTY transportation plan update will be coordinated with adopted CITY transportation.plan, thus resolving differences and establishing' uniform classifications and standards, NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to ORS 190.003 through ORS 190.030and in copsideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the;parties agree as follows: 1. COUNTY shall: A. Diligently pursue the completion of the process of surrendering COUNTY jurisdiction for all of that portion of S.. . Durham Road as preii1ously described. B. Endorse the CITY'S effort to administratively annex those <W portions of S.W. Dunham Road that are presently outside the corporate limits of CITY. C. Diligently pursue the completion of the 'process to surrender jurisdiction of the remainder of S.W. Durham Road to the CITY upon the successful annexation of the entire road right of way when requested by the CITY. C PAGE 2 2. If said road,,in whole or in part, is surrendered by COUNTY TO CITY, CITY agrees to the following: A. That the CITY will sustain the designated function of the C0UNP for Durham Road with the following interim standards to apply: 1.' Number of travel Lanes: 2'(plus'turn lanes at major intersections and other public roads) 2. Right-of-way: 90 feet 3. Pavement width: 44 feet minimum 4. Bike lanes: ' Yes 5. -Access Spacing: 600 feet minimum (subject to City variance procedures) 6. Design Speed: 45 mph B. That the CITY will initiate administrative annexation of those segments of S.M. Durham Road not within the corporate limits of the CITY for the purpose of requesting jurisdiction of the remainder of S.M. Durham Road lying between Pacific Highway and Nall Blvd, PAGE 3 3. This gre�moe�t shall be in effect for two (2) years from the date executed by CITY loend shall aut R,atically be extended for additional is (2) year periods unless at leash 40 days prior to the end of term, CITY delivers to COUNTY a terms��titn notice- the r ISSIONERS CITY OF ! BOARD OF COUNTY CO " FOR NASfiINGTON COUNTY a OREGON Chairman City Recorder Recording Secretary DATE EXECUTED: DATE EXECUTED—)--� - c; APP�£O`r AS AP OVED AS 0 FO County counsel Office Attorney Off ce �y PAGE 4 r .7 .1777717, CIT`l OFAARDS OOREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUGARY July 14, 1986 _ AGENDA ITEM : --- - AGztEDA OF '1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: DATE SUBMITTED. July 3, Authorization to Advertise Bid Award for for Bids ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Asphalt Pavement overlays �-- PREPARED @Y: City Engineer / REQUESTED BY: CITY ADM INISTRATOR: --—= DEPARTMENT MEAD OK* —_— POLI CY_ISSUE tract for construction of s.W. Fairview and Review of bids and award of the con S.iV. 68th avenue Pavement Overlay Projects. INFORMATION SUMMARY ned bids for the pavement overlay projects. The On June 26, 1986, we ope Five bids were received, project locations are s'rxown on the attached map. consultant. The ro ect budget. as summar3:zed on the attached letter from the engineering low bid is below the engineer's estimate and within the p j t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Award the contract to the low bidder, Or Asphalt Paving Co. 2. Reject all bids. SUGGESTED_ ACTION Award the contract to the low bidder', Oregon Asphalt Paving Co, ORDINANCE {�O. Page i 1 i 1 i c 2{ ant i Pl13S s7i Ir AL_- ao ", , i '—�g #M-- � J a3 1 a - -- oro •yr w t pp 4L ��/ pppp55 k f a m/ tlNo y � "Pn"f: ]ami w{ i �reG •P�' „i� , d 4�4 N4�de,`V Y � i'� �fl •JAa M1Q �'vy� 4• o Jai..+ a s �+ra° 4 N ��' 4 � G � r •^i� � "Hn am V1t m•s f � a sp 1 ! aii •Hn• raes 4. V 9{ � "+• LL*m60 d N. 1 i i{a D. tlapp` qi '• $y 8jt j 'Y9 ~• , t ` �a!`\ e} Al rav Ar V ¢a 1 �i 11 4 '1 @ I r d MiV V Al.. 1; Cas�T�j a .4• ti �L�'. AG ._T_. _bni�_ li$ a! s � •]n,--..,Isla .ar,B ti0j d `j d i ti g�p{541 —1. [ t Hnr rlHn !na rlGu .e .g_ ma•• 04 Pff consulting engineers July 2 1986 Mr. Randall Wooley City Engineer CITY OF TIGARD Post Office Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Fairview and 68th Street Overlays kpiff Project No. 86102 Dear Randy: We have reviewed the proposals submitted on June 26, 1986, for the construction of Fairview and 68th Street Overlay Projects. The lbw bidder for the combined projects is Oregon Asphaltic Paving Company of Portland, Oregon. The results of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR SCH. A SCH. B TOTAL Oregon Asphalt Paving Co. $17,895.00 $15,400.00 $33,295.00 Eagle-Elsner, Inc. 23,290.00 16,980.00 40,270.00 K.F. Jacobson & Co, Inc. 24,600.00 17,780.00 42,400.00 Baker Rock Crushing Co. 27,044.00 18,942.50 45,986.50 -Cascade Const. Co., Inc. 28,179.00 20,961.00 49,140.00 Engineers Estimate 19,520.00 17,780.00 37,390.00 Basedon the lowest responsible bid, we would recommend that the construction contract be awarded to Oregon 'Asphalt Paving Company in the amount of $33,295.00. ,. If you have any questions, please contact me.- Very truly yours, - Stuart L. Cato, P.E. G Manager, Civil Engineering 421 s w.6th avenue,suite 911, portland,or 97204 (503) 227-3251 los angeles portland seattle CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY AGENDA OF: July 21, 1986 _ AGENDA ITEM 6: d fY DATE SUBMITTED July l0, 1586 PREVIOUS ACTION: :. ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: or DFSiSioxL� M 4-86 - Donald Hood PREPARED BY: Community Development , SDP, 12-86 Jerry 'Crispe/Robert Dubal REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POL.T._CY ISSUE -- INFORMATION SUPVARY Attached are the Director'is Decisions for the following: _-` 1. M 4=II6 - Approval of a request by Donald Hood to adjust two parcels of 16,328 and 23,025 square feet into two parcels of 31,653 and 7,700 square . feet on each property zoned R-4`.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and ., located at 8605 and 8625 SW Pinebrook Street. """ 2. SDR 12-86 - approval of a request by ;Jerry Crispe/Robert Dubal for a Site Development Review for the construction of a 8500 square foot office building and related facilities on a 30,492 square foot property zoned C-P (Commercial-Professional) , located at Southeast corner of 72nd ,Avenue and Sandburg Road. " ALTERWATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. " •," SUGGESTED ACTION Approve as written. ORDINANCE NO, 06- Page 1 i I ' F77 ' z CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION Lot tine Adjustment M 4-86 APPLIC�iTIs3Re: Request by Donald Hood to adjust two parcel of 16,328 and 02.5 square feet into two parcels of 31, 653 and 7,700 square feet each on = property t coned -4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre;; and located at (3505 erred 8625 SW'Pinebrook Street ( 'TM 2S1 13AD Lots 400 and 500). DEC SION. Notice is hereby given that the Planning 'Director for the City of Tigard has APPROVED the to "certain conditions. The above decision subject on which the Director based his decision are as noted findings and conclusions . below. r A. FINDING OF FACT k 1' Background No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Division for the subject property. 2. Vicinity Information Properties in all directions are zoned R-4.5 (residential, 4.5 units per acre). 3, Site Information and Proposal Description An approximately 2,184 square foot residence is proposed for tax lot 400. Tax lot 500 is a flag lot and has a residence. The applicant proposes to decrease tax lot 400 from 23,025 to 7,700 square feet and increase tax lot 500 from 16,328 to 31,653 square feet. No easement exists can tax lot 400 for sanitary sewer, which crosses the parcel along the eastern property line. Lot 500 presently is hooked up to City sewer. 4. Agency and Np0 Comments The Tigard Water District has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments a. The location of the storm drainage and sanitary sewerlines, which are designated ,as approximate on the app submittal, shall be positively identified prior to issuance of building permits. Should the lines lie on the ` applicant's parcel or be so situated that conveyance of a public easement is desirable in order to facilitate City operation and maintenance thereof, such shall be done by the applicantprior to issuance of a building permit. NOTICE OF DECISION M 4--86 - PAGE 1 x i b, Outstanding assessments exist for. .tax lot 400 •and 500 regarding the P:inebrook-Bonita interce0tor San'i`tary `Sewer.. 'Tax 'lot 400 owas $1,:876..,45 :and tax 'lot '500 •owes '$97..75.. �k _ Both amounts :need to be ;paid prior to .recording of this lot line adjustment and ,prior to issuance of :any germ'its to do work thereon. We gave` received no further comments:. B. ANALYSIS ANIS CONCLUSION -The proposal` meets the; ,provisions` of :.Section 1.8..162 iof the "Tigard Municipal Code,. The proposed smaller .lot 400 iwill •conform iauith ',the minimum 13t ` cute `of 7;500 square: feet` in the R=4_5 zone and luffll maintain a minimum average lot' width of `50 -feet,. Thi 32 ,foot ;rear yard setbackwill exceed the minimum Code :requi:rement of 1"5 feet: � f C. DECISION ` i is The Planning Director a +8 pproves M 4- 6 subject to the following ' conditions.: r 1. t NLESS OTHERWISE 'NOT.ED, ;ALL CONDITIONS 'SHALL BE sMET PRIOR TO RECORDING LOF'THE LOT :LINE AD'.7USTMENT =WITH 'WASHINGTON :COUNTY_ 2. The final legal descriptions and .survey ,map sha11 be ireviawed •.and approved by the ; Planning 'Director ipr:ior to recording The necessary �docum-4,nts .shall be recarded iby the -City ;unless •other arrangements are ;approved by the :Director.. �{ 3.. Standard concrete •driveway apron :shall be installed :along the SW Pinebrook ;Street frontage.. Construction of ;prpposed driveway ,apron shall not :commence •until .after the 'Engineering :Section 'has issued a Street Opening ,Permit.. The section Twill require posting t of a 100% ':Performance iBond and the payment sof .a ;permit :fee.. 'SEE THE ENCLOSED '.HANDOUT �GIUING ,MORE :SPECIFIC .INFORMATION `:REGARDING FEE 'SCHEDULES, BONDING AND ;AGREEMENTS. 4. Sanikary sewer ;plan-profile details :shall be iprovAded :as ;part of � the ,building improvement plans.. 5,. Uuts'tanding ,assessments on ':both :lots for :the �Pinebrook=Bonita -Inte.rceptorSanitary Sewer ,shall be pais{ ,prior to ;issuance =of •achy permits to do ,work thereon.. 6. The applicant creeds to positi•vel_y identify the location of .sanitary :sewer :and .storm drainage lines Tprlor to Issuance orf building ,permits.. Should the lines lie on :the applicant":s <parc4l � or be so situated thatconveyance of a ,public .easement is desirable in •order to facilitate City operation :and :maintenance thereof., such shall be done by the applicant !prior to i•s.suance .of a building permit.. ,NOTICE tJF DECISION - `M 4-86 PAGE 2 E` 7.. The }tet inns .ad'justment .approval s valid If ,exercised ;uikthin ^one {r. ,:year of ithe f=znal e:te6i! on::date=noteal blow. IS. TROCEDURE -a- e: Iiotsc vFas fptib"shed sin :the neswspaper, 'posted .=at ,city 3H41:1 :and mad:led A. -- 'The :applicant & cowners Owners .of record:aaithin:the :required distance ;XX ' the =affected Nighbo0hood �Planri g ;��^ganization" ,Aff:eeted,governmental %agencies ;�,. .Enid Macfsion: -THE t.DEGTSTt7iV 'SHALL '.DE -HANAL TORI ` t�ikCESS AtU tAPPEAL TS FILED. ;g ny .party ,to .the cdecas en may .appeal this {load ion :in :accordance :18 with Sectsan 'f8: 'L:29€3�( ) and LSec �. ton _32:370 .Q 'tete :asmmuzii y Mve'lopment 'Code Whkc:h ,pro%ides ,that "a .written :appeal must ;.be ;filed ;l ith the CITY (RECORDER g,within ao days :after notices ,i.s g iven 21 «enc! ;- ''The:deadl€ine =f nr fVIi .of ;an<appe€al is ,r.30:P:�1. A. °.tesestions: if jou hive. °questions,, :please call "the .C .t 'of Tigard Plaxaning meparts�ent„ Tigard `City .Hall, f2755:SW Ash, ;RO'Don %23.3;9?„ Tigard, Oregon 97223, 63"g=4171. : .REP.€1RED wf3Y.: xDQl,przih (A. ,Stuarit, f+ssistarit zPlanr=.er DATE �_ � ��,.�_._�--- A.. ;P,l :d onahan, :director 4f(Cc+aunaty Development D E .APPROYED T k ;AT E ,OF``EIEGSSTO�� - IM%,4 -i86 —#PAGE :3 .0%'TY OF TIGARt ECDTTCE fDECISIOM SITE E�E4lELf1@�a"IEtUT-,REVIE9�i SDR 12=•86 `< :APPLICATION 'Request by "Jerry XrispelRobert _Dubai for ~a Site Development ::Review +for the:construction,.of a ;8500 .square 'foot office-=.building and, related -faciI.ities on a 301992 square foot "property zoned C—P (Commercial=Professional). :_Location: ":Southeast corner of 72nc1 -:Avenue and Sandberg 'Road. _(WCTM"2S1:.IDC;lot :3703). ; "DECISION: °�lotice ".is ; c `The remaining street improvements along the '72nd Avenue frontage need ;to ,be installed in conjunction with -this development. The `Tualatin`Rural Fire Protection 'District . indicatcs that 'this tyualding=is 'roquired .to "have all portions within 250 feet af: ire, hydrant. The Building Inspection'Di.visiori'has no objection to the`proposal. :No.other comments have ;been received. 8. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The>propos d:project' is consistent with, applicable Community Development Code ':provisions for .lot coverage: 'building .height, visual- clearance e driuway .-entrances, and .the"nurrsfser and . type of parking spaces. > The rements for conceptual' landscaping .-plan ,is consi'stent =with'Code requi street:trees. ' landscaped islands within the -parking -`lot, and, plantings on the 'pr®perty.,; R ,mQre detailed: plan..indicated: plant species to be used':'must' :be -submitted for . approval prior to issuance of building per€sits. The'Code requires .'that secure bicycle rack spaces be. provided at m `ratio of one space dor every ; 15 required vehicles spaces. Therefore. `this: project will require ,two'�bicycle spaces- at applicant proposes wall`:sign and a free standing sign is".not contemplated at this time C. ®ECTSION Based upon the:dicussion .abo+�e, the Planning Director approve SDR 12=85 subject.to.the following conditions: 1. UNLESS :0THEF.WISF_ NOTED, "ALL ,CONDITIONS SHALL '.BE '.MET =PRIOR TO ISSUANCE:OF`BUILDING'PERMITS. 2. Standard ,half-street improvements including five foot wide concrete sidewalk, :curb, . and utilities 'shall be installed along the Sof 72nd .'Avenue frontage. Said improvements :long 5E+1 "Avenue -shall'-be built to'City major:collector street standards and conform':to the--alignment of existing :adjacent .improvements. 3 Five (5) . sets of ;:plan-profile public improvement ' construction plans and (1) itemized :construction:costesti:,iate, stamped .by a Registered Professional .Civil :Engineer, detailing all proposed -,public improvements + shall- be submitted to the Engineering Section ifor>.approval. q. Sanitary and storm sewer-connection plan-profile details shall be providedc--.as >part of:the--building and.public improvement plans. filOTICE'CfF.DECISION -; SDR:12—$6 PAGE 2 5. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the ;Engineering Section has issued approved public improvementplans. - The Section will. require posting .of a-'10095 Performance Bond, the'—payment of a permit :fee and a streetli'ht_ fee. Also, the execution. of a street opening permit shall occur (r priorto, or- concurrently ; with the issuance of approved public improvements plans. `SEE THE. ENCLOSED HANDOUT GIVING MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION`REOARDING FEE SCHEDULES, BONDING AND AGREEMENTS. 6. Two copies : of a detailed ,landscaping-plan shall be submitted for Plannitmg Director , approval .which identified the species of the landscaping materials shown on the conceptual plan. 7. Two.e bicycle parking :spaces shall be provided. The location and design of:these spaces shall be approved by the Planning Director. 8. This approval is valid i.f :exercised within one year of the final decision date noted below. ` D. PROOEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was .published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and,mailed to: Xx% The applicant & owners; XXX Owners of record within the required distance XXX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XXX Affected7 governmental agencies 2. Final Decision:, THE DECISION -SHALL BE-FINAL ON 3'uly_ 18_, 1986 _— UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3 Ap�aeal: .Any party to'. the decision may :appeal this decision ;in accordance with Section "18.32:'290(A) . and.-Section. 10.32.370. of the Community Development -:Code which provides that a: written appeal must be o- filed with the CITY RECORDER within 10days after notice :is, given and sent. The! deadline'for filing of an appeal is 3:30 P.M. .July 18, 1986 4. Questions: If, you ^have :any ;'questions, please _call the City :of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard -City Hall, 12755 SW Ash, POr ox :23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. / 7/ Ac� ,PREPARED BY: - Aeth Li en,`.Senior Planner l�ilLiam Monahan, Director of Community Development DTE APPROVED (35/dJ)) NOTICE,OF DECISION — SDR 12-86 - PAGE 3 CITY OF TIGER® '0, RsGOh3 c COUNCIL L AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF*. ,:, July l }, 1986 AGENDA ITEM! H, DATE SUBMITTED Jul 9 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: . ISSUE,/AGENDA,:TITHE: Land Use 'Decisions -----`--� PREPARED 'BY: Comn' n ty De�T�lonmQnt_ V 15-56 - Favid Schaefer �!__..-` _ REQUESTED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: PoLjcICY ISSUE INpORM ATION'SUMMARY -86, approval of-a request Attached is a Notice of Decision a for V 15 a David Schaefer for a side yard se7 units setback for 4-1/2 inches whichere minimum of 10 feet is required on property zoned R-7 (Residential, per ,acre) located at 8514,S,W. Avon. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve Decision as attached. 2, ,Call up for review at a date and time set by Council. { kv SUG('sE�sTED ACTIO�i 4 Approve decision as 'attached. ORDINANCE'-NO. £4�- rag� 1 _ r CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION V 15-84 APPLICATION: Request ;by David Schaefer for a side yard 'setback variance for 4-1t2inches where a :minimum of -10 feet is required on property zoned R-7 (Residential, 7 units per acre). 'Location: 8514 S.W. Avon (VICTM 281 110D Lot 12300). 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'. A. FINDING OF,FACT 1. Background A subdivision request was approved subject to ten conditions in March, 1984 for the Crossroads Subdivision (now Chessman Downs). In April, 1985 a request for a 'temporary Use Permit to :allow': the Street of affordable Homes was approved subject to eight conditions. 2 Vicinity Information .` Properties to the north, west, and south are all zoned and developed R-7 (Residential, 7 units -per acre). Properties to the east across Hall 'Boulevard are zoned R-12 (Multiple Family Residential, 12 units per acre); 3. Site Information and Proposal Description The subject property is presently vacant. The applicant is requesting a 'setback variance of 4-1l2 inches where_ 10 feet is required on a corner side yard, thereby creating a setback of 9 feet 7-1f2 inches on the side of the property abutting Hall Boulevard. The : applicant wishes to utilize a home design which requires a 40 foot wide home. All other setback requirements for the subject property would be met. 4. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering and Building Divisions have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to, it. The State Highway Division has also reviewed the proposal and has no objections to it. 4 NOTICE OF ;DECISION V 15-86 PAGE 1 B ANALYSIS AND 'CONCLUSION j Section 13.134.050 of the Code requires the following approval criteria for variance proposal: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will ba maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land ' forms, or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and 5. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The primary purpose of the setback standards for the R-7 zone is to allow for adequate spacing, air, light, and privacy for residential structures. The variance will have no effect upon the existing properties in the area because the side yard setback in question abuts Nall Boulevard. The variance proposal is consistent with the intent of the setback standards contained in the Code. The residence is a permitted use in the zone and all other aspects of the building will conform with the Code. The variance will have no -affect, upon existing - physical and natural systems. Although the variance is self-imposed, staff believes the variance in setback to be minimal (4.5 inches) with no ill effects upon adjacent properties or natural systems. C. DECISION The planning Director approves V 15-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. The house shall maintain a 9 foot, 7-1/2 inch side yard setback adjacent to Nall Boulevard as shown by the applicant's site plan. The residence shall conform with all other applicable setback requirements. . 2. The necessary permits shall be obtained from the City Building Inspector. NOTICE OF DECISION - V 15-86 - PAGE 2 3. This approval is 'valid if exercised within one year, of the final decision date noted below. D. PROCEDURE i 1 . Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, 'Posted at City Nall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX— Owners of record within the rer{uarea'distance SX'' The affected Neighborhood Planning organization XX°' Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALE BE FINAL ON July 11, 1986UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3. Real_' Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.='2.2g (A) and Section 18.32.371 of the Community Development Code kahach provides that a written appeal must be filed with the CI±b -RECt3RUER within 1Q days after notice is given and vont. � a.1 is 3:30 P.6�1. July 1 l, 1986 The deadline for filing of an ap1'= 4. gggstions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 171. 549 Ash, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. DATE P ED BY: Deborah A. Stuart �. tor: of Community Development DATE AP ROVED aam'A.,Monahan, Dark (DAS:sb41) t �w _d NOTICE OF DECISION - v 15-86 - ,PAGE 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1` COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDAOF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM fl: � I � a DATE SUBMITTED: (mailed 6/30/86) PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Director's Decisions HOP '13-86 Gwen E. Carsh PREPARED BY: Community Development REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the Director's Decision for HOP 13-86, approval of a request by Gwen E. Carsh for a Home Occupation Permit for a financial investment and real property management business (dba "Gwen Carsh Investment's) on property zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential, 2 units per acre, located at 14520 SW McFarland Blvd. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council "Y SUGGESTED ACTION N Approve as written. ORDINANCE NO, 96 Page 5 ' CITY OF TIGARD NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 13-86 APPLICATION: Request by Gwen E. Carsh for a Home Occupation Permit for a financial investment and real property management business (db.a. "Gwen Carsh Investments") on property zoned R72 '(Low Density Residential, 2 units per acre). Location: 14520 SW McFarland Blvd. '(WCTM 2S1 1OBA Tax 'Lot 2600) 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 Hated below. A. FINDING OF FACT 1. Background _ No previous applications have been reviewed by the Planning Division for the subject property. 2. Vicinity Information Properties in all directions are all zoned and developed R-2 (Low Density Residential, 2 units per, acre). 3. Site Information and Proposal Description There is a 3010 square foot home on the property. The applicant proposes to use 136.5 square feet for the business. The applicant will occupy the remainder of the home. The business as proposed will not occupy more than 25% of the home. 4. Agency and WPO Comments NPO 63 will be 'notified of the Director's decision and will be given the right to appeal. B. ANALYSIS AMD CONCLUSION The proposal meets the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.142 of the Tigard Municipal Code. C. DECISION Home Occupation Permit HOP 13-86 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no paid employees working in the home in conjunction with the business who are not residents of the home. NOTICE OF DECISION — HOP 13—$6 — PAGE 1 2. There <shall be no signs or advertising visible from the exterior of the premises. 3. Where shall be NO customers or clients coming to the residence in conjunction with the business. 4. The Home 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. Thereshall be no outdoor storage of materials, vehicles or products on the premises. indoor storage of material or products G shall not exceed the limitations imposed by the provisions of the Building, Fire, Health and Housing,Codes. 8. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final decision elate noted below. D. PROCEDURE 1. Notice: Notice was 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 Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2. Final Decision THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON July 7 1986 ' UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. 3 R�,�eal Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(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. July 7, 1986 4, _Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171;. u PR PARED BY: Deborah A. S uart, Assistant Planner DATE _William A. Mo ah an irector of Community Development / AT A OVER (DAS:bs108) NOTICE OF DECISION HOP 13-86 — PAGE 2 r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: my 14. 1936 AGENDA ITEM #: _ =` DATE SUBMITTED-Trina 75, 7,nA�_ PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE AGENDA TITLE, Director's Decision - v 14-86 Equities Northw PREPARED BY: Comr�iunitv' Develooment REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD ON: i�A�✓J -���' CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY`ISSUE INFORMATION SUfV1ARY Attached is the Notice 4f Decision for. : V 14-86 - denial of an application by Equities Northwest to raise the 20 percent limit on commercial uses in the'I-P zone to approximately 25 percent on property zoned I-P (Industrial Park) and located at 10115 S.W. Nimbus) . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. The attached item has an appeal period which shall be final at 4:30 P.M. on June 30, 1986 and $` is being mailed to Council on 6/25/86 for 'review, inasmuch as the next scheduled Councilmeeting is set for July 14, 1986. SUGG STED ACTION s CITY OF TIGARD s: NOTICE OF DECISION VARIANCE V 14-86 Request by Equities Northwest to raise percent the on percent limit on ;APPLICATION: ximately property zoned commercial uses in the I—P zone to appro T!. 1900). I—P (industrial Park) and located at 10115 Sino nimbus (tmCTt4 1S1 34AA, Of y DECISION: INOtice is hereby given that the Planning on. Tiiafofindingstyand Tigard has DENIED ;the above `described application: hich the Director based his decision areas noted below. conclusions an w a A. FINDING OF FACT � 1, Background developed as the The Koll Business Center has 's ZC,p23-76,, ZC 26-78, Cid 33-78, result of several City approvals Twelve buildings have been constructed within and SDR 8-80). roved for construction on Phase I of the project, plans matwere approved t site, but nothing.: materialized. Site Development the subject F (SDR 2-85) for the main Review approval was' granted in 19IIs A 'second Site t building ,near the southern and ,of the property. Development Review app roval (SLUR 5-86) was granted in 1986 for a ; 3,700 square " foot restaurant near the Scholls Ferry/Nimbus' intersection. 2, Vicinity Information of Koll Business Center is on the east side of Nimbus Phase Ipurposes .lies to Y Avenue and a separate tract reserved for greenwayndFanna Creek. the south grad west between the subjec.. property of Residences within Englewood directly hnare of ScholIshFerry tRoadcreels. The City of Beaverton is d y 3, Site Information and Proposal Description is presently undeveloped and the applicant has begun The property proposed to construct the business/retail building and the P R drive--in restaurant. The entire praleCt will include 24,033 square square feet of floor area in the 27,743main �squaregfeetdfor� the 7OO entire feet for the restaurant totaling project. The I_p zine allows 20' percent of the total square footage of a personnel development to be devoted to -convenandcdrinking establishments,e sales and services, day care facilitaeS, eating personal service facilities, and general retail sales. All 'uses above this 20 percent limit must be limited to the other permitted or conditional uses allowed in the zone. applicant is proposing to exceed this standard by allowing The app eating approximately 25 percent of floor space to be utilized by and drinking establishments, convenience sales, and p NOTICE OF DECISION — V 14-86 - PAGE 1 t a services. It is 'indicated that present lease agreements will coes+mit: approximately i4 ;percent of the floor area to these uses and a proposed restaurant/deli of .3,039 square feet would raise this percentage to about 25 percent. i` 4. Agency and NPO Comments Comments have not been solicited thus far but a copy of this decision will be 'sent to wffccted agencies and the NPO. An opportunity to appeal this decision is provided. B. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The criteria to be applied when reviewing a variance request are of the Community Development Code: contained in Section 18.134.050 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, be in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, to any other applicable policies and standards; and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; 2. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar,to the lot size or ':shape, topography, or '.other circumstances over ,chich :the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this Code and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that e reasonably 'possible, while permitting some economic use of the land; 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, or parks will not be adversely affected any more 'than would occur if the development were located as specified in the Code; and b. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the S minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. The Planning staff concludes that the proposed variance is not s consistent with all of the criteria for the following reasons which are addressed in the same sequence as above: E. 1. The applicant is correct in noting that the purpose statement for the I-P Lone calls for a combination of ". . . light manufacturing, office, and complementary relatedcommercial uses:.. , . . However, the applicant uses this as a partial justification for allowing one additional commercial tenant. The 20 percent limit in the Code in affect defines to what extent these "complementary commercial uses" are to be permitted in the I--P zone. _ After surpassing the 20 percent limit, these are no longer permitted as uses and are vieweda similar manner a. in r NOTICE OF DECISION - V 14-86 PAGE 2 variance to allow 'a commercial use in an I—L (Light Industrial) zone where .'commercial uses of this type are not permitted. Approval of such a "use variance" would be contrary to the intent _of thell—P zone and the Comprehensive Plan'. 2 There are no peculiar circumstances related to this property or the proposed development which justify the variance. The I-P zone and the limitation on commercial uses applied to the subject property prior to the submission of current development proposal. The applicant proceeded with the project with an awareness of this Code provision. 3, As noted in number 1. above, once the 20 `percent limit for commercial uses is exceeded, they are no longer viewed as permitted uses in theI—L zone. 4. Physical or natural systems will not be affected by the approval or denial of this request. 5. The hardship, if there is one, is ;self—imposed and the proposed relief its not consistent with the intent of the Code or Comprehensive Plan. If the situation in this area has changed as the applicant has indicated, the appropriate avenue to follow to allow for more commercial uses "would be a request for ;a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change rather than a use variance. C. DECISION The Planning Director denies V 14-86 based on the above findings and conclusions. D. PROCEDURE z 1. Notice:' Notice was published in the newspaper, posted ;at City Hall, and mailed to: ACX The applicant & owners -71 Owners of record within the required distance The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 2, Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL DE FINAL ON June 30, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS >FILED. 3. An�seal: Any party to the decision may; appeal this decision in accordance with Section 18.32.290(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 J and sent. ` r NOTICE OF DECISION V 14--86 PAGE 3' ,z; The deadline for filing of an .app(=a1 is 4:30 P.M. June 30, 6986 4. uestio s: if you have any questions, please c-allthe City of Tigard Planning 'Department, Tigard City< hall, 13125 SW t Hall, PO Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223, 639-4171. W141_ - , ; , r FP.EPRREd BY: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner ®ATE William A. Monahan, Director of Community Development 6 ATE OPROVED (KSL:sb36) BIOTIC Op DEC?SION - V 14-86 PAGE 4 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 14 986 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: (Uajja 6 3D/g&) PREVIOUS ACTIa7N: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Final Orders SCE 6-86 Equities Northwest 6c� Community Development BY: _ S 11-86 Krueger Development C1L_2_-_E_6. y zs_3 r S �Mm�xt REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENTHEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION _SUMMARY Attached are the Final Orders for: ` 1. SCF 6-86 Denial of a request by Equities Northwest (Burger King) to allow the construction to two free standing signs where only one is permitted. 2. SCE 7-66 Approval with conditions,of a request by Levitz Funiture Co. to allow the expansion and relocation of a non-conforming sign. 3. -S 11-86 Approval with conditions of a request by Krueger Development Co. to divide 14 acres into 70 lots ranging between 5,000 and 7,000 sq. ft. insize 4. CU 2-66 Approval with conditions by the Hearings officer of a request by Festus and Grace Stewart to expand a'single family residence into a duplex. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve as written. 2. Call up for review at a date set by Council. r - SUGGESTED ACTION - Approve as written. ORDINANCE O. 06- Page l i 3 S CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon ( NOTICE ON FINAL'OF_AER - By PLANNING COM41SSI+ON 1. 1 Concerning Case Mumber(s): SCE 6-86 2. dame of Owner: William Robinson 3. Name of Applicant: Equities Northwest (Burger King) Address 5500 STS Macadam S-320 City Portland State OR Zip 97201 4. Location of Property: , Address 10115 SW Nimbus Tac Map and Lot No(s). 1S1 34AA lot 1900 5. Nature of Application: Request to allow the construction to two free standing signs where only one is permitted. 6. Action: Approval as requested - Approval with conditions , XX Denial 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to X7{ The applicant & owners XX__ owners of -record within tae required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affected governmental agencies S. Final Decisions THE DECISXOM SHALL DE FINAL 09 July 7. 1_986 ))LESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from. the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Mall, P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Anypartyto the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may,be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 PM July 7, 1986 10. 4uestions if you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257P) F7777777 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COfViISSION FINAL ORDER RSO, PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A ,SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 6-86) REQUESTED BY EQUITIES NORTHWEST (ROBINSON). The Tigard planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on :June 3, 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Sign Code Exception SCE 6-85 REQUEST: To 'allow the construction of two free standing signs where only one is Permitted. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DESIGNATION: I-P (Industrial Park) APPLICANT: Equities Northwest OWNER: William Robinson 5500 Sw Macadam S-320 12000 Sw Bull Mtn Rd. Portland, OR. 97201 Tigard, OR 97224 t" t LOCATION: 10115 SW Nimbus (wCTM 1S1 34AA lot 1900) 1. Background The Koll Business Center has been partially developed as tho result of several City approvals (ZC 23-78, 7_C 26-78, CU -.1.1 Itl and -SDR 8-80). Twelve buildings have been constructed within Phase ;I of the project. Plans were approved for construction ,m the subject site, but nothing , materialized. Site Develupneont Review approval was granted in 1985 (SDR 2-85) for the main bu_lding near the southern end of the property. A second `it+, Development Review approval (SDR 5-86) was granted in 1986 for ,a 3,700 "square foot restaurant near the Scholls Ferry/Nimb,,a intersection. 3. Vicinity Information Scholls Ferry Road and the City of Beaverton lie to the northwest xmi other- property zoned I-P (Industrial Park) is adjacent: in all othor directions. 4. Site Information The subject property is located on , the southeastern corner of the f intersection of Scholls Ferry Road and Nimbus Avenue. The appti;.int i-,' proposing to locate two free standing signs along tine Scholls Fer'►'9' ti+evd frontage. One sign will be a 36 square foot, 9 foot tall monum+rsat xiyn for Burger King restaurant. The second sign is intended for the tosr:sant c in the larger building with a height of 15 feet and sign area of 7'1 s+luvr.t feet. FINAL ORDER NO.&_: , PC [SAG[: 1 R d 5. enclL_and MPO Comments The Engineering Division and State Highway Division have no objection to the proposal. The Building Inspection Division indicates that the standards set forth in the Code should be upheld and the request should be denied. WPO # 1 recommends denial of the application. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant approval criteria in this case are contained in Section 16.114:145 of, the Community Development Code. The Planning commission concludes that the relevant Community Development Code requirements have not been met based upon the findings below: In order, to justify an exception to the sign code, one of the following three criteria (coc' 18.114.145) must be satisfied: 1. The proposed sign code exception is 'necessary because a conforming ibuilding or sign on an adjacent property would limit,the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with the sign code standards. 2. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site. 3. There is an access drive which services the business or service from a street other than the street on which the business is located. The third criteria above has been interpreted to apply to corner lots. Access is not permitted onto Schols Ferry Road for traffic flow and safety reasons and the only driveways to the ..site will be located on Nimbus Avenue. According to the Code, one sign on each frontage is clearly permissible during Site Development Review if the development has direct access to each street, The Commission finds that the proposed Sign Code Exception does not meet the relevant Code criteria for the following reasons: 1. The signs are both proposed to be on the Scholls Ferry Road frontage and would be viewed simultaneously. 2. The buildings can have adequate wall signage to advertize the various business, particularly the restaurant. 3, The total square footage of the proposed signs exceeds the 4f . amount permitted in the Code. FINAL ORDER telO,r6Zb PC — PAGE 2 I, f r C. DECISION! Based upon the above ¢hidings and conclusions, the Planning Commission Dentes SCE 6-86. It: is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. >t PASSED: This ay of June, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of 1Tigard. onnxe._Owens slice President Tigard Planning Commission (KSL:dj9) , Flt AL ORDER MO,`�h,Z PC — PAGE 3 CITY OF`TIGARD Washington County,;Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - DY PLANNING COMKISSION 1. Concerning Case Number(s): SCE: '7-86 F , . 2 ?dame of Owner: Levitz Furniture Co. t 3. Name of Applicant: Ramsay Signs Address 4835 NE Pacific St. City Portland State OR Zip 93213 4. Location of Property: Address 9770 SW Scholls Ferry Rd. Tax Map and Lot No(s). 1S1 27➢➢ lot 1200 5. Nature of Application: Request to allms the expansion and relocation of a-non conforming 6. Action: Approval as requested � YY` Approval with conditions Denial g 7. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and ` mailed to: xx The applicant & owners X% Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization Affectedgovernmental agencies � 8. Final Decision: 4 THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON July 7, " 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. � The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can. be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Sox 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. ~ 9 Appeal: Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 1.8.32.370 which provides that a written appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 PM July 7, 1986. 10. Questions: IE you have any questions; please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. t (0257P) i t[ i CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COf41SSION FINAL ORDER NO.akjT PC { A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR €! SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 7-86) REQUESTED BY LEVITZ FURNITURE. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on June 3, 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the facts, ; 1 findings, and conclusions noted below: A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE. Sign Code Exception SCE 7-86 REQUEST: To allay the expansion and relocation of a non-conforming s ign' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial General ZONING DESIGNATION: C—G '(Commercial General) APPLICANT: Ramsay Sighs OWNER: Levitz Furniture 4835 NE Pacific St. Portland, OR 97213 LOCATION: 9770:SW Scholls Ferry Road (WCTM 1S1 270D, T.L. 1200) 2. Background In 1981, the City approved a rezoning (file no. ZC 16-80) of the property from Industrial Park (M-4) to Commercial General (C-3). Following this approval, a sign permit was issued on August 25, 1981 to construct a 90 square foot free standing sign for Toy R Us when Portland Chain and the toy store were on one parcel. The City approved a partition of the property in 1981 (file no. MLP 3-81) and the Toys R Us sign became a non—conforming off-premise-sign. In 1986, the City granted Site Development Review approval (SDR 7-86) to convert the industrial building into a furniture store. The renovation work is in progress: 3. Vicinity Information Cascade Blvd State Highway 217, and Washington Sgc:are lie to the east, Toys R Us which is zoned C-G is immediately south, the Southern Pacific Railroad and !Coll Business Park are to the west, and Cascade Blvd. , the Times Building and Scholls Ferry Road abut the property to the north. FINAL ORDER NO. -! PC - PAGE 1 a 4. Site Information The property: is presently being renovated for Levitz Furniture. The Toys RCJs sign is located near the Scholls Ferry-Cascade intersection with an orientation toward Scholls Ferry Road. The applicant proposes to move the sign so that it will have a 20 foot setback from the 'front property lines. A 90 square foot addition ,for Levitz Furniture. The 'resulting sign will be 22 feet in height with.a total sign area of 360 square feet or 180 square feet per side. 5. Agency and NPC Comments The Engineering Division and State Highway Division have no objections to the request. The Building Inspection Division notes that the proposed sign would exceed the maximum allowable area as provided in the Code and therefore the request should be denied. NPO # r1 has no objection to the proposal. No other comments have been received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria for the application are found in Section 18.11.4.145 of the Community Development Code which allow the Planning Commission to approve a sign code exception based on findings that at least one of the following f criteria are satisfied:' 1. The proposed sign code exception is necessary because a conforming building or sign on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected on the site in conformance with the sign code standards; 2. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of the topography of the site: 3. There is an access drive which services the business or service from a street other than the street which it is located on. Since conforming structures or topography do not restrict the visibility of the proposed sign, the first- two criteria do not apply. The third criteria does 'appear to be relevant in this case. Toys R Us only has direct access to Cascade Blvd. but a need exists to direct motorists from Scholls Ferry Road to the site. The Toys ,R Us property does not have a freestanding sign. Because the need for directing customers to the store, the off-premise sign appears to be justified. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the proposed size of the sign. With a 20 foot setback, free standing signs in a C-0 zone can be a maximum of 90; square feet in size per side. This 90 square foot maximum applies to developments with multiple tenants unless additional sign area (not to exceed 50%} is approved by the Planning Director during the Site Development Review process. With only two businesses being advertised and good visibility available, exceeding the 90 square foot is not warranted. FI�{AL ORDER N0. PC - PAGE 2 e C. DECISIaM Basad capon the above findings and cnnclUsions, the Planning Commission approves SCC 7-86 subject to the following..condit ons: 1. The sign; shall not exceed 90 square feet in area per side (180 square feet total) and a height of' 22 feet, and it shall be located as shown in the applicant's site plan. 2. A sign permit shall be obtained from the City prior to installation. 3. This approval is valid if exercised within one year of the final approval,date,noted -below. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. PASSED: This =� day of June, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the y City, of Tigard. /Bonnie Ownes, Vice President; Tigard Planning Commission' i i 4 FiAL. R0R �f0, !L11 PC PACE 3 t CITY OF TICARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER - By PLANUIQC COMISSION 1. Concerning Case wumber(s): s11-86 2a Name of Owner: Margery Krueger 3. Name of Applicant: Krueger DevelOpMl'it Co. 3515 SW Rarbur Blvd Y-1 Portland OR 97201 Address City State 7. p 4. Location. of Property: Address Southeast of Scholls perry Road, immediately west of Cotswald Meadows Sub. Tax Map and Lot No(s). ISI 33CDlot 200 '2S 1 43 lot 101 S. Nature of Application. Request to divide 14 acres into 70 lots ranging between 5,000 and 7,000 sq, ft. in size. 6. Action: Approval as rearrested XX` Approval with coxnditdans Denial �. 7. Notice: Notice €�a.� publss:aad `ia� the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to: XX The applicant & owners XX Owners of record within the required distance XX The affected Heighbor.food Planning Organization XX Affected governmental agencies 8; Final'Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL. ON July 7, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall, P.O. Boat 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. 9. Appeal: Any party , to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 which' provides- that a written' appeal may be filed within 10 days after notice is given and sent. The deadline for filing-of an appeal is 4:30 PM July 7, 1986 1O. (questions: if you have any questions, please call tho City of Tigard Planning Department, 639-4171. (0257P) CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO.96'*)P PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH ,APPROVES AN APPLICATION E FOR A SUBDIVISION (S 11-86) REQUESTED BY MARGERY KRUEGER. The Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a ;public # hearing on June 3, 1986. The Commission based its decision upon the facts, findings, and conclusions rooted below:" A. FACTS � r 1. General Information CASE: Subdivision S 11-86 REQUEST: To divide 14 acres into 70 lots ranging between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet in size. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-�25 (Residential, 25 units/acre) APPLICANT: Krueger Development Co. OWNER: Margery Krueger 3515 SW Barbur• Blvd. Rt. 1 Box 742; Portland, OR 97201 Beaverton, OR 97007 K, LOCATION: Southeast of Scholls Ferry Road and immediately west of Cotswald Meadows subdivision (WCTM 1Sl 33CD, tax lot 200 and " 2S1 4B, tax lot 101). - - 2. Bac 3 round This is the third phase of Cotswald Meadows subdivision. Phases land 2 �. are immediately east of the subject property and are presently being developed. 3 Vicinity Information The property is totally surrounded by; property that is zoned R-25 (Residential' 25 units/acre). Single family residential development is east in the first two phases of Cotswald subdivision and a 100 unit apartment complex is proposed immediately to the southeast: The proposed Murray Blvd.: extension will border the project on the south and a' future commercial development will occur to the southwest on a five acre area zoned C-fl3 (Commercial Neighborhood). Several parcels occupied by single family residences lie between the subject property and Scholls Ferry Road. 1, FINAL ORDER NO. PC PAGE 1 i NMRINI ME I 4. Site Information and Property Description The property is undeveloped and is covered primarily with trees and ( brush'. Some clearing of the property has occurred without City knowledge. The 'appl'icant was notified and agreed to cease cutting without a "permit. All future clearing of any trees over six inches in diameter will require a tree cutting permit. The applicant proposes extending Ashbury Lane and Morning Hill Drive to the west and create one north—south street which will intersect with Murray Blvd. Additional information regarding a ''possible arrangement for future phases has been provided by the applicant. 5. Aency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division has the following comments: a. A sanitary sewer and storm drainage plan mustbe provided. b. The applicant should sprovide a design for Murray Blvd. from Scholls Ferry Road to 135th Avenue. A'nor.—remonstrance agreement should be filed in lieu of providing the half street improvements at this time. C. A 15 foot wide public utility easement should be, provided across lot 94 to allowstorm and sanitary sewer facilities to connect from the parcel to the,`east. d. Crist Court should not provide vehicular access to the commercial parcel to the west. Only pedestrian and bicycle access should be allowed. e. Further written recommendations will be available at the hearing. The Division needs additional time to review the proposal particularly in relationship to future phases. The Building Inspection Division notes that lots that do not direct storm water to the street should have specific facilities provided. Washington County Department of Land' Use and Transportation states that right—of-way dedication of 35 feet from centerline should be obtained along the Murray Blvd. frontage and that half street improvements to County standards, including sidewalk, should be provided. Tigard Water District and PGE have no objections to the proposal. Washington County Fire District 0 1 indicates;that fire hydrants must be provided within 500 ft. of all building sites. Beaverton School District states that the anticipated school 'age children can be accommodated, though temporary classrooms will be needed ` at McKay Elementary. No other comments have been received. FINAL ORDER; N0.$ CD PC PAGE 2 F717 B. h UDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan I7.2i 7.3.1 7.4.4, 8.1.1, and policies 2.1.1, 3.4:2, 6.6.1— 7.1.2, ' 8.1.3 and Community Development Code Chas b 18.50, 18dge , and 18.164. Since the Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged, the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines no longer need to be addressed. The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal with modifications E is 'consistent-with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. " Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding proper-ty owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal`. b. Policy 3.4.2 calls for the protection of vegetation along natural F drainage courses. The drainageway ,only carries avatar seasonally but the; trees on the site should be protected to the maximum 1 extent_ possible. The trees and vegetation on the site should only be cleared after receiving staff approval. Polk b.b.i .required buffering between different land uses. When C. y R-25 development occurs adjacent to`C•-n property, a ,10 foot wide landscaped buffer with screening is required. Although it is not ;Practical to provide this landscaping at the subdivision stage, sufficient space must be provided 'so that future homeowners can provide his buffering. Lots 108 an.! ' 109 should possibly be widened because a lo foot yard t ard, setback will be required from . > the western property line. d. Policy 7.2.1 will be satisfied when additional engineering work is : completed for accommodating storm. drainage 'above and within the development. The Washington County 8u11 Mountain Community Plan which applied to the property prior to annexation, identified a drainage Swale running south to Summer Creek which lies immediately west of this phase of the subdivision. It is regarded i as a natural feature that must be con idered d=aring the development of the property but it is not classified as a significant wetland or wildlife habitat area requiring special protection: e. Policy 7.1.2, 7.3.1, and 7.4.4 are satisfied because adequate water, sewer, and _storm drainage facilities are available to the development. The applicant also indicates that these facilities will be provided within the subdivision as required by City standards. f, policy 8.1.1 calls for a safe and efficient street system that meets current and projected needs. The plat appropriately allows for the extension of Murray Blvd. as a collector street. policy 8.1.3 will be 'satisfied when the conditions of approval 9. relating to street improvements are completed. The planning Commissionhas determined that the proposal with modifications, is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community r Development code based upon the findings mated below: a. Chapter .18.50 of the Code' is satisfied because the proposal meets all the requirements of the R-25 zone'. b. Chapter 18.160 of the Code is satisfied bmcause the proposal meets the requirements set forth for the submission and approval of a preliminary plat. C. Chapter 18.164 of the Code will be satisfied during the approval process for the final plat. C. DECISION Based upon the findings and conclusions above, the Planning Commission approves S 11-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT. 2. Seven (7) sets of plan—profile public improvement construction plans 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 Division for approval. A cursory review of one set of plans is recommended prior to submission of the seven sets and cost estimate. 3. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage plan profiles, details and calculations shall be provided as ,part of the public, improvement plan. ' Provisions for storm drainage from Cotswaid I and II to this development shall be made by the developer. 4. The applicant shall demonstrate that additional run-off created by this development will not negatively impact downstream properties. 5. The applicant shall provide preliminary engineering data prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer, sufficient enough to determine the horizontal alignment of S.W. Murray Blvd. from Schoils Ferry Rd. to S.W. 135th Avenue. Such data shall include necessary geometric computations and profile information. ' Applicant shall also provide written verification that said final alignment is acceptable to the City, of Beaverton. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to allow for an ultimate right-of-way width of 70 feet. 6 Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Section has issued approved public improvement plans. The Section will require posting of a 100% Performance Bond, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee. Also, the execution of a street opening permit or construction compliance agreement shall occur, prior to, or concurrently with the issuance of approved public / improvement plans. l FINAL ORDER NO, PC PANE 4 7. A one (1) foot wide access control strip shall be granted to the "City of Tigard" at the terminus of Ashbury Lame, Morning hill Drive, Crist Court and . immediately north of the Murray Blvd. right-of-way. 8. Street Centerline iMonumentation a. In accordance with ORS 92.060 subsection (2),' the centerlines of all street and roadway might-of-ways shall be monumented before the City shall accept a' street improvement. b. All centerline monuments shall be placed in; a monument box conforming to City standards. c. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersections. Intersections created with "collector" or other existing streets, shall ' be set when the centerline alignment of said "collector or other street has been established by or for the City; 2, Center of all cul-de-sacs; 3. Curve Pointe. Point of "intersection (P.I.) when their position falls inside the 'limits 'of the pavement otherwise beginning and ending points (D.C. and E.C.);'. 4. All sanitary and storm locations shall be placed in positions that do not interfere with the centerline monumentation. m 9 Applicant shall execute a non-remonstrance agreement For future' street improvements to S.W. Murray 'Blvd. and S.W. 135th Avenue. Said agreement shall be accepted by the City (and on City forms) and recorded with Washington County (to be performed by the City) prior to the plat being recorded. 10. A 15 foot wide public utility easement running east-west shall be required in the vicinity of Lot 84 to accommodate the necessary sanitary and storm sewer facilities serving the parcel to the east. The final location shall be approved by the City Engineer. 11. A tree cutting permit shall be obtained from the ,Planning Staff prior to removal of any trees over 6 inches in diameter. Lot lines shall be located prior to a field inspection by the Planning staff to mark the trees over 6 inches in diameter that may be removed. 12. Crist -Court shall be reduced length so that it does not abut the commercial property ,to the west. A 10 foot wide walkway easement shall be provided between the cul-de-sac and the property to the west. 13. The minimum setback for any sideyards abutting the commercial area to the west shall be 10 feet (Community Development Code 18.100.130). i, F14MAL ORDER INJO. PC - PAGE 5 F71 14. After review and approval by the Planning Director and City Ens ineor, the final 'plat shall be recorded with Washington County. 15. This approval is valid for one year from date of final order; It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this order. ' PASSED: This522 day of June, 1986, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. -Bennie Owens, Vice President Tigard Planning Commission" (25;5Pfdj) FINAL 'ORDER NO. (6��PC — PAGE 6 Cam OL-n ss ( Washington County., Oregon t NOTICE OF PTUL ORDER - BY HEARINGS OFFICER 1. Concerning Case Humber(s): CU 2-86 } 2• Name of Owner: Festus and Grace Stewart I 3. blame of Applicant: Clifford Leonard Construction: Address 12810 SW Walnut City Tigard ' State 0R;Zip 97223 t r , 4. Location of Property: Address 12790 'SW Walnut St. i Legal Description 2S1 4AD lot 3500 3 - 5. gature' of Application: Request to expand a single 'family residence i intoes duplex. r_ t t 6. Action: Approval as requested XX Approval with conditions Denial � 7. Notice: notice was published ,in the newspaper, posted at City Hall 1 n and mailed to: XX This applicant,& owners XX ' Owners o£ record within the required distance XX The affected Neighborhood Planning Organization { XX Affected governmental agencies. § 8. Final Decision: THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL 09 July 7, 1986 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED. The adopted findings of fact, decision, and statement of condition can be � obtained from the Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., P.O. Bois 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223. � 9. t_ppeal Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 1.8.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 Which provides that a written ,appeal may be filed within 1.0 days after notice is given and sent. 1 The deadline for filing of an appeal is 4:30 P.M. July 7, 1986 1.0. .Que$tions: If you have .,a.W questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning.Depa nt. 639-4171. 0257P BEFORE THE HEARINGS OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD IN THE MATTER'OF THE APPLICATION) FOR A-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ) No. EXPAND A SINGLE-FA14ILY RESIDENCE) INTO A DUPLEX; Clifford Leonard ) CU 2-86 Construction, Applicant. ) The above-entitled matter came before the Hearings Officer at the regularly scheduled meeting of Jure 12, 1986, at the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall Room, in Tigard, Oregon; and The applicant requests a conditional use permit to expand the single-family residence into a duplex, property located on the south side of Walnut Street, property: more specifically described as Tax Lot; 3500, Map 2S1` 4AD, ;City of Tigard, County of Washington, State of Oregon; and The Hearings Officer conducted a public' hearing on June 12`, 1986, at which time testimony, evidence and the Planning Depart- ment Staff Report were received; and The Hearings Officer adopts the findings of fact and conclu- tions contained in the Staff Report,' a 'copy of which is attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A" and incorporated by referenced herein. NOVI THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CU 2-86 be and hereby is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. Page 1 CU 21-86 2. An access permit shall be obtained from Washington County, This will, include satisfactory completion of the items noted by the County in section A above (contact Paula Calvin - phone 684-4632) . The Hearings officer finds that the installation of sidewalks at this time would not serve the public because there is no adjoining sidewalk to connect to nor a read improvement surrounding it which would be conducive to foot traffic. It is the Hearings officer' s strong recommendation that Washington County . defer construction of the sidewalks to the time ,then walnut Street is 'totally rebuilt, and that the applicant shall sign a waiver of remonstrance for such improvements. 3. A revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Said plan shall comply with all applicable height and setback standards of the R-4.5 =ne. . .. 4. This approval shall be valid for one :year :from :the date of the final order. S DATED this �Ghda ,. of June, 1986. HEARINGS OFFICER APPROVED: ETH—, S ISI Page 2 - CU 2-86 k vii MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Executive Staff July 10,;1986 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Metzger/Washington Square Annexation July 14 — Washington Square Triple Majority Petition to CC? Resolution? July 15 — Executive Staff an Metzger Policy Positions July 14-18 — CC Special Meeting? Resolution and legal description. . . July 16 — Metzger CPO Meeting at Metzger Park, 7:00 (Pro Vote) Mayor Tori Brian Bob Jean Brian Hartung Irene Ertell r David Lehr Bill Monahan July 18 -- File Washington Square Petition and CC Resolution with BC? For August PH.. . July 22 - UPAA Amendments July 24 Boundary Commission Metzger PH Tom Brian Councilors? Bob Jean Brian Hartung Bili Monahan Tim Ramis Reid 'Iford Six NH Reps. Pro Annexation sb64 - Ct INN- — .._. , w u Elk . 3m Foul Dec.'4,1&-fl.Established as a daily Feb.4.1861.The Snanday Oregonian established 0w.4,1 e81.Pu daily and Sunday by the Qrego�tiara Publishing Co„ 1320 S.W.Brosdvray,poruard,Oregon 97201. FRED A.STICKEL,President and Publisher, : WILLIAM A.HILLIARD,Executive Editor ROBERT M:LANDAUER,Editorial Page Editor DONALD J,STERLING JR.,Asst.to the Publisher PETER THOM:PSON,Managing Editor ROBERT N.SCHOENBACHER,Advertising Dir. . PATRICK L.MARLTON,Circulation Dir. TUESDAY,JULY 8.1986 ipubl .. -:' The small ceremony June 27 in Mult- for the needy. The Board of County nomah County's Environmental Quality Commissioners, guided and supporte offices at 2115 S.E.Morrison St.passed by the executive,wisely decided Mult- virtualiy unnoticed-by the people most nomah County should be just what it '-directly affected the county's proper- was intended to be -- a county,not -ty-axpayers. Oregon's second largest city, in terms The ceremony marked the end of of delivery of municipal services. -the county's permit administration. It is a path still to be followed, pri-. Twenty-oils employees who dispensed marily where policing is concerned.But permits for building, mechanical,,eiec- progress to date in roads, parks, plan- tricot,plumbing and subsurface sewage ping, and now permits, has been disposal projects went from the county extraordinary,considering a perceived the city of Portland payroll, though rending of tradition in city and county they will continue working out of the- obligations..In fact, the county broke Aorrison Street office for a time. traditionyears earlier by providing a "This is what we intended with the municipal level of services to meet the passage of Resolution A three years rapid population growth in unincor ago,"County Executive Dennis Buchan- porated areas of middle Multnomah an said. "As the delivery of.municipal County. It was a level of service well services is turned over to the cities of beyond what those served paid for, i Portland,Gresham and Troutdaie, the measurably subsidized by city resi-J county can concentrate Its resources on dents. the delivery of truly countywide serv- ices,such as.medical care,caro for the Now the county is back in its proper young and the elderly and the adminis- role of providing public service county tration of pastice." wide.Taxpayers should see that myopic The alternatives were simple. Raise interests do not again erode the larger r county property taxes or trim services focus of Oregon's most urban county. 4.� t July;,14, 1986 Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission 320 SWI Stark - Room 530 OREGO Portland, OR 97204 25 Years of Service SUBJECT: Metzger Annexation to Tigard 1961-1986 Honorable Persons: The City of Tigard is pleased; to support the community initiated annexation' proposal formally joining the Metzger community with the City of 'Tigard. Tigard and Metzger have a long common history and share many of the same interests in schools, transportation, sewers, storm drainage, public safety, businessand community liveability. The City of Tigard is pledged to work with the community in obtaining a vote on this annexation. Tigard at '22,000 population and tl billion valuation -~ no longer that "small town on the way to the coast" is Oregon's ,12th largest and fastest growing city in Oregon's fastest growing County. Over the years we have developed' the capacity to manage growth, annexation and expand neighborhood support. A basic, high quality, ' low cost,; services philosophy has served our changing community well. With the newly completed t2.5 million Tigard Civic Center and our recent 59% voter approval of a 5-year Tax Base ;plan, the City of Tigard has the organizational and financial capacity to serve the 'needs of the Metzger community. As the Municipal Services Study of the Metzger area shows, this annexation of the area to Tigard is a WL% WIN scenario. Tigard ,residents are even <better and more economically served through the economies of scale affecting existing programs and in spreading the costs of city-wide bonded debt over a broader base. The Metzger areas capture abandoned revenue entitlements and capital improvement funds unavailable to unincorporated 'areas. By Council Resolution, The City has pledged to return all revenues from the area directly back into area services and projects for at least five years. The Metzger community is mature and politically capable of determining itsown future. Tigard supports that determination. Tigard does not presume to tell Metzger citizens whether they should now annex to Tigard or not. Our task is to inform themofthe services we offer, the capital improvements we can construct, and to welcome them in as full participating members of one of Oregon's finest cities. The City of Tigard supports the community's right to decide for itself and vote on their annexation proposal Thank you for your consideration and assistance. To my neighbors and friends in Metzger, Tigard welcomes you. Sincerely, 7—` F 1 John E. Cook .` Mayor JECfdc 13125 SW Hull Bfvd,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 FIR- g g NIS "4-04 fm ema NAM,meth"', -Aw CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 867- DRAFT URBAN SERVICES POLICY WHEREAS, the Cityof Tigard has ;identified the need for a written Urban Services Policy; and WHEREAS, the City believes ' that the ; urban unincorporated ' portions of Washington County will be best served through: annexation to cities for the provision of the required levels of urban services; and WHEREAS, Washington County does not have the financial resources made available to the cities in Washington County for the :provision of urban services. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Tigard that it adopts the following Urban Services'Policy: 1. The City is prepared to plan and provide urban services within its area of interest;which' is generally the Urban Growth Boundary on ,the west, the Tualatin River; on the south, the Multnomah—Washington County line on the east, and the Beaverton—Tigard line on the .north. 2. The City has identified the following services as its basic services: Police Streets Streetlighting Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewers Parks' and recreation Building and Codes Enforcement Planning and Engineering Library Finance and Administrative Services 3. The City supports the existing Special Districts in 'regard to provision of fire and water services. 4. The City supports resident and property owner rights per Oregon Revised Statute to decide when and to which city to annex. PASSED: This day of � 1386. Mayor City of Tigard ' ATTEST: 4ti F� Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard sb60 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON JULY ;9, 1986 STAFF REPORT 1. URBArd SERVICES WITHIN AREAS OF'_INTEREST A Urban Planning ,Area Agreement (EX-10 B. The,City of Tigard identifies its area of interest generally as: West — The Urban Growth Boundary; South The Tualatin River and neighboring cities; East — Multnomah-4:ashington county Line; North — Scholls Ferry/ball/Oleson/Tayiors Ferry Roz-;ds C. The cities of Beaverton and Tigard have negotiated and agreed upon an Annexation Area Planning Agreement (APAA) setting general guidelines between the respective cities area of interest, but it is not intended to nor can it supercede the r? -f residents and property owners to decide upon annexation. (EX--16); Regarding the Metzger/Washington Square annexation petition, the City of Tigard supports the line drawn within the APA IA, but can however, serve the areas included in the;'petition. 2. SERVICES IMPACT Ft�aO TRAPlSITI0�1 (EX-2) The following basic services will be provided to the Metzger neighborhood upon annexation: , t A. Police 1) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements for Servicing Metzger: Six (6) Patrol Officers $210,000 Two (2) Investigators 70,000 One (1) Dispatcher — 20,000 One (1) Clerk — 12,500 One (1) Marked Patrol Car — 10,000 One (1) Unmarked Car - 30,000 Miscellaneous Equipment — 17,500 $350,000 "2) Estimated Transition to City of Tigard Patrol and Emergency Response: Emergency Police services would begin following a positive annexation vote as of January 1, 1987 and "coordinate with the County Sheriff throughout the transition period. The City of Tigard will recruit and hire additional officers ` as fast as possible after necessary supplemental budgetary authority is granted The City will rotate experienced officers into the Metzger community as new officers are brought into the Department. This assures a balance of experienced personnel throughout the City. Additional constraints to the immediate assumption ofpatrolduties are as follows: " N 'e6 Dec '86 Jan 187 Feb '87 Pear '87 Apr 187 May 187 June '87 ov _ =r Annexation.. . Emergency Start up. . . Full patrol services:. . Recruitment.. New hires. .. Training.`.. Based upon the above timelines, it is estimated that full assumption of police services in Metzger would take place as early as March but no ;iater than June, 19II7. S. Streets 1) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements: One (1) Utility Worker IS 25,000 Two (2) Utility:Worker I - 40,000. one (1) 1-'Ton Truck 14,000' Two ,(2) Pick-up'Trucks 14,000 Materials and Supplies - __17 500 $Iio,500' 2) Estimated 't'rans'ition for City of Tigard Street Maintenance: It is estimated that gaining budgetary authority and recruitment` ' of new personnel will take approximately one (1) month after' annexation. The City of Tigard would assume street maintenance responsibilities in ear-ly January '87. �.' C. Street Lighting 1) Assumption of Current Street Lighting: Currently streetlights in place are provided through Washington County Street Lighting District l and paid, by properly owners on their property tax. The City would assume funding for current lights an July '1, 1987 in FY 1987-88. 2) Provision of New Street Lighting: Dependent upon receipt of gas tax revenues, it is assumed that new lighting installations would start as of July 1, 1987 in 'FY 1987-88.' D. Storm Drainage Storm 'drainage maintenance is estimated to be provided in the first quarter FY 1987-88 along with City sanitary sewer billings, or sooner depending on timing of USA agreement transition. v' RM Simh s' 5 F7.. E. Sanitary Sewers 1) Estimted Personnel and Equipment Requirements: # One (1) Utility Worker II — 20,000 t One (1) Utility porker I — 20•40O One (1) Maintenance Worker — 19, 0 materials and Supplies 9.000 2) Estimated Transition to City Maintenance:' Because current USA charges are billed through property tax bills, two possible scenarios are available. a. Intergovernmental agreement with USA to retain maintenance E ehrougn, FY 1385—$7- with the City assuming responsibility FY r, 1987-88. b. Intergovernmental agreement with USA rebating City share of sewer user chargesbeginning third quarter FY 1985-87 and pity assuming maintenance responsibility at that time. a F. Parks Metzger Park is currently funded through an LID and user fees. THE CITY WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE PARK LID, UNLESS BY 'A VOTE OF � THOSE,IN THE LID. ' G. Building and Codes Enforcement z Staffing requirements are dependent upon permit activity. The area l has not exhibited a great deal of growth related activity and it is ill assume building and code enforcement presumed that the City 's during third quarter 'FY 1985-87, unle1s the County wishes to contract back with the City for permits issued in the interim._ H. Planning and Engineering Personnel requirements are mostly dependent upon permit activity. The area has not exhibited a great deal of growth related activity and it sume planning and engineering is presumed the City will as . responsibilities shortly following annexation. Comprehensive land use planning and traffic engineering services would begin immediately upon annexation. I. Library, No change is seen in Library activity due to current WCCLS cooperative agreements. Metzger residents are guaranteed ongoing library service with or without WCCLS immediately upon annexation. J. Finance and Administr r7ltive Services 1-7 1) PersonnelRequirements: One (1) Sewer Billing Clerk — $15,000 One (1) Municipal Court Clerk — 1111sgO $27,500, 2) Transition to City of Tigard Basic services are available immediately upon annexation. newer` bailing would 'begin in the first quarter of FY 1987-88 Municipal'' Court activity will 'begin in concert with Police transition. Fall transition to the City of Tigard shnulei ue complete no later than first quarter FY 1987-88. 3. IMPROVEMENTS VEMENTS PROGRAM (EX-3) The City of Tigard will dedicate all NET revenue generated from the iettiger . annexation I for mt least fiveyears to a special Capital Improvements. Program to upgrade the infrastructure to City` of 'Tigard standards, `.particularly in the areas of streets and pedestrian and hike pattlm. NET revenue is defined as those funds ' from; Metzger's total= revenues remaining ' after the substraction for the rservice costs (direct and, overhead cost) each year. EXPENDITURES FROM THIS FUND WOULD BE IN ADDITIOAN TO, THE BASIC CAPITAL ENTITLEMENTS TO A CITY 'NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WOULD` E BASED ON A METZGER CPO/NPO DEVELOPED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN. 4. SPECIAL. DISTRICTS AND OTHER -SERVICES The City sof Tigard supports the, existing Special Districts in the continued delivery of Fire and later services. 'Schoo). Districts would remain the same, unaffected by the 'annexation. Phone services would rImaan the same, Z. ''tfiBlNChtiliiltY_-16Y -GENERAL (tIh_5.). The City of Tigard supports the rights of residents and property owners as outlined in ORS. The City also supports a' referendum opportunity on the Manger annexation. SH:sb62 i (EX 3A) CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 83 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT (UPAA) BETtdEEN THE CITYOFTIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the pevfo.:m_ince of any or all functions and acitivities that=.a pant to the 'agreement, -its officers or ; agents, have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning goal ## 2 (Land Use Planning) required that City, County, State and Federal agency ;and special distri.ct .glans and actions shall be consistent ca th the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plan adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) requires each jurisdiction :requesting ackuowledgment of compliance to submit an agreement setting ;forth the means by which land use coordination in the unicorporated areas :within the Regional :Urban Growth Boundary, will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the . County and the City, to ensure coordinated and: consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish ` 1. A : site-specific Urban- Planning Area with the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the County and the City maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. Policies rcgardi^.,g comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning area; 3. Aprocess for coordinating comprehensive planning and development' in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF _'TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 'Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) as setforth in Exhibit "A", consisting of :10 pages of text :be, and the same hereby is, adopted as a part of the city-aide comprehensive plan of. the City of Tigard. Section 2. In .order to provide a uniform date for the effectiveness of this- Urban'-Planning Area Agreement -(UPAA) to be adopted :by the City Council in 1983, and eutergency is declared and shall become effective on < Ordinance No. 83- PASSED. By r!r�1 .kaL ce'� vote of all the Council members present, after being read .by nuluber and title only, his o i day of r , 1983, .�c ted. R�cor�er ® City of iigar!-% dof u=H 3' 1983 Approved: the Y4ayor, this =a'7 a Y a "Mayor - City of Tigard Approval of form: City Attorney - Cs�g= of Tzg4rd a drdinanGe NO. 83- .s NGTON COUNTY WASHI A MaNlSTFiP,_r'ON BUILDING--150 N.FIRST AVENUE Y�t HILLSBORO.OREGIJl�9 123 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 35031 643$761 BOARD OF CO3+Af4�gSSBOt�tEFdS WES MYLLENBECK-Chaim" BONNIE L.WAYS.Vice Chairman EVA M.KILLPAC% JOHN E.MEEK LUCILLE:WARREN JUL 2 3983 July 7, 1983 9 Bill Monahan. Planning Director City of Tigard P.O`. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 in on June 28, 19b3, the Washington County Board of Commissioners At`their meting Comprehensive :.voted to'.approve Oaadis,anc.. No. 263, the nese blashiesgtor, County Plan for the urban area -d vas doptd as art of Planning area Ags�eess nt for theCity of igaenclosedforeyour files.' � The Urban of the 9 Ordnance No. '263. A signed copy new .., Charter requiresa that ordi danceafteQ�thegdate Chapter X of the 1ashi�ngtOn COU the County t or amended comprehensive p n �„e s rGedural provisions However, the for of County Coh¢nissioners recognizes that the of final adoption r lann,Iy cntainsb and ensure arderZy and efficient p "Urban Planning Area Agreement contains bo�tie lagreement should be utilized immediately. to enhance intergovernmental cooperation in the affected areas, and therefore the implemented as an ihtergovern. "s the Board adopted a policy ol i cy,-i n Resolution and Order No. 83-118 To accomplish this, reerrdent p directing that the Urban Planning Area Agr of Qrdinance rd;io 263. amental agreement i�dlately up during en At this time I :wish to thank yo°u for your assnning Ai-stancerea ayAgrehementuand the development and adopt ofthenew Urban Plaforrard to 9 ro acts. Washington Gcunty`_Coninrehensive' Plan. til oand County planni'ngraped3co�rdlnatian between -1 and county on future .� y Ijetti�reen the;City S Richard A. Daniels Planning Director e RAD;I(M:mbm $ c: Wilbur Bishop, Mayor Bob, Jean, City Manager r EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON COUNTY TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this a day of 19_g!3_' ,by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political Subdivision, f the State of Oregon, heinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and CITY OF TIGARD:, an incorporated >... municipality of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the- "CITY." WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governi eats may enter into agreeyzients for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and W"EREAS.,_Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and specialdistrict puns and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and 'counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each Jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agree ent setting forth the means by which land use coordination in the unincorporated areas within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent f... comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: 1. A site-specific -Urban Planning Area within the' Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; 3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. .'A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement. NOW THEREFORE,' THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Location of the Urban Planning Area The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the ;COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. 11. Com rehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 1 l Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area;within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. 3. The CITY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for . the provision of urban services in the ActiveTannieg,Area. 4. The. COUNTY shall not approve l An-d di vi s ions vii thi is ttne Arai ve . Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and: mater service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development proposal in the Active Planning Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevel opment to urban densities consistent with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire_protection. 1. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY'S Active Planning Area. B. Area of 'Interest ' 1 Definition Area of 'Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorpor ated Ta-6-ds—contiguous to the Active Planning,Area in which the; CITY does not conduct`comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of .potential impacts _ on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within , the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area S on Exhibit 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the .Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning fortheprovision of urban services in the Area of Interest. 2.. t 4. The CITY ;may consider requests for annexations in the Area of interest subject to the following: a The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the 'provision of urban services for development.' b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not.:create''islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre sentative-means ;for annexation in the Metzger!P rog ress Community !Tanning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the City reserves all,of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised"Statutes. d. Upon an neation of land within the area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY agreesto convert COUNTY plan;designations to CITY plan designations which most closely,approximate the density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to ;maintain this designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and ,COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should be amended before the one year period is over. e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to the CITY, the area shall continue to be consideredas part of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose .of calcu- lating county--wide new dwelling unit mix and density as required by ,OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07-035. This provision shall apply until the 'CITY and COUNTY plans have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Cortanission. C. General Policies 1. The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major transportation issues: (1) the classification and use of Durham Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway; and (2) the need and location of the extension of hurray Boulevard to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have agreed to a process for resolution of their conflicts and agree not to preclude potential transportation options or road system' improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans, F notwithstanding their disagreement. 3 7 2. The CITY shall include all right-of-way within and adjacentto property in current and future proposals.; in future annex addition, the CITY and the COUNTY shall reach agreement upon a schedule and process for the surrender of jurisdiction of those COUNTY roads currently within the city limits and those COUNTY roads that may be included in future annexations to the CITY f the COUNTY determines these roads are not necessary as part of €. the BOUNTY road systema Such an agreement shall be reached within 60 clays of the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area will not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY. F Coordination of ComRrehensive P�annino and Developren=; III � A Amendments to or Adoption pf a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation . 1. Definitions Comprehensive Plan, as defined by OAR 660-18-010(6) means a policy statement of generalized, coordinated land use map ng body of a local governmP..andnt that interrelates all the governi functional and natural;systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. ImLlementing Regulationmeans any local government zoning ordinance, land divaslon ordinance adopted under OILS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. 2.. Except as provided in subsection (B) below, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY writh the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COURTY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments,to or adoption of the City comprehensive �. plan or implementing regulations. The following'procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one:another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify the anther agency, hereinafter the responding agency= of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts;are I initiated, but in no case less than 46 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall he finalized b "Memorandums of is -4- r Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CIT Y and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of ( Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding agency shall participate in the adoption €. process. If, at the time of Eyeing notified of a ±proposed action, the responding agency determines it does not need to i a may_wa waive the ss t .' n voce participate �n the adoption p requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding:" b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recom, endations on 'any ,proposed actions to the responding agency for its 3 review and coranent before finalizing: Unless otherwise agreed to in 'a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to G submit,comments orally or in writing lack of response shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. , c. The originating bgency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final recomrendations, or b) by letter to the responding agency , explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consid- eration # . eratioii as a part of the c record on the proposed ration, the originating agency action. If after such conside acts contrary to the position of the'respondingagency, the I responding agency may seek review of the action through the appropriate body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the orig- inating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written .y documentation is assailable to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken.' B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners 1. Definition Development Action Re uirinq Notice means an action by a local :government which requires notifying by, avail the owners of property which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a-proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivs=ons.,partitionings or planned developments, variances, -ocess which is and other similar actions requiring a hearings pt quasi-judicial in nature. 5- s, 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of impending 'development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a:copy :sof the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than ten g. days prior to the . ring. date of the`scheduled public hearThe failure of the responding agency to receive a notice shall not 'invalidate< an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its dis- cretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an of oral response may be made at the public hearing. a. written ororalresponse shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal. c. The originating agency shall include or attach the comments to the written staff report or supplemental thereto, and respond to.any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally atthe hearing.— d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. " If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1, The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation require- ments contained in subsections A and B above, a, The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agendas which contain the proposed actions to <_,h_ other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduledp ublic hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the origin- ating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda ,may respond at its discretion. Comments may he submitted in written form or, an oral response may be made at the public hearing. c. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the,proposed action. If the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek review of the action through:the appropriate body and procedures. IV. Special Policies A. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive` planning and development actions to their respective recognized Ccunity Planning Organizations (CPC) through the notice procedures outlined in Section III-of this Agreement. ` — B. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) .' amend the- text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. V. Amendments to the Urban Planninq Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary: r 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal, shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement desciribing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the, proposed f amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly' indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to'be ;held within 45 days of the date the request is received. -7_ 4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to`,amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the 'request, deny the request, or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants additional ,review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If consistencies noted by both parties,.cannot be resolved in the review process a. outlined in Section IV (3)', the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is determined that a `proposed amendment: creates an`inconsis- tency, and shall be completed within 30 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of _ ---the—joint study--shall—be_mutual-i-y—agreed_upon_by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the • recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary e two (2) years from amendments. The review process shall commenc the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconT.ifst- encies that may have developed since the previous review, after completion of the 60 _day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. VI. Effective Date This:.Agreement shall be effective until January 1, 1984, During this period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding between them: 1. Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive plan for the CITY and its Active Planning Area; and 2. Adoption of development standards for streets and storm drainage facilities consistent with and adequate to carryout CITY"S Plan; and 3. Adoption of the attached Agreement, Exhibit "B", by the Board of Directors of the Unified SewerageAgency of Washington County. 4. Resolution Of Outstanding transportation issues between the parties. including: eg� � t a. consistent street classification standards; b. the status of Durham Road; and c., the need and: location of the Murray Boulevard Extension from Scholis Ferry Road to Highway 99W. Until, resolution of these transportation issues, the parties shall! take;no action to preclude alternative slutions to those o issues. As of Januray 1,,1984t this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently in effect between the parties shall revive, unless: 1. The parties resolve th'e issues set forth above; and - - `ZThe parties extend the time in which to reach agre€'taent. This Agreement coranences on �� �-� ��� 19 Z3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the' date `set opposite their signatures. CITY -OF TIGARD By Gr!/ P Date s' Mayor WASHINGTON COUNTY By �` .�, .e. F.�-s- Hato Chairman, `Board of`,County Commissioners Date ' Record m- - Secretary APPROVED 4 ;4p fro CO IM S.Stt��rK3 { t ]i ,�`: i f� ;, _.� I � � �� �j. ,1��1�^ a` v �/ L �a•S. �;gi•+,. t ! d F — �.�.a�.�`^-...r �_ -_ t f C ii i�!�i,t• �_, 'y�"'n' a ,li t_r, �. [ [.. / � a F •.��-� � �• as ° ��• �_..._— --n- �. .4,41, IQ FAI i Q � Ir ILI a = f __Lwo _-_ / a - ► �' rye= (- cc CL) ,4 a m m ra m t ' cc i ta. k. In E a 1 x _ "4 i EXHIBIT B 6-9-83 i a UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY AND CITY OF TIGARD AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered in this day of 1983,; by and between the UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, a County Service District formed under ORS Chapter 451 , hereinafter called "AGENCY" and the 'CITY -OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "CITY".` W I N E, S S E T H• WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreefents for the performance of any or all-functions-and-activities that-;a party to the agreement, its officers or'agents, have the authority to perform; and WHEREAS, State-wide Planning Goal No. 2 (Land Use Planning) requires that city,, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties; and WHEREAS, ORS 357.185 provides a method for coordination of programs affecting land',use of special districts; and C- f WHEREAS, the parties are amenable to entering into an agreement under the terms'and `conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1 . AGENCY shall undertake its actions within CITY limits and CITY'S Active Planning Area in accordance'with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan. 2. AGENCY shall prohibit the-connection of new development wi thin CITY'S Active Planning Area to its sewer "system facilities unless CITY gives prior written approval.' 3. CITY will cooperate with AGENCY in its functions of providing sanitary sewer facilities. 4. This Agreement shall continue until the parties mutually agree to terminate this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement or, the date set under their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD BOARD OF .DIRECTORS, UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY By _ 8y Mayor Chairman .' Attest City Recorder Recording Secretary Date — Date (0596A) r• _ f mend• 3 °a�_, > � .. �.' v IS att vl . . f . r 4 '. Ct•4.: l` i�.�' =�y 3 f=�,e, i ' ` zAMA c�a�i-:'EC--�•a !•. cc CL a I c > ' Cu cc rca 00 c� 03a - C0 �. Y. o w w © ¢ dd C& ° —_—_� z ly d•` � N ILL ca 2 N 0 cc fJ \ 6t0 41117 DE: — v � ,rt{ r. 7. e. (EX AAZ) GIT! OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO 134 A RESOLUTION REACT lVATltdG AND CLARIFYING THE URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT BEIVEEN THE CITY OF `TTGARD AWD WASHINGTO COUNTY. WHEREAS,. the Gity of Tigard and Wasfcington county agreed to an Urban planning Area Agreement '(UPAA) which was adopted by both governmental bodies in 71983; and WHEREAS, tIhe UFAA lapsed on *,anuary 1, 1984, and was not extended by the two parties; and WHEREAS, aprior agreement executed in 1980 was reactivated ,oe: January unsatisfactory to both pasties as it is inconsistentT9$4, which with the is or'y City and' County Comprehensive Plans, specifically relatives to 't.ransportation issues; and WHFREAS, it is in the best- interest ofthe city.and County to establish a processto resolve transportation inconsistencies between the City and County plans; and r Cit and count to WHEREAS, it appears to be 'in the best interes of the y y { establish temporary de-sign standards for the planned connection m£ S.W. Murray Brad. and S.W2� ed until such time as the city and Gaarde Street. to be appli County,'Transportation Plans are consistent with one: another. NOW, THEREFORE BE ;LT RESOLVED: 1. The Tigard—Washington County Urban Planning Area Agreement, adopted as ordinance Go. 83-33, is hereby reacti'raeted and ratified through ;Jude' 3(3e Tgil `,liy tb, City iu"accordance with" the provriaion of �ectien �7I of laic! Agreement which allows it to be extended;' and ,that this Agreement' shall sueercede all earlier Urban planning area Agreements between the city and rhe County; and, 2. The city agrees :o the following process to resolve transportation inconsistencies between the City and County Comprehensive Mans; A. Upon receipt of the draft METRO southwest Corridor Study, the receipt City and, the County shall designate an equal number of personnel meet and prepare appropriate staff persa joint report which presents a committee recommendation on: (l) The functional classification of Durham Road (2) .tee need and ' location of an indirect connection or connections between Murray Blvd.SScholls Ferry Rove! and Gaaaarde Street/99W; and B. Within six montlis of 'the receipt of the draft Southwest Corridor Study, the joint committee shall report its findings to the Tigard City Wuricil' and ; Board of County Comgmiggionera for WagEeiagton Coucaty fpr adaption of. a mutual agreement . on the rescalution of the transportation issues, and,, RESOLUTION, NO., 84� f� 9 3. The City hereby establishes the following temporary design guidelines j for any segments of the planned Murray> Blvd. and S.W. Gaarde Street µ connection between the vicinity of 135th/Walnut and 121/Caarde intersections that may be proposed prior to the implementation of (2) above: A. Right-of•-tray shall be hC feet; S. Improvement width shall be 40 feet; a C. There be aro "T" intersaction or other design features that nction of the, street as .a manor collector; will impede the fu D. brie essay access shall be limited, but not prohibited; E. She "road shall be constructed according to City structural standards. F. The_curve radius will be a minimum of 350 feet.,..,, S'ne meed to modify the preceeding standards shalt be reviewed by the committee established in [Z)` above: and 4. the City hereby reaffirms its strcng support for the inclusion of the proposed vesterly by-pass in the METRO Regional Transportation Plan. a, The County agrees to support the City at Tigard's V= hearings. PASSED: This day of 1984. � TM Mayor pre face - City of Tigard ATT EST: Deputy City Recorder Citgo of Tigard RESOLUTION AO. 84M�� (Q407P)' (EX 13) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 A JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGARQ REGARDING, URBAN SERVICES, DECLARING AND SUPPORTING MUTUAL, ANNEXATION PLANNING AREAS OF AGREEMENT (APAH}. WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard have previously adopted joint APAA Resolutions (Tigard Resolution No. 85-82), but left the Washington ; Square Study Area for future review; and WHEREAS, both cities have completed their related staff reports affecting the Washington Square Study Area and both City Councils ;have determined logical future annexation and urban service boundaries for each city in the area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard find that `municipal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably by cities; and WHEREAS, conflicting land use plans and overlapping areas of planning interest tend to delay; the ultimate annexation to cities and tend towards iil.ogical and inefficient service>boundaries;; and pyx` WHEREAS, both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners and residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State Law; and WHEREAS, both cities see competition and conflict between cities over individual annexation proposals, as contrary to their mutual long-range community interests and wish to avoid such conflicts whenever possible by mutually adopting a clear statement of areas of annexation interest. NOk!, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA): and Resolution No. 05-82 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by this complete new agreement upon mutual adoption by the City of Beaverton and City of Tigard. Section 2: A joint Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) as to urban services and future annexations hereby,exists between the two cities. Section 3: A South Beaverton - 'North Tigard boundary on future annexation areas of interest as shown on the map (attachments A, B, and C) shall: begin east at the Multnomah•-Washington County line; westerly follow the south side of Taylors Ferry Road straight past the tax lots fronting SW Both/Bomar Court; then south to a point aligned with the rear of the tax lots facing Cedarcrest; !nest to a point just west of the tax lots facing 91st Avenue; , sough to Hall Boulevard; 'along the north side of 'Hall Boulevard; westerly to the intersection of Hall and Greenburg/Oleson Road; westerly along the south side of Hall, to the west of the Washington Square access road; ;south behind the tax lots fronting Halland to the west; to the west side of the next Washington Square access road; north to a point on the south side of the RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page l of 2 __ f °t 151111 1 11 R, ?f Golden Key Apartments; comterly between the south mercial properties fronting d into the Square; to the f the north side of the commercial to Scholl$ north side of the west' southwestalongpScholls Uare cFerry ess ®Roadwtotthe old< Scholls Ferry Road; from there so Ferry--flew Scholls Ferry Road; to the Urban Growth Boundary. Section q; The cities declare and support Beaverton°s annexation interests north and west of this APAA Boundary and Tigard's annexation interests south and east of the APAA Boundary. Section 5: The `cities mutually rom the ether, that agree that upon request f they !gill support annexation proposals to the other consistent annexationsAPAA to Boundary. The cities mutually agree that they will not app the other city their city ' contrary to the APAA without a resolution' Fran departure from supporting such< an annexation an specifically modifying y the APAA Boundary- Section 6; The cities further resolve to generally support annexations by the other even away from the APAA Boundary areas and to further develop a joint annexation policy statement in this regard. s and nsus Section 7: The cities furtheraai �ouncilPmeetings nonngthe Murray Road agreement from the staff review connectionthrough the Old—New Scholls Ferry Road area from Beaverton f southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. is Section 8: The cities agree to revise, amend, and support other planaling I agreements consistent with this APAA resolution, ' and to an annual review to ` this,agreement'as the Council's deem necessary. 1.98E. PASSED: This day of `rs' tlayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: /.,beputy City Recorder- — City of Tig,,trc9 lw1370GA RFSO!_UTION NO. 86--25 page 2 of 2 a -, _ "°� --tet• 1 � �• t tae � - 1 »-a•",� 1�, i � _ r , .- �\`: $ C r.1b �" -.ttt 2 �•••. V Li r • + ) ¢f t.ai js' y �j 1 � P!*•R� =F• `�t�: iA./p Y1 P�p •'� �,jl�.. 's 9 . I zz1 A 1 f--�- :.x, 1 1 a -tf•: •�' •tom' � , cr � .a.wit 7,$ a.u�° � a �' F� l �1}�'-f � �••y j�✓ �',:.� � �II �''��'^aa�_ _ _. _- ' a J i � •� tit wl guc.ztl {.� `9 m.`I�+•^• x `. E 3RY"1 atASFt —.•-.ss 1 e3_.,6...;t 9 , cj .x i s'q—a ��te. .. g. fiL^ "pL :a—. _� �-•. i` 3 tF 1 tl+r T!�+ �l •.Y• .� S 1 � p a x- ii: 310E! Ilflj it > _ lt }t tt _.rj�Y'r"' t �i«I T'�JC' �,t�t r' is if ��• i�t���1 `�:• $F. � - t V� I - L. 1 .•. T �.a+ ..1....u.l.-. �, .Y""; Tr y IFIt a { I �a ._•r.. _�y� 11:L11111�111 : ...-i t�_� y -..,4„ �• _iT's'�`' .. -K � ( ^7 _�f ,�� � rt t •ter—�'-,•-®<' 4 T 6 q• r ' o a. r : i SC/tOa t' . s. I. 0\+72 d 1'l T� j ——1-ep r ,l ._ A — �...`• PftoGRESS . f nmrru 1 2 • � � % 11 cOu935E :t y � i r - ! � —� i-•- � I 1 r ' ? :off _—A�T A i ,_ t ISGUARf`'� �a 1 �� 1�-7 i t✓ � a 0 �� � '•t t i, �( GRESCENt GROVE. sv • i 1 t _ -GEMETARY:=_ r ' e ` MALI 4- ^�' T� • I a trr- r7 26 .j - i ' r / I - �. FTa Tk , n \'�• �--.�\' t 111 �_., l �� .l-r _ C ''`- ��s' ;'1e'��lig`1 ���Q�F�, � � i ;Asn � >i t" '�--• ., , .. rg rT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO- e6 URBAN SERVICES POLICY WHEREAS the Citg, of Tigard has identified the need. for a written Urban Services Palioy; and i�F.ES, the City believes that the urban unincorporated portions of Washington County will be best served through annexation to cities for the provision of the requirecS le,jels of sorban services; and W4EREAS, Washington County does not have the 'financial resources made available to the cities in Washington ' County for the provision of urban services. NOWWHEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Tigard that it adopts the following urban Services Policy: 1. The City is prepared to plan and provide urban services within its area of interest which is generally the Urban Growth Boundary on the west, the Tualatin River^ on the south, the Multnomah--Washington County line on the east, and the Beaverton Tigard line on the north.' 2. The City has identified the following services as its basic services: Police Streets Streetlighting Storer Drainage Sanitary Sewers Parks and Recreation Building and "odes Enforcement , Planning and Engineering Library Finance and Administrative Services 3. The city supports the existing Special Districts in regard to provision of fire and water services. 4. The City supports resident and property owner rights per Oregon Revised Statute to decide when and to which city to annex. PASSED- This day of 1986. Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: Deguty~l� city Recorder —,City of Tigard sb�0 � t i 02251 cn ,s'IN+ -.)a'�3 CL a°�..i £s.` •a.7 °•' Q"•° a.. ax N wa'`jw � °� 9rnaa.p ea-E g 41 =3 i5 ow � :,s acs 2 IN � awoTs•v oof te=esw. 8i CarvaC4 �' Z o � � m`,s�nc`d«�."� aim.o. tina 131 1.--3 «oi ate$ �•m � a.n�.�y., > ^ C..o+ �o � .Y� a,� i o oN w� o avz e.. ba -xv tt'.°•' h ai ca off.. � o,:: CL)a.C+ ��^3�' C tJ ^� •CS��..•4 Lp.� '� w A G Q•". U Cts C w 0A1 °'' > C t3 c, o, csca `w-' awo3 rcoc5ou,,y v-a ^ ci o wpwma wE- cws OO v O *n. .i U:•..,•^. 63 r.a^' 4 o.o in tw N 'A•+�-�•'"'. w'a te".-.."' >> iv e) p,asw C3 o cd I �» .� ."ls. �•.Y y(,L.�:^ ? O. 'C.L"' W O 1.. �..� O r C"O •Ei o o � ..•w O tY8 az •C O h aY-.•••..T-`y W A �-. p >> coX. is w C•. w w p N B G r. •i7.a o > ct cc ^v co«�.$ 0 Q •r"—A? >,g. woo %'way 3oo c I.u' lb .1, o N2S7X1. aboB .c " ao>.�? p wN o w aaw -N .`"c•ra�C.>~..y•a w c3 o . t ca "' p p ti s-. O y w ate-. •cn n > NO 5,6 rd i psi . - •,'^ ' �• it r:.� rr� �.. i (EX :) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. fib' - =� A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR THE METZGER/WASHING'TON SQUARE ANNEXATION TO TIGARD. Whereas, the Metzger/Washington Square Community Planning Organization (CPO) has been studying its ;options in maintaining and improving municipalservices; Whereas, the CPO asked the City to conduct a Municipal Services Study for the area and outline the City services available upon annexation; Whereas, the Tigard Municipal Services Study for the Metzger/Washington Square CPO has been completed and 'presented at a CPO meeting; and, Whereas, citizens in the community and through the CPO have asked the City to formally declare its ,position towards a Metzger/Washington Square annexation proposal; ; NOW, THEREFORE, 3E IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City _Council that: Section 1. _Election. The City reaffirms its preference for a Metzger/ r Washington Square community vote on a comprehensive proposal for the Metzger/ Washington Square area; and encourages timely hearings and an election by November, 1985 if possible; Section 2. CPO Plan' Recognition. The City ,agrees to the County CPO Land U.e Plan and recognition of the CPO as a new City Neighborhood Planning Organiza- tion (NPO) immediately rgani..a-tion '(NPO)- immediately upon annexation; s r Section 3. City Services. The City agrees to extend the same levels of City services into the Metzger/Washington Square area as provided inside current City limits, providing but not limited to: Police, Library, Parks-( anle.:s Metzger opts to continue the Park LII?), Streets, Sewers, Storm Drainage. Street Lighting, Building Planning„ I:ng,ineering and all other General ment services. RESOLUTION NO. 86 - PACE 1 - � p Section 4. Specasl CSP. the City further agrees to dedicate all thenet revenues� otal. new revenue less cost of City services ir. #3 above = net revenue) costing from annexation L•asis into the Metzger/Washington Square area for 5 years following annexation into a Special Captial Improvements Projects (CIF) fund for sidewalks, bi.kepaths, street, sewer, storm drainage and muter public improvements.; Section 5. Representation. Upon annexation, the Metzger/Washington Square shall have all the rights and opportunites available to Tigard residents and property;owners. PASSED: This 5th 'day odMay, 1986. dy r' - City of Tigard is ATTEST: Deputy;City Recor er - City of Tigard R50L,UTION NO. S6 53 PAGE 2 E 4v a-- -e.o UA 12 F77 6 .ss man Kim IND, IN MEMORANDUM � : 5� CITE' OF TIGARD, OREG09V i July 10, 1986 TO: Executive Staff FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator�,� SUBJECT: Metzger/Washington Square Annexation �[ :Suly, 14 washington Square Triple Majority Petition to CC? Resolution? July 15 Executive Staff 'on Metzger Policy Positions ` July 14-18 -- CC Special Meeting? Resolution and Legal description. . . July 16 — Metzger CPO Meeting at Metzger Park, 7:OO {Pro Vote). Mayor Tom Brian Bob Jean Brian Hartung Irene Ertell David Lehr Bill Monahan July 18 - File Washing Square Petition and CC Resolution with BC? For august PN., , July 22 UPAA Amendments July 24 — Boundary Commission Metzger PH Tom Brian Councilors? Bob ;lean Brian Hartung Bill Monahan Tim Ramis Reid Iford Six NHReps. Pro Annexation sb64 4 a •J Bi 3M 41 Foundsd Dao.4.1850.EsftWshsd as a daily Feb.4.1969.The Sunday Oregonian eStaC ishetl Dec.4,1891.Putilished daily and Sunday by the Oregonian Publishing Oo., 1320 S.W.Broadway.Portland,Oregon 97201. FRED A.STICKEL,President and Pube:sher WILLIAM A.HILLIARD,Executive Editor ROBERT M:LANDAUER,Editorial Page Editor DONALD J;STEALING JR.,Asst.to the Publisher PETER THOMPSON,Manag:T� Editor R10BERT N.S,C,HOtNBACH R,Advertising Dir. PATRICK L MARLTON Circulation Dir. o TUESDAY,JULY 9,1966 se lenstm, ' The small ceremony dune 27 in�rtult- for the needy.The Board of County noMah aunty's Environmental Quality Commissioners, guided and support 'offices at 2116 S.E.Morrison St.passed by the executive, wisely decided Mult- virtually unnoticed-by the people most nomah County should be just what it directly affected�-the county's proper- was intended to be -- a county, not ty�taxpayers. Oregon's second-largest cit5,r, in terc3 The ceremony marked the end of of delivery of municipal services. the county's permit administration. It is a path still to be followed, pri- Trventy-pee employees who dispensed merily where policing is concerned.But permits for building, mechanical, elec- progress to date in roads, parks, plan trical,plumbing and subsurface sewage nines and now permits, has been 1'. disposal projects went from the county extrffiaordinary, considering a perceived :...,to the city of Portland payroll, though rending of tradition in city and county they will continue working out of the obligations. In fact, the county broke .-.'.Morrison Street office for a time. tradition years earlier by providing a "This is what we intended with the municipal level of services to meet the ;passage of Resolution A three years rapid population growth in unincor- ago,"County Executive Dennis Buchan- porated areas of middle Multnomah as said. "Aa the delivery of municipal County. It was a level of service well services is turned over to the cities of beyond what those served paid for, Portland, Gresham and Troutdale, the measurably subsidized by city resi- ! County can concentrate its resources on dents: . the delivery of truly countywide sery Ices,'such as medical care,care for the Now the county is back in its proper young and the elderly and the adminis role of providing public service county tration of justice." wide.Taxpayers should see that myopic The alternatives were simple.Iroise interests do not again erode the larger county property taxes or trim services favus of Oregon's most urban county. f jde v a �. July 14, 1986 Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission . 320 SW stark`- Room 530 OREGON Portland, OR 97204 ' 28 Years of Service SUBJECT: Metzger Annexation to Tigard 1961-1986 Honorable Persons: The City of Tigard is pleased to support the community initiated annexation proposal formally joining the Metzger community with the City of Tigard. Tigard and Metzger have a long common history and share many of the same interests in schools, transportation, sewers, storm drainage, public safety, business and community liveability. The City of Tigard is pledged to work with the community in obtaining a'vote on this annexation'. y' Tigard at 22,000 population and tl billion valuation -- no longer that "small town on the way to the coast" -- is Oregon's 12th largest and fastest growing city in E Oregon's fastest growing County. Over the years we have developed the capacity to i! manage growth, annexation and expand neighborhood support. Abasic, high ,quality, served our changing community well. With the low cost, services philosophy has newly completed t2.5 million Tigard Civic Center and our recent 59% voter "approval ofa 5-year Tag Base plan, the City of Tigard. has the organizational and financial capacity to 'serve the needs of the Metzger community. As the Municipal Services Study of the Metzger area shows, this annexation of the area to Tigard is a TIN-WIM scenario. Tigard residents are even better and more economically served through the economies of scale affecting existing programs and in spreading the costs of city-wide bonded debt over a broader base. The Metzger areas capture abandoned revenue entitlements and capital improvement funds unavailable to unincorporated areas. By Council Resolution, The City has pledged , to return all revenues from the area directly back into area services and projects for at least five *ears. The Metzger community is mature and politically capable of determining its 'own future. Tigard supports that determination. Tigard does not presume to tell Metzger citizens whether- they should now annex to Tigard or not. Our task is to inform them of the services we offer, the capital improvements we can construct, � and to welcome them in as full participating members of one of Oregon's finest Y cities. The City of Tigard supports the community's right to decide for itself and vote on their annexation proposal: i Thank you for your consideration and assistance. To my neighbors and friends in 21 Metzger, ,Tigard welcomes you. Sincerely, F"7- John E. Cook _Mayor JEC/dc 13125�i Hall€lvd.,P. Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 � r:,.- MMM ���.�.-.�`��.t.n,'F��i.�� �.„ w. .F;r .3�.����u��� .�c�.����.rs*,���3r,M`�5�u�8���si27��.`,+�4✓" �R�.�.'��s .�, '*� ,� ���'as :��u�i�,� � M �5r1s4 �t E 1 Vt a' i ki UO F� �2 x v � �,...�.s� a'4211; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86-- URBAN SERVICES POLICY bdiEREAS, the City of Tigard has identified the meed for a written Urban Services Policy; and WHEREAS$ the City believes that the urban unincorporated portions of Washington County will be best served through annexation to cities for the provisi on of the required levels of urban' services; and WHEREAS, Washington County, does not have the financial resources made available ,to the cities in Washington' County for the provision of urban services., %101, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Tigard that it adopts the following Urban Services Policy: 1. The City is prepared to plan and provide urban services within its area of interest which is generally the Urban Growth Sounstary an the west, the Tualatin River on the south, the Multnomah-Washington County line on the east, and the'-Beaverton-Tigard line on the north. 2. The City has identified the following services as its basic services: Police Streets Stcreetlighting Storm;Drainage Sanitary Sewer's Parks and Recreation Building and;Codes Enforcement Planning and Engineering Library Finance and Administrative Services 3. The City supports the existing Special Districts in regard to provision of sire and water services. 4. The City supports resident and property owner rights per Oregon Revised Statute to decide when and to which city to annex. PASSED: This day of Mayor - City of Tigard AT d'EST: Deputy City Recorder City of Tigard sb5O ( . . CITY OF TIGARD, JULY 9, 1986 OREGON � STAFF REPORT i. ` URBAN SERVICES PIT4tIN AREAS OF IIi�`TEREST {J A. Urban Planning Area Agreement (EX-1A) B The City of Tigard identifies its area of interest generally as: ' West s The Urban Growth Boundary; South ,- The Tualatin River and neighboring cities; � East - Multnomah-Washington County Line; North - Scholls Ferry/ agreed Ferry Roads G. The cities of Beaverton and Tigard have negotiated a enealguidelines Annexation Area Planning Agreement (AP�aA) setting g between the respective` the right ofities areaf residents and proper ty ownersbut it is not intended to nor can it supercede decide upon annexation: (EX-38) Regarding the Motzger/Washington Square annexation petition, the City of Tigard supports the line drawn within the APAA, but can however, serve the areas included in the petition. 2; SERVICES IMPACT AND TRANSITION EX-2 The following basic services will be provided to the Metzger neighborhood �Y upon annexation: A Police i) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements for Servicing Metzger; Six (6) Patrol Officers - X210,000 70,000 Two (2) Investigators 20,000 One (1) Dispatcher -- 12,500 One (1) Clerk - 10,000 one (1) Marked Patrol Car _ 10,000 Oneaa `(1) UnmrUed Car 17,500 Miscellaneous Equipment $350,000 2) Estimated Transition to City of Tigard Patrol and Emergency Response: Emergency Police services would begin following a positive Emergency vote as of 3anuary 1, 1987 and coordinate with the Of County Sheriff throughout the additiontransition period. The City as fast as Tigard will recruit and hire lemon alalbudgetarys authority is Possible after necessary supe City will rotate experienced officers into the granted. The ' Metzger community as new officers are brought iced nto Department. This assureeddia balala constr ints�to nce nthe immediate throughout the City. �' assumption of patrol duties are as follows: j i` Nov '86 Dec 'ss Jean '87 Feb '87 Mar 187 Apr '87 May '87 June '87 Annexation. . . Emergency Start up. . . Full patrol services. . . € Recruitment. . . Mew hires. . : Trainicr�. . .' S Based upon the above timelines, it is estimated that full a assumption of Police services in Metzger would take ;place as early as March but no later than June, 1987. G. Streets 1) Estimated personnel and Equipment Requirements: One (I) !!ti lity Worker II - $ 25,000 Two (2) Utility Worker I - 40,000 � One (1) 1-Ton Truck 14,000 Two (2) Pick-up Trucks - 14,000 rs Materials and Supplies - 17,500 ° $110,500 2) Estimated Transition for City of Tigard Street' Maintenance: It is estimated that gaining budgetary; authority and recruitment of new personnel will take approximately one (1) month after annexation. The City; of Tigard would assume, street maintenance responsibilities in early January '87. C. Street Lighting 1) Assumption of Current Street Lighting: Currently streetlights its place are provided through Washington County Street Lighting District 1' and paid by property owners on their property tax. The City would assume funding for current lights on July 1, 1987 in FY 1987-88. 2) Provision of New Street Lighting: Dependent upon receipt of gas tax revenues, it is assumed that new lighting installations would start as of July 1, 1987 in FY 1987-88: D. Storm Drainage Storm drainage maintenance is estimated to be provided in the first quarter FY 1987-88 along with City sanitary sewer billings, or sooner x depending on timing of USA agreement transition. '4. w E. Sanitary Sowers 1) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements: w One (1) Utility Worker II $25,000 One (1) Utility Worker ,I 20,000 One (1) Maintenance Worker — 19,030 Materials and Supplies 9,000 $73,000 2) Estimated Transition to City Maintenance: Because current USA charges are billed through property tax bills, two possible scenarios are.available. a. Intergovernmental agreement with USA to retain maintenance through FY 1986-87 with the City assumingresponsibility FY 1987-88. b. Intergovernmental agreement with USA rebating City share of sewer user charges beginning third quarter FY 1986-807 and City assuming maintenance responsibility at that time. F. Parks Metzger Park is currently funded through an LID and user fees. THE CITY WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES IN THE PARK 'LID, UNLESS 'BY A' VOTE OF s THOSE IN THE LID. G. Building and Codes Enforcement Staffing requirements are dependent upon permit activity. The area has not exhibited a great deal of growth related activity and it is presumed that the City will assume building and code enforcement during 'third quarter FY 1986-87, unless the County wishes to contract back with the City for permits issued in the interim. H. Planning and Engineering Personnel requirements are mostly dependent upon permit activity. The area has not exhibited a great ,deal of growth related activity and it is presumed the City will assume planning and engineering responsibilities shortly following annexation. Comprehensive land use planning and traffic engineering services would begin immediately upon annexation. I. Library No change is seen in Library activity due to current WCCLS cooperative agreements. Metzner residents are guaranteed ongoing Library service with or without WC;CLS immediately upon annexation.' i J. Fir►anee' sand Administrative Services � i 1) Personnel Requirements: 4 One -(a) sewer Billing Clerk $15,000'' one (a) Punivipa1 Court Clerk - x.2,500 $27,500` 2) Transition to City of Tigard Basic services are 'available immediately upon annexation. Sewer- kaiiling ;would ;begin in the first quarter of FY 1587-88. Municipal Court activity will -begin'in concert with police transition. ' Full transition to the City of Tigard should be complete no later than first quarter FY 1987-8R. 3: ,PECIAI CAP3�TAL I�IPR011E ENTS PROGRAM (EX-3) The 'City, 'of Tigard will dedicate all NET revenue generated from the Metzger art for at mast five years to spacial Capital impr'oaQements Program to upgrade the infrastructure to City of Tigard standarus particularly in the areas of streets 'and pedestrian and bike standards. . 'revenuer is defined as those funds from Metzger* total revenues 'remaining after the substraction for the service costs (direct ` and overhead cost) each year. EXPENDITURES FROM THIS FUNDWOULD BE IN � ADDITION TO THE BASIC CAPITAL ENTITLEMENTS TO .R CITY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND s' WOULD BE BASED C)eM1f A METZCER CPOiNPO DEVELOPED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN. q SP CIB�L DISTRICTS AND OTHER SERVICES The Citi ©f Tigard supports the, existing Special Districts in the continued delivery of Fire and Water ervscos. School Districts would remain the acne, iariaffected by the annexation. Phone services would remain the same- 5. ame.5. AE�i'�E1tATI0a� IiC9 GEiJER�sL (EX-3) rights of residents and property owners as The City of Tigard supports the outlined in DRS. The City also supports a referendum opportunity on the t9et�s3er annexaation. 81i•sb62 F 4 (£X 1A) z CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 83-- i AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE URBAN PLANNING, AREA AGREEMLNT (UPAA) BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON COUNTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 4 WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and acitivities that a: part to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and S WHEREAS, Statewide Planning goal # 2 (Land Use Planning) .required that City, County, State and Federal agency and special district .plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plan adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, the Or®gon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgment of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means by which land use coordination in the unicorporated areas within the -Regional Urban Growth Boundary, will be implemented;,and WHEREAS, the; County and the City, to ensure coordinated .and consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: 1. A site-specific Urban- Planning Area with the Regional Urban Growth Boundary , within which both the County and the City maintain an interest in coinprehensive planning; 2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning area; , 3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development' in the Urban Planning Area; and ' 4. A'process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement. �. FORE THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, r: Section 1. The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) as setforth in Exhibit 1A", consisting of 10 pages of text be, and the <` same hereby ` is, adopted as a part of the city-wide comprehensive plan of,the City of Tigard. t f Section 2. In :order to provide a uniform date or the effectiveness of this Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) to be adopted by the City Council in 1983, and emergency is declared and shall become effective on -. � Ordinance No. 83-z;L PASSED: BY /r vote of all the Council members present, anter being read by and title only, This y day of �z. "' r , 1983. Recorder - City of Ti Approved: By the Mayor, this ' da of --.=---_� Y 1983. Mayor City of Tigard 71 Approval of form: < Gity Attorney, - Zity of.Tigard `" i 3 Ordinance No. 83- t,, r . 1 AS INGTON COUNT' C.? L" ) � ADMINISTRATION BUILDING-150 N.FIRST AVENUE r"y' ii1LLSBoRo,OREGON 97123 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (503)646.6753 VJES MYLLENBECK.Chairman i BONNIE L.HAYS,Vice Chairman EVA M.KILLPACK "'„OHN E.MEEK LUCILLE WARREN' JulyP 7, 1983 JUL 2 � 198 Bill Monahan, Planning Director City of Tigard P.O. Box 23397' Tigard, OR 97223 At their'Ir>fretilag on June 28, 1983, the Washington;County Board of Commissioners voted to approve Ordinance No. 263, the new Washington County Comprehensive Plan for the urban area. The Urban Planning Area Agreement for;the City of Tigard was adopted as part of Ordinance :'to. 263. ,A signed copy of the agreement is enclosed for`yaur files. Chapter X of the Washington County Charter requires that ordinances adopting new or amended comprehensive plans for the County take affect 90 days after the date of final adoption. However, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes that the Urban Planning Area Agreement contains both substantive and procedural provisions to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and ensure orderly and efficient planning in the affected areas, and therefore the new agreement should be utilized immediately. To accomplish this, the Board adopted a policy In Resolution and Order No. 83-118 directing that the Urban Planning Area Agreeirent be implemented as an intergovern- mental agreement immediately upon adoption of Ordinance No. 263. At this tiw-- I wash to thank you for your asststance given the County during development and 'adaptix)n of the neer Urban Planning Area Agreement and the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. P look forward to continued coordination between the, City and county on future City and County planning projects. 1 Richard�A. Da�niels Planning Director RAD:KM:mbltl c: Wilbur Bishop, Mayor Bob Jean, City,Manager b-d3-B3 ; F EXHIBIT. A i. WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN; PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of � �- 19 Q by,;WASHINGTON COUNTY, apolitical subdivision f the State of Oregon hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," and CITY OF TIGARO, 'an incorporated _.:. Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY." municipality of the State of WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that;a party to tale agreement, its-officers or;agents, have authority to perform; and WHEREAS.-Stat Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, ,State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and WHEREAS, The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission requires each jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means by which land use coordination in the unincorporated areas within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent comprehensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish. ( 1 . A site-specific Urban Planning Area within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary within which both the COUNTY and the CITY maintain an interest in comprehensive planning; 2. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; 3. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process for amending the Urban Planning Area Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Location of theUrbanPlanning Area The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. Ii. Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain` unincorporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A". 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive pianning,within the Active Planning Area. 3. The CITY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for the provision of urban services in the Active Planning,Area.' 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within_the Active Planning Area which would,create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless;public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY strap not approve a development proposal in the Active Planning Area if the proposal 'would',not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevel- opment to urban densities consistent with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. _,. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY'S Active Planning Area. B. Area of Interest 1. Definition Area of interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorpor- ated lands contiguous to the Active Planning Area in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by the COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Planning Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Area is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A". 2. The COUNTY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning and - development actions within the -Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY shall be responsible for coordinating and planning for the provision of urban services in the Area of Interest. 3 111 110 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of . Interest subject to the following: a. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area oF'Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for° development. b. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the islandannexation. c. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre- sentative means for annexation in the`Metzger/Progress 2. Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the: City reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the City pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. JJ d. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the CITY, the CITY; agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year- after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should { be amended before the one year, period is over. e. Should any land within the Area of Interest be annexed to the CITY, the area shall continue to be considered as part of the COUNTY Urban Planning Area for the purpose of calcu- lating county-wide new dwelling unit mix and density as required by OAR 660-07-030 and 660-07-035. This provision shall apply until the -CITY and COUNTY plans have been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. C. General Policies 1. The CITY and COUNTY are in disagreement on at least two major transportation issues: (1 ) the classification and use of Durham Road between Pacific Highway and the Interstate 5 freeway and �2) the need and location of the extension of Murray Boulevard to Pacific Highway. Despite this disagreement, the parties have agreed to a process for resolution of their conflictsandagree not to preclude potential transportation options or road system improvements proposed in their respective comprehensive plans, notwithstanding their disagreement. -3- 'f 2. The CITY 'shall include all right-of-way within and adjacent to property in current and future annexation proposals, In } addition, the CITY and the COUNTY shall reach agreement,upon a schedule and process', for the surrender of jurisdiction of those COUNTY roads currently within the city limits and those COUNTY roads that may be included in future annexations to the CITY ''if the COUNTY determines these roads are.not necessary as part of the COUNTY road system. Such an agreement shall be reached within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Annexations to the CITY outside the Urban Planning Area wiil 'not be supported by the COUNTY or the CITY. III. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation 1. Definitions Comprehensive Plan, as defined by OAR 660-18-0]0(5), means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing;body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, end natural resources and air and water quality management programs. Impiementinn Regulation means any local government zoning ordinance,_ landdivisionordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for implementing a comprehensive plan. 2. Except as provided in subsection (3) below, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. TheCITYshall provide the COUNTY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and cownent`on proposed amendments to or adoption of the City comprehensive plan se implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and,the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or• adopt a comprehensive pian or implementing regulation: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency. shall notify the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are initiated, but` in no case less than.45 days prior to the final hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be finalized by "memorandums of } 1 4 Understanding" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of .the CITY and: the COUNTY. ' The ocess by which ums f pfri Understanding"; shall' clearly outline the process by '.. the responding agency shall participate in the adoption process_', if at the time of bdetermines'ed it does 'notpnneed to action, ythe responding agencYrocess, ,it may waive the participate in the adoption p to ne otiate and sign a "Memorandum of requirement 9 t Understanding." b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations actions to the_responding Unlessagency atherwiseits on any proposed review and continent before finalizing. " the responding agreed to in a "Memorandum of Udays of a draft to agency shall have ten (10)* ys writing- Lack of response submit comments orally or in on" shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. c. The originating agency shall respond to the continents made by either by a) revising the final the responding agency to the responding agency recommendations, or b) by letter explaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft.' d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given consid eration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If after;such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the Pseeki®evoiewthe of the action ting hrough the responding agency mays appropriate body and procedures. e Upon final 'adoption of the proposed action by the orig - inating,agency, it shall transmit the adopting rdinanavailableceor to the responding agency as soon as publicly if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written sponding documentation is available to properly ins orm the re agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions ;teyuiring Individual Notice to Property Owners 1, Definition a local Development Action aenuirin4 Noticeeamailnthe owneaction rs of government which requires notifying Y property which could potentially be aaffroCted osed(usually developmentCaction as a. distance measured in feet) by propos specific parcel or which directly affects and is at such development actions may include, but not be - oarcels. )iimited to small tract zoning or comprehensive Plan Mapual individ amendments, conditional or specijannedl use developments, variances, subdivisions. partitionings or p process which is and'other similar actions requiring' a hearings quasi-judicial in nature. -5- 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review • and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice +within the CITY limits that may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. 'The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY ao notify one another of impending development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a;copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less; than ten (10) days prior to `he date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of; the notice shall not invalidate responding agency to receive a an action if'a good faith attempt was made by the a _originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its dis- cretion. Comments may,be submitted in written farm or an oral response may be made at the public hearing`. Lack of written or oral response shali be considered "no objection" to the proposal. (-: c. The originating agency shall include or attach the coirments to the written staff report or supplemental thereto, and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation require- ments contained in subsections A and a above: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agendas`which 'contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action if a good 'faith attempt was made by the origin- acing agency to notify the 'responding agency. -6- l b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Comments from the responding onding agency shall be given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. Ir the originating agency acts' cantrary to, the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may , seek review of the action through the appropriate body and procedures. IV. Special Policies. A. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice procedures outlined in Section III-of this Agreement. B. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) ' amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the- text of the COUNTY development'code shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) .days after its introduction. C. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one ;(]) mile of the corporate limits of,the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. V. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary: 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal, shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement desciribing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3, Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the or 91 agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received. _7_ i lve 4 The CITY and the COUNTY shall make Upon completianrof theresre�iew, e 9 requests to amend this agreement. the request, deny the request, the reviewing body may approve amendment warrants or make a determination that the proposed additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and ;COUNTY: olved a. If consistencies noted by both parties cannot'be r s CITYiFa the review process as, outlined in Section IV (3), Such' a and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. study shall commence within 30 days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsis- fancy, and shall be completed within 30 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures reguiatr�� the conduct CITY —the-joint study shall--be-mutually-ag and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the ludd wit recom�endations; draThewn from it shall be agency consideringctheepr posed record ofreview the , amendment shall give `careful consideration to the study prior to making a final decision. B. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two �2} years, or more frequent.y if mutuaily needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary from amendments. The review process shall commence two �2� y Both the date s. execution and shall be completed within 60 days. _ parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsist- envies that may have deveC��oaad reviewce tperhe Podvinconsistencies ious review. fstill after completion of the y remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective until January 1, 1984. During this period, the parties shall resolve the following issues now outstanding between them: 1 . Adoption by the CITY and COUNTY of a single comprehensive pian for the CITY and its Active Planning Area, and 2. Adoption of development standards for streetse to andostor drainage facilities consistewith and Pian; and I " b the Board _ the attached Agreement, Exhibit y_ 3. Adop ion O _ of Directors of the Unified Sewerage Agency or wash ngto 4. Resolution of out transportation issues between the parties, including: tt i , r a. consistent street classification standards; } b. the status of Durham Road; and v � c the need and location of the Murray Soule ard Extension from Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W. + the parties Until resolution of these transporta.�on issues, shall take nes actian to preclude alternative solutions to those issues. As of Januray; 1, 1954, this Agreement shall lapse and the agreement currently; in effect between the parties shall revive, unless: g, i. ssues set forth above; and The parties resolve the i The parties extend the time in which to reach agreement. 2. P t. 19 13 This Agreement commences on . IN WI-HESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement on the date set opposite their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD '' y .��' � �� ;..,.; Date S - �iayar WASHINGTON COUNTY- By �� fir ., -s Date Chairman, Board of Caunty Commissioners Date Recor Secretary y. C•t .t t t S� .t 'N F.11J DATF -9- �' f�. �°•'=^S°`•', :ri(-' �r cif•. �=`=�'l��')T-�.r-z.-*— � .-r � � �_,r i ( \`- �._ tl f (�rf .�.�-_. r•. ---� (I f ---�• Sir' � s L L. � � r• - j �J , pGt �P6 666 Al Ls IQ cc cc � e' 1 �.' ' as co W !u cc co LC LU \ z LU CL �y'� Z ui _ % l 7® d ,i EXHIBIT B ! 6-9-83 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, WASHINGTON COUNTY AND CITY OF TIGARD AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered in this day of 1983, by and between the UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, a County Service Distract formed under ORS Chapter 451 , hereinafter called "AGENCY" and the CITY OF TIGARD, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter called "CITY WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ORS 190.01O provides that units of local governments,may enter into agreements:for the per for fiance of inj or a31 functions--and' _. t ties that a r party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have the authority to perform; and WHEREAS, State-wide Planning Goal No. 2 (Land Use Planning) requires that city, county, state and federal agency and special' district pians and actions be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties; and WHEREAS, ',ORS 197.185 provides a method for coordination;of programs`affecting land use of special 'districts; and WHEREAS, the parties are amenable to entering into an agreement under the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1 . AGENCY shall undertake its actions within CITY limits and CITY'S Active Planning Areainaccordance with CITY'S Comprehensive Plan. 2. AGENCY shall prohibit the-connection of new development within CITY'S Active Planning Area to its sewer system facilities unless CITY gives prior written approval. 3. CITY will cooperate with AGENCY in its functions of providing sanitary sewer facilities. 4. This Agreement shall continue until the parties mutually agree to terminate this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF:the parties have executed this Agreement on the date set under their signatures. CITY OF TIGARD BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY, 'WASHINGTON COUNTY By By Chairman Mayor Attest City Recorder Recording Secretary Date Date (0596A) "•µ Ip .�yi Eh"'! Ksd �Q 2111 I �' + 1 1 z� 1 r t Q r s • � E• f 3 , a •� ., hawdd 0v � � �, — '' .� " � ee - 1 �JC 1 X5555 1 � �I• t r Ll ! � '— nom s �,�� ���' ��„• •.f ��` 1 v M 1 ` EU 1m uj telcc _tC r da tt t. (L Y - < _ i cP cm c a' w Ixdc a e t w t t— uj ® % 1 t x ccLu �. 0.0: 0. LL Q 3 t \..• ` .p U. T' (EXAM) CITY OF TIGARD RESOLUTION NO. $4— A RESOLUTION REACTIVATING AND CLARIFYING THE .URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND`WASHINGTON;COUNTY. WHEREAS, : the City ,of Tigard and Washington County agreed to an Urban Planning Area Agreement '(UPAA) which was adopted by; both governmental bodies in 1983; and: WHEREAS, the UPAA lapsed on January 1, 1984, and was not extended by the two parties; and WHEREAS, a prior agreement executed in 1980 was reactivated on January '1, 1984, which is unsatisfactory to both parties as it is inconsistent with the City and' County Comprehensive Plans, specifically relative to transportation issues; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City and County to establish a process to resolve transportation inconsistencies between the City and County Plans; and WHEREAS, it appears to be in the best interests of the City and County to establish temporary design standards for the planned connection of S.W. Murray Blvd. and S.W. Gaarde Street to be applied until such time as the City and County Transportation Plans are consistent with one another. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Tigard—Washington County Urban Planning Area Agreement, adopted as Ordinance No. 83-33, is hereby reactivated and ratified through -Julie' 30',-1985 by the City iu accordance' 6iitli the provisi6i of_'S;ection VI of said Agreement which allows it to be extended; and that this Agreement shall supercede all earlier Urban Planning Area Agreements between the City and the County and 2. The City agrees to the following process ;to resolve transportation inconsistencies between the City and County Comprehensive Plans; A. Upon receipt of the draft METRO Southwest Corridor Study, the City and the County shall designate an equal number of appropriate staff personnel to meet and prepare a joint report which presents a committee recommendation on: (1) The functional classification of Durham Road (2) The need and location of an indirect connection or connections between Murray. 'D1vd.`Scholls Ferry Road and Gaatde Street/99W; and B. Within six months of the receipt of the draft Southwest Corridor Study, the joint committee shall 'report its findings to the Tigard City Council and Board of County Commissioners for Washington County for adoption of a mutual agreement on the resolution of the transportation issues; and RESOLUTION NO. P,cs�- 3. The City hereby establishes the following temporary design guidelines i for any segments of the planned Murray Blvd. and S.W. Caarde Street connection between the vicinity of 135th/Walnut :and 121/Gmarde fi intersections that may be proposed prior to the implementation of 121 above: f r A. Right-of-way shall be 60 feet; B. Improvement width shall be:40 feet; C. There shall be no "T" intersection orotherdesign features that will impede the function of the street as a 'minor collector; D. Driveway access shall be limited, but not prohibited; E. The road shall be constructed according to City structural standards. F. The curve radius will be a 'minimum of 350 feet. The need to modify the preceeding standards shall be reviewed by the committee established in (2] above; and 4. The City hereby reaffirms its strong 'support for the inclusion of the proposed-westerly by-pass in the METRO Regional Transportation Ulan. 5. The County agrees to support the City at Tigard's LCDC hearings. PASSED: This ' 2 r� day of _ , 1984. Mayor pro tem - City of Tigard . t e ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder - City of Tigard t 1 €RESOLUTION NO. E4- 3q (0407P) 'x F777107 (EX 1B) p r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86_-25 A JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGARD REGARDING -URBAN SERVICES, DECLARING AND SUPPORTING MUTUAL ANNEXATION PLANNING AREAS OF AGREEMENT (APAA). WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard have previously adopted joint APAA Resolutions, (Tigard Resolution No. 85-82), but left the Washington Square Study Area for future review; and WHEREAS, both cities have completed their related staff reports affecting the t Washington Square Study Area and both City Councils have determined logical future annexation and urban service boundaries for each city in the area; and WHEREAS, the cities ofBeavertonand Tigard find that municipal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably by cities; and use plans and overlapping areas of planning interest WHEREAS, conflicting land tend to delay the ultimate annexation to cities and tend towards illogical and inefficient service boundaries; and WHEREAS, both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners, and residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State Law; and WHEREAS, both cities see competition and conflict between cities over individual annexation proposals as contrary to their mutual long-range community interests and wish to avoid such conflicts whenever possible by mutually adopting a clear statement of areas of annexation interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) and Resolution , No.- 85-82 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by this complete new agreement upon mutual adoption by the City of Beaverton and City of Tigard. Section 2: A joint Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) as to urban .; services and future annexations hereby exists between the two cities. Section 3: A South Beaverton North Tigard boundary on future annexation areas of interest as shown on the map (attachments A, 0, and C) shall: begin east at the Multnomah-Washington County line; westerly follow the south side of Taylors Ferry Road straight past the tax lots fronting SW 88th/Bomar Court; J. then south to a point aligned with the rear of the tax lots facing Cedarcrest; west to a point just west of the tax lots facing 91st Avenue; south to Hall Boulevard; along the north side ,of Hall Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of` Hall and Greenburg/Oleson Road;' westerly along the south gide of Hail, to- the west, of the Washington Square access road; south behind the tax lots fronting Hall and to the west; to the west side of the next E. Washington Square access road; north to a point on the south side of the RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 ; Page 1. of 2 . k 1, L. Golden Key Apartments; westerly between the south side of the Apartments and the north side of the commercial properties fronting into the Square; to the north side of the western Washington Square access road, westerly to Scholls Ferry load; from there southwest along Scholls Ferry .Road :to the Old Scholls Ferry—New Scholls Ferry Road; to the Urban Growth Boundary. Section 4: The cities declare and support Beaverton's annexation interests north and west of this APAA Boundary and 'Tigard's annexation interests south and east of the APAA Boundary. Section 'S: The cities mutually agree that upon request from the other, that they will support annexation proposals to the other consistent with the APAA Boundary. The cities mutually agree that they will not approve annexations to their city contrary to the APAA without a resolution from the other city supporting such an annexation and specifically modifying any departure from the APAA Boundary. Section 6: The cities further resolve to generally support annexations by the other even away from the APAABoundary areas and to further develop a joint annexation policy statement in this regard. Section 7: The cities further agree to adopt the findings and consensus agreement from the staff review and Council meetings on the Hurray Road connection through the " Old—New Scholls Ferry Road area from Beaverton southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. Section 8: The cities agree to revise, amend, and support •other planning agreements consistent with this APAA resolution, and to an annual review to this agreement as the Council's deem necessary. PASSED: This day of � y�Lec � 5986. Mayo - City of Tigard ATTEST: -.-beputy.'City Recorder - City of Tigard lw/3706A' RES0LUTION NO. 86-25 Page 2 of 2 — ,.lp I oil rid a -P'R•` n - �f p S � p, r ' ,5 �• 55� I OA 10 r Y ca 71Vt3 1. 17yf. f� �y�M �i �—� -� �,�:� � �,`� •�" ? :':Y � s;,i_!�J 6a •._gyp.. y/Ca4y- '�J �+n+.�`-8�aplo. 1 •wrtar E / � .. E �1 .:, _ n:lc.. _i:zW4 •���. } - A�• !•`/. ~ � ¢ tiwR � trF�`fir �r �� _-._. �.. Cc ie '+w �� .� a J •-� ��i !j � �` �.�G\ � 3� -..,rte _ r - S r 3AV S77 r ZZ CE Rolmit _ ._.p.r. C6 y.�y �'y• 1 I ffT--SS T � t Tali I L ter•.--T.+ -�. 8 U,1 r � x}��• rT !- �t •.F�;.I��`t9I�}: i,�f�� t 1�-' �-1��. `�'' "Y`� �l�I��; t (.TT" t i• �e j1j t �`�r t. � ,� -t �T' 1 . il, I' EIS r L - I .L t�\� ' .J Fj I ��'t i _�t' y _, T.t 4.. ��r T ,-Tr (r •+T\� ✓��ek��.: ., tic"s'• is --:-7 � r! - �_� .-t. •. ...0 � 7""'�_.`.:v (-r t- . T^ 1 \� T— •(-.��cam, �. .� �-. -� <,�.s . f/1 �—. _ �� cw.h -�t , -�1-� sir`' �� � I,i � �r _ .nr�nr.r•-r Tz,*-,��� , ` 1 auro,aa HIGH SCHOOL •" '! ,- i c 22 23 27 26 ESSj DOWNS COURSE !Y � s. •r�wnun ��' .rl� i 1 7- WASWNGTON I SQUARE,1 tt 1 \ ,,•` ,I i !'/CRESCENI -GROYE� �.'' �• .� 1; MALL i , CE-ETARY _= T! i �.</ t ' - _�- ! Ijr-.' __ __- •7 �..� 111--r— y -.r �27 26 \0 �_ . _ -M 7�T —T T � j 34{35 �� I w Li 1 1-t= �._. `, rt r, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION! NO. 86DRAFT URBAN SERVICES POLICY' WHEREAS, the City of Tigard has identified the need for 'a written Urban Services Policy; and WHEREAS, the City believes that the urban unincorporated portions of Washington County will be best served through annexation to cities for the provision of the required levels of urban services; and WHEREAS, Washington County does not have the financial resources made available to the cities in Washington County for the provision of urban services. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Tigard that it adopts the;following Urban Services Policy: 1. The City is prepared to plan and provide urban services within its area of interest which is generally the Urban Growth Boundary on the west, the Tualatin River on the south,; the Multnomah-Washington County 'line on the east, and the Beaverton-Tigard line on the north. 2. The City has identified the following services as its basic services: Police Streets Streetsighting Storm,Drainage Sanitary Sewers Parks and Recreation Building and Codes Enforcement Planning and Engineering' Library Finance and Administrative Services 3. The City supports the existing Special Districts inregardto provision of fire and water services 4. The City supports resident and property owner rights per Oregon Revised Statute to decide when and to which city to annex. PASSED: This day of 1986. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: 4 Deputy ;City Recorder City of Tigard sb60_' z b` ' 'Yx'�, ,��3 `. V1 d�.QJ� o a`� �•T03 � �i•f�60J "~� t 'b.ia *''C.'0•'�-, c> Cd o ca CD G V1.et.SOw O O 'C7 to, •"� I € t p p a° �- �oCD'tO YG bo G N -V Y5Q.�'0. pi d'p cGL V3 i:j3 �OVO Tl ,f - F+3 LO. y"3OVF•. cc � paOmm � -;C',' � o'er3 >,U Eo _ '..' # �H oyxns^Tc omomYY � o 0� 0 � ^'✓. c°� cpi C. o os opA o Z z e} m vi .p p a d trs.p d p V a p p o V Cd U '• a 'fl �• 0 4m m18 w:3 w mYb 3 o0:n as :?.n ori a oY o c 'a ar �n V arca qpa C.7 p0 'O' N C A. C ' ai cs { coo y?cR b o ai5� 3 pam ' O � CD,PIT% � p O <'"'.g yam.,,•�•+ >*��„ p �; a p ®.:..t' p � 9 � Oo o Utz ?,vY a •d p Y o Y 3 a �, c v m .c o'"'�.may a.-C �.a PO m•ip d p b V^ p Y p p p 'd'Cj Y. >•Cy , : z pmonm .�� wa w -- .q �a1 W rap vp .a�.p' 14 S3 O,1i.SYY.o b Y 61 N Oi'!- �' Y p O T o V—:=•N 'V . O d :§f` `•`r. :�+ cC �-'• m p 1-+ V Y .O O O GD as p Ur '- r p os�.,iy0 J >✓ p p 's K.p (� babyas 0 O O O �•• Oy � 0UJ ao . caat: y°'. w wF oq� �T, �e. cs as M > a''C � � �•• b a:`a'L3 a"i OT w.'' ' a�O'o'p P. .,+ Q'^ w•eppn C? ty p ca se 'pO O a''i ar .O C?°�°'.m ^ w O O •O OA>W� ay p =. > cu yp„ C+' Q ao.+ b.a u•�`' 'd CO p.0 p 'a 1-+ O v qi+>'+ O Q O q - �, •c.y� C3 � El W•o 0 w `N1 i a 0z0 '"'is� aa � 3.O � oaa �� p.' ... p.f V.p v'xy go ra a O3 0� FFp lu : i F e (EX ) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86 - � A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR THE METZGER/WASHING'TON SQUARE ANNEXATION TO TIGARD. Whereas, the'Metzger/Washington Square Community Planning Organization (CPO) has been studying its options in maintaining and improving municipal services; to conduct a Municipal Services Study for the Whereas, the CPO asked the City area and outline the City services available upon annexation; Whereas, the Tigard Municipal Services Study for the'Metzger/tv*ashington Square CPO has been completed and presented at a CPO meeting; and, Whereas, citizens in the community and through the CPO have asked the City to formally declare its position towards a Metzger/Washingtan' Square annexation _ proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that Section 1. Election. The City reaffirms its preference for a,Metzger/ Washington Square community vote on a comprehensive proposal for the Metzger/ Washington Square area; and encourages timely hearings and an ,election by _November, 1.486 if possible; i Section 2 CPO Plan Recognition. The City agrees to the County CPO Laud Use Plan and recognition of the CPO, as a new City Neighborhood Planning Organiza- tion (NPO) immediately, upon annexation; Section 3. City Services. The City agrees to extend the same levels i City services into the Metzger/Washington Square area as provided inside current City limits, providing but not limited to: Police, Library, Parks (unless Metzger opts to continue the Park LID) , Streets, Sewers, Storm Drainage. Street bighting, Building, Plannin£;, Eng ineering and all other General Govel", ment services. RESOLUTION NO. '86 - -PAGE 1 CO. 1511i; ;EilA { J1' Section 4. Special CIP. City further agrees to dedicate all the net revenues: total new revenu`", less Bost of City services in #3 above = net revenue) coming from annexation back into the Metzger/Washington Square area for S years foylowing annexation into a Special Captial Improvements Projects (CTP) fund for sidewalks, bikepaths, street, sewer, storm 'drainage and other public improvements. Section 5. Representation. Upon annexation, the,Metzger/Washington Square shall have all the rights and opportunites available to, Tigard residents and property owners. PASSED: This 5th day od May, 1986. ivy r City.of Tigard ATTEST: / Deputy City Recor er - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 53 PAGE 2 4v iT c ®s-€a rs fey Ass. .sz OA �LMe.LY., ,CeiLI- f•Rtis-t.e4Co-�9 . C?'AL MAA- 7 i pall ppp I!� ■. _. �— • f �, + per■ 'r "NO �3 F LEON �►��i �: 5 owlSON ®O r p®� e � ■ ■It "/III ���f h I�IC ■® � X11,.,�1= � '� � ■�, � ■■■�� 1�1"' milliEM NOW t s � ,r ' '_`a� a.,.� - .st .:€r7,`an 3. e�.� •._-r�i;�Yl$ �sib:. ��s'�d "ss���, (��,;.� j.�Y E -1''.h k`._��.�{� `-&.Y' -dLS��ey�i '"�ix;#�,#+�3".�.,y�.,� .z°r � ».'r�as:afis�Y ,Y.,a•,ti :A: ��v��«'"^u.�'as���-..'r��'aJ,.�AST`#. CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: duly 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM s'/• DATE SUBMITTED: July ,9, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: C.I.P. Status Rerp rt - June 30 _1986 PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley bkS IRV REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: ��`�'�� CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE A report on the status of the various projects in the CIP and LID programs. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is the monthly report on CIP projects as of June 30, 1986. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Receive information report; no formal action required. SUGGESTED ACTION Receive reports; no action required. (RRW:br/2503P) r" t CAPITALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS` REPORT June 30, 1986 ST-1 - Resurfacing of Fairview Lane, Fairview Court 6 116th Place Bids were received June 26; 'award of contract is scheduled for July 14. ST-2 - Resurfacing of SW 68th Parkway Bids were received June 26; award of contract is scheduled for July 14. ST-3 North Dakota Street Resurfacing and Reconstruction '(90th to 95th) Bid opening tentatively scheduled for July, 1986. ST-4 'SW 104th Avenue' Reconstruction Bid.opening tentatively scheduled for August, 1986, ST-5 — Commercial Street Connection —� This project has 'been ,postponed. ST-6 — Tiedeman Avenue Realignment' Consultant contract for final design has been approved. . ST-7 - North Dakota Street Realignment at 115th Avenue Contract for final design engineering services has been approved. ST—g— Realignment of 79th Avenue at Bonita Road This project is being constructed in conjunction with development of Mara Woods Subdivision. The subdivision plans are being reviewed. 'e. ST-9 Main Street Improvement Study Engineering work is in progress. ST-10 - Hunziker Street Realignment Study The study report was reviewed with NPO ##1 and 8#5 and with property owners on June 18th. They favored the alternative that would realign Scof"fins Street to match Hunziker. The study has been forwarded to the State for comments, since Hall Boulevard is a State highway. MM ST-11 Traffic Signal at Greenburq_Road and Tiedeman Avenue To be designed by the State as a Federal Aid Project. The Federal Aid Project Request has been submitted to the State. ST-12 Traffic Signal at Scholls Ferry Road and North Dakota Street The signals are installed and functioning. ST-13 - Traffic Signal at Burnham Street and Hall Blvd. An agreement is being prepared for a joint State/City project for widening and signalization at the intersection. When the agreement is prepared, it will be submitted for Council review. ST-14 - Traffic Signal at Hall Blvd. and McDonald Street In the Proposed 6—Year 'Plan for State Highways, this project had been rescheduled for 1990. It now appears that the project will be returned to its previous schedule before the 6—Year Pian is adopted. We still hope,to see construction this fall. Page 1 4 G' ST 15 - L.1.0. No. 95--1 Hall Blvd. Street Improvements Construction has finally begun! The contract requires completion by , September 8, 1986, but the work will probably be finished well before " that date. E; ST-16 - L.I.t3. No._35, S.W. 68th Parkukxy Construction is proceeding well and should be completed an schedule. � S'T�-1! - L.I.D.' No. 40, Dartmouth Street Extension Engineering_design work is approximately 33% complete. 6= ST-18 —Pacific Highwav and Canterbury Lane Intersection Improvement The State has scheduled this project for 1990 construction. Other Protects 1. The Tigard Triangle traffic circulation study is to be completed in mid-July. 2. The State! has begun design work on intersection improvements at Scholls Ferry Road/Old Scholls Ferry Road/135th Avenue. ` (RRW:br/2503P) ' s. Pane 2 f SS-1 Sesser Waster Plan City record map updates are nearly complete. This is the first step in the Master Planning process.. SS-2 - Pineb airs !Work to be done in July or 'August. SS--3' — SW ;69th Avenue 'Sewer Extension Project completed. SS-4 O.E.A. Trunk Access Paths The :work has been delayed to better coordinate with private development which has begun in the area. SS--s -- Watkins Avenue Sewer,Repair_ All workiscomplete except for the street pavement patch. SS-6 — 100th Avenue and Inez Street Sewer L.I.D. At the public hearing on April 28, 1986, the LID was defeated. SS-7 - 74th Avenue and Cherry Drive Sewer L.I.D. A LID of smaller area is being considered. SS-8 — Elmhurst Sewer Extension Staff working to ,acquire necessary easements. (RRW:br/2503P) Page 3 SD-1 — Gaarde Street and Canterbury Area Drainage improvements � A meeting with property owners is scheduled for July 2nd to work out details on alignment and easements for new storm sewer lines. SD-2 - Gentle Woods Channel Improvements Work will be clone by City crews when stream flow levels permit. PK-1 — Cook Park -- All work is complete except for the pedestrian bridge to the float on the river. PK-2 — Woodard Park Tables and grills have been ordered. PK-3 — Summercreek Trails Stork to `start'in July. (RR.W:br/25Q3 P) r ; a Page 4 , s s CIP/ LID PROJECT STATUS I is As QfJune 30, 1986 COMMENTS F ® PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION - DATE 3 r- 0 tea G O .14 r i tr .moi : rtf •'i.. C]. cn C N '{ ryq� 10 0 ST-1Fairview-: Resurface 7/31/86 ST-2, - Sw 68th Parkway Resurface.-- : X. 7/31/86' ST-3 - No. Dakota' Resurface 8/31/86 ST-4 - 104th Ave. Reconstruct. 9/30/86 Project Postponed ST-5 - Commercial St. Connect. ;•: Sao - Tiedeman Ave. Realign. _..,.: 5/30/87' Realign. 9/30/86 ST-7 No. Dakota gn- Constructior. by :::: :• r i-vate deve lo* r 7 31 86 ST-8 - 79th/Bonita :Realign. ST-9 - Main St. Improve. Study 7/31/86 Prelim. En rq, Only _ ST-10-•'Hunziker Realign. Study Com lete Prelim. Engrq Only ST-11 Greenburg/Tiedeman Sign 2 28 87 - ST-12 Scholls Fry/No Dak Sign Complete -- - - -- ST-13- Burnham/Hall Signal 630 87 ST-14- Hall/McDonald Signal- i 11 30 86 -------- -- ST-15 Hall LID #85-1 � 8/15 86 - -- _.------- ST-16F7 58th Parkway LID #35 7 308 31 876 -- _---._-••- ----- -- ...:.^:. ST-17- Dartmouth hID #40 > ST-16- 9941/Canterbury Improve. 1990 CI_P/LID PROJECT STATUS As Of June 30, 1986 PROJECT STATUS ESTIMATED COMMENTS' PROJECT COMPLETION DATE _ C L>1 0 U E d •U 7 •.i G •-� va ;•tM ea u .-1 •.tet ft3 •'i C •.�-� qui > C C4 ul D4 U SS-1 Sewer Master Plan 6/30/87 SS-2 - Pinebrook TrunkRepairs ::::: XXX. ::: SS-3 - SW 69th Sewer Extension Com Tete WA SS-4 - OEA Trunk Access Paths 7/15 86 SS-5 Watkins Ave. Sewer Repa 7 3 86 '--6 100th/Inez Sewer LID --- LID defeated d SS-7'- 74th/Cherry Sewer LIB ? LID formation uncertain SS-8 - Elmhurst: Sewer Extensio 10 31/86 � I i ��<'`�''�*+"- .� ���.'rG 'a+.e'.v?a�zgn""K'•;±�,.�;'#,suy'�s�andc�`"�a,'�'Y� � e���t'��"`��'. *�.n��� �� - � ,'��'� �"�t".��`K<�'' "*'"=-;�'.��-�s �`������:..;"�:Y��,'�i,�`�'...�'^;�� -'y-^"-r 4a � a k * COMPLETION7777777 PROJECT STATUS tSTiMATED DATE ti k 50. WE Y E A 1 E J'. y�• Y 5 {EE 5 � S SE F_ VIVO! , :?�' -���• �'': .�� �f�.,�� �`�t"�i-2k ��� '�,�;,,�' "�r, 'rf.��..���-i e.,r,-�- -x'�a�r���, t�..�, �' <w ary'r �v �-„�t• w w� ����y�c � 'r ,�� u . '�. x .�n �� �, ,r�� a�, �t� _ tom, _: I CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 1N RE ) TU 4-86 ) s REQUEST FOR: I) REMOVAL FROM CONSENT AGENDA; i THE TEMPORARY USE ) 2) REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING; AND HE TEA'l'ION OF ) 3) APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY TIGARD ELECTRIC, INC. ) USE APPLICATION Comes now applicant, TIGARD ELECTRIC, INC., and requests the Tigard City Council to: 1) Remove t8te dej&I of Tigard Electric,Inc.°s request for revievi from the Consent A (11.3); and, 2) Reopen,the.folic Ia i€ On the temporM use, application;'and 3) Appfeve the TempoUse Application for the followiV9 e : A) Applicant was unable to present testimony in support of its application at the June 9, 1986 Council meeting and is now available to so testify. 11), Applicant requires approval of the Temporary Use Application in order to facilitate its effort to relocate its facility in Tigard. Given finite land availability, denial of the application will require applicant to either expand its relocation siting to outside of Tigard or limit operation as a going concern, C)s Chapter 18.140 of the Community Development Code permits a mobile home in a commercial or industrial zone upon a finding of: 1) Casualty Doss: 18.140 I.W. Applicant submits that because a casualty loss is a loss which comes without design, that applicant's requirements for the mobile home arise by reason of casualty loss, namely: 1page 1 of 2 Pages $t.EQ0PST OF 'TIGARD FT F` IC, INC. 9 I the change of the financial operating conditions ofapplicant°s business which came about without applicant'sdecision or control. iI) Loss of 'leasehold occupancy rights by the applicant clue to unforeseeable circumstances;'18.140 1.(c).- Applicant is a lessee and it has lost occupancy rights under the terms of its lease- with its lessor because lessor has not proceeded with construction of Phase II. Lessee/Applicant has occupancy rights relative to Phase II, and these have `been lost by applicant because of Lessors' election. Applicant/lessee could not' foresee this election by lessor. 4 W) Other hardship 'beyond the foresight and control of the applicant. 18.14e0(C). Applicant submits that the final alternative 'paragraph of 18.140 1.C. provides not a specific alternative condition relative to the loss of leasehold rights, but rather a general alternative with a e'usdom generis limitation. Under this interpretation the code is satisfied upon a finding of "hardship beyond the foresight and control of the applicant." Applicant'submits that such hardship exists. MICHA L J. S6UTT Attorney for; Applicant Page 2 of 2 Pages RE 01kS OF TIGARD ELECTRT^ ':d C. 1.1E M Lk. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM : DATE SUBMITTED: July 7, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: .ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Tiward Electric Request for Review PREPARED BY: Community Development _ REQUESTED BY: Tigard Electric ' DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: 1rf CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Should the City ' Council reopen 'a Temporary Use public hearing when the applicant contends that notification was not given, but, the staff records show that notice was sent? e INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Electric applied for a Temporary Use to utilize a mobile home for offices. The hearing was held on June< 6, 1986 when the Council denied the request. The applicant was not present and now contends that• no notice was sent or received. City records show that proper notification 'procedures were follows. _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Reopen the hearing and set a date for a public hearing following notification of interested parties 2. Deny the request and uphold the notification process. SUGGESTED ACTION The staff recommends that the City Council deny the request and direct staff to give Tigard Electric a deadline in which to remove the mobile hom,e which is presently in ,use. (br46) a MEhORANDUM CITY Of TIGARD, OREGON TO: Members of the city Council July 7, 1986 FROM: Will-'am A. Monahan, Director,VI Community Development SUBJECT: Tigard Electric Tigard Electric requested a Temporary Use to use a mobile home as an office. On June 9, 1986, the City Council held a hearing on this request and denied the application. The applicant was not present at the hearing. The staff recommended that the request be granted with conditions. The applicant has submitted a request that the City .Council reconsider the decision. Tigard Electric contends ,that it was not notified of the hearing. The staff has reviewed the situation and determined that proper notification was sent. A copy of the notice and affidavit of mailing is attached for your review. Mailings were sent on May 29 to Tigard Electric at 8720 SW Burnham and Mr. Schmitz. president of the company at Rt. 3, Box 272S in Sherwood. The options available to the City Council are: 1. Decide to reopen the hearing and set a date for a hearing on the Temporary Use request. 2. Deny the request and uphold the notification process. The staff, recommends that the Council choose option 2 as there is no evidence that the City notification process was not followed. The Council should note that the denial of the permit resulted in an order by the City that the Temporary Use be discontinued immediately. Some direction on the time frame in which the applicant "must comply with the order should be given in light of this reconsideration request. (WAM:br46 r ffzel- 7U � 96 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) as. City of Tigard ) I, 4, 4a —( � being safirst duly sworn, on oth depose and sPlease Print) That I am a � for The City of Tigegon. That I served notice of Public Hearing for Tigard City Council.` of which the attached i a copy (Marked Exhibit A) upon each of the following named ;persons on the � day of 198 , by mailing to each of them at the address shown on the "ait A`ched�lxgt (Marked Exhibit 'B), said ,notice as heretoattached, deposited in the United 'States !Mail on the day of 198 postage prepaid. ig • .ure j 'ry Person who delivered to POST OFFICE Subscribedand sworn to before me on; the dsy of �_/c�.c� 198 4� NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: -97- (0257P) " 1 �i NOT' IC`E 0r P BL'IC HEA' R1NG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY iCOUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, June 9 1986 AT 7':00 Pel IN THE TOWN HALL: OF THE TIGARD CIVIC 'CENTER - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: TU 4--86 APPLICANT. Tigard Electric OWNER: Ronald 6 ,Dorothy �`` 8720 SW Burnham Rd. Schmitz 4 .P. Tigard, OR 97223 Rte. 3 Box 272S Sherwood, OR : 971410 REQUM: For a Temporary Use permit to use a mobile horse :as an office temporarily up to one year. LOCATION, 8720 SW Burnham Rd. (WCTM 2S] 2DA lot 200) (See map on revere aide) THE PUBLIC HEAKING 01; THIS HATTER WILL BE, CONDUCTED IN ACCO1 .NCE WITH THE RULES OF PRO=-DRES OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL. TES—TIMon miff zzsA TTED IV WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. FOR FUILMR INFORMTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OIC, FLAMXNG DIAECTO AT, 639-4171 CaTY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. USard$ OrQUan 97223 (0272P) k• a � W!, 5 '_� Jf•� 2, ;I �, _ i y`s. B� P4Rrt I J (CENTER / \ IN 7�`�47 TTT I ' 11 12. _ c" -7cr I-7Lv 4 II �t �.1tt��{ �`� J L•LyJ l 1 t'.• t � r—� t _ ut L 1 If 'c 1xt 1. rt a [ E s I� 1 1 3 TUAL'ITY t t L1 r } �` I� �a r l t(,•.. � r r �.� .( JUNIOR KOH SCN64l - � 'CI Mt r?fllN T.ligard EIecLric,, Inc ' -SW :Burnham"Rd. -Tigard, QR. 97223 `'1 SCHMITZ =Boat 272S `Sher-wood, OR '.97,440 Gar Ott ` 9055 `SCS ,Edgewood 2.1gard,, OR '97,223 ' mr, chramm i ',87770 SW;Burnham Rd. Tigard, 0R 97223 i; .Tigard "Water'District :Tigard �0R .97223 :Dac4 zSturgss 22jr;Std'^Sunset aB"Ivd. ` Ts�rtZaTfd' �R ` 97225 { �, ber'F:ooas t .3:29.70 Sw-Hall =�lvd'. i Tigard:, ;0R `97223 i dM ` } t t i ,r 8720 S.W. Burnham Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 MAILINGADDP.ESS: P.O. Box 230083, Tigard, Oregon 97223 a Telephone: '(503) 639-9112 'June `24, ',1986 City .of' Tigard 131!25 :SYS'Hall :Blvd. P_O. "`Box -233027 gard, :CTregon y'7-223 -Attention: Deborah:",A,Stua�rt Reference: Tetporary'aT7se P.erm4t "Dear :Ddborah In ,xes�sor,.s :*.t�':your ,letter�`datcd `Jlune 18, 1`986. :I dam . very ,_upset ..ca th .the .fact .that thxs .issue-went to the`"City Council .without-my;notification. Therefore. _I was unable toerepresent ,our co�r�pany °at :this .publio:.meeting. This :..is very;=.ur..reasonable-and .unacceptable_ _I:.respectfully -re¢ uest utli.is:.issue -.be_:put bcl� `on' the next agenda at .the yx'+wza tn`c l for :discussion, zrid}-that �we be notifioclY of same a A:,:so' that .we,,nay represent our :concerns. Sincerely, rww� Dennis 'Schmi°tz ,president 'Dads.-ce CITY OF TIGARD,' OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUiAR`e AGEINDA'OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA` ITEM -DIT 'SUBMITTED:: 7uly 10. 1986 : PREVIOUS ACTIC)fll: :_city CQuncil Zppr a l ISSUE/AGENDATITLE: Pacific Frontier Wood markets CU 1-86%SL 5-86IM 1-86 PREPARED BY: Xeit;h Iiden_ A�� REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY' ISSUE _—_ INFORMATION SUMMARY - final order has been prepared. in accordance with Council direction. A copy has been forwarded to the Applicant for review. ALTERNATIVES 'CONSIDERED L Approve final order as written. 2. Approve final order:with modifications. SUC•GESTED 'ACTION W "t2eview .final order and legal counsel recommendations and take appropriate action. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SU*W1ARY AGENDA OF: JU1V 14. .:1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: -July 2, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: none ISSUEAAGENDA TITLE: IMPLEMENTATION OF P,ETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE PREPARED BY: J. WIDNER REQUESTED BY: League of Oregon Cities DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: , nr _ CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE The legislatureenacted a law requiring health insurance coverage for retirees. The City currently obtains its health insurance through ,.the League of Oregon Cities. The League has set a policy (attached) to implement this new law. This policy statement allows variables to be chosen by the City. The purpose of this agenda item is to have City Council sat its policy on retiree insurance coverage within the parameters of the League's policy. INFORMATION SUMMARY As stated above, the City Council needs to review the League of Oregon Cities' Policy for 'the implementation of retiree insurance coverage. After reading this material, the City Council will be able to answer the questions on the attached "Retiree Census" which in effect becomes the policy for the City. It would be ,my recommendation that the City answer the questions as follows: 1. Yes 2. No 3 1: . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Provide the coverage to the maximum benefit to retirees. 2. Allow coverage beyond Medicare. 3. Allow coverage until individual becomes eligible for Medicare, require a coverage to be fully retiree paid and not make available life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment coverage. ;' FS SUGGESTED,ACTION After reading the League of Oregon Cities policy, I recommend alternative ' number three (3) for City Council action. " (1358F) f' : 3 • " 1201 Court Street SNE,p,Q,Box 920,Salem,'Oregon 973oa.Telephone;588-6466 TO. EB -Member C' les FROM: f� GZJ�Jan Coordinator RE: Imple ie tion of Retiree Health Insurance Coverage DATE: June 20, 1986 As you are aware, on July i a new state law goes into affect that requires cities and other -local government units to offer new retirees the option to continue on the same health plan in which they were enrolled as active employees. Enclosed is a copy of the final Policy can retiree coverage adopted by the EBS Trustees (you previously received the draft version) . Please review the new policy carefully. You may have to revise your own personnel Policies and procedures to implement the new requirements. The key provisions of the EBS policy are: 1) Only individuals who retire after July 1, 1986, are affected. s policy does not allow previously retired,employees to re-enroll or change rexisting coverage.) _ 2) Extended health pian coverage is available to both service and disability retirees. 3) The extended coverage is optional ; it is not mandatory that the retiree continue coverage through the city. 4) New application forms must be submitted by retirees who continue coverage through the city. (This will allow the tracking of the overall retiree experience.) The retiree must re-enroll in the same health plan as he or she was covered by as an active employee. 5) Coverage is available on, a self-pay basis by the retiree unless the city agrees to fully or in part contribute toward the premium. 6) If the retiree wants to cover dependents, they must have already ,been ' covered through the EBS program when the new retiree was,still an active employee. 7) Enrollment in the coverage must be niade available until theretiree becomes Medicare eligible. Coverage for a spouse must be available until that per- son becomes Medicare eligible, while dependent coverage is available until Che individual turns 23 or meets certain other conditions. (Be sure to review the specific provisions on continuation of coverage for spouseto dependents.) s and ( 1986-87 PREMIUM USN RATES Employee Benefits Servicers Trust League of Oregon Cities RETIREE RATES HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE Retirees Under 65 All Medical rates are the same as those for active employee plan coverages. Dental , Vision and Drug rates are the same as those for active employee coverages. Retirees over 65` Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon: Retiree + 1 DepRetiree 2 Dep. Retiree Ong mouse�C�use ? 5 Spouse < 5 Spouse >65 Medical Pians Plan 1 $ 35.35 $ 104.65 $ 87.6o $ 129.70 S 112.65 Plan II 42.80 128.05 107.00 157.05 136.00 Plan 111 46.25 142.30 118.50 873.60 149.80` Plan IV 63.20 166.70 141.05 202.85 177.20 Plats IV-A 65.00 171.60 145.20 208.85 182.45 Plan V 41.00 119.85 loo.40 148.25 128.80 Kaiser Permanete: Medical Plan $ 64.14 $ 128.28 - $ 191 .92 Dental , Vision and Drug rates for retirees over 65 are the same as those for active employee coverages. (NOTE: Spouse 4C65 means the spouse is under 6r 5 ouse 5; of age; per_ S means the spouse is b5 or older.) RETIREE CENSUS (As of July 1, '1986) .F( City Name: City Contact NOTE: Be sure to review the EBS Retiree Policy before you fill out this survey. Please answer the following 1) Your city's coverage for individuals who have service retirements (as opposed to disability retirements) will terminate when the individual becomes eligible for Medicare. Yes No 2) The city plans to-offer the low-cost major medical coverage (Plan 1) option to its retirees and contribute 50 percent toward the premium. Yes No 3) The city plans to make available the life insurance, accidental death and F ' dismemberment and dependent life to its retirees. Yes No Identify the life, AD&D and dependent life options selected (e.g. , $2,000 life and ADED, and $1,000 dependent fife) 0 Hearth Plan Coverage 9 Dependent Coverage— �. (Identify active employee (Check One) group in which employee Retiree Retiree Retiree Retiree's Name was enrolled) Onl + 1 + 2 *The active employee group will allow EBS to identify the coverage for which the Aff retiree is eligible. (If the retiree is, or will be, enrolled in BC/BS Plan 1, or had selected Plan IV-A, or Kaiser, please report this information under Health Plan Coverage instead.) --Please check the number of dependents the retireewishes to cover under the retiree plan. r n � i, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICES TRUST POLICY t : SUBJECT: Retiree Insurance Coverage EFFECTIVE GATE: July,1 19116 f PURPOSE: Tire 1985 Legislature passed a law that requires local govern- ments to make health insurance coverage available to quali- i sled retired employees. The effective date of the new law is Jury 1 , 1986. To comply with ORS 243.303, the following s revises the=current EBS Trust retiree policy and supercedes the retiree ;policy memorandumdated' March 19, 1984. 1. General Policy Intent A. It is the intent of this ESS policy to establish provisions for retiree insurance coverage whereby Trust member cities can comply with QRS 243.303• The policy is based on the premise that the coverage to be l provided to retirees ,will continue to be the same as that provided to 1 the active employee,group in which the retiree was last enrolled. 1. B. The Trust policy should be clearly explained in each city's personnel Cd policy and other, appropriate documents to assure that active and retired employees understand the terms and conditions of the coverage elected by the city. " If . General Rules Applicable to the City` i A. Existingretireescovered in accordance with previous Trust policy shall be continued under the conditions of their previous coverage. These retirees will not be allowed to change to expanded coverage with the implementation of the new Trust retiree policy. ;.' B. A list of all existing retirees, their benefits, city contribution to F7 „ premium costs, and other relevant information must be submitted in con- unction with the city's annual participation agreement with the Trust } on a form provided by the Trust. C Future new retirees to be covered under an EBS retiree plan may only be covered if the city policy is no more liberal in any of its provi- sions than therules contained in this EBS policy. However, a city's ,:. policy may be less liberal in any one or more areas on the condition that the policy complies with ORS 243.303, Chapter 224, Oregon Laws 1985. D. Coverage for retirees is only available if the city is a member in the League -of Oregon Cities' Employee Benefits Services Trust and subscribing to one or more of the active employee health insurance:pians available. , . *NOTE: - Reference to the term "city” in this policy is meant to include reference ' to, and therefore be applicable to, any EBS affiliate members. ' (6-16-fib) i The Trust may revise or otherwise modify any health or other insurance. E. plan it offers. Any revised plan will apply equally to retirees as to {" active employees since the retiree coverage available is to be the same `. as the Trust plan provided to the employee group from which the former active employee retired. 1 F. Requests for exceptions to established EBS Trust retiree;policy and procedures must be submitted to the Trust for review and approval . j Exceptions will only be considered at the Trust's meeting immediately F prior to a new policy year, and will be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each situation. G. 6f the Trust modifies its retiree policy, a participating city must conform to the new requirements in order to continue eligibility for coverage.' { { { . General`Ru{es' Applicable to Coverage A. Eligibility for Coverage 1, "Retired employee" means: a) A former officer or employee of a city who is retired for , service who has three years of immediate; past employment , with the city, and who received or is receiving retirement benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement System or �. plan applicable to officers any other retirement system or :- and employees of the city. x b} A former employee or officer of a city who is retired due Y to disability incurred while employed by the city and who 1 received, or is receiving, retirement benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement System or any other retirement system or plan applicable to employees of the city. 2. The youngest age at which an individual may be eligible for retiree coverage for service,is the minimum early retirement age specified in the city's adopted pension plan if the employee is retired on a service. retirement. The retiree has the option of enrolling his or her spouse and 3' ears of a ger for eligible, unmarried, dependents 23 y e or youn 9 coverage, provided that the spouse and dependents are covered through the Trust at the time of the active employee's retirement. However, the retiree can add a newborn child to his or her coverage if the retiree already has "employee plus one" or "employee plus two,, coverage. Spouses or dependents must be enrolled in the same plan as the retiree. 4. A retiree may work "half-.time1° (up to 1000 hours per year) and maintain eligibilityfor coverage. r2r 6. Continuity of Coverage I There is a 60-day period between active employment and retiree status in which the retiree can elect coverage. Eligibility "based on active employment" includes the limited extensions available for leaves of absence. 2. if the retiree elects to participate, he or she will be required to fill out a new health plan enrollment application form indicating the coverage, spouse and/or dependent enrollment, etc. 3. If a retiree's coverage is terminated for any reason, the individual will not be allowed to subsequently re-enter the program. However, a spouse or dependent :nay otherwise qualify for coverage through city employment, subsequent eligibility as a dependent of another qualified city employee, or federally mandated provisions for health plan continuation. 4. if a retiree voluntarily drops the coverage, his or her spouse and/or 'dependent's coverage also ceases. C. Duration of 'Coverage 1. Health coverage must be extended to 'a retiree until he or she is eligible for the federal Medicare program. 2. A city may continue to offer coverage to "service" retirees who are Medicare eligible at age 65. No changes to the plan in which the retiree is enrolled will be permitted. Election to offer the coverage must be made on the, city's annual participation agree- ment with the Trust. 3. A city may not continue to offer Trust coverage for individuals who have retired as result of a disability and who qualify for Medicare coverage on the basis of that disability. 4. Duration ofcoverageis subject to the following conditions and limitations for those enrolled in-a retiree health plan that is provided until the retiree reaches Medicare eligibility: a) An otherwise qualified retiree may continue on the program until the earliest of: i) Medicare eligibility ii) Voluntary withdrawal by retiree iii) City withdrawai from Trust's active employee health insurance program iv) Termination of retiree program by the Trust V) City failure to remit therequiredpremium vi) Death of the enrolled retiree b) An otherwise qualified ,spouse of a retiree may continue on the-program-until the earliest of: i) Medicare eligibility ii) Voluntary withdrawal o by retiree or spouse; however, � pus Y r, a spouse may continue coverage in the event of the death of, or divorce from, the retiree -3- t iii) City withdrawal from Trust's active employee health insurance program . iv) Termination of retiree program by the Trust v) City failure to remit the required premium vi) Death of the enrolled spouse c) An otherwise qualified dependent of a 'retiree may continue on ;the program until the earliest of: i) The twenty-third birthday (unless the dependent elects self--pay coverage under federal provisions for continua- tion of coverage, or is incapable of 'self-support because of~a physical handicap or mental retardation) ii) Marriage` 111) He or she is no longer considered a dependent of the retiree (unless coverage is assigned to an otherwise qualified retiree as result of a court order in the event of a divorce) iv) Voluntary withdrawal by dependent or parent responsible for health care coverage v) City withdrawal from Trust's active employee health insurance program vi) Termination of retiree program by the Trust vii) City failure to remit the required premium viii) Death of the enrolled dependent` 5. Duration of coverage is subject to the following conditions and limitations for those who have' a service retirement from the city and are enrolled in a city retiree health pian that makes the insurance available for thosebeyondthe age of 65. a) The same conditions and limitations for health insurance identified in 4, a and b, apply to otherwise qualified retirees, their spouses and dependents, except that cover- age for the retiree and spouse can be extended beyond age 65. In the case of a qualified dependent, coverage is still governed by the conditions and limitationsidentifiedin C-4, C. D. Premium Payments 1. Retiree premium payments (including spouse and dependents) must be paid by the city in which the retiree is covered regardless of whether the city contributes towards the premiums or coverage is paid in full or in part by the retiree. , Payments made directly to the Trust by a retiree, spouse or dependent will not be accepted. IV. Benefit Plans Available A. Cities must make available to their retirees the same health insurance pian that was ,provided to these individuals as active employees. B. As an alternative, a city may offer the Trust's low-cost,-major medical plan as an option in addition to the eligible retiree's active -health plan, but only if the city contributes fifty (50) percent towards the premium payment of the low-cost coverage. -4 C. Vision,, drug, and dental coverages must be offered in addition to medical if .they are currently rovided as part of the active employee lan• sub-groups in a city and might include: These plans often vary among Vision and drug in conjunction with medical if options are available in the active employee package; and ?, Dental in conjunction with medical , or in conjunction' with medical-vision-drug pack-age if options are offered in the active employee package. D. A city can provide Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment if such is currently offered to the retiree's formeQac entttowardpltheepgremtumsand only if the 'city contributes fifty (50) P charged. 1 , The city may provide life and 'AUD in an amount for each retiree (may vary among sub-groups) as chosen by the city: $1 ,000, $2,000.or $3,000, 2, if retiree life and AD&D is provided, the city may provide dependent fife on a uniform schedule of $1,000 or $2,000• -3, No AD&D is available to dependents of retirees. ble Medica E, Medical benefits for those eliwhetherractuallyrenProlledAinnMediocare account of ;age or disability, or not, will be subtracted from the medical plan benefits otherwise payable by the plan covering the retiree and any enrolled spouse or dependent. IV, Premium Rates A, The- rates for those retirees under the age of Medicare eligibility will be the same as those charged for the active employee coverage. B. Rates charged for those owho are eligible for a for benMedicare eragewill availablelated with a credit taken into through the federal program. Rates will be set on an annual basis and adjusted C. if necessary, effec- tive the beginning of each policy year (August 1st) . V. City's Contribution to the Premium Cost ine on, if any, it may A. The city may determcost. Contribution level of nlevels iprovide may be decided through col- toward the premium ment or otherwise, but may not exceed the actual lective bargaining agree Trust premium charged for that coverage. CJ -5- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ak � . AGENDA OF: July lA, 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: June 30, 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Computer Purchase ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve Recommendation (4/28/86) and Training Reduest '(6/23/86) _ TrainingRequest — Burroughs PREPARED BY: "Joy Martin REQUESTED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: . POLICY ISSUE; Council :review for approval of training requests greater than $100 prior to registration and payment, and the implementation of the Computer Master Plan, training" portion relating to Burroughs. INFORMATION SUMMARY In the request for proposals for computer hardware and software we requested ; training needs to be addressed. The casts for the systems submitted to s Council 'on April 2fJ, 1986 included $2480 for training on ;the Burroughs B20s system (please see the attached Computer System Cost sheet). Additional ' training` for specific programs are included in the I.P.M. 'and Geogroup costs and contracts: The costs for Burroughs training is for four people to attend the Burroughs Operating System Class in Portland for July 22 through July 24 (description attached). The course would be useful for all users, however most users need3' training in the use of specific programs versus the operating system. In the past the City has trained a few key peola on a system who then train others on general system use and on specific' applications. This approach is recommended and described in further detail in the attached document, Computer Master Pian . Training We therefore recommend sending four people to the class for $2480 which may be reduced to as low as $1868 if the class is full. ,= ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Send four staff members to Burroughs 820 Complete Operations. Class in Portland for July 22--24, and have all users learn the general system by ' using self-training materials with assistance by the four• attending the , class. 2. Send eleven of the primary users to the Burroughs B20 Complete Operations Class in Portland for a cost of $6,137. 3. Send no one to the class and learn the operating system through the self—training materials and experience. :.,, SUGGESTED ACTION Approval for four people to attend the Burroughs B20 Complete Operations Class in Portland on July 22-24' j m3 COMPUTER SYSTEM COST - APRIL 24, 1486 6 BURROUGHS PURCHASE PRICE ANNUAL CHG EST.SHP. � Hardware 172929.45 2.1143.80 3652.00 Installation 850.00 i Software 24630.00 2.766.00 600.00 Installation—Software 1520.00 . Training2480.00 . WANG Hardware 34100.00 3300.00 I.P.M. Software 41100.00 4932.00 Operation and ManagemenL 42720.00 G£OGROUi> Hardware 13020.00 720.00 450.00 Software 25645.00 2640.00 Installation 700.00 Training and Travel 2300.00 HEWLETT PACKARD Hardware 12414.00 336.00 Sr>f aware 860.00 240.00 HOLGUIN 1 Hardware 6289.00 300.00 Software 5775.00 1200.00 Installation 250.00 TOTAL 327362.45 d I B 20 Casmplete,Operatio>tns ( P 6077), Audience, This course is for operators of the B 20.Although programmers,analysts,and data processing managers may attend,the subject matter is directed to the operator. Objectives Upon successful completion of this course,the student will be able to: " e Recognize the physical attributes of B 20 systems and clusters. a Power on and off a B 20 system and cluster. a Use floppy disl,s. Use executive commands to manipulate files. Use executive commands to control the input,processing,and output of the B 20 system or cluster. I ® 'Respond to errors. 'l Description k This course provides the informatic n requir-sd«perform in-depth B 20 operations.` Topics ® Physical Operation(power-on,Floppy disks,power-off and printers) a Using Executive Commands Interpreting Error Status Codes i Prerequisites ! ® EL 5300--B 20 Operations Self Study Duration Three days r 5f i S-12 COMPUTER MASTER PLAID —'TRAINING .;uly 1, 1966 DRAFJ' Purpose The intent of the 'training program is to identify specific 'materials and/or courses which are targeted towards the needs of the user and the system, ;facilitating the productive implementation of the system while minimizing costs in time and money. Guidelines 1. Recognize there are different levels of users having different needs. For our purposes, users are identified as the following types: a. Operating System Administrators (OSA) -- Staff responsible for the management. of a certain system or for interfacing with another system. Key contact for users for training and on the system and office procedures on the system use. Responsible for proposing: issues regarding system use and user needs to the Computer User Committee. b. Frequent Users — Staff members using special applications on a system more than twenty -percent of their time. This includes data entry, manipulation and output. Must work with the OSA in learning system use in our organization and in work load cooperation. C. Infrequent Users - Staff members using special applications on a system on an occasional basis. Examplesare managers making inquiries to a data base, or Using management tools such as spreadsheet, to assist in forecasting and tracking. 2. A knowledge baseline is established which all users must demonstrate prior to using a system. The training program must be designed so as } to minimize department workload disruption and materials should be; designed to be used by users with Tittle to no prior experience with computers. Access to a system during training is limited and controlled by the OSA. 3. Training methods and materials will facilitate the City's efforts to extend the use ;of the computer system throughout all levels of the organization in accordance with the plan. TRAINING PROGRAMS Word PrOcessing The word processing system is being upgraded to the Wang 140-...3, initially with seven workstations and three printers. The. Plan has the addition of two workstations and one printer (see the attached Master Plan Flow Chart). The software is WP Plus which is an upgrade the City made,late in `1985. OSA : The Support Services Office Manager is responsible for the word ' Processing operating system. Training is conducted at Wang Laboratories which is supplemented by self--study materials and access to s hardware support personnel oftware and courses needed are: by 'way of maintenance contracts. SpeciSpecific` o WP Plus Administration (i day, $225) o WP Plus Advanced Word Processing (2 days, $370) O WP Plus Glossary (2- days,. $370)'.. . 0 WP Plus Decision Processing (2,days, '.$370)` Frequent Users: Frequent Users are those in the word processing section, Plus one ' or more clerical staff in each department.2 Training is performed by individuals scheduling two to two and one:half _days to work through self training materials and using the system. One member of word processing is furthered cross—trained by the :OSA for system management. Inrequent, Users: Training is the same as for Frequent Users, therefore the user ' must,' decide i knowledgeable or if they f use will be frequent enough to remain clerical staff. should work more directly with their trained Currently there are eight Frequent Users on the WP Plus. Within the next year eleven more will be trained as Frequent Users bringing the total number of Frequent Users to 19. Our OSA has completed some training and will complet e the WP Plus Glossary and Decision Processing in the next year. 1 Operating System Administrator 2 Please note that with a central word processing section, clerical staff must depend upon support services and the system for much of their workload. This reduces the need for• additional staff in each department and allows the City to better handle workload fluctuations. JM:bsl20 E i. t d Burroughs 1955 The Burroughs 1955 Hardware includes eight workstations, three hlicationsers on and his E link with the B205 system. The primary; modules or app hardware 'are :accounting, business tax, fleet management, court (from I.P.M.) and police reporting (from Clackamas County). rf. Burrou hs 1955 I.P M. Software The I.P.M. Software includesaccounts payable, utilities billing, cash receipts, general ledger, payroll, fixed assets, municipal court, business tax and fleet management. ' OSA: The Management of the Burroughs 1955 hardware and the I.P.M. software is provided by I.P.M. for one year. If we decide to manage the system ourselves, one to two people will need to attend a five day class at Burroughs at'$Boo each. Frequent Users: Our contract with I.P.M. includes o — nsite training for I for each module. Futures training of frequent users plus a user manuai frequent users will be by staff using the user manuals. '. Infrequent Users: I.P.M. has agreed to do a half-day session in-house for infrequent users as part of their contract. This will cover. general raiing on data base. Future system use and how to make inquiriO.S.A. t nhe d appropriate fr quenttusers. i for infrequent users will be by the , . otal of 13 people will be Frequent Users using one or Closing the first year a t more modules, plus an additional 12 Infrequent Users. The total number`of people using some portion of the system will be 25. u 8 rrou hs 1955 C.L.A.S.S. 4 The CLASS system is for police related needs and is from Clackamas County. OSA: Two people from the Police Department will be trained by Clackamas � County to be the people responsible for getting the data on—line, training and key contacts with Clackamas County. Overall systems management of the Burroughs 1955 is by T.P.M. and these two staff members will work with �> I.P.M. f Frequent Users: Frequent Users include all Police staff and training will this be done in--house by the CLASS system OSAs. Due to the nature of into department and the number of users, the department will be divide groups Future users will be trained in the same manor. Infrequent Users: When appropriate, Infrequent Users will be trained by the CLASS system OSAs. t, During the first year 33 people will be using the CLASS system. ._ Burroughs' B2fls The Burroughs B20s hardware includes seven terminals and three printers`. In the future, one terminaland one printer are planned to be added The software for the system includes' Multi-Plan (spreadsheet),` Geo/Base,' Geo/Basemap, Geo/Permit, ReQuest, and CIVIL (for drafting). ; The systeos will be used primarily by all sections of Community Development and managers/ professional staff. The B20s will interface with the Burroughs 1955 system. OSA: Due to the variety of applications and the interface with the other system, four people will; be trained as OSAs with the primary responsibility being with Community Development, Training is provided at Burroughs local office once a year and is supplemented by self-study materials. The specific course is B20 Complete Operations, lasting three days for;$467 to $622 each. Frequent Users: All lasers must complete a " two-day self-study course. ' Frequent Users in Community Development are then trained by Geogroup as part ;of their contract with the Assistance of the OSAs from this department. Frequent Users of Multi-Plan (or the O.S.A.$) will be trained using the training manual, with assistance by Burroughs. Infrequent Users: All users must complete the two-day self study course. Training for specific inquiries or uses will be by manuals with the assistance of the O As. By the end of the first year 24 staff members will be using some portion of the 8203 system with at least 16 being Frequent Users of some portion of the system. •N•d.d •d•N t.M b � -ri�•eCi •N.i�1. Ta N : •si 6d1 : s•1 s4 ri: r^'1'i Oi�•-{ N a G a 6M a.L a ac/. wa.9,. •Na a7 a .Wa aa� wCT LLL rL:L � L rY r r GJ O;O a N a a •Na O a •N M a _Q N O a e r r � E e r r ri++ 4-4- c L 4- 4-4-11 - 4-4-4- .-'4-11. 'c1.ct N}•N}} N .-a e � �¢ •eta :.� .i moi\. r1.r1't r Q 10 f N a l L r r r r 4• ct- TTS L m; F �^�N a a a a a ; 1 ro R j + a J J N vd a I L.� N 4.4-4-: 4• M N +-1 ri sW cW 1 } M TJX d a U7: 1 : 1 fi 1 C7 ce LU M CD mc f .•a 6a a L LL'.. L r r 4;q+' s-1 : T i T I Y Y Y: Y4- 4- 4.4. 4• R 17 L L cn R 4-7 O a 9 •D a t o 6 m 1-•I S I 11i 4-W 4- 4- M N '•1 N a•i d•t+ r 1 M1 rn a r 1 1 1 i + t -t fi con M a .J'a Nsn wfA '+w1n d':+c1. N4- a 4- '.Q--q r1 - N :-4 181 Ud UJ TLn: _ G. pp drO w L. O e •r ¢W LU H1� b Y-e : :B Cll K CO N p•d-N R\ a M v R N r+ri H .-1 N d' 115: N .•i r-1 N N N f- a M' d •0tf �: t.:.0, 0L4 M 1 f O ct t-•, La La Y O L C L II Iq CJ V It.I G 4- 1 V w�gbG S I-^•.lW'J_ : UCb. LaO� rM •O L Nm �- C9 1L:u2. R•d a O .R 7 1 f} !I r r_ Y O Js [TeY 41 ea I_46 .-1 i I N H O rM CD = O i-f r a e w C'1- fi C . I i .d N ri .+ ( C 115 ml- a 01 U C•L b a 0. 01 r1 ; 115 1 I 1 •p t•1�.. C Hr wLL M•N N V �O r-1 a -1 p N A115 w A O R N 4 ��= I I I I I i " v 1= LU G-ca 00 -1 lu 134 o m it <t .•+ AI n 4. N.tW c�,W .-1 y a C: 4- Op dm 1 ReO iI 1 6 « H.OI v mR I 3 3 NtV'e•d� .+ e-1 V. ..•V v 0 V N'O b9• Nz+ .-1'0 T 5L —. n M Ara-let. KV L- Q CM Gel•,V.1 O v: ¢. e5 .i w.L7 R T i�v LU R a In ul L L e•s.R n NDN v n L •d C TTM. (p! aC a 4.• m � •wt M v y. c 6L1:G -.6.1ham-• H 0 m �u •^H•f••V h•N L V h-•N •N a•N Y O w•d. >> M c b a M.e. 2t e e R J J 3 L.w Lrt6N 181•N L a fY •N Q R •N N•N.e L �. 4C b .�G?!•��.1 V r , O. C c •N S+R a h• N b.� CO s•t R e a M `S •N O - C ro S3. O O C r 3 33 O,p J Q M to @ P N 1i.. LC LA iLt 6... C1 !-' F- O O f•'•LL t,G.?g.. 6 3 y F. 5 y n'x .III t v J , j LL •dl a a y fm I 1 k w alc cJ C i o+ r •In aN[c o-�� n U ; nA 'I 1£ Di. \ r �• Y S "� I /�'�µy pit i n B�L6 lap W n , ' ug Q�P tis I bin U ' i it I w �,� w W f_ _,-•y to ,NxF ' I-I A, f o z a �I II c F IMRA �f—"-7,; P wp � kii! j I iL� I I CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (r AGENDA OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM DATE SUBMITTED: June 24 1936 _ PREVIOUS ACTION: Accepted Project ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Compliance Agrmt & Bond(s)• Periodic - bond reduction during construction. Acceptance with Conditions—Penn Lawn PREPARED BY: Engineering-Section REQUESTED BY: john Hagman Estates No. 2 Subdivision RE� Q DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. The project is located at S.W. 115th Avenue and Springwood Drive (i.e. , adjacent to Englewood Subdivision. 2. Construction has progressed satisfactorily and periodic "letter of credit � (band)" releases have been permitted as a result thereof. Staff certification that all requirements have been met, subject to installation of the sidewalks and placement of the final overlay on the streets,: is hereby tendered. 3. The subdivider, L. A. Development Co., has expressed a desire to retain the existing Letter of Commitment performance bond, on file, to assure installation of the balance of the required items and to provide for the requirement of correction of any deficiencies which may arise throughout the one year guarantee period ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGES TED ACT!ON Staff recommends that the Council pass the attached Resolution title "RESSOLUTION OF THE TIGARD, CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PENN LAWN ESTATES NO, 2 SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS." (JH:cn/70) CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 14 1986 AGENDA ITEM #: DATE SUBMITTED: June 24. 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: Accepted Project ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Penn Lawn Compliance Agreement & Performance Bond_ Estates No. 2 (Letter of Commitment) PREPARED BY: Engineering Division Partial Bond Release #2, Resolution REQUESTED BY - John Hagman _ DEPARTMENT HEAD OX: �� 4 � CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY `ISSUE` INFORMATION SUMMARY 1} The project is located at SW 115th Avenue and Springwood Drive (i.e., adjacent to Englewood Subdivision), 2) Construction has progressed satisfactorily and, subsequently, the developer, L. A. Development Co. , has requested release of installation 4 guarantee monies for that portion of the work which is complete. ' 3) Staff has reviewed the request and hereby recommends that the Council authorize release of the amount(s) detailed in the attached summary. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUGGESTED ACTION Pass the resolution to authorize release of commitment funds for Penn i-awn � atez No 2 Subdiui-inn; authorizing the Mayor• and City Recorder to execute a letter in behalf of the City providing for a partial release of installation guarantee monies for Penn Lawn Estates No. 2, ,in the amount of fifty--two thousand, six hundred ninety—two dollars and eighty cents ($52,692.80). (JH:cn/70) CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: 7uly 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM 0: DATE SUBMITTED: July 7, x.986 PREVIOUS: ACTION: Various Appointments ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Appoint D2pyty For Municipal 'Court`Deputy Recorders _ City Recorder For Municipal Court PREPARED BY: Lorean Wilson Purposes Only — MarcieForza REQUESTED BY: Loreen Wilson DEPARTMENT BEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: — POLICY :ISSUE Should the Court Clerk be allowed to witness signatures on Court complaints? INFORMATION SUMMARY In the past, the Court Clerk has been appointed as a Deputy City Recorder for Municipal Court purposes only to allow her to witness signatureson misdemeanor l complaints. The City Recorder is currently approving the complaint form and charge prior to signatures. The witnessing., of signatures has beeIn difficult with only the City Recorder available to perform this task. With two 'employees authorized to witness ' signatures, the compliant process would be much more convenient for those persons wishing to press charges and for staff. The attached resolution repeals appointments in the past for prior Court Clerks and appoints Marge Forza as Deputy City 'Recorder. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve resolution to repeal old Deputy City Recorder appointments and appoint Marge',Forza as Deputy City Recorder (for municipal court purposes only)- 2. Direct staff to amend resolution to repeal old appointments only and continue,witnessing signatures by City `Recorder only. 3. Take no action at this time. SUGGESTED ACTION Motion to approve alternative 01 =- Approve attached resolution. lw/3936A MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council July 7, 1986 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: Executive Session August 4, 198 My Performance Review with Council is due in August. We had looked at Monday evening, August 4, 1986, but the Mayor was to be out of town. The Mayor will now be available that night. If this still works for 'everyone, I recommend that we call an Executive Session per ORS 192.660 (1) (i)', to review the performance of the Chief Executive Officer at 7:00, Tigard Civic Center, Monday, August A, 1986. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: July 14 1986 _ AGENDA ITEM 7.r DATE SUBMITTED: July i 1986 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approve OLCC implication'— Cook Park" — 8!10,186 PREPARED BY: Lorcen Wilson REQUESTED BY: Lake Oswego Elks t DEPARTMENT MEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE Council has requested to approve each liquor licensepresented prior to forwarding to OLCC. INFORMATION SUMMARY The following liquor license has been presented for approval: Lake Oswego Elks Lodge #2263 Cook Park August 10, 1986 Special Permit — 1 day only Tigard Police Department has recommended approval. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Approve and authorize forwarding to OLCC. 2. Take no action at this time. 3. Deny request and forward to OLCC. SUGGESTED ACTION Motion to approve alternative ##1 approve and forward to OLCC. lw/3936A CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMARY l ,- AGENDA OF: July 14, 1986 AGENDA ITEM! fl: F r� DATE SUBMITTED: July 11, 1985 PREVIOUS ACTION: ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: AN ORDINANCE__ r AMtWDING ORDINANCE 85-40 RELATING TO PREPARED BY: J. Widner t �i LOC AL IMPROVEMENTS REQUESTED BY: T. Ramis B. Jean DEPARTMENT HEAD OK: CITY ADMINISTRATOR: POLICY ISSUE To update the local improvement district policy regarding immediate entry upon any; land within a proposed district for survey or otherengineering; purposes. !NFORMATION SUMMARY City Attorney, Tim Ramis, has recommended that our current ,local improvement district enacting ordinance be updated to include immediate entry upon any land within a proposed district for survey or other engineering purposes. In some improvement projects Without this authority,' the project could be delayed. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do nothing: i 2. Amend Ordinance 85-40. SUGGESTED ACTION I :recommend passage of this amending ordinance. s WFE SOME