The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 10/10/1988 TIGARD CI"T"Y COUNCIL PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an REGULAR MEETING AGENDA agenda item needs to sign on the appropriate BUSINESS AGENDA -• CATV sign-up sheet(s) . If no sheet is available, OCTOBER 10, 1988, 6:30 P.M. ask to be recognized by the Chair at the start TIGARD CIVIC CENTER of that agenda item. Vi si tt„r'c agsend& itams ar-e 13125 SIN HALL BLVD. asked to be to 2 minutes or less. Longer matters TIGARD, OREGON 97223 can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or City Administrator. 6:30 o STUDY SESSION - Agenda Review 7:30 1. BUSINESS MEETING: 1.1 Call To Order and Roll Call 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance 1.3 Call To Staff and Council For Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (2 Minutes or Less Per Issu*, Please) o Bob Tinsman - 135th Avenue Petition Proposal 3. PRESENTATION OF RED RIBBON PROCLAMATION o Russ Joki, Tigard School District Superintendent & Mayor Brian 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 22, 1988; September 12 & 19, 1988 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Meeting Calendar Update b. Police Department Monthly Report - August 4.3 Recess Council Meeting; Convene Local Contract Review Board Meeting (LCRB); a. Award Bid For Agent Of Record b. Award Bid For Sewer Cleaner Adjourn LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting. 4.4 Accept following: a. Butler Terrace Subdivision Public Improvements-Res. No. 88- b. Beck Sanitary Sewer - Resolution No. 88- 5. PUBLIC HEARING 79th Avenue LID - Street Lighting o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council: Ordinance No. 88- COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 1988 - PAGE 1 6. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING -- SITE DEVELOPMENT" REVIEW SUR 88-17, PLANNED DEVELOMENT PD 88-04, VARIANCE V 88-27 SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANT-ER) NPO N 6 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions for a request of a 130 units apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, i2 units/acre, Planned Development) . Also, a for a Variance to City regulations that requires three (3) access points on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, lot- 8802 and 2S1 10AC, lots 400 and 500) . o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges o Summation By Community Development Staff o Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination o Recommendation By Community Development Staff o Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council — Direction To Staff For Final Order 7. 74th AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY — RESOLUTION NO. o Community Development Director 8. NO PARKING DESIGNATION — SPRUCE STREET — ORDINANCE NO. 88- 8 Community Development Staff- 9. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — ORDINANCE NO. 88-26 — UNLAWFUL TO TAMPER WITii ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; ORDINANCE NO. 88— o Chief of Police t. 10. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — ORDINANCE NO 88-27 — AMENDING SECTION 3. 16.1070 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ORD. NO. 88- 0 Community Development Staff 11. NON—AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13 . ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA — OCTOBER 10, 1988 — PAGE 2 T I G A R D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — October 10, 1988, — 6:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Toni Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Jerry Edwards, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz; City :hal=l': Pat Reilly, City Administrator; David Lehr-, Chief of Police (arrived at 6:44 p.m. ); Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Jill Monley, Community Services Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Cliff Scott, Operations Manager; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer. 2. STUDY SESSION a. City Funding for SW 135th Avenue Local Improvement District (LID) Project. Policy Issue Discussion: Shall additional City funding be provided for the S.W. 135th Avenue Project? City Administrator advised that the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), after much discussion and with reluctance, had identified measures for additional City commitment of $470,000. This would represent 41 .8 percent of the $1,12.5,000 of the 135th LID. (See City Administrator's memorandum dated October 7, 1988.) City Engineer expanded on the identification of funds available G for increased City participation in the 135th LID. He distributed a report entitled, "Potential City Participation in SW 135th Avenue LID Project." There was discussion on the identified funding. It was noted that in order to reduce the estimated LID assessments by 50 percent, $560,000 would be the City's share. City Engineer's report identified additional potential funding sources which included future Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds. Commitment of any future CIP funds to the 135th project would reduce the funds available for new projects in FY 1989/90, The TAC felt strongly that future CIP funds should be reserved for other high priority projects and should not be committed to the 135th project. Although not recommended by the Committee, CIP funds were a potential source for funding alternative projects. Staff identified approximately $100,000 in current project funding . which could be expended this year on alternative projects if an t offsetting like amount of next year's CIP budget is committed for completion of current projects. (See Engineer' s report — Page 3 — "Other Potential Funding Sources") . Lengthy discussion followed concerning options available for increased City contribution to the 135th LID project. These options included: Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 , I $185,000 — Unanticipated SDC revenues (year ending 6/30/88) . $285,000 — Funds available within the Street CTP fund if the bond !neasur0 passes . $ 30,000 — Funds committed from the 89/90 SDC revenues. $500,000 — TOTAL Councilor Johnson noted that with the CTP fund already paying $130,000 for the Summer Creek bridge, the total contribution by the City to the LID would be 50.2 percent if $500,000 was contributed as identified above. Edward Egging, a resident in the 135th LID area, urged Council to consider 50 percent of the $1, 125,000 neighborhood assessment; that is, a contribution of approximately $560,000 over and above the $130,000 presently committed for the bridge. Another option was considered by Council was as follows: $185,000 — Unanticipated SDC revenues (year ending 6/30/88) . $285,000 — Funds available within the Street CIP fund if- the bond measure passes. $ 90,000 — Commitment of future CIP funds from FY 89/90 $560,000 — TOTAL Lengthy discussion followed. b. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to agree to City participation in 50 percent of the assessment for the SW 135th Avenue Local Improvement District (in addition to the bridge costs) up to $560,000. This additional participation would be contingent upon the approval of the bond measure for transportation safety improvement at the November election. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 3. CALL FOR NON—AGENDA ITEMS The following non—agenda items were identified: a. Town Hall Agendas b. Tigard Marketplace Update C. Mayor introduced and welcomed the new City Administrator, Mr. Pat Reilly. 4. VISITOR'S AGENDA a. Mr. Bob Tinsman, 13370 SW Scotts Bridge Drive, Tigard, Oregon 97223, presented a petition of residents in the area surrounding the SW 135th Local Improvement District. Mr. Tinsman noted that he was the Vice President of the Morning Hill Neighborhood Association and was also was representing several other subdivisions in the LID area. Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 Mr. Tinsman reported that when the LID project was approved, the neighborhood was not aware that the City would be considering a bond measure to improve streets throughout the City. If- i' neighbors had known that this study was . being proposed, they would not have likely been in favor of the LID. He alleged that the 135th LID project would have been a project highly qualified for consideration on the transportation bond issue. The neighborhood did riot feel it was fair that they should bear the cost of the 135th Avenue LID by themselves and then be asked to also participate in improvement of roads throughout the City. Mayor advised Mr. Tinsman of Council's prior motion to direct staff to allocate up to $560,000 (approximately 50 percent of the LID assessment) to the project. He noted the scope of the bond issue would riot be changed. Mayor further explained that reallocation of future capital improvement funds would make this contribution possible; however, the City's participation would be contingent upon passage of the bond. b. Brenda Gilpin, 11721 S.W. Wilton Avenue, Tigard, OR 97223, testified she was concerned about the appeal hearing process for S 87-03 Krueger. Mrs. Gilpin noted the hearing delays and questioned why the meeting was set over to November• 21. Mayor explained that the hearing was delayed to October 10th in order to assure that a full Council would be present for the meeting. The second continuation occurred at the request of the appellant who advised he needed more time to consider options available to him. Mrs. Gilpin asked that it be noted that they (tho appellants represented by Mr. Russel Head) disliked having their hearing delayed for three months (August 22 to November 21, 1988) . Discussion followed with members of Council exploring the appeal process which could be delayed for a variety of reasons. Mrs. Gilpin advised that a fair hearing was jeopardized because of the length of time between hearing the issues. Mayor advised the applicant had waived the requirement that the City issue a final order within 120 days, and it was within the applicant's privileges to request a delay. C. Jim Iverson, 12675 SW Grant, and Cindy Winn, 12815 SW Grant, asked for clarification on the previous discussions with regard to the transportation bond measure. Mayor advised that the previous motion by Council to increase participation in the 135th Local Improvement Distri^t did riot change the scope of the bond measure. He did note that the McDonald Street improvements had been modified as requested by the residents in that area. Mr. Iverson and Mrs. Winn indicated that if this was the case, they did not have testimony. Page 3 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 Mr. Iverson & Mrs. Winn expressed appreciation to the City for cutting down a large tree on Walnut Street which was obstructing traffic sight distance. They reaffirmed their appreciation for the positive working relationship with the City relative to safety isquaq on Chair st:rapt, d. Robert Joy, 11735 SW 134th Terrace, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, testified he had been a supporter of the 135th Local Improvement District. Mr. Joy expressed concerns with regard to a subdivision development proposed by Mr. Russ Krueger near the LID area. He recounted history of the LID formation noting he would like to see the Council's decision stand wherein Mr. Krueger had agreed to improve the Murray Road extension. Mr. Joy advised he was an original supporter of the SW 135th LID when it "went• the full length. " He advised he felt that the scope of project had been cut in half- for• the benefit of Mr. Krueger and Benjamin Franklin Properties. The project scope had been reduced with the understanding that the developers would improve Murray Road as development went forward. He advised that development appeared to be going ahead quickly; however, the Murray Road improvements have been abandoned by Mr. Krueger who was now asking for access for his development through Morning Hill. Mr. Joy advised that the neighbors had been led to believe that this development would not be using 135th for access. The neighbors had been advised that improvements to SW 135th could not be funded by City—wide funds; therefore, they agreed to participate in the LID. Then as soon as the neighbors had approved the LID, the City—wide bond i�,soe was being discussed. This, he said, was unfair. Mr. Joy advised he was heartened to learn the City would increase their participation in the LID. Mr. Joy suggested that the LID assessment boundary be expanded to include the Krueger•, Benjamin Franklin, and Katherine Street properties as these residents would benefit. Mayor Brian responded to Mr. Joy's testimony as follows: o LID Boundary Issues: The City had originally proposed that both 135th Avenue and Murray Road be included in the LID boundary. It was clear from the public record that it was the neighborhood who did not want the Murray Road extension included. City Council asked repeatedly for the people to understand that their assessments would actually be lower if the Murray Road extension would be left in the LID. However, the majority of the testimony received from the neighborhood during the public hearing process was in favor of deleting the Murray Road portion of the LID, o Mr. Krueger was not released from his assessment for the 135th LID. Mr. Krueger's assessment was approximately $44,000 for the larger parcels. Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 o Once the Murray Boulevard improvement was no longer part of- the LID, improvements to the road became a condition of development. This condition of development was the subject of an appeal public hearing on a Krueger Development property t (s(ah Mr's, Gi7nin'c a4. -- �, �,�r,S: 153ues were yeL Lu be resolved. e. Paul Heavirland, 8685 SW McDonald Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97224, testified he did riot feel it was appropriate for City of Tigard taxpayer's to subsidize developers. He expressed concern that street improvements should be paid for- by the developer and riot by taxpayers. 5. PRESENTATION OF RED RIBBON PROCLAMATION a. Tigard School District #23J will participate in the 1988 Red Ribbon Campaign and requested that the City proclaim the week of October 23-30, 1988 as Red Ribbon Week. The Red Ribbon Campaign originated when Federal Agent Enrique Camar•ena was murdered by drug traffickers in 1985. The Red Ribbon became the symbol_ to reduce the demand for drugs. A comprehensive campaign had been designed to establish a parent/community network in every community to support drug free life styles. Deputy City Recorder read the proclamation. b. Motion by Councilor Edwards, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to proclaim October 23-30, 1988 as Red Ribbon Week. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1 Approve Council Minutes: August 22, 1988; September 12 & 19, 1988 6.2 Receive and File: a. Council Meeting Calendar Update b. Police Department Monthly Report -- August 6.3 Recess Council Meeting; Convene Local Contract Review Board Meeting (LCRB); a. Award Bid For Agent Of Record b. Award Bid For Sewer Cleaner Adjourn LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting. 6.4 Accept following: a. Butler Terrace Subdivision Public Improvements— Res, No. 88-99 b. Beck Sanitary Sewer — Resolution No. 88-100 a. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 7. PUBLIC HEARING — 79TH AVENUE LID — STREETLIGHTING a. Public Hearing was opened. b. There were no declarations or challenges . Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 i c. Summation by City Engineer: The policy issue before Council was "Should a Local Improvement District be formed for the installation of streetlights on SW 79th Avenue between Pfaffle and Thorn Streets?" No remonstrances on the formation of the LID had been received. d. Public Testimony PROPONENTS: o Pat and Everett Rowles, 11200 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified they were in favor of the formation of the Local Improvement District for streetlights. This would greatly enhance the protection of the neighborhood. There was brief discussion on the assessment proposal and how it would be repaid. The following individuals also had signed up for the Local Improvement District and indicated they were in favor: Dorothy Reynolds, 11250 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Shirley Stevens, 7945 SW Thorn, Tigard, Oregon Jeannette Park, 7960 SW Thorn, Tigard, Oregon Luther and Eilien Branch, 11255 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon William P. Frye, 10940 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Marian E. Frye, 10940 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon M. H. Sanders, 11005 SW 79th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon Also noting their approval for the LID were Mr. Earl Anderson and Mr. Doug Denny (addresses not given) . City Engineer recommended approval of the LID formation. He advised that Portland General Electric (PGE) Company would be installing the lights. Depending on PGE's schedule, the project could be accomplished within the next two weeks to two months. Mayor asked City Engineer to urge PGE to expedite the installation. e. Public Hearing was closed. f. ORDINANCE NO. 88-29 AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE SW 79TH AVENUE STREETLIGHTING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREETLIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING FORTH THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT. g. Blank lines contained in the ordinance were noted; City Engineer advised these should be completed indicating that no remonstrances had been received. h. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt Ordinance No. 88-29. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. Page 6 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 8:37 PM. MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:50 PM. 8. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-17, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04 VARIANCE 88-27 SCHUE T G ((:BHi T 00 DEKAIH T ER) INFO #6 Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions for a request of- a 130 unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development) . Also, for a Variance to City regulations that require three (3) access points on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. Location: Between SW 109t-h Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 10 AD, Lot 8802 and 2S1 10 AC, Lots 400 and 500). a. Public Hearing was opened. b. Declarations or challenges. Legal Counsel advised that his law firm had represented the applicant in other jurisdictions. He advised this would not create a conflict of interest. C. Summation by Senior Planner Liden: On September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a proposed apartment complex located on 109th Avenue south of Canterbury Lane. The applicant appealed the decision because of imposed conditions of approval. The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development. The property, as zoned, would be permitted a maximum of 152 units -- 130 units were proposed. The applicant also requested a variance to allow one driveway where two driveways were required by Section 18.108.070 of the Code. [lased upon the way this section is worded, one could conclude that two or three driveways would be necessary. The staff interpreted the Code to require two driveways for a development of this size. The Commission approved the variance for one driveway but limited the development to 100 units. Concerns were expressed regarding access, buffering for adjacent properties, and preserving trees on the site and abutting parcels. Staff agreed with the Commission that these issues should be adequately addressed; however, staff- did not view a reduction in density as an appropriate method for dealing with these concerns. It appeared that the problems which surfaced at the Commission hearing could be dealt with in other ways, such as requiring two driveways or further Fire District involvement in the site design; modification of the location and orientation of the apartment buildings; and determination of the methods of buffering to be used. Senior Planner Liden noted the steps for a Planned Development: 1) A conceptual plan submitted arid, if approved 2) A detailed plan submitted. Page 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 Senior Planner Liden noted that a letter had been received and submitted to Council from SimmCo Properties Inc. (Michael McKenna, President) . This letter noted concerns about traffic implications for Canterbury Heights and Panorama West Apartments. d. Public "testimony PROPONENTS (Appellants): o Bill Monahan, 12290 SW Main, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, introduced Carl Nase of CBH Company, Joe Percival of Murase Associates, Gary Katsion of Kittleson & Associates, Brad Schleining of W.B. Wells, and Roger Rauch of Rauch—piestr•ak. Mr. Monahan disclosed that he was legal counsel for the applicant and that he had formerly been the Director of Community Development for the City of Tigard. Mr. Monahan advised that he had sent notification to the Acting City Administrator concerning his representation of CBH. The City's Legal Counsel gave consent to Mr. Monahan's representation of CBH. Mr. Monahan advised the issue before Council was an appeal of a Planning Commission decision after a hearing on September 6th when GBH applied for 130--unit apartments in the little Bull Mountain area off of 109th. The Planning Commission approved the application but limited the development to 100 units and one access to the site. The one access was a variance request. The decision was being appealed for the following reasons: 1. The applicants were requesting 130 units which was less than what the allowable number for the present R-12 zoning with a PD Overlay. 2. The Planning Commission did not ask whether the applicant would be willing to supply two access points if 130 units would be allowed. 3. The fencing and buffering requirements placed on the site were far in excess of the standards of the Community Development Code. 4. The condition that the detailed plan, landscape plan, and the tree preservation plan be resubmitted to the Planning Commission was an excessive step which would delay the project and be detrimental to the applicant. Mr. Monahan reviewed the proposal with the following points highlighted: o The project consisted of 130 units (29 residential structures) on 12.6 acres of land on Bull Mountain. He referred to a plan on display which had also been submitted to the Planning Commission. Approximately 4-1/4 acres of the site would be left in its natural state. The choice in building type had been made to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible. Page 8 — COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1988 o The proposal complied with all City requirements for the type of use. Carl Nase, CBH Company, 8315 S.E. Stark, Portland, Oregon 97216, r displayed pictures for Council review of another project which he said illustrated the type of building arid 1i*nd6CaP'i 9 Nr•GNc.--au. He advised that measures had been taken to save as many trees possible. Rental projections per unit were estimated to be about $500/month. Roger Rauch, 4800 S.W. Macadam, Portland, Oregon, advised that his firm was a commercial real estate brokerage. lie testified that CBH companies were known for their quality developments. Joe Percival, Murase Associates (landscape architects & planners), 1300 N.W. Northrup, Portland, Oregon, advised that the existing trees were a valuable asset for their project. Over 100 trees had been identified to remain; however-, it would not be known until the final stages of the grading plan exactly which trees could be preserved. Where trees cannot be saved (because of roadway and building construction) replacement trees would be planted. He outlined where the existing forest would be preserved. Mr. Monahan referred to an aerial photo on display. The actual non—buildable acreage consisted of 1.2 acres. He believed the Planning Commission erroneously assumed the applicant had asked for a density transfer from non—buildable land. Mr. Monahan recounted the zoning history. Prior to 1981, there were two zones in this area: R-4 and R-3 . In 1981, several property owners successfully petitioned the City to ::Mange the zoning to A--12 with a PD overlay. When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1983, the land was made R-4.5 (again with a PD overlay) . Last year, after the Albertson's Comprehensive. Plan application, the Council approved a density transfer which rezoned the site to R-12. The Council added the condition that they would review any Planned Development in this area. The Comprehensive Plan identified this area as a Goal 5 Resource for its scenic views. The Plan speaks of preserving as much of the treed area as possible and Mr. Monahan reviewed how the developer would meet this Goal. Mr. Monahan advised that the Planned Development process was in the Code to allow flexibility for a developer to make the best use of a piece of land working with the natural landscape. The adjacent properties to the north, south, and east were all zoned R-12. He reviewed the nature of each of the adjacent properties. Mr. Monahan advised the applicant had applied for 10.3 units per acre (130 units) . Deducting the 1.32 non—buildable acres, and not asking for a density transfer, the actual density on the buildable land comes to 11.34 units per acre. The applicant was asking for a clustering of buildings, which would make optimum use of the site in a Planned Development (PD) concept. The Planning Commission deliberated at length and voted three times. Prior to Page 9 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 the final vote, the Chairman made a statement that he felt that the property could best bear 100 units with one access. The [` Planning Commission Chair had advised that he felt this was a t unique par4el which should be given special consideration. A motion was then made to approve the application with 100 units, t. because there were too many buildings ori tele sNace which ':.'as t available to build them. Mr. Monahan advised that it appeared � from the meeting transcript (Page 55) that there was a , miscommunication that there was a request from the applicant- to build with a density transfer from non—buildable land. Mr. Monahan alleged that allowing only 100 units on this site violated the density allowance for an R-12 zone and the PD section { of the Code. He said it was also a violation of the intent of the g Comprehensive Plan in the ESEE section. `s With regard to the access requirement, Mr. Monahan advised the applicant would be willing to put in two access points if deemed F necessary for 130 units. The applicant had not been given the opportunity to advise Planning Commission of this. Gary Katsion from Kittleson & Associates, Inc. , 512 S.W. Broadway, i Portland, OR 97204 testified his firm prepared the traffic impact analysis at the site at the request of the developer. One access 1 drive would work well in the area because the traffic on 109th was small. The site would be expected to generate approximately 90 i new trips during the p.m. peak with about 800 new trips throughout l the day. With the development, 109th would be carrying between 1,500 and 2,000 trips per day. He said the most ideal site for i the access would be across from Murdock Street because it would have good sight distance in both directions and the number of- conflict points would be limited. Mr. Katsion reported that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviewed the traffic report. ODOT did not see any significant impacts created by this project. In fact, ODOT mentioned that the intersection would be signalized some time next year. Mr. Katsion outlined the following conclusions: — One access would work well from a traffic capacity standpoint. — The 30—foot width which was recommended would allow, if anyone was stalled, space to get around with emergency vehicles. — Options at this site for a second access would be limited. There was just under 250 feet of frontage on 109th and the most logical place to put a second access would be as far to the north as possible. Another second access option would be on Pacific Highway; however, it would be highly unlikely that ODOT would allow a second access on Pacific Highway when there was another option available. — Over 900 additional cars could be added to the intersection without affecting capacity. Page 10 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 There was discussion on street width and traffic patterns . Mr . Monahan advised that even though the Planning Commission recommended inwi oi�t wcc=�s -c-4-t be re5tri rtod to one hundred units, the staff report was in favor of a variance for one access point for the 130 units. Mr. Monahan noted a major item of discussion at the Planning Commission was the fencing and planting concerns. The Planning Commission made a condition with which the applicant took issue. This condition stated: "Additional perimeter buffering along all but the western border of the site. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a six-foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a six-foot site obscuring fence at the option of the adjoining property owners ." The buffer matrix did not call for a six-foot fence for 2,300 feet around the periphery of an R-12 multi-family development against other R-12 developable properties. Mr . Monahan noted that the Planning Commission required that three plans come back to them for review (i.e. , detailed site plan, landscape plan and tree preservation plan). He requested the plans be reviewed and approved administratively by staff in order to save time. Mr. Monahan recapped the points of the appeal as follows: 0 130 units would be allowed within the existing zoning. 0 With 130 units, either one access could be allowed because the variance criteria had been met or a suitable second access should be determined. If a second access location was deemed necessary, then the two-plex would be moved. o The tree preservation plan should be submitted at the time the final grading plan was prepared. o The fencing and buffering condition should be modified. o The final decision on the plans should be made by administrative action and not sent back to the Planning Commission. Discussion on process f-ollow,�d. Legal Counsel responded to a question posed by the Mayor with regard to whether the Planning Commission had the right and authority to limit the number of units. Legal Counsel advised that it appeared the Planning Commission, as a condition of the variance, limited the units to 100. This would place a large burden on the City, if they were to adopt the Planning Commission's basis for limiting the number of units to 100, to be sure there was evidence in the record that the Planning Commission's concerns could only be met by reduction in units. Lengthy discussion followed concerning the density issue and the intent of the Code which designated the area as a PD overlay. Brad Schleining, Engineer with W.B. Wells & Associates, 4230 N.E. Fremont, Portland, OR 97213 noted that more trees would removed in single family developments than in multiple family developments. Page 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1988 Opponents: o Ray Hammerly, 14807 S.W. 109th, Tigard, Oregon advised he was an adjacent property owner. He had attended the Planning Commission meeting_ and believed that the primary concern was not the 130 �y, iii %i only vnG antrn-cc to that man%, units. .lyl rurliii discussed, with Mr. Hammerly the alignment of the entrance at Murdock Street off of 109th. Mr. Hammerly advised that a squared intersection which would also be a four—way stop would not be inadvisable. Mayor noted that two accesses onto 109th to the site may not be beneficial. If the single access was aligned with Murdock, then people traveling on 109th would need to only be concerned with one intersection rather than two. Mr. Hammerly was concerned with emergency vehicle access with a single entrance. With regard to fencing, Mr. Hammerly advised he was satisfied with the applicant's proposal as to which areas would be fenced coupled with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the fencing be at the adjoining property owners' discretion. o Edna Annand, 14600 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard, Oregon, testified she was speaking on behalf of Jack and Katherine Annand who owned adjacent property. Mrs. Annand distributed to Council a map highlighting the area owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jack Jack Annand. She advised that the property owners would like to be treated as a single—family residence since this had been a single—family residence for 50 years. She noted that the zoning had changed several times over the years. Mrs. Annand advised that they would like the developer to install a six—foot high chain link fence from 109th to the bluff and that she would prefer at least 20—foot setbacks. e. Council Comments/Questions. Council discussed the following issues: o Differences in requirements between R-12 and single family Senior Planner Liden noted differences in setback requirements; if the abutting property were zoned single family, the setback requirements would be 30 feet. (Mr. j Monahan commented that the Annand house was actually on a lot 50 feet from the applicant's property line.) The setback f requirements between two R-12 zoned properties would be 10 feet. o A tree protection plan — Staff and Council members noted it was too early in the process to determine specific trees which would be saved, but a procedure could be Outlined wherein the optimum number of trees would be preserved once the development was to that point. Page 12 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 o One access versus two ------ Sr. Planner Liden advised that an emergency access would not be as good as providing two driveways. Emergency accesses tend to get filled with other ! types of barriers. City Engineer noted that a uecurid driveway, ditGr the traffic study, was not necessary from a capacity standpoint. The single access should either line up with Murdock Street or be offset substantially from the Murdock intersection. Discussion followed on two accesses with it being noted that the Fire Department had been notified. Their response was that they would prefer two accesses; however, they did not require two accesses. More discussion on the access question followed. Mayor noted that: a 30—foot wide driveway would probably be adequate even if there were an accident at the intersection. f. Rebuttal Comments — Appellant Mr. Monahan noted he had talked to Mr. Gene Burchill of the Fire Department who advised that they would always prefer two accesses, but one access at this site would be acceptable. Mr. Monahan noted 225 parking spaces were proposed; 195 were required. Thus, if there should be a problem with grade, there was flexibility to deal with this . f-. Public Hearing Closed. g. Community Development Director summarized the staff recommendation (see memorandum from Sr. Planner Liden dated October 3, 19138). He advised the issue before Council was the policy determination; Was the Planning Commission correct in limiting the number of units to 1007 Community Development Director stated, in his judgment, the Planning Commission erred -- they did not have the authority to limit the number of units. The development should be allowed to go forward at the 130 units which was less than what the zone allowed. To do otherwise would result in downzoning of the pr ape ty.. Community Development Director advised that if Council agreed with the Planning Commission, Council action would consist of simply upholding their decision. If Council disagreed with Planning Commission, Council should review the conditions of approval and selectively modify or remand the proposal to Planning Commission. !:a suggested an option would be for Council to advise the Planning Commission concerning guidelines and policies and ask the Planning Commission to work out the details. Page 13 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 t Community Development Director outlined the issues: 1. Should the proposal go back to the Planning Commission as suggested by the Planning Commission? th` r-wnci.vrarn�;rpmAni s; Communitv Development Z. With r'eyaru w _, �--- Director advised that the Planning Commission probably overextended by requiring that the entire site be fenced. 3. Should the number of units allowed be conditional with the number of driveways put in? Community Development Director advised that when reading the final conditions of the Planning Commission, he did not see that tie even though it was part of the discussion. Planning Commission did agree on the variance and said one driveway would be adequate, and he also agreed that one driveway was adequate for the site. Community Development Director recommended: Deletion of the 100—unit restriction. Addition of a standard on trees; that is, specify definite direction. Modification of timing of the landscaping details was not i recommended. The steep slope provision as speciFied by the Planning Commission should remain with the guideline, "not to exceed 6%," F; E; Final review of the details should be done by the Planning t Commission. h. Applicant Comments: Mr. Monahan noted concern about timing if Council should decide that this proposal must be reviewed by Planning Commission. He advised that five out of nine Planning Commission members were present at that hearing. The applicant would have to take the E; time to educate those Planning Commissioners who had not reviewed j the application the first time. Then, after this, the Council k. would still require a review. i. Council deliberation: E. F Council reviewed the following issues: o Should this be referred back to the Planning Commission. Consensus was yes — but an automatic second review by Council would not be required. Council would retain the option to ; pull up for review on their authority. Page 14 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 r 0 A fence would be required along the northerly border (adjacent to Annand`s property) from 109th back to the bluff (drop-off). The fence next to the townhouses would go all the way to 109th. The requirement for a southerly fence would be eliminated. o One access driveway was acceptable. Consensus, after discussion, was that a 30-foot driveway width, as proposed, was acceptable. 0 130 units, as proposed, was acceptable providing there was guarantee there would be no future subdivison and additional units. In response to discussion and questions by Council, Mr. Monahan advised that the developer would be willing to indicate that the 4-1/2 acres to the west would not be developed within this plan. Part of the plan would be that those acres would remain in their natural condition and they would not request additional transfer of units from those acres. Legal Counsel advised he could work with staff- to create language which would limit further development of the parcel. Two representatives of the Planning Commission discussed with Council the advisability of sending this application back to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director reminded Council that there were details riot on the site plan that the Planning Commission specifically advised they would like to review (i.e, grading at no more than 6%, plus a detailed tree protection plan) . Tree Protection Plan - After discussion, it was determined that in the portion of the property slated for development, at least 130 trees, 6" in caliper or over, should not be damaged or removed. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to sustain the appeal with the following noted: Changes to the Planning Commission Final Order No. 88-10 PC as follows: Page 10, Section D. Decision, Item 3: The fencing and buffering perimeter language should reflect that fencing would be required on the northerly property from S.W. 109th to the bluff (the sharp drop-off), and from 109th behind the townhouse property. Page 10, D. Decision, A. 3)"has a maximum of 100 units" would be changed to "has a maximum of 130 units." Page 11, D. Decision, 5) - Planning Commission to review a tree protection plan which would provide that every effort would be made to save at least 130 trees (as a guideline) on the developed area of the lot. Further, the following wording Cchange would be inserted: Page 15 - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1988 Change from — "The Commission directs that the arborist use extreme caution in the protection of abutting property owner's trees." i.v "The Commission directs that the arborist shall protect the abutting property owner's trees." Council would waive their automatic review of the plan, subject to appeal or call up for review by Council. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 9. 74TH AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY DISCUSSION Tabled to the October 17, 1988 Council meeting. 10. NO PARKING DESIGNATION — SPRUCE STREET a. City Engineer summarized this item. Staff had received requests from several citizens for parking to be prohibited next to the Spruce Street entrance to the Fred Meyer store. The manager of the Fred Meyer store indicated support for a "no parking" zone near the driveway entrance. Substantial replacement parking was available along the Spruce Street frontage of Fred Meyer and in the Fred Meyer parking lot. City Engineer• recommended that parking be prohibited within 100 feet of the driveway centerline. b. ORDINANCE NO. 88-30 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 10.28.130, PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW SPRUCE STREET AND FIXING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, to adopt Ordinance No. 88-30. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. 10. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 88-26 — POLICE DOG a. Chief of Police submitted to Council in their meeting packet a proposed ordinance which would clarify the effective date with regard to Ordinance No. 88-26. b. ORDINANCE NO. 88-32 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-26, BY CLARIFYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE WHEN IT IS UNLAWFUL TO TAMPER WITH ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. C. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to adopt: Ordinance No. 88-32. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. r Page 16 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 11. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 88-27 — PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES f` a. Community Development Director• advised that Council adopted, on SeNtosnber 26, 1998, 0!-dinanro No, $R-27 amending Section 3 .16.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The effective date cited in the Ordinance was incorrect and the proposed Ordinance rectify. b. ORDINANCE NO. 88••-32 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-27 (PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT' CHARGES) FOR A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Eadon, to adopt Ordinance No. 88-32. Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council present. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS a. Town Hall Meetings. City Administrator advised Council had received an agenda for the Town Hall meeting on October 11. He requested Council advise staff- of any changes they might have. b. Tigard Marketplace Update. Community Development Director advised there was still a problem with noise from trucks traveling behind the buildings at odd hours. He suggested that hours be posted on a sign; if the problem continues, the store would be cited for a violation. The most offensive light from the parking lot with respect to the adjacent neighborhood had been eliminated. With regard to the lights at the rear of the building, the developer spray painted the light fixtures brown and the glare had been reduced. Community Development Director advised it would be a judgment call as to whether or not the glare had been reduced adequately. Community Development Director advised the parapet wall and noise issues had not been resolved. Work was expected to continue. Discussion followed concerning acceptable standards. Councilor Eadon encouraged Council to view the property along the back of the building. She advised that she felt the effort with regard to lighting was riot satisfactorily resolved. Community Developer Director noted that with regard to the noise problem, the property owner was working with his engineer and contractor to design a method to cut the noise down to DEQ standards. Whether this would be acceptable to City Council was discussed. Discussion followed on the issue of Council authority to require specific mitigation measures for light and noise impacts to the adjoining neighborhood. Standards as to what would be deemed "good enough" were needed. Page 17 — COUNCIL MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 1988 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:50 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 12:20 p.m. Approved by the Tigard City Council on November• 21, 1988. Deputy Recorder - City of �l`igard ATTEST: Mayor - City of Tigard cw/7996D L C Page 18 - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1988 C O U N C I L M E E T I N G U P D A T E October 10, 1988 E' o STUDY SESSION: Considered City Funding for S.W. 135th Avenue LID• E. Motion: Ed/Sc UA. City to participate in 50% of assessment (in addn to bridge costs) up to $560,000. Funds to come from: 1) Scale back of F McDonald Street project (as requested by neighbors), 2) SDC (CIP) unanticipated fund balance overage, �71 SDC (CIP) revenues. City's increased participation contingenassage of bond measure @ November election. E 1• BUSINESS MEETING - Call To Order and Roll Call All CC present i t 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA o Bob Tinsman - 135th Avenue Petition Proposal - presented petitions from residents in S.W. 135th LID area. Asked for project to be ! i included in those to be funded by bond election if passed.noted concerns o Brenda Gilpin - Re: Appeal S 87-03 (Krueger) f with delay of appeal public hearing from 8/22/88 to 11/21/88. I{ o Jim & Cindy Iverson - asked for clarification on bond measure f (Walnut St. to remain on project list as proposed). Thanked for cutting down large tree on Walnut Street - safety hazard eliminated. o Robert Joy - Re: concerns on S.W. .�.,,h Avenue LID process; asked for the project to be included as one of projects funded by bond if passes @ Nov. election. o Paul Heavirland: Re: opposed to City taxpayers paying for streets needed because of new development; developers should pay ( as they build. 3. PRESENTATION OF RED RIBBON PROCLAMATION Ed/Ea UA Motion to approve 4. CONSENT AGENDA: September 12 & 19, 1988 4. 1 Approve Council Minutes: August 22, 1988; p" 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Meeting Calendar Update b. Police Department Monthly Report — August 4.3 Recess Council Meeting; Convene Local Contract Review Board Meeting (LCRB); a. Award Bid For Agent Of Record b. Award Bid For Sewer Cleaner Adjourn LCRB; Reconvene Council Meeting. 4.4 Accept following: a. Butler Terrace Subdivision Public Improvements—Res. No. 88-99 b. Beck Sanitary Sewer — Resolution No. 88-100 Ea/Jo UA — Motion to approve Consent Agenda 5. PUBLIC HEARING 79th Avenue LID — Street Lighting o Public Hearing Opened o Public Hearing Closed O Consideration By Council: Ord. No. 88-29 Ea/Jo UA COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 1988 - PAGE 1 6. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING - SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-17, PLANNED DEVELOMENT PD 88-04, VARIANCE V 88-27 SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANTER) NPO # 6 Appeal of Planning (,,()nmatssiun is otppr'oval 1111th Gv�1 4ItiC for :. rnnunai of a 130 units apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre, Planned Development). Also, a for a Variance to City regulations that requires three (3) access points on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, lot 8802 and 2S1 10AC, lots 400 and 500) . o Public Hearing Opened o Public Hearing Closed o Consideration By Council - Direction To Staff For Final Order Jo/Ea UA - Motion: Sustain appeal; modify Planning Commission's Final Order No. 88-10 PC as follows (Page 10 - D. Decision): o #3 modify fencing requirements o #4 3) maximum of 130 units (with single driveway as specified in #2 of Decision) o #5 change wording in second sentence to: "The Commission directs that the arborist shall protect the abutting property owners' trees." Detail Plan to be reviewed by Planning Commission; City Council waives automatic review subject to their right to call up for review if deemed necessary. tvl1g188 7. 74th AVENUE DEVELOPMENT POLICY -• Tabled to Study Session 8 8. NO PARKING DESIGNATION - SPRUCE STREET •- ORDINANCE NO. 88-30 Jo/Ed UA 9. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 88-26 - UNLAWFUL TO TAMPER WIT14 ANIMALS USED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; ORDINANCE NO. 88-31 - Sc/Jo UA 10. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO 88-27 - AMENDING SECTION 3.16.1070 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION SDC & SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ORDINANCE NO. 88-32 Jo/Ea UA il. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff .1 Town Halls - agenda distributed to CC; CC will call if concerns .2 Update - Tigard Marketplace 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:50 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor, relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. r 13. ADJOURNMENT: 12:20 a.m. cw/6971D or � �. ��G+ Gum .�'•L�. �� SC4�-rte. d COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 1988 - PAGE 2 h ( v*pup.ry .rp.— �M-. L7^a p T+ r O� ii S t� f14, ��"w�E o f.Qt f3 F•,.;,r,w W m... 2 t Jam. c $� ,�G�.fI i.�� r ' ittt aC�,JVC�x 0�:•Vy � �% c +, i •� N 1 3 � �' � � t Rl 'C7.rO..�MA; JJ'`"�'"�{ �^ WAsey.G � •fir �� j� � ai e� J1•Q Zi !"��. r0 H SL�''�'o-. '' O ta,"'r V-y O✓ "st. a'. w, Ng. .� .o pq:� .,,•o O ;. yam+?d 'S+.st.tt��0 PF•�, pe'!'.'ry�ty� P1 �+ N.' yr +"1 ,ai VJby d}G�CYC ' M/p+� V''�»� O•'Y+ tq�d y. .'r ; ' ftZ'yam �w '.f 5 •�yObb6.�� . Qj. (,y -_o¢ y- t J��```FV•.' +� ,,,N � CJy~�C7t .EAl TV, ; v rt �i:d ^� F.F NCLf off' ;Q 00. Su 9 J Z LL W e'; ]. C� 'p o O �+ O O' Z Q o m C V m y U OD O o W 'O m d O wrn m •y 0Or r cC0 rI C V z Z d H O - 0 09 d Ch c c m �. a m a !n t m N `O O G1 cr z v • • • L Q n CL _ O .1.+ �•• N .0 J W Z O E v al rn W a oco w R ~ 0 3 C7 m Q W o ® U 4 w v m V/ Oco m c "' N O1 0. d -c— p Z W ` y N � U. y W C C •. « w = O O .may. of CD CD y N PL�_ nl Z 0m.0 t c0 CA m:ii N > O m U o«. u1 a c G rn rn p C9 v o v 3 0 00 ^• (W m u- Z2 o` cm= o •° rn o c H N P; Q (Q7 q 30 CL- CCU CL- = a o O `LL CNUm � NO Cl O V 'y O m A O-, 2: m C t: E LU H O H Qz m� m m W P-1 U W U P-4 H t-O cq- o c.� a c 0 v1 o T OV U • • o toU _.0Occwro 0 0 0 i TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)684.0360 Notice 7-6736 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising •CITY OF TIGARD • 0 Tearsheet Notice i •PO BOX 23397 • 0 Duplicate Affidavit k TIGARD, OR 97223 I • • i i f AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the TIGARD TIMES a newspaper of generalfG��t as defined in ORS 193.010 in the and 193.020; published at aforesaid county and state; that the _PTTRT TC NOT'TCF a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE- successive and consecutive in the following issues: C SEPT. 29, 1988 Subsc !3'd and sworn to ' fore me this SEPT. 29 , 1988 N# Public for Oregon my Commissiorr Expire!./-221-0/9 2 { AFFIDAVIT nt_1{ y �� Cx S3 d tt i o'�t'.�tlh ftln �iix - rI n= ,� �appli°cabs ,tea der 3 Mnttctpa'T�'ds'''bn '"�� s, U Y i z � CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed Ord(' nance Mo-5. � - Qq) 9-9 - 30, STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) i I, being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and(say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) FiS-meq , gg:- _.30 ) g75-3 I , 25- 3 of which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 1Dl/O/g 8 copy(s) of said ordina ce(s) being . er to!2��ttached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of �� 1�� i�J 1987. 1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. U.S. National Bank, Corner of Main and Scoffins, Tigard, Oregon 3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, S.W. Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon 4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. ,(State Hwy. 99) and S.W. Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon :Subscribed and sworn to before me this /3day of . ../fs _ It �l►,P��2G�, Notary Public for 6regon My Commission Expires: 5�/�1q� 4 --VISITOR'S VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE 1n/1o/88 AGENDA ITEM N / e,inkAtes or less, please). agenda items. The Council ign on the appropriate sheet for listed Please sissues not on the agenda, but asks that you wishes to hear from you on other first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City to the start of the meeting. Thank you. Administrator prior s TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED NAME b ADDRESS AJI J is o S� - DATE 10/10/88 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) _ _i..f .,,, AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - PUBLIC HEARING - 79TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - (LID) - STREET LIGHTING Opponent (Against Issue) Proponent (For Issue) Name,*Address*and*Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation i S/d I 7 e' DATE October 10, 1988 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 — APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING — SCHUETZ (CBH/TOD DEKANTER) NPO #6 Proponent (For Issue) Opponent (Against Issue) Name, Address and AffiliationAddress nd Affiliation 07 � a T1 z o �o.,, cY a�...u�e S ►��- ov Ca 10 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMI'FI'ED*. rTRR1JF/AGFNDA TITLE: City Funding PREVIOUS ACTION: For SW 135th Avenue Project....... PREPARED- B Y Randall R. Woole DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIENOXK REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Shall additional City funding be provided for the SW 135th Avenue project? INFORMATION SUMMARY The Council asked the Transportation Advisory Committee to explore ways that additional City funding could be made available for the SW 135th Avenue project. The committee has identified some CIP funding sources which could be available if the bond measure passes in November-. The funding includes the funds currently budgeted for several small projects that would be funded as part of the larger projects of the bond measure, and also unanticipated SDC revenues resulting from development at a higher level than anticipated during the past several months. These sources are expected to provide $470,000 that could be allocated to other street projects, such as 135th Avenue. The attached memo provides more detail. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Provide no additional funding for the project. 2. Provide additional CIP funding per recommendation of the Transportation Advisory Committee. 3 . Provide CIP funding at an alternative level. 4. Revise the bond measure to include the 135th project. FISCAL IMPACT Any CIP funds allocated to SW 135th would reduce funding available for new projects. SUGGESTED ACTION Council requested a recommendation from the Transportation Advisory Committee. Based on the Committee's recommendation the staff suggests that, if the bond measure passes, the Jump sum amount of $470,000 be allocated to the 135th Avenue project. br 7438D POTENTIAL CITY PARTICIPATION IN S.W. 135TH AVENUE LID PROJECT k BACKGROUND On October 3, 1988, the City Council discussed a request from property owners in the 135th Avenue LID for additional City participation in the LID project. The request was for the LID project to benefit from the proposed $8.5 million transportation bond measure. The Council directed the Transportation Advisory Committee and staff to review the transportation bond project list to see if there was any way that the projects could be revised to reduce costs without changing the general project descriptions already published. The Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed potential project revisions and alternative funding sources at their meeting of October 6, as discussed below: POTENTIAL PROJECT REVISIONS Project Review: The Transportation Advisory Committee reviewed potential project cuts on each of the ten projects on the bond list. For most projects, the potential savings were quite small and the cuts were unsatisfactory to the committee. One of the committee's goals has been to provide complete projects rather than piecemeal construction. By constructing a complete project at one time, the committee expects to provide a safer and more attractive project and also to better utilize the limited funds available. Constructing projects in a piecemeal manner usually costs more in the long term. The only projects where potential substantial cost reductions could be identified were the Greenburg Road, Main Street, and McDonald Street projects. Reductions in scope to the Greenburg Road and Main Street projects were quite unsatisfactory to the committee. However, a recent staff meeting with the McDonald Street property owners has revealed some potential cuts on the McDonald Street project which appear to be satisfactory. McDonald Street: In August, staff promised to meet with the McDonald Street property owners prior to the November bond election to discuss the proposed project and potential impacts on the adjoining properties. This meeting was held on October 4, 1988. There was a very good attendance and participation by the property owners. As a result of this meeting, the staff did a little bit of very preliminary engineering work. Hence, the McDonald Street project is slightly ahead of the other projects in preliminary design. In the original project estimate, we had allowed for some minor widening of McDonald Street along the north side between 93rd Avenue and 98th Avenue in order to improve the walkway and drainage in that area. After more thorough review and discussion with the property owners, it appears that this portion of the project should be scaled back in order to avoid substantial impacts on the driveways and landscaping of adjoining properties. Reduction of this portion of the project will riot substantially impact the project goal of improving safety along McDonald Street by improving sight distance and pedestrian facilities. A shoulder bikepath already exists along the north side of McDonald Street. Property owners along McDonald Street would strongly favor this change to the project. Deletion of this portion of the work will reduce the project costs by approximately $300,000. Page 1 — t ' Current CIP Projects: On October 3, the staff- identified several projects currently funded from the CIP budget which appear to be eligible for funding under the proposed street improvement bond. These are projects which clearly fall within the project descriptions for- the bond measure. One example is the nu� 1�J,....arg C a pr;.,,;,,Y rnri(4tanin[i of Greenburg Road is one of vr'�:.ei'u�ui"y nOau wiac��..rtg the projects tinder• the proposed bond measure. The existing CIP project for widening of the bridge could become a part of the bond measure project if the bond is approved. The total amount of projects currently funded under the Streets CIP program but which appear- to be eligible for funding tinder the bond measure is $285,000. If these projects are funded under the bond measure, then an equivalent amount of CIP funding will become available for other projects. UNANTICIPATED CIP REVENUE: The audit report for FY 1987/88 is nearing completion. During the past week, the Finance Director has been able to identify ending fund balances for the Street CTP Program. The fund balance is greater than had been anticipated at the time of preparation of the current fiscal year's budget. This greater ending fund balance is in part due to greater SDC revenues than anticipated . Construction of new development in Tigard has remained quite strong throughout this year. As a result, SDC revenues for FY 1987/88 were greater than anticipated and current SDC revenues remain quite strong. As a result of this unanticipated revenue, it appears that an additional $185,000 is available for Streets CTP projects in the current fiscal year. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: ' The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the cost estimate for the McDonald Street project be revised as described above in order to reduce impacts on the neighborhood. The committee also recommended that those current CTP projects which fall within the scope of the proposed bond projects be funded under- the bond. The amount of the CIP projects is approximately equal to the proposed reduction in the cost estimate for McDonald Street. As a result, this recommendation will result in no change to the dollar amount nor scope of the proposed bond measure. The project list and the general project descriptions would riot be changed. No new projects would be added to the bond measure. Although the bond measure would riot be changed, it would allow for funding for some projects which are currently budgeted under the CIP for streets. As a result, $285,000 would be available within the streets CIP fund if the bond measure passes. The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the $285,000 in CIP money, along with the $180,000 in unanticipated additional SDC revenue, be used as an additional City share of the 135th Avenue project. This would provide an additional $470,000 of City CIP funds for the 135th project, and would reduce the estimated LID assessments by 41.8%. The Committee felt strongly that no other project cuts should be made, either in the proposed bond measure or in the CIP budget. The Committee felt that the remaining projects were critical and should not be cut or delayed. The Committee pointed to the long list of high priority projects still unfunded. Page 2 — It should be pointed out that the Committee's recommendation assumes passage of the bond measure by the voters. If the bond measure does not pass, the Committee anticipates that CIP revenues would be directed to the projects currently budgeted under the CIP. OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The only other potential source of funds for the 135th project that was identified was future CIP funds. Commitment of any future CIP funds to the 135th project would reduce the funds available for new projects in FY 1989/90. The Transportation Committee felt strongly that future CIP funds should be reserved for other, high priority projects and should not be committed to the 135th project. Although not recommended by the Committee, CIP funds are another potential source for funding of alternative projects. Staff has identified approximately $100,000 in current project funding which could be expended this year on an alternative project if an off setting like amount of next year's CIN budget is committed for completion of current projects. The reason that this can be done is that some currently funded projects will begin f construction in this fiscal year but will not be completed until next fiscal r year; hence, much of the payments for project construction on these projects will not occur until next fiscal year. The $100,000 could be committed to t other projects this fiscal year without delaying the currently furid ed projects; however, this procedure would clearly be committing a portion of s` next year's CTP budget and would reduce the amount of funding available next year for new projects. CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGES In calculating the City' s share of the 135th LID, there are two different ways to calculate the percentage of City participation. One way is to divide the amount of any new City participation by the estimated LID share of the project. The result is the percentage reduction in estimated LID assessments to the property owners. Another way to view the City's share is to include any new City participation and to also consider the City's CIP project participation already budgeted for the project. The City CIP fund is already paying $130,000 for costs of constructing a bridge over Summer Creek. If the bridge {; costs are included, then we have a more accurate representation of the total City participation in the project. t' The Transportation Advisory Committee has recommended an additional City participation of $470,000 in the 135th project. This recommended amount would r reduce the assessments by approximately 41 .8% and it would increase the total 3 City participation in the project to approximately P PERCENTAGE OR LUMP SUM COMMITMENT? Because we have discussed both dollar figures and percentage figures, there is a potential for confusion in any new City commitment to the 135th LID project. If the Council chooses to allocate additional CIP funding to the 135th Avenue project, it would be helpful to clarify whether the commitment is for a specific dollar figure or for a percentage of the total project or for a percentage of the LID assessment. ; t i Page 3 — SUMMARY: � The recommenaar:xon OT l.fit 1r'a1l6Nvr Lat.wn, nuviovry vv......+....•--- ..--_- �-• -- ..... no change in the project list and project scope for the trans por•tat:ion safety improvement bond measure. Passage of the bond measure would, however, free up some existing CIP revenue for alternative projects by providing for some of the projects in the current budget to be funded in conjunction with bond measure projects. Any additional City participation in the 135th project would come from the City's CIP budget and riot from the bond measure project. The primary source of the CIP funding for streets is from Systems Development Charges collected from new development. In short, some of the small projects on the City's current GTP budget would become part of the larger projects to be funded under the bond measure. If the bond measure passes, the CIP funds previously allocated to these projects could be used to share the costs of the 135th Avenue project. Submitted October 6, 1988 By: Randall R. Wooley, City (Engine br•/7438D Page 4 — MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CC TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilespond By FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administra r For Your Information DATE: October 7, 1988 Sign and Return SUBJECT: 135th LID 4- V, The Transportation Advisory Committee, after much discussion and with reluctance, accepted the appeoach of financing $285,000 of capital improvement projects consistent with stated bond issue objectives with bond issue funds, thus freeing up $285,000 for the 135th LID. Also, with the near completion of the annual financial report, final fund balances of 6/30/88 were calculated, resulting in the availability of $185,000 for the 135th LID. The TAC discussed this and, although reluctantly, accepted this approach. Together these measures mean a City commitment of $470,000, or 41.8% of $1,125,000 of the 135th LID. In the event the Mayor and Council wish to increase the commitment, funds could be made available through the scheduling of projects to minimize FY 1989 expenditures. Obviously, if this approach is selected, then the financial needs of these projects will be greater in FY 1990. I recognize the brevity of this memorandum and encourage you to contact me over the week—end at the Wayside Inn, if you wish to discuss further. Attached please find a detailed preliminary draft report from Randy Wooley referenc-- this matter. Please review and let me or Randy know of any suggested changes. One final point-, the approach outlined herein maintains the separation of the 135th LID from the Bond issue. PJR:mkh C_ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1 M DATE SUBMI'fTED: September 29, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA *I'ITLE: Presentation PREVIOUS ACTION: None of Rod Prociam3tion PREPARED BY: Marcha K. Hunt DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Dr. Russ Joki POLICY ISSUE Tigard School District #23J will participate in the 1988 National Red Ribbon Campaign and requests that the City proclaim the week of October 23-30, 1988 RED RIBBON WEEK. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Red Ribbon Campaign originated when Federal Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered by drug traffickers in 1985. The Red Ribbon became the symbol to reduce the demand for drugs, just as the yellow ribbon symbolized the hostages in Iran, and the green ribbon symbolized the murdered children of Atlanta. The NATIONAL FEDERATION OF PARENTS FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH, INC. , (NFP), has assumed the leadership role in this first national Red Ribbon Campaign. Honorary Chairmen are President Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Nancy Reagan. The goal of the National Red Ribbon Campaign is TO CREATE A DRUG FREE AMERICA. This comprehensive campaign is designed to establish a parent/community network in every community to support drug—free lifestyles. The network should include all aspects of the community: schools, parents, youth, religious institutions, business and industry, law enforcement, government, service organizations, media, health—care, legislators, and other concerned citizens. All should demonstrate their commitment for a DRUG FREE AMERICA by wearing and displaying Red Ribbons during National Red Ribbon Week. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. FISCAL IMPACT None known. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve proclamation and declare October 23-30, 1988 as RED RIBBON WEEK. mh7269D 6. S' ti PROCLAMATION RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN i WHEREAS, The National RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN will be celebrated October 23-30, 1988, and President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan are honorary chairs of this community focus on DRUG FREE CHOICES; and y WHEREAS, Oregon Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth is r i coordinating this grass roots community effort in a united effort with d the National Federation of Parents; an � t WHEREAS, schools, business, law enforcement, churches and ! synagogues, hospitals, service organizations, government agencies, and j individuals will demonstrate their commitment to healthy, drug-free i •♦ � choices by wearing and displaying red ribbons during week lcng s campaign; and i WHEREAS, the community of Tigard further commits its resources to ensure the success of the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Tigard does hereby support October 23-30, 1988 as RED RIBBON WEEK, and encourages its citizens to participate in drug awareness activities, making a visible statement that we are strongly committed to healthy lives. 1'!+' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Tigard encourages all its citizens to pledge: j THE CHOICE FOR ME, DRUG FREE. r ATTEST: " { Mayor, City of Tigard I Deputy City Recorder I .1 i 4 I S � s'4M i .., �Cr N r ,7a .a�',>x r t�,s L t'�`r'`4�' ��,n r sr ;; ;r -. 'q•� t t� 1 t. x, �uF P-"� tr�.:,7'ja G rig` ,� ,.�5 Z`Yeq ri c�•� '�C 4�?�.,n7C\ .`7� i '+ 5Fk R 4 ..,��,�•.5 r Y( - 'aYy d - ,„r�fyr� �� rytirt�,t}�h . P�',. h a •6 P i$'.� t. k• Fs a '"�: �' + � yA�, r.�"� Y v�x� t4yr ,ry,^t' JEj4 c w \Pyr,�'s'`{ • i t� f`�.r xcia. -� ..t..-y �f9�.u'-"��` 1L+' ��'��ku, �4, k b'�' 4�M y y�.s`�t rrt"`'� ^,��,.t ��'�`' rK`E i••e ;fa �'a ��'�i,� ,�y�,'i+t�•R.+t �Sy,,,; �t a�t'ejil i'T� ;�J'i;'•LZ r t' t��k'� w�l�.5yit Y S�A . �._ �G''. X-�� y'� Fy A i;•a a# E.ti�.-1'''jr. � ih. 2Y �' .-F.Tes.�.�z��io� �`'r_'.p."'%..�a��":sC��. ,,�°fi r ns 4: r,. d>`�� n�tt$�3�i� ' 'N' a � �•�,� &��c`�:�, �� •r }� n ,�� ,rs a'�:t �! oay�' y5 a a �: e W rr•�� -�- � ,�,�` •!6�+. � k � ,tt r 4a �`�" ^a', ` ' + fC ��-x,�4 .r f3S'c t frav� tt r �x c' Y�� .iK� ut�t� 4 �• `r Y i`'�SyU .! Pplb:o]! S'� 7p,.>-a's+•:.��e'Y i rc'•y5.�,au. 1: tc•±,�;a rw. r q°'�7 S � s'r -'..:./ �yy�.r�r` ! �'r} ,M-6 Se�.c t - �t.,rt'• ,,r�, .,.8 r' "y'i"Q 1 �A rvt SY 4.+�� K nl�Y F� �t �.'�� a t"?w-.r�,�` .'6� �4 S ��2�Y"�'A��,e'.i� �P.1y� �•r' �•qt -`�?^ crH't� '. .3i ^.�.kiff.'.,' ?'<�+�'t^l,,t.�f.r4rr"t »tri�,°:�`�+.... �f.s kM.;��.;cf�1:�.'r�{r�sy�"t.��' s �, .q 5"d•` w� -�' �:mtot�4:�ritatlU7••�.�' ; g�t'��aretP N+"yi,�d'^�"'a;� s'-'r•"",��:��"��1 �r'h��_S''1�.�-e�i t,.'��" py :�: d � 8 3 _ > 3 •d r a#�' �'+,.,�. rb :@gyp. �j 4 't",. �T 3 3srbYftS iM x aSthf �' � ,a n... °k- +sa';;t {n x�.rf ✓ s i T � ,t� p E � F�•��_' s `• �i{A, •,� {{r�4.rofx 4tVf s- '� ��lA�'..��'1��„x�1r �' �h{ �I St .,i� r •S. '�"> , ! � 4�t,d �s�� ,HII}STE?R�Y� 5�°�.�{�g"-��y:.�� . �, � f ��=.x �.�. ,•�� ,�,�Y !T4 ,g QY1FC'aiR: v r - F �'��Axgent•� Enr-i e�r Cams-rel � s a.rid �� T f u «6S2 Fax ?vua It2 yc tt a5f �ll , . £kb WWa �] CdC?Y'5 [lac pjl ` t � 7 G 'at SAY.. reMdtuceme �• .� - �e�ty. i �lt �,�� 7 . ' ,.,� >�!sjl]to�► ur3-bbarrrr�•spra�al�iz t�h: ��ha a• `�,� Xf t' ,�rr �; ��;, �' a� y t c�C'' °�i"'n`�t�'sd�`d �T`� i -''� r3�" +wt'._ 1 . ,x� .�h�egreyeAAny a�( �bt�onnSpYmbaYi d �Cle� u F'SY j !4 3• 'cn. �S}�Yy�fprq-�y��tt,,:.`yT'aY'r t' �" �'�.1 Yp'(t'n, Yl'[�i a,. '�. Ati.�� t• Aa na•,. r rfwL, 1,I1Cj�1! +rirJ. I A 7rFi� .`.+r cls: G h svu • , t `�.� .arr • £;' �3� ��l e�'�d T S"r3.`,Ir f �`'�lY'O�e r;�.'�'�y't 4,re d � P '4�}i� - •?`�' a 'k.•. 4t" kr.. ''�*^ TVs', 1y,7; a p ,g S + kk1•P. �tr,b.{i;,, : •yf"+r �I9� s '�'•t,�^f. "�`£' F , ir`r'"�"�fiw r?ja'c�,T�,' s'$ i-v t y .,I '"x`t sdy,?f[,,3aF�.f � �vk '�, -• q e.� �. ! _ �.}^o-�� .�, t; �,� ��fns, .�4itO,�CT,,OB�ER{<2t3 *3.Cfo°,�'f�88` `� �` �• s�, t �,�• , R , tR' c :��{ $ev-.a, t - y - k �?�• v, .r ftp-a� 11 4"�1.�`°rT '.� �'3sP '��' {yxi •.:a. a s �#,eI'MWI CE"ifnpa�gn a .g� g �- ',rte T.HEME��-, .t ��.{�, 'H�; 1 f j�'1'f'.. - i• ��T j ft""4 L.iY�t b� y, tr!t e J• y �� "T E -CHOI 7 ,FOltt's E ' D �J FR 'F�t 0rary:Char((L�`�� nh ter_ ti 4 2 ti • , a 8;180 -� t •r•" -k' �Y E;t,,,lAL :5� + Y� '. t _AYegSt I IFIL' SGr.J tir t ddnt Rgnaltlm�e� araF}Ih c� ty f�� L • r IwVancy F�eagan �L�-� ,c��SYrMBCII�� F � ,>•t^ �' •*�P"&-.R a j •�7ta�;��rNykiti3L ��t#a +�`1 "l� MET', �.? 7 i ti*The FrEb, R 380 ft�z *ether s m3�ok„�.-. a#tohAVi'R ju'!i:'-fin K."� ,,N ti vA�' •'b to i cJ 4➢s f'�.w"' ,io a, >; .� i.,l+„r. n •m” ..�o ��f =r�„�h ��`'� �.rte'e.�L - � �t:�x• LC.:a� '�S' '.t,tu• P C'i R[+.L ,� RAT,n Rice I +s ?HO f ORiL�RYf ��yr� clg�zFreex�.You�hf�InC�*��"� �F�rtrti s i�,d'er�i�,E�o•'�n�aFZ.d��#�,; `�gaam; an '� Y '." '{�t:l"^".{, aY` n I**y�i�.,F� si�xY and .n �DgeUeoT# CA 'A �'iAf�i�r carff� e^4 8�30�G�eo�R�a�Ave� S�rfe 20�iy ��' �,�i��•`.'��' �h.° �,.Elv. v"'� ��', "��5� F -! L s _ s4'EJE `T / � t y t r Nall.',,� �,.:'Iy`` S �tw 'v$ ptFz Esc �eg pa'�,s� e�Il E 9� e�:� 1 b ti TIGARD SCHOOL DISTRICT 23LT i I. i' r" October, 1988 i �ns••aearoo� r D1�{sbt 37.1 Dear Community Members: The 1988 National Red Ribbon Campaign will be taking place the week of October 23-30. Tigard, Tualatin, Metzger, and school dishave trict. support the national campaign as a community The campaign goal is to create a drug-free America. Our objective of this comprehensive campaign is: This comprehensive campaign is designed to establish a parent/community network in every community to support drug-free life styles. The network Should include all aspects of the community: schools, parents, youth, religious institutions, business and industry, law enforcement, government, service organizations, media, health care, legislators, other concerned citizens, and YOU! The theme is "The Choice For Me, Drug Free." How you may participate: or 1. Wear a red ribbon during Red bon Week, tOcto he October 2and doub8e� in half. cut a piece of red ribbon 5 long, notch Make one for everyone you know- office, car antenna, trees, mailbox, 2. Put a red ribbon on your home, boss/employees, lightpost, newspaper bicycle, dog, spouse, friends, ad, on a billboard, and on your finger to remind you to d monstratlifee. to others that you are committed to a drug-free, healthy 3. Dave a basket of red ribbons where others can take one: in out.' do racy, on your desk, in a restaurant, in a church or synagogue, in y office, at school, in the bank, in the movie theatre, in the pharmacy, in the grocery store, and any other place that comes to mind. 4. Help our community by showing your visible commitment toward the creation of a drug-free America. conft•- .� You may order printed ribbons for 104 each by calling me daytime at 684-2319 or late afternoon and evenings at 620-1904. Time is short--please order by October 12. Also, more ideas and suggestions are available. Thank you. Connie Ramaekers Red Ribbon Chairman 1988 NFP NATIONAL REI) RIBBON CAMPAIGN Dear Friends; The NATIONAL FEDERATION OF PARENTS FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH, AND THE DRUG FREE YOUTH OF AMERICA, invite you to participate in RED RIBBON WEEK activities and programs This campaign offers a perfect opportunity for youth and adults to work together.It is time for every American to contribute in a positive way toward the creation of a DRUG FREE AMERICA.A DRUG FREE AMERICA means DRUG FREE YOUTH, and that translates into a STRONG AMERICA. Wear a RED RIBBON and"Stick Your Neck Out for Kids!" IVI Sharon Rose, Chairman 1988 National Red Ribbon Campaign i (916) 756-5610 PURPOSE OF THE RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN: To present a unified and visible commitment toward the creation of a DRUG FREE AMERICA. HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE: I. Wear a RED RIBBON during RED RIBBON WEEK, October 23-30, 1988. (Purchase printed ribbon from the order form in this brochure, or cut a piece of RED RIBBON 5" long, notch the ends, and double it in half. Make one for everyone you know!) 2. Put a RED RIBBON on your home, office, car antenna, trees, mailbox, bicycle, dog, spouse, friends, boss/employees, lightpost, newspaper ad, on a 7 billboard, and on your finger to remind you to demonstrate to others that + .0 you are committed to a drug-free, healthy life style. 3. Leave a basket of RED RIBBONS where others can take one: in the library, to FAMT DR on your desk, in a-restaurant, in a church or synagogue, in your doctor's office, at school, in the bank, in the movie theatre, in the pharmacy, in the G �� grocery store;and any other place that comes to mind. �o 4. Volunteer. Call your STATE RED RIBBON CHAIRMAN. FREE (See page 6 for name and number). 5. Organize your community group, using the wheel as a guide. For more information on mobilizing your community, call (916) 756-5610, or write 1988 RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN, 1306 Oak Avenue, Davis, CA 95616. 6. Customize the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN to fit the needs of your community. 7. Promote RED RIBBON SABBATH ................Saturday, October 22 RED RIBBON SUNDAY .................Sunday, Ocotber 23 RED RIBBON RALLY DAY.............Monday, October 24 WEAR RED DAY .........................Wednesday, October 26 RED RIBBON SPORTS WEEKEND ...Friday, October 28 Saturday, October 29 Sunday, October 30 8. Call your friends and encourage them to participate. 9. Share your campaign activities and stories with your RED RIBBON CHAIRMAN. (See page 6). 2 s; r i . c �r~~%c..a«ars in w it adVEfUSemerds. 3. Read this booklet and volunteer where you feel you can mako a dii- 4. Mace a unu%:rrncc�•��..� - • - ference. 5 Depict the RED RIBBON theme on ap paper products. iI 4. Pledge to chaperon an school-age nodal events. 6. Donate food and beverages for RED RIBBON events. i f PTA 7. Place a'RED RIBBON discount coupon' In the newspaper- ; 1. Plan a RED RIBBON event for your school. �'. SCHOOLS/COLLEGES . 2 Offer a drag education program for parents and children. 1. "the School Boardto adopt aprodamationdedwing October 23- f i 30 RED RIBBON WEEK i 3. Send a drug education Dyer home to parents. 2. Designate a RED RIBBON coordi ator- I 4. Help to raise money for the purchase of ribbons and buttons for your school3. Purchase RED RIBBON and buttons and distribute to yourstudents p and staff. 's4 4. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on the interior and exteriorof all REA LT0PS/I3UILDERS Weave RED RIBBONS through chain Ink fences to spec 1. Purchase RED RIBBONS arid buttons and distributetoyour staff and .Weave o to Drugs clients. Advertise to the public that they can obtain them at your out'Say '•' office,FREE. 5. °bid journalism competitions.Have a specW RED RIBBON edition i 2. Place RED RIBBONS and the'DRUG-FREE CHOICE'message in of your school newspaper- your advertisements. ix Hold special drug education programs and assemblies. i 3. Place RED RIBBONS on'FOR SALE"signs and construction signs. t' 7. Hold an essay contest and a poster contest Ask local newspapers 6; 4. Place RED RIBBONS in a prominent place on all vehicles. to feature the winning entries. & Hold a RED RIBBON rally during lunch hour and release red helium RECREATION DEPARTMENTS balloons' 1. Disp!ay RED RIBBONS and posters on buildings and equipment. 9. Pie special drug awareness skits,plays,and music. 4 2. Offer drug education programs for parents and children. 10 Provide drug education in--service for staff, , 6 3. Open your facilities for a RED RIBBON rally. 11. Hold a`TIE CEREMONY"-Wrap the school in red by passing RED RIBBONS from one child to the next around the exterior of the 4. Offer special RED RIBBON activities and drug-free projects during building October 23-30. 12 Answer the telephona October 23-30 wid%'celebrate RED RIBBON WEEK.wear a RED RIBBON'. RESTAURANTS 1. DisplayaRED RIBBON and the DRUG-FREE CHOICE message on your outdoor marquee. STUDENT GovERNBW.NT 1. EnWtheass6lanceofschoolsmffincoordinatngtheRED RIBBON 2. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on the interior and exterior of CAMPAIGN: buildings. Principal StWerd Activities Director i 3. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to staff and Music or Band Director customers. Cheedeading Oiredor School Newspaper i 12 13 I _ 1 2. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on the Wmior and exterior of Coaches Parents Association buil& s and on Wd poles. SADD ChapteNSafe Rides Group 3. purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to employees 2. Conduct a journalism competition.Have a RED RIBBON edition of and customers your school paper featunng drug-free activities. ' 4. Use the DRUG-FREE CHOICE theme on the marquee. i 3. Release het'prn-idled balloons with a DRUG-FREE CHOICE roes- 5. Plan RED RIBBON 6yers in customers bags sages. 4. Plan a rally for October 24. promote October 26 as'Wear 6. Hold a DRUG-FREE health fare during October 23-30. Red Day-. 5. Wrap your stool with RED RIBBONS. Weave RED RIBBONS SPORTS TEAMS through chain"fences. 1. Discard admission to anyone wearing RED during RED RIBBON WEEK. 6. Have cheerleaders compose original cheers to perform at the rally. Hold a RED RIBBON Rap Session and Air Band'competitions. 2. Use RED RIBBONS in advertisements. 7. Wte parents and families to a special drug education program. 3. Have a special RED RIBBON ceremony at a game during October 23-30. • ORGANIZATIONS 4. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to employees SERVICE OR.-ANL- TIONS � � 1. Encourage your members imrolvement by placing RED RIBBON and f Information in newsletters. 5. Encourage team members to participate as role models in RED 2 Educate members by holding special drug education programs. RIBBON canmunity activities. 3. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to members. 6. Feature the RED RIBBON theme on the scoreboard. 4. Underwrite RED RIBBON supplies for low income children. TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES 5. Participate in planning and implementationof RED RIBBON comma- 1. Purchase and drstnbute RED RIBBONS and buttons to all employ- nity activities. ees. 2. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on all vehicles. SENIOR CITIZENS I. Wear and display RED RIBBONS and posters. 3. Offer a substance abuse education program for employees i 2. Participate in planning and implementation of RED RIBBONcommu- 4. Offer a discount to patrons wearing RED RIBBONS. Nty activities. 3. Volunteer to cut and drstrdnute RED RIBBONS. U.S.FEDERAL AGENCIES/LEGISLATORS 1. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to all en>play- 4. Hold a drug education program in your neighborhood. ees. 5. Talk with friends and family about medication management and the 2. Display RED RIBBONS on an vehicles.(Postal Vehicles) dangers of mixing prescription drugs with alcohcl. 3. Place a drug•heee Gtestyles message in pay envelopes. SHOPPING CENTERS/MALTS 4. Answer telephones during October 23.90 with.'celebrate RED ± 1. Encourage merchants to use RED RIBBONS in advertising. RIBBON WEEK,wear a RED RIBBON' 14 15 �_ t 4. Answer the telephone during the week of October 29.30 with. 2. Place a RED RIBBON message in your advertising. 'celebrate RED RIBBON WEEK.wear a RED RIBBON'. 3. Oisplsy RED RIBBONS and postea at tM box o Ifice and concession stand LAW ENFORCEMENT/MGSWAF PATROL/FIItE DEPARTMENT 4. Purdhase and distribute RED RIBBONS and buttons to employees 1. Purchase RED RIBBONS and butters and distribute to as employ- and customers. ees. 5. Discoed admission for patrons wearing a RED RIBBON. 2 Display RED RIBBONS in a prominent place on all vehicles. 3. Help to plan and participate n community events. ' 6 Show a DRUG-FREE CHOICE message between films. 4. Offer your expertise as speakers to community groups. MEDY,c!-TV/ItADIO/NEWSPAPERS S. Fire Departments-Help decorate fight poles,buildings,signs,etc 1. ktiorm the community about the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN. with RED RIBBONS. 2. N and radio: Make public service announcements. Invite IED RIBBON participants to appear on talk shows. LABOR UNIONS 1. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to your mem- 3. Eters:Assign reporters to cover the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN. bens. 4. Fe-clxe drug prevention information during October 23-30. 2. Sponsor a drug/alcohol education programs for members and thei families. 5. Advertise that there will be a'twice For Me,Drug-Free'page devoted to all you want their names listed 3. Offer a workshop for employers about employee polices and em- 6. Produce iniornational brochures for your community. ployee assistance programs. 4. Hold Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous rreafmgs at 7. Request advertiser to use the RED RIBBON theme. the union hall. 8. Use RED RIBBONS on the front page October 23-30. 5. Promote the RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN in your newsletters. 9. Display and wear RED RIBBONS on al tical N programs. LIBRARIES 1. Create a permanent drug prevention resource center. NEIGBBORgi0OWATCH t. licit a neighborhood drug education evening. 2. Create and d6inbute drug-free bookmarks during RED RI88CN WEEK 2. Distthbute information detailing the process of ratifying law enforce- went agencies about suspected drug dealing. 3. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribute to saff and patrons. 3. Request local merchants to purchase and dhstnbute RED RIBBONS and buttons. 4. Sponsor a drug education program for youths and adults. 4. CispIay RED RIBBONS and posters. S. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on the interiorandextenioroftihe building. PAF.&*7.5/FAAULIES 1, Wear and display RED RIBBONS in your tame and on your cars. MOVIE TI3PA.TERS 2. 1Yscuss DRUG-FREE life-styles with your children. 1. Plane a'Drug-Free Choice'message on the theater mx7_ee. r 10 ti 1. 5. Form a partnership with local schools' UTILIT!COMPANIES POWER.WATER.TELEPHONE.REFUSE 1. Purchase RED RIBBONS and buttons and distribide t°aU employ- . ees• 2• Display RED RIBBONS on all vehicles. 3. Place a RED RIBBON message in Seplerriberl0d �stornefs statements. 4. Place a RED RIBBON message in you advertising and in Your in- ` house newsletters. 5. Answer telephones during October M40 with,'celebrate RED RIBBON WEEK,wear a RED RIBBON'. 6. Display Drugs are Garbage signs on garbage tricks. 7. Help decorate with RED RIBBONS on fight poles,buildings,signs. C etc. 8. Display RED RIBBONS and posters on the interior and exterior of buildings. YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS 1. Plan special RED RIBBON events and activities for youths and their families during October 23-30. 2. Offer a substance abuse education program for youths and their jennies. 3• Volunteer to help plan and produce your communitys RED RIBBON events. 4. Coordinate youths to help cut and distribute ribbons. 5. Hold essay contests and art contests with a RED RIBBON theme. C 16 %%at is the Problem? 69%of all high school seniors use some drug and 41%get drunk every 2 weeks. * The leading causes of death of high schoc TigwdSch�l 7rnC�, igar students are drunk driving and suicide directly Tigard Tunis the Tule °i"'`c`z Schoolistrict attributable to drug/alcohol use. and Tu i The average age of beginning use of drugs or the Tide have joined hands in becoming a alcohol is 11.6 years. Tigard Turns the Tide is a non-profit organization of part of the solution. Join us in our pledge to ® 15 million teenagers risk damage to their lungs, brain and reproductive systems by smoking parents and community members concerned about inform, educate and support our Idds and drug use in Tigard,Tualatin,Durham and Metzger. marijuana every day. community as we turn the tide against & The teenage life expectancy has decreased by substance abuse. 15% since 1960 due to driving under the it is . . influence. ® 1 in 10 adolescents is an alcoholic. A group of volunteers wonting on the goal of Drug - i�� . Free Youth through education, prevention and Who is to Blame? . increasing youth potential. There are over 9,000 Education and prevention are our only PARENTS other parent/community groups across the country hope for preserving our most valuable who are part of the parent movement that started in natural resource . . . our young people. POLICE SOHO_OLS 1976. JUDGES • LEGISLA ORS STUDENTS ,y are parents ....................................................... We are all to blame. However,blame is nonproduc- 0 Membership Application five. We all need to be responsible for our own part i '®1'taDit? of the solution and for giving a clear "no drug" Tigainl Turns the Tide message. Each segment of the community must ^• "`1i Parents are the keyto reducing drug/alcohol use do their part to achieve the goal of Drug Free Youth. through education and prevention. 1t, I would like to support your efforts by making a tax Mat at P of the solution ® With scientific and medical facts and additionally deductible donation of S motivated by love,parents are helping to change are you? � young peoples attitudes about drugs/alcohol. MV Name - °'b``b ;? ® Parent/community groups are making tremen- Al ° dous strides through sharing their ideas and Address methods. IMpyiT�11 DRUG SDS>�S`^ ' FREE If there is any hope for successfully fighting ,coil, YOUTH ,aKe America's teenage drug use, parents must join Phone forces. Government agencies will continue to try to e �-b curb the supply of illegal drugs,but parents are the Tigard Tums the:ride ° `'• key to reducing the demand. P.O.Box 230694 Tigard,OR 97223 M nd o� I t I MW Ismalmas � � r £ZZL6 210'pjeB L IV690£Z XOS 'O'd aP11 aLp swns pnBu Id � A �r . � � � � � � p�� ps 8 :3 O C v � n�l p w y v - 0 3 � C � � � N. 0 co Ln S jE !'°1 l a° v 0 r i-: r P 4 r A Ad Dr--- oil Tigard School E- ® District 23J i ka s.�ia� r'_� i r -� r .. ,"?�, i':.- r •,f�.1'� ...+.(c•}k'��Yi.�i� We believe that Tigard School District can look with pride on its significant number of alcohol and drug-free youth. i The decision to be drug-free demonstrates capability, responsibility,and maturity. A proven strategy that promotes this choice is to instill in young people a sense of self-worth, and to ' acknowledge their good judgment. As concerned citizens of Tigard School District,we give recognition and encouragement to these drug-free youth. Our mission is to raise community awareness and to convey our pride in young people and their achievements. You can help kids to resist the tremendous°pressure many feel to use drugs. By displaying this card,you demonstrate your, pride and support for the many healthy;'drug=free.young.people who enrich our community'and represent our besvhope_for- the future • For more information Call Tigard School District i 684-2319 I � + f T 1 F,`'4. r.=. inr � ty� i�+ F t+ � �� ht �•: Y t - s t �.c '' _� a.s - { b •y 4 wt tic.'. +r 't � n C 1l,, t, 1 x r, ,.r}-� t � «a ^�i R w '] �F 1y�•� p i1.'r � �+t-Fta��^1' 4•�. �,f r+ v r z „-� ,,`f f.Fa ' .fir �-+.. w it r�.t Xz ,,� t p t 1 d � [ 1�3 S .'4. ➢rt `+ . l� �.-� x t s '3#,.•�r �,F i.su :.t r et-I�k'��.K4)t� r r��1 r ��✓ ��.,�,,.��'.`c *�.y- � y r.3 r e `, ft�e �.&i�'"'�F'�i;YdiZ�.'�k'S��r�i.5.r'�� .k„'+'"' bh:Y'• pt, '�td�` r��':�'h .�'i."•::'� :�A. �r �d . i a'. CITY OF TIGA.RD, OREGON. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: September 30, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE- Appointment of PREVIOUS AC-1-ION: N/A Tnsurance Aqent of Record PREPARED BY : Loreen. Wiltsyn STE DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK\_M REQUE . .D BY: Loreen Wilson ------ --------- POLICY ISSUE Council set policy for insurance contracts by adoption of the purchasing rules. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has an on—going relationship with an insurance broker to act as our Agent of Record. This agent assists us in soliciting and roviewing property and liability carriers annually and throughout the year assists us by handling claims and providing advice. The Leonard Adams Company in Beaverton has been serving us in this capacity for the last 10 years. Our Purchasing Rules specify that we will open selection for our Agent of Record at least every three years. On 9/20/88, the City invited written proposals from insurance companies to serve as the City's "Agent of Record," The proposals received were from the following companies: Leonard Adams Company -- Beaverton; Arthur J. Gallagher — Portland; Insurance Associates — Tigard; JBL & K (Jewett, Barton, Leavy & Kern, Inc.) — Portland; Fred S. James — Portland; and Rollins, Burdick & Hunter — Portland. The After careful review of the proposals, three firms were interviewed. selection committee recommendations follow. ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED — 1. Approve the appointment of the Leonard Adams Company as Insurance Agent of Record through May 31, 1991, and authorize City staff to negotiate a personal services contract to be signed by the City Administrator. 2. Give further direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT 1. Control the cost of commercial insurance as well as assistance to develop the City's formal Risk Management Program. $95,000 is budgeted for the City's commercial insurance purchase. 2. Unknown. SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative #1 Motion to appoint the Leonard Adams Company as Insurance Agent of Record through May 31, 1991, and authorize City staff to negotiate a personal services contract to be signed by the City Administrator. dc!7313D CITY OF TIGARD., OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY mber 30, 1988 AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: �d by Budget -r9R11F/AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of PREVIOUS ACTION: APPrOv Vacuum Catch Basin Cleaner and Hi -Committer _Pressure Se Cleaner PREPARED BY: John Aqy--- 01 7 IN 1< CI REQUESTED BY: DEPT HEAD I CITY ADMIN OK- POLICY ISSUE Council has set policy by adoption of the Purchasing Manual. The Council and Budget Committee discussed this item during the budget session last spring, and budgeted $129,484 towards the purchase. INFORMATION SUMMARY A bid was called for one (1) truck mounted combination vacuum catch basin cleaner and high pressure sewer cleaner to replace the 1971 Ford Chassis sewer cleaner-. Four vendors responded with one vendor submitting two proposals, for' a total of five bids received. Of the bids received, 4 bids were disqualified for not meeting specifications (see attached Exhibit A) . The low bidder who pet specifications is being recommended for the bid award. More information, including the bid specifications, the actual bids, staff explanations of the exceptions to the bids, and 4-erences from other cities, are available at the Community Development Director's office. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED L- Purchase of one of the other pieces of equipment bid. This alternative was rejected because the other equipment has significant exceptions to the bid specifications. FISCAL IMPACT The low bid without exceptions is $128,950; $534 below the budgeted amount. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommends award of the truck mounted combination vacuum catch basin cleaner and high pressure sewer cleaner to Sahlberg Equipment of Portland, Oregon for a Vactor 835 for $128,950. br/7225D EXHIBIT' A Bids Received for Combination Sewer Cleaner Vendor Model Exceptions Bid General Equipment - 1st Proposal Aquatech B--5MS 4 $118,899 6767 NE Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 188-7447 Utility Equipment Super Products 9 $12.1,411 12805 SW 77th P1 Camel 200M Tigard, OR 97223 620-0611 Sahlberg Equipment Vactor 835 0 $128,950 13691 NE Whitaker Way Portland, OR 97230 255-7767 General Equipment - 2nd Proposal Aquatech B-5MS 3 $129,359 6767 NF_ Columbia Blvd Portland, OR 97218 ,r 288-7447 �i Environmental Pollution Vac-Con V312T 5 $130,936 Control Inc 1600 SE Evelyn St PO Box 763 Clackamas, OR 97015 655-9683 The following exceptions to specifications from vendors all affected either safety, production, performance, or maintenance of the equipment. For• these reasons the bids were disqualified. General Equipment - First Proposal - Aquatech B-5MS I . Belt drive instead of direct drive. 2. 2700 CFM blower instead of 3500 CFM blower. 3 . 54" telescoping boom instead of 5' (60") telescoping boom. 4. Truck vendor states that there is not equal weight distribution. Utility Equipment - Superproducts Camel 200 1. 1800 gal. water tanks instead of 2000 gals. 2. Stationery hose reel instead of articulating hose reel. 3 . 3386 CFM blower instead of 3500 CFM blower. 4. 4-5' of telescoping boom instead of minimum 5' telescoping boom. 5. 14 cubic yard debris box instead of 5 cubic yards. 6. Ejector plate debris body instead of dump debris body. f 7. Belt drive instead of direct drive 8. Excess water, pump off is from stand pipe at bottom of tank with controls located on left side of truck away from operator station instead of floating discharge arm located at top of debris tank with controls at operator station. 9. Unequal weight distr•ibuLiun General Equipment - Second Proposal - Aquatech B-5MS 1. Belt drive instead of direct drive. 2. 54" telescoping boom instead of minimum 5' telescoping boom. 3. Truck vendor states that there is not equal weight distribution. Environmental Pollution Control Inc - Vac-Con U312T 1 . 2 engine unit instead of single engine unit. 2. Water pump runs off auxiliary engine instead of direct drive from chassis engine. 3. Polyethylene (plastic) water tanks instead of 10 gauge steel tanks. 4. Stationary front mounted hose reel instead of articulating hose re^1. 5 Fan type blower system instead of a positive displacement blower. ht/7225D �1 4,( CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 ............. DATE SUBMITTED: -September 2 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution PREVIOUS ACTION: Terrace Subdivision aqceRt��IigPutler -.-. - 777Y# / public im.p.rovementsPREPARED BY: john Hagman DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OKUYV-- REQUESTED BY: Community Deve p. Dept.. POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY 1 . Butler Terrace Subdivision is located at the west end of SW Inez Street, westerly of SW 93rd Avenue. 2. All public improvements have now been satisfactorily completed and have withstood the required one year maintenance guarantee period. 3 . The Engineering Division certifies that the improvement is now acceptable and that all requirements have been met. 4. Therefore, it is recommended that (in accordance with the terms of the project agreement) the City Council accept the public improvements, namely - street, pathway, sanitary sewer system, and streetlighting for City operation and maintenance responsibility, and further, that the Council authorize release of the assurance bond. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None; the (City-Developer) project agreement specified City acceptance upon satisfactory completion of all. City requirements. . FISCAL IMPACT 1. City assumption of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the public improvements specified above. SUGGESTED ACTION Pass the Resolution titled: "A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMIZ.NTS KNOWN AS BUTLER TERRACE SUBDIVISION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS." ke/7143D ,L/, 44 b CITY OF TIGARD OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: September 191 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Resolution PREVIOUS AIf:CON: PlacecJ on maintenance acceptinq Befk..___Sanitary Sewer _guarantee period__-- PkEPARED BY: ichin Hai DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Community DeJelo�Dept ._._.`__..�___._ - POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY 1. The Beck Sanitary Sewer extends northwesterly from SW Erste Court (said street: being in Genesis Subdivision) . The sewer line is a 155 foot extension of the Genesis sewer system, serving tracts located at 115th Avenue/Fonner Street. 2. All public improvements have now been satisfactorily completed and have withstood the required one—year maintenance guarantee period. 3. The Engineering Division certifies that the improvement is now acceptable and that all requirements have been met. q. Therefore, it is recommended that (in accordance with the terms of the project agreement) the City Council accept the public sanitary sewer improvement, for City operation and maintenance responsibility and, further, that the Council authorize release of the assurance mond. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None; the (city—Developer) project agreement specified City acceptance upon satisfactory completion of all City requirements. ••--------•--FISCAL IMPACT s 1. City assumption of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the t public sanitary sewer improvement specified above. SUGGESTED ACTION i I Pass the Resolution titled: "A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT KNOWN AS BECK SANITARY SEWER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT." ht/6982D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council September 29, 1988 FROM: Jill Monley, Interim City Administrator SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, FY 1987-88 Attached is an updated tentative calendar for this fiscal year. Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk (M) . I've put question marks (?) along side those still needing Council OK. If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. October `88 3, Mori No Council Meeting 6, Thurs Metro Managers Meeting, West Linn City Hall, 2--5 pm *10, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 10, Mon Columbus Day 11, Tues Neighborhood Town Hall (Fowler 7 pm, Forum Rm. ) 12, Wed Neighborhood Town Hall (Metzger 7 pm) *17, Mori Council :study Agenda (6:30 Joint Meeting w/ Utilities & Franchise Committee) 18, lues Neighborhood Town Hall (Twality 7 pm) 19, Wed Transportation Meeting (To be announced) 19, Wed MACC Meeting (1:30) -- Beaverton Library 20, Thurs Metro Mayors Meeting (Trianon 6:30/7:30 pm) *24, Mon Joint Meeting with Tigard School District (5:30-7:00 pm) Council Business Agenda (7:00/7:30) 25, Tues Board and Committee Training (7 pm) 26, Wed Summerfield Residents Meeting (7 pin) 27, Thurs Board of Youth Open House Reception (4-6 pm, 447 SE Baseline, Hillsboro) 31, Mon Halloween 31, Mon No Council Meeting November 188 3, Thurs MACC Public Hearing for Community Access Rules & Procedures, 7:30 pm, Wa. Co. Fire District 01, Aloha, Training Rooms 1&2 5, Sat- Beaverton Arts Commission Open Night (7 pm, Food Court Cascade Plaza, 8775 SW Cascade Ave, Beaverton) 7, Mon No Council Meeting 8, Tues Election Day 12-15, Sat-Tues League of Oregon Cities Conf. in Portland *14, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 15, Tues Board and Committee Chairs Meeting (7:3.0 pm) 16, Wed MACC Meeting (1:30) - Beaverton Library 18,19,20 Council Workshop (w/new CA and new Council) *21, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30 Joint Meeting w/Econ. Dev. Cum./7:30) 24-25, Thurs-Fri Thanksgiving Holiday 28, Mon No Council Meeting 30, Wed Appointment Advisory (5:15 pin) Council Calendar - Page 1 December ,_86 ?Dec Council Goals Workshop? *5, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) *12, Mon Council Study Agenda (6:30 Joint Meeting w/Library Board/7:30) *19, Mon Council Business Agenda (6:30/7:30) 21, Wed MACC Meeting (1:30) — Beaverton Library 26, Mon No Council Meeting 26, Mon Christmas Holiday January '89 2, Mon No Council Meeting 2, Mon New Year' s Day 16, Mori Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday February. '89 14, Tues Valentine's Day 20, Mori President's Day March '89 17, Fri St, Patrick's Day 24, Fri Good Friday 26, Sun Easter May `B9 t 14, Sun Mother's Day 29, Mon Memorial Day June '89 14, Wed Flag Day 2.9, Mon Memorial Day July '89 4, Tues Independence Day September '89 4, Mon Labor Day October `89 31, Tues Halloween November '89 23-24, Thurs—Fri Thanksgiving Holiday _December '89 25, Mon Christmas Holiday mh0028a Council Calendar — Page 2 k i A , C� r MEMORANDUM f CITY OF TIGARDI LORETN TO: Honorable Mayor, cil tterim City Administrator FROM: Chief of Police d SUBJECT: August 1988 Monthly Report During the month of August the following activities occurred. Officer Harburg, who is the motor officer on day shift, took delivery of his new Harley Davidson motorcycle, the first American made motorcycle for the f Police Department. There has been an increase in Southeast Asian Gang criminal activity, both in , shoplifting and theft from autos, particularly at Washington Square. As a result of recent arrests, Officer Gard is developing an intelligence file of active criminals and gang members. t There is an apparent increase in DUII activity, as there were 6 DUII arrests 'r made by First Night officers this month. , In other activity, an arrest for Attempt to Elude a Police Officer was made. Three subjects were arrested for Criminal Mischief to vehicles at the Meadow Creek Apartments. On that same date a subject was also arrested for burglary, also at the Meadow Creek Apartments. On August 5, a subject was arrested in the employee parking lot after being k observed tampering with police cars and employee vehicles. The observation 's was made by dispatchers using the outside security cameras. s I A double fatality occurred on Bull Mountain Road and S.W. McFarland Blvd. or August 7. Quick action by responding officers prevented further injury death when a passenger in one of the involved vehicles was administered first aid to clear an obstructed airway. Two subjects were arrested on S.W. Fanno Creek Drive near S.W. Bonita Rd. when officers responded to a theft from vehicle call from a citizen. Further investigation resulted in the discovery of an additional theft from auto in Tualatin, in which several hundred dollars in Canadian currency was returned to the victim who was traveling from British Columbia to California. Sgt. Martin received training in Field Training Officer Management in Boulder, Colorado during the month. 5, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF': October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: October 3, 1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: SW 79th Avenue PREVIOUS ACTION: Str•eetiighting LJU, Public Hearing A PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley DEPT' HEAD 0K CITY ADMIN 01<_ REQUESTED BY: —------------- POLICY ISSUE Shall a local improvement district be formed for the installation of street lights on SW 79th Avenue between Pfaff-le and Thorn Streets? .............. INFORMATION SUMMARY October 10, 1988, is the date set for a public hearing on formation of the proposed LID. Notices were sent to all property owners on September• 27, 1988. At the October 10 meeting, Council will receive any remonstrances. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached ordinance forming the district. 2. Direct that the LID proposal be modified. 3. Direct that the LID proposal be abandoned. FISCAL IMPACT All costs will be paid by the LID. SUGGESTED ACTION Staff recommendation will follow the closure of the public hearing, after any remonstrances have been heard. br/7312D SPRUCE ST. Streetlight Local Improvement-District ISI 36CA S.W. 79th Avenue 1 2206 2205 2204 spin=Wt. 2203 THORN—w"ST. 2208 2202 8 2201 rrArFla�; 2209 4700 2300 Vicinity Nla1 4600 2400 4500 a3D1 03 2500 22 .rya,1ri11lra A Madan •lamp,rwacd i LLda bm3jre.Ndfn red.a A L 7M Av 0610 r an 79th Ave P.O.bas 6100 Tigac6,Cr 97323 raetlyd.Or 97226-6400 4400 2201 220170 10660 6M 79th Aw. ILj **A@=,W"%Vn A Ditty Goch,amid A Joan Edwn, mirky J. ' 40 2"M Clccla 12535 of rain o:. 7915 AM sl,ocn te. a Apache Junetlan,As 65220 Tl9acd,Cc 97233 Tigard,Or 97327 4300 W 50 of 10679th Ave. aar 7906 AM 22ma At. 2206 2209 2300 2700 rack,4,onis ZanOar,Dal Nmonal4, idth a A401• 7960 9N Shorn St. 13700 DM 6.11 Blvd. 10975 69 79th Ave. !!good.Cc 97227 .Tigacd,oc 9732.1 SSgacd,oe 97335 4201 Ali 74915 SM 79th Ave. 2400 2500 • 2800 27oO Lrdan,NMI Jean Mosby 6e1 A lterjoria SW q,O."G 11005 m 79th Ave. 11065 Alf 79th Aw. 6265 AM Landon At. 4100 figacd,Cr 97223 ftgara,Cr 97327 °actlow'.Or 97323 M 11095 of 79th Ave. 2900 2600 2900 3000 Ace**Juan i Da•a iidd•, Inbact Jr.A Bette Woolhar•,David 11125 6M 79th Aw. 11155 SW 79th Ave. cJs Demay,»oW� 4000 Ti9ad,Cr 97327 Tigard,Cc 97321 11165 6M 79th Aw. Tlgacd,tr 97323 3000 31CO 3200 3300 Bteto of 0..Diet Of Y.A. L•-.Anch, tut1wr A etilean Lots,LOOM"A Malan yu Cotro,Ilagac A Jo•rm 11255 Bit 79th Aw. 7935 M rtasua 8t. 3900 =• Tig"t,Cc 97331 Tigut,Or 97233 3100 figamL• 3371 3500 3600 . aaaars'ith.Jahn A Aarbaca ratemm,Gtcy A J•nii 264¢it,Aobact N. 3800 31J06 6M 79th Ave. 113100 m 79th Ave. 90. 11of 79th Aw. llgacd,Or 97223 Tigard,Cr 97323 119aod,Oe 97333 3200 3 3700 3600 3900 cd Thal.GIA&P B. rayrAlda.touall A mostly Aowuw,zVore t A*htrieia 3700 11260 601 79th AVO. 11250 of 79th Ave. 11200 M 79th Ave. T1Wtd.Cr 97223 TL9acd,Cr 97223 Tig•ed,Cr 97333 4m 4100 42M falai*,Lillian 6. Johmon, Lacey 1umLk, MAW i 71wi]s 11170 6M 7M Ave. Daacwl.d.WL 11110 AM 79th Ave 3600 TSWcd,Or 97223 13U0 of 79th Aw. Tigard,Or 97221 3h01 TLgud,ar 9= 43W 44M 4W AnOa®On, Zacl A OlodysGaY,lcvn•a. - mi ak,R thomm 1060 1 91f 79th Ave. 11650 m 74th Ave. 11020 9M 79th Ave. Cc 97321 Tigard,or 97233 Tigard,Or 97223 3500 4m 4m 3300 Masuffil. Levis A Am Oaniad,,Maltw A thcleta 10990 M 79th Ave' 10960 9N 79th Aw. TSgaa6,Or 97323 TSgaed,Cr 97223 ( � S.W. , WAFFLE STREET 9.ar o aa>oewr o®o�■o I ISI 36CA .:)EVELLPMEMT PAM MEMT Li �A IT ?LAM f , _.! p , t)l►i!#!t r T p�pa!_rt# 1'I111 NOTE: IFTHIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE To THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. .- -- - - - a Oe 6z 8z Lz 82 Sz 1z sa —zz 12 oz BI 81 Ll s+ r 01 ei zl U 01 6 ® d-- 9 g b e z lmum � R; :iHd16 •n`V 199. � g� =d� T I U)t�: lu S.W. _ 13016TA (MAJOR COLLECTOR) ROAD �- 000 Zoe u - SW 1/4 E 1/4 SECT�i 12 i 2S 1 $ �€ s ' S°c - ISO ", iNASTi3lt COUNTY.OREGON - - - A-1 CO r - Z3 r _ SCALE:_ m 7 --02 Z 4,X `f/ /' �^ tom• cc u SEA, S:'A'.�L ,+my VICINITY MAP f SCAL I -' "r#E YiLE W -4 ZBEAVERTON T20ar�/ m I d T T00 � PORTLAND 2300 1 / { ME !t4 1 2200 _ % -- — _ SW g µ0 S I .r r 2100 ( 9 1400 m 2001 c- '+ w C ,3°° SITE 2000 0 m Q '` �O a KRUSE Wy. W . g(::D r I r o o _ m = ONITA R m 4.83 ACRES TIGARDBITE on 1900 yQp E IT 1600 3 oA yE N O O PPP 1500 y M Fq�y \ 1801 LAKE OSWEGO s N 7 Imz 0 ® ® --- SW TUALATIN RD. - 's A(k 1800 1700 D I D PP• NYBER ST. S ZC \\ ..Gmj SW BORLAND RD. Q' 2=04 m _ m 0 1-205 TUALATIN y o G _u o ` tips r►rll�►�rlrlrlr I�II111 Iirlr{r I�Ilr�r r�rrrir I�1 r(r T m nl i�I 11'1i I�illI►1'�rlllll'��IIIr�IIrIII'IrlNrl�.�� NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED ---- - _I - 2 3 4 G 6 7 8 9 O 1t 12 DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL DRAWING. OE 6Z 93 ZZ 9Z SZ 9Z C2 Zz 12 02 of 9i LI 91 9! $11 E1... Z1 jI.- oi- AbWA 45 l[)c.VclDpmenf APAKTMENT P[ A �l � v _.. �frj?N } fk i rti s{i t tlf t p o f i 4 i p _ � ____- - - _ 1__ � __ 2 � � •�.�.� � �� ._6_ �, �� f�-(�� 1�i � �fr�Jr�}e;�il!¢iti ►if}trl�itr�irllJ{i�iJrjlgi}rf!' _ ti _ . _... .__ NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING Oe sa 8a to ea SZ 4z --ez zz la ®a BJ of Sf 81 st `l ._ef Zr if _OI 6 --® �— 9 4 0 — E z rte` Lror�rrylaau�uttlour�iMdix�i rt � . _w w +T wi a - .. ' 6 •c > f F f r s w C x .. h A 4W V14 1.0 lit ..r .. •SM& s 4 > ss� 40 . t —4d lot; -'s tt f n - :+� �"C�•. '.t -� F'./ ,. - "t+....•s3 .r�.':ti t Ate:� "s; �Y;� ��'�'�:-- ' R" ,c 9 _ s `pZ x .rt •1r. - .t' , , R {, •7• �' ^Sl` M` M �r �ek .,� ,�1�'.+�r. a. • :'�. �`�� ..-•R'�.a. :. .._..,. -.,..•–.. _•,,.... ';' a:, � 4' Y:a': :� .fit:: .i , _.__—_. __ ___. __ _. ._ _._. ,rl�n,uln I�I�n!rlq,n��ul,nplrin.!�I�pli!.I,I,L!,irin,!�I�pn��lipnl�lilin��iggil�l9n,��gilipli pl�liuplgri rin opnplgrl�ingnr!ny�n!rl��n•pl�pr '• 2 3 a 5 fi ) B 9 �0 ---12� 32X L��dr�6zrn„�L�r�bL �.,„m91��o�sln�d��91,00,rd„InnLinlmliL��,l„�I nnnldlndwelnubmllilAm9!r.u6�54mLile'ni:r:d „� ll��Jlnllnnln��llullnll61111�1nlillllnll6utlnn6lnlnldnnlnu lwlllll ll6 llllnlndn��l��llluhnl12 MARCH 8 11990 lbi in Is L Va- PmarLt v I-e-V LA 2I i+.113 t{+ l{r {Ip�l Tit ► €��t}z flit _ a,w Ip _j1. Tom Ijf tjl t� t t{.1 I r �1�T � �.�� 1_� .1_ � � I t�f{{tl�t#{Itttj-ri1�:R�it��ltllllllt'{''r;l�lilll{t�l4t�itl�e{II�}��►t ,. _ ,, _� .. NOTE: IF THIS MICIZOFILlED s DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN _ .._I{_ oZ THIS NOTICE. 2T IS DUE TO 1 T}E QUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL DRAWING... 8Z SZ 4Z�_ _ _ OE 6Z 8Z CZ EZ ZZ .12 -0Z 6t'e1 LI 9! St^ 1.t EI ZI !t 01 8 __.8_......C__ 9 —5 � .E_ ._Z { . I tF d�IM�lid/xddpd I 41 ar - it — — - - - ti I 4 4 AS # f 1,7 ts '�'� A� �` �_ � �. �: �( , �'Lir✓", /jF �" 1 _ r - w e• # _ - I � I _. II � IiI � Pt - _ .asao.�a _ 3Y'TG' ,QG1LeiOP NT- PLAN �w v..:-. .-.: .,:-..._ -, ..- iltf JI1N'L GyYJ.Ir..4IC.VS'':9YGG'/LdO._/R4feJacYs'�N-tJNVR4:.sc•FbIR T:I ^+nSM?_di'-.Om RL[�. .' _ zu Q �. A�c;3b 'yS(L JL`i�GO:-m:�6�Rm ANO.-.T.L.'J .O.I' 7E/VCRC...HGtlO/Ai1P ?Sl•IOAO.T.L:6OO Oa'O.gy i1CRG ...:I?p(� 7 7 L..0�'AC/11G4.�.. 4. .rT.-,•ACYdNs 4OT.MV 4�liF`Q i"•FS,000 Rw'T.:/.!% < ii'� 0 - .. 5' _ u lJ®��.1JL7 1,lBE OF I I 1 111 I I I I I P VIII III IIII11111III IIIIII1111111IIII II�IIIIIII I1 r11111III IIIIIill1111111 I1111f11 11111IIIII11111I11111 PIIII IIII1111111111111111I VIII I1111111I1111111I1111111 NOTE: IF THIS MICRDFILNED I 2 3 4 5 6 7 :8 9 11Y10 II 12�24 ORANING[s-Ess CLEAR iHPN ' TNIs NOTICE,IT IS On TO TME DUALITY OF TIE ORIGINAL I.' DRAMING. - - ..__ __._...._. _ ____I I-�_�.�___� ��1 �.�1� '��1 I�� I� M��IE111111161�IZIIIIIIII�IZIIIIIII1�1Z1111111911z111�1111�11111111111111�Zlllfl-22 lfttllllllll IWU��IIIIII4UIUfIII�IIWI�IUU�IIIIIIWIUUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�UWIIIIIILWUWIWUUIIIIII 8 11111�IIIIIIIII�IINIIIII�II 11111�IIIIIII��IE ,, Z IA"1�r Ul�l DIWllW111111IW1IIWlllllr jiMARCH 11990 f i - ---------------------------------------------- •TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- -se the undersi-nea want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS:_��/Ql Cp 4 7 a3 .TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the .rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. ADDRESS: JOHN BOWDEN TIGARD, OR 97223 f -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W_ 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! N SIGNED: LQ ' ADDRESS: � __._ .S 4(J IV � r 7� 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- •TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. I We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this j fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required j to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED C�•'LLt./. ! � ) i ADDRESS: �3��, .e1GaL_ 5 �� (�(.t: `_a, '� -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- i a� n to We the undersigned want the cosi. of •yIIiYiavvciuciaa� .�.�. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: ots ADDRESS: I .Z S . W• LJ I L-I D N Ad E . 1`1 GAP D OR 9 -7 2Z3 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! -�_� J SIGNED: , ADDRESS: 2 Z3 'TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1 ,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: / ADDRESS=//��`� cSl✓ �,/fr.✓Ao r/ eP x'722-3 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- we the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsi SIGNED- ADDRESS: 1 t i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL-.- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial. burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl X'/ SIGNED: l•J2�- P��r�, �/�,[lGri�� ADDRESS: I%7 L0(-)j,0 91 z z--3 ----------- ----------------------------------------------- --- ----------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ;1LSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: r r/ ADDRES : �z_3 ------- - ---------------------------------- - .D' mn mr�o urvno np TTIrHAiI sA7Tl THF. IPT!_ARn VTTY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D_ assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: 11 ADDRESS: 5 L TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL! We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED, c ADDRESS: U✓eS�LJ� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: If 7EO C)-,t 7,202.E ------- ----- --------------- ----- ------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: �GT1� 71T)DRESS: �0 �� 1�t , Cil- cm ll ----------------------------- ----------------------------- r.: TO TSE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair II financial burden on selected residents within the S.W_ry loaimatelF Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, app uate $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be req. to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the : rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue withthe rest of Tigard streets! q SIGNED: ) Q. i� ADDRESS: ----------- --------------- --------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the ; rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S. . 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard strek SIGNED: �� T 'ADDRESS:Adf S,1,/, Ax/11 Olrl UGZ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! '* A SIGNED: GG ZLAVE ULAO ADDRESS: c3s7-7 50 As & V uJ - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- • ADDRESS: ; a 9.7220 TO THE MAYOR OFTIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets SIGNED: ADDRESS: 60( TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this i if 4 fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair c; I financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th ! Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately ! $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are Still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. `> Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SZGNE f � ADDRES :-�� SW ��alZh)N c, TIMI IJP E TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. r_ 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy lir street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED ADDRESS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- . We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th .Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS_ !3 3 S lJ .1, lV. �2/ TT�' `� D? rrO ,4le 0: o - --------------- pieB�i �� TO THF 1t •MTI AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- asna\, iauyi.ta i �:- We tfie un erslgiied want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: )� ---------------------------- ----------------------------------- . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: ---------------------- -------------------------------------- ®e. -TO---T-HE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a .pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:y ADDRESS: Zt�( /�LC i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCILWe the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- all io— ADDRESS: qC &U&" x 64 C f ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- A We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: -------------------------------- ---------------- . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not.:to.do so would-be placing an:unequal and:unfair. financial. 'burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.-I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:— ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of imprOveiden tG 9-14. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall- Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! � SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: Im aa-3 --------------------------------. - --------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: /.207S' S.ZJ, /J/E .s- -------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t_. -a__--�.`--_,a _ .. ..L__ �. ..i �.w..r�esn�nns�i_ +� C W we %aac under Signe—I wish. �_aa•._ CO3— v »rte - - - 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED ADDRESS:L-,� � .> 7 i ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE •MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not .to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then .we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We -cne iaiiuci aiy... a .ern+ i_-,P cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for f< street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th G' Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately ee $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required I to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are .k still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl r k: y SIGNED: h LEj f" ADDRESS: 13 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we. vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard str etsl I, " SIGNED: ADDRESS: ------------------------------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- low We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! - SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: 157 ------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are stili obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. ADDRESS --------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: s ADDRESS: 111712 S,Al' -' ----------------------------------------- ------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL* We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L,.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: :e ;7d,)-3 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- we the unaersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. t I Be fair -- WeC pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: _I 3q-:2-3 Sco E-n-nclot\ C.+ t' t =a -- ---_ ------------------- "l TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ' . We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required u to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! 'g SIGNED. -d' ADDRESS: S Vl/ wv (Dr 97z 219' TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed onu the ballot nd this fall. Not to do so would be placing an uneq financial burden on selected residdets within the .,Sapproximately Avenue L.I.D. We would not onlybear, $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required for co ad improvements he to pay a pro rata share asses. If it o does not, thenowetare rest of the city if the levy p still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. • A ADDRESS: 31I 5•Gt� i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of e pgeneraltlevySfor � 135th Avenue to be included in the propos QW street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135tately Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximrequired $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:4 ADDRESS: / �D 3 G J� -.—.----. ----------------------------- - TO -------------------------_ .TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' i.ti... ....t ~F i 7TI"'rOVeMPnt to S.W. We the undefSj'LgReu "war-- t.a,c :.+.+ r-- 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this ` fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED ADDRESS: /S�� Cz 14 s TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this W� fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair �� oN financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th >al Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately �¢°' O v 2 �� $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required �m o Nto pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the gaN o rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are 3 still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i <<<nti,, i)j&V1S SIGNED: ADDRESS: Id c�C. A i (ire, -------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. all 135th A---nue to be i. 7».a o.i 4-n t?,n rrr►r/�cPr� mpnP_.7^a] law for �: jr--r street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl >asSIGNED: ADDRESS: A �abbey . U P O Boa D.Fontana,WI 53125 t77 CtLu Lf C4C yi�IlY o /�'1� G�`CL�i1 � n ��'`� � P C7140 cd 01-evee'<-a P -------------- -------------- T-- --B urvno ng mrrnun AND "M TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: 11 o o - --------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: 0� ADDRESS: %6,yi2.� G/2 9�a23 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- (!� AW _r ..a a.. S.W.mw- We the undersigned want rile cost o1 «rr%=cmc- -o S 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair j financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the F rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. F Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets i i SIGNED- ~ . 1 G ADDRESS. 919cSY _ --.---------------------- __ Aa TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost' of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair --- We pay taxes and we vote -�/ clude S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! he- SIGNED- ADDRES i -------------------------- ' ,TO .------------------------,TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets r SIGNED: i ADDRESS: I14t3uI �w l LSU N �' /cam_ i --------- ------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, app $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the es. If it does not, then we are rest of the city if the levy pass still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ' ADDRESS: i f SEPTEMBER 26,1988 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL { clo R F.TINSMAN,VICE PRESIDENT MORNING HILL HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION 13370 S.W.SCOTTS BRIDGE DRIVE f TIGARD,OREGON 97223 WE FEEL THAT IT IS EXTREMELY UNFAIR FOR US TO BE ASSESSED NEARLY$1000 UNDER AN LI.D. FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W. 135TH AVENUE AND ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PAY HIGHER TAXES TO FUND THE ROAD AND STREET LEVY IF PASSED THIS FALL WE MOVED � INTO OUR HOME IN JULY OF 1987 AND HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS LI.D. OR i ANY ADVANCE WARNING THAT WE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY IT_ IN FACT,WE HAVE HAD NO f CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESSED TO''US"FROM THE CITY AT ALL IT IS ALSO OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT SUPPORT FOR APPROVAL OF THE LI.D. WAS RIGGED SINCE THE "COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS" FOR A MAJORITY bF THE AFFECTED i HOUSEHOLDS WERE WRITTEN TO REQUIRE SUPPORT.FOR THE LI.D.. DEVELOPERS SELLING HOMES BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE LID CERTAINLY,OFFERED NO 4:OTICE OR PRICE REDUCTION TO CUSTOMERS BUYING INSIDE THE LI.D. TO REFLECT THEIR REDUCED DEVELOPMENT COSTS. IN ADDITION IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE TYPE AND SCALE OF THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE CITY OF TIGARD ASA 'A IOLE RATHER THAN MEET THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS ADJOINING S.W. 135TH. THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC FLOW FROM BEAVERTON AND ALOHA TO DOWNTOWN TIGARD. IF THE OBJECTIVE WAS ONLY TO IMPROVE ACCESS FOR MEMBERS OF THE LI.D.THEN MERELY REPAVING THE EXISTING ROAD(AS WAS DONE JUST UP THE HILL ON SAY. WALNUT) WOULD HAVE MET OUR NEEDS. IN FACT, THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLUME THRU OUR NEIGHBORHOODS 0U7R'lEIGHS ANY BENEFIT OF BETTER ACCESS FOR US INTO AND OUT OF THE AREA. WE THE UNDERSIGNED WANT THE COST OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS TO S.W_ 135TH AVENUE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED GENERAL LEVY FOR STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL NOT TO DO SO WOULD BE PLACING AN UNEQUAL AND UNFAIR FINANCIAL BURDEN ON SELECTED RESIDENTS WITHIN THE S.W. 135TH AVENUE LI.D. WE WOULD NOT ONLY BEAR, UNASSISTED, APPROXIMATELY $'1000. PER HOME OWNER ASSESMENT; BUT 'WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PAY A PRO.RATA SHARE FOR COMPARABLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE REST OF THE CITY IF THE LEVY PASSES. IF IT DOES NOT, THEN WE ARE STILL OBLIGATED FOR THE LI.D.ASSESMENT. BE FAIR-=WE PAY TAXES AND WE VOTE=INCLUDE S.W. 135TH AVENUE WITH THE REST OFTIGARD'S STREETS. �� •. fill DAN AND SHARON GORMAN 13172 S.W. CHIMNEY RIDGE STREET TIGARD,OREGON 97233 . _._ .. ,. - - _ . . _ _ - - - - •, - �1,�� /� _--,_,_ - _, - ` _ _ 1 --- ..., �,:E (hAll _ _ ------------------------------------------------------------- : Tn THF MAV01R AF TTr.Ann AN" MUM mTlSaDT% r+TTv t-nTIWITT.. We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! 1 SIGNED 0.QX'k- ADDRESS: r 9a�" ��J Nl o eAJinJG 14tL.4, _64 ----------------------------------------------------------------- -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would AI.,SO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th ` Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: � �pk'Qjyf� oY ADDRESS:/j��'�'� w �uo' i I ------ --------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- we the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard str tsl SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: 12-04 6 f) Wf Lbn Ave _ i Imo, X12 R72 Z3 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED, ADDRESS: 11776 -5-ck). W/ /V j 40"? ��/yr27'D � O��C�Ur�3 Gf 7�-2•� ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the vroposed qeneral levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: / aj z•/ 7 u.0 Ed LGO/J g.'5E'4*_P 010E 9 72 ---------------- -- - - - ----------------------- - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL?- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:. /I r ADDRESS: ge _ v- Q�ai , g�ZZ3 C • TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: Au' . ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue witla the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: a TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed or, fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: /f S$`!F S. W !/�a�vv+s "'�{ �✓` 2a3 E --------------------- ------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 1. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th `. Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are f still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 5th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: E a ��. ADDRESS: GC F a E i i i t t f TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- E We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair 1 financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately � $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th l Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this G fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th } Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately r $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. R Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! t SIGNED: ADDRESS: i i -- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the- »nc3nrni_and- want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th ! Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required i to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: U� 1 �, ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.T.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED ADDRESS:1z",gA S S. L.tJ. -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersiqned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS i I 1 1 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: 3, ADDRESS.�� G✓ Ste. I�lc ----------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- _ We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: - 4 ADDRESS: �30 ?4s•�. C�,',. ,,,. K'��r /J,� .. ---------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCILr We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S 35th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:_ Albert h Zell Sdwiz ADDRESS:— 13363 S.W.Leumxmt CL Tigard,OR 97223 fEE -----------------�.-----•--------------------------_-_-_---------- w l.. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ICU { We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNE ADDRE 4.. t _.-. - ----------------- __----- -------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! . SIGNED- f ti ADDRESS: / ----------------------------------------------------------------- - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- t� We the undersigned want the cost of improvement: to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: ! . .tea. i� 4d1P_ i /, �°�• . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED-_61.. £ • �I�� 'L n ADDRESS. 11109as Sw F1V - • 1Cs�l�D C�2 Gl?Z23 -------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed ge"erai levy f0y street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the s rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED Z'o22/-22 v ADDRESS: (2� i 3 1 61 ------------------------------------------------------ TO ----------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCILr We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- Q -p t Q n -, J �1nn S ADDRESS:__ D , Fo c trr n Cl --� d p �a 3 C i i --------------------------- --------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CI'T'Y COUNCIL- ::a `hc undera;r,ned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general. levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED ADDRESS: ----------- TO ----------TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS, IGNED:ADDRESS TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- Aumlm i i ADDRESS: �J��j S•�� 02�/�1Gr YIOZ� ��flj� ------. - --------------------------------------------------- TO ---------------------_--_--------------------------TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are ! still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: */W-10 -j',aj i ------------------------------------------------------------ --- tt TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' j We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for ±' street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the A rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! " SIGNED. �Y� `+' /dila'• -ri1�G.� '� G�/ ZL l ADDRESS: i3 a 8a su) sd"A& c Pd, 4� 97x.23 -------------------------------------------------------------- } TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL.We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair f financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required +' to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are Still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streeI 1(l s SIGNED: C ADDRESS: -W •C f r�i. � C i. t��e►� �n 2. G I -------------- - ----------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! r SIGNED: i ADDRESS: a d C CJ 9 7 a TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted. approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard st etsl SIGNED: _ ADDRESS: .. .. .... ... -- t a TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this k be placing an unequal and unfair fall. Not to do so would dents within the S I W. 135th financial burden on selected resiapproximately Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, app nt, but would ALSO be required $1,000.00 per home owner assessme to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the i rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED i ADDRESS: ----------------------------- ----------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement ! o S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballotnd this fall. Not to do so would be placing unequal ir financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135tately Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., app aired $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be req. to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: 0 J" ' ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ` We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W_ 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: 1.--20,70 3c j --------------------------------------------- _. ... 3. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: / �/l� SGcJ w,/ld-2j dr& d arc✓ d 97 ZZ�'j -------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- Am OUNCIL-Am E We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this E, fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i� SIGNED. Cc/i l/Lc/ /) ADDRESS: �� o� �J�• -------------------- _ . ---- --------------- \�y'^�, ' TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately ii $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! _ . SIGNED: v /' ADDRESS: 2 / S w > 3 Sf 17� d2 97223 f -------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately ` $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. E Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: F ADDRESS: KAP 11SW &14DON L009 223 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: —,M&Czd J ADDRESS: ff) S Lam• SG�PIJ� fd tj Q - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' r _ a ..f r vement to S.W. We the undersigned w8iri: "L.� c:�s� -- iyn?-`� 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:�� __lQ. � " RIC?�T..RD GE YCPK/C TPOL• E. "O. I ADDRESS: 13425 R.VT. SCOTTS BRID" DT!1VE TIC:7�t'.P, npFC;OPI 972.23 ` 16r,'.-722P f Z f -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- E We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. j 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for E street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required E to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are w still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl i y SIGNED: r ADDR S 43 jL - _ ----------------------- --------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- • _ .,a ..,��+ +�,o ��„et of improvement to S.W. we the undcLs�ys=�-- general levy for 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 35th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED: ((�� ADDRESS: .)O UVLi IJ✓U� 1i 6vtl Cl ay� �zl aY�Cy �_vS-te-Ll er TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: fi�IYl 1'C/l L , -------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 'gan+ the cost of improvement to S.W. jre LIIC LL11aaGiOty++�� 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ,a �� /✓�yLL 61LL AND DEBBIE LAMERS ADDRESS: 13916 S.W. CRIST COURT TIGARD,OREGON 97223 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable read improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS:��f S��v �lc/Ch.✓7�-e /�!a� `�" TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- � o S'W' + We the undersigned want the cosi. vi i��.rrY='e� a^-+ 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. 'c ✓/GLL -JJ✓7� ,��I��GGj'L� . ADDRE S• �� 7iC/ �=j�.��v�L (/aC-� ;vc.� 7Z --------------------- ____ _ ___ __ _____ ----------------- ---------------- ---- To THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th p roximatel Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, app y $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: U /y ADDRESSI' C i --------------------------------------------------------------- I TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- a woA umrit the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this j fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair i financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately j $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required f to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the i rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th E Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS- IGNED:ADDRESS- I i i i ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- we OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. i 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for j street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this I fall. Not to do so would t:: placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required j to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are r still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsi SIGNED ADDRESS: ST i IR 9 ZX A E ---------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th P. -enue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets i SIGNED: (/L ADDRESS:.J3 z© S• (.J Ti�i2/,N N� ----------------------------------------------------- --- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGN & ) ADDRESS: ' ,oZ �i�� ---------- -- _ ----------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: " Q ADDRESS: /'3ZSS s!� 16Ae1174XJ ---------------- - ---------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th . Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: I2;2000 S-w �� 'j TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- L_ a ..ed .giant the cost of improvement to S.W. �tG LaaC hila, siva...-� 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. MlTL �3 �� ADDRESS: CA 4 GL �;p,-rCvP � � • 3 .._------------------------------- ------ -- - --- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- we the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 13 approximately Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., app $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city ii the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: 113036 5,11�I I VYI h 1 W J �' ,rd, , 0 9 --------------- ---------------------------------- AM. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost or im Ove--En- tom- S•W- 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed• general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: /4-' ADDRESS: -------- --- --- ----------------- TO - --- --- ----------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS:--/,8 IGNED:ADDRESS: j`-j ZY' 'mow TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! j SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: I��(�' 7 W lel C �i �✓J / C ` (. _.----------------------------------- 4� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: f3n ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the UnueYi3iyiicu waiat taac Gvst Of iiuta0Li2---......- 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. .135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED;L lti. L ADDRESS:/;,)co � -------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: CUr (ld� ADDRESS: ROBERT AND MARGIMOVER 19292 S.W. LAURMONT DRIVE C N ------------------------------------------------------------------- , TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS:Z37,34/ J ' .111 a c I� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRES ?o71 i` 7 0k 4 a � I 1 --------------- -- I k TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for y street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required 1 to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. ADDRESS: ��0��`7 5 G!J• , irYD,fC� LOA, f. �u -TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. F 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this t' fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th :t Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! y SIGNED: 4� ADDRESS: GT. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ARW We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ,Q ADDRESS: 2,Y' ----------------------------------------------------------------- i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, Mien we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! ADDRESS: �'�� 1 1 T I l I �?1 N ve a� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TTGARn rTTY CnrngCTr.. We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard street i SIGNED: v ADDRESS: /31 ip SZ4,; �=, �/�^/ �jr„�C' ,/D .' ------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this full. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th r Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. t Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED. ADDR & Ask TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ` ADDRESS: 1 ------------------------------------------------------- -------- - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected .residents within the S.W_ 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: 10 ADDRESS: Oii� I.0 L i 4 } TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- s We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. i. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for s street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: �1c�'� S CIA' i 4A a ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! 1 V SIGNED: ADDRESS: e 60 )114fl ad Ay j ��2fP TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! + SIGNED: ADDRESS: CI722-3 -------------------------------------------------- - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL-.- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: C . �. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. ! Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! E SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: K. C. CHEN 1905 J S.W.MORNING HILL DRIVE TIGARD, OREGON 97223 t -----^----------------------------------------------------------- E TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required ;, to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are 1 still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. t Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th . Avenue i-ith the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: I TO THE i=it'•.iva Ci m.jC..flT AND THE TI(,'_,aRD CITY COTINCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! s SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: ----------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TTGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED- ,— ADDRESS: IGNED: ,ADDRESS: 5 6 Z S Sln er'�`� e-`C� C '•�-`� OR- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair --- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED: A' > , ADDRESS:�/33 5�S� a�2'.e�� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ::e elle undersigned want the cost or improvement Lo S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: �ou ADDRESS: 3 oC/LJ s. �'✓ SG o�$ A�'� C1 C,e- CP N, -7and L. 4 3 J1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: �^ n TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately r $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. I£ it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! r SIGNED:�' j Q ADDRESS: J-f�cj SLZ t�AK-D a q7�2 i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W_ 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and wePt�d-' clu e S W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard stre ' i SIGNED: ADDRESS: 131 7 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000_00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: L 2� Z,, , � r -- j {e i F i ---------------- ------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. _� `,.fie ..---=.-A general levy for 135th Avenue to De 3.niviu.,c... i== _ street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: �� / SL1� -------------------- ------------------------------------ - TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with th4 rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: OtQUl% \ G i ADDRESS: ------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. j ..1._ ...,a .+onPra.l lew for , 135th Avenue to be included iYi -,a p•:�•!-=��- a-- street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required i to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: r ADDRESS: (( ck TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCILr We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED: ADDRESS: / - v TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! oo SIGNED- - i ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed• general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard street4i� s! SIGNED:ADDRESS ------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to c w 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED.-- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS:� �z �� &rniin . .__--------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL:- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W_ 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th S Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! ! • i t SIGNED: ADDRESS: r � 9713 . i i l TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. ,udad i n the -r0-1-S0d general levy for h>� �v,— 135th Avenue Lo iic iaaa:t uu ca. -• r--r- street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this vKbP fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair — t.�,qjr financial burden on selected residents within the S.W_ 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include .W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ' ADDRESS: 13 Z Z S W S e J DYE 7 2-2 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,? We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be includeAn the proposed general levy for street and road.improvements to be placed unequalthe ballot nd this fall. Not to``do so would be placing a ir financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135im tately Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approxrequired $1.000.00 perbe =,Izome owner assessment, but would to pay a pro rata share for comarableIf it doeson t, thenwe ad othe are rest of the city if the levy passes. still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! ('TOm £ 't3E� f 6A't3ERGCP,) p SIGNE ADDRESS: 17 g�-- S LJ 5 c n, nJ LOO g-7 aa� I ------------------------- _---——------------------------------- ! . F c TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- we OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improveme-L «, S.... 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for i street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately j. $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. I Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ' ! ADDRESS. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., app $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: //(LrO / i`✓/�' - l zz TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- incl de S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard stye !^ SIGNED: ADDRESS: I ZZ"-4D lir r7 2 Z ---------------------- ------------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: �` % c� PVlL-t.(,Li Sgc ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED: el �7 ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL?- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! 10, 1 SIGNED: eJj1;z' L r ADDRESS: 1&34 cSW <3ho Z, Dr. T7aG p-d, DE X72-23 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in t7he PrOPOSCu ycitciai i2v1 ivi street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: 06-� '/ /�"<4 ADDRESS: K- -S . S TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL: We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: j �� % A� TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: ��9 �gOYylk��hL%bc j-. 9`7 �-Z ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetV1 41 I �� n SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: t rr. TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: i' i ADDRESS: T� ----------------------------------------------------------------- G TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL?- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and avote include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard stree s k SIGNED:- ADDRESS: I I D5 J rTa IJ �- l TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballet this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- incl ,�de S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED ADDRESS:��p2��a ( r ---------------------------------------------------- I TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W, 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED: fit/ i / ADDRESS: i 4 ----- ------------ .�.. ,,..,a MAYOR OF TIC-ARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- i We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this ! fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and un thin the S.W. 135th financial burden on selected residents wi Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fa --fair We PY a taxes and we vote -- includ ,S.W 35th �. Avenue with the rest of Tigard street i SIGNED: , i ADDRESS: Z �- E ------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- .TO -------•---------- ---TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. d general levy for 135th Avenue to be included in the propose € street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall_ Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th ! Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. s Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- t i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ! � t We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. f. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed _general levy for E street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required E to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the f rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED -''.., � C' ,/� �%U�irt, l�'1• �'ol/sir/ ADDRESS: 13.36 (,z..- �'11;# IP zeWevZP ------------ - - ---- •------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED, ADDRESS: CP S (�� s(SCJ ey?Glo-) c I I� I. ---------------------- HWIOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! Ctc SIGNED:/__ ADDRESS: // Lb 9 9 ------------------------------------------------ ---------- . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED r" ADDRESS: u5�7 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- ,. f.1 �. We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to "•�• 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED" /& - � ADDRESS: 1-41L ------------------------------------------------ - - ------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard str 1------ SI NED: ADDRESS: 9 �r -- --- ._ ----------------------------------- . \� , Inn miau MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- . `._.. E' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair ? financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! ADDRESS: _ _.___-------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for F street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair r financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1 ,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! f ��I 4 SIGNED: -� ADDRESS: 131 r i L 1 i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- r We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal andunfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard strje1 SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED: ADDRESS S W. "' ►x`4-1 YlC Sf, ------------------------------------------------- . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL?- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: 1199_9 SW Morning Hill Dr. Tigard OR 97223 ---------------------------------------------------- ATO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND TBE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! t �� SIGNED: 4, � ADDRESS:J 3�J S �• rr �Q"�� t✓V . - - ---------- ,TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- . We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetpi SIGNED- ADDRESS: i ?�'1 i tri C� 11L- C -- ---------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W_ 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl i SIGNED: ADDRESS: -------- --------------------- ------------------ --. . . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard street SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED: ADDRESS: ��Lj Gf� RAJ �'1 5 /':/n'. 7z �r�� • I i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED:ADDRESS: 1 Zt-7 Z 5A,-. wtoorY11VA 'TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: /J ADDRESS: �- --� ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! t SIGNED: �ry& 2nd Lori -Hou.,roh =. { ADDRESS: 13310 7 51n1 shore) D r. E TIAArd 04Z, �-la��s �' - ------------------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required j to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are j still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: a). Jr ADDRESS: ark Zz' TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned want the cost Of �,.�Y�c:�.••.---- - - 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets l SIGNED: � . l &--" ADDRESS: I�I �o YA k L^'V ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL! We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the .rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! (14 SIGNED: ADDRESS:J / 7Y 7 S i/J 62oc n� '21 Dom' 97 zz_ ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- We OUNCIL-We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this ! fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets, SIGNED: ADDRESS 77,;2- TO 7,;2 f TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the, cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road 'improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be, placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would .not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! -�%OA SIGNED: ADDRESS-.- a) ,� Lil ) 0 KO 97aD- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to SeW= 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1.000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are Still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: p' CQ4lv0 ADDRESS: . . --------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this E fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected resit«:,-.ts within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only lea: , *unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. I Be fair -- We pay taxes and ote - include Av-nue with the rest of Tigard reetol s SIG ADDRESS: /73Q . TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL` We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 3s5tii r,:►a==µe to be i-^-clitided in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the baiioL ;c7iii3 fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair r financial burden on selected residents within the S•W' not only bear, unassisted, approximately Avenue L.I.D. We would $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- inc ude S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard st et ! i SIGNED- ADDRESS: IGNED: /J ' ADDRESS: S i Z L3 ?. f AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCILr, TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD �r We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for . street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, app F, $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i Be fair -- We PY taxes and d we vote -- include S.W. 135th f Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED-, ADDRESS: . G 97,7 3 e -------- -- — — ------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair : financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required k- to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the !+: rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. is Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: �C ADDRESS: FFr- 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- z E`• We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required E to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are t still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. F r Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED- 1 ADDRESS: I l s!d2 sw s FLL-7r-f C I Z Tl GADZLj ober 9�a� 3 I I -------------- - ----------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL!- we OUNCIL-we the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: �� S.G(l- SI��Fr/-��✓ (i' ---------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED• ADDRESS: 6"A ZZ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost or improvement to S.W. j 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for s street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are E still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. i i. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl SIGNED:ILY ADDRESS: I ZGj Z3 SVJ LAO fz"Otl T DR, T t 6A-P-b 02 97223 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this K fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair k financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the k rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl q SIGNED- ADDRESS:. IGNED:ADDRESS: S./! To THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- �, ._ .�' .,d __..t the cre+ of ;, movement to S.W. ate t.uG un—da.r siq nom. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: 1 Z Z-Sff 1 611 ---------------------------------------- --- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would.ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streetsl t SIGNED: ADDRESS: � ( (&/ ' A -�e / L -2 TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: I '7.Skj. �4e-#e 1� C/r- ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- f We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for ! street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th ! Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! i SIGNED: ADDRESS: Dale Watanabe 13172 S.W. Laurmont Dr. Tigard, OR. 97223 i ----------------------------------------------------------------- t?`, T.O THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- r Wo the undersigred want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required E G to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! !�!> 1'. SIGNED: i ADDRESS: rs is ------------------------------------------------------------------ ?' TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required j to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the i rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. a Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! r / r j� s SIGNED: tt&-' ADDRESS: 1174L") -->W i TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th . Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! R. a ba/ous �ic� /35 SIGNED: . M a"e- r4A°i"' 04�'2- ADDRESS: 4 F, dej Q7ZZ3 tea, D ------------------------ TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- E We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for : street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this f fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair nts within the S.W. 135th financial burden on selected residef Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes_ If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th R. Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! 1 / r-` SIGNED- ' J .%fes'.`✓'— -- ADDRESS: /3W!P7: 'rev a/J1PN7 l k i s i ----------- ----------------------------------------------------- TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair F financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th f Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the r rest of the city if the levy passes. if it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ) — ADDRESS ------------------------------------------------ •TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal andunfair . financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: SGS/ �� ------------------------------------------------- TO-THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED, �L�IiLGf , Jei�?1 ADDRESS: /-? (69s— C {L -n0 TRFr M?LYO (V OF TTnDn SA7T THE TIGARD' CITY COUNCIL' We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! Q SIGNED: t� ADDRESS: TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted., approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! S SIGNED. "4'.' ADDRESS: '7-&'7- f I I mA T[7p 1Jf V/1T �`- v a11L'J 1'lisa Vim WX TIGARD AN" Al•\l\lr.s LAT.L VA2S1R" %—L lAA /V\VATVTLR--L- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard street SIGNED: �Vlcl /`-- q!po/ ADDRESS: b r r(0— TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED:��. Or. U ADDRESS: 13�g - S.W. R i yld o„ Cf , l TO THE MAYOR OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- We the undersigned want the cost of improvement to S.W. 135th Avenue to be included in the proposed general levy for street and road improvements to be placed on the ballot this fall. Not to do so would be placing an unequal and unfair financial burden on selected residents within the S.W. 135th Avenue L.I.D. We would not only bear, unassisted, approximately $1,000.00 per home owner assessment, but would ALSO be required to pay a pro rata share for comparable road improvements for the rest of the city if the levy passes. If it does not, then we are still obligated for the L.I.D. assessment. Be fair -- We pay taxes and we vote -- include S.W. 135th Avenue with the rest of Tigard streets! SIGNED: ADDRESS:13k J(A) f E 1 C i i CITY OF T'IGARD OREGON COUNCIL_ AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 1.0, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: October 3 1988 f ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Schuetz PREVIOUS ACTION: Approval by Planning j SDR 88--17/PD 86-04/V 66-27 Commission _ PREPARED BY: Keith S. Liden DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN 01 REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE INFORMATION SUMMARY On September 6, 1988, the Planning Commission approved the proposed apartment complex located on 109th Avenue south of Canterbury Lane. The applicant has appealed the decision because of the conditions of approval that were imposed. Attached are copies of a staff- recommendation, staff report, site plan, narrative, traffic study, Commission minutes and transcription, and appeal letter. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Z 1. Uphold the Planning Commission decision. : 2. Modify the Planning Commission decision. 3. Approve as recommended in the staff- report and attached memo. is FISCAL IMPACT L F s` t r r SUGGESTED ACTION -- a Approve as recommended in the staff- report and attached memo and have staff- prepare a final order. ht/7330D l ,•1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Keith S. Liden, Senior Planner DATE: October 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Appeal of SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 (Schuetz) ` The Commission applied a condition requiring a maximum of 100 units for this apartment development. The property would be permitted a maximum of 152 units and 130 units where proposed. The applicant also requests a variance to allow one driveway were two driveways are required by Section 18.108.070 of the Code. Based upon the way this Section is worded, one could conclude that two or three driveways would be necessary. The staff interprets the Code to require two driveways for a development of this size. The Commission approved the variance for one driveway, but limited the development to 100 units. Concerns were expressed regarding access, buffering for adjacent properties, and preservation of trees on the site as well as abutting parcels. The staff agrees with the Commission that these issues C4 should be adequately addressed, but the staff does not view a reduction in density as an appropriate method for dealing with these concerns. It appears that the problems which surfaced at the Commission hearing could be dealt with in other ways, such as requiring two driveways or further fire district involvement in the site design, modification of the location and orientation of the apartment buildings, and determination of what methods of buffering will be used. The staff recommends approval of the proposed apartment complex as originally conditioned in the staff report, with additional or modified conditions to address the concerns raised before Council at the public hearing. ht/7330D STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5.2 SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION TIGARD CITY I4ALL - l-OWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development 88-04, Site Development Review SDR 88-17, Variance 88-27 REQUEST: Site Development Review and Planned Development Review approval to construct a 130 unit apartment complex on a 12.66 acre tree covered site. Also requested is a variance from Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 which requires apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. The applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be served by one driveway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) (Planned Development overlay) {s APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuetz 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby, OR 97013 Red Deer•, Alberta LOCATION: West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1• 1OAC, Tax Lots 400 and 500) 2. Background Information In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1-81), which included Tax Lots 400 and 500 of Map 2S1 10AC, to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units per acre) with a recommendation that all development on these lots be brought before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and that the density in each case be reviewed as a portion of the review process. The City Council reviewed CPR 1-•81 and remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review after giving the opinion that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation to properties included in the request. Upon review, an A-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone designation. STAFF REPORT - PD 88--04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUET-L) - PAGE 1 When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1983, the majority of Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was redesignated Low Density Residential and given a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5 (PD) (Residential, 4.5 sun-14--s/acre, Planned Dap^.Tt :olo2novarlay) C In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested redesignation of these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial. The result- of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential multi—family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi—family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's Urban Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Tax lots 400 and 500 were included in a 24.9 acre plan/zone redesignation from Low Density Resideritial/R-4.5 (PD) zone to Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull Mountain area that was part of an approximately 50 acre redesignation to higher densities. The redesignations were approved by the City Council in April 1987 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)). 3. Vicinity Information The subject property is surrounded by properties zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) on all sides except to the west across Pacific Highway. Abutting zones on the west side of the highway, from north to south, are C—G (General Commercial), C—P (Professional/ Administrative Office Commercial District), and R-40 (Multiple Family Residential, 40 units/acre) . The city limits of King City are adjacent to the southwest boundary of these properties. The development pattern around the site consists of multi—family residences to the north and east; commercial development- across Pacific Highway to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels covered with tall fir trees and underbrush with one single family residence to the south. SW 109th Avenue and SW Murdock Street in the area of the proposed development are fully improved, 34 foot wide streets functionally classified as local streets. SW 109th Avenue currently dead ends approximately 200 feet south of the site. Right—of—way for a possible future connection of SW 109th Avenue continues southward through a tree covered area until it meets the gravel southern segment of 109th Avenue which is located on the south slope of Little Bull Mountain. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed apartment complex consists of three tax lots. Tax lot 8802 is .56 acre is size, has 240 feet of frontage on SW 109th Avenue, C STAFF REPORT — PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 2 and is zoned R-12. Tax lots 400 and 500 combined total 13.1 acres and are zoned R-12 (PD) . All parcels are undeveloped. The entire site is covered with tall fir trees. The site slopes westward from 109th IO st:ceri„ to Avenue with the western one-iPiir•d of tine s�..0 S....Njwg r-� Pacific Highway. The applicant proposes to develop a 130 unit, 29 building apartment complex on the site. All units will include two bedrooms. All buildings would be two stories except for one single story building to be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The ' applicant requests Site Development Review approval of the proposed site plan. Because the parcels are designated with the Planned { Development overlay zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning r. Commission. The buildings would be arranged around a roughly square driveway with 6 buildings and a swimming pool located in the center. Thirty-five k; garages in 4 buildings, 95 carports, and 95 uncovered parking spaces , would be located along the driveways. Because the development will retain the existing slope of the parcel, the driveway and parking areas will be steeply sloped. The development would be served by one 30--foot wide access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. Community Development Code F, Section 18.108.070 requires that an apartment complex with 130 units be !- served by at least two access driveways. The applicant requests a Variance from this standard. i The site plan shows all existing trees that will be retained. The applicant has indicated that the plan attempts to retain as many trees as possible,_ including the area at the center of the development. The dense forest on the western approximately one-third of the site would F' remain undisturbed. k The site plan proposes that sanitary sewer connections for three ' buildings in the northwest corner of the site be made to an existing public sewer located in SW 109th Avenue. Sanitary sewers serving the E: remainder of the buildings would connect to an existing sewer at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane. A main line extension would be constructed by the developer from the existing sewer to the site's Pacific Highway frontage. An eight-inch private sewer line would connect the proposed development's collection system with the main line extension. Storm drainage would be provided through catch basins located in the driveway and parking areas, draining to a storm water detention pipe system located under the westernmost portion of the driveway, with surface discharge through a single pipe to the forested area on the western portion of the site. r Water service to the site will connect to an existing supply line in SW 109th Avenue. An existing pump system will be used to provide water circulation. Three fire hydrants will be provided within the development. STAFF REPORT - PD 88-04, SDR 88-•17, V 88-27 (SCHUET7_) - PAGE 3 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the folloojing comments 1. The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex west of 109th Avenue on a site w-th many evergreen and deciduous trees. The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Highway. 2. The apartment complex is proposed to have one access to 109th Avenue opposite Murdock Street. The Community Development Code requires one access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore, 2 accesses are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement. One access is requested in order to limit the impact to the trees on the site and due to the restricted frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue. 3. 109th Avenue is a 34—foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on both sides of the street except along the site's frontage. Street f: lights also exist on the west side of the street. 109th Avenue street improvements currently end south of the site. Existing right—of—way allows for possible future extension of 109th Avenue s to Naeve Street. i 4. A Transportation Impact Analysis for the apartment complex was submitted with this application. The analysis evaluated the impact of the proposed development on 109th Avenue and also on the 109th Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane. The analysis concluded that the traffic generated from - fhe site will not significantly , impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the 109th Avenue and Canterbury Lane intersection. The report recommends that curb returns be utilized for the site's driveway to improve accessibility into and out of the site. 5. Storm drainage is shown as being collected on—site into a detention :: pipe and discharged through a flow control device into a 10 inch E' outlet pipe daylighted into the forested area. This method of discharging the storm drainage is not approved since detention of storm drainage water is not permitted and the single discharge point will create erosion on the steep forested area. An alternative would be to discharge the storm drainage at several locations and to install an energy dissipator at the end of the pipe to prevent erosion. 6. Sanitary sewer service is available at the intersection of- Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway. A main line extension will be required from this existing sewer southward to the proposed development. The extension is proposed to be installed along Pacific Highway to the site's frontage and then up through the forested area to the development-. � t_ STAFF REPORT — PD 88--04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 4 r S s 7. The proposed parking lot is shown with cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent for approximately 100 stalls. Normal design practices limit- the cross slopes on parking stalls to 5 to 5 percent. Cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent will make getting into and out of a vehicle very difficult. The steeper than normal slopes have been proposed to reportedly limit the impact to the site and the existing trees. It is staff's recommendation that the parking difficulty created by the cross slopes be reduced. The Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no comments. Tigard School District 23J reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: At the current time, this proposed development is in the Templeton Elementary and Twality Junior High School attendance areas. Both schools are experiencing enrollment pressures and would have difficulty housing the children expected to come from this development, especially if the F project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September, 1989. Because the school district anticipates the need to make significant changes in its elementary and junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1989-90 school year, the developer of this project, if it is approved, should make no commitments regarding where the children living in the proposed development will attend : school until those decisions are made. f Washington County Fire District #1 provided the following comments regarding the proposal: 1. The Fire District would prefer two well-spaced access drives. i 2. Driveway grades shall not exceed 15 percent. r 3. Fire hydrants shall be located no further than 250 feet from all } portions of the proposed buildings. This distance may be } increased to 500 feet if automatic fire sprinklers are installed in the proposed buildings. The Tigard Water District reviewed the proposal and commented that proposed development will need to be served by a pumped water system. A pumped system is already in place and is adequate to serve the proposed water system. The District also commented that it appears that one additional fire hydrant will be necessary to adequately service the development. The Water District provided additional technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect. The Oregon State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and commented that no adverse impacts on Pacific Highway were anticipated other than temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary sewer extension. Intersection improvements including installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway are scheduled for completion next year. With the improvements in place, the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be STAFF REPORT - PD 88--•Oh, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 5 accommodated without impacting traffic on Pacific Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a permit must be obtained prior to any work within the right--of--way for installation of the sewer intersection. No other comments were received. C. ANALYSIS The proposal for construction of the proposed 130 unit apartment i complex conforms with Community Development- Code R-12 zoning district requirements for type of use and permitted density, setbacks from property boundaries, site coverage (80%), and site area landscaping (20%) . The proposal complies with Site Development Review standards for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), shared outdoor recreation areas, and site lighting. The staff- finds that the site plan conforms with the requirements that buildings and site improvements be located so as to preserve as many existing trees as practical (CDC Section 18.120.180(x)(2)). The site plan generally complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although modifications to the plan will be necessary. The site plan also must be revised to comply with requirements for drainage and vision clearance at the driveway—road intersection. These deficiencies and the requested access variance are addressed below. Parking i The required number of parking spaces for this development is 195 i _(1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit) . 225 parking spaces would be 't provided. 130 of these spaces are required to be covered. The site plan provides for 35 garage parking spaces and 95 carport parking i spaces for a total of 130 spaces. The plan satisfies these requirements. The site plan does not, however, designate appropriately sired, located, and signed handicapped parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.020(n) requires a minimum of one handicapped parking space for every 50 parking spaces provided. The site plan must be revised to provide at least five appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking spaces. These spaces should be constructed in a manner that minimizes the slope. Landscaping A landscaping plan is a required element of a Site Development Review application. No landscaping plan was submitted with this application. Nevertheless, the submitted site plan provides adequate information to determine that the minimum site area landscaping requirements (20%) will be satisfied through the retention of existing trees. The retention of these trees will also serve to satisfy perimeter buffering requirements, with the exception of a 180 foot long stretch along the site's southern boundary. Only one existing tree would be retained along this stretch. Six apartment units would be located in this area. A landscaping plan will need to be submitted for Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits that provides t STAFF REPORT — PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 6 adequate vegetative buffering in this area. In addition, the landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site landscaping materials for the entire site including lawn or ground cover materials. Section 18.100.035 of the Community Development Code requires that street trees be provided along a site's street frontage. The submitted site plan does riot show any trees that will be located along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. Street trees need to be included in the required landscaping plan. t Vision Clearance Areas/Signage Community Development Code Section 18.102.030 requires that a j+ triangular vision clearance area be maintained either direction from Y' the intersection of an access drive and a non-arterial street. Objects within this area must be less than three feet tall. Trees are allowed t within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight feet are removed. The site plan proposes a sign that would intrude upon the required vision clearance area. No details are provided `. regarding the sign's height. The sign will need to comply with the vision clearance area height requirement or else be relocated. A sign f; permit must be obtained prior to erection of the sign. i'. Drainage The 1981 Master Drainage Plan for the City of Tigard discourages the development of stormwater detention facilities. The Plan also discourages the concentration of storm discharge onto undeveloped :. surface drainage areas. The site plan proposes collection of parking area drainage into a detention system with a single discharge ontbrthe surface of the western one-third of the site. The proposed drainage system conflicts with the recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan. The applicant will be required to redesign the storm drainage system in s conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and submit the drainage `' system design for Engineering Division review and approval. e; Access }` F The site plan proposes one 30 foot wide access on SW 109th Avenue. is Section 18.108.070 of the Code requires 2 accesses for a multi-family P development serving 100 to 200 residential units. The applicant requests a variance from this standard due to 1) the limited access opportunities resulting from the limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue and 2) the steep slope on the western third of the site making access from Pacific Highway difficult to develop. Code Section 18.108.150 provides for the Commission to allow a variance to access requirements if it is found that: 1. It is not possible to share access; 2. There are not other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; 3 . The access separation requirements cannot be met; STAFF REPORT - PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 7 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. The present situation satisfies these criteria thereby justifying the single access proposed. There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent parcels. Other parcels which front on SW 109th Avenue east of the site are already developed. Development of another access on tax lot- 8802 would provide little if any congestion relief on SW 109th Avenue due to the necessary proximity of the intersections. Another access in this area would also require relocation of at least one building thereby necessitating removal of additional trees f elsewhere on the site. Development of an access from Pacific Highway is impractical because of the expense of constructing a road up the r steep slope on the western one-third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic values that would result from removing trees in that area, and because of the potential adverse traffic impacts of an t. access entering Pacific Highway. The proposed 30 foot width of the G' driveway (24 feet is the required width) and the utilization of curb returns and development of the driveway at the same grade as the street should provide adequate and safe access. Removal of the sign from the required vision clearance area will improve the safety of the E intersection. r C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS t 3 The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18.96, 18.100, 18.162, 18.106, 18.108. , 18.110, 18.120, 18.150, and 18.164. . The Planning Division has determined that the proposal, with minor modifications that will be required to be made prior-to building permit f; issuance, is consistent with relevant portions of the Community ' Development code based upon the following findings: e a. Chapter 18.54 (R-12 zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-12 zone. b. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the proposal is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as required by the provisions of the Planned Development overlay zone. C. Chapter 18.96 is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate distances between multi-family residential buildings to assure privacy to residents and adequate light to all units. STAFF REPORT - PD 88-04, SDR 88-•17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 8 i t d. Chapter 18. 100 (Landscaping and Screening) wlill be satisfied upon submittal of a landscaping plan and approval of that plan by the Planning Division. The plan must detail all proposed site landscaping including ground covers, street trees along SW 109th Avenue, and site perimeter buffering. e. Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance Areas) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area. f. Chapter 18. 106 (Off—Street Parking) will be satisfied upon Planning Division approval of a revised site plan that provides for a minimum of at least one appropriately sized, located, and signed handicapped parking space. The site plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces provided and number of covered parking spaces. g. Chapter 18. 108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on the site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one access to serve the site, whereas the Code would normally require two accesses for a development of this size, is justified as previously described. h. Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the site plan provides for the proposed buildings and other site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the site's topography and drainage systems. The site plan also situates the buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses. i. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development.- Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the area of actual development that will be retained. An arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit or a tree removal permit. The site plan also provides for all trees in the western one—third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the proposed sewer. j . Chapter 18. 164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection to the existing sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on SW 109th Avenue. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development. STAFF REPORT — PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 9 D. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of Planned Development PD 88-04, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88-27 b, subject to the following conditions: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. STAFF CONTACTS: GARY ALFSON, ENGINEERING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 8; JERRY OFFER, PLANNING DIVISION, CONDITIONS 9 THROUGH 11. 1. Seven (7) sets of plan and 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 . Two (2) sets of plan and profile plans shall be submitted for preliminary review prior to submittal of final plans. 2. Construction of proposed public improvements shall not commence until after the Engineering Division has approved public improvement plans. The section will require a 100% performance assurance or letter of commitment, the payment of a permit fee and a sign installation/streetlight fee, and a developer engineer agreement. 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. 3. The applicant shall provide for roof and parking lot rain drainage to the public stormwater drainage system or by an approved on-site system designed to prevent increased runoff onto the adjacent property. The proposed storm drainage system is not approved because the City does not allow detention and the single discharge point could cause substantial erosion. 4. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the Public Improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. 5. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the State of Oregon Highway Division, to perform work within the right-of-way of Pacific Highway. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the City Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Public Improvement Permit. 6. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and roadway plan-profile and cross section details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. The Engineering Division recommends that cross slopes in parking areas be reduced to approximately 6 percent. 7. The applicant shall install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. STAFF REPORT - PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 10 8. The single drivetgay connection to SOW 109th. AvGnue sl iii v8 Ue5igrieu in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant's traffic report. 9. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. The plan shall provide location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material. The plan shall provide for street trees along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for additional perimeter- buffering along the southern border of the site. 10. A revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) provides for a minimum of one appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; 2) relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area; and 3) provides for a fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of all first floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings are to be provided with automatic sprinklers. 11. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Division approval which includes locations and types of trees to be retained, an arborist's recommendations for methods of protecting these trees during construction of the proposed apartments and also for maintenance of the long—term health of the trees. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, s clearing, or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this ° condition. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ANY NEW BUILDINGS ON ?: THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. (STAFF CONTACT: Jerry Offer) ? 12. All landscaping materials and other proposed site improvements shall be installed as per the landscaping and site plans. 13. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the erection of an identification sign. Sign location and size must be in accordance .' with the provisions of Section 18.114 of the Community Development Code. is THE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID IF EXERCISED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE. l ilcv /Zi PREPA BY�: Jer Offer APPROVED BY:• Keith Liden Assistant Planner Senior Planner { (ht/6765D) i i f STAFF REPORT — PD 88-04, SDR 88-17, V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 11 CCyy anivanr.a�.av nr � i 1 P U . 1 Kpyt t M � �c PRELIMINARY SITE PLAID 3 — TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Figure AT 109TH & MURDOCK AUg 1988 197FOOz r 1111LO LM J SwnIN•wuoNa nul �rs _ _" � _.. w s - N1Dow rtvToT•Mc •i i F � V, ILL J• �M Jy -- '� - �• i I � �I 4 y > • SNnIA1w00k07 � µ�y —_-_ _ �il}tliN Nf.S I• SNnl 01 2.1 CiT 7, won i ►�� 66 .._i_ .. is Mf �^ F J \ ' ---�. 7ro V. M l _- -. - - '-- °'cam .. �.-"a•��` o .� I ...-�` � .. ' --�-_ a —, s 11r J �•1 ;°^' �1.1.111 I_I 11�:i, +� —K w1L 17n1171Vs j t_; n �• mom d7 j s ROBERT M.SCHLEINING President W. July 25. 1988 AND associarEs. Dave. AU G 4 1988 —� \ C1 i Y OF I IUAKD SUiFVEYORs CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING DEPT. 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE s SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPLICANT'S STATEMENT The proposed development consists of 27 two level four-plex apartment buildings and 2 two level twelve-plex apartment buildings. The current standard type of apartment building in the Portland Metropolitan area is the eight & ten Alex. These larger barrack type buildings are preferred by developers because of the economies achieved in construction. For this project , the developer - THE CBM CO. - has chosen to build the more costly f our-plex units as opposed to the more economical buildings, for a variety of reasons, two of which ares 1.The smaller buildings allow for more flexibility in the utilization of the site. This means that the developer is able to adjust building locations to save as many trees as possible. _2.The smaller buildings help- create a feeling of a single family neighborhood, as opposed to the barrack style apartment complexes. This adds to their livability and marketability. The developer was attracted to the project site by its natural beauty. The site is virtually covered with trees. Slopes on the site approach and occasionally exceed 257. (approximately i acre) . The developer's concept from the beginning has been to construct a development that will have as little impact on the site as possible and still be economically feasible. In an effort to achieve his goals, we have consolidated the construction to the upper two thirds of the site. The lower third of the site will remain relatively untouched except for the installation of a sanitary , sewer line to the Pacific Highway. The developer has also sacrificed approximately 16 apartment units which are allowed under the current zoning. ( The site area is approximately 12.8 acres; a field survey has shown that approximately i acre is in excess.of .25% slope. Therefore, 11..8 acres 0 12 units per acre - 141.6 units, together with 257. of the units allowed on the 1 acre - 4 units. Totdl units allowed is 146 units - proposed 130 units -a• a rental center and recreation room.) The space requirements for the additional units and the parking requirements for the additional units would have eliminated a great number of trees, so the developer decided to reduce the number of units. 4230 N.E. FREMONT STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 97213 PHONE 284-5896 July 25, 1956 ' CITY OF TIGARD AIS ' 4 iu3 i.. Page 2 of 2 plJ;iVivs�wi= : In developing the concept for the grading of the site, the effect on the surrounding trees was taken into account. It was decided to design the parking areas with grades approaching is%, thus limiting the area impacted by grading. The normal design standards for parking areas are 5% grades. This would require mass grading the entire upper two thirds of the site and cause the loss of most of the trees in the area. Retaining wails are planned in several areas of the site. These walls area placed so as to further reduce the impact. that site grading will have on the trees. The developer is planning to maintain all of the trees inside the building setback lines as a buffer between the proposed development and the surrounding properties. The developer of this project is very concerned about maintaining the natural beauty of this site, and at considerable expense to the development, has developed a plan in which many of the trees will be saved. Bradle Schleining, P.L. P.E., Vice President A i r .r— d,` i f_ f f TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS f- TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX TIGARD, OREGON l._ 1 Prepared for CBH Companies i 8315 S.E . Stark Portland, Oregon 97216 t . E Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 512 SW Broadway Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 228-5230 August, 1988 Project No. 197.00 r f i TABLE OF CONTENTS t !i INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 f Scope of Report 1 Project Description Summary of Findings 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . � Site Condition and Adjacent Land Uses i ` Transportation Facilities ` Traffic Volumes and Peak Hour Operations TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Site-Generated Traffic Volumes Trip Distribution/Assignment Total Traffic Volumes and Operations Access Safety and Site Plan Considerations RECOMMENDATIONS . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f0 E t i i -i- L FIGURES 1 . Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . Preliminary Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 . Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . 6 4 . Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . . . . . 7 5 . AM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes . 15 6 . PM Site-Generated Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . 16 7 . AM Total Traffic Volumes - 1989 . . . . . . . . . 17 8 . PM Total Traffic Volumes - 1989 . . . . . . . . . 18 t i l s TABLES 1 . General LOS Descriptions (Unsignalized) . . . . . 9 4 2 . LOS Criteria (Unsignalized) . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ` 3 . Summary of Intersection LOS Analysis - Existing Traffic Volumes - . . . . . . . . . . . it 4 . Projected Trip Generation for Proposed Site. . . . 13 5 . Summary of Intersection LOS Analysis - 1989 Total Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . 19 I i l r l -iii- t l:- INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF THE REPORT ( A traffic analysis has been conducted to analyze and evaluate likely traffic related impacts associated with the proposed Tigard Apartment Complex in Tigard, Oregon. The subject site is located along the west side of S.W. 109th Avenue directly opposite S.W. j Murdock Street. Figure 1 shows the site vicinity map for the proposed development . Some of the specific traffic related issues discussed in this report include: o Existing land use and traffic conditions in the project study area. i o Trip characteristic estimates for the proposed development of the site . o Peak hour operations at the site access driveway and on the adjacent streets. o Safety considerations including sight distance requirements. o Conceptual design of the apartment complex access _ driveway. This report has been prepared under the guidance of the City of Tigard staff . The study area for this project was defined in concurrence with Tigard city staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ( The proposed 130 unit apartment complex will be built on the currently vacant 17 .66 acre site. Approximately 35% of the site will remain undisturbed due to steep slopes to the west . The proposed development is consistent with the current zoning regulations. Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual site plan for the apartment development . The development is likely to be constructed during the next year. The site work and first building ( construction is intended to begin in 1989 . The preliminary site plan shows a single driveway to provide access to S.W. 109th Avenue. This access driveway is to be located opposite S.W. Murdock Street. The surrounding land use is mainly multi-family dwellings with several scattered single family dwellings in the area. I f r ® i l - NORTH i r l TIGARD t GAARDE STREET McDONALD i y W a c Cq � ,Py N P ( BULL MOUNTA !l ~ 0 4i r SITE MURDOCK a STREET 0 0 i 9 SITE VICINTY MAP I� ITIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Figura f AT 109TH i MURDOCK 1 t AU91988 197FOOl FFF J � onr,ranr,u6o� :nr � I O It >yJ J ox"' r�f Z o • mow~ J'� Jyb, l _ . PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN t _ 3 - TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX F(gum IFFI] AT 109TH & MURDOCK n Aug 1g88 G IN 9a7Foo2 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS o The traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment complex is not expected to significantly impact the traffic operations of the adjacent streets. The future level of service expected during the peak hour will be within the acceptable standards of the City of Tigard. o The estimated site-generated turning movements at the proposed driveway location will not interfere with the operations at the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. o In order to assure that this analysis is based upon worst case conditions, the morning and evening peak hour volumes were used in the evaluation of all intersection levels of service. Thus , the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for two hours out of each average weekday. For the remainder of each weekday and throughout the weekends, traffic ` conditions within the study impact area are likely to be better than that described in this report . o The design of the driveway approach along S.W. 109th Avenue should include a curb radii type design versus the standard driveway curb cut to facilitate the expected vehicle movements at the proposed development . The radius style driveway approach design will provide more pavement area for service vehicles and emergency vehicles to make the turns into and out of the site without encroachment into adjacent travel lanes . r 1 l I L I f -4- C 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT LAND USES ( The project site is currently vacant and has a light to dense t vegetation cover on the area to be developed. There is a dense forest on the west slope that will be left undisturbed. The ' current adjacent land use is mainly multi-family dwellings with a few scattered single family dwellings. 4 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Highway 99 is a north-south arterial linking the City of Portland ( with cities to the south. S.W. Canterbury Lane is a minor I collector, and S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. Murdock are local city streets as defined in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. At the three- legged intersection of S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue, S .W. 109th Avenue is stop-sign controlled. The proposed access to the development will be built as a private driveway. Transit services are provided via bus route #12 which runs along Highway 99 from Portland to Sherwood every 15 minutes on weekdays and hourly on Saturdays and Sundays . f TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS The a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the adjacent streets ( were compiled from traffic counts conducted by Kittelson and Associates, Inc. The peak hour observations revealed that the ( morning peak hour occurs from 8:00 to 9 :00 a.m. and the evening l peak hour occurs from 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. The observed peak hour traffic volumes for the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S .W. 109th Avenue intersection and estimated traffic volumes for the S.W. 109th Avenue/S .W. Murdock Street intersection are shown in Figures 3 and 4 . The peak hour traffic operations, in terms of level of service, at the S .W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street were examined in accordance with procedures described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1 ) . Level of Service (LOS) is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and Impediments -caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or roadway segment. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual includes a methodology for calculating the LOS at stop-controlled intersections. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is defined differently than for signalized intersections in that it is based upon the concept of "Reserve -5- i NORTH ( ( ?iS rF� 6�Ry� Ohs so f tiF I MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) MURDOCK _ T LANE (PRIVATE) SITE MURDOCK STREET 0 Ln Ln Q 0 j Wf- 20 0-41- B--0 0 N L0 I I I OBSERVED A.M. PEAK HOUR ( ( TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES —6_ TIGAR0 APARTMENT COMPLEX Figure AT 109TH & MURDOCK3 Aug1988 ' 1e7Foos r� NORTH F[ { 1 ll I RS I f i I I MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) MURDOCK T LANE (PRIVATE) SITE MURDOCK STREET t � �=J CD to c*4 04 !_ �0 O s15 0-0-40. .0— vs t ooJAD OBSERVE® P.M. PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Floure AT 109TH D®CK Aug1988 197FO04 Capacity" (i .e. , that portion of available hourly capacity that is not used) . A qualitative description of the various service levels associated with an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 1 . A quantitative definition of LOS for an unsignalized intersection is presented in Table 2 . The reserve capacity concept applies only to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements. Once the capacity of all the individual movements has been calculated and their LOS and expected delays determined, an r overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement having the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. The morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were used for the LOS analyses described in this report since this represents the worst case. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. Copies of the analysis forms are contained in project files and are available for review upon request . iTable 3 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS calculations for the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S.W. 109th Avenue/ S.W. Murdock intersection. As this table ( indicates, the unsignalized intersections are operating at acceptable LOS under the existing peak hour conditions. i I I i -8- I I 1 Table 1 GENERAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS f LOS General Description ------- ------------------------------------------------- A - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 0 and 10 seconds ( - Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue ( B - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 10 and 20 seconds - Some drivers begin to consider the delay an inconvenience - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue C - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 20 and 30 seconds - Many times there is more than one vehicle in the queue �_ - - Most drivers feel restricted, but not objectionably so D - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 30 and 40 seconds - Often there is more than one vehicle in the [ queue C - Drivers feel quite restricted E - Represents a condition in which the demand is ( near or equal to the probable maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the movement - Average delay per vehicle ranges between 40 and 60 seconds - There is almost always more than one vehicle in the queue - Drivers find the delays to be approaching intolerable levels i F - Forced flow - Represents an intersection failure condition that is caused by geometric and/or operational constraints external to the intersection -9- f . Table 2 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA t for ( UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS l Reserve Capacity Level of Expected Delay to i -- Service Minor Street Traffic -------- --- -------- --------------------------- >400 A Little or no delay i 300-399 B Short traffic delays 200-299 C Average traffic delays 100-199 D Long traffic delays ( 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays [ * F --------------- *When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. - This condition usually warrants improvement to the intersection. � Source : Transportation Research Board. "Highway Capacity Manual" . Special Report 209 ( 1985) t i t I t t C f -10- i. Table 3 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS (� Existing Traffic Volumes fUnsignalized Intersection ------------ ff Reserve l Intersection Period LOS Capacity ( ------------ ------ --- --- ---- Canterbury Lane/ A.M. A 860 109th Avenue P.M. A 810 f109th Avenue/ A.M. A 970 Murdock Street P.M. A 980 I C i i f -il- f- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The assumed trip characteristic estimates are the basis for the traffic impact analysis in this report . Therefore, special care ( has been taken to ensure the reasonableness of these estimates. l The three major components of the trip characteristic estimates examined in this study are trip generation (i .e. , the number and type of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the site ( development) , trip distribution ( i .e. , the directional orientation of the site-generated vehicle trips) and trip assignment ( i .e. , the specific road segments used by site-generated traffic) . Various assumptions need to be made during the development of each component. As detailed in the following sections, the assumptions ( used to develop the trip characteristics for this study result in l conservatively high traffic volume estimates that are consistent with other transportation planning efforts in the area. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Estimates of total daily, morning and evening peak hour driveway volumes for the proposed apartment development were developed on the basis of empirical observations at similar-sized apartment complexes located throughout the United States. These empirical I _ observations are summarized in a standard reference manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Reference 2) , and are supported by additional independent studies conducted by both the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego Engineering Department. Based on the information described above, the trip generation characteristics shown in Table 4 were estimated for buildout of the site in accordance with the proposed site plan. The table identifies the expected number of vehicle trip ends to be generated by the site on a daily, morning and evening peak hour basis. Y -12- 1 < Table 4 PROJECTED TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED SITE ----------Generated-Trips- (B)---- Size of A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use -------------- -- ------------ Land Use (Units) (A) Daily Total In Out Total In Out �. -------- ----------- ------------------------------------- Apartments 130 800 70 10 60 90 60 45 ------------- ` Notes : i A. Units = Dwelling Units j B. Includes both inbound and outbound trips . f i 1 -13- i. TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT The distribution of the site-generated trips onto the adjacent street system was estimated through examination of the general directional distribution at the intersection of S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue. Figures 5 and 6 show the site- generated traffic volumes assigned to the site access driveway and to the S.W. Canterbury Lane/ S.W. 109th Avenue intersection. I TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND OPERATIONS 1989 Conditions Figures 7 and 8 show the total projected 1989 a.m. and p.m. peak j hour traffic volumes for the proposed site access point and the unsignalized intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane and S .W. 109th Avenue. The total traffic volumes represent the traffic conditions expected with the full development of this site. Table 5 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis conducted at the unsignalized S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the unsignalized S.W. 109th Avenue/S .W. Murdock Street intersection for the 1989 Total traffic conditions. The S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue intersection and the S .W. 109th Avenue/S .W. Murdock intersection are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. ACCESS SAFETY AND SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS j The morning and evening peak hour operations at the proposed access l driveway along S.W. 109th Avenue with the 1989 total traffic volumes will be within acceptable standards under stop sign f control . The final design of the access locations needs to consider the following safety and operational requirements : o sight distance, o driveway width and vehicle turning radii , and Sight Distance Requirements r The minimum stopping sight distance requirements along S.W. Il Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue are 225 to 250 feet, based upon procedures for standard roadway design (Reference 3) . The existing sight distance at the S.W. Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th t -14- 0 NORTH 1 O O1 i Cq� r g � f f MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) IMURDOCK fT / LANE (PRIVATE) I SITE MURDOCK STREET f �J� o°j 55•� k_0 5--P 4-0 0-%4 0 q 4 , 1 r 000 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES A.M. PEAK HOUR TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Figura AT 109TH MURDOCK Auga 1988 !79 ' f 4 I t f NORTH t - S� r ir- 'stir � ~o r� o tiF f MURDOCK I PLACE (PRIVATE) MURDOCK ( T LANE (PRIVATE) t.. SITE MURDOCK STREET J4' �? o 30-0 �-0 0.e0 0d�� 1 ��0 0 Doo I I SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC �. VOLUMES P.M. PEAK HOUR TIGIARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Figure AT 109TH & MURDOCK G* Aug 1988 V t NORTH i, ?S c'4ti r l F,��G�} �� • Aft,**0110 MURDOCK PUKE (PRIVATE) MURDOCK 7. LANE (PRIVATE) SITE MURDOCK STREET .�� to in 0 55 20 5--op 4-0 0—4*1 Ir,0 O N N 1989 TOTAL TRAFFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR TIGARD APARTMENT COMPLEX Figure AT 109TH A MURDOCK Aug1988 ,9�F0�� NORTH BOOS,► cqN R rF'Q6GN ham/ I'� �0S NF E i MURDOCK PLACE (PRIVATE) MURDOCK ( T LANE (PRIVATE) SITE t- MURDOCK STREET wNN Q 30--$ *--15 0--op. 40-0 0 0 0 Ln t 1999 TOTAL TRAFFIC P.M. PEAK HOUR -18- A T COMPLEX 108TH & MURDOCK Fl Qro Au 1988 � 1 ` Table 5 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LOS ANALYSIS 1989 Total Traffic Volumes Ii t Unsignalized Intersection ------------ Reserve ` Intersection Period LOS -Capacity- _ _ ------------ ------ --- Canterbury Lane/ A.M. A 780 109th Avenue P.M. A 720 109th Avenue/ A.M. A 860 (_ Murdock Street P.M. A 820 I ' [ I i i t I i I I� �y -19- Avenue intersection was measured to be 280 feet, looking from S.W. 109th Avenue to the west, and 300 feet looking to the east. Sight distance at the proposed driveway access was measured to be approximately 250 feet in both directions. As noted above, this observed sight distance complies with standards established by the l American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Reference 3) . t Driveway Width and Truck Turning Radii The driveway along S.W. 109th Avenue should be designed to accommodate occasional use by emergency vehicles and large service trucks . The width of the driveway should be at least 30 feet to allow for a single inbound lane and a single outbound lane of traffic. This width complies with the City of Tigard access design standards . The driveway .approach along S.W. 109th Avenue should include a curb radii type design versus the standard driveway curb cut to facilitate the expected service vehicle movements at the proposed development . A minimum 25-foot inside radius should be used at the driveway location. This radius will provide adequate pavement area for service trucks and emergency vehicles to make the ( turns into and out of the site without encroachment into adjacent l travel lanes . f RECOMMENDATIONS i I Based on the results of this study, the traffic generated by the proposed Tigard Apartment complex is not expected to significantly impact the traffic operations of the adjacent streets. The future level of service expected during the peak hour will be within the acceptable standards, as defined by the City of Tigard. The estimated site-generated traffic will not interfere with the operations at the intersections of S.W.Canterbury Lane/S.W. 109th Avenue and S.W. 109th Avenue/S.W. Murdock Street. The intersection at S.W. Canterbury Lane and S.W. 109th Avenue currently operates at an acceptable LOS and would continue to do so under future volumes forecasted for the project. In additicn, available sight distance for eastbound S.W. Canterbury Lane vehicles to see northbound S.W. 109th Avenue exiting vehicles is within acceptable standards. In the future, traffic volumes may increase to levels that would warrant the prohibition of parking on the south side of S.W. Canterbury Lane, between the easternmost -20- driveway to the Maple Tree Apartments and S.W. 109th Avenue. This measure would increase sight distance to the west from S.W. 109th Avenue to approximately 450 feet. C� l _ I I 1 -21- i REFERENCES 1 . Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual . Special Report Number 209 (1985) . 2 . Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual : Third Edition (1983) . t 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation 1 Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and l-- Streets (1984) . i I i f I l t. f -22- l - r c- REFERENCES It l 1 . Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual . Special Report Number 209 ( 1985) . 2 . Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual : Third Edition (1983) . 3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation ' Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ( 1984) . l i i. l -22- l TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i. PULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 6, 1-,s8 1. President: Moen called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. The meeting was hold at the Tigard Civic Center - TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM -- 13125 SW Hall Blvd. , Tigard, Oregon. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Pr•es.ident Moen; Commissioners Barber, Rosbor•ough, Peterson, and Castile. Absent: Commissioners Owens, Fyre, Lever•ett, and Newton. Staff: Senior• Planner Keith L-iden, and Secretary Diane Jelderks. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commi.ss:ioner• Peterson moved and Commissioner Castile seconded to approve minutes from August 16, 1988, correcting the spelling of Mr. Novak's name. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Moan abstained. Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Rosborough seconded to approved minutes from August 2, 1988, as submitted. Motion carried by majority of Commissioners present. Commissioner Moen abstained. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION There was no communication. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-14 KOLL COMPANY (McKenzie/Saito) NPO # 5 An appeal of a Director's approval to allow construction of Phase I of Kol.l Corporate center on the former Ford Pre-•Deli.very Service Corporation site. Phase I would include construction of one four-story, 57,600 square font office building and two single story, flex--space industrial buildings. 7-oni.ng: I•--P (Industrial park) and I--L (Light Industrial) . LOCATION: 14880 SW 72nd Ave. (WCTM 2S1 12AD, lot 800); and 6830 SW Bonita Road (WCTM 2S1 12AD lot 400) . Senior Planner L.iden explained that the applicant and appellant had come to an agreement and that the appellant had withdrawn their appeal . 5.2 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-17, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04, VARIANCE V 88-27 SCHUETZ (TOD DEKANTER) NPO # 6 Request for a planned development approval of a 130 units apartment: complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium density r•esi.dent-i.al, 1.2 units/acre, Planned Development) . Also a request for a Variance to City regulations that requires two (2) access points on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 LOAD lot- 8802 and 2S1 IOAC lots 400 and 500) . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 - PAGE 1 Senior Planner ( iewed the proposal and sever, of the conditions and made staff-'s reco....nendation for approval. Discussion followed regarding the location of the site, preservation of trees, single access, grade of the parking area, and public improvements. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION o Carl Mase, CBH Companies, 8315 SE Stark, Portland, Or. 97216, agreed with the staff's report and conditions. He stated that they had met with the NPU and other neighbors and that their major concern was the trees, which is the reason they chose to construct 4—plex units. lie requested their engineer respond to the concerns about the grade. 0 Brad Schleining, 4230 NH Fremont St-. , Portland, OR 97213, reviewed the site and explained the difficulty they would have in meeting the recommendation for a six percent grade. He also explained the curb returns were regular street: curbs without driveway aprons. Discussion followed regarding ramping. o Carl Nase added that he felt that the City Engineer and their Engineer should be allowed to work out the engineering details. Discussion followed regarding the location of the rental office and the r•ecr•eation room. NPO REPRESENTATIVE o Marge Davenport, 15100 SW 109th , representing NPO H6. Their• main concerns are the road systems, the single access, that the storm sewer system would create an erosion problem, that the trees would not; be saved because of their close proximity to the buildings, and that this development is not suited to this site because of the grade. Also, that this development would landlock an existing lot. -rhe consensus of the NPO was to oppose this development. She stated that any development should be postponed until an overall plan for the area is completed. She felt single—family residences would be more appropriate for the site. PUBLIC TESTIMONY o Roger Rauch, 5800 SW Macadam it 350, Portland, 97201, represented Mr•. and Mr•s. Schuetz in the sale of the property. He explained how th6y had taken great care in marketing and selecting a developer because of the sensitivity of the site. o Edna Annand, 14600 SW Pacific Highway, Tigard, 9722.4, representing her in—laws, distributed a map of the area. She stated that the parcel to the north is developed as a single--•family residence and has been featured .in the Sunset magazines and books. She requested that a fence be installed to protect their• property. She questioned how the property had been rezoned from R-7 as requested in March 1987, to R-1.2. Discussion followed regarding the Comprehensive Plan process. She requested that they no bulldozing be done beyond the drip line of trees which are .located on their• property. She did riot want the Annand's to be liable for trees that might fall from having their roots damaged. She was concerned with the installation of the sewer- line, because of the steepness of slopes and soil conditions, that the hill might come down onto Pacific Highway. She was also concerned about possible fire hazards. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 — PAGE 2 o Ray Hammerly, 1�- 7 SW 1.09th, owner of the townl" se to the south of the entrance, had thio: same concerns as the previous speakers. lie did not favor the variance for one access, but had no idea how to obtain a second access without acquiring more property. lie had concerns for the trees because of past history in the City and requested some type of fencing. o Jack For•ell, 14815 SW 109th, owner and developer of the four townhouses had developed his property when this site was zoned R--4.5. He was concerned about the traffic and requested that some type of fencing or screening be installed to protect abutting residences. o Jorn Peterson, 10510 SW Kent Place, congratulated the developer for proposing a first class multi—family development. He felt that there should be a road from 109th to Summerfield and that the sewer should connect to the line at Canterbury. He stated that he had attended the hearings when the city had changed the zoning. REBUTTAL o Carl Nase stated that a traffic report performed by Kittleson & Associates found little traffic impact from this development. Staff had reviewed the report and found no problems. He explained that they neither created or made worse the .landlocked piece of property. He felt two close accesses would be more of a problem than one access. o Brad Schleining, explained that storm detention is not allowed by the City, therefore he would be using a dissipation device and would be working with the State Highway Division so the storm drainage would not impact the State Highway. Approximately 15 to 20 trees would be removed to install the line and since it is a private line, they could use smaller equipment for installation. They would work with the arborist to minimize damage to trees. lie stated that if the site were developed with single family residence, such as a Tour of Elegance, you would be appalled at the number of trees which would be removed. o Discussion followed with staff- regarding improvements to Pacific Highway, the landlocked piece of property, and access to the site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED o Commissioner Castile favored the proposal with fencing to protect private residences and limiting excavation around neighbors trees by staying out- of the drip line of the trees. He felt one access was a detriment to the apartments but a benefit for the neighbors. o Rosborough was undecided. He was concerned about the traffic. He felt Lhe drainage could be worked out with the City and he preferred a Pence or buffering. o Commission Barber was undecided. Her concerns were the variance for the one access and what- would happen to trees that die within one year. She wanted to see conditions for fencing and reducing the grade to six percent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 — PAGE 3 o Commissioner Pet c W in did not favor the proposal.( e felt the overlay had been applied because the site is unique and that one access should not be permitted when two or three are needed. He was concerned about the grade on the parking and that trees should not be used to allow for more density. o Commissioner Moen felt the applicant had met the density standard and had made a good faith effort. Hel was concerned about the storm sewers and parking lot grade. y Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded to deny SDR 88•--17, PD 88--04, and V 88-27 based on the findings that there were drainage problems, inadequate buffering, and parking grades were too steep. Discussion followed regarding the PD overlay. Motion failed two to three. Commissioners Moen, Rosborough, and Castile voting no. o Discussion followed regarding buffering. Commissioner Rosborough moved and Commissioner- Castile seconded to approve SDR 88-17, PD 88-04, and V 88--27 adding condition to install a chain link fence and site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the area along Pacific Highway open. Also, to modify condition number 11 requiring extreme caution to be used to protect trees on abutting property. Motion failed two to three. Commissioners Moen, Peterson, and Barber voting no. RECESS 9:47 RECONVENE 9:57 o Commissioner Moen explained that his concerns with the uniqueness of the site were for the trees and the steep slopes. He had problems with the parking and location of the building on the site. He favored 100 units versus 130 units. o Commissioner Peterson felt there where too many units for the number of accesses. o Commissioner- Barber concurred. o Commissioner Castile stated he would like to see fewer units. •x• Commissioner Peterson moved and Commissioner Barber seconded for conceptual approval riot to exceed 100 units for SDR 88-17, PD 88-04, and V 88--27. The reason for reducing the units was because of the problems of access, grade, unique character of the site, and the existing forest. Also, add a condition to install a chain link fence with site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence leaving the area along Pacific Highway open. The fence is to be installed prior to constr•ucti.on. Also, to modify condition number 11 requiring extreme caution to be used to protect trees on abutting property. Motion carried unanimously by Commissioners present. o Carl Nase stated for the record that he felt the Planning Commission had just- changed the zoning on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 - PAGE 4 6. Other Business ( / o Senior Planner Liden explained that because of the Historic overlay assigned to the Durham School site that a Committee was needed to review the proposal and that a member of the the Planning Commission needed to be a member of that Committee. Commissioner Barber was selected to be the Planning Commission representative. Diane M. Jelderk Secretary AI-FEST: C I A. Donald Moen, President r s t `r d j/6954D �i i� e: n r 6 F E { PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 1980 — PAGE 5 LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FORM The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code therefore sets out specific requirements for �' �� T�� INOWD filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in OREGON filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at 639-4171. 1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: PD 88-04, SDR 88-17 and V 88-27 F 2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY: Tod DeKanter applied on behalf of CBH f t _Company for the above named approvals. I am the attorney for CBH. I 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:_CBH Company agrees with the Planning eorimisaion_ decision to approve the application, however, it o oses 1 1 ) a limit of 100 units of housing where the existing R-12 (PD) zoning allows for up to 152 units , 2) a condition that the variance granted to allow one access where two are required by code is linked r to the condition that no more than 100 units be built on the site, k r. _an(j -4) a ronditinn that the detailed plan be submitted to the Planning rnmmiccinn fnr _review. The applicant contends that the Planning i _enmmiGsion did nni- prnpprly agp1y the Planned Development section of the Community Develoipment Code Chapter 18. 80, to the a licatio . over) { i` 4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL: October 3 , 1988 i 5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL .DECISION WAS GIVEN- September, 1 , 19 8 8• f 6. SIGNATURE(S): E f is William A Monahan, Attorney for CBH Company x x x x x x x x x x x x i<x x x x x x xat X*X- - -x-*xiEx x x xx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x x-x*x-*x-**.X- -*.X-X-x-x**X-x-x-x-x x x x x x jt x x x x x FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: C.LUVVP�Date: n 93 Time: 14 15-v rv� Approved As To Form By: /e-, U Date: .' Time: Denied As To Form By: -�- Date: Time: *X*X X X X x X HE***!•)FXXX HEX XXxil•xX-x-)t x x x x)t x%�Fx x x x x x�E*DHt x x M 3E x x x H D(x x x 1F)HE*at lHE*)E9E lw/4846A Wil;I t,JCC (fid rr4 ed 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (,503)639-4171 ``- f CBH Company Appeal - Page 2 The number of units allowed by the Commission action is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for land zoned R-12 with a PD overlay. The applicant further appeals the application of fencing and planting conditions that exceed the standards established within the Community Development Code. The findings contained within the Final Order do not support the decision as the applicant has fully satisfied all applicable sections of the City plan and code. i i PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT ��. SCHUETZ (DEKANTER) SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 88-17 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 88-04 b VARIANCE V 88-27 DON MOEN, With that we would like to move onto item 5.2, could we have the staff report please? KEITH LIDEN, This property to be, is proposed to be developed is located west of 109th Avenue, near the intersection of 109th and Murdock, its 12.66 acres and the applicant is proposing to develop it with 130 apartment units. There is also a variance proposed to allow one access drive as opposed to the two access drives that are normally required for this number of units in the Community Development Code. I have a copy of the site plan up on the wall. As you can see most of the units are concentrated on the eastern half of the property. It is virtually all wooded and all of the trees on the west side of the property they are shown not to be developed will remain with the exception of some that may possibly need to be removed to install a sewer line that will run down the hill from the apartment complex to Pacific Highway. Which is on the left as your looking at that site plan. The staff has reviewed the proposal and we find that its consistent with the applicable policies in the Comprehensive Plan and Code criteria, subject to a number of conditions. I' ll just hit some of the highlights, I guess, so to speak. One would be that a five foot sidewalk be provided along 109th Avenue. That an Arborist report be provided prior to any grading or earthwork, site clearing on the site to first, justify the removal of trees on site and have a specific plan for protection of trees during construction of the projection and also for the a plan for the long term health of the trees. The site plan does indicate the trees that, location where trees are intended to be preserved at this point they are indicated by the small dots that you have on the site plan. And, we find that the applicant, at least based on what we have so far, appears to be meeting the intent of our Code requirement for maximizing the number of trees the amount of trees that are saved during development. Also, we are requiring as a condition of approval, or recommending as a requirement, that they, a TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 68-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 1 landscaping plan be provided. At this point we have a plan showing conceptually which trees are going to be preserved, but we would also need a plan for just landscaping, ground covering types of landscaping. We're also finding, that based on the situation that we have with this property, the second access would really be of no value. For one reason, as you can see the i frontage on 109th Avenue is relatively short. Having two access drives in close proximity would really not help. Also it would probably, would create more conflicts with the intersection at Murdock, which is across the street. As far access onto Pacific Highway, the State Highway would not want to have a access in that location, and also because of the grade and the trees it would necessitate quite a bit of earthwork and tree removal to work an access down to Pacific Highway, so we don't see any value in that as well. I guess, I did mention that sanitary sewer and storm sewer will go down the hill to Pacific Highway and then will proceed north towards Canterbury Square. I guess that concludes my remarks, do you have any questions? DON MOEN, I have one. From the information we were provided in our packet, both by the developer and by the staff report; I had great deal of difficulty fiquring out exactly where that lot was. Do you, can you show us, I know you have the tax lot maps and so on and so forth, but we wern't provided with that, least my copy wasn't. It was a little hard to locate it on 109th. I could guess, but I didn't really want to do that. KEITH LIDEN, "Okay. Includes these two, oops, what am I doing. Can't read the map upside down as well as I thought, okay, we are over here, and that piece right there." MOEN, Okay, so its right in the middle LIDEN, Yes. l MOEN, What is this strip in there? LIDEN, It uh MOEN, An easement or road. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88--04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 2 LIDEN, No, its uh, it reflects a lot line adjustment that was done. My understanding is the property owner on the north did a trade of property with a the property owner to the south, exchanging some land that had frontage on 109th for 50 feet. Someone else can explain that better than I, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER ROSBOROUGH, Where's Hector's? LIDEN, Rector' s? COMMISSIONER CASTILE, They're down here. LIDEN, Hectors, down here. ROSBOROUGH, Okay. MOEN, Okay, so this is ROSBOROUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . top of the hill . LIDEN, Yes, really just about the top of the hill. CASTILE, Before you get to Canterbury. . . . . .several people talking same time . . . . . . MOEN, I think this might almost even be the top of the hill. ROSBOROUGH, It looks like it. LIDEN, It is, its very close to the crest. MOEN, Maybe some of the testimony can help us out there. Okay. Maybe you could point that out to the other members of the Commission. Okay. COMMISSIONER BARBER, Excuse me. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 3 i 11�1111111 ME! III s . l r MOEN, Yes. BARBER, I have a question. a MOEN, Okay. Barber. BARBER, "On page four where the Engineering Division made their comments. I'm not sure they are recommending that one access is permissible or whether they are saying that there should be another one. In that number two, it says, "The Code requires one access per each hundred, therefore two access are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a variance, one access is requested in order to limit the impact." I guess they were just commenting rattier than recommending? LIDEN, Yes, at that point they are commenting. We have the discussion relating to access, which is really the opinion of both the planning staff and the engineering staff, starts on page seven and ends on page eight. And (' really based on the particular circumstances here, we just did not see any particular merit in having a second driveway. BARBER, I have only two other short questions. MOEN, Go ahead. BARBER, On pa-,,e nine, in i . , it talks about tree removal and that there will be a arborist report outlining methods of protection, if however, some of those trees that are recommended to be left there die, will they be replaced, will they need to be, well, will they be replaced if they do die? The reason I'm asking is because I've see that happen, where certain trees were left and they died subsequently and were not replaced. LIDEN, That certainly could be clarified in the conditions of approval. At this point the conditions do not address that, I think that we're presuming that if they follow the arborist report, protect the trees adequately during construction, that that should not occur. However, it still could even if they follow arborist, I mean, I guess they are just like a doctor in another way, the re not going to be 100% correct. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 4 r: BARBER, Some of their patients die. LIDEN, I mean sometimes they may feel that it will and they still won't, for other reasons. BARBER, And one other one. I'm sorry MOEN, "Okay. No, go ahead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . BARBER, On page ten, in number six, it says that the Engineering Division recommends that cross slopes and parking areas be reduced to approximately six percent. Is a recommendation a requirement in this case? MOEN, I think, I read that too, I think we would have to change the wording ` if we are going to make it a requirement. We'll have to decide whether thats what we will want to do or not. LIDEN, That one, I think will, the applicant might be able to speak to a little bit better. I, I agree that this is, this wording is a little bit, BARBER, Loose. LIDEN, Well, its not quite appropriate here, but, the situation is, is that the proposed design meets the standards, the concerns that Engineering had is that they have some parking spacing that were going to be going sideways to the slope angle and they were just saying that there were going to be a lot of problems, if nothing else, lots of dings on cars everytime you open the door and don't quite get the handle . . . .swh0000p . . . . there it goes . So its not really meant to be a requirement, because they do meet the requirement for grade, its just from a oper, you know, using the site, parking there and so forth that they just feel its going to cause some problems. MOEN, Okay, maybe we can have the applicant, will have a chance to address that. I had one questions, one other question, then we can get on with, if L C you, Commissioner Barber are you? f 1 i TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 5 r • ss i BARBER, Yes I'm finished. MOEN, "Okay. Got your questions. Now if I could just find mine. And this is just my igorance, I guess, but on page four, it says that the reports recommends that curb returns be utilized for the sites driveway to improve accessibility in and out of the site. What do you mean by curb returns? LIDEN, This is where on number four. MOEN, Page four, page four, item four, right, the last sentence in item four, I guess its 5.4. LIDEN, I don't have an answer right now let me take a look at that site plan, maybe I can see what engineering was referring to. I didn't, I was not the author of this report, I went through it and talked to Jerry about, but, we didn't go over curb returns. MOEN, Well I found something that I didn't understand. BARBER, Me too. LIDEN, Okay, let me see. MOEN, "Yes, Commissioner Peterson? COMMISSIONER PETERSON, I have one question concerning Highway 99, are we talking about any half-street improvements or anything to 99 at this time. LIDEN, Apparently not, the State Highway Department was informed of this proposal and the applicant will need to get a permit from the State Highway Division to work in the right-of-way; and they will be having the sanitary sewer installed in the right-of-way, but there is no requirement for half-street improvements. CPETERSON, Do you suppose, because there not having an access off of 99 is why they're not requiring that? TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 6 1. -- LIDEN, I'll check with the State Highway Division comments. I have the file . l here I can answer that in a minutes, maybe a little later when you get into. MOEN, Okay, don't forget to ask him again. LIDEN, Ask me again, ask me again and I'll review. MOEN, Okay. Very good, thank you staff. Could we have the •applicant's presentation please. If I could I have a colored rendering that might help highlight some areas, could I put it up there? Pretty much the same one, but just colored outline. My name is CARL NASE, I work for CBH Companies, the developer, at 8315 SE Stark, Portland, OR 97216. First of all we agree with staff and all their conditions in their report and don't have any problems or objections to what they're, in their report. Originally when we started out with this we met with the neighborhood association for their input and brought them some preliminary plans and we tried to work with the people in the area and wanted to be in a friendly type relationship or rapport and we brought it into the city for pre—app and went through the process and our. Our philosophy was that the biggest issue would be trees, with the neighbors and that sort of thing. So when we went into planning we looked at building only for plex building. Each building has four units to each, which is more expensive for us to build as self evident as it is, we have extra walls. We could build eight—plexes and line them up like barricks and mow down as many trees as we need to, but this way, with four—plex buildings we have more flexibility in turning them and situating them to save more trees as optimal as possible. Arid, and also maintain the existing grading as much possible, to leave open space, and then also the denser forest area down towards Pacific Highway. Which is really not feasible to build, to grade and as thick as forest as was. Basically we feel that we conform with all the planned development, Code, to preserve to the greatest extent the existing landscaping and open space. Arid as we said in the beginning we sat down with the neighborhood association and tried to take on any input that they had and tried to been as cooperative as possible and hopefully we can solve any issues here tonight. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 7 MOEN, Okay. a MASE, Thats it. Do you have any questions. MOEN, Okay. I had one question. Commissioner Barber do you want to lead off? Go ahead. BARBER, My question has to do with the buildings. You said that they would be all four—plex? NASE, Yeah. i BARBER, Are you then not going to build those two, two level twelve—plex i apartment buildings. i NASE, Excuse me, in the middle there yeah, in the middle there, excuse me, I didn't, out of context when I said all, sorry. ( MOEN, Okay, thats, oh, okay, right in the, the two in the center court yard. Okay. My question related to the parking. The staff has, staff has recommended that the slopes that your proposing for the parking lot, at least there is some discussion there regarding difference between five percent and ten percent slopes. NASE, Right, right. MOEN, And if I read, my interpretation of what the staff's conditions say would be that, I would interpret that the City would like you to provide five percent grade on those. NASE, Five or six, was it? MOEN, well, less than ten, lets put it that way. I think it was, it may have been six . TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 8 NASE, When I read that, we obtained this staff report friday. When I read that I interpreted it as saying that, they still wanted to work it out with t our engineer also. So to be, MOEN, Six percent. + NASE, I'm not an expert in civil engineering, could I have our Engineer come up an answer that question for you? MOEN, Sure, yeah, that would be alright. NASE, Brad. I'm BRAD SCHLEINING and I'm W. B. Wells and Associate's engineers, and we're located at 4230 NE Fremont Street, Portland 97213 . In general you want to stay between five and six percent for comfort of the people using the parking lot. Opening doors, if its on a steep grade the doors fly and dings, theres no way around that. But in this particular instance we tried to save trees C and that site is heavily grade, you know, if you look at the topographic map over here you can see, at the top of the site its fairly flat, but as you get into, pass this area, your dropping into 10, 15, and some places 20 percent grades, you can't fight nature, you've got to work with what god's given you to work with. So what we've tried to do here is, in this section, we don't have any choice but to stay with the 10 to 12 percent grades. Thee uh, if your going to cut it down to like six percent, what your going to end up doing is moving a whole lot of dirt out of there or moving dirt in. What we've looked at, is we were to start at this point and run the grades back at five percent, we would probably be building, what we would call a cut bank, or fill bank, fill slope, that would probably not catch up to the existing ground until you got half—way down to Pacific Highway. That would mean that back, well lets see if I can some, little bit of dimension in here. Forty scale. This is about 10 percent grade right here, so what would happen is that each one of these -lines which represents a design contour, every other one would be eliminated. So you would have one two three four five six seven eight nine, approximately nine feet of fill material you would have to place right here. When you put five feet of fill material in, its got to catch up with the slope TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 9 G at a two to one grade. What happens is that you end up burying the roots of all the trees. You' ll put in, the ones up closes here will be at nine feet of fill, as it goes down it will get less. And if a tree, generally speaking, V%m not an arborist, but from experience, you put a tree in more than two to three foot of fill its gone. The roots are going to suffocate its, you know, its grown for 50 years and its just is not going to adjust to the shock. So Chats the situation with the grades. Over here we have a little bit of flexibility because it is flatter up here. This can be drug out on this side. In other words these lines you see here represent foot drops in elevation, they can be pulled up into this area to flatten this out. This is at ten percent. I would estimate, might be able to get that to eight percent. By going to eight percent there is a retaining wall here. That wall would probably be four feet now, it would probably go up to a six foot retaining wall. I would use retaining walls so that we don't have to disturb the trees. It would also extend this retaining wall up here and these trees in this vicinity, those are probably insignificant trees, looks like one deciduous and one evergreen, but they would be lost. MOEN, Would it be possible to build a retaining wall along the west side of the property as well, if you did change the slope to get? SCHLEINING, You can, you can build retaining walls in MOEN, As opposed to your, I know what your saying, as opposed to the slope. SCHLEINING, Over here it doesn't help us that much. Where we come into the problem, you see right here you got room to stretch the grade out. Its flatter right here. So what you do is increase the grade here. MOEN, I understand that. SCHLEINING, Okay, over here you don't have any room. See you have to get from this grade I MOEN, But you said that if you took a five percent or six percent slope from the top down then you would end up about nine feet in the . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 10 F j: i SCHLEINING, . . . . . build retaining wall back here. Yeah, you can do that that, the only problem that that presents is accessing down into these units and then any utility problems that you may development. A nine foot retaining wall, of course, would not, would be not real practicable. Your 5 first floor of your unit would be looking into a wall. I MOEN, Well you would have to step it down or something. SCHLEINING, Well you don't have, you would only be able to use one wall. There's no room to step. If we start stepping the walls down your, you've got to move the units back to allow for room. You can't have the units right up into the wall. And what are philosophy, are concept on this was in order to have, basically no impact on the trees down here, except for where the buildings were sited, we've held to the natural ground right here. So thats what we were thinking when we did that. And we do know that we have severe grades for parking. I do have another comment, there was. Somebody raised a different issue beside the parking that did have to do with engineering. Oh it was the curb returns. The normal procedure in an apartment or multi—family area, or even a single family residence. When you put your driveway in you have what you call curb cut and a driveway apron approach. But what this appears to be saying to me is that instead of putting a driveway apron in, you put just like a regular street curbs, and that is probably reasonable since the street Murdock, across the way it would probably look alot nicer. If there are any other questions on engineering I would be more than happy to answer. Yes. CASTILE, Why couldn't you stair step the parking lot down somewhat, in increments of a foot? SCHLEINING, You can, what we've done here now it is basically a stair stepping situation. How do you stair step a parking lot. You have to ramp, your talking about ramping it down and bring it out. CASTILE, When your angle is coming down from your road and then when you pull in, might have to build one up so it, to come level, then drop down. E C � i TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 11 j I . SCHLEINING, I understand what your saying. We use ramping. okay in this { situation, like lets say right in here, this is all parking on both sides. Ok•.ay so your talking about maintaining five, six percent in there, you've go a nine, maybe a ten foot island in here which you could take down at ten percent or fifteen percent grade. Okay. Through here you can't do it, but right here for ten feet you can. I don't know if you have been on a, first of all we have a lot of drop in here, your only going, right now this is a ten percent. , If we, what is the City maximum, 15? So you would be looking at gaining a foot and a half right through the island areas. You know its possible to do that to reduce the impact, I think its real uncomfortable for anybody who lives there, I think its, in my opinion its more uncomfortable to drive on something like that than it is to park something and be careful of my door, because it works like a speed bump. Your going down and your continually getting jostled and when your moving in and moving out, if you've got stuff stacked in your truck, its gone. Anyway thats my opinion. We don't like to work with driveways like that. MOEN, Okay, Any other questions? NASE, Any other questions for me. Thats why I thought it would be best if City Engineer and our Engineer get together on the final plans and you know look at the most optimal way of handling that. I know that its difficult, some of the problems that arise with that site. MOEN, Okay. BARBER, I do have one question. NASE, Sure. BARBER, Where is the rental center and the recreation room going to be? NASE, Sure, its usually one of the front buildings. The Architect doesn't have it marked. The Architect is ill tonight too, anC he couldn't make it. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 12 ii BARBER, The reason I ask is because it, the letter of July 25th, from the Architect says that there will be a hundred units plus the rental center and �• recreation room. Not including but plus. NASE, It says a hundred units plus. BARBER, No, it says a hundred thirty units plus a rental center and a recreation room. • NASE, Either its not identified on there, I know that that counted to, at 130 units, so, I'm not, I don't think its included in it, that we've deleted it. That was something in the process of the design review, design approval between the Architect and the owner that I wasn't involved in and I can't recall and I can't answer. MOEN, Okay, that answer your question. Anything else. Okay. If we have any other questions well ask. NASE, Thank your very much. MOEN, With that we want to move onto the NPO presentation. I believe we have Marge Davenport for NPO number six. I'm MARGE DAVENPORT, for NPO # 6, I also live on 109th. I don't know how many of you have been on the Planning Commission for how long, but the problems on Little Bull Mountain go back MOEN, Excuse me. Excuse me could we have it quite so that we can hear the i testimony. Thank you. Go ahead. i DAVENPORT, The problems on Little Bull Mountain go back a long ways. I've been on the NPO a long time and even before I was on it one of the first y reports that came out of the NPO said that Little Bull Mountain was an area in Tigard that was worth saving. In fact that was the main thrust of their thing and they cited the trees and then other asset of Little Bull Mountain and. When the Comprehensive Plan was put into affect it was zoned single family TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 13 t E unit with this in mind. Our present problems on Little Bull Mountain seem to be the direct result of City Council planning on account of Westwood. I think thats when it got dumped on us. The NPO has done alot of talking about Little Bull Mountain over the years and considered and theres been other proposals for developments up there and one of the main concerns is the road system, because there needs to be a unified plan that will take into account and not ' landlock the property adjacent as this plan is going to do for some of the area. And also, to give to two access, and I think that is really important , because you have an area up there of heavy fir trees, a timbered area. You get a forest fire up there raging, you've got one access, you get a tree across the access, you've got three hundred and some people in there. Some of them may require wheel chairs and things. How are you going to get them out. Are you going to responsible for those people burning up. With one access road out through there. If you had a map I would like to show you the problem with the roads too. Is there a map that shows the whole area, have you got one? MOEN, He has a kind of a small scaled one, I think, he does. DAVENPORT, Okay. This is the property right here that is going to be developed and this. is going to be landlocked. This piece here will have no access. MOEN, Other than, can that one go out to Pacific Highway? DAVENPORT, No, this is very steep all along here and they won't let anything go to Pacific Highway. When they talked about developing before they talked about road that would come down and dump onto Naeve Road, down here through these properties, which is really logical, because 109th, this way is very steep and dead ends ups here and there is no way that Summerfield wants all all this traffic from all these apartments and things dumping into Summerfield. So they are very violently opposed to anything coming passed this dead end here and coming down this way. So you've go all this other property that you have to worry about being landlocked by this development, if you allow it. Also, they is all treed, this whole area is heavily forested up here. I live over here, this is heavily forested in here. The whole area has a lot of trees, this is all forested. This is brush and trees in here TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 14 and forest in here. That was one of the main concerns of the NPO before. Thats one of the reason why the NPO says there should be a unified plan before anything is allowed on, to develop. The traffic count. I went over their traffic thing today, down at City Hall and I was appalled at the superficial report that they gave on traffic counts. Certainly was not complete, the City did not even know how many units dumped into 109th that went down onto Canterbury, but they did look it up for me. After I called in this afternoon they had it. You have the 130 units in this development, you have 75 units in , Canterbury Woods, you have 76 units West something Pan West onej or two or something, 74 units in another one. Anyway its adds up to 360 units that are going to be going out of the street, 109th, that dumps into this very steep thing onto Canterbury Lane. Also out onto Pacific Highway there where there is no light and its already hard, today I drove up there, and its already hard to get out onto Pacific Highway. If you count seven cars, or seven trips a day, which I think is what they count, you've got 2,520 trips coming out that road, from these things, and that seems like an awful lot of traffic for that little street to hold and I don't know if that meets requirements or not because I'm not a traffic engineer expert. Another problem is the storm sewers. Today when I looked at the plans, they said they were going to collect all the storm sewer, you see there are no storm sewers on Little Bull Mountain. We pay sewage, storm sewer rates but we don't have any storm sewer, which is a very sore point with some of the people up there. Anyway they were going to collect it all in a pipe that came off here and going to have all this blacktop area running into one pipe here and then it will discharge down the hill this way. Well that looks just find, but when Canterbury Woods was developed, I live down below Canterbury Woods and the City didn't do any planning then about storm sewers and they just about washed me off the hill . I had water in my living room, water running around my house, that just came down in torrents. So I threatened to sue the City, so the Engineer, and now he's no longer with you, he's left, but, anyway he talked to the fellow and so he went and put and pipes in and runs it over to the road, it comes down 109th. Well its dug a ditch now thats about this deep along side the road and thats fine right there because its confined in this canyon, but when it goes € on down the road, why it spreads out all over the highway and washes all the gravel off of the street down into Summerfield every time it rains, which isn't so good. And I think that if you let them do it with the storm sewer TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 15 ; a there, whats going to happen is that they will erode the trees and you will probably destroy more trees. Now when the man came to the NPO and we talked about saving trees and things. We asked him about these trees, that they look es li.ke they are going to save. This is a very pretty map and it looks like they are going to save the trees. but he admitted that when you build a building and there is a big fir tree here and you have to dig out and . . . . . . . that your really not going to save those trees, because we saw it happen in Canterbury Woods, we saw it happen down at Albertsons` , and we are convinced that you , don't save trees when you have a development like that. I think that the thing might be best just to clear cut the whole thing if your going to have the development, because I don't think your going to save the trees and what happens when you undermine them is that you have a hazard and Canterbury Woods had one down somebody's neck in the last storm. I guess they had two of them destroyed part of the condominiums up there, because they had been damaged when they where doing their excavation. The steepness of the parking, that you brought up, makes it obvious that this area is really not suited to this type of development anyway. See if I've got anything else here. We've got the landlocked parcels, the street traffic problems, the forest fire problem, if you get a fire up there and you get your people trapped in there, the storm Qsewer problem and the overall problems and therefore NPO 6 strongly objects to any type of develop of this or any other thing, no matter how nice this one might look, until there is a unified plan Little Bull Mountain. MOEN, Question. Did you have, did NPO 6 have a chance to take a vote on this issue? DAVENPORT, They didn't vote on it because there was no actual thing, but I have conferred with Phil today, he called me, and we conferred with the other people and, I think that they have a unanimous feeling, the feeling of the NPO was unanimous at the time that this was. MOEN, Thats a consensus. Okay, thank you. CASTILE, What would you recommend? What: would you like to see in this property. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 16 DAVENPORT, I would like to see the Planning Commission postpone any 7 development on Little Bull Mountain until they have a unified plan thats going to address the problems up there. I think that you have serious problems and I '•. think that the whole thing needs to be addressed before you go ahead with any kind of development. I think that Tigard has already, sort of gone ahead without adequate thinking and I think that the time has come when, really we need to look at whats going on here, because we haven't got very many more things left to save or preserve in the way of livability here and I think that to make Tigard a really terrific area that we had better start .taking into consideration these things. CASTILE, So what would you propose for the property? DAVENPORT, What would I propose for the property? That this been postpone until we CASTILE, Yeah, but what would you like to see on the property? DAVENPORT, Well, I think the original Comprehensive Plan that had this property as single family, I think it was zoned 4.5, was actually a very good I idea, however, I know that it has been rezoned, and I realize that you have these problems, but you have to grant variance before you can go ahead with this development anyway, and I think this is a good time to sit back and take a look and consider that maybe you should look for a plan for the whole area before anything is done up there. Does that answer your question? CASTILE, Yes. DAVENPORT, Okay, thank you. MOEN, Thank you. With that testimony on the, from the NPO, I would like to move onto the public portion of the testimony. We have those signed up, both in favor and opposed. I would like to make the comment that I recognize one of the parties that signed up as an opponent, Edna Annand, who is a personal I acquaintance of mine, but I don't feel that will effect my judgement in this C matter so I plan on voting and not disqualifying myself. So, in ether words I don't see any conflict of interest. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 17 r EDNA ANNAND, Same here. MOEN, Okay, first I want to move onto those in favor of the item and excuse me for my pronunciation, I' ll try to do the best that I can. The first one signed up is, is it Piestrak? Its pronounced a Peastrak, and I'm tie broker representing the owners of the property and I'm just here to answer any questions. . . . to far from mic MOEN, Okay, very good, thank you. Let see Brad Schleining, SCHLEINING, MOEN, I'm sorry, you've already had, do you want to add anything more? SCHLEINING, No, I will for rebuttal. MOEN, Okay. I've got Roger Ranch. Rauch MOEN, Rauch, I'm not doing very well tonight. My name is ROGER RAUCH, I'm a broker, Portland, Rauch, Piestrak, Inc. , my partner and I represented the Schuetz in the sale of the land. We also have been familiar with CBH Companies for 15 years . . . . end of tape. . . . . asked us to market the property for development. We had many alternative as to what developers and how to market the property. At the time, as I'm sure you have had many request here for develop projects, we had quite an awry of developers to offer the property to. We as brokers and in conjunction with the Schuetz's elected to go with a local developer, rather than to go with a New Mexico developer, California developer, that type of thing, because the Schuetz's and the broker recognized it was a very sensitive parcel of ground for development. And we took it to the Harris Companies because he is TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 18 environmentally conscious. He lives here, he's local, he's been here forever r and I guess my comment for the project is that it is a local developer. He's put a lot of time and a lot of money into working with the problems that are here on this site and I think that should be considered. Thank you. MOEN, Okay. Thank you. Okay. That concludes those signed up in favor of the project, now we move onto the opposition and with start with Edna Annand. When I signed up, I didn't know if we were opposed to the property or riot, just to get there on the list. MOEN, Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record and your address. I'm EDNA !ANNAND, and for the record I'm using my in—laws for the record so that whatever testimony is passed onto them. 14600 SW Pacific Highway, which is the property that I would like to talk about. From talking to the staff previously I noticed that all these things are written without anybody seeing the property. So I would like to introduce you to the Annand land, property. Which is the blue in color. MOEN, Oh the map that I was looking for, thank you. ANNAND, Yes, . . . . . . . knew what I was going to talk about, no . . . . laughter . . . Okay. Its important that I introduce you to the land because there is no mention of it in the staff report. The staff report recognizes the single family dwelling to the south, it does not recognize the single family dwelling to the north and I would like for you to treat this as abutting a single family residence, this development. This development is next door to what has been featured in Sunset magazines and Sunset books and the appeal is that this Annand property has been developed, tailored to the trees around it. PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY, May I have a copy please for the record. ANNAND, Oh sure. This is just one article that I copied for you because I did not think that you where aware of the piece of property. It was built in the thirties, so its, they have been their aL least, about fifty years. And TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 19 most of the people who go up and down Pacific Highway do not recognize it. It is very nicely hidden. And Mr. Castile, you asked what Mrs. Davenport would +; t 's: propose. Talking off the top of my head I would like to see something like Tour of Elegance maybe there. Because that would take a few house and a little piece of land. I don' t know, it wouldn't be as thick of density. This is a very nice house, well landscaped, and right now this development is going 15 feet, the corner of the apartments will be 15 feet from the property line to this house. And what you see in the picture is what exist there. And that is what the people from the apartments will see. That house. Okay. I don't know what kind of people will be in the apartment. But I would like to see a six foot high minimum cyclone fence so that you don't have strangers wandering into your private property. And its very important, because that, this house is what other people would consider an attractive nuisance. There is a pool there, but you can't use the pool now because the city says you must have a fence around the pool. So its a nice empty thing there, very beautiful, its not very cheap. There is a very nice pond thats on the side, but very nice gold fish in there. And Mrs . Annand is talking about covering up with dirt, and I say no, because it is nice and its, thats what its landscaped for and you can't stop doing, you know, to protect yourself from the liabilities of strangers coming into your property. So I am not against the development. I know that we cannot stop development in Tigard. Because they do have the money, they'll go to City Council, they'll override whatever you decide. I am realistic. I'm just trying to protect this property next door, and trying to be realistic, saying there must be some things that you can do to safe guard a single family house next to 130 units. Okay. For many years they have been very lucky to have the privacy, but, going back to the zoning, I would like to talk about something that happened last year. And on this thing it talks about Planning Commission meeting March 3rd, 1987. Okay. And we're talking about site "A". If you look at site "A", this is when the zoning was changed, according to your records from 4.5 units per acre to 7 units per acre. Now I don't know where from this record, March 3rd, 1987, to your record, April, the following month, how the density changes from 7 to 12 and the owners where not notified of the change. So, you know, maybe this is completely out of the question, I don't know where we go with, with something like this. You know. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 20 MOEN, Maybe I can, let me ask staff, I remember somewhat this, the, its hard t� to forget that meeting. . . . laughter. . . . ANNAND, I'm sorry I wasn't around. MOEN, Well, my recollection was, at the time that the City was, or actually the Planning Commission was asked to pick the least of a multiple number of evils. Which really translated into taking density that would have been on the property that Albertsons' is now built on and transferring it someplace in the City. And it seem to me fairly early on, and I think Commissioner Peterson may have been a part of that. Or was that PETERSON, Yeah. MOEN, Made the suggestion, that given the options that we had that it made the most sense to put that density along Pacific Highway in some form. Now I don't know how it changed from the original concept of R-7, which is what on the, which was the original plan when it was brought before our group, to R-12, I'm not sure. It may have been discussed at that meeting. Because it Cwas, public notice was given in terms of, that the issue was open. ANNAND, That it would be R-7. MOEN, Well that the issue was open for discussion. At some point in time we made a recommendation, and I don't remember, off hand, whether it was for R-7 or R-12, but what we did is we recommended to City Council. Well basically they came down and asked us to put the density somewhere, and we said, well this is where we think it ought to be, and it went back to Council and that may have been where this happened, but LIDEN, The way that I remember it R-7 was originally proposed and that may have been what was advertised and I know somewhere through the hearings, either at Planning Commission, you folks, based on the testimony, recommended R-12, . . . . . . . . MOEN, I can't remember. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88--17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 21 LIDEN, went to City Council that way. Or if you recommended R-7 and at l the hearings of City Council it was amended to R-12. I don't remember where, if fact I don remember that it was originally contemplated, or suggested that R-7 would be the possible zoning. Just, with looking at all the different sites and what might be possible it was decided either here and City Council or just at City Council that R-12 would be MOEN, Do you recall Mr. Peterson? PETERSON, No. I remember specifically talking about this property but I do not remember what, if we decided 7 or 12. MOEN, Well, knowing are normal bent, we would have probably have, I would think, leaned toward seven, but. PETERSON, What else. I remember that there was specific talk of this property, of this parcel. ANNAND, See I don't know whats legal or not, you know, when we're talking about density. So thats something for you, I just threw it out for your purposes. Where you go from there is not my concern right now. MOEN, Well, I can't, I can't answer your question, I guess, to be honest with you, I remember discussing it, but my memory isn't that could how it might have got changed from 7 to 12. There may be a problem there, and there very well may not be since we had a subsequent meeting for the City Council as the final decision and depending on how that was put forth, you know, we just make a recommendation and they go with, or tell us where to jump off. So. ROSBOROUGH, Keith is this the last paragraph in the background information, talking about the redesignation approved by City Council in April, last year. MOEN, Yes. ANNAND, Yeah, thats a month later, so there was, you know, . i TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 22 ROSBOROUGH, Thats, that looks like its going right there to the 12 right there from the 4.5. ANNAND, Right, but I didn't know where, how that came into being, because the only notice that was received was the R-7, and so as I understand, if you don't attend those meetings, you don't get any notice what so ever. MOEN, Well you do have notice thats its, that the density issue is up for discussion. ANNAND, Yes, but as a land owner personally. MOEN, I understand what you are saying. I can't really answer that. Other than notice is always a problem, as you know. ANNAND, Yes, I do. MOEN, Let me ask one question on this, you've got, kind of a nice map on this and north is pretty clearly delineated on here and the house is show. How far is the property line from, I guess the best thing to ask, is from the corner of the house. . . . . . . several talking . . . . . . UNKNOWN, 25 feet. MOEN, To the property line to the south. UNKNOWN, The original property line, then we added 50 feet and . . . . strip 50 feet wide. So we have about 75 feet. MOEN, Okay. - So your now 75 feet, and, and I guess that includes these trees that are shown here and so on. PETERSON, Excuse me, I'm, I'm confused here on the map that you gave us. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 23 Where the ANNAND, The map that is colored is blue, the section that is colored in blue, is the Annand property. And see they have been very fortunate to have a secluded spot, because on the corner its marked cemetery, and they have no problems with those neighbors, and the south has been undeveloped so there has been, its been very nice to have nature there. The back, they do have an empty vacant strip. I mean up abutting 109th, its not developed, and its quite a distance before you hit Canterbury apartments. So, . . . . . . . contrary to staff report, the north part of the property is not adjacent, the north part a one lot, and single family residence. Okay, my concern, with the edge of the building being 15 feet from the property line, if there is anyway, I know that the developer would have to go beyond, the contractor would have to go beyond that, closer to the property line to get the footings into the buildings, and the trees that are on the Annand property, there spread, they are very old. There spread is very wide. And having talked to a landscaper, he suggested that maybe you would consider, the developer not bulldozing under any drip line. And I said, well this is not the Annand property, because the C branches go beyond their property, but he said maybe just as a request, because when you go beyond the drip line, edge of the branches, your also going to cut the roots. And the concern here is the liability, for example, Mrs. Davenport talked about some trees falling to some units. And I don't want them to be liable for the trees falling into anything. Because it would be, not as a result of their action, but as a result of somebody's action. but when those trees start to fall, they are old trees, they are very big and heavy tres. And I do not what the Annand to be liable for anything that happens there. So, if, I don't know, if thats a conditions that can be requested, it would be very nice. I'm also concerned about this sewer line thats going to go to the bottom of Pacific Highway. Now the reason why, its all left there is because its all undevelopible. The soil conditions are very questionable there. For years my husband use to talk about when they built the driveway up to there house, they have to go after every storm and start picking up the rocks and putting it back. Because, its called, what he calls junk rock. You know, as the water comes down, so do the rocks, and so does everything else. So Mrs. Annand took it upon herself and started planting all of the ivy to hold the rock down, and basically that does help, and then she �i TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 24 went through and started planning trees and those kind of things. So on account of there effort, that part of the street, close to Pacific Highway has been kept very stable. When you start to excavate for a sewer line, I don't know what will happen, and I don't know what the alternatives are. But I don't want to see that hill come down on Pacific Highway. Because as you loose the rocks, your going to loose the trees, your going to loose everything, it is steep. Okay. And there is a request by staff about the drainage, instead of one pipe, maybe spreading it out. I would like to see some kind of recommendation there. And the only other thing that I could add is, I don't know what kind of safe guard there will be in the hot weather, and if people do come up there, if there is any fire. You know, thats one consideration for you to think about. With 130 units. And thats my thing. MOEN, Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Okay, very good. Thank you. '. Okay, is it Ray Hammerly. Close. RAY HAMMERLY, 14807 SW 109th, I'm a property owner in the townhouse 4, that is in the section immediately to the south of Murdock Street, where the { entrance is proposed. I have the same concerns that most of the people who have spoken MOEN, Quick question, just for my clarification, looking at this map, would that be in this area here. HAMMERLY, Yes, right. There are two townhouses in that area where your pen is. MOEN, Okay. Thank you. HAMMERLY, The concerns that I have are the same as most of the people who have spoken. The reason I came tonight, specifically was for the request for the variance of the access, the driveways. Already its a very high density area with Panorama I, II, Calway, Calway Hills, is that right? Canterbury Woods and Canterbury Apartments on the corner of 109th and Canterbury, which also by the way does feed into 109th very close to Canterbury Lane. Its a dicy place. So the access of 130 units, at least 130 cars is somewhat of a :1 TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 25 question in my mind. As other people have mentioned, the concern over the destruction of the trees is a question, not because of what we have heard t ' tonight, but because of what always seems to happen. And as God fearing, country loving people we would like to think that our government serves us, but many times the government and the local people are kind of taken for a ride. The Albertsons' thing is only the latest thing, where they knew that those trees where going to go down. I cannot help but feel when you dig down five or six feet and cut off roots that those big old trees are going go. I have no objection to the development as such. I do want a little protection from that and also the incursion into property. I don't recall seeing anything about fencing around, around the perimeter or where it abuts developed property. I would think that it would be very appropriate to have fencing along the eastern border where it abuts the townhouses where I live. I don't see any alternatives for, for a second driveway site and I don' t know how that could possibly be resolved without the acquisition of additional property and probably the improvement of 109th, south of the dead end. Someone made the comment that the King City people wouldn't stand for that, well, I guess the King City, or the Summerfield people rather, carry more weight that the people on 109th, where it is improved. Uh, but we don.'t C really like that either. But if there is going to be that amount of traffic, I think only from the standpoint of practicality that a second access is needed to that property. And if you have any questions I' ll be happy to answer them. MOEN, Commissioners, any questions right now? Okay. Thank you. Jack Forell. I'm JACK FORELL, I own and was the developer of the four townhouse units and still am part owner of two at 14815 and 14817 SW 109th. When we acquired the property the property was zoned for a four unit, like four plex, and we got a minor, I gues- not a minor, we got a subdivision because it was four, because it was divided into four units with "0" lot line. we built the two buildings, separate title to the, to each of the four units. Two of them where sold, one to Mr. Hammerly, and the remain, the building_ to the south has two units in it, I and a partner continue to own and rent as rental units. I again, involved real estates, real estate lending, and development, so that I'm not ( saying that you can stop development and I'm not opposing some development in there, however, at the time that we developed that that was TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 26 7zoned, you know, for R-4.5 and we anticipated, if it where developed it s single family units. But, and the, the property statement in the reporunit three, I mean item three, vicinity information, is also not , ._ correct as Mr. Hammerly points out, is that there are, units to the, there are four units to the east that are not multi—family. I don't consider a singly owned townhouses has multi—family, although thats a gray area, I guess you could argue the point. But I think that setbacks, retention of trees, the traffic concerns, and a fence our my main issues. I've seen a lot of properties where you've looked into the back yards of apartment and they become, can become a very unsightly place. The property owners and tenants that we rent to pay a pretty high rent and we try to maintain those properties well. And so I think that some form of fencing or screening that would separate the properties would be beneficial. MOEN, Any questions? Okay, thank you. It looks like Uorn Petersen. Aye, JORN PETERSON, 10510 SW Kent Place, Tigard, I own adjoining property to the proposed development and I want to congratulate CBH for proposing what looks like a first class multi—family development here in Tigard_ My Cquestions are not directed to the developer, more to the City and the Planning Commission. In the past there has been proposed developments in Little Bull Mountain and at that time the concern was the overall benefit to the property owners and to the City. I do feel that if 109th could be completed down to King City, if sewer can be brought along from Canterbury, south, that would remove any objection that I have to this development. MOEN, Could I ask a quick question. Where is your property located? PETERSON, Tax lot 600 and 700. You've got a map? MOEN, Yes. These, these lots here. Okay. PETERSON, Okay. MOEN, Very good. I just, a frame of reference helps me. C - TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 27 PETERSON. Again, once again I would like to mention that, there was some �. question as to how this came to be zoned 12 units per acre rather than 7. I attended that meeting and it was lively discussion, I think you will find that if this property was zoned 7 units per acre you would have to remove every tree on it to develop it, or as some people prefer it would be economically unfeasible to develop it. Like Marge Davenport I'd like to go back to the original zoning that I had on my property, which was Commercial Professional. So if we can take step back I would be delighted to do that too. laughter MOEN, Thank you sir. That concludes those signed up to speak in opposition, I guess I would give the developer a few moments if he would like to address some of the concerns raised and (pause) well I would ask you to limit yourself specifically to items, points that where raised, comments that you would like to make on them. ' CARL NASE, Yes, I have a couple of items, then I think the Engineer has a few more. One issue came up several time is traffic. We had traffic report � preformed by Kittleson and Associates, who consequently also does consulting for the City of Gresham, they found no problems with the trip generation from this development exceedingly the capacity of the streets at even peak hours and PM that where serving the area. Mr. Liden you didn't see any problems + with the traffic report or any recommendations that would have come out of that? LIDEN, The Engineering Division had none. NASE, Did you people see the copies of the traffic report? . . . . several people talking . . . . . . I guess your recommendations where put in the staff report. . . . . . . . In terms of some of the people in their homes next door, I'm not sure, but the single family houses that are abutted to the property, I don' t know if that property is zoned multi—family or not, and if it is I don't think buffering is required from one multi—family lot to another. Is that right Mr. Liden? C TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 28 I i i LIDEN, Its not an automatic requirement of any type. Planning Commission could still find that fencing of some sort would be appropriate under certain l circumstances, but its, if we had a situation where it was single family residential zone there would be some kind of site obscuring buffer required, either vegetation or fence. In this case its not automatically required, however, based on the specific circumstances of the site and so forth it could still be applied. NASE, I just didn't know if that was clarified or what the Code had read on that. MOEN, I think normally its not, but, but when we have a hearing and theres certain circumstances that seem to warrant it, I guess, its at our discretion that we might do that. Particularly, its one of the reasons that we have Planned Development, you know Planned Development designation is to, is to look at certain special, special circumstances, for, to allow a little more in depth review of those things . NASE, Yeah. Oh, I agree with your process totally, its a good process . Land 4 lock was a issue that was brought up, unfortunately private apartment houses the roads are retained as private roads. We're not creating a land locker, making any land locked situation worse and if we were we would be more than willing to help elevate the problems, but I don't see how we're, if there is a land locked parcel, or a parcel that has limited access, we're not really worsening the situation. The accesses, two access point. I think that if we were to have two access points close together up here anywhere, you would make it more of a problem that it is with one. You would have them crossing over, this is my idea. The traffic report that we had, that we had didn't really address the problem. We should have maybe asked them to look at that situation and report on it, so I don't have an expert opinion on that, but, my own opinion. I' ll let the Engineer speak on the sewer line construction down the forest, dense forest area to Pacific Highway. I think that was one issue f that was brought up, where it might erode the soil and the whole hill come s falling down and some other problems that, that, and thats all I have to say. E d 'E r TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 29 MOEN, Okay. BRAD SCHLEINING and I just have a couple of comments. The first comment that I have was addressing the storm drainage situation. The Engineering staff has identified that detention is not allowed in the City of Tigard, therefore, the one point disposal would not be something that would be designed or built, that it would be a dissipation trench most like built so that the run off from the site would not have any, what we would call, point discharge, there would be no pipe, it would run into a rock filled ditch, overflow, and go down. I've already discussed the situation of our discharge with the State people and their only concern was that they don't want additional run off, that was the point with the detention. Lee Gunderson over at the State had ask that we not impact the State Highway. The other item is the situation with the sanitary sewer and stabilization. Contractors know how to deal with that. The, its not going to be a public line that runs down that hill, it will be a public line once it reach Pacific Highway and then turns up and goes to Canterbury. Since it will not be in the public right—of—way, and it will not be a public line, it gives the contractor a great deal of flexibility on how he is going to construct that. He doesn't have to bring in large track hoes and cut a swath through the trees 15 to 20 feet wide, he can bring in smaller equipment, he doesn't have to put his sewer lines at incredible depths. He doesn't have to install manholes, he can use smaller clean outs and all those items will help reduce the impact of the sewer line running down that . . . . . MOEN, How, how many trees do you, as a guess, do you think you have to take out to do that? SCHLEINING, I would guess 15 to 20 trees. Thats a guess. We haven't located any trees beyond what you see on the map. Anything below that dense forest it was economically unfeasible for the owner to be paying for that. A question was address about construction within drip lines of trees, uh, generally its, a general rule of thumb is that the drip line of a tree delineates how far the roots go out. You can get into a drip line a little bit, your usually going to run into minor roots. We have tried to keep construction out of all drip lines in the trees that were in the drip, the construction that was under the drip lines those trees have been removed from -I S TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 30 to leave, when they are e do ee and the site. Those are shown as gone aWy Arborist will assist us in seeing if marginal, we try to leave the tr e can develop some kind of injection feedings to the trees, and other- types w live. Thats not always of watering mechanisms that will keep the tree a successful and I'm sure that everyone here aseendevelopments and Bonet have tett soon the fir tree turns s tried to do that, pretty either try or cut it up before, without trying. Another item that was brought was mentioned. up was putting single familys in here. The Tour of Elegance I'm the Engineer on the Tour of Elegance. If you were to put something in like a single family development in here I think you would be absolutely 1 year, s 0 out. The Tour of Elegance this y appalled at the number of trees that g putting up in a street, a city street, we probably lost 75% of trees. Yeoendidewalk onboth sides, then you end up r 36 feet of pavement, you end up r' with driveways for every house, which are 20 to 25 feet wide, 20 feet deep, Then you put a three or theres no trees in the driveways. four thousand square foot foot print for house in; and what we have found in dealing in E heavily wooded areas of single family residences, if your working with 10,000 square foot lots, which are fairly large lots, you will be lucky to save three trees. If the developer doesn't take them out, as soon as the homeowner � long, no lawn gets in there, tries to plant lawn, shade is on the yard all day The grows, they cut them out. In a couple of years you end up with nothing. ton Heights Subdivision down in West Linn is the perfect example of Barrin g in, saved hundreds that. It was heavily forested area, we put singlefamily in a put houses, of trees through construction, as soon as the builders questions with there they all went. Anyway thats the end of my comments. Any q regards to Engineering I'll MOEN, I have a couple of questions. If your are putting a sanitary sewer down to Pacific Highway, what is, what would be inappropriate in routing a storm sewage drainage line down to Pacific Highway and hooking up with storm sewer. . . . . laughter . . . . SCHLEINING, it, theres no storm sewer system in Pacific Highway, they use the ditches, and actually is better for the all around system if you don't' the disper he water the sooner you can get it out of a pipet d insL-eadsoftcreating a creekdter uring 'a going to be. By spreading the water out, TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 31 rain, where your going to get an erosion and that sort of thing, by spreading it out you really reduce your impact. You get more absorption into the soil so that by the time it gets down to the Pacific Highway its as if, you see, its the same amount of rain falls on this property whether is development or not. The only thing that development does is increase the speed which the water gets to it. So by dumping the water up at the top of the hill that speed is dissipated so that the development ends up having a very small impact, before, the before and after differences is greatly reduced by discharging up at the top of the bank instead of the bottom. Moen, So you intend on putting in multiple drains, is that SCHLEINING, Well, thats a design question that we would work out with the City. There is a number of ways that you can do that. You can put in multiple drains, but my personal problem with multiple drains is, instead of having one discharge pipe, which is just like turning on a hose when its raining, you have four of them now, four or five of them. So you end up with four or five gullies instead of one. What I generally do in my practice is dig a trench about three feet deep, we put a pipe in the bottom of that ditch that has perforations in it, all the water goes into that pipe, and this ditch is full of rock, and it fills up the ditch, overflows out of the ditch, and then runs down the hill, its a dissipation device, it just dissipates the water, makes it a even disposal so theres no erosion problem. MOEN, Okay. Okay. Commissioners any questions. PETERSON, That original question of Keith, did you find about Highway 99. LIDEN, This is half—street improvements? PETERSON, Yes. i LIDEN, We did solicit comments from the State Highway Department, of course has jurisdiction of Pacific Highway, they did not request half—street improvements. It doesn't speak, their comments don't speak to it, so I don't know exactly, but they, well for, example Hector's Nursery they asked for TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 32 half—street improvements there, so they certainly do ask for if they want it. I'm speculating that there might be a relationship between not requesting it and the improvements that are anticipated at Canterbury, there may be some road alignment issues or grade issues that they don't want the half—street improvements in now because something ultimately is going to be changed. But, as far as to why they didn't required it at this time, I don't know. MOEN, I think if you maybe you could address, there was one concern that was raised by the NPO which I found kind of interesting and I think kind of valid and that is, this business of, for one thing, the city, or somewhere, or somewhere we did create a lot that was, a lot has been created somehow that doesn't have any access, and maybe they have easements, I don't know. The lot directly to the south of this property and the general question of access to property on Little Bull Mountain, could you comment for the city on that, as to what, you know what I'm talking about. You didn't, maybe you didn't get a copy of this, did you see a copy of this Keith, maybe you ought to have the benefit of that. Heres the lot shown here, this is the one that they are concerned about, but just in general, that and the comment was made before that, not, you know, one access might be the only think practical. Do you Q, still feel thats true as well? LIDEN, As far as the one access, I'll really stand by the Engineering's recommendation that we just have the one access. I think its really just because the spacing in between accesses, theres not that much room. The city standard typically is that if we have 100, or requirement for 100 parking spaces, up to 100, or let see, could grab the Code. It varies a little bit between commercial and residential. Well really our Code says that if you have than 50 dwelling units you should have two accesses, and then there is a provision for providing still additional access points, but then your talking about an additional 100 parking spaces, or typically another 50 units, so probably at around, the way I read this, at about 150 units there might be a requirement for three, or there could be, over 150. Also the Fire District, I believe, commented on this and they found that the access in and out of the site would be acceptable. As far as parcels being landlocked. There haven't been any partitions approved, to my knowledge, that have created those parcels, my guess is that they have existed for some time. Would also need to TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 33 check the ownership records to see if, in fact, if they are under different ownership or if they are just different tax lots for some reason. MOEN, Okay. Commissioners do you have any further questions. Okay. Very good. Thank you staff. With that I would like to close the Public Hearing and open the meeting for Commission discussion. Lets start with Commissioner Castile. CASTILE, Thanks. MOEN, Well, would you like me to go they other way. I' ll give you that option. You only have one item . . . . . . several people laughing & talking . . . CASTILE, I certainly would like to see a cyclone fence or fencing and some trees in between private residences that are existing and this development, even though, I understand that the private residences property is zoned RU 12. I also would accept not allowing any excavation around neighbors trees, with the idea that they are trying to save their trees and to try to Fit the building in, with saving the neighbors trees and staying out of the drip line. And in regard to the traffic, I guess, I guess I think that by only having one access that thats going to be a detriment to the apartments, but it will be an asset to the residences, because there won't be able to be as many people come out at one time and it will be more of a limited access onto the property. And there would create less confusion there. Other than that I would vote for approval of the complex. MOEN, Okay. Mr. Rosborough. ROSBOROUGH, I think that the issue of the trees, I think that most people like trees and trust that the developers are sincere that they will try to save as many as they can, and everybody will be happy on that point. The traffic is a little bothersome to me. I think we have a lot of road, hopefully all roads that are within the capacity that they were built to handle, but that doesn't necessarily make them pleasant to drive on. The drainage, and I assume that the City can work that out with the developers and Csomething workable can come out of that. The fence or some kind of a buffer TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 34 area, I think would be preferable. I think that there are some things that r can be worked out there. To be honest I'm really not sure which way I would vote at this point. I liked to think about it a little bit more. One thing that does bother me, is when the only people you have testifying in favor are the applicants . I like to usually see some more people, surrounding property owners or what not in favor . . . . . Tap ended. BARBER, The one access for 130 units is sort of a bother to me from personal experience. I lire in an area where there was only one access and as a result of that, builders, contractors, and even residents started using coming private property which was undeveloped as a second access. I do understand that the criteria in the Code are evidentially met for this variance for this one access. As far as the trees, I'd like to see some sort of a condition where if a tree dies within a year, that something similar, not as large, would be planted. I'd like to see some condition on fencing. I liked to see a condition regarding the Engineering Division's recommendation on reducing the cross slopes on the parking to six percent. And lastly, I didn't hear anything that address the planned development overlay and I, I understand that there is open space, if you can call a forest open space, but I'm not sure how it can be used by the tenants if its very steep. Thats just a question I have. I'm not sure how I would vote right at this moment. Thats all. MOEN, Okay. Commissioner Peterson? PETERSON, Well, I can't remember exactly how this zoning went on this, but I do know that it had a planned development overlay because we wanted to look, take a special look at anything that came through here with this piece of property, because its kind of a unique piece of property. And what we've got here is a development that has one access, where two or possibly three should be required. And we have parking grades that are 10 percent instead of five or six. And we have all the unbuildible land, nothing done with it except used to increase the density on the buildable land, which I don't think is a PD, so I see no reason why we should approve this. I think that there are lots of problems that have to work out. TRANSCRIPT SDR 08-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 35 MOEN, . . . . . that was, you comment on the density was, that was addressed in here somewhere if I can find it, staff could you help me out. The comment on Cdensity, how many units, I don't know which page its on, it talks about how many units are allowed. Or maybe that was in the applicant's letter. LIDEN, I know its in the applicant's statement. PETERSON, Twelve acres, a little over 12 acres, which would be about 150, I guess. LIDEN, Well its just address briefly on page eight. MOEN, Okay. LIDEN, On, under a chapter, the R-12 zone, satisfied that this proposal conforms with the . . . . . number of things including density. MOEN, Is the, . . . . . . . . okay. The applicant claimed that site of 12.8 and field survey showed that one acre of this is in excess of 25% slope, which would make it sensitive lands, therefore you have 11.8 acres for 141 units together with a, what 25% density transfer? Is that, thats what he says, whats, bottom line is a total of 146 units possible. ROSBOROUGH, Is that with the transfer? MOEN, 146 with the transfer, 141 without, according to his figures. And thats where he get a 130 units plus his, you know, the center and recreation room. I guess my turn. Well I would like to have a clear sense of direction on this, but I don't know if I do either. I sense that someone else, some other places on the Commission, I think that there has been some interesting things raised with respect to this, you know, access to both other properties and duel access out of the community. I think that its valid to be concerned about that, you know, the developer comments, I think has made the comment here in terms of density that, he has met the density requirements, he's fit this property on basically the it acres. If you look at it, he has actually squeezed it on, you know, roughly, just looking at it, two—thirds of the property. I think that we have ended up with a development that because of the TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 36 nature of the property, is, is more dense that it would otherwise be, in other words theres more. If you would discount the part thats a steep slope and dense forest and all of that, the property thats left, is, and I think that •'e its a good faith effort on his part to try to, to try and save as many trees as possible, to do that hes located all the units up in one certain area. You know, part of the purpose of a planned development is to create sort of a special community, or a special, how should I say it, something, special development that is an asset to the community. I'm not sure that, in my mind, if this, if this meets that criteria exactly. I think hes made a goods faith effort, I think that. I had concern about the storm sewer and a lot of the other things. I don't know if there is a nice mitigating way to do that. It sounds like if we put the requirement that he keeps the parking lot at six percent that we essentially defeat the purpose of the, of the plan. In other words we lose the trees. I think probably the traffic problem is going to a problem with that, you know, we zoned that area R-12, its going to be a problem no matter what unit, what goes on it. I think that this is possibly, you know, he says, we've come under, just under, hes got just about, I think, as many units as he can physically fit on that piece of property. You know, a ( lot of developers have come in here and haven't been able to squeeze that many on. Right up to the, to whats possible, I guess hes been successful in that sense, but I still have some problems with it. I don't think that gives anybody a clear sense of direction, because I don't have one. I have some concerns with the development, as to whether its the right thing for that property. ROSBOROUGH, Which takes us where? MOEN, Which takes us where? Good question. CASTILE, One other comment. MOEN, Okay, Mr. Castile. CASTILE, I was, I am concerned over the storm drainage coming down over the hill, especially in view of the fact that, you know we're in the process of making Hector put storm drainage in and teen the next two properties that are there, then all of a sudden we're into this property and hes hasn't even made any provision at all to take care of the water. Except to just dump it down on the road. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 37 EN Is this tied into the, at all, I'm not sure that I'm familiar with the MOEN, Hector property, I think that I was st week he came in, last meeting CASTILE, Hector's right here. You know, la soon as re he came in for a variance in order to leave the open ditch heato enclose these other other two properties here develop then he will have his, put sidewalks along the front here. So, that was a condition for his remodel. And so we're, just up the road. Well I would make the, I guess the further comment is that I MOEN, Okay. you know, in definitly feel that because, we've taken an area that i le family and we've changed it general character is right now, in effect, aldEvelopment thats at, very close to R-12 and now we're looking at building to the maximum R-12 will allow, right next to those areas . If dowe werw e to ut favor this proposal, I don't see any way that we could possibly looking at mitigating the im act of those adjoining properties. And I think P that with a planned development we certainly have the right and the obligation to do that. But, I guess I would entertain a motion if you want to get things started. PETERSON, Then I' ll make a motion. I make a motion that we deny Planned Development 88-04, Site Development Review SDR 89-17, drainage,Variance 88 27 ort the or reason being inadequate access, possible storm drainage problems, and improper buffer to adjoining neighborhoods. MOEN, Okay. Could I have a second. BARBER, I second. MOEN, Second. I guess further discussion. CASTILE, What does that do to us then? MOEN, Well, I would suggest that we might, are there any other items that you could think of . . .laughter. . . in terms of findings of fact, in addition to the . items that you have already mentioned. Commissioner Barber. C TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 38 BARBER, I'd like, perhaps to know how this meet the planned development? I still see the dense forest, but I'm not sure don't quite see that it does. I Cthat the tenants are going to be able to enjoy and use that forest if its on a steep slope. So it, so I'm wondering what it is that makes this a planned development. MOEN, Staff, do you want to address that? LIDEN, Well the primary reason this is a planned development is because, planned development overlay zone was applied to the property, so the developer didn't have any choice really. As far as criteria, site development review and planned development criteria are very similar, there both, whether its a site development review, which is handled at staff level, or a planned development for an apartment, multi—family development like this. The standards that apply are very similar. I think you still get in some of the more subjective elements like, is a fence required for buffering, in this case. Are there any other things that you want as far as open space is concerned. I don't think there is anything in the Code that says it has to be active open space, it can be passive. I mean we have situations where it might be a wetlands, and for other reasons, other than the steep slope you don't want people in there. And its perfectly appropriate to just leave it alone. Just that, its a green area that you look at and possibly if the developer want, they could put a foot path in there, or something, but theres not much that your going to be able to do with that, that steep area, just because of its steepness, I think. MOEN, Okay. LIDEN, So I, you know I would think its just some of the other elements that you need to take a look at, do you, that have been discussed tonight. Do you need fencing and where does it need to be provided. Is there something with the orientation of the buildings that should possibly be changed. Should the setbacks in some cases be amended. I think those are the things that the Commission should at under the PD, or could look at under the PD. C TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-09/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 39 MOEN, Okay. PETERSON, The other item I had it was the grades are too steep. MOEN, The parking grades? PETERSON, . . . . . . . . too steep. MOEN, Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Do you have a good feel, does everyone have a good feel for the motion as far as, okay. With that I guess we'd call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded signify by saying I. PETERSON, I. BARBER, I. MOEN, Those opposed. r CASTILE, I. - ROSBOROUGH, May. MOEN, May. MOEN, Motion fails three to two. Commissioner Rosborough you want to ROSBOROUGH, Can I take a quick question of Keith. I think that the biggest problem in my mind right now is the buffering or the fencing, do you have any suggestions on how we would approach that. LIDEN, Well, you, its certainly within your authority to require fencing. either chain link fence, as suggested by some The requirement could be for people, or a site obscuring type of fence. It seems to me that the concerns, ft maybe about buffering, or you knot!, access to other properties as well as Y ,. buffering, and you could, then also specify where you think- the fencing would : be appropriate. MOEN, Question, are the all two story units along the front. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 40 LIDEN, Yes. BARBER, Except one. MOEN, Except one? BARBER, The one near the entrance is single story. MOEN, Well, I would entertain another motion. ROSBOROUGH, Okay, I will make a motion to approve Planned Development 88-04, Site Development Review SDR 88-17, and Variance 88-27 with the additional requirement that the applicant provide, and this is where I'm breaking down, is just to what extent to provide the fencing and or buffering, I think that the main areas are going to be to the, if I get my direction right, to the north and also around the other existing townhouses, to the south of the entrance. Any other suggestions. f _ i MOEN, Your proposing, I, well I would like to say a sight obscuring fence is going to take care of it, that certainly would help, but the other problem that you have is that you have two story units there. ROSBOROUGH, I can see where the chain link fence is going to cure some of the problems, you know, its going to keep people from wandering on and off, but theres nothing to aesthetically pleasing about a chain link fence, I think I would like to see either a chain link fence and and some kind of landscaping around it to provide some sight obstruction, I'm just not sure what the terminology needs to be to get that into the motion. MOEN, Well I think, I guess I would like to ask the question of one of the people who brought up the question of a chain link fence. I think it was Mrs. E _ a EDNA ANNAND, Well its basically for trespassing, and if you put a site obscuring fence, in a few years it will rot and die and fall over. As, you ivy there, so I think that eventually the ivy know, Mrs. Annand has planted will grow over the fence and will make it a sight obscuring fence. Just to keep them off of their property. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-•04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKantee•) Page 41 s E MOEN, Okay, that was, okay. ANNAND, And she keeps, I keep forgetting, the fire hazard. MOEN, Of the sight obscuring fence or cedar fence as a fire hazard. MR:,. ANNAND, No, that property up there in the summer time gets so dry, so if Id move some of them onto you've got a 130 units, about 300 people, that cou our property, and they dropped a match or anything, it would just go right up. Thats my real worry. MOEN, Okay. Very good. And the other property owner Mr. HAMMERLY, Yeah, my problem really is, is riot- as much of one as access, although thats a concern too, as it is, as itierhelin sight eand the househ itself of our deck is only about 10 feet from the prop y another 10 feet, now we have a two story house too, o doesn't bother me looking muche level to eye level with he second story. The casual transportation of people across the property is more important, side of the property of a multi unit property, plus the fact, on the back sometimes it can get pretty ugly, messy. The ground level obscuring of the property line is more important than the fact that theres two stories. I o don't know what the setback is on those living units from our property line Do you know off hand. LIDEN, Twenty feet. HAMMERLY, Only twenty feet, thats 40 feet from my eyeball to theirs. MOEN, Okay. Thank you sir. HAMMERLY, I think fencing, the cyclone fencing, possibly with landscaping along the fence. MOEN. Do you want to go with that. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 42 ROSBOROUGH, Sure. CASTILE, Five foot buffer? ROSBOROUGH, Whats the correct terminology . . . . . . several talking same time. CASTILE, A five foot landscaped buffer? LIDEN, Well, I think if, I think you would have an option or you could even have the condition optional that it either be a chain link fence with site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence. MOEN, Then you give the developer the option. ROSBOROUGH, Either one. LIDEN, Either one. ROSBOROUGH, Could we, can we include those two options within in the motion. LIDEN, You could or if you want to specify. ROSBOROUGH, I think I'm FORELL, I would just make the comment as one of the property, adjacent property owners, I think that a cyclone fence is a ugly fence. ROSBOROUGH, I do too. FORELL, And there are solid fences that can be built that can be long life, a cinder block fence, or treated wood fence, but of a quality nature would be far more appealing to the residences on both side of it, as well as, far more than the cyclone fence. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 43 MOEN, Okay. �^ ROSBOROUGH, Keith, what was the two alternative that you had? Cyclone and sight LIDEN, Sight obscuring landscaping or sight obscuring fence. MOEN, Sounds ROSBOROUGH, I think, MOEN, Sounds to me if your really putting the buffering in to meet the property owners objections, I would go ahead a make the, make the northern boundary be a cyclone fence with vegetation, you know vegetation buffering and the other one, what is that, ROSBOROUGH The southeast MOEN, The southeast, the south and east, not the south and east, your talking about that one. ROSBOROUGH, Yes, this is undeveloped here. JORN PETERSON, This is new fencing for some of the adjoining neighbors or for all of the adjoining neighbors. ANNAND, Some. You didn't ask for it. laughter . . . JORN PETERSEN, Wait a minute, we're getting pretty far afield here arn't we. . . . . preference to the type of fences that I like also. ANNAND, Okay, speak up. MOEN, Well, its your motion, I guess you can go ahead and put what you want in it. t TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 44 ROSBOROUGH, Okay I' ll finish it off with a sight obscuring fence to the �. southeast side and a chain link with sight obscuring to the north. MOEN, Okay. Commission Castile. CASTILE, Make a suggestion maybe that we put it to provide a cyclone fence, except as approved by owner, or adjoining owner, if they would accept a cedar fence, then give the, give the owner, you know, put it in that they've got a cyclone fence and allow the owner the privilege of, of ROSBOROUGH, Or any other fencing type, accept by the adjacent property owner. CASTILE, Yeah. ROSBOROUGH, Can we do that. CASTILE, I think we can. MOEN, Yes. _ NASE, Excuse me, are you saying any other fencing type. CASTILE, Oh, wood fence. NAGE, . . . . . brick suddenly came to my mind. CASTILE No. . . . . . . . laughter . . . . . . . CASTILE, Your doing great. The criteria would be, the top of what he would be required would be a cyclone fence or anything of lessor value as approved. UNKNOWN, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . laughter . . . . . . several talking same time . . TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 45 MOEN, Maybe, nice way to do that. Why don't you make it a either a, r like you said, either a cyclone fence with a buffer and a, or a cedar, you know a sight obscuring fence at the option of the adjoining property owners, either way. Then the property owner ROSBOROUGH, Has input. Yeah, I think, or any other fencing type approved by the adjacent property owner does that. CASTILE, Of lessor value. MOEN, Well, we' ll have to get in an argument about values of fences here. CASTILE, Well the point- is that there not talking a brick fence, so thats why I was using the cyclone fence as a bases of value. Cause that will cost them the most. ROSBOROUGH, Okay. Do you have that. i SECRETARY, If I understand this correct your moving with approval providing � i that the northern property owners and the townhouses to the south are provided . a chain link fence with site obscuring landscaping or a site obscuring fence at the option of the adjoining property owners. UNKNOWN, Excuse me, not to the south. SECRETARY, To the east. MOEN, To the east. UNKNOWN, Why not to the south. Y 6 1 UNKNOWN, But she was talking about the townhouses. SECRETARY, Okay, to the east, okay. 's CASTILE, . . . . . . . . . . Wheres his property that he keeps asking about. s TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 46 MOEN, His property is right there. i CASTILE, Do we include that. MOEN, I think to be fair you would have to. ROSBOROUGH, Was he down, along the southern portion ANNAND, There is a private home to the south. MOEN, I think that, I think it ought to make it go on all three sides of the property. BARBER, I agree. CASTILE, I think so. ROSBOROUGH, Okay. l BARBER, If you would have two different kinds of fencing I'm not sure that would add to the looks of the neighborhood at all. CASTILE, You wouldn't see it. ROSBOROUGH, You wouldn't see two of them at the same time. CASTILE, You wouldn't see it. BARBER, Well, you might at the corner. CASTILE, Thats right. ROSBOROUGH, Okay, can I further amend it to on the, the fencing requirement to the east, to continue that around to, along side the south. MOEN, Okay. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 47 LIDEN, How far, excuse me, how far to the west, all the way down the hill, part of the way, just where the development is or MOEN, Take it all the way . . . . .Several talking same time . . . . . ROSBOROUGH Unless I have my map marked wrong, I think that we need to continue all the way down to the end on the west, to get the property at the bottom. MOEN, Two sides, open to Pacific Highway. Anyone that wants to hike up that hill can. MOEN, what about, someone make a comment, I think you made a comment on the drip. CASTILE, I would like to include that the on the adjacent property owners that the contractor not excavate under the drip line of existing trees. { MOEN, Existing trees on any trees or on, under the drip line of trees on adjoining properties. CASTILE, Of adjoining properties. And that would, you know, thats going to be, I don't know, his twenty feet should more than cover that. MOEN, Okay. CASTILE, Maybe, we still have in there with the Arborist, because there are some conditions where they can, they can cut in a little bit, like if the've got to run a sewer or something, that it isn't going to be. MOEN, The only concern that I have is that, you know, we go through wrestling with these conditions to try and match, to put this development on here, on this piece of property. Are we working too hard at it. PETERSON, I think so. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 48 MOEN, Of course they aren't all that major of, major of a thing, but, it seem to me that for, some ways for a planned development r CASTILE, How close are the trees to the property line that your wanting to save. ANNAND, Us. CASTILE, Yes. ANNAND, Well we own so any trees along the line. CASTILE, But how close to the line. ANNAND, They're right on the property line. It hasn't been fully surveyed yet, but as far as I can determine there will be quite a number of trees that they will come close to, but no surveys been done . . . . . . exactly sure i CASTILE, What do you think is the developer, you know, how can you protect your trees. SCHLEINING, We don' t know how we' ll, how we' ll impact the neighbors trees at this time. Some of those trees out there, at least on our side, have drip lines that are 50 foot radius, covers a 100 foot. BARBER, 50 foot in radius? SCHLEINING, Yes, 50 foot diameter, BARBER, That would be . . . . . . . both talking same time . . . . . . SCHLEINING theres some big trees in that area. I don't know whats on the adjoining property, I don't know how it will impact the development, as far as saving the neighbors trees, I really :1 TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 49 have to take into consideration, is that if MRS ANNAND, One thing that you you have every look at a fir tree thats gone down, there no tap roots, its all (' and the prevailing winds come on the surface only, is holding the trees up. from that direction and one of my great concerns is how these trees are going t to stand up if, especially if there is any mutilation to the roots at all, and they are all going to go down, for instance on the Maple, well they are, eyare, the ats ones on the far side are going to go down on the Maple Tree Apartm en were they are going to go down. So I think that its very important, that :f vent these trees from being weakened in any everything possible be done to pre 'r way. MOEN, Okay. JORN PETERSEN, So if these trees were cut down, that would decrease the fire hazard too, wouldn't it. ` i% alright laughter We' ll have to call an end to MOEN, Okay, f public comments please. Keith did you have one comment. i. concern on the trees, certainly can take a look at LIDEN, Well, about the proposed, if you wanted to specify . . . . . condition number 11, to make sure protection of the trees, . . . . . . . one that he does, . . . . . paper noises would be that the plan deal with protection and long term health that are on the abutting property, but I think that you can amend that any way that you would like to take care of, to make it a little more specific. MOEN, Commission Rosborough, its your baby. ROS80ROUGH, Still mine? long pause I don't have any strong feeling whether we need to strengthen that up, or not. MOEN, Okay. Your second does though. CASTILE, And the uh, something in here, will . take extreme caution in eighbor, and you know, throw it, throw it on the protecting the trees of the n ! ( staff to i TRANSCRIPT SDR 88- 17/PD 86-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 50 f E 1 MOEN, I think thats one way to handle it. CASTILE, Yeah. ROSBOROUGH, Just insure that we're doing everything that we can CASTILE, Voice our, that we want extreme MOEN, Okay ROSBOROUGH, I don't know does that need to be included in the motion or just in the record to urge staff to take as many precautions as possible. MOEN, Oh, I think you ought to make it a part of your motion. SECRETARY, I've modified condition number 11 just to include that extreme caution be used for protection of the abutting property owners trees. t MOEN, I have one question that isn't directly related, but it impacts my thoughs on the matter. The uh, these is to the applicant. If, or may to the staff, I guess, that the site map shows that 109th, the right—of—way for 109th jogs to within very close of the property line on that one corner. Its this little triangular piece owned by another party, or hows that UNKNOWN, Thats part of his, thats part of the four townhouses. MOEN, Oh, and they are built on that. On that piece. UNKNOWN, That point is empty, but its part of that property that belongs to the first of the four townhouses. MOEN, I see. I'm looking for another access. laughter . . . . . If the price is right, right? TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 51 UNKNOWN, That property is, well it was owned by the developer of the condominiums, and one of the restrictions placed upon is that no structure r could built upon it and it would be landscaped, and he did landscape it. But the City made us acquire that property to add to the total square footage to get the required density for the four units. MOEN, Okay. Alright carry on. Made and seconded. ROSBOROUGH, Hope I'm done. MOEN, I know, we've done a lot of work on this thing. ROSBOROUGH, Still been doing a lot of struggling on it. CASTILE, What about the drainage coming down onto the road. ROSBOROUGH, As I read this, Engineering Division seem to be somewhat satisfied there that, with their conditions there that can be worked out. MOEN, Okay. We have a motion made a seconded. Lets vote on it. Moen, Question, all those in favor of the motion made and seconded, signify by saying I. CASTILE, I ROSBOROUGH, I MOEN, Opposed. PETERSON, Nay. MOEN, Nay. l 1 MOEN, I think we need about a five minutes recess. I TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 52 Y R F SECRETARY, I missed this count, I'm sorry. Who voted yea and who voted nay. Could they raise their hands. MOEN, Okay show of hand for those in favor. Excuse me, lets have a roll call. I didn't hear it right, obviously. SECRETARY, Okay. Don Moen. t MOEN, Nay. •: SECRETARY, Dave Peterson. ,t E. PETERSON, Nay. SECRETARY, Vlasta Barber. {{ f t. BARBER, Nay. t i _ r SECRETARY, Dan Rosborough. r ROSBOROUGH, I SECRETARY, James Castile. CASTILE, I. MOEN, Okay, the motion fails three to two. Motion for approval fails three to two. SECRETARY, Did you say your going to take a break. MOEN, Yes. I'm going to call for a five minutes recess. We're going to reconvene and five minutes to ten. Let everybody think about- this for a • Y minute. RECESS/RECONVENE TRANSCRIPT SDR 66-17/PD 86-04/V 86-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 53 E E MOEN, I would like to reconvene the meeting of the Tigard Planning Commission, point at which we had left off, I guess is that we had two failed motion regarding this item 5.2. One in favor and one in opposition. I guess the, one of the reasons for the recess was to give everyone a chance to recharge there batteries and come up with some good new ideas. And I think that the property is a developable piece of property, everyone is concerned about Little Bull Mountain and how it turns out, I think it is unique to the area and its something that we need to be careful about how we develop it and thats why the planned development designation, thats why the Commission wanted to see it and wanted to have some input as to how its developed. I think, I guess, I'd make the comment in reflecting on it. I think that the developer has made a good faith effort in attempting to save as many trees as possible. I don't think that the Commission would expect anything less of him. I think, I think thats, thats what we wanted we set the plan development here in the first place. The concern that I have, and I guess I haven't been very good at voicing it, but I think I've figured out a way to put it in words. We've got a unit, a parcel here, that I'm just going to approximate as approximately 12 and some acres. The developer and, as property so, has designated, there is a part of the parcel that is very dense forest, its very difficult to develop, its almost impossible to develop without removing a tremendous number of trees. And there is a significant portion of that parcel thats steep slopes or very heavily wooded. Its difficult to get in and out of it and have access to it. So what we have done, we've taken all the, basically taken the density that would be on this whole parcel and we've moved it over and placed it on, I just roughing it here, approximately eight acres, looking at that map. And I think in putting that density on that eight acres, now we've created some problems and there is very limited places where we can put buildings and we can handle the slopes for the car parking, and all of those things, and its created a problem in that we have a lot of units out, that are feeding out onto the road, and its made myself feel a little uncomfortable at the whole development. And I guess, if I was looking at it, I feel personally more comfortable with a development that would be more on the order of a 100 units, as opposed, which would be approximately eight acres times 12 units to the acre, more of a 100 units than 130. I think that its a planned development because the sites unique and we somehow have to find a way to make that work, r and work with the developer to do that. And while the developer, I think has l made a good faith effort in this case, I'm not sure that hes met, at least the TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88--04/V 88--27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 54 city intent on what to do with this property and how to develop in a way thats best for the City and the people who are going to live there. Thats sort of my concerns and I guess that I would ask other Commissioners for other comments. Commissioner Peterson. PETERSON, well, I think thats my general problem too. I realize, well, I agree with that, I just that that theres too much, too many building in the space thats available to build them and we're running into all kinds of problems with trees and parking and such, and I think that if its scaled down, it would fit, but right now its too big to fit the piece of property. And also with, with fewer units I would be more in favorable to the single access. I just think that theres to many units there for a single access to the property. MOEN, Okay Commissioner Barber. BARBER. I agree with Commissioner Peterson. ROSBOROUGH, I would like to ask either Keith or the applicant a question if they have a better number of, how many of those 12 some acres are we using as proposed here. Do we have better than somewhere around eight, kind of number. SCHLEINING, Somewhere around eight. NASE, I think that the maximum number of units where higher than 130. MOEN, Thats correct. SCHLEINING, It should also be noted that the, most of that eight acres is buildable, or the remainder of that property is buildable, theres approximately one acre that is excess slopes. Theres nothing in the Tigard Code that would stop us from building on the way down to the MOEN, Other than the fact that its a planned development. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 55 r SCHLEINING, Right, other than that. I'm just saying that we didn't have to hold it up on the hill because of grades, the grades are 20 percent, you'd have to, in excess of 25 we can't build in it, theres only a small area in excess of 25. MOEN, Okay. CASTILE, I would sure like to see it smaller, you know, I understand there are a lot of units there, and I would be, I would be in favor of that. MOEN, I guess, Commissioners as I see it we have two options. If, if we were to be in favor of, say limiting the development to 100 units, I think we could say that, I think that if we were to ask the Developer to redesign the unit, redesign the development for 100 units, that we would like to see it again. We could do a couple of things, one we could table the motion and ask him to go back and redesign it to a 100 units. We could pass it, I guess, the conceptual approval for 100 units with a request that we see the detailed, approve the detailed. I guess those are probably the two, two options that I see. _ NASE, Sir. MOEN, Yes sir. NASE, If I may say if its going to be a 100 units, we would probably, with the price of the property, . . . . . . . it would not be feasible to develop the property. MOEN, Okay, thats duly noted, I understand. Thank you. I guess we have, in our, on our Commission, if its a 100 plus units then we have a deadlock, or its going, well I think if we have, if we had another motion it would, it would fail. But I think, really as a Commission that we would be better served by putting down on the record what, what we feel is the best use of the property. . . . . . . . . TAPE ENDED. . . . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT" SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88--27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 56 PETERSON, I make a motion that we approve Planned Development 88-04, Site (� Development Review SDR 88-17, Variance 88-27 conceptually with the stipulation that it not exceed 100 units for the reasons that this is a PD and we have problems with access and grades. I would also like all the stipulations that were included in Commissioner Rosborough motion, included in my motion. MOEN, With regards to fences PETERSON, With regards to fences and trees. I would like to make one additional item about the fence and that is that the fence goes up prior to the start of construction. MOEN, Could I add one more finding, and that is that, that the, one of the reasons for limiting it to, for this motion is, and the reason that we feel it is a PD designation is because of the unique character of the site and the old growth forest thats, maybe old growths is the wrong term, its probably second, second growth, but the existing forest there is of prime consideration to the City. PETERSON, Right, include that. MOEN, Second. BARBER, I second. MOEN, Further discussion. Also those in favor of the motion thats made and seconded signify by saying I. PETERSON, BARBER, ROSBOROUGH, CASTILE, AND MOEN, I. MOEN, Opposed. Motion carried unanimously. I wish to thank the audience for being patient with us and letting us work this one out. I'm sure its not to every, the decision may not be to everyones liking, but its what we feel is best. I might point out to the applicant, I'm sure your well aware of your rights to appeal and so on and so forth. We understand that you { were making an attempt to make a quality development and we appreciate you efforts. TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 57 NASE, My personal feelings on it are is tha;;, essentially you've change the zoning of the property. MOEN, Your welcome to your feelings. NASE, For the record. Thank you. THE END dj/6941D TRANSCRIPT SDR 88-17/PD 88-04/V 88-27 SCHUETZ (DeKanter) Page 58 1463c5 o 9,U"), Pa kk b� t� i92tL t tr RecceVLed 10130gr CLO First Farw •til W illlillg SimmCo 4(X)S% 1lt.tiUill 1405,3 1'O lift\41(i� Poriland.(>rt>2tnt f)Tdlk( PROPERTIES. INC. Isusl�zz(s�, October 3, 1988 City of Tigard Planning Department P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 RE: File #SDR 88-17, PD 88-04 & V88-27 NPO #6 Applicant: Tod DeKanter Panorama West Apartments is a 74 unit apartment community located on Murdock between S.W. 109th and S.W. 106th. It is owned by Panorama West Associates, an Oregon General Partnership. SimmCo Properties is the Agent for Panorama West Associates. Canterbury Heights Apartments (AKA Panorama West II Apartments) is a 76 unit apartment project located between Canterbury Lane, S.W. 109th and S.W. 106th. It is owned by Canterbury Associates, an Oregon General Partnership and SimmCo Properties is the Agent, and I am the General Partner. Both of the properties are affected by the proposed development and are strongly opposed to the City of Tigard granting a sole access to this property for a 130 unit apartment project. The traffic flow with its congestion will not work well and will cause premature deterioration of the roads, undue road noise and a potential vehicular hazard for the families living at Canterbury Heights. Both of those projects have multiple points of ingress and egress which defuse the traffic flow. Condensing this new development point of ingress and egress to one driveway right at the point where there is the heaviest concentration of traffic from Panorama West and the condominium project behind it to the West is just simply poor planning. The developer must be required to provide an alternative point of ingress and egress via a service road off Pacific Highway 99 or via a secondary access to a new road further down S.W. 109th or to S.W. Naeve St. SimmCo will have a representative available to discuss this matter with members of the Council and/or Planning Commission prior to the scheduled meeting if requested to do so. Sincerely, Michael McKenna President MM/j9 7795A cc: City Recorder j/ � Cvp,es f� — �d m. , KE(Eh . CITY OF TIFA RD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OREGON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. , IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER TOWN HALL - 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OR, WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: SDR 88-17, PD 88-04, & V 88-27 NPO # 6 FILE TITLE: SCHUETZ (DEKANTER) APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter OWNER: Florian & Anne Schuetz 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby, OR 97013 Red Deer, Alberta REQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval with conditions for a request for a 130 units apartment complex on 12.66 acres zoned R-12 (PD) (Medium Density Residential, 12 units/acre-Planned Development). Also, for a Variance to City regulations that requires three (3) access points on development of over 100 units to allow one access drive. LOCATION: Between SW 109th Avenue and SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, lot 8802 and 2S1 10AC, lots 400 and 500). (See Map On Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 18.30. ANY PERSON HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD, OR TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT: 639-4171, CITY OF TIGARD - 13125 SW HALL BLVD. , TIGARD, OREGON 97223. dj/7155D 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard,Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 a c � l UfIUlg� o� — ® d n,RU4r 117 h 4ti/t _T o � 0 a� &w. 114 10 + 1 tYl< w MZn 7n's a El 40. 1061k AV C- r I a ; 4 t 'QC �d 1 'll iC t' if ApsO 111lL (lkp4YlMiV�15 w W '; S.W. P041% M i Js t it TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 88 - 10 ,PC A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND VARIANCE (PD 88•-04/SDR 88-•17/V 88--27) REQUESTED BY FLORIAN AND ANNE SCHUETZ. -rhe Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the above application at a public hearing on September 6, 1988. The Commission based its decision on the facts, findings, and conclusions noted below: s' G A. FACTS E 1. General Information CASE: Planned Development 88-.04, Site Development Review SDR 88-17, Variance 88-27 REQUEST: Site Development Review and Planned Development Review approval to construct a 130 unit apartment complex on a 12.66 acre tree covered site. Also requested is a variance from Community Development Code Section 18.108.070 which requires apartment complexes with greater than 100 dwelling units to have at least two access driveways. The applicant requests that the proposed development be allowed to be ( served by one driveway. s \ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) and R-12 (PD) (Planned Development overlay) APPLICANT: Tod DeKanter OWNER: Florian and Anne Schuetz P 720 NE 34th Place 30 Nelson Close Canby, OR 97013 Red Deer, Alberta S LOCATION: West side of SW 109th Avenue at the intersection with SW Murdock Street (WCTM 2S1 LOAD, Tax Lot 8802, WCTM 2S1 IOAC, Tax Lots 400 and 500) 1 a i 2. Background Information In 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR 1-81), which included Tax Lots 400 and 500 of Map 2S1 10AC, to allow a zoning designation of A-20 (High Density, 20 units per acre) with a recommendation that all development on these lots be brought before the Planning Commission as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and FINAL ORDER NO. 88•- 10 PC - PD 88--04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 1 that the density each case be reviewed as a ( tion of the review process. The City Council reviewed CPR 1-81 and remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review after giving the opinion that a density of twenty (20) units per acre was excessive in relation to properties included in the request. Upon review, an A-12 (Urban Medium Density, 12 units per acre) district was designated for the area. A Planned Development (PD) overlay was attached to the zone designation. When the Tigard Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1983, the majority of Little Bull Mountain, as the site is known, was redesignated Low Density Residential and given a corresponding zoning designation of R-4.5 (PD) (Residential., 4.5 units/acre, Planned Development overlay) . In December, 1986 the Tigard City Council gave conditional approval to the Albertson's Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of. -several properties located at the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. This proposal requested redesignation of these properties from High Density Residential to General Commercial. The result of this decision was the removal of about 400 potential multi-family housing units from Tigard's inventory of vacant, buildable land. The Metropolitan Housing Rule (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660, * Division 7) requires that Tigard provide a housing opportunity for at least 50 percent multi-family units and a net minimum housing density of 10 dwelling units per acre on vacant buildable land within the City's Urban Planning Area. The Albertson's CPA was granted on the condition of redesignation of sufficient residential land to higher densities to make up for the housing opportunity shortfall created by the decision. Tax lots 400 and 500 were included in a 24.9 acre plan/zone redesignation front Low Density Residential/R-4.5 (PD) zone to Medium Density Residential/R-12 (PD) zone for 9 parcels in the Little Bull Mountain area that was part of an approximately 50 acre redesignation to higher densities. The redesignations were approved by the City Council in April 1987 (CPA 87-01(A), ZC 87-02(A)). 3. Vicinity Information The subject property is surrounded by properties zoned R-12 (Residential, 12 units/acre) on all sides except to the west across Pacific Highway. Abutting zones on the west side of the highway, from north to south, are C-G (General Commercial), C•-P (Professional/ Administrative Office Commercial District), and R- 40 (Multiple Family Residential, 40 units/acre). The city limits of King City are adjacent to the southwest boundary of these properties. The development pattern around the site consists of multi-family residences to the north and east; commercial development across Pacific Highway to the west; and mostly undeveloped parcels covered with tall fir trees and underbrush with one single family residence to the south. C FINAL ORDER NO. 88- 10 PC - PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-2.7 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 2 SW 109th Avenue ( s 5W Murdock Street in the ( a of the proposed development are fully improved, 34 foot wide streets functionally classified as local streets. SW 109th Avenue currently dead ends approximately 200 feet south of the site. Right-of-way for a possible future connection of SW 109th Avenue continues southward through a tree covered area until it meet's the gravel southern segment of 109th Avenue which is located on the south slope of Little Bull Mountain. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The proposed apartment complex consists of three tax lots. Tax lot 8802 is .56 acre is size, has 240 feet of frontage on SW 109th Avenue, and is zoned R-12. Tax lots 400 and 500 combined total 13. 1 acres and are zoned R-12 (PD). All parcels are undeveloped. The entire site is covered with tall fir trees. The site slopes westward from 109th Avenue with the western one-third of the site sloping steeply to Pacific Highway. The applicant proposes to develop a 130 unit, 29 building apartment complex on the site. All units will include two bedrooms. All buildings would be two stories except for one single story building to be located near the site's entrance from SW 109th Avenue. The applicant requests Site Development Review approval of the proposed site plan. Because the parcels are designated with the Planned Development overlay zone, the plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The buildings would be arranged around a roughly square driveway with 6 buildings and a swimming pool located in the center. Thirty-five garages in 4 buildings, 95 carports, and 95 uncovered parking spaces i would be located along the driveways. Because the development will { retain the existing slope of the parcel, the driveway and parking areas f will be steeply sloped. The development would be served by one 30-foot wide access driveway from SW 109th Avenue. Community Development Code Section 18. 108.070 requires that an apartment complex with 130 units be served by at least two access driveways. The applicant requests a Variance from this standard. E The site plan shows all existing trees that will be retained. The i applicant has indicated that the plan attempts to retain as many trees as possible, including the area at the center of the development. The dense forest on the western approximately one-third of the site would remain undisturbed. The site plan proposes that sanitary sewer connections for three buildings in the northwest corner of the site be made to an existing public sewer~ located in SW 109th Avenue. Sanitary sewers serving the remainder of the buildings would connect to an existing sewer at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Canterbury Lane. A main line s extension would be constructed by the developer from the existing sewer to the site's Pacific Highway frontage. An eight-inch private sewer line would connect the proposed development's collection system with the main line extension. t` Z) FINAL ORDER NO. 88-•-_10 PC - PD 88-04/SDR 88- 17/V 88--27 (SCHUET - PAGE 3 Storm drainage w( d be provided through catch ins located in the driveway and parking areas draining to a storm water detention pipe system located under the westernmost portion of the driveway, with surface discharge through a single pipe to the forested area on the western portion of the site. Water service to the site will connect to an existing supply line in SW 109th Avenue. An existing pump system will be used to provide water circulation. Three ffire hydrants will be provided within the development. 5. Agency and NPO Comments The Engineering Division reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: 1. The submitted site plan shows a proposed 130 unit apartment complex west of 109th Avenue on a site with many evergreen and deciduous trees. The site slopes to the west towards Pacific Highway. 2. The apartment complex is proposed to have one access to 109th Avenue opposite Murdock Street. The Community Development Code requires one access for each 100 parking spaces; therefore, 2 accesses are required by the Code. The applicant has requested a variance to this requirement. One access is requested in order to limit the impact to the trees on the site and due to the restricted frontage width of the site on 109th Avenue. 3. 109th Avenue is a 34--foot wide curbed street with sidewalks on both sides of the street except- along the site's frontage. Street y lights also exist on the west side of the street. 109th Avenue street improvements currently end south of the site. Existing right—of—way allows for possible future extension of 109th Avenue to Naeve Street. 4. A Transportation Impact Analysis for the apartment complex was submitted with this application. The analysis evaluated the impact- of the proposed development on 109th Avenue and also on the 109th Avenue intersection with Canterbury Lane. The analysis concluded that the traffic generated from the site will riot significantly impact adjacent streets or interfere with the operations of the 109th Avenue and Canterbury Lane intersection. The report recommends that curb returns be utilized for the site's driveway to improve accessibility into and out of the site. i 5. Storm drainage is shown as being collected on—site into a detention pipe and discharged through a flow control device into a 10 inch outlet pipe daylighted into the forested area. This method of discharging the storm drainage is not approved since detention of storm drainage water is not permitted and the single discharge point will create erosion on the steep forested area. 1 FINAL ORDER NO. 88— 10 PC — PD 88--04/SDR 88---17/V 88-27 (SCHUFTZ) -- PAGE 4 An alt-ernativ( jould be to discharge the stoK Jrainage at several locations and to install an energy dissipator at the end of the pipe to prevent erosion. 6. Sanitary sewer service is available at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway. A main line extension will be required from this existing sewer southward to the proposed development. The extension is proposed to be installed along Paci.f-ic. Highway to the site' s frontage and then up through the forested area to the development. r 7. The proposed parking lot is shown with cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent for approximately 100 stalls. Normal design practices limit the cross slopes on parking stalls to 5 to 6 percent. Cross slopes of 10 to 12 percent will make getting into and out of a vehicle very difficult. The steeper than normal slopes have been �. proposed to reportedly limit the impact to the site ano the existing trees. It is staff's recommendation that the parking F- difficulty created by the cross slopes be reduced. E The Building Division reviewed the proposal and offered no comments. (: Tigard School District 23J reviewed the proposal and offered the following comments: At the current time, this proposed development is in the Templeton Elementary and Twality Junior High School . attendance areas. Both schools are experiencing enrollment pressures and would have difficulty housing the children expected to come from this development, especially if the project is to be completed and/or largely occupied before September, 1989. Because the school district anticipates the need to make significant changes in its elementary and junior high attendance boundaries beginning with the 1989--90 ` school year, the developer of this project, if it is <` approved, should make no commitments regarding where the children living in the proposed development will attend school until those decisions are made. t i Washington County Fire District #1 provided the following comments regarding the proposal: �- 1. The Fire District would prefer two well-spaced access drives. 2. Driveway grades shall not exceed 15 percent. 3. Fire hydrants shall be located no further than 250 feet from all portions of the proposed buildings. This distance may be increased to 500 feet if automatic fire sprinklers are installed in the proposed buildings. �. The Tigard Water District reviewed the proposal and commented that proposed development- will need to be served by a pumped water system. A pumped system is already in place and is adequate to serve the proposed water system. The District also commented that it appears FINAL ORDER NO. 88- 10 PC -- PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 5 that one additi( .1 fire hydrant will be ned ary to adequately service the development. The Water District provided additional technical comments which have been forwarded to the project architect. The Oregon State Highway Division reviewed the proposal and commented that no adverse impacts on Pacific Highway were anticipated other than temporary construction impacts during the installation of the sanitary sewer extension. Intersection improvements including installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Canterbury Lane and Pacific Highway are scheduled for completion next year. With the improvements in place, the additional traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated without impacting traffic on Pacific Highway. The Highway Division also commented that a permit must be obtained prior to any work within the right-of--way for installation of the sewer intersection. No other comments were received. C. ANALYSIS The proposal for construction of the proposed 130 unit apartment complex conforms with Community Development Code R-12 zoning district requirements for type of use and permitted density, setbacks from property boundaries, site coverage (80%), and site area landscaping (20%) . The proposal complies with Site Development Review standards for privacy, private outdoor recreation areas (patios or balconies), shared outdoor- recreation areas, and site lighting. The site plan generally complies with Code standards for landscaping and parking, although modifications to the plan will be necessary. The site plan also must be revised to comply with requirements for drainage and vision clearance at the driveway-road intersection. The deficiencies of this proposal and the requested access variance are addressed below. Parking The required number of parking spaces for this development is 195 (1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit) . 225 parking spaces would be provided. 130 of these spaces are required to be covered. The site plan provides for 35 garage parking spaces and 95 carport parking spaces for a total of 130 spaces. The plan satisfies these requirements. The site plan does not, however, designate appropriately sized, located, and signed handicapped parking spaces. Community Development Code Section 18.106.020(n) requires a minimum of one handicapped parking space for every 50 parking spaces provided. The site plan must be revised to provide at least five appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking spaces. These spaces should be constructed in a manner that minimizes the slope. The grade of the proposed lot is steep and problems will be experienced getting in and out of vehicles parked on cross slopes of up to 12 percent. The slope of these parking spaces should be studied further and the effort made to reduce the grade problem as much as possible. FINAL ORDER NO. 88-- 10 PC - PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 6 Landscaping (. A landscaping plan is a required element of a Site Development Review application. No landscaping plan was submitted with this application. Nevertheless, the submitted site plan provides adequate information to determine that the minimum site area landscaping requirements (20%) will be satisfied through the retention of existing trees. The retention of these trees will also serve to satisfy perimeter buffering requirements, with the exception of a 180 foot long stretch along the site's southern boundary. Only one existing tree would be retained along this stretch. Six apartment units would be located in this area. A landscaping plan will need to be submitted for Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits that provides adequate vegetative buffering in this area. Where possible, additional trees should be preserved along the east, south,and north property boundaries. In addition, the landscaping plan shall describe and locate other proposed site landscaping materials for the entire_.site including lawn or ground cover materials. Section 18.100.035 of the Community Development Code requires that street trees be provided along a site's street frontage. The submitted site plan does not show any trees that will be located along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage. Street trees need to be included in the required landscaping plan. Vision Clearance Areas/Signage Community Development Code Section 18.102.030 requires that a triangular vision clearance area be maintained either direction from the intersection of an access drive and a non-arterial street. Objects within this area must be less than three feet tall. Trees are allowed within the vision clearance area provided that branches below eight feet are removed. The site plan proposes a sign that would intrude upon the required vision clearance area. No details are provided regarding the sign's height. The sign will need to comply with the vision clearance area height requirement or else be relocated. A sign permit must be obtained prior to er•ect-ion of the sign. Drainage The 1981 Master Drainage Plan for the City of Tigard discourages the development of stormwater detention facilities. The Plan also discourages the concentration of storm discharge onto undeveloped surface drainage areas. The site plan proposes collection of parking area drainage into a detention system with a single discharge onto the surface of the western one-third of the site. The proposed drainage system conflicts with the recommendations of the Master Drainage Plan. The applicant will be required to redesign the storm drainage system in conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and submit the drainage system design for Engineering Division review and approval. FINAL. ORDER NO. 88-• 10 PC - PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 7 Access l \, The site plan proposes one 30 foot wide access on SW 109th Avenue. Section 18. 108.070 of the Code requires three accesses for a multi--family development serving 100 to 200 residential units. The applicant requests a variance from this standard due to 1) the limited access opportunities resulting from the limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue and 2) the steep slope on the western third of the site making access from Pacific Highway difficult to develop. Code Section 18. 108. 150 provides for the Commission to allow a variance to access requirements if it is found that: i 1. It is not possible to share access; r 2. There are not other alternative access points on the street in question or from another street; z 3. The access separation requirements cannot be met; i 4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access; 5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe access; and i 6. The visual clearance requirements of Chapter 18.102 will be met. 4 'r> There is no opportunity for developing shared access with adjacent i parcels. Other parcels which front on SW 109th Avenue east of the site r are already developed. Development of another access on tax lot 8802 would provide little if any congestion relief on SW 109th Avenue due to �. the necessary proximity of the intersections. Another access in this area would also require relocation of at least one building thereby necessitating removal of additional trees elsewhere on the site. Development- of an access from Pacific Highway is impractical because of s. the expense of constructing a road up the steep slope on the western 4 one—third of the site, the impacts on wildlife and aesthetic values that would result from removing trees in that area, and because of the potential adverse traffic impacts of an access entering Pacific Highway. The proposed 30 foot width of the driveway (24 feet is the required width) and the utilization of curb returns and development of E: the driveway at the same grade as the street should provide adequate [, and safe access. Removal of the sign from the required vision F clearance area will improve the safety of the intersection. E The Commission is concerned about the number of residences served by s only one access and the fire district's preference for two driveways. It appears that unless the number of units is reduced, adequate and safe access cannot be provided by only one access. r F: C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.54, 18.80, 18,96, 18. 100, 18. 162, 18.106, 18.108. , / 18. 110, 18. 12.0, 18. 150, and 18.164. t FINAL_ ORDER NO. 88— 10 PC — PD 88-•04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 8 - G I The Planning Commission has determined that the proposal, with modifications that will be submitted with the detailed plan, is consistent with relevant .portions of the Community Development Code based upon the following findings: a. Chapter 18.54 (R-12 -zone) is satisfied because the proposal conforms with use, density, and applicable dimensional requirements of the R-12 zone. b. Chapter 18.80 (Planned Development) is satisfied because the proposal is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as required by the provisions of the Planned Development- overlay zone. To protect the integrety of the steep, wooded parcel, the Development shall be limited to 100 units. C. Chapter 18.96 is satisfied because the site plan provides for appropriate distances between multi—family residential buildings to assure privacy to residents and adequate light to all units on the site. d. Chapter 18.100 (Landscaping and Screening) will be satisfied upon # submittal of a landscaping plan and approval of that plan by the Planning Commission. The plan must detail all proposed site . landscaping including ground covers, street trees along SW 109th Avenue, and site perimeter buffering. e. Chapter 18.102 (Visual Clearance Areas) will be satisfied upon €. Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan that : relocates the proposed sign outside of the required vision Cclearance area. f-. Chapter 18.106 (Off—Street Parking) will be satisfied upon t Planning Commission approval of a revised site plan that provides for a minimum of at least one appropriately sized, located, and signed handicapped parking space. The site plan satisfies Code requirements for number of total parking spaces provided and number of covered parking spaces. g. Chapter 18.108 (Access, Egress, and Circulation) is satisfied because the site plan provide for safe and efficient access and egress for the proposed use and for general circulation on the t site despite the site's constraints of steep slope and limited frontage on SW 109th Avenue. The requested variance to allow one €; access to serve the site, whereas the Code would normally require ?' two accesses for a development of this size, is justified provided the development is limited to 100 units. Q' h. Chapter 18.120 (Site Development Review) is satisfied because the detailed plan will provide for the proposed buildings and other site improvements to be located so as to preserve existing trees and to minimize alterations to the site' s topography and drainage systems. The site plan also situates the buildings so as to provide for privacy and light for the proposed dwelling units and compatibility between the proposed development and adjacent uses. Q FINAL ORDER NO. 88— 10 PC — PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88•--27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 9 1 i. Chapter 18.150 (Tree Removal) will be satisfied because the applicant will be required to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removing trees in preparation for development. Permits will be granted only if it is found necessary to remove the trees to accommodate structures, driveways, utilities, or other proposed site improvements. The site plan illustrates trees within the area of actual development that will be retained. An arborist's report outlining methods of protection of the trees to be retained must be submitted prior to the issuance of a site grading permit- or a tree removal permit. The site plan also provides for all trees in the western one-third of the property to be retained except where necessary to accommodate the proposed sewer. j Chapter 18.164 (Street and Utility Standards) will be satisfied upon approval of public improvement plans for and construction of the proposed extension of the public sewer along Pacific Highway, a connection to the existing 'sewer in SW 109th Avenue, and installation of the sidewalk and driveway approach on SW 109th Avenue. Approval of public improvement plans is required prior to the issuance of building permits and tree removal permits for the proposed development. D. DECISION The Planning Commission grants conceptual approval of Planned Development PD 88•-04, Site Development Review 88-88-17, and Variance V 88-27. A detailed plan shall be submitted within one year, for Commission review, that includes the following: 1. The proposed privately-operated and maintained parking lot and roadway plan-profile and cross section details. Cross slopes in parking areas shall be reduced to approximately 6 percent, where possible. 2. The single driveway connection to SW 109th Avenue shall be designed in conformance with the recommendations of the applicant-'s traffic report. 30. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and approval. The plan shall provide location and species specific information on proposed landscaping material. The plan shall provide for street trees along the site's SW 109th Avenue frontage and for additional perimeter buffering along all but the western border of the site. Said perimeter buffering shall consist of a 6 foot chain link fence and vegetative screening or a 6 foot site obscuring fence at the option of adjoining property owners. Said fencing shall. be installed prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A revised site plan shall be submitted which 1) provides for a minimum uf- one appropriately sized and located designated handicapped parking space for every 50 standard parking spaces; 2) relor..aLes the proposed sign outside of the required vision clearance area; 3) has a maximum of 100 units; and 4) provides for FINAL ORDER NO. 88-- 10 PC - PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) - PAGE 10 a fire hydrant to be located within 250 feet of all first floor exterior portions of all buildings unless the buildings are to be provided with automatic sprinklers. C5. A detailed tree protection plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval which includes locations and types of trees to be retained, an arborist' s recommendations for methods of protecting these trees as well as trees on abutting properties during construction of the proposed apartments and also for maintenance of the long—ts^ lth of the trees. The Commission directs that the arboristase—ext em�� u 1o` n iTr-1 abutting property owner's trees. The trees to be saved shall be protected during construction by fencing or similar means approved by the Planning Division. No site grading, clearing, or tree removal shall occur prior to satisfaction of this condition. It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this final order. ) / PASSED: This 57— day of September, 1988, by the Planning Commission of the City of Tigard. A. Donald Moen, President Tigard Planning Commission ht/6765D FINAL ORDER N0. 88-- 10 PC — PD 88-04/SDR 88-17/V 88-27 (SCHUETZ) — PAGE 11 CITY OF TIGAr±D OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10,— -- 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: September 30, 1988 s. - 7 i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Parking .......... PREVIOUS ACTION: Restriction on SW Spruce Street PREPARED BY: Randall R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK V CITY ADMIN OK. REQUESTED BY: POLICY ISSUE Shall parking be prohibited on a portion of SW Spruce Street near the entrance to Fred Meyer Store? r. INFORMATION SUMMARY Staff has received requests from several citizens for parking to be prohibited next to the Spruce Street entrance to the Fred Meyer store. When vehicles are parked near the driveway, motorists exiting from the parking lot have difficulty seeing traffic approaching on Spruce. Mr. Gary Rutz, manager of the Fred Meyer Store, has indicated support for a "no parking" zone near the driveway entrance. Substantial replacement parking is available along the Spruce Street frontage of Fred Meyer and in the Fred Meyer parking lot. The City Engineer recommends that parking be prohibited within 100 foot Of the driveway centerline. The attached ordinance would create the parking prohibition. The driveway in question is directly across from SW 72nd Avenue. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED V 1. Approve the attached ordinance. 2. Amend the ordinance. 3. Allow parking to continue. ........... ------ FISCAL IMPACT Approximately $100 for signing. SUGGESTED ACTION Approve the attached ordinance, br/7264D CITY OF TIGARD, OREGO COUNCIL. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 88 -- DATE SUBMITTED: septembe.r 30...... —9 AGENDA OF: -October 10 1988 Ordinance 88—Z6 'ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: police Dog.— PREVIOUS ACTION: Adopted on 9/26/88 dment Ordinance ARP2E1r1- PREPARED 8Y: Loreen WilsoLn�_�� REQUESTED BY: _jiavid Lehr,•_ DEPT HEAD 0 11Tj IV POLICY ISSUE rice 88-26, which made it unlawful to set the policy by adopting Ordinance Council tamper- with Police dOgs- INFORMATIONS_U_MMAMY t. On 9/26/88, Council passed an to tamper with ordinance to make it unlawful The ordinance contained a animals used f 01- law enforcement purposes. which would make the scribners error in section 21 declaring an emergency passage, and a second paragraph which effective immediately upon ordinance stated the ordinance. would be effective 30 days after its Passage. In checking with the Chief of Police, his intent was that the ordinance would declare an emergency and be cppective immediately. The attached ordinance clarifies the effective date by removing the paragraph that referenced an effective date of 30 days after passage. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Amend Ordinance 88-26. 2. Take no action at this time. FISCAL IMPACT 1. $0 2. Unknown SUGGESTED ACTION Alternative #1 Motion to adopt Ordinance to Amend. ht/7279D ........... CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: October 10, 1988 DATE SUBMITTED: September 3O,.....1988 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revision to PREVIOUS ACTION: ordinance 88--27 ............ Ordinance No. 88-27 Adopted on SeptSLqber 26, 1988 t �A PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton 5-E—FF—HEAD 0 CITY ADMIN OK'JIlk REQUESTED BY: 1-Y POLICY ISSUE N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY On September, 26, 1988, the City Council adopted Ordinance 88--27 amending Section 3 . 16.070 of the Tigard Municipal Code removing the requirement that Parks Systems Development charges be expended within the district from whence the revenues were collected. The effective date cited in Section 2 of the Ordinance was incorrect. Attached is an ordinance which, if approved, sets the effective date of Ordinance 88-27 as 30 days after Council adoption on September 26, 1988. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL IMPACT None. SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached Ordinance amending Ordinance 88-27 and declaring an emergency. ht/7303D