City Council Packet - 10/08/1990a
I
• STUDY SESSION (5:30 p.m.)
AGENDA
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wlshing to
speak on an agenda Item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda
Items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be
set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City
Administrator.
Tax Limitation Discussion - City Attorney and Finance Director
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 p.m.)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. KEYS TO THE CITY. Tigard Promotions, inc.
• Mayor Edwards
3. PRESENTATION TO CITY OF TIGARD: CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR
EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FY 19118-89
• Dave Boyer, Multnomah County Finance Director & Board Member of Government Finance
Officers Association
4. PROCLAMATION: DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH
• Mayor Edwards
5. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 1
6. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
6.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 13 and 27, 1990
6.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
6.3 Approve Appointment to Planning Commission - Resolution No. 90--L
6.4 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for Right-of-Way and Easement Appraisal and Negotiation Services
b. Award Bid for First Year Park Levy Improvements - Cook Park Riverfront Project
c. Authorize City Administrator to Sign Agreement with OR-AK to Construct Pedestrian
Bridge at Summerlake Park
d. Approve Purchase of Summerlake Park Property
6.5 Approve Quitclaim Deeds Regarding Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Limited Use
Easements in Englewood and Englewood II Subdivisions - Resolution No. 90-
6.6 Approve Building Use Policy for Senior Center
6.7 Approve Quitclaim Deed - Easement Vacations - Village at Summerlake Park No. 5 -
Resolution No. 90-,L
7. PUBLIC HEARING: BOSNAR STORM SEWER EASEMENT VACATION (AUM DOWNS
SUBDIVISION)
To vacate a portion of a storm sewer easement located on Lot 7 of the Aum Downs Subdivision
(WCTM 1 S1 36AA, Tax Lot 7300), to eliminate a discrepancy between the actual location of the
storm sewer and the location of the easement.
• Public Hearing Opened (Set over from cancelled 9/24/90 Council Meeting)
• Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
- Proponents
- Opponents
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90--~-7
8. PUBLIC HEARING: JOLLY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION (PORTION OF SW 74TH
AVENUE)
To vacate a portion of S.W. 74th Avenue, located South of Cherry at the request of Wayne and
Joyce Jolly
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
- Proponents
- Opponents
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90--
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 2
9. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN CODE EXCEPTION, SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROTHERS/TIGARD
RETAIL (NPO #3)
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Community Development Staff
• NPO and/or CPO Testimony
• Public Testimony
- Proponents
- Opponents
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Final Order
10. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM AUGUST27,1990: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
10.1 Revised Tigard Municipal Code 18.94 - Manufactured Homes
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Consideration by Council - Ordinance No. 90-
10.2 Amend Definition of Wetland and Amend Sensitive Land Approval Criteria
Regarding Wetlands in Chapter 18.26 and 18.84 of the Tigard Municipal Code
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 90-.':~1_1
10.3 Model Solar Access Ordinance
• Recommendation by Community Development Staff
• Council Questions or Comments
• Consideration by Council: Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare an Ordinance for Formal
Consideration and Schedule a Public Hearing
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• Public Hearing Continued to October 22, 1990 Consideration of Proposed Ordinances for
Group Residential Care and Review of an Update on the "Economy" Chapter
11. NON-AGENDA
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues.
13. ADJOURNMENT
cc
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 3
Council Agenda Item 3
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990
• Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn
Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick
Reilly, City Administrator; Ron Bunch, Senior Planner (Study
Session only); Loreen Edin, Administrative Services Manager
(Study Session only); Keith Liden, Senior Planner; Wayne
Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community Development
Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator; Tim
Ramis, City Attorney; Brad Roast, Building Official (Study
Session only); Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy
Wooley, City Engineer.
2. STUDY SESSION
AGENDA REVIEW:
Agenda items were reviewed; staff answered questions and
clarified items presented in staff reports.
Council meeting recessed: 6:00 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 6:10 p.m.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE/CITY STREETS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES:
City Administrator advised the County-Wide TIF will become
effective October 22, 1990. This fee will be levied on new
development. Approximately half of the amount collected will
be retained by the City of Tigard. Council must determine
whether to keep, reduce, or eliminate the current City of
Tigard Streets Systems Development Charges. Staff will
present information for Council consideration on October 22,
1990.
(City Administrator left the Council meeting.)
PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION (BALLOT MEASURE 5) DISCUSSION
City Attorney and Finance Director led discussion concerning
the property tax limitation proposal which will be considered
by voters on November 6. Highlights of the discussion are
listed below:
> Ballot Measure 5 is a proposed Constitutional Amendment.
{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 1
> Tax limitation measures have been introduced 6 times over
the last 12 years; the vote has been extremely close
several times.
> Because the proposal is a Constitutional Amendment, the
language is broad/vague. If approved, it will be subject
to interpretation by the Legislature and courts.
> Because interpretation process will take considerable
time, the City will have to implement (best guess) as
closely to what we think it means. Legal counsel will
work with League of Oregon Cities, finance lawyers, and
the attorney general.
> Implications of limitations specified in the ballot
measure were reviewed. (A summary can be obtained from
Wayne Lowry.)
> It appears that the limitation, if approved, would result
in reduction of local control over financial decisions.
> Measure does not describe where the State would get
dollars to replace the money the school districts would
lose.
> Finance Director explained implications to the Local
Improvement District process. Methods of financing used
in the past may become unavailable or less desirable.
The City would lose its ability to stand behind issuance
of General Obligation Bonds as an unlimited taxing
authority, unless their issuance is approved by voters.
Risk to investors would be higher; cost of financing
would likely increase.
3. KEYS TO THE CITY'
Mayor presented the following individuals of Tigard
Promotions, Inc. with Keys to the City:
Dave Foglio, President; Gary Lee, Vice President; Pat Hatleli,
Treasurer; and Board members: Linda Badden, Susan Bechtol,
Dianne Kindrick (unable to attend), Harley Lamont, Kay
McNamee, and Steve Ogden.
This group sponsors the Cruisin' Tigard celebration every
year. Mayor Edwards expressed appreciation for their efforts.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 2
4. PRESENTATION TO CITY OF TIC
TAM: CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT
FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FY 1988-89
Dave Boyer, Multnomah County Finance Director & Board Member
of Government Finance Officers Association presented the
Certificate of Achievement to Mayor Edwards. As of June 30,
1989, the City of Tigard met all criteria; only 1,300 cities
(out of 82,000) receive this award.
Mayor commended the Finance Director and City staff for their
excellent performance. He noted this was an example of the
kind of job the City has been performing for its residents
over the past several years.
5. PROCLAMATION
Mayor Edwards proclaimed October as Disability Employment
Awareness Month.
6. VISITOR"S AGENDA
Sue Carver (NPO 6) requested a waiver of the appeal fees for
the following two items:
• Triad Development, SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002 (Planning
Commission Decision)
• Castile/McMonagle Subdivision 90-0010 (Hearings Officer
Decision)
Ms. Carver submitted a copy of the September 19, 1990, NPO 6
minutes. It was at this meeting that the NPO decided to
appeal the above decisions.
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwartz to
waive the appeal fees as requested.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to
approve the following Consent Agenda items:
.1 Approve City Council Minutes: August 13 and 27, 1990
.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
.3 Approve Appointment to Planning Commission - Resolution
No. 90-61
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 3
.4 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for Right-of-Way and Easement 1
Appraisal and Negotiation Services +
b. Award Bid for First Year Park Levy Improvements -
Cook Park Riverfront Project
C. Authorize City Administrator to Sign Agreement with
OR-AK to Construct Pedestrian Bridge at Summerlake
Park
d. Approve Purchase of Summerlake Park Property
.5 Approve Quitclaim Deeds Regarding Existing
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Limited Use Easements
in Englewood and Englewood II Subdivisions -
Resolution No. 90-62
.6 Approve Building Use Policy for Senior Center
.7 Approve Quitclaim Deed - Easement Vacations - Village at
Summerlake Park No. 5 - Resolution No. 90-63
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: BOSNAR STORM SEWER EASEMENT VACATION (AUM
DOWNS SUBDIVISION)
To vacate a portion of a storm sewer easement located on Lot
7 of the Aum Downs Subdivision (WCTM 1S1 36AA, Tax Lot 7300),
to eliminate a discrepancy between the actual location of the
storm sewer and the location of the easement.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Keith Liden summarized the staff report.
The purpose of the vacation is to eliminate a portion of
an existing easement which does not coincide with the
actual location of the storm sewer. Another easement
which does coincide with the storm sewer location will
be recorded. To make certain this happens, staff
recommended approval of the easement vacation should be
condition upon the provision of a storm sewer easement
consistent with the actual location of the storm sewer.
The property owner wishes to place a dwelling within a
portion of the area to be vacated.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance
approving the vacation request.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 4
g. ORDINANCE NO. 90-27 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF
A STORM SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 7 OF THE AUM DOWNS
SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
OREGON.
h. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to approve Ordinance No. 90-27.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: JOLLY STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION (PORTION
OF SW 74TH AVENUE)
To vacate a portion of S.W. 74th Avenue, located South of
Cherry at the request of Wayne and Joyce Jolly
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Liden summarized the staff report. The
City has been requested to vacate an unimproved portion
of SW 74th Avenue which adjoins the property of Wayne and
Joyce Jolly. This portion of 74th Avenue will not be
used to provide access through the residential district
from industrial property located to the south. Neither
will the right-of-way be used to provide access to
abutting residential properties. The residential
properties have adequate access to S.W. Cherry Street.
The Field Operation Division has commented that it will
be necessary to create an easement for sanitary and storm
sewer lines and manholes located in the portion of SW
74th Avenue proposed to be vacated. Residents from the
area have requested the sanitary sewer be extended to SW
Cherry Drive.
The Planning Commission, at a hearing held on September
18, 1990, recommended approval of the proposed vacation
subject to the condition that a utility easement be
provided for sewer lines.
Senior Planner advised of concerns by residents in the
vicinity about the future extension of sewer service to
S.W. 74th Avenue.
d. Public Testimony
• Anthony Maksym, 13565 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard,
Oregon 97223, recounted the history of the area
relating to sanitary sewer improvements. The City
{ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 5
had considered a Local Improvement District (LID)
for sanitary sewers in this area. It was determined
that this project would be too expensive and the LID
idea was tabled. Not long ago, a large development
(Hampton Ridge Apartments) was approved for 100
units on 72nd Street; the connection was made for
sewer across 72nd Street. He noted concerns for
capacity of the sewer line and also that the
neighbors were not aware that the apartments would
be allowed to connect at this location.
With regard to the proposal for the vacation of S.W.
74th Street, Mr. Maksym advised he was not opposed
to the vacation once the storm sewer behind 74th
street is brought up to public property. Even
though there is an easement, Mr. Maksym contended
that once the property was deeded over to private
ownership, it would become a trespass to access the
easement when the time comes to install the sewer.
Legal Counsel responded to a question from the Mayor
concerning access to the easement. Mr. Ramis advised
that as long as the City maintains an easement for sewer
purposes, the City can access the area.
• Raymond Ems, 13400 S.W. 76th, Tigard, Oregon, 97223,
advised he had an acre of undeveloped property in
C_ this area. The whole area has single-acre parcels
in different ownerships. He advised, because of
development he has done and his knowledge of
construction in the area, he did not believe the
manhole and proposed sewer easement were in
alignment. If this was the case, it would mean an
additional manhole would have to be constructed when
the sewer was extended.
Mr. Ems contended that a 15-foot easement would be
inadequate for big machinery to work effectively and
economically.
Mr. Ems said an easement vacation at this time was
premature; once the sewer was in, he would have no s
objection to the vacation. He advised he deeded
over ten feet of the right-of-way when he developed
Rolling Hills 2. He said he did not think it was
right to give this ten feet plus other ground to
another property owner when it might cost him extra
money to obtain a sewer connection.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 6
Senior Planner Liden responded to a question from
Councilor Kasten who asked what could be constructed on
an easement. No structures could be built, but pavement,
fences and landscaping would be allowed.
Senior Planner Liden advised no exact determination of
the location of a sewer easement had been made.
Legal counsel said the easement the City retains could
be drafted to prohibit not only structures, but other
things as well. Also, if more than 15 feet was needed
for equipment to do work in the right-of-way, then a
wider construction easement may be appropriate.
Mr. Paul Warner, 10300 S.W. Century Oak Drive,
Tigard, Oregon 97223 testified that he owned
property facing 72nd and 74th Avenue. He advised
he was not against the vacation request but would
like to see the sewer line brought to the center or
north side of Cherry Street so it would be
convenient to hook on to it when property is
developed.
e. Community Development Director outlined the staff
recommendation and noted the recommendation, as presented
in the Council packet, was changed. There was some
question whether the sewer line would line up, whether
15 feet was wide enough, and financing options should be
explored. He referred to the City Administrator's
suggestion that the advance financing technique could be
used. Community Development Director agreed with Mr. Ems
that the vacation request was premature. He suggested
staff would come back at the November 19, 1990 Council
meeting with a report on the issues.
f. Council, after considering the staff report and possible
options, continued the public hearing to November 19,
1990. Between now and that time, staff will determine
where a possible sewer easement should be located and how
much property would be needed for such an easement.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN CODE EXCEPTION SCE 90-0003 MARTIN
BROTHERSZTIGARD RETAIL (NPO 3)
City Council review of a Planning Commission decision for a
Sign Code Exception to allow a 50 percent increase in sign
area (up to 105 square feet per face) and a 25% increase in
sign height (up to 25 feet) for a freestanding sign. ZONE:
C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION: 13702 S.W. Pacific
Highway (WCTM 2S1 3DD, Tax Lots 400 and 500)
a. Public hearing was opened.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 7
f'
.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
(
C. Senior Planner Liden summarized the staff report. He
advised the subject property was formerly the Hudson oil
site. Recently Site Development Review approval was
granted to develop the property with three new commercial
buildings presently on the site. The applicant applied
for a Sign Code Exception to allow for one free-standing
sign that would be approximately 105 square feet in area
5
per side with a height of 21 feet. The Code allows a
size of approximately 70 square feet and a height of 20
feet. The Code, however, does allow for a 50 percent
increase in sign area when looking at developments with
more than tenant. The Code also allows for a 25 percent
,
increase in height. These increases are based upon
satisfaction of criteria contained in Code Sections
:
18.114.145 and 18.114.130(g).
The Planning Commission found, based on the actual and
potential number of tenants that the proposed 50 percent
increase in sign area was justified in accordance with
the Code criteria. The Commission approved the area
increase. The Commission did not, however, approve the
additional one foot in height.
City Council called up this item for further review.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission decision
be upheld.
d. NPO comments: Beverly Froude, 12200 S.W. Bull Mountain
Road, Tigard, Oregon 97224 advised that NPO 3 reviewed
this proposal several times. The NPO voted unanimously
against the proposal; the NPO's position was that the
signage regulations were important. They recommended
adherence to the Code, especially for a high-visibility
building such as this.
e. Public Testimony:
• John Moore, 12702 S.W. Pacific Highway, Tigard,
Oregon and Roy W. Boswell of Martin Sign Company,
P. O. Box 1012, Tualatin, Oregon testified together.
Mr. Moore reviewed the variance procedure. He said
purpose of a variance was to meet individual
circumstances.
Mr. Moore advised he had worked closely with NPO 3
for the last 18 months; he noted their mutual
cooperation on the project. The NPO 3 chair,
reported Mr. Moore, advised that requests for
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 8
reported Mr. Moore, advised that requests for
additional sign size were always turned down by the
NPO.
Mr. Moore submitted pictures of the site and
reviewed the reasons for their request. He noted:
The request falls within the criteria for a
larger-size sign.
The shopping center is expected to have eight
tenants. (Presently, there are six tenants,
with room for two more.)
- The developer has opted for one larger sign
(instead of two signs) as provided in the Code.
Speeds generated on Pacific Highway require a
larger sign in order to be noticed by
motorists.
Configuration of the buildings does not allow
easy visual contact of some of the tenants in
the center.
f. Council discussion followed asking clarification from the
applicant on the size of the center and number of
tenants. Council discussed requirements contained in the
code and that exceptions may be permitted if certain
criteria was met.
Mayor Edwards, in looking at the photographs submitted
by the applicant, was advised that the advertising
banners were still being displayed through special
permission by City staff until after the sign issue was
resolved.
The applicant urged the Council to look at this project
from an individual standpoint taking into account the
need for visual contact with traffic on Pacific Highway.
g. Public hearing was closed.
h. Senior Planner Liden advised the Code provides that
during Site Development Review, the Planning Director can
approve additional sign area as provided in Subsection
.130 (g). The request would be advertised and noticed
along with the Site Development Review with an appeal
period. The Code says if you do not elect to ask for
additional sign area at that point, an application for
a Sign Code Exception must be submitted. The review
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 9
Senior Planner Liden noted the developer referred to a
"variance" throughout his testimony. No variance has
been approved or requested this is a request for a
Sign Code Exception (SCE). An SCE is allowed if certain
criteria are met; however, meeting the criteria does not
guarantee that the SCE will be granted.
Additional information was provided by the applicant at
the Planning Commission hearing; the commission was
persuaded that the criteria as outlined in the Code were
met.
i. Council discussion followed; the following is a list of
the highlights of their remarks:
• The Council was concerned about maintaining the
integrity of the Sign Code.
• The developer was aware of conditions (i.e.,
visibility, rate of speed on Pacific Highway) when
the buildings were constructed.
• There is an eight-tenant minimum before a
development qualifies to be designated as a
"shopping center." It was not absolutely certain
that the development would have eight tenants.
• The Council was not convinced that the signs allowed
by the Sign Code would be inadequate for this
property.
(City Administrator returned to Council meeting: 8:45 p.m.)
j. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Kasten to deny the application for a Sign Code Exception
and direct staff to prepare a resolution outlining the
Councils findings.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
11. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM AUGUST 27 1990:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND C0194UNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
11.1 Revised Tigard Municipal Code 18.94 - Manufactured Homes
a. Community Development Director reviewed the staff report
as presented in the Council packet. Community
Development Director Don Meyer, representing the
manufactured home industry, advised he was pleased with
the proposed ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 10
b. ORDINANCE NO. 90-28 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN
SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE,
ADOPTING RULES FOR EXTERIOR THERMAL ENVELOPE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS, FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL BUILDING
LOTS.
C. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Kasten,
to approve Ordinance No. 90-28.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
11.2 Amend Definition of Wetland and Amend Sensitive Land
Approval Criteria Regarding Wetlands in Chapter 18.26 and
18.84 of the Tigard Municipal Code
a. Community Development Director reviewed the staff
report as presented in the Council packet. He also
referred to errata language, submitted to the
Council, which should be incorporated with the
proposed ordinance.
b. Council discussion followed concerning the buffering
requirement of 25 feet. This is the minimum amount
of buffer land and would apply to those small
parcels of wetland not under the jurisdiction of the
Oregon Department of State Lands or the federal
{ government.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 90-29 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
OF THE SENSITIVE LANDS AND DEFINITIONS CHAPTERS OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PERIODIC REVIEW.
d. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz to approve Ordinance No. 90-29 along with
the proposed errata documentation as submitted.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of
Council present.
11.3 Model Solar Access Ordinance
a. Senior Planner Liden reviewed the information
submitted in the Council meeting packet.
b. The following persons testified in favor of adoption
of a solar ordinance:
Richard Durham, City Councilor for Lake Oswego,
noted that the proposed model solar ordinance
was a unique project; 22 jurisdictions were
cooperating in this effort. He advised the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 11
U. S. Department of Energy was interested in
this region's efforts and had asked for
information on the project.
Forrest Soth - City Councilor for Beaverton
outlined his involvement with the solar access
effort in th:s region. He advised the Home
Builder's Association supported the model
ordinance. He reported that efforts for a
volunteer-only solar access program have been
unsuccessful.
Beverly Froude, NPO 3, testified she supported
the solar access program.
C. Motion was made by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by
Councilor Kasten, directing staff to prepare an
ordinance for formal consideration and to schedule
a public hearing.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
d. Mayor Edwards and Councilor Eadon noted their desire
to have solar access efforts be voluntary rather
than mandated. The Mayor added he was aware this
was a worthwhile endeavor and Councilor Eadon noted
_ she would be willing to review her position.
Council asked staff to make a special effort to
involve NPOs. Community Development Director noted
Planning Commission would review and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
11.4 Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
Revisions for Group Residential Care and the
"Economy" Chapter
Mayor Edwards noted the public hearing would be
continued to October 22, 1990 for consideration of
proposed ordinances for Group Residential Care and
Review of an Update on the "Economy" Chapter.
12. NON AGENDA
Councilor Eadon announced a "Play in the Park" celebration to
inaugurate installation of new park equipment in Cook Park.
The event will take place at Cook Park on Saturday,
October 13, at 10 a.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 12
I
c
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session at 9:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS f
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
14. ADJOURNMENT: 9:53 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r
Atte ,
yor, i y o Tigard
Date: -190V-O Y L, 2 1
CCm108
f`
j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1990 - PAGE 13
Amp,
U
l
rn
n
n
Jz
z
Q
U
Q
p~
0
o
?
C
t0
®
C
m
t
G
R
!
180
,
0,
~q w
L
d
ID
F-
c
C
Z
°x°
❑
C
CL LU
O
V
U) Z
s
O
o
O
z
j
a
C')
Ai m
m
J
v/ Q
a
LLI
r S
s
rZ
'a
✓
CA
r1 y
pppt~ C U O b
i~9 :ppy .C -,a O e~ 'Ca -OA^
lI^^ C~7O1 G ~ ~ ~ v U .
"bo
# w~ 4~ Sj.B. H at
g o • a ~7~(U .mow V 1Qr 3~ 3
49
fn r=te ~ o ~
C C,~. ~ y ~'C7
t
'b a • 01 - a aF+
'a
O
Ol
Ol
S-
0 m
O
U
O ~
4- U
rho \
c
z
a~
t ~
m
E
m
`O
w
m
e m
0 CL
i W
V r
W a
~
a E
0 O
0 U IL
2 Q
I
r
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 NoticeTT 7703
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
P
s
City of Tigard i 13 Tearsheet Notice
PO Box 23397
Tigard, Or 97223 • O Duplicate
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
I- Judith Kneh1er
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti m pri Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Ti gard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
-N tiCp of Strcct V n
Ri~,ht of Irv
acation,U4th Ave
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for Fi tP successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
September 6, 13, 20 & 27, 1990
October 4, 1990
Subscribed and sworn to before me thisi4th daY Of October 1990.
i OFFICIAL SISAL
&/2a 4 V K.etrv.. J OVERLY D. Tt9OM"
Notary Public for Oregon
NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON
(0 -
My Commission Expires: R 15-, COMMISSION N5Q
ICY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY JULY 15, IN4
AFFIDAVIT
TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY Legal
Q, 1 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 7713
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
L
City of Tigard
PO Box 23397
Tigard, Or 97223
O
•
13 Tearsheet Not!--. .
• O Duplicate
0
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON,
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
1, Judith Koehler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard Times
a newspaper of general circulations defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at 119ard in the
aforesaid county and state; that th
SCE 90-0003
Public Hearing Signe code7
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:
September 27, 1990
C
'a1 07 Subscribed and sworn t before me this27th day of September 1990
Notary Public for Oregon
My Commissio pires:
AFFIDAVIT
t
1
AGENDA ITEM NO. S7 - VISITORS AGENDA DATE: 10/8/90
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The
Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda,
but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the
meeting. Thank you.
NAME & ADDRESS
TOPIC
STAFF CONTACTED
6
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 DATE: 10/8/90
PUBLIC HEARING - JOLLY STREET RIGHT-
OF-WAY VACATION (PORTION OF SW 74TH AVENUE)
PLEASE PRINT
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 DATE: 10/8/90
PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN CODE EXCEPTION]
SCE 90-00031 MARTIN BROTHERS/TIGARD RETAIL
(NPO 3)
PLEASE PRINT
l
V
t,
NAME & ADDRESS
PROPONENTS
NAME & ADDRESS
OPPONENTS
~f
da-
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10") - MANUFACTURED DATE: 10/8/90
HOMES
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM 8/27/90;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
F
CODE REVISIONS
t
r
PI ASE PRINT
C_
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.2-- WETLAND/ DATE: 10/8/90
SENSITIVE LAND
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM 8/27/90;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE REVISIONS
PLEASE PRINT
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.3 - SOLAR ACCESS DATE: 10/8/90
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING FROM 8127190;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE REVISIONS
PLEASE PZZIENT
~c
5
\ct
NPO #6
MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
1. Members in attendance were: Carver, Crow, Davenport, Kasson, and
Mitchell. Excused: Dillin, Clinton and Pasteris.
2. Minutes of the August 15, 1990 meeting approved as written.
3. TRIAD SDR 90-0004/PDR 90-0002
After a lengthy discussion between NPO members and guests: Bruce and
Jan Law, Greg Law, Peter and Dorothy Adamski, Betty Peck, Jane Miller
and Richard and Judy Watson the following motion was made:
NPO #6 appeals the decision made by Planning Commission on TRIAD
DEVELOPMENT SDR 90-0004/ PDR 90-0002 based on the following issues:
1) Opening the North end of 109th; 2) Excessive traffic on a local
street; 3) Grade variance; 4) Restrictions to access of local driveways
(both private and business); 5) Limited access to Durham Road due to
"first option" intersection; 6) property is zoned R-25 and should have
_ direct access to a major arterial; and 7) No consideration given to the
potential development of the properties to the east of 109th and the
consequences of the increased traffic flow through the existing
neighborhoods East of these properties.
This motion passed unanimously.
4. Lot Line Adjustment MIS 90-0015 Royal Oaks/Beacon Homes. This adjustment
was requested in order to place a sidewalk on the west side of a private
drive instead of the east as originally planned. NPO members reviewed
the request and found no objections with it.
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
Stephanie Mitchell updated the NPO members on the status of the
Castile/McMonagle Subdivision Sub 90-0010. After discussing the
Hearings Officer's findings and learning of the surrounding neighbors'
concerns the following motion was made:
NPO #6 appeals the approval with conditions made by Tigard Hearings
officer on the above referenced application based on the many concerns
of the local residents including the sewer and storm drainage system,
the private street and the lot configurations.
/ This motion pass unanimously.
5. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 PM.
COUNCIL AGENDA:--.
ITEM NO. 4
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Two-thirds of working age Americans with disabilities are out of
the job market; and
WHEREAS, We wish to salute the achievements of Oregonians with
disabilities who contribute to their families, communities and to society
through their jobs; and
WHEREAS, Congress has passed and President Bush has signed the
American's with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination in
employment of people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, We salute the many employers and organizations who
consistently provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities,
thereby setting an example for others; and
WHEREAS, The citizens of Tigard are pleased to join with the rest of the
nation to observe October as National Disability Employment Awareness
Month.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor of the City of Tigard,
Oregon, hereby proclaim October 1990 as
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH
in Tigard and encourage all citizens to join in this observance.
Mayor, City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder, City of Tigard
0
'~5e4t- a- P o - 6
O '7 le.fo V rXA "
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. ~.a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
C
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: October 1, 1990
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, October - December 190
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If
generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the
Monthly Council Calendars.
October '90
4 Thur Senior Center Reception (7 p.m.)
5 Fri Senior Center Open House (2-4 p.m.)
*8 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
*15 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
17 Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's,
7:15 a.m.)
*22 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
29 Mon Joint Council Meeting with Lake Oswego (5:30/7:30)
November '90
*5 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
6 Tues Election Day
10-12 Sat- League of Oregon Cities Annual Conference - Portland
Mon
12 Mon Veteran's Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
16-18 Mon Council Retreat Weekend
*19 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
21 Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's,
7:15 a.m.)
22-23 Thur- Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed
Fri
*26 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
30 Fri Departure Day - National League of Cities; Houston,
Texas
December '90
1-5 Sat- National League of Cities; Houston, Texas
Wed
*10 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
19 Wed Legislative Breakfast (Eggs & Issues, Elmer's,
7:15 a.m.)
*17 Mon Council Business Agenda (5:30/7:30)
25 Tue Christmas Day Holiday - City Offices Closed
Council Calendar - Page 1
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 3
CITY OF TIGARD, ORDGON
10/08/90 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Try DATE SUBMITTED: September 14, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Plann' PREVIOUS ACTION:
Commission Ammintment
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton
DEPT HEAD OK CITY AKIN OKi REQUESTED BY:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The attached resolution forwards the recommendation of the Mayor's Appointment
Advisory Committee to appoint Brian Moore to the Planning Commission.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt the proposed resolution.
2. Decline action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
SUGGESTED ACTION
Alternative No. 1: Adopt the proposed resolution.
run/pcamoore
tom,
F TIGAMD
ORE
CGON
CITIZEN COMMITTEE INTEREST APPLICATION
NAME: ^ cz- \N .M 2Sc DATE: -I-Co-ctO
ADDRESS (RES.): `1835 ',40 IC~Nt~#JZ~-~f V2 RES. PHONE: Cs2C='-Co912
ADDRESS (BUS.): IQf.~05, '-XZ oc~ SCKO«.S NrN V-® - BUS. PHONE :
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN TIGARD: 1Z.`t ¢S SUGGESTED BY:
WHERE DID YOU LIVE PREVIOUSLY? L~.l.d4ls
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: V'C7ct r~ c 1-a~4~ ~_~HpyL. _ Cy2Ai~ 1_=C4AiC3`
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND BACKGROUND: di L7ESyG.~.~ C'Ck)aL)C~-1C,tiS1 -SCE
(s~`Q1!A~C~► LJl" " y~E ~ CCXT1Rl ttal2 S ~It~OC S
LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED WITH THIS FIRM? ?c) `<2S
IS THIS COMPANY LOCATED WITHIN YOUR NPO AREA (NPO APPLICANTS ONLY)?
PREVIOUS COMMUNITY ACTIVITY : '-[LL,P~~x~~fzcoT'w~C~3~ Ccs-~.•~ .
. -TICsA57_t~ C ~'iC1~lS"t . _ C~A+CV` t 14/►2.1~ L*>L `11A 4-wLrA C.S
ORGANIZATIONS AND OFFICES: V1C.E0"16r 4 SM-
OTHERINFORMATION (GENERAL REMARKS):
BOARDS, COMMITTEES OR NPO INTERESTED IN: ~lllul~C~. COMA-+*SrJco.~
Date received at City Hall
Date Appointed
Inside City
i
Date Interviewed
Board, Committee, or NPO
Outside City
sb/13M W Ull Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. p,41 0
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
10/08/90
AGENDA OF: DATE SUBMITTED: 9/13/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award contra PREVIOUS ACTION:
for right of way and easement
appraisal and negotiation servic J PREPARED BY: Gary Alfson
DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OR If REQUESTED BY:
POLICY ISSUE
Award professional services contract for the McDonald Street Major Street Bond
project.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This project provides for the improving of McDonald Street including pavement
regrading, curb, walkways, and adding a turn lane at Hall Blvd. This will
require acquisition of additional right of way for street improvements and
easements for utilities and construction of slopes. Right of Way Associates
has been providing professional appraisal and negotiation services on all of
the previous Bond projects.
Right of Way Associates has submitted a proposal to provide the necessary
appraisal and negotiation services for $21,000.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Award the contract to Right of Way Associates.
2. Reject the proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT
This project is funded through the Major Streets Bond approved in November
1988.
xxxacxaxx=c=vxxxx====xaxe==xxxxx====xxxxa=x=vxxxx=v==cxxvxx=xxcxxxcxv=xxxxxxxxx
SUGGESTED ACTION
That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, authorize the City
Administrator to sign a contract with Right of Way Associates.
dj/GA:ss-dfmc.GA
r
t
Revised: Council Agenda Item No. 6.4b
CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October
8, 1990
DATE SUBMITTED: September 5,
1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
First Year Park
PREVIOUS ACTION: Council previously
Levy Improvements-
Cook Park
authorized going out to bid
for this
proiect.
PREPARED BY: Ron Bunch, Sr.
Planner
DEPT HEAD OR
t
E * CITY ADMIN O
REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy,
community
1
-
Development Director
The bid is $39,650 more than the designer's estimate. However, it is
$55,350 less than the $305,000 which was budgeted for the project in the Park
Levy.
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City Council ratify its prior decision to award the bid for
the Cook Park Riverfront Project to Eagle-Elsner, Inc?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
One bid was received for the Cook Park Riverfront project. Eagle-
Elsner Inc. bid $249,650. The landscape architect's estimate for the project
was $210,000. Following advertising for bid, a total of 17 firms picked up
plans and specifications. Calls were made to several plan holders to ask why
they didn't bid this project. Generally, these firms indicated they were too
busy.
Grant monies received from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the State Marine Board will help pay for this project. The City was
granted $43,000 to improve river access opportunities at Cook Park.
The project will occur in two phases. The portion that will not involve
grading will occur this fall. The remainder of the job which entails
substantial earthwork and riverbank stabilization will be completed early
summer of 1991. This will allow construction of a car and boat trailer parking
area, and landscaping and irrigation improvements to occur in time for the 1991
recreation season. The remainder of the project will be available for public
use by mid-summer.
Because of the urgency to move ahead with this project, and the 30-day
bid award timeline, individual Council members were polled by telephone after
receiving a copy of this report in the mail. Staff was able to contact four of
the five members, all of whom agreed to award the bid.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None at this point.
FISCAL IMPACT
Park Levy funds and grant monies totalling $206,650 and $43,000
respectively would be expended.
SUGGESTED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council ratify its earlier decision to award
the bid for the Cook Park Riverfront improvements to Eagle-Elsner, Inc., and
authorizing the City Administrator to sign.
rb/ccsumri.vf2
F
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. (0•erc..
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October 8. 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: October 26. 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Contract With PREVIOUS ACTION:
Or-AK to Construct Pedestrian Br e
at Summerlake ark PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy 1144 DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
Should the City Council ratify its, authorization for the City Administrator to
enter into an agreement with OR-AK Corporation to install a pedestrian bridge
at Summerlake Park.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
OR-AK is the developer of The Village at Summerlake subdivision. One of the
conditions of the preliminary subdivision plat approval in February, 1988 was
the construction of a five-foot wide pedestrian bridge across the dam at
Summerlake Park.
A five foot wide bridge was a condition of approval placed upon the developer
in 1988, however, the City now has the opportunity, because of the Park Levy,
to construct a ten-foot wide bridge instead. Although a five foot wide bridge
was an appropriate condition of development at the time of preliminary
subdivision plat approval, the public would be better served by a ten foot wide
bridge, which would not only be more comfortable for pedestrians, but would
also then be capable of carrying light vehicles, such as a park maintenance
pick-up or a small emergency vehicle. This would improve the efficiency of
parks maintenance, and provide an extra measure of safety for users of the
park.
OR-AK is willing to enter into an agreement with the City wherein the City
would pay the cost difference between what the developer was required to do
and what the City belives should be constructed.
An agreement to that effect has been drafted by the City Attorney's office,
and agreed to by Gordon Hobbs, President of OR-AK. A copy of the proposed
agreement is attached.
Because of the urgency to move ahead with this project, individual members of
the Council were polled by telephone after receiving a copy of this contract by
mail. Four of the five Council members were reached, all of whom gave their
approval to sign the contract.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Ratify the Council's prior decision to authorize the City Administrator
to sign the agreement as written.
2. Modify the agreement and authorize the City Administrator to sign a
modified agreement, subject to OR-AK's approval of the modification.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost difference between the bridge that OR-AK is required to install, and
the bridge that the Park Board and City staff would like to have installed, is
estimated to be $15,100. The cost would be charged to the Park Levy, where
this project was anticipated, and for which a budget of $30,000 was included.
SUGGESTED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council move to ratify its prior decision to
authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with OR-AK to
construct a ten-foot wide bridge at Summerlake Park.
(br/Bridge.ss)
C
DATED:
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN: CITY OF TIGARD
AND: OREGON ALASKA CORPORATION
RECITALS
RECEIVED
s r-1- P 17 1990
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
("City")
("OR AK")
A. OR AK has received approval from the City of Tigard for
the construction of the subdivision which is the subject of S 87-
08, PD 87-04, and SL 87-09. As a condition of approval for
development, OR AK is required to construct a five foot wide bridge
across the dam at Summer Lake Park.
B. City has indicated an interest in expanding the bridge
to a width of 10 feet and to engineer the carrying capacity of the
bridge to accommodate light utility vehicles.
C. OR AK has contracted with Western Wood Structures, Inc.,
to construct a five foot wide bridge at the estimated cost of
$15,450 installed. To widen the bridge to 10 feet and increase its
load carrying capacity, an additional cost of $15,100 is estimated.
The total estimated cost of a 10 foot wide bridge, therefore, is
$30,550.
D. OR AK desires to construct the bridge and transfer
ownership, upon completion and inspection, to City. City desires
to accept ownership of the completed bridge and compensate OR AK.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, and of the good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. OR AK agrees to contract with Western Woods Structures,
Inc., to construct a 10 foot wide bridge across the dam at Summer
Lake consistent with the plans approved by both parties.
2. OR AK agrees to pay Western Woods Structures, Inc., the
full consideration for the construction of the bridge.
3. The estimated cost is $30,550. If any additional costs
above this amount are identified during the construction period,
City will be notified and have an opportunity to review and agree
to any changes.
1 - AGREEMENT
4. Upon completion of the bridge, City agrees to inspect the
bridge to insure that it meets all specifications and that the
bridge is acceptable for public use.
5. City agrees to purchase the bridge from OR AK for the sum
of $15,100. If changes are made which add to the cost of the
bridge, City shall compensate OR AK at the rate of fifty percent
(50%) of the added cost over the $30,550 base price.
6. City agrees to make payment to OR AK within ten (10) days
of receipt of verification that OR AK has paid Western Woods
Structures, Inc., in full, and that no encumbrances apply to the
bridge.
7. OR AK agrees to transfer ownership of the bridge to the
City upon final payment to Western Woods Structures, Inc. OR AK
agrees to provide a twelve (12) month warranty for the construction
of the bridge.
8. OR AK agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City
from any and all claims and demands relating in any way to the
construction of the bridge prior to transfer of ownership to City.
9. The parties agree that in the event litigation is
initiated to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable
attorney fees at trial and on appeal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the
parties have executed this Agreement
as of the date first set forth above.
CITY
OR AK
-\-\tlgaMORff-W/m
CI
By
It
OREGON ALASKA CORPORATION
By : 4Le::6L -
Gordon Hobbs
2 - AGREEMENT
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 ` d,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October Sth, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: September 26th, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of 4 PREVIOUS ACTION:
/ 1141I PREPARED BY: Ed Murphy
DEPT HEAD OKdEhc CITY ADMIN OKI_LM REQUESTED BY:
Should the City Council authorize the City Administrator to sign the purchase
agreements with Don Morisette for a2.15 acre piece of property on the south
side of Summerlake? There are no policy issues associated with this agenda
item. This action would publicly authorize the City Administrator to carry
out an agreement which the City Council has already discussed in executive
session?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
For the past several months, representatives of the City have been negotiating
with Don Morisette on the purchase of 2.15 acres on the south side of
Summerlake, which would be added to Summerlake Park. An agreement has been
reached on a purchase price of $256,600, which includes a waiver of the current
Parks Systems Development Charges of $250/unit for up to 171 units, or
$42,750.
The City Council has been kept informed of the status of the negotiations in a
series of executive meetings, and have previously given the City Administrator
authorization to settle at the aforementioned price.
The details of the settlement are described more fully in the attached memo.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total purchase amount is $256,600. Part of this amount would be charged to
the Parks levy and the rest to the Parks System Development Charge fund.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Authorize the City Administrator to sign the purchase agreements with Don
Morisette for a 2.15 acre piece of property on the south side of Summerlake.
ejm/summerlak.pu5
MEMO
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development
RE: Purchase of Morissette's property at Summerlake Park
DATE: September 280, 1990
As we discussed, we have reached a settlement with Don Morissette on the purchase of
the 2.15 acres on the south side of Summerlake. The attorneys will be drafting the
final articles of the agreement, but this memo will summarize it.
The purchase price will be $256,600, based on the following methodology:
Value of land ................$140,000
One-half street improvements 73,850
All Park SDC's 42,750 (Based on a maximum of
171 lots at $250/lot)
$256,600
The City will deliver a check to an escrow account by October 1st, which will be for
an amount equal to $213,850 plus any Park SDC'already paid. Since $13,250 in Parks
SDC's has already been paid, the check will be for $227,100. (The City has already
deposited $107,500 with the court, which will subsequently be refunded).
The current Park SDC of $250 per unit would not be charged to any home within the
subdivision up to 171 units. Any parks SDC's already paid would be refunded to
Morissette ($13,250, as of this date). Based on the preliminary plat, and the final
plats for phases already approved, there will be 171 total lots.
Morissette agrees that 171 lots will be the maximum number of units for which the
parks SDC's will be waived. Therefore, the total SDC amount waived will be $42,750.
Morisette would not claim any further damages, or claim any attorneys fees or
appraisal fees.
The City would not require Morissette to do any additional work within the area that
we are buying, meaning in particular building the cul-de-sac (S.W. Lakeview Court)
that was originally shown on his preliminary subdivision plat.
Wayne Lowry and I are recommending that this purchase would be charged to the parks
levy, except for the refund of the Parks SDC charges, which would be charged to the
Parks SDC capital account. This purchase may have an impact on other levy
improvements, of course, since the cost is more than was anticipated. However, there
are savings in other projects that could be used, and there is the possibility of
using future SDc's, should these revenues become necessary.
By the way, I thought chuck Corrigan did an excellent job! He received high marks
from all the staff who worked with him on this difficult purchase.
C: Wayne L., Brad Roast
ejm/summerlake.pu4
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6.5
CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON
10/08/90 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: _ DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorize PREVIOUS ACTION:
Un rolls Ferr Road 1-118 PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
Shall the City quitclaim its interest in two existing pathway easements along
Scholls Ferry Road?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City has existing easements for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway along
Scholls Ferry Road between 121st Avenue and Fanno Creek. The Scholls Ferry
Road improvements to be built by the State will eliminate the existing pathway
and construct new bike lanes and sidewalks.
The State is negotiating with property owners to acquire the right of way
needed for the street improvements. As part of the negotiations, the property
owners have asked that the City formally quitclaim its interest in the existing
easements. In some places, portions of the existing pathways extend outside
the new right of way being acquired by the State. These portions will be of no
use after the State project is completed and they will be abandoned.
The existing easements provide that any rights granted to the City will end if
the easements are no longer used by the City for pathway purposes. Thus, the
requested quitclaiming of the City's interest appears to be only a formality to
clear the property records.
A similar request was submitted in July but was withdrawn after questions arose
regarding design of connections between the new project and the existing City
pathways along Fanno Creek. The design details have since been resolved.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Recorder to
sign quitclaim deeds for the existing easements.
2. Withhold approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
( rw/s-esmt
COUNCIL AGENDA NO. CO, Cv
AdbL
GENDA OF: Octobe
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
CITY
COUNCIL
OF TIGARD, OREGON
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
DATE SUBMITTED: September 27, 1990
PREVIOUS ACTION: Council direction
given at 9/17/90 study session
PREPARED BY: Loreen Edin
WK REQUESTED BY: Loreen Edin
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN
Does Council wish to adopt a building use policy for use of the Senior Center by
outside organizations?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Senior Center lease agreement was approved by Council on 9/17/90. That lease
agreement changed the reservation process of the Center on evenings and weekends
to be the responsibility of the City.
At that same Council meeting, council reviewed a draft building use policy for
the Senior Center. Council requested two changes in the draft, namely, a special
permit process for use of alcoholic beverages and amplified sound systems, and
a process of review for repetitive users which would maximize the availability
of the facilities for all users.
^ouncil direction was to bring the attached revised policy back for Council
doption on October 8, 1990.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve Senior Center Building Use Policy as attached.
2. Approve Senior Center Building Use Policy as amended.
3. Give staff further direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. Revenue generated from reservation of the building is unknown at this time
as the City has never reserved the Senior Center in the past. Existing
staff in Administrative Services will handle increased building
reservations with the addition of the Senior Center.
2. Unknown.
3. Unknown.
SUGGESTED ACTION
#1 - Motion to approve Senior Center Building Use Policy to be effective November
1, 1990.
,.e/ms
11
TIGARD SENIOR CENTER RESERVATIONS
GUIDELINES FOR ROOM USE
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
The Tigard City Council established this policy for the use of the Tigard Senior Center to
be effective November 1, 1990.
ROOMS AVAILABLE FOR RESERVATION
o Activity Room (Upstairs)
o Activity Room (Downstairs)
o Class Room (Downstairs)
o Craft Room (Downstairs)
o Lounge (Upstairs)
o Kitchen (warming ovens)
180 people maximum
150 people maximum
30 people maximum
30 people maximum
20 people maximum
RESERVATIONS AND SCHEDULING
The Senior Center will be available to Tigard Loaves and Fishes for senior citizen activities
including a mid-day meal program between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
The Tigard Senior Center has 5 areas which are available for use and are available based
on the following use priority schedule:
1. Tigard Loaves and Fishes
2. City Business & Governmental Agencies (i.e., staff meetings, board and committee
meetings, etc.)
3. Tigard Based Private Or Non-Profit Organizations (i.e., TCYS, Chamber of Commerce,
Tigard Garden Club, Tigard citizens, etc.)
4. Tigard Based Profit Organizations
5. General Public (Non-Tigard based private and profit organizations)
Rooms will be reserved for a specific length of time, and care should be taken to reserve
the room for a long enough period to allow for preparation of the function and returning
the room to the condition in which it was found.
Use of the building is encouraged by groups 3 - 5 in the priority scheduling list. To allow
many different groups to have an opportunity to use the facilities, any repetitive users will
be reviewed on a routine basis.
All applicants must be 21 years of age or older.
Cancellations shall be submitted in writing no less that 48 hours prior to the scheduled
event. A $10.00 service charge shall be retained for each cancellation prior to other rental
charges being reimbursed.
All efforts will be made to keep the room schedule intact, once reservations are made;
however, the City retains the right to cancel or relocate a meeting upon 24 hours notice.
RENTAL FEES
Fees are charged to help defray the cost of the Senior Center maintenance and upkeep.
(See attached list for current fee schedule.)
ACTIVITY REOUIREMENTS
The City is pleased to make meeting rooms available to the general public. To offer this
service, the rooms must be used and maintained in an orderly, clean, and efficient manner.
The following guidelines are not intended to be a burden to the public, but to assure that
all users share the responsibility for room maintenance with the City:
1.
Functions occurring in rooms must not violate an
Cit
ordin
2.
y
y
ance.
Activities must not be disruptive to others present in the building.
3.
Each user will designate an adult supervisor who will be responsible for the group's
activities; receiving the building key from the Police Department Record's Center and
4.
returning same with the Checklist; and an adult shall be present at all activities.
Smoking is prohibited in any location inside the building.
5.
Alcoholic beverages or amplified sound systems may permitted in or on the
remises
p
of the Senior Center with the written authorization of the City Administrator or
designee. Special permit requirements include; a written request stating the
ur
ose
p
p
for the use; the type of beverages or amplified sound system being used; the hours of
use; and if alcoholic beverages are served an insurance endorsement insuring the use
of alcohol on the premises by the applicant.
6.
Prepared refreshments (i.e., snacks, fruit trays, sandwiches, non-alcoholic beverages,
etc.) are allowed only with prior approval. Cooking is not allowed unless kitchen
facilities are reserved. A regular trained Loaves & Fishes representative must be in
attendance whenever the kitchen facilities are used by a group other than Loaves &
Fishes. A minimum of two (2) hours kitchen charge will be assessed in addition to the
rental fee.
7.
The room shall be left clean, with trash placed in appropriate receptacles, and room
furnishings in the same configuration as when the room was entered
8.
.
Decorations are allowed to be attached to walls and fixtures with masking tape.
9.
No group will be allowed use of the building for any criminal purpose.
10.
The City will not furnish use of telephones, typewriters, copy machines, etc., to users.
APPLICATION FOR USE
A Senior Center Meeting Room Use Application form must be completed and submitted
to the City Hall Information Desk located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon.
This must be submitted at least 7 calendar days prior to the event. The application must
be accompanied by the required fee. The application will be reviewed by the
Administrative Services Manager and applicants will be notified of approval or denial.
CITY
, LIABILITY
.
All groups or individuals using City meeting rooms agree to protect, indemnify, and defend
the City, its authorized agents, elected and appointed officials, and all employees against
any and all claims as a result of persons attending any function at the facility. This
provision includes any expenses incurred by the City defending any such claim. The City,
its elected and appointed officials, and all employees will not be held responsible for any
lost or stolen articles, clothing, etc., as a result of persons attending any function in the
building.
USER LIABILITY
The City recognizes that a certain amount of wear will occur to meeting rooms over the
course of normal use. However, in the event the above maintenance guidelines are
violated, the user will be liable for the following charges:
1. Repair or replacement of equipment or facilities damaged due to neglect, vandalism,
or misuse.
2. Replacement of locks and keys, in the event keys are not returned.
3. Cleaning expense incurred to clean up room(s) if not left in the same condition as
found (including facility, equipment, and cooking/serving utensils).
C
nm\snrcntr
login\loreen
IL
Cd
b
c~
'C3 O
~w
F
a~
c~
a0
m z
cd
bA
F
N
•V
b
N
W
V! Cd
err
c
w
LYa
u o
i
N
a~
b N
~w
H~
El o
N
c3 a
o
cl
C a
4)
tknN ON knN pN C)O
609 614 69 69 bg 69 69 69 643 64
v~N VAN 00 00 00
1--4 '•-r 'd• %~D ~F ~D M
bg 614 609 604 69 61% 6R 69 619 69
Nd0 N~ ~O -4 en ON en -4
69 69 6R 6R 69 6R 6H 6s 69 64
ti~
O
N
w
O
r~
G
O O O O O O O O O O
69 bR 6R 69 69 6R 69 69 6R 69
H
O
N.O
a~
c,
a~
C) C> C) CD
6°96°9 q6q °6966% 6°96°R 66s6s
4°
2
wit aN.et wit wit wer
O ,a O d N d N O
o .4 O o W
C) C) Q
?2 en M O O N Z
o
o '
'
w
Cfj
g"
O
o"
O
O
5a
'so
o
o
~a
-IJ
Q~
QA
UA
UA
R
9
SENIOR CENTER MEETING ROOM USE APPLICATION
8815 SW O'Mara Street, Tigard, Oregon, 97223
ROOM TO BE RESERVED:
o Activity Room (Upstairs)
o Activity Room (Downstairs)
o Class Room (Downstairs)
o Craft Room (Downstairs)
o Lounge (Upstairs)
o Kitchen (warming ovens)
180 people maximum
150 people maximum
30 people maximum
30 people maximum
20 people maximum
1. NAME OF GROUP/ORGANIZATION
2. ADDRESS PHONE
3. CONTACT PERSON PHONE
4. DATE/TIME ROOM WILL BE USED
5. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
6. NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXPECTED TO ATTEND
7. RESPONSIBLE ADULT WHO WILL BE ON PREMISES AND PICKING UP ROOM KEY AT
POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS COUNTER
8. REFRESHMENTS TO BE SERVED:
9. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED:
10. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEM TO BE USED? _ YES _ NO
I acknowledge having received and read the Senior Center Building Use Policy. The activity described above
will be conducted in accordance with these guidelines.
I further agree to protect, indemnify, and defend the City, its authorized agents, elected and appointed officials,
and all employees against any and all claims as a result of persons attending any function at the facility. This
provision includes any expenses incurred by the City defending any such claim. I further understand the City,
its elected and appointed officials, and all employees will not be held responsible for any lost or stolen articles,
clothing, etc., as a result of persons attending any function in the building.
I agree that in the event the maintenance guidelines, as set forth in the Building Use Policy, are violated, I will
be liable for the following charges:
1. Repair or replacement of equipment or facilities damaged due to neglect, vandalism, or misuse.
2. Replacement of locks and keys, in the event keys are not returned.
3. Cleaning expense incurred to clean up room(s) if not left in the same condition as found (including facility,
equipment, and cooking/serving utensils).
SIGNATURE DATE
OFFICE USE ONLY: APPROVED DISAPPROVED
If disapproved, reason:
Administrative Services Manager Date
LOGGED / LIQUOR PERMIT _
APPLICANT NOTIFIED / AMPLIFIED SOUND _
POLICE DEPT. NOTIFIED /
CHECKLIST RECEIVED /
nm\snrcntr
/l.Y:f±l~sG:afia.~l ~.~._..:n:.,-... J?....f~.eCb. KY~..4....~+W .,G..> ._•~e...'..'... ..a_F... i......1 5......... ..~........i. r. ...~,~a. t.~....i.,,
CHECKLIST FOR MEETING ROOM USERS
This checklist should be completed and returned with the meeting room key to the Police Records Center
(13125 SW Hall Blvd.) when all members of your organization have left the Senior Center building.
Name of Organization:
Date/Time of Room Use:
Person Completing Form: Phone #
Description Prior to Event Following Event
Proper Room Configuration
No Litter
Carpet, Tables, Etc., Clean
Equipment in Good Repair
Lights Turned Off
Room and Building Locked
If any answers above are "no," please explain:
Thank you for your assistance in keeping the City meeting rooms neat and in good repair for all citizens to use.
nm\snrcntr
login\loreen
l~-
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. _
AGEMDA OF:
quitclaim de
easements
DEPT HEAD OK
CITY OF TIGARD, CREGM
October 8, 90 DATE SUBMITTED:
TrI.TE: Authorize PREVIOUS AC'T'ION:
ads for existing s exA
/I alill PEWAMM BY: City Attorney
CITY AMIN R-@xE= BY:
Shall the City quitclaim pits interest in two existing sewer
easements located in a portion of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Ash Valley
Tract?
In 1979, the City of Tigard was granted by Amart Development, Ltd.
and James G. Stark, Robert Craig Stark, Gerald Karl Stark, John
Herbert Stark and Ruth J. Stark, two sewer easements located in a
portion of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Ash Valley Tract for the purpose
of constructing and maintaining a sanitary sewer. No sanitary
sewer has been constructed by the City. Don Morissette Builders,
Inc. plans to replat the surrounding property to construct Village
at Summer Lake Park No. 5. The existing sanitary sewer easements
will run through village at Summer Lake Park No. 5 unless vacated.
a
AlMdUffIVES OONSIDFDD
1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City
Administrator to sign a quitclaim deed for the existing easements.
2. Withhold approval.
FISCAL ItlPACr
None.
SUGGESTED ACITON
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
C
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.J
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
10/08/90 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OFs B9.d24/-yG DATE SUBMITTED: 06/29/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Storm sewer PREVIOUS ACTION= Minor Land Partition
easement vacation on Lot 7 of Aum MLP 90-0002/VAR 90-0006 was approved
Downs subdivision and became final 04/24/90
PREPARED BY: Vi Goodwin
DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: M. Bosnar/Carl Jensen
POLICY ISSUE
Should the city vacate a portion of a storm sewer easement to eliminate the
incongruence between the actual location of the storm sewer and the location
of said easement?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Carl Jensen, P.E., acting as agent for Marijan Bosnar, is requesting the
vacation of a portion of the storm sewer easement located on Lot 7 of the Aum
Downs subdivision. The purpose of this vacation is to eliminate a portion of
the existing easement that does not coincide with the actual location of the
storm sewer. Another easement which does coincide with the location of the
will be recorded. To make certain this happens, approval should be conditioned
upon the provision of a storm sewer easement consistent with the actual
location of the storm sewer.
The property owner wishes to place a dwelling within a portion of the area to
be vacated.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached ordinance subject to certain conditions.
2. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
All fees and staff costs will be paid by Mr. Bosnar.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached ordinance.
N
N
sw eaRe
FT T
:TREET L J L -L-1
STREET
S.W. VENT
H.: H ff
.4-
,W_ V URA PI...
25 30
3 3311
nW.s 63PL `N° t
SIRE E T
Al j
a a
.m S.W.
irm pALST.
m
t
• 3
N
~9
W
3
v~
as /
Vlf_ LES
7
Q
B N J .
ST. ~ 3
C
I ~yw
v F~ ~ MX ti
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
Center Plaza West • Suite 360.12655 &W. Center St. • Beaverton, Oregon 97005-1601 • (503) 646-4509 • FAX (503) 526 8966
REUX M PtAiQ UNG
June 22, 1990 JUN 25 1990
City of Tigard
Community Deve'Lopment Department
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Attention: Viola R. Goodwin
Gentlepersons:
We hereby request to vacate a portion of a storm sewer easement
located on lot 7, Aura Downs. The easement was conveyed to the
City by plat in 1989. The portion to be vacated is shown on the
enclosed sketch and described by the enclosed legal description.
Also enclosed is the $300 fee.
The owner of lot 7, Aum Downs, has received City permission to
partition lot 7 into two lots. In an effort to save the large
trees on the north portion of lot 7, the owner has tried to
locate his home-on parcel 2 as far south on.the lot as.possible.
That location conflicts with the. existing easement. As a
condition of partition approval, staff has requested the owner to
vacate the conflicting portion of the easement..*
Please let us know of your approval as soon as possible.
Carl B. Je en, P.E.
cc: Mar'jan Bosnar
Sincerely,
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES
bosvac.req
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. _ `
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 08/27/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 07/18/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of SW PREVIOUS ACTION: Fox Street Vacation
74th Ave. south of SW Cherry Dr. Just south of the vacation under
consideration, approved in 1986.
PREPARED BY: Vi Goodwin
DEPT HEAD CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Wayne and Joyce Jolly
Should the City vacate an undeveloped portion of the SW 74th Avenue right-of-
way located south of SW.Cherry Drive that appears to no longer serve any public
purpose?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Wayne and Joyce Jolly are requesting the City vacate an unimproved portion of
SW 74th Avenue which adjoins their property. This portion of 74th Avenue will
not be used to provide access through the residential district from the
industrial property located to the south. The industrial properties to the
south have access from either Tech Center Drive or SW 72nd Avenue. Neither
will the right-of-way be used to provide access to abutting residential
properties. The residential properties have adequate access to SW Cherry
Street.
The Field Operations Division has commented that it will be necessary to
create an easement for sanitary and storm sewer lines and manholes located in
the portion of SW 74th Avenue proposed to be vacated. Residents from the area
have requested the sanitary sewer be extended to SW Cherry Drive.
The Planning Commision at a hearing held on September 18, 1990 recommended
approval of the proposed vacation subject to the condition a utility easement
be provided for the sewer lines.
Attached are an ordinance, a vicinity map (Exhibit A) showing the portion of
SW 74th Avenue to be vacated, a legal description (Exhibit B) prepared by the
Engineering Division, and two letters submitted by Rolling Hills residents
Raymond Ems and Paul Warner opposing the vacation because they have concerns
about the future extension of sewer service to 74th Avenue.
1. Approve the attached ordinance vacating a portion of SW 74th Avenue.
2. Take no action at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
All fees and staff costs will be paid by Wayne and Joyce Jolly.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached ordinance with the condition that a 15 foot wide easement
for sewer lines be established.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE SW 74TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED
SOUTH OF SW CHERRY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to
Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this vacation is to vacate an unimproved portion of SW
74th Avenue that is not needed for vehicular access; and
WHEREAS, the abutting property owners, Wayne and Joyce Jolly, support the
vacation; and
WHEREAS, all affected service providers including utility companies and
emergency services have reviewed the vacation proposal and have no objections
or concerns; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with ORS 271.100, the TMC 15.08.110, the Council fixed a
time and place for the public hearing and the Recorder published notice and
posted notice in the area to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation
area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and
WHEREAS, the Council, having held hearings on August 27, 1990 and October 8,
1990, finds the public interest will not be prejudiced by the vacation as
provided by ORS 271.120 and TMC 15.08.130; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds it is in the public interest to approve the request
to vacate the unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue located south of SW Cherry
Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following conditions are necessary to
vacate said land:
1. The applicant shall provide a 15 foot wide utility easement for future
and existing sanitary and storm sewer lines. The easement shall be
recorded with Washington County.
2. The vacation shall not be effective until the effective date of this
ordinance, and a certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded with
the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor
s
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of the
unimproved portion of SW 74th Avenue located south of SW Cherry
Drive, as shown on the attached "Exhibit A" and described on the
attached "Exhibit B", and by this reference made part hereof.
PAGE 1
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council further orders that the vacation be subject
f to the following condition:
1. Prior to being recorded a 15 foot wide public utility easement
shall be created along the easternmost boundary of the area to
be vacated.
SECTION 3: In no situation shall this ordinance be effective until the 31st
day after its enactment by the City Council, approval by the Mayor,
and after a certified copy of this ordinance has been recorded with
the Washington County Clerk, Assessor, and Surveyor.
PASSED: By vote of the Council members present after being
read by number and title only, this day of ,
1990.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: This day of , 1990.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
PAGE 2
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
S.W.
t
3
cr)
S.W.
VARNS i I ST.
3
w
J I 3
l To 6 E<
.ATEO
i CENTER I DRIVE
l\ 1
11V~ VARNS Sl
e
EXHIBIT "B"
That portion of land in Section 1, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette
Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the initial point of Rolling Hills - Plat 2, recorded in Book
21, on Page 46, in said County's Plat Records; running thence South 88° 48'
East a distance of 50.0 feet; thence North 01° 06' West a distance of 180.0
feet to the point of beginning of this description, containing 9000 square feet
of area.
br/ExhB.vg
i
September 1, 1990
CITY OF TIGARD,
Planning Department
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Sir:
We have received a notice that the City of Tigard has
a request for vacation of a portion of S. W. 74th Ave.
We own two pieces of property that have access to S. W.
74th Ave. Plot #3400 which faces 74th and Plot #300
that faces S. W. 72nd Ave., with an access to 74th Ave.
If this street is vacated this would shut off any ease-
ment or access for Sewer Hook-up, which is the only avail-
ability to any of the lots facing or having aceess to S.W.
74th Ave„ should these properties be developed in the
near future.
Therefore, we are writing this letter to 6ppose the closing
of a portion of S. W. 74th Ave.
Yours truly,
65'e ~ Q( fez- ~
Paul R. Warner
10300 SW Century Oak Dr.
Tigard, Oregon 97224 639-2349
PRW : lw
IR XC JE RTR LU)
SEP 5 1990
GI fY OF ) IGAKU
PLANNING DEPT.
September 159 1990
Tigard Planning Commission
City of Tigard
P.O. Box 23397 -
-13125 S. W. Hall Blvd..
Tigard, Ore. 97223
Gentlemen:
On the matter of closing S. W. 74th south of Cherry, please
consider the following:
A sewer line to the undeveloped land above, and to
serve the neighborhood is a future necessity.
To preserve the present storm sewer in this right of
way and to keep all best options open for location, please
do not approve right of way closure at this time.
Yo s truly,
Raymo d Ens
13400 S. W. 76th
Tigard, Ore. 97223
639-1258
RECEIVED
4 8 1990
CMA#UNITY OEVELOPAW
S.W. Q
3
vi
TD P
AREA
VACATE]>
TECH CENTER
DRIVE
c
SM I LANDMAR
VaRNS -1 1 ST_
i
i ~
VIA YARNS Si
--Rub i c (-l Pa., ~ ~5 gnu ~fS
RECEIVED
f ol~~~o OCT 2 1990
September 29, 1990
Tigard City Council
Tigard""Civio Center
13195 S. W. Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Gentlemens
On the matter of closing S. W. 74th South of Cherry,
please consider the followings
A sewer line to the undeveloped land above, and
to serve the neighborhood is a future necessity.
To preserve the present storm sewer in the right of
way and to keep all options open for location,
please do not approve right of way closure at this
time.
Y ,
truly
g14~
E m s
13400 S. W. 76th
Tigard, Ore. 97223
639-1258
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. CT
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: 10/8/90 DATE SUBMITTED: 9/27/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Sian Code PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
DEPT HEAD
REQUESTED BY:
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 7, 1990.
The Commission determined that the proposal submitted by the applicant to
obtain an additional 50% sign area for the center's one freestanding sign was
consistent with Community Development Code criteria for granting a sign code
exception. The staff had recommended denial of the proposal because sufficient
information was not presented in the application to justify the request. The
Commission found that the increase was justified due to supplemental
information presented by the applicant regarding the anticipated number of
tenants in the center. Attached is a copy of the Commission's final order
approving the request (Final Order 90-19 PC). Also included is a copy of the
sign code exception criteria, the minutes of the Commission hearing, and the
application.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Uphold the Commission decision and direct staff to prepare a
corresponding resolution.
2. Modify and approve the application and direct staff to prepare a
corresponding resolution.
3. Deny the application and direct staff to prepare a corresponding
resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Uphold the Commission's decision
SCE 90-03.SUM/kl
Should the applicant be allowed more freestanding sign area than permitted by
the normal standards of Community Development Code?
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH APPROVES AN APPLICATION
FOR A SIGN CODE EXCEPTION (SCE 90-0003) REQUESTED BY MARTIN BROS. SIGNS AND
TIGARD RETAIL CENTER.
c~
CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER NO. 90-19 PC
A
C
The Tigard Planning Commission has reviewed the above application at a public
hearing on August 7, 1990. The Commission has based its decision on the facts,
findings, and conclusions noted below.
A. FACTS
1. General Information
0
CASE: Sign Code Exception (SCE 90-0003).
REQUEST: For a sign code exception approval allowing a•50% increase in
sign area up to 105 square feet per face, and a 25% increase
in sign height, up to 25 feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial General
ZONE: C-G (Commercial General).
APPLICANT: Martin Brothers Signs, Incorporated
Roy M. Boswell
P.O. Box 1012
Tualatin, OR 97062
OWNER: Tigard Retail Center
15800 SW Boones Ferry Road, C-301
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
LOCATION: 13702 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2S1 3DD, Tax Lots 400 and
500).
2. Backaround Information
The Hudson service station previously occupied this site and during the
last several years the station had been abandoned. Several signs were
subject to the sign amortization program which required their removal
because they were slightly over-sized and abandoned (Case No. 88-102-Z).
In September, 1989, Site Development Review, (SDR 89-20/V 89-24) was
FINAL ORDER 90-19 PC - SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROS. PAGE 1
C,
approved to establish a commercial retail center consisting of three
separate buildings. Prior to construction of that project, the Hudson
service station and all signs on the property were removed. The retail
center is now almost fully developed and tenants are beginning to occupy
the buildings.
Recently, the, property owner has been requested to remove several
strings of illegal banners, as well as an illegal temporary sign.
Although a financial assurance has been provided, a final landscaping
has not been provided and a minor amount of landscaping remains to be
completed.
3. Vicinity Information
Properties to the south, east, and north along Pacific Highway are also
zoned and developed C-G (commercial General). Residential property
zoned R-3.5 (Single family residential, 3.5 units/acre) lies immediately
west of the subject property. The parcel is located at the southwest
corner of Pacific Highway which is an arterial street, and Watkins
Street which is a minor collector.
4. Site Information and PrOD°sal Descrivtion
The project is developed with three separate buildings and will
probably contain between six and ten tenants. At the present time,
automotive businesses occupy all of the northeastern building and half
of the northwestern building. The third and largest building on the
southwest side of the property is just beginning to be occupied. The
project has direct driveway access onto Pacific Highway, as well as
Watkins Street. Presently, there are no freestanding signs on the
property.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct one freestanding
sign that exceeds the normal allowances for sign size and height as
specified in the sign code chapter of the Community Development Code.
The applicant proposes a sign height of 21 feet with an 8-foot clearance
at the bottom and sign dimensions of 13 ft. x 8 ft., for a total of 104
square feet of sign area per face. The applicant indicates that by
using 9 inch letter copy as the minimum size, the 13 ft. x 8 ft. sign
dimensions necessary to provide adequate room to advertise the different
tenants in the retail center.
5. Aciency and NPO Comments
The Building Division and the State Highway Division have no objections
to this proposal.
NPO #3 reviewed the proposal on July 18, 1990 and the NPO recommends
that the sign code exception not be granted because the buildings are
FINAL ORDER 90-19 PC - SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROS. PAGE 2
significantly visible and the NPO has consistently recommended that
additional sign area not be allowed for other properties along Pacific
Highway.
No other comments have been received.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The basic standard in the C-G zone allows for one freestanding sign with a
maximum square footage of 70 square feet per face and a maximum height of 20
feet. Wall signage is also allowed at a percentage of 158 of the size of the
wall that the- sign is mounted on. The Planning Commission may grant
additional sign height and/or sign area, if variation from the standard Code
requirements is deemed appropriate In. accordance with the criteria found in
Section 18.114.145 and section 18.114.130.E of the Code.
Section 18.114.130.G 1-(c) states that when a premises contains more than a
single tenant, but is not defined as a shopping center (8 or more tenants),
an additional 508 of sign copy area may be permitted under the design review
process .(or sign code exception process in this case) so as to adequately
identify the separate tenants when it is determined that the increased sign
area will not deter from the purpose of the Code. A shopping center is also
eligible for a 508 sign area increase.
The sign illustrated by the applicant shows advertising space for nine
tenants. As mentioned earlier, one of the three buildings is fully
` occupied. Also Hollywood Video is intended to occupy a significant portion
of the third building. Given the space that remains, it appears likely that
the center will be occupied by more than six tenants.
Based upon the information present by the applicant, there is adequate
justification to grant an additional 508 in sign area but additional sign
height is not consistent with the applicable sign code criteria. The
increase in the area of the freestanding sign is necessary to adequately
identify the tenants of the center and this size is consistent with the code
criteria and with the signage allowed for similar retail centers in the City.
C. DECISION
Based upon the discussion above, the Planning Commission approves SCE 90-
0003 subject to the following conditions:
1. The freestanding sign shall not exceed 105 square feet per sign face
with a total maximum sign area of 210 square feet. The sign shall meet
the standard height requirements of the Community Development Code.
STAFF CONTACT: Vi Goodwin, Planning Division, 639-4171.
2. Prior to installation of the freestanding sign, a sign permit shall be
approved by the Planning Division. STAFF CONTACT: Vi Goodwin,
Planning Division, 639-4171.
FINAL ORDER 90-19 PC - SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROS. PAGE 3
O
. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit and Installation of the freestanding
sign, all conditions of SDR 89-20 shall be satisfied. STAFF CONTACT.
Keith Liden, Planning Division, 639-4171.
4. This approval is valid if exercised within 1S months of the final
approval date..
It is further ordered that the applicant be notified of the entry of this
order.
PASSED: This -/-a day of August, 1990, by the Planning Commission. Of the City
of Tigard.
SCE90-03. P'n/kl
C• FINAL ORDER 90-19 PC - SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROS. PAGE 4
18.114.140 Sien Code Excevtions
A. The Commission or, on review, the Council may grant exceptions to the
requirements of this chapter when the applicant demonstrates that,
owing to special or unusual circumstances relating to the design,
structure or placement of the sign in relation to other structures or
land uses or the natural features of the land, the literal
interpretation of this chapter would interfere with the communicative
function of the sign without corresponding public benefit.
B. When the Commission or the Council approves an exception, the rights
thereby given to the applicant shall continue to exist and to belong
to the applicant or any other owner of the land for a period of
one-and-one-half years from the date of final approval:
1. if, at the expiration of one-and-one-half years from the date of
approval, construction of the structure or initiation of the use
giving rise to the need for the exception has not begun, the
rights given by the exception approval shall terminate without
further action by the City, the Commission, or the Council; and
2. Said rights shall also terminate at or after the expiration of
one-and-one-half years from approval if, though commenced within
one year, construction ceases and is not resumed within 60
days. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)
18.114.145 Approval Criteria for Exceptions to the Sign Code
A. The Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
request for an exception to the sign code based on findings that at
least one of the following criteria are satisfied:
1. The proposed exception to the height limits in the sign code is
necessary to make the sign visible from the street because of
the topography of the site, and/or a conforming building or sign
on an adjacent property would limit the view of a sign erected
on the site in conformance with Sign Code standards;
2. A second freestanding sign is necessary to adequately identify a
second entrance to a business or premises that is oriented
towards a different street frontage;
3. Up to an additional 25 percent of sign area or height may be
permitted when it is determined that the increase will not deter
from the purpose of this chapter. This increase should be
judged according to specific needs and circumstances which
necessitate additional area to make the sign sufficiently
legible. The increase(s) shall not conflict with any other
nondimensional standards or restrictions of this chapter;
4. The proposed sign is consistent with the criteria set forth in
Subsection 18.114.130.G of this chapter;
Revised 02/27/89 Page 292
S. The proposed exception for a second freestanding sign on an
interior lot which is zoned commercial or industrial is
appropriate because all of the following apply:
a. The combined height of both signs shall not exceed 150
percent of the sign height normally allowed for one
freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however,
neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the
same zoning district;
b. Neither sign will pose a vision clearance problem or will
project into the public right-of-way; and
c. Total combined sign area for both signs shall not exceed
150 percent of what is normally allowed for one
freestanding sign in the same zoning district; however,
neither shall exceed the height normally allowed in the
same zoning district.
B. In addition to the criteria in Subsection A above, the Commission, or
in the case of an administrative exception, the Director shall review
all of the existing or proposed signage for the development and its
relationship to the intent and purpose of this chapter. As a
condition of approval, the Commission or Director may require: '
1. Removal or alteration of nonconforming signs to achieve
compliance with the standards contained in this chapter;
2. Removal or alteration of conforming signs in order to establish
C. a consistent sign design throughout the development; and
3. Application for sign permits for signs erected without permits
or removal of such illegal signs. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)
A. The p se of this section is to set forth the criteria whereby the
Director i empowered to grant an administrative exception as a
prerequisite t sign permit for a proposed new sign or as a means
to allow the con ti d use of a marginally nonconforming sign (due
.only to its dimensions).
B. The proposed administrative exc ion(s) to sign height and/or sign
area does/do not or will not exce by more than five percent the
existing sign height and sign area st rds that otherwise would be
applicable in the same zoning district for same type of sign.
C. The Director shall approve, approve with condz 'ons or deny an
application for an administrative exception based findings that
all of the following criteria are satisfied:
Revised 02/27/89
Page 293
b.
No freestanding sign, nor any portion of any freestanding
sign, shall be located or project over any portion of a
street, sidewalk or other public right-of-way or property
unless an exception has been granted;
c.
When a premises contains more than a single tenant but is
not defined as a shopping center, the provisions of a
freestanding sign shall take into consideration the need
for providing a signing system which is harmonious in
V•
V
appearance and legible:
~1~•
~
~
(i) The building owner shall provide, at his own
ex
ense
1
•
G
p
, a common support for all tenant signage; and
~
s
a aw
(ii) W to an additional se epr•~ent of sign copy area may
b
i`
~
e permitted under the design review process so as
to adequately identify the separate tenants when
g
[
41
determined that the increased sign area will not
C
~
0.16
1
deter from the purpose of this chapter;
~
`
~ P d.
Shopping centers or industrial parks shall establish a
single signing format:
(i) VP to an additional 50 verces±*_ of sign area may be
permitted under the development review process to
adequately identify the complex when it can be
determined that the increased sign area will not
deter from and purposes of this chapter;
~
-
.
(ii) This increase should be judged according to unique
identification needs and circumstances which
necessitate additional area to make the sign
sufficiently legible; and
(iii) When a shopping center or industrial park has more
than one main entrance on separate frontages, a
second freestanding sign may be allowed under the
design review process. The two allowable signs
shall face separate frontages and are not intended
to be viewed simultaneously;
e. Legal owners or occupants of properties or buildings which
are in shopping plazas and which are directly located or
are proposed to be located on a commercially and
industrially zoned corner property(ies) (one or more
contiguous tax lots located at the intersection of two
or more public streets), shall be allowed to have one
freestanding sign along each street frontage when all of
the following are met:
(i) A sign permit shall be required for each sign prior
to its erection;
Revised 02/27/89 Page 290
o-._,`~ Commi ssioner F,.-.) agreed the lots seem small, bif~Jsai d the development
p1-an,s appropriate for the site.
o Senior Planner answq"d questions about condition 12, which requires
applicant to build a pathway.
* Commissioner Moen moved, and Cominissioner Fessler seconded to approve
Zone Change ZON 90-0006, Subdivision SU -0009, Planned Development
PDR 90-0006, Variance VAR 90-0025 with the fo ng changes to
Condition 12: Path location and construction shat coordinated with
staff and Park Board and Park Department, and at their o n modified
or deleted.
* Motion was passed by unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
5.3 SIGN CAE EXCEPTION SCE 90-0003 MARTIN BROTHERS/TIGARD RETAIL (NPO #3)
A request for Sign Code Exception approval to allow a 50% increase in
sign area (up to 105 square feet per face) and a 25% increase in sign
height (up to 25 feet) ZONE: C-G (General Commercial) LOCATION:
13702 SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 2s1 3DD, tax lots, 400 and 500)
o Senior Planner Liden described the location and background of the Tigard
Retail Center, which is occupied by three buildings. He explained the
size of the sign being requested and how it compares with normally
allowed size. He said staff recommended denial of the 50% increase in
sign size. He discussed some appropriate conditions to consider if the
request is approved.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
o John Moore, 22085 SW Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin, 97062, discussed the
tenants who will be occupying the Tigard Retail Center, noting the
number of tenants had increased since the application was made with a
possibility of having up to 10 or 11 tenants in the near future. He
showed a site plan and described their relation to Pacific Highway. He
spoke about the visibility of the signs and driving patterns which
influence visibility. He also discussed the wall signage and noted some
limitations.
There was discussion about the square footage of the individual bays,
location of wall signs, height restrictions, *and sign code exception
possibilities.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Moen said he favored granting the 50% increase, but not the
one foot height increase.
o Commissioner Leverett agreed with Commissioner Moen's comments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1990 PAGE 8
Commissioner : Arta asked applicant why this qe of sign size was not
addressed during design review. Applicant explained that he missed the
date to have staff grant exception during design review.
Commissioner Boone stated he was inclined to accept staff's
recommendation and vote against the sign code exception.
Commissioner Fessler asked the applicant several questions about the
proposed dimensions. She discussed using the wall signs, and she
suggested they are more visible by motorists driving by.
o Commissioner Barber stated she would not have a problem granting the
exception and was not opposed to the one-foot increase in height.
o Commissioner Moen agreed with Commissioner Fessler's comments and he _
suggested using the freestanding sign to identify the businesses located
in the center and using the wall signs to identify the end businesses.
* Commissioner Moen moved, and Commissioner Leverett seconded to grant
Sign Code Exception (SCE 90-0003) to allow a 50% increase in sign area,
to reject the sign height variance, and to include the conditions
suggested by staff in Section C of the Staff Report.
* Motion passed by a unanimous vote of Commissioners present.
5. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 90-0002 FUEL TANKS (ALL NPO'S)
request for Zone Ordinance Amendment approval to allow above-ground
fu torage tanks of 4,000 gallons or less in industrial :zoning
distr Above-ground fuel storage tanks are currently limited to
less than gallons. ZONES: I-P (Industrial Park), I-L (Light
Industrial), -L (Heavy Industrial)
o Senior Planner Li advised that these revisions would bring Tigard's
regulations into com iance with the Fire District's code. He said
there were changes to initions, some allowances for above-ground home
heating fuel tanks, and a allowance for above-ground tanks in
industrial areas. He ex .,a d the DEQ regulations _for in-ground fuel
storage tanks have been impl ted to address the problems with leakage
and ground contamination. He sa it is easier to monitor leakage in
above-ground tanks.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY '
There was none. `
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner.Moen expressed opposition to above-grou nks of 6,000
gallons for safety reasons.
o Commissioner Saporta was concerned about containment in the e It of an
accidental spill.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 7, 1990 z PAGE 9
,0
ti~
cr
ce
~ W
~ o
a
0
40,
a O
o~
140
f
!i
.
a0641' 300 G
ti~
W
iDcr
I
w
I
it
w
sc
rv
162 96
11
O
N
t+f
p
'
.A
4°'
~e
s ® d
'
p.
eggs
S.
W
WATK I NS
A
.
O
'
'
IO
4.tt
Itt
80'
O
Q
`ma
s
r
~
N
y
~
J
~
~
N
a
a
9
=
o w
N.
3° 84' E.
385.9
4
•
O w
-u
4
WTM DEVELOPMENT ""N
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
RRJUL 19 1990
July 19, 1990 CITY OF ►►(in,10
PI,ANNIIV(, DEPT`.
RE: Sign Variance Narrative
TIGARD RETAIL CENTER PARTNERS
Pursuant to Section 18.114.45 Community Development Code, TRCP re-
quests a sign code exception/variance; set forth as an approved
option on our pre-approval conference of November 1, 1989 to allow
a 50% increase in sign area.
Based on topography, depth vs. width of the development, posted
speed on adjacent Pacific Highway 99W and the limited visibility
of tenants due to the surrounding structures, there exists a need
for a 50% increase in the size of the monument face to effectively
identify tenants.
The proposed sign is set back in an area designated to allow for
20' sign height. Our sign is designed for 21' to allow for an 8'
visible clearance. The 13' x 8' sign face gives a total of 104 sg.
II ft. of face for tenant signage.
I' To assure maximum impact of the tenants copy, we conclude that 9"
letter copy is a minimum. The spacing required to achieve this,
given the number of tenants, is how we arrived at the 13' sign face
height. The spacing around a letter is what determines its legi-
bility, not simply its size.
The viewing opportunity for tenants in the rear of the center is
minimal due to lot configuration and layout of buildings. North-
bound traffic on Highway 99W would have to completely pass the
center and look back, setting up a very difficult cross-read
situation to view wall signs.
The main pylon signage is crucial to tenant identification. The
viewing angle is a cross-read of approximately 90 plus feet and at
the posted speed of 40mph, this angle dictates the proposed
signage. The approach Southbound has similar difficulties.
We feel that these adjustments will insure the consumer easier
access to the services provided by this center and allow the busi-
nesses attempting to serve this community a more beneficial
opportunity.
Visibility is the lifeblood of our retail tenants. The monument
signage allows the community the best possible way to find their
required services.
15800 S.W. BOONES FERRY RD., SUITE C-301 - LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON 97035 - (503) 635-7760
1 n
Lit
5
4141 WK
ate= ~ i
' bUiillV(a i -'-0 r
2=D•R ~ /
1 o~ ~
IJWc -rye 1 Z-o R. 10:0•p~ i v~j
'=0•R
o' b•
.10
R \
Z'-o•~.~ _r a „1~
G,
ZZ, I.
~v
0
-
r;O;..-
1 ~ a .
o-~
I
a~
u
~~Q~~INlS
Sal N TM
E e
TE~
CMI-Nmrlr
Ml SuailV U
"0M00 D`'O
I I
I I
5!0
3% -r
/~TiF -MOC,
~txCatr) -fir, w~tm~ .
fez wo.u.)
I
io~~deo
Agerda -4'q
For T iotL
~xhib~~s
See C)uncl
Fi in q,
0
Er...
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October 8, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: September 21, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revised TMC 18.94 PREVIOUS ACTION: Adoption of new
Manufactured Homes. ordinance on manufactured dwellings
8-27-90
PREPARED BY: B Roast
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK LEO( REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City amend the Manufactured Home ordinance to include regulations
for exterior thermal envelope performance standards (insulation)?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Legislative changes allow municipalities to adopt regulations for the siting
of manufactured homes on individual building lots. Energy efficiency is an
important factor in the comfort, livability and value of residential
neighborhoods. TMC 18.94.040 was adopted in order to maintain high quality
homes within the city's neighborhoods.
Some manufactured homes may not be provided with energy conservation facilities
(insulation) meeting standards equivalent to those expected within the
community. The proposed revision to TMC 18.94.040 would provide regulations
relating to the exterior thermal envelope performance of manufactured homes.
Attached for Council review is a copy of a standard operating procedure to be
used by the Building Division, in reviewing manufactured homes to be sited on
individual building lots.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Approve the attached ordinance adopting it as part of TMC 18.94.040.
2. Deny the attached ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. No change in the fee structure would occur as a result of this action.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve the attached ordinance adopting it as part of TMC 18.94.040.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: S.O.P File
FROM: Brad Roast, Building Official
DATE: 8-31-90
SUBJECT: Manufactured homes sited on individual building lots, TMC section
18.94.040.
The above section relies on the Building Division to determine certain criteria
for approval to site a manufactured home on an individual building lot. The
following will be the criteria:
Section 18.94.040 A. (4)
The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in,
material, and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing
material commonly used on residential dwellings within the City. This
requirement shall not be interpreted to mean that the City is responsible for
enforcing codes, covenants, and restrictions of any homeowner's or other
association.
In order to determine "similar" materials, all residential properties within
250 feet of the property on which a manufactured home is to be sited, shall be
reviewed, if the siding and/or roofing of all the homes are identical, the
siding and/or roofing of the manufactured home shall be of identical materials.
If the home have different types of siding and/or roofing materials, the
manufactured home shall have siding and/or roofing materials matching one of
those applicable material types. If no property within 250 feet of the subject
property contains a residential structure, any siding and/or roofing material
permitted by the state manufactured dwelling or HUD code shall be allowed.
Section 18.94.040 A. (5)
The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport constructed of like
materials. An attached or detached garage may be required in lieu of a carport
where a garage is consistent with the predominant construction of immediately
surrounding dwellings. (Ord. 89-06, Ord.87-32, Ord. 85-15)
In order to determine if the property on which a manufactured home is to be
sited will require a garage in lieu of a carport, all residential properties
within 250 feet of the subject property shall be reviewed. If a majority of the
homes have attached or detached garages, the subject property shall be required
to provide an attached or detached garage (the garage shall be constructed with
siding and roofing as required for the manufactured home under section
18.94.040 A. (5), and above). If the homes have a mixture of carports, garages,
or neither, the subject property shall provide either an attached or detached
garage or a carport (the garage or carport shall be constructed with siding
and/or roofing as required for the manufactured home under section 18.94.040 A.
(5), and above).
Section 18.94.040 A. (6)
The manufactured home shall have an exterior thermal envelope in substantial
compliance with performance standards which reduce levels equivalent to the
performance standards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the
state building code as defined in ORS 455.010, as determined by the Building
Division.
In order to determine substantial compliance, the manufactured home shall
require the following:
o Walls shall have a minimum R-7 insulation value.
o The floors shall be insulated to the standards of the state building code.
o Windows if in good repair (i.e, not; cracked, warped, or lacking
weatherstripping; missing or damaged so as to require replacing) may remain.
o Windows not in good repair shall be replaced with those meeting the standards
of the state building code.
o Ceilings shall have a minimum R-19 insulation value.
o Exterior doors if in good repair (i.e, not cracked, warped; missing or
damaged so as to require replacing) may remain.
o Exterior doors not in good repair shall be replaced with those meeting the
` standards of the state building code. Un-insulated hollow core exterior doors
shall be replaced with those meet the standards od the state building code.
o All exterior doors shall be weatherstripped.
o All exterior joints around windows, doors, siding, utilities, or other such
penetrations shall be caulked or sealed in an approved manner.
o All ducting exposed to the exterior or unheated space shall be insulated to
the standards of the state building code.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. D.,-
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October 8, 1990 DATE SUBMITTED: September 26, 1990
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Wetlands AmengMW4 PREVIOUS ACTION: August 27 Hearina
PREPARED BY: John Acker
DEPT HEAD ORA-- CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
Should the City Council adopt revisions to the Sensitive Lands Chapter of the
Community Development Code which would clarify the City's position that the
City will impose no additional regulation of wetlands that are under the
jurisdiction of federal, state or regional agencies other than that required by
those agencies. Further, should the City adopt explicit criteria for
development in a wetland that is not under the jurisdiction of federal, state,
or regional regulatory agencies.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Wetland amendments in the Sensitive Lands chapter were proposed at the August
27 City Council meeting as part of Periodic Review. At that time the Council
declined to adopt the amendments and asked staff to make some changes to the
proposal. Changes that were asked for by the Council and incorporated in this
proposal are: 1) inclusion of a provision for the staff to make on-site visits
to help property owners determine where wetlands may be; and 2) clarification
that the applicant pays for more precise delineation of wetlands when this is
necessary. The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the City Attorney.
In addition, the Council had some general questions relating to wetlands. The
attached memo addresses those questions.
1. Adopt the Community Development Code amendments as submitted.
2. Adopt the Community Development Code amendments with revisions.
FISCAL IMPACT
none
SUGGESTED ACTION
Adopt the attached ordinance approving the proposed amendments.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Development
DATE: September 28, 1990
SUBJECT: Wetlands Questions
On August 27, 1990 the City Council considered revisions to the wetland
provisions of the Tigard Community Development Code. The Council identified
five broad questions associated with wetlands to which they asked staff to
provide answers. The following addresses these issues.
1. How are Impacts on Wetlands as a Consequence of Off-site Developments
Addressed?
Wetlands within Tigard which are under the jurisdiction of the Corps of
Engineers or Division of State Lands would be regulated by those agencies.
Development which impacts wetlands on or off the development site would be
regulated by these agencies.
" For wetland areas not regulated by those agencies, off-site impacts are
addressed by criteria three and four on page 12 in the proposed sensitive
lands (wetlands) revisions (section 18.84.040 D). Criteria three states that
encroachment or change in on-site or off-site drainage that would adversely
impact wetland characteristics must be mitigated in order to obtain a
sensitive lands permit. Criteria four states that development sites must
meet erosion control practices of the Surface Water Management program of
Washington County.
Wetland areas tend to be contained in low points within drainage basins and
as such will ultimately be affected in some way by upstream activity within
that watershed. There are also natural phenomenon which are effected by
development such as climatic changes, wind borne pollutants, etc. that can
have potentially adverse impacts on wetlands. It can be difficult to
establish a cause/effect relationship for activities in non-wetland areas
within the drainage basin and nearly impossible to establish that link with
more remote developments. These types of impacts are more appropriately
addressed at a regional or state level such as the Washington County Surface
Water Management Program or by the Oregon Division of State Lands.
2. Who has Responsibility for Wetland Management?
Management of wetlands is the responsibility of several entities at the
federal, state, regional and local levels. At the federal level the following
agencies play a lead role:
- The Environmental Protection Agency.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and;
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department.
At the state level the following agencies are involved:
- The Oregon Division of State Lands.
- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and;
- The Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Counties are involved at the regional level in weltands management and
coordination, and cities have certain responsibilities at the local level. In
addition, private citizens and private organizations such as the Wetlands
Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited play an important role in wetlands
conservation.
Tigard will fulfill its local role in wetlands management by:
Providing information on possible wetland locations so that wetlands are
not inadvertently damaged.
- Informing developers of the role of various regulatory agencies.
Responding to citizen complaints and requests for information, and;
Administering the wetlands provisions of the Tigard Development Code.
3. Who Maintains Wetlands?
Wetlands are a naturally occurring landform and like all landforms are
dynamic in that numerous forces are creating constant change. Other than
establishing protective measures, so that changes occur naturally rather
than through human activity, there are no maintenance issues germane to
natural wetlands.
4. What happens with Wetlands Created by Development?
The proposed wetland definition stipulates that an area of privately owned
land which otherwise satisfies the wetland definition is not defined as a
wetland if it was created by human activity after acknowledgement of Tigard's
comprehensive plan (October 11, 1984). This does not apply to mitigation
areas that were created to compensate for disturbance of existing wetlands.
5. What is an Appropriate Buffer?
The 25 foot buffer area for wetlands solely under City jurisdiction is
thought to be a minimum amount necessary for protection of these areas.
There are individuals and organizations that advocate up to 50 feet. In
reality, determining an adequate buffer distance is complicated and is
dependent on individual site characteristics such as vegetation and slope. A
buffer area based on scientific information that provides optimum buffering
for any given site can be developed through a complex methodology. However,
these types of regulatory standards tend to be difficult to administer,
require staff expertise, increase costs and provide less certainty as to
requirements. The 25 foot buffer is recommended because:
1) There are very few wetlands that will require City regulation since most
are under Corps or DSL jurisdiction.
2) This buffer area provides resource protection while allowing use of more
of Tigard's dwindling supply of urban land. A set buffer distance
provides more certainty as to amount and configuration of developable
land on a site.
The intent of the revised Wetland Provisions is to have the Development Code
clearly state that if wetlands are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers,
ODSL or other regulatory agency, the City will not impose further regulation.
In addition, the proposed wetland definition is consistent with state and
federal definitions to ensure more clarity as to what actually is a wetland.
Furthermore, criteria for what constitutes disturbance of wetlands is
established for areas solely under City jurisdiction. These revisions will
help property owners and developers to more clearly understand wetland
regulations and the role of regulatory agencies.
r,.
/-jCAt0A
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM: Ed Murphy, Director of Community Developmen
DATE: October 8, 1990
SUBJECT: Errata Sheet for Wetlands Definition
At the suggestion of Tim Ramis I am recommending this change to the wetland
definition which is Agenda item 10.2 exhibit "A".
Delete the following paragraph:
The technical basis for defining where wetlands are located can be found in the
"Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands"
Replace with:
The City will use the "Federal Manual for Iden_t_ifving and Delineatina
Jurisdictional Wetlands" as the basis for determining where wetlands are
located.
ja/memo.ert
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. ~L3o
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
wall 10/08/90
AGENDA OF: 5~ (:'1990 DATE SUBMITTED: 9/5/90
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Model Solar PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
Access Ordinance recommendation forapproval In I LAA 1
PREPARED BY: Keith Liden
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY:
Should the City Council initiate a public hearing to consider the adoption of a
solar access ordinance to be incorporated as part of the Community Development
Code?
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On August 27th, the city Council reviewed the above issue in conjunction with
other potential Community Development Code revisions that pertain to Periodic
Review. The Council decided to continue its deliberation regarding the formal
consideration of a solar access ordinance at a public hearing. The Council
delayed its decision to allow the submittal of additional information
regarding voluntary solar access programs.
Supplemental information has been submitted by Mike McKeever which provides the
rationale in support of a mandatory program. Mr. McKeever•s memo summarizes
the contents of the information packet. Also attached is a letter from David
Yaden, Director of the Oregon Department of Energy relating to this subject.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance for formal consideration and
possible adoption of all or a portion of the Model Solar Access
Ordinance.
2. Elect to not conduct public hearings on this issue.
FISCAL IMPACT
SUGGESTED ACTION
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance for formal consideration and to schedule a
public hearing.
9-17-90.CC/kl
C,-
LVA
McKeever/Morris, Inc.
722 S.W. Second Avenue
Suite 400
Portland, Oregoti 97204
far 503 228-7365
503 228-7352
September 10, 1990
Memo to: Tigard City Council
From: Mike McKeever, project consultant, Portland-Vancouver Metro Area Solar Access
Project
Subject: Information regarding effectiveness of voluntary solar access protection programs
During the Council's discussion of proposed solar access ordinances on August 27 a
suggestion was made that Tigard should implement a voluntary solar access protection program
rather than the development regulations recommended by the project's Steering Committee.
The policy issue of using voluntary standards versus regulations to protect solar access
received a great deal of attention by the project's Steering Committee. The effectiveness and
costs of voluntary and regulatory programs in several other local governments were studied.
After much discussion and debate and Steering Committee unanimously concluded that the
program should not be voluntary.
The rationale for the model ordinances is incorporated in a "Findings and Conclusions"
document (enclosed) which was developed by the Steering Committee. At several places in
this document the Committee explains the rationale for rejecting the voluntary approach. As
you will see, the primary reasons are that the voluntary approach is more costly for local
governments to administer and much less effective at delivering the desired energy savings.
I have excerpted those portions of the "Findings and Conclusions" which directly relate to the
voluntary program issue on the following page. I have also enclosed a one page summary of
the evaluation of the City of Salem's voluntary program prepared by Larry Epstein, P.C., the
project's land use attorney. To my knowledge the City of Salem has the most extensive
voluntary solar access program in the country today.
At the beginning of the project the policy position of the Home Builders Association of
Metropolitan Portland was that solar access programs should be voluntary. By the end of the
project they reversed that long-held policy position and endorsed the model ordinances. The
letter from Charles Hales to your Planning Commission sets forth the rationale for HBA's
support for the ordinances.
Finally, it may be of interest to you that three of the 22 local governments participating in the
project were implementing voluntary solar access programs when the project began. All three
of these governments, Lake Oswego, Multnomah County and Clark County, have now
adopted the model ordinances. Clark County adopted the ordinances this Wednesday,
September 5.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this information. I will be in attendance at
your September 24 meeting and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Planrrin~
Do' 1
Pubtic Involvement
Project Management
EXCERPTS FROM "FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS" RELATED TO
VOLUNTARY SOLAR ACCESS PROTECTION PROGRAMS
"I(A).Traditional property law does not protect solar energy access in the absence of a
private agreement or a public law that requires such protection. Existing local land use
laws in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area do not expressly protect solar energy
access. Private easements and incentives in those laws to encourage the use of solar
energy have not resulted in significant protection of solar energy access."
"V(A)(6). Research showed a voluntary or incentive-based solar access program is
more costly to implement and more difficult to evaluate than a mandatory one."
"V(B)(5). The research showed a voluntary or incentive-based solar access program
does not have demonstrable results. Therefore the research does not provide a rationale
for a voluntary or incentive-based program. The research shows the force of law is
needed to provide effective solar access protection over time."
"V(C)(4). A mandatory program provides the same guarantees to owners of all
similarly situated properties. Property owners do not have certainty about their solar
rights or duties if a solar program is voluntary or incentive-based."
"V(F)(5). The ordinances are mandatory, because voluntary and incentive-based
programs, such as the one in Salem and the ones reported in the Washington State
Energy Office report, do not result in significant solar access protection. For instance,
after 18 months of operation, the Salem program had distributed more than 4000
brochures and guidebook, held meetings attended by 950 people including 129 home
builders, and reviewed 252 building permits. Nevertheless Salem could not show that
any of their good work informing the public resulted in more solar access or solar
access protection, and no one applied for the incentives in the program. Jurisdictions
with mandatory programs, such as Ashland and central Oregon, showed positive
results."
-,ON
Larry Epstein, PC
Attorney At Law
Larry Epstein, member
Oregon State Bar and
American Institute of Certified Planners
MEMORANDUM
To: Steering Committee
Subject: Evaluation of Salem Voluntary Solar Access Program
Date: November 19, 1987
1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 370
Portland, Oregon 97205-2543
(503) 223-4855
Salem has completed a review of its voluntary solar access program. A summary of that program and its evaluation
are presented below.
The Salem program is entirely voluntary. It consists of several program elements, including the following.
It promotes long-term protection of solar access on new and existing lots by certifying a given lot has and will
have unobstructed solar access between 10 am and 2 pm on December 21, based on vegetation, easements, and
covenants and restrictions. The city provided a guide for the certification program and for private solar access
agreements.
It promotes solar access issues in subdivision design by providing information and a brochure about such issues.
It promotes siting or orienting structures so they will benefit from solar access by reviewing building permit
applications and identifying where a structure should be situated on a lot to prevent it from being shaded in the
future. Also it authorized administrative adjustments to dimensional standards for solar access.
It promotes use of solar friendly trees and landscaping techniques by publishign a list of those trees, a guidebook
for solar conscious landscaping, and a city tree pruning permit under which private parties can trim city trees
that block solar access.
The results of the program after about 18 months of implementation are summarized below:
The city held several public meetings at which a total of 950 people attended, including 2 meetings at which
129 homebuilders attended.
The city distributed many of its brochures including 1090 solar friendly tree brochures,
475 guidebooks about landscaping for solar access, 648 copies of an overview brochure about the solar access
program, 553 brochures about solar setbacks, 716 brochures about the solar certification program, and 680
brochures about the solar access pruning program. It also made 2 videotapes about the program, copies of
which were distributed to area libraries.
The city reviewed 252 building permit applications. About 10% of the permits reviewed did not have solar
access to the south wall or to the roof of the dwelling.
No one applied for to certify a lot as solar access protected.
No one modified building permit applications to provide solar access.
No one applied for a dimensional adjustment to provide solar access.
There were no records available regarding the success of the solar friendly tree program, although 3 area nurseries
were very supportive.
No one applied for a tree pruning permit under the program.
BEFORE THE [Planning Commission/Governing Body]
OF [Name of Jurisdiction]
In the matter of recommended
Solar Access Protection Ordinances
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION
January 20, 1988 Draft
I. There is a public need for and a public health, safety and general welfare interest in having
local governments adopt solar access protection regulations.
A. Traditional property law does not protect solar energy access in the absence of a private
agreement or a public law that requires such protection. Existing local land use laws in the
Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area do not expressly protect solar energy access. Private
easements and incentives in those laws to encourage the use of solar energy have not resulted
in significant protection of solar energy access.
B . Because local laws do not require protection of solar energy access, many cost-
effective energy savings measures and future options have been lost forever. They will
continue to be lost in the future unless new land use laws are adopted. The potential impact
of this loss amounts to millions of dollars during the life of new development in the region
and to a waste of non-renewable resources.
C. Federal laws and plans promote conservation of energy by such means as solar access
protection.
1. The Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 directed
the Northwest Power Council and Bonneville Power Administration to give priority to
conservation and renewable resources in their resource planning and acquisition.
2. The Northwest Power Plan recommends "acquisition of cost-effective lost
opportunity resources which, if not secured now or in the near term, could be lost
forever to the region. The primary example is incorporating energy efficient features
into new buildings when they are constructed, since many of these measures cannot be
installed later and the buildings will consume energy long after the surplus is over."
The Northwest Power Plan supports adoption of solar access ordinances by local
governments region-wide, because it develops the capability to deliver energy
conservation in the future.
The Northwest Power Planning Council's Model Conservation standards include
minimum solar access requirements for sun-tempered and passive solar homes.
D. State statutes recognize there is a public interest in protecting solar energy access and
authorize local governments to enact solar access protection regulations.
[In Washington:
1. RCW 64.04.140 declares that "the potential economic and environmental benefits
of solar energy use are considered to be in the public interest; therefore local
governments are authorized to encourage and protect access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems."
Page 1 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
2. RCW 35.63 and 35A.63 direct Washington cities to enact land use regulations as
part of a comprehensive plan which "shall be designed, among other things, to
encourage and protect direct access to sunlight for solar energy systems." RCW 36.70
contains similar authority for Washington counties. City and county comprehensive
plans may include a "solar energy element to encourage and protect access to direct
sunlight for a solar energy system." State statutes define "solar energy system" broadly
to include any feature that relies on direct sunlight for energy for such purposes as
heating and cooling of buildings.]
[In Oregon:
1. ORS 469.010 declares that "continued growth in demand for non-renewable
energy forms poses a serious and immediate, as well as future, problem. It is essential
that future generations not.be left a legacy of vanished or depleted resources, resulting
in massive environmental, social, and financial impact. It is the goal of Oregon to
promote the efficient use of energy resources and to develop permanently sustainable
energy resources."
2. ORS 227.190 and 215.044 authorize city and county government bodies,
respectively, to adopt and implement ordinances "protecting and assuring access to
incident solar radiation" provided they do not conflict with acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land use regulations. State statutes provide that a solar access
ordinance "shall provide and protect to the extent fea$ible solar access to the south face
of buildings during solar heating hours, taking into account latitude, topography,
microclimate, existing development, existing vegetation and planned uses and densities.
"The governing body shall consider for inclusion in any solar access ordinance, but not
be limited to, standards for: (a) the orientation of new streets, lots and parcels; (b) the
placement, height, bulk and orientation of new buildings; (c) the type and placement of
new trees on public street rights of way and other public property; and (d) planned uses
and densities to conserve energy, facilitate the use of solar energy, or both."
3. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal.13 is to conserve energy. It promotes land use
controls that "maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles." It directs that comprehensive plans "should consider the
potential of renewable energy sources, including solar energy, and may use
implementation techniques which affect such factors as lot size, siting, building height,
bulk, surface area, and availability of light."]
E. The [name of jurisdiction] [Comprehensive/Community Development] Plan contains
the following policies that promote energy conservation and solar energy:
[Insert policies as appropriate from "Summary of Land Use Ordinances" and
subsequent plan amendments.]
Page 2 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
1 1. Federal, state and local governments, with help from interested members of the public and
the development industry, created and carried out a project to address the need for solar energy
access protection in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. The project provides a foundation
based on which local governments can assume authority provided by statute to encourage, protect
and provide solar access. The project is summarized in the following findings.
A. In 1985, twenty-one governments in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area,
including [name of jurisdiction), passed resolutions to join together to ask the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) for funds to develop solar access protection laws that would be
considered for adoption by each government in the project. BPA agreed to fund the 2-year
project. It was administered by the Washington Energy Office and Oregon Department of
Energy. A twenty-second government, the City of Portland, joined the project late in 1987.
The 21 original project participants are listed below:
Beaverton
Milwaukie
Canby
Multnomah County
Clackamas County
Oregon City
Clark County
St. Helens
Cornelius
Scappoose
Fairview
Tigard
Forest Grove
Troutdale
Gresham
Vancouver
Happy Valley
Lake Osw
Washington County
ego
West Linn
Wilsonville
B . A structure for the participants in the project was created. It is summarized below and
described more in Addendum A.
.1. Each participating government appointed 2 or 3 "liaisons" to the project, generally
one each from the government body, planning commission, and planning staff. The
liaisons participated on project corrumttees, attended project seminars, regularly
received information about the project, and relayed information and concerns between
the project staff and their government. The liaisons for [name of jurisdiction] were [list
names and relevant titles].
2. The liaisons in turn appointed a 12-member Steering Committee of local
government officials. The Steering Committee appointed technical committees,
managed the project, undertook public involvement and public attitude studies,
synthesized the work of the technical committees, and made policy choices involved in
the project, such as adopting design principles and recommending the solar access
protection ordinances. [If appropriate: City/county liaison, [name], served on the
Steering Committee.]
3. The Steering Committee appointed liaisons, industry representatives, and other
people with related skills and experience to two technical committees. The committee
members represented a balanced cross section of interests and operated by consensus.
The Research Committee was responsible primarily for research about the factors that
affect solar access and about the benefits of solar access protection. The Ordinance
Committee was responsible for researching existing land use laws, drafting model solar
access protection ordinances, and estimating the costs of implementing those
ordinances. [If appropriate: City/county liaison, [name], served on the Research
Committee. City/county liaison, [name], served on the Ordinance Committee.]
Page 3 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
C. Public involvement activities were undertaken. These included an attitude survey and a
review of studies about public and builder attitudes toward solar energy. Project staff
prepared a quarterly publication describing project activities and meeting schedules. It was
sent by mail to about 1000 residents, firms, and agencies in the area. Also governing bodies
and planning commissions throughout the area received briefings about the project
periodically; their meetings were open to the public. Press releases were distributed prior to
each meeting of the Steering Committee and before other project events. All meetings of the
committees were open to the public. Several briefings and work sessions were held with
groups and individuals from the development industry. Broadcast media coverage and a
community cable television videotape also informed the public about the project.
D. Drafts of the solar access ordinances were evaluated by the Ordinance Committee. Also
they were tested by eleven jurisdictions and industry officials by applying them to "real
world" land use requests in those jurisdictions. As a result, the ordinances were changed to
be more clear, to ease administration, and to comply more with the project design principles.
E. The following reports and studies were produced and considered during the project,
and form the basis for the technical recommendations in the solar access protection
ordinances. They are incorporated herein by reference; several are summarized in
attachments for convenience.
1. Research Committee, An Analysis of 402 Sites to Determine the Major Factors
Influencing Solar Access in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area, June, 1987,
summarized in Addendum B.
2. Research Committee, Potential Benefits of Solar Access, September, 1987,
summarized in Addendum C.
3. Pihas, Schmidt, Westerdahl, Solar Energy, Solar Access, and Energy
Conservation: Research Compilation, May, 1987, summarized in Addendum D.
4. Ames Associates, Solar Friendly Tree Report, June 1987, summarized in
Addendum E.
5. Ordinance Committee, New Development Standard Cost Report, January, 1988,
summarized in Addendum F.
6. Ordinance Committee, Potential Costs of the Solar Balance Point Standard,
January, 1988, summarized in Addendum G.
7. Columbia Information Systems, Public Attitude Survey, March, 1987.
8. Fleitell, Paula, Survey of Experiences in Communities with Solar Access
Ordinances, August, 1987.
9. Boe and Tumidaj, Comparative Solar Setback Analysis of 80 Metro Area Site
Plans, April, 1987.
10. Portland Bureau of Planning, Solar Access Ordinance Evaluation: Support
Document, August, 1987.
11. Columbia Information Systems, A Survey of the Building Community on the
Solar Access Ordinances, n.d.
Page 4 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
12. Benkendorf Associates, Plat Re-design Case Studies: Waterhouse, Dawn Crest,
and Bridgeport, February - June, 1987.
13. Benkendorf Associates, Solar Re-Design Cost Comparison---Waterhouse and
Dawn Crest, May, 1987.
14. Mark Johnson, BPA, Residential Standards Demonstration Program Solar Access
Report,(Draft), December, 1987.
15. Salem Dept. of Community Development, Solar Access Program Final
Performance Report, October, 1987.
16. Bureau of Governmental Research & Service, An Evaluation of the City of
Portland's Solar Access Ordinances, 1986.
17. Larry Epstein, PC, Summary of Land Use Ordinances for Jurisdictions in the
Metro Solar Access Project, 1987.
18. Conservation Management Services, Impact of the Solar Balance Point Standard,
January, 1988.
F. The most important products of the project are the four solar access protection
ordinances.
1. One ordinance---the Solar Access Standard for New Development---applies to
land divisions and planned unit developments in single family zoning districts and to
single family detached dwelling developments in any zone. It promotes proper lot
orientation for solar access as well as generally preventing structures and some new
trees from significantly shading neighbors:
The basic requirement for new developments is that 80 percent of lots front on streets
oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west line and have a north-south dimension of
90 feet or greater. This will maximize the number of lots with good solar access
characteristics and minimize the potential problems of protecting solar access to homes
on north-south streets. Two alternative requirements and provisions for exemptions
and adjustments also are included.
2. A second ordinance--the Solar Balance Point Standard for Existing Lots---
applies to new structures and additions in single family zoning districts and to single
family detached dwellings in all zones. It prevents new structures from significantly
shading neighbors and balances solar rights and development rights of affected
property owners. It also applies to certain trees planted on lots that are created after the
effective date of the ordinance.
The Solar Balance Point Ordinance protects full south wall solar access on lots that
have good solar characteristics, and allows more shade on lots with poor solar access
characteristics.
3. A third ordinance--the Solar Access Permit Ordinance---enables the jurisdiction
to issue a permit on a case by case basis at the request of a property owner in an
existing neighborhood to prevent neighbors from planting new trees that would
significantly shade a solar energy feature on the applicant's property.
Page 5 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
4. A fourth ordinance contains definitions used throughout the other three
ordinances.
5. The ordinances protect homes in new and existing developments from shade
caused by "solar unfriendly" trees planted after a certain date. A list of "Solar Friendly
Trees" has been developed to assist in landscaping lots to protect solar access without
significantly restricting the public's range of landscape options.
6. The Solar Access Ordinance for New Development and the Solar Access Balance
Point Ordinance are mandatory in the sense that development subject to either of the
two ordinances must comply with them or comply with standards for exemptions and
adjustments. The ordinances do not require the use of solar energy features; they
merely protect solar access so that the option to use solar energy in the future is
preserved.
III. Early in the project, the Steering Committee adopted eight "design principles". The
participating governments and Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland agreed that the
solar access protection program they would draft should comply with these principles. -The
program also has to comply with applicable state statutes and with the local comprehensive plan.
The eight design principles commit project participants to draft a solar access program that will:
A. Be efficient to administer and comply with and easy to enforce;
B . Have a clear rationale supported by credible project research;
C. Provide certain to property owners regarding the extent and limitations of their sun
and shade rights;
D. Provide flexible enough standards to deal with a variety of development situations,
including providing exceptions for difficult circumstances;
E. Provide an easy means to inform the public about its provisions and effects;
F. Provide effective solar access protection for properties;
G. Provide equitable treatment to all property owners; and
H. Be coordinated and balanced with other local ordinances, standards and policies.
IV. The proposed ordinances are consistent with and help implement federal law and comply
with applicable state statutes and comprehensive plan policies, based on the following.
A. The proposed ordinances are consistent with the Northwest Electric Power Planning &
Conservation Act of 1980 and with the Northwest Power Plan, because they promote use of
energy efficient features and design principles in new residential development and will help
new residential development comply with the Northwest Power Planning Council's Model
Conservation Standards.
B . The proposed ordinances are consistent with state enabling legislation, because they
protect solar access to south-facing windows during winter to the extent feasible, considering
existing and potential physical features and land uses.
Page 6 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
[In Oregon:
C. The proposed ordinances are consistent with the statewide planning goals listed below.
Remaining statewide planning goals are not relevant.
a. Goal 1 (Public Involvement), because of the public involvement conducted as part
of the project and the public hearings conducted by the planning commission and
governing body:
b. Goal 2, (Land Use Planning), because they result from a consensus-oriented
planning process in which issues and needs were identified, existing conditions were
inventoried, alternatives were considered, and recommendations were made based on
broad public review of options:
C. Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources) and
Goal 13 (Energy Conservation), because they conserve nonrenewable energy resources
and promote use of renewable energy resources; and
d. Goal 10 (Housing), because the ordinances do not reduce permitted densities or
reduce availability of housing for any segment of the public and they do not
significantly increase the cost of housing. On the contrary, solar access can reduce
operating costs for heating and cooling of residential structures, thereby reducing
housing costs.]
[In Washington:
C C. The [responsible SEPA off clan has reviewed the environmental checklist prepared for
the proposed ordinances and has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance regarding it.]
D. The proposed ordinances are consistent with the following policies of the
comprehensive plan:
[Insert findings that the ordinances are consistent with each goal,, policy and strategy
listed in finding 1, and summarize why the ordinances comply with each.]
V. The proposed ordinances also are consistent with the "design principles" adopted by the
Steering Committee, based on the following findings. .
A. The ordinances are efficient to administer and comply with and easy to enforce,
because:
1. The ordinances reflect the experience of other jurisdictions with solar access
protection laws, and include features that avoid problems and complexities in those
cases.
2. The ordinances have been tested by the development industry and by eleven local
governments in the project. The lessons learned from this preliminary testing have
reduced uncertainty and increased the ease bf administration.
3. The project staff will train staff and the public and development community before
the ordinances are implemented, reducing the time and effort it takes to implement and
comply with the ordinances.
Page 7 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
4. The costs of implementing the ordinances have been estimated. Compared to
costs of other land use regulations, the proposed ordinances should not increase the
cost of complying with those regulations. The ordinances allow, if compliance does
increase development costs in a given case by a minimum amount, adjustments can be
granted.
5. The ordinances include clear and objective approval standards, reducing the need
for administrative discretion and extensive public review procedures. All terms are
defined and many are illustrated by drawings, reducing the potential for confusion and
misunderstanding. Exceptions and adjustments are provided for, reducing the need for
variances to the proposed ordinances. The ordinances minimize new procedures; rather
they are to be integrated into existing land use procedures, reducing the potential for
delay or increased administrative cost.
6. Research showed a voluntary or incentive-based solar access program is more
costly to implement and more difficult to evaluate than a mandatory one.
B . The proposed ordinances have a clear rationale supported by credible project research.
1. The research shows there is a need for solar access protection regulations.
Existing development codes of participating governments do not protect solar access.
Therefore, many solar access opportunities in the Metro Area have been lost. If
existing development trends toward smaller lots and taller houses continue without
regard for solar access, many more opportunities will be lost in the future.
2. The research shows it is practicable to develop land so that less solar access is
lost.
a. While only 40% of existing lots have optimum solar orientation and access,
research shows new developments in the region generally can be designed so that
at least 80% of new lots can have optimum solar orientation and access without
significantly increasing development costs.
b. Increased solar access can result in substantial energy savings over the life
of a typical residential structure. BPA research shows homes with good solar
access use 10% less energy for heating than other homes. Project research shows
solar access protection will cause average savings of about $1150 in heating costs
over the life of a home and can provide as much as $4000 in savings. The gross
energy savings to owners of new houses in the region from implementing the
ordinances is estimated to be $150 million over the next 20 years. Savings could
increase to $325 million if more people use solar energy design principles and
features in new construction.
C. The solar access ordinances cost the consumer about $20 per lot in a new
development or $55 per new structure in an infW development They cost the
government $4 to $7 per lot.
3. Project research shows solar energy access protection has values that are difficult
to quantify, but benefit from adoption of the proposed ordinances. For instance the
proposed ordinances will protect solar access not only for immediate use for passive
solar space heating but also for the present and future dse of solar water heating and the
future use of photovoltaic cells.
Page 8 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
Also solar access protection provides certainty that makes solar energy a more reliable
source of alternative energy. It establishes a qualified property right to solar access.
- That can motivate people to use solar energy. In fact research shows that people use
solar energy several times more in a jurisdiction that has solar access regulations,
compared to a jurisdiction that does not. Lastly solar energy is environmentally non-
polluting. Use of solar technology promotes a wide range of positive environmental
values.
4. Research about existing solar access conditions in the Portland-Vancouver
Metropolitan Area shows:
a. The major factor influencing solar access orientation of homes and windows
is street orientation. Compared to homes on north-south streets, homes on east
west streets:
(1) Had less shading;
(2) Had more south window area for solar heating benefits;
(3) Had more south roof, yard and wall area to accommodate solar
additions;
(4) Are shaded more from on-site sources under a homeowner's own
control; and
(5) Are less affected by slope, the placement and design of neighboring
homes, and north-south lot dimension.
b. Solar access to homes on north-south streets is significantly affected by
such factors as north-south lot dimension, setback, height, and ridgeline
orientation of neighboring homes.
C. The historical trend has been toward smaller lots and two-story homes. If
this trend continues, solar access increasingly will be affected by neighboring
homes, particularly on north-south streets.
d. There is no discernible trend toward development on steeper slopes.
e. There are some minor differences in solar access between counties.
However, they were not of a nature as to require different policy treatment
between counties.
5. The research showed a voluntary or incentive-based solar access program does not
have demonstrable results. Therefore the research does not provide a rationale for a
voluntary or incentive-based program. The research shows the force of law is needed
to provide effective solar access protection over time.
6. Public attitudes surveys and other research indicates strong and consistent public
support for solar access. The public attitudes surveys completed for the project showed
that:
i a. The majority of people favored solar energy and/or solar access in their
answers to all of the survey questions, and on many questions, the rate of support
for solar access exceeded 70 percent.
Page 9 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
b. The vast majority of people will accept local solar access regulations, and
they place a positive economic and non-economic value on lots and homes with
good access to direct sunlight.
C. The proposed ordinances provide certainty to property owners regarding the extent and
limits of their rights to cast shade and to receive direct sunlight.
1. The standards are clear and objective, and depend on such tangible measures as
street orientation, lot dimensions, house height and setback.
2. Property owners can reasonably predict the amount of shade that will be allowed .
to fall on their property.
3.. Property owners and the private sector development community can reasonably
predict the development guarantees the ordinances provide.
4. A mandatory program provides the same guarantees to owners of all similarly
situated properties. Property owners do not have certainty about their solar rights or
duties if a solar program is voluntary or incentive-based.
D. The proposed ordinances are flexible enough to deal with a variety of development
situations.
1. The more difficult the situation, the more lenient the standard, the easier the
situation, the more solar access to be protected.
2. The ordinances provide exceptions for difficult circumstances, including steep
slopes, pre-existing road and lotting patterns, pre-existing vegetation, and
circumstances where a negligible solar benefit would be protected by meeting the
standards.
3. Normal avenues of appeal or variance are still available to persons seeking relief
from the ordinances.
E. The solar access protection ordinances and associated training provide an easy means to
inform the public about its provisions and effects.
1. Extensive public information programs were conducted with interested groups
during the project.
2. A training and education program for local government staff and the building
industry will be available during a 90-day period between ordinance adoption and
implementation.
3. Information about the solar access standards for new development can be
provided to developers during the pre-application conference for new subdivisions and
PUDs.
4. Notice to future purchasers of property subject to the solar ordinances will be
provided by filing appropriate records with the. title of each lot affected by the New
Development and Solar Access Permit Ordinances.
Page 10 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
5. Public information materials will be developed by the project consultants and
made available to local governments for distribution.
6. Notice of and information about the solar access standards will be provided with
every building permit application.
F. The proposed ordinances will be provided with effective solar access protection to
properties.
1. The ordinances protect solar access to the extent feasible in keeping the Research
Committee's analysis of the major factors affecting solar access.
2. The ordinances protect solar access between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on January
21. This is the level of solar access required for homes to qualify under the solar
options of the Model Conservation Standards.
3. It is estimated that the number of lots meeting minimum solar access criteria can
be increased from 40 percent to 80 percent in new developments by implementing the
Solar Access Ordinance for New Development.
4. The proposed ordinances will provide substantial economic and non-economic
benefits over time.
5. The ordinances are mandatory, because voluntary and incentive-based programs,
such as the one in Salem and the ones reported in the Washington State Energy Office
report, do not result in significant solar access protection. For instance, after 18
months of operation, the Salem program had distributed more than 4000 brochures and
4 guidebook, held meetings attended by 950 people including 129 home builders, and
reviewed 252 building permits. Nevertheless Salem could not show that any of their
good work informing the public resulted in more solar access or solar access
protection, and no one applied for the incentives in the program. Jurisdictions with
mandatory programs, such as in Ashland and central Oregon, showed positive results.
G . The proposed ordinances provide equitable treatment to all property owners.
1. The standards benefit both the subject property and neighboring properties and
require consideration of effects of solar access on both properties.
2. Lots are categorized by clear, well-defined criteria. Lots of similar characteristics
must meet the same standards, and are guaranteed the same levels of solar access. A
mandatory solar access program is recommended because it treats similarly situated
properties the same; a voluntary or incentive-based program does not.
3. Existing development densities are protected
4. Owners of all lots to which the ordinances apply are guaranteed the right to build
a structure that produces as much shade as a 30-foot tall building in the middle of every
lot.
5. Existing and solar-friendly trees are exempt from the standards.
6. Exemptions are allowed when benefits can be shown to be insignificant, as when
there is pre-existing shade from other sources or the area being protected is an unheated
area of the home, such as a garage.
Page 11 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
7. The ordinances protect solar access in new and existing development settings.
Since the potential benefits of solar access are available in both settings, to do otherwise
would provide inequitable benefits.
H. The proposed ordinances are coordinated and balanced with other local ordinances,
standards and policies.
1. The standards help implement comprehensive plan policies to conserve energy.
Also they do not reduce permitted density, require use of environmentally sensitive or
significant land, or violate other plan policies.
2, The standards modify existing standards and land use tools for the additional
purpose of protecting solar access in a manner that is consistent with existing land use
laws.
3. Exceptions are provided to allow for cases where conflicts arise between solar
access and other comprehensive plan ordinances or policies. Such conflicts include
density, affordable housing, tree preservation, infrastructure needs, consistency with
surrounding street layouts, natural features and topography.
4. The ordinances are consistent with implementation techniques specifically allowed
in [Washington statutes/Oregon statutes and LCDC Goal 13]. Also, the ordinances rely
predominantly on existing review procedures.
5. The ordinances will provide a consistent set of solar access standards throughout
the region, resulting in more coordinated development practices and more consistent
development patterns and facilitating ease of implementation for builders who work in
more than one jurisdiction in the region.
Page 12 January 20 draft
Findings & Conclusions for Solar Access Ordinances
n....a. ...e. \-._a...w ~l, _a.. u.S. _ a. ..i.,. a. ..a_..~ilux a ...J.. ....a. ..n .A ..S y.
Department of Energy
NEIL GOVERNOR GOCM10T 625 MARION ST. NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-4040 TOLL FREE 1-800-221-8035
September 12, 1990 FAX 373-7806
Tigard City Council
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Councilors:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed solar access
ordinance. One issue raised was whether the program should be voluntary
or mandatory. I wanted to share my thoughts on this issue.
We have found that voluntary programs typically don't work when the
person who invests in an energy-saving feature is not the same person
who benefits through lower energy bills. Rental weatherization is an
example. The landlord has little incentive to invest in weatherization
if the tenant pays the bills. As a result, rental weatherization has
lagged in Oregon.
Solar access land use decisions face this same problem. It is the
homeowner who reaps the on-going benefits. But the developer has no
incentive to design for solar. As a result, absent regulation, land use
design does not accomodate solar.
Some may say if the market wants solar access, developers will provide
it. That may be true. However, it will be too late if homeowners later
decide they want to install solar features. Once a developer decides
not to design for solar, we can't go back and fix it later if we wanted
too.
Solar access is voluntary today. By chance, about 40 percent of our
homes have good solar access and orientation. Voluntary and incentive
programs in Salem and Washington State have had little success in
spurring solar access. Solar ordinances can increase the share of homes
with good access to about 80 percent.
REC IM PLUNINN
S E P 13 1990
The Oregon Department of Energy is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Tigard City Council
September 12, 1990
Page 2
I agree that new government regulations should be enacted only after
careful consideration. However, I believe that the Metro Solar Access
Project more than meets this test. Extensive research was done while
the ordinances were designed. The standards were pre-tested in twelve
communities, including Tigard. The model ordinance was revamped after
an evaluation of the test standards. Throughout, the development
industry and local governments actively participated and supported the
project and ordinances. I believe that enactment of an ordinance will
create substantial benefits for your citizens at low cost. I urge you
to adopt the ordinances at your September 24 meeting.
Sincerely,
David V. Yad
Director
DVY:js
solar.wp5