City Council Packet - 02/11/1992
w, CITY OF TIGARD
A f/ ffi!'
h~:r..•<k.~;:.•~,v~„'~;,~z~wf.~,i~;v.,.,,~..~z4~:.;kfi.F; >.;~F..;~. ,.f:~"''•r~~`> OREGON
!E•• Y/$'lufr:::r:•r l.:M1K;: G.A/:;{rr
/ tin. v.. /fity' f ;9 ON
HE 1.
>f.rr: 'k '~....4 SCE` nt 0}} Y,/wa IfJif4 H•
AGENDA
Yx;, r'•. S`ffr~-YC~,9'. ~:'rr ~r,•{:..f.{c'
• s~'1^!y : 3 4 T,.~:f~ gyp![,; . y,.5~'{,.;Sfii,o:
a~ ff~ ~F. .f ~ i;,~.'•rj°~ : `"vs3: ~ Y•f`.L,.' 'a' ~+•'~"Y.'2ks~f~%',^~1;5:C
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an
' >k' F : ` "f ¢z a enda item should sin on the appropriate sign-
u
{k>`" n v<, 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.
• STUDY SESSION (5:30 P.M.)
Workshop Discussion - Solid Waste Advisory Committee (Solid Waste Rates)
Executive Session: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (f) to discuss exempt public records.
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 TO BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
• Mayor Edwards
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
4. 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:
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 23, 1992
4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
4.3 Local Contract Review Board - Authorize Advertising for Bids on Capital Improvement
Program Projects
4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Sign an Easement of Extinguishment - Locust Street -
Resolution No. 92- _!~17
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 1
MEIN=
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 91-0019 WISE A request to annex
one parcel consisting of 0.95 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from
Washingivn ml fty R-6 ~Rasidential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5
~~u ~
units/acre). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITEiI Cor ^r! unity Development Code Sections
18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, and 18A38.020 (A; (R);
Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 10.3.2.
LOCATION: 12287 SW Lansdowne Lane (WCTM 2S1 313C, tax lot 1200) ZONE: Washington
County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre). The City of Tigard R-4.5 zoning allows single-family
residential units, public support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured
homes, family day care, home occupations, temporary use, and residential fuel tanks among
other uses.
• Public Hearing Continued from January 28, 1992
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
• Public Testimony:
- NPO
- Proponents (Speaking for Annexation)
- Opponents (Speaking Against Annexation)
- Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
r .nnQirj=rMtinn by C'eunci!: Resolution No. 92-b!. ; Ordinance No. 92-0'R
6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0003 A proposal to consider
amending the Community Development Code Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls;
and to amend vision clearance requirements Chapter 18.102.101 (C) to address topography and
vertical curve situations.
• Public Hearing Continued from January 28, 1992
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
• Public Testimony:
Proponents (Speaking for Annexation)
Opponents (Speaking Against Annexation)
Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92-- `
F
COUNCIL AGENDA _ FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 2
mom
v -
7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0006 FRONT WARD
STORAGE (ALL N1PO'S) A proposal to delete section 18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard
Community Development Code which prohibits front yard storage in a residential zone. Section
18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A) states: Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house
trailers, recreation vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity shall not be
stored in a required front yard in a residential zone. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 and 18.96.060
• Public Hearing Opened
• Declarations or Challenges
•
Staff Report - Corm- 1uniLi )i vavaivpmvnt Dqn-arFri'7F?nt
• Public Testimony:
Proponents (-Speaking for Annexation)
Opponents (Speaking Against Annexation)
Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 92-C 25
8. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION OF CITY STREET VACATION ORDINANCE
• Community Development Staff
• Ordinance No. 92t
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE/ISSUES
• City Administrator
11. 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.
12. ADJOURNMENT
h: recorder\coa\coa0211.92
i
1
i
i
I
i
COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 3
.
r Council Agenda Item
l
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie
Johnson, Joe Kasten, Jack Schwab, and John Schwartz. Staff
Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick
Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Loreen Edin, Administrative
services/Risk manager; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed
Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community
Relations Coordinator; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder.
STUDY SESSION
Solid Waste Rate Study
Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive
Session at 5:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d),
(e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues. 3
(Study Session reconvened at 5:50 p.m.) y
Also present during this issue:
Solid Waste Advisory Committee: Gerry McReynolds, Chairperson;
Mark Irwin, Donald Jacobs, Tom Sullivan (arrived at 7:25 p.m.),
Cece Dispenza. Ex-Officio Members: Tom Miller, Mike Leichner,
Larry Schmidt.
Two consultants from Coopers & Lybrand presented the results of
their solid waste disposal services study. The focus of the
presentation was on three general issues:
1) Subsidy between service lines;
2) Rate of return computation standards; and
3) Impact of future service enhancements on the rate
structure.
now
The consultants reviewed txaeir summary. (Note: Portions of the
Consultant's document is exempt from public access and was reviewed
by the Council in Executive Session.)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 1
Executive Session: Council met in Executive Session (ORS 192.660
[1][f] "to discuss exempt public records.") at 6:35 p.m.
Council (study) meeting reconvened at 7:22 p.m.
At the conclusion of the workshop, Council consensus was to
schedule time (March 10) to review the following information to be
gathered by staff:
i
Solid waste rate structure formulated to achieve
• encouragement of recycling
• profit guarantees for haulers
• encouragement of business practice efficiencies
• minimize subsidy of commercial to residential
2. ]KEYS TO THE CITY
Mayor Edwards presented Keys to the City to the persons listed
below in appreciation for their service on the following
committees:
• Tony Orlandini - Economic Development Committee
• Nancy Smith - NPO 3
• Michael Meinecke - Solid Waste Advisory Committee
• Wendi Hawley - NPO 5
• Cynthia Iford - NPO 8
3. VISITOR'S AGENDA:
a. Mr. Cal Woolery requested Council consider street name
changes from the Morning Hill Homeowners' Association.
A petition was presented requesting that S.W. Hart Street
(between 133rd Avenue and 135th Avenue) and S.W. Tolar_d
Street (between Morning Hill Drive and 133rd Avenue) be
changed to S.W. Benish. This would make a continuous
street out of three streets only two or three lots in
length. In addition, confusion exists with Hart Road in
Beaverton which also has a cross street of 135th Avenue.
Emergency vehicles have respc-ided to the Beaverton
location by mistake.
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to direct staff to embark on the legal process to
change the street names.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 2
y b. Mr. Raymond Ross advised that hi.s company failed to
Soo submit a notification of certain vehicle information
relating to the recent solid waste ordinance. Mr. Ross's
company currently collects and disposes of their own
solid waste with private vehicles. In order to continue
this practice, certain conditions were outlined in the
recently approved ordinance.
Consensus of Council was to direct staff to review Mr.
Ross's request and advise as to procedure.
4. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion by Councilor Schwab, seconded by
Councilor Schwartz, to approve the following Consent items: 4
4.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 23, 1992 !
4.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
4.3 Local Contract Review Board - Authorize Advertising for
Bids on Capital Improvement Program Projects
4.4 Authorize City Administrator to Sign an Easement of
Extinguishment - Locust Street - Resolution No. 92-07
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
5. PUBLIC BEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNE aT-ION ZCA 91-0039 WISE
A. request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.95 acres to the
City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County
R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre)., to City of Tigard R-4.5 '
(Residential, 4.5 units/acre). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Sections 18.32.020, 18.32.040,
18.32.130, 18.36.030, 18.136, 18.138, and 18.138.020 (A)(B);
Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1,
10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, and 10.3.2. LOCATION: 12287 SW
Lansdowne Lane (WCTM 2S1 3BC, tax lot 1200) ZONE:
Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre). The City
of Tigard R-4.5 zoning allows single-family residential units,
public support facilities, residential treatment homes,
farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home
occupations, temporary use, and residential fuel tanks among
other uses.
a. Public hearing was continued from January 28, 1992.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. During the staff presentation on January 28, 1992,
Community Development Staff reported that a copy of a
document (annexation non-remonstrance agreement) had been
found concerning several properties on Tippett Place;
these properties are adjacent to the property requesting
annexation. Community Development Director advised that
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 3
i
V
the nonremonstrance agreements for addresses on Tippett
Place do not appear to be valid. Property owners have
not been contacted to determine interest in annexation at
this time.
Staff recommended that the Council approve the resolution
and ordinance as presented in the Council packet.
- d. Public testimony: None.
e. The public hearing was closed.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 92-08 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT "A1° AND OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA
91-19) (WISE)
g. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Resolution No. 92-08.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-03 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-19) (WISE)
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
i. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-03.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0003 A
proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code
Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or Walls; and to-amend
vision clearance requirements Chapter 18.102.101 (C) to
address topography and vertical curve situations.
a. Public Hearing Continued from January 28, 1992.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
co Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report as
submitted in the Council meeting packet.
dw Public testimony:
• Judy Fessler, 11180 S.W. Fonner Street, Tigard,
Oregon reviewed a portion of the discussion which
had been held when this item was before the
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 4
i
Planning commission. One problem to consider was
the fact that fences in front yards could create a
surveillance problem for Neighborhood Watch and for
police security purposes.
e. Council discussion:
• Senior Planner Bewersdorff, in response to a
question from Councilor Schwab, clarified vision
clearance provisions in the proposed language with
regard to entrance/exits to property from a traffic
perspective. The ordinance contains provisions to
preserve adequate motorist sight distances.
• Mayor Edwards noted that it was his desire to allow
as much flexibility as possible for proeprty
owners. He noted the concern, as stated by Ms. a
Fessler during her testimony was well taken, but
that it should be up to the individual property I!
owner whether or not they would want a fence in
their front yard in lieu of Neighborhood Watch and
security concerns.
• Councilor Johnson said that with increasing traffic
on Tigard streets, private fences restore some
privacy to the residential property. She agreed
with the Planning Commission recommendation.
• Councilor Schwab concurred with Councilor Johnson's
remarks and was satisfied that visibility for
motorists was addressed in the proposed ordinance.
• Councilor Kasten and Councilor Schwartz advised
they, too, agreed with the Planning Commission
recommendation.
f. Public hearing was closed.
g. ORDINANCE NO. 92-04 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO FENCE
REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 18.100.090 AND CLEAR VISION
REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 18.102.020.
h. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-04.
The motion was ap;)roved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 5
C 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0005 FRONT
YARD STORAGE (ALL NPO'S) A proposal to delete section
18.96.060 (A) of the City of Tigard Community Development Code
which prohibits front yard storage in a residential zone.
Section 18.96.060 Storage in Front Yard (A) states: Boats,
trailers, campers, camper bodies, house trailers, recreation
vehicles, or commercial vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton capacity
shall not be stored in a required front yard in a residential
zone. LOCATION: Citywide APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Community Development Code Section 18.22.040 and 18.96.060
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report as
submitted to the City council in their meeting packet.
d. Public testimony:
Opponents (against amendments)
• Harry L. Schukart, 11910 S.W. Morning Hill Drive,
Tigard, Oregon advised he was testifying as
President of the Morning Hill Homeowner's
Association. He said 95% of the association
members were opposed to the amendments because such
action would likely lead to other unsightly front
yard storage.
Mr. Schukart advised that if people can afford
recreational vehicles (rv's), then they should be
able to afford to store them in a proper place. He
said covenants and restrictions would be one way to
regulate front yard storage; however, residents
would have to file a civil suit and go through the
court system. This, he advised, would be too
costly.
• Teri Wasco, Tigard, Oregon, noted problems with
cars parking on sidewalks or streets because of
front yard storage of rv's. She noted aesthetics
would be damaged and front yard storage was "visual
hara: smcnt- . 1° She cited several existing problems
near her neighborhood.
Elm
• Cal Woolery, 12356 S.W. 132nd Court, Tigard,
Oregon, testified as Chair of NPO 7. He said the
NPO would not want to see any change in the current
ordinance and recommended improvement of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 6
enforcement of the current provisions.
Dale Rossman, 13355 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, `s
Oregon noted he would not want the current
ordinance changed. He cited safety issues and
adverse affects on market values if rvms were
allowed to park in front yards. He added that,
while the ordinance was not perfect, it gave City i
staff some ability to regulate problems. i
• D.K. Paul, 14137 S.W. Fanno Creek Court, Tigard,
Oregon, testified as President of the Colony Creek
Estates Homeowners' Association. Mr. Paul said
residents in his area were 80-90% opposed to
repealing the ordinance as was being proposed. He
cited the desire to maintain attractive
neighborhoods and adverse affects cn property
values if the ordinance was repealed.
• Mike Brewin, 9955 S.W. Kable, Tigard, Oregon,
requested that Council not repeal the ordinance.
He, too, cited adverse affects on property values.
OEM
Mr. Brewin distributed pictures taken earlier in
the day which illustrated his point about the
current problem in Tigard. (Note: Mayor Edwards,
during later remarks, commented that many of the
photos were of situations which would not be
addressed by current language.)
Mr. Brewin urged Council to not change the
ordinance because of a vocal minority who were
breaking the law on this issue.
Proponents (for amendments)
NPO 5 Chair, Craig Hopkins, reviewed NPO 5's
efforts. The NPO initiated an amendment to repeal
the Code restrictions following a series of
neighborhood complaints and discussions on the
issues. Reactions from all NPOs on this issue were
mixed. Since the code only applies to the required
font yard (normally 20 feet) campers, recreational
vehicles, boats, etc., can be legally stored in
many front yards. Older subdivisions, many times,
have greater setbacks e;hich ::ould alp V~~fiVi1 ~ SQl\4
J• i4. mom
storage.
C. The public hearing was closed.
d. Council comments. Council remarks were generally in
favor with the Planning Commission findings which
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 7
i
s
s
gap=
recommended that the Council maintain the existing
regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics as the main
rationale. In addition enforcement, safety, and
infringement of another's property rights were of concern
to the Council.
G. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to deny the NPO 5 application for the repeal of
Section 18.96.06 A.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present. j
f. Councilor Johnson requested a conversation by Council at '
a future study session meeting regarding policy on Code
Enforcement.
8. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION OF CITY STREET VACATION ORDINANCE
a. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed this agenda item.
The proposed ordinance would revise the City's street
vacation notification requirements to coincide with 1991
changes in Oregon State Statutes.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 92-05 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF
THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECMTON 15.08.120.
l c. Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab,
to adopt Ordinance No. 92-05.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10. ADJOURNMT• 8:55 p.m.
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City corder
Mayor CifyL~Ti.gard
Date: 3 - q
h:\recorder\ccm\ccn0291.92
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 11, 1992 - PAGE 8
i
i
maul= Em Em
3
f
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370
PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice
TT 7155
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Thc; following mec-un M h
Ls ark, PU
#jshe Advertiaic$g agendas may be obta goed;~ro, ^
lrsl rdsY u~f aattna rim
Boiilevard, ~Igarol, e ' 31425 $ ► Fltidl '
e .Y tt 47?2~, mrlrycail,dg t53S-41? i
Tigard FE8 2 4- 1992 ❑ Tearsheet Notice
CITY C+()I3AI
City of E~IL ~tTSMS.
® PO Box 23397
13 ® 14I1y" 11 er 1VtTIPG `
RAR
Duplicate Afifiidaw s 299i'
Tigard, Or. 97223 CITY Of TIGARD TIC 9Rtt Cl' TO1ld't+t
s ® -13125 S W. HALL f30LILEVARt~, ~TGARO .GT
Study Z~1cx;ttng (Tovra~aII Conference
F Room) (5 3o P r.~) -
~'Joakshop_IVlectsn vrc {
Vlasle Plates g th Splcd ytsfit~ Advisory E~ ;m e~te~ =-``5
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION r:
Batsi~ess fd&6ng ~'ToN~ Hall) (7:30 p ?Li
STATE OF OREGON,
4S
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
Kays to tb'e C~tY' ApprecaatYon to r,rrer f3narcf and Co mitt v
J1.adith Koehler bets t
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising i€earin ' s
Director, or his principal clerk, of the 'rti garA Ti mac
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 a or~~C go `Brlb~ t ql? CA 1 ~9, oy g Op
and 193.020; published at- Tj-garrl in the I'3 07 `Pwp ~{Cpry ue
aforesaid county and state; that the "28'9 d~aatYeAnteR.fruenf -'ZOA ~ }pfs
Gity Co mr, L Bus; ness Me t•; ng 12$ 9 }r T"t~ liar fences orw $ t x f~ ei ua nlmue~ Eton °
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the a slpn;a nog tip f
~r► c~Ile,.tor,treetselud3s+
Ibi ,
entire issue of said newspaper for Orte -successive and 4 address to r`dYvtshortea~ittCp ~gr~
h
a loo-»~ an V 14ti2 GF3NC'$ItU~t€01 w 2 g
consecutive in the following issues: j. Zane Cardtnarrce 7kmeadmen
r ; Store e A m fi,9i, ~(';70~~
P~Q sal to
Fn ~le~c the
February 61 1992 Coyle clt b?b=ts tiitar ae inn 4~f ti e T gaq viastiell
r ,tr szx's~del~t~a9sne`,~ a i
C yonszdrisnau9rt r!f Or r;anEe Xr 61
s""°d4W r r rt"!-►f`C Z(} Cst~~~r0
( `•A~2/j' v- '~il~'" •iirYRi ~IJO~t{~✓NG +YYS~M VI )So t Wli![pt 3 1 i 1t +1
`r 5., s=t x.{ r : 1 r4.. U- ' x 1 7 J.n
{ xecu Vey~y s £ 1 a IQ` f h V;f .~j'.ky Kt r
d ti ti:;n l }F $t 3r
es 14"0114
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of K t Sessia'nuFebruary 1992 det?the~rosrastsaf 92u j iptnnti4
iiUSgationassus or•s,xa?,-r$v traZtsacbb;i`c Gb)t
Notary Public for Oregon t"Z'7155 ~ttblasit Febru f i ,t
< aryt~ 19J2 ~ st v
MY Commission Expires:
AFFIDAVIT
11j! ONE 0111 gli i
f•
ii
-MEMO=[
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
~V P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TI' 7151
lJ BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising PUBLIC i~,IaTNG
City Qf Turd s The r0l1cwing will be considered by the Tigard Cny'Council on Eebruar}~ -
I1 Box 2 ❑ Tearsheet N 1l; 1992, at 7.30P.M. ;af Tigard Ctvic_Cenier, Town Hall Rooinp 1312" t
33 7 b
® Tigard, OR 97223 e S W _Hall,&oulevard;Tigard; Oregon:rirtl:erinfoiination may be o
❑ Duplicate At, .tained'frrm the Cornr~iufiity Deveiopineni Director br.'City Recorder at the
same letadbn or by calling.63941%Y664re invited,[o ' bniit:writterill
+B a testirill in advarl of the public hearing; written and oral'testimony-;
will be considered at thq h*gn$ _ The public hearing Will be coitd6cted xrl.,,
accoidan„ a wi h the applicable Chapter 18:32 of the T igard Nfunicipai
Code and any rules of procedure adapted by tie ~ouncii tid available at
s =City Hall - ; ,
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
zo1VE Q1DUTAN E'Arv1ENDMENT Z OA 9l-QOOS
STATE OF OREGON, ) MNT~(ARb STORAGE (ALL NPQs
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss A'piropoul to-delete section i8.96 060:(A) of ih^ City ref ? igard mom:
Judith Kehler rill Liev h
a opinerill' which Prohibits fron
. ; yard storage in a
residential zone Secd6 18.96.060 Store m Fries (A)-St , tes°
being first duly sworn, depose and say Pat a Advertising . Boais; trailers; campers,camper adtes,bouse trailers, recreation V*chrcles~
Director, or his principal lcerk, of the~c1 1UMS or commercial vehrcE?s in excess of 3/4-ton capacity.shaltnpt be;slpred id
a newspaper of general circu{gt onrd4 a defined in ORS 193.010 a recjUired frcint yard in a residential'zone.1 CAT[QN: Citywide A1''
and 193.020; published at 11 in the PLICAL3LE;fiPPR0VAL CRITERIA Community Develogmeral Cad
afpres c 71mrinnd~ #$t~' 2s~atOtne5 Section ll~ 22.G40 and: I8 96060;
Yl1b tea GU y UU ~
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the TT"II51 Publish January 30 1992 ,
entire issues of said newspaper far-One
----:_successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
January 30, 1992
l
Subscribed and savor o before me this-30th day of January, 1992.
i
Notary Public for Oregon
IVIy Commission xpires:
AFFIDAVIT
i
I
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
! AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I, • begin first duly sworn, on oath,
depose an say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) - --4., 4-6 S
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 1 61 q
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof,
on the ) Si day of AA LAli Lk4 , 19 q ~
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Washington Federal Savings Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
DUA CA &A g
OFFICIAL SEAL
M. JOANN HAYES
NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON NotaryP lic for Oregon
COMMISSION N0.006513
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 My Commission Expires: 5 I -I.-
loginw-post
III I IgIINII 111,111 '111
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-_0_5
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 91-
19) (WISE) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by George and
Jamie Wise, who are the owners of the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on January 28, 1992 to consider
the annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 1992 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding
the annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set
forth in Section 1 below is that which most closely conforms to the Washington
County zoning designation as provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban
Planning Area Agreement.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is
consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Tax Man/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
2S1 03BC/1200 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-4.5
Current Plan.Designation Proposed Plan Designation
Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard Low Density Residential
Section 2: The property meets the definition for an established area as
defined in Chapter 18•.138 of the Community Development Code and
shall be designated as such on the development standards area
map.
Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the
annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State.
PASSED : By vote of all Council members resent after
being read by number and title only, this ITUD_ day of
Ly
Cather:n~ Wheatley, City Reco er
APPROVED: This ll CY day of , 19,92
G r d-R, Edwards, Mayor
App oved as t f
dLE:v Attorney
/ Date
/ 1,
awm
gem
a i
STAFF REPORT
January 28, 1992
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. FACTS:
CASE: Zone Change Annexation 91-19
IBM REQUEST: To annex a parcel consisting of 0.95 acre of unincorporated
Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from
Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-
4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County Residential, 6
units per acre.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per
acre).
APPLICANT: George and Jamie Wise
12287 SW Lansdowne Lane
Tigard, Oregon 97223
OWNERS: George and Jamie Wise
12287 SW Lansdowne Lane
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: 12287 SW Lansdowne Lane. WCTM 2S1 03BC, tax lot 1200
2. Background Information
No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to
this property.
3. Vicinity Information
Properties to the north of the site are in Washington County and are
zoned for single family residential development. Property to the
east is zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and is in the
City of Tigard. All properties to the west are single family lots in
the City of Tigard. Properties to the south are in the City of King
ZCA 91-19 Staff Report 1
f
City and are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre.
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property to be annexed have one single family residence with the
remainder of the property undeveloped. The property is largely open
with grass and a few trees scattered throughout.
The applicants requested that their parcel be annexed into the City
of Tigard in order to connect the parcel to sanitary sewer line.
There is an existing sewer line on the property which is located at
the westerly corner of the property.
5. Agency and NPO Comments
Tigard Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire District, Washington
County Land Use and Transportation, City of Ring City, General
Telephone and Electronics, NW-Natural Gas, Tigard School District
23J, Portland General Electric, and Metro Area Comminication have
reviewed the proposal and offer no objections or comments.
Tigard Police Department has the following comments:
The City should attempt to annex the rest of Tippitt Place, it would
be easier for the Police department in locating the property address
if the entire street was annexed.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies ;
2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established Areas; 10.1.1, service
Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136,
i
Annexations; and 18.138, Established/Developing Area Classification of the
Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below:
1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and Community Planning Organization as well as
surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an
opportunity to comment on the request.
2. -flan Policy o.3.1 is satisfied because the annexation will be
designated as an established area on the development standards
r
map.
3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the
Washington County Island Urban Services Study which includes the
subject property. This study indicates that adequate services are 3
ZCA 91-19 Staff Report 2
i
f
3
t
1111112 NMI
available in the vicinity and may be extended to accommodate the
subject property.
4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because although there is an
irregular boundary in this area, the annexation will not add to that fi
irregularity, the Police Department has been notified of this
request, the land is.located within Tigard•s Area Of Interest, and
adequate service capacities can be made available to accommodate the
eventual development of the property as noted above.
The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the
relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the
findings noted below:
1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and
services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan i
policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has
been determined to be an Established area in accordance with the
criteria in Chapter 16.138 of the Code.
The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington
County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of
interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely
resembles the County plan and zone designation.. In this case, the
properties are designated in Washington County for single family
residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a
maximum density of 6 units per acre. The City of Tigard Low Density
Residential plan designation and R-4.5 zone with a minimum lot size
requirement of 7,500 square feet and maximum density of 4.5 units
per acre are the most comparable to the present County designation.
2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the properties meets
the definition for an Established area and shall be designated as
such on the development standards area map.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends
approval of ZCA 91-19.
PREPARED BY:
Victor nri, Development Assistant Planner
ZCA 91-19 Staff Report 3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92- UL/
C.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING
TO FENCE REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 18.100:090 AND CLEAR VISION REQUIREMENTS,
SECTION 18.102.020.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community
Development Code periodically to improve the opo-ration and implementation of
the Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on November 4, 1991 and voted to recommend
approval of the amendment to the City Council with one modification; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 19, 1991 to
consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section-l: The Community Developcmt Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit
"A". Language.to be added is UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted
is shown in [BRACKETS].
Section 2: This ordinance shall be'effective 30 days after its.passage by the
Council,.approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED : By un Cc rL i m oL)-s vote of all Council members resent after
being read by number and title only, this 10h day of -e ck a. ,
1992.
C'a4*eju 0--Q U3 VVO Q.:u
Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder
APP OVE This day of , 1991.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form-.
City ttorne~i
2 1 r f f.~ L
Date
cb/Fenord f
ORDINANCE No. 93.-
Page 1
.111 IN!
OEM
Nam"
i
EXHIBIT "A" I
18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or walls
A. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the
standards in subsection 18.100.090.B. except when the
approval authority, as a condition of approval, allows
that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater
than otherwise permitted in order to mitigate against
potential adverse effects.
B. Fences or walls:
1. May not exceed three feet in height in a required
front yard along local streets or [six feet on a
corner side yard or] eight feet in all other
locations and, in all cases, shall meet vision
clearance area requirements ( Chapter 18.102);
2. [Are permitted outright in side yards or rear yards
to a height of six feet;] Are permitted up to six
feet in height in front yards adjacent to any
desicinated arterial, major collector or minor
collector street. For any fence over three feet in
height in the required front yard area, permission
shall be subject to administrative review of the
location of the fence or wall.
C. All fences or walls shall meet vision clearance area
requirements ( Chapter 18.102);
[3. Located in a ,.side or rear yard and which are
between six feet and eight feet in height shall be
subject to building permit approval;]
t
[4. Located in the front yard or corner side yard and
which exceed the height limitation shall comply
with the setback requirements for structures set
forth in the applicable zone; or]
[5. Located within a corner side shall be no closer
than two feet from the property line, and shall
satisfy visual clearance requirements. (Ord. 89-
06; Ord. 85-14; Ord. 83-52)]
D. All. fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall
be subject to building permit-approval.
18.102.020 Visual Clearance: Required
C. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions
contribute to the obstruction of clear vision areas at a
street or driveway intersection, hedges, plantings,
fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or permanent
obstructions shall be further reduced in height or
C eliminated to comply with the intent of the required
clear vision area.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92A 05
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECTION 15.08.120.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Tigard
Municipal Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation
of the Code; and
WHERRAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes were revised in July, 1991 to amend.
the notification requirements for street vacations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard wishes to reduce its notification procedures
to be consistent with the State Statutes.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: {
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "A". Language to be added in UNDERLINED. Language to be
deleted is shown in [BRACKETS].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
C PASSED: By U t1a ~`(YtiO~n A~ vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only, this
1 1 day of -Z , f1991.
~W f
laatherin6 Wheatley, City Record r
APPROVED: This tlt day of , 1$ ~ .
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
n , ~o
}
City Attorne
Date
C
ORDINANCE No. 9~?'-
Page 1
Ems=
EXHIBIT "A7
15.08.120 Notice. (a) Notice of the public hearing shall be
given as follows:
(1) The recorder shall give notice of the petition and
hearing by publishing a notice in the city official newspaper once
each week for [four] two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing.
[(This means the notice will be published five publishiugs in the
newspaper).]
(2) The recorder shall cause notice to be posted at or
near each end of the proposed vacation and in at least two
conspicuous places in the proposed vacation areas within five days
after the first day of publication.
(b) The posting and first day of publication of the
notice shall not be less than [twenty-eight days] fourteen days
before the hearing.
C.
S
i
t
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i
f
ORDINANCE NO. 92~ 05
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD YUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECTION 15.08.120. ;
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Tigard
Municipal Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation
of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes were revised in July, 1991 to amend
the notification requirements for street vacations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard wishes to reduce its notification procedures
to be consistent with the State Statutes.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "A". Language to be added in UNDERLINED. Language to be
deleted is shown in [BRACKETS].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting.by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By Uhf vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only, this
day of 1991.
~ W
therine Wheatley, City Record .or
APPROVED: This day of , 19
i
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
v
Ci Attorne
Date
ORDINANCE No. 9.2-
Page 1
i~
EXHIBIT "A"
15.08.120 Notice. (a) Notice of the public hearing shall be
given as follows:
The recorder shall give notice of the petition and
hearing by publishing a notice in the-city official newspaper once
each week for (four) two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing.
[(This means the notice will be published five publishings in the
newspaper).]
(2) The recorder shall cause notice to be posted at or
near each end of the proposed vacation and in at least two
conspicuous places in the proposed vacation areas within five days
after the first day of publication.
(b) The posting and first day of publication of the
notice shall not be less than (twenty-.eight days) fourteen days
before the hearing.
i
s
t
f
8
}7j(F
1
mom
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92-•_5
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING
TO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET VACATIONS, SECTION 15.08.120.
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Tigard
Municipal Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation
of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes were revised in July, 1991 to amend
the notification requirements for street vacations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard wishes to reduce its notification procedures
to be consistent with the State Statutes.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code shall be amended as shown in
Exhibit "A". Language to be added in UNDERLINED. Language to be
deleted is shown in [BRACKETS].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By U nct VA:k\ NOV,A~ vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only, this
1 I day of 19 91.
G L~~
therine Wheatley, City Record r
APPROVED: This day of , 19 91.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
s
Approved as to form: z
V ~k
Ci Attorne
.a
Date
A
S
ORDINANCE No. 9,2-
Page 1
f
S
SEEM
EXHIBIT W
15.08.120 Notice. (a) Notice of the public hearing shall be
given as follows:
(1) The recorder shall give notice of the petition and
hearing by publishing a notice in the city official newspaper once
each week for [four] two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing.
[(This means the notice will be published five publishings in the
newspaper).]
(2) The recorder shall cause notice to be posted at or
near each end -of the proposed vacation and in at least two
conspicuous places in the proposed vacation areas within five days
after the first day of publication.
(b) The posting and first day of publication of the
notice shall not be less than [twenty-eight days] fourteen days
before the hearing.
r
e
Raw
l
NEW
R', VON
AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 2/11/92
(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
,2AYrio,jd /L osS ip,19 Ste, /Sel~E-. ,Jg wasTE o/z-4 M S ~ACn1
Depending on the number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council
may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your
oral comments to 3-5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary.
Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE : 2/11/92
PUBLIC HEARIM - ZONE CEM4GE AMMMON
ZCA 91-0019 WISE
PLEASE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS MM & ADDRESS
Proponents (for annexation) Opponents (Against annexation)
cum
17 ENE=
HIM
Depending on the number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council
may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your
oral comments to 3-5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary.
Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE : 2/11/32
PUBLIC H ARIM - ZONE ORDINAL AST ZOA 91-003
(Amending provisions for setback requirements for
fences & walls; also amending requirements on vision
clearance.)
PLEASE PRINT
NAHE & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
Proponents (for amendments) Opponents (against amendments)
6 f2J?~L
i
sns
-pending on the number of persons wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council
may limit the amount of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your
oral comments to 3-5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary.
Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: 2/11/92
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AP 1T ZOA 91-0005
FRWT- YARD STORAGE (code amendments)
PLEASE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
Proponents (for amendments) Opponents (against amendments)
~ p g ki
r
.e- Q - r ,
MEMORANDUM
C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO. Pat Reilly, City Administrator
FROM. Loreen Edin, Admin. Services Manager and
Wayne Lowry, Finance Director
DATE: February 3, 1992 07 '
SUBJECT.- Solid Waste Rate Study Report
Last Fall, the City Council deferred the solid waste rate review until resolution of the solid waste ordinance
was reached. At the 2111 meeting, Coopers & Lybrand will present for the first time the results of their
study to the City Council and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SAIAC). The solid waste industry and
rate structure issues are very complex and it will be impossible to discuss all Issues thoroughly on the 11th.
Therefore, staff and Conpers & Lybrand will review the report and focus on three general issues: subsidy
between service lines; rate of return computation standards; and the Impact of future service enhancements
on the rate structure.
BACKGROUND IN TIGARD:
On 3125191, SWAC recommended Council revise the solid waste rate structure to address their concern
about commercial service subsidizing the residential service line. SWAC's recommendation was °to make
each type of service to stand alone and be profitable'.
On 6/11/91, the Tigard City Council approved the most recent METRO pass through. At that time, Council
requestod staff retain a consultant to complete a financial review of our franchised solid waste haulers'
businesses prior to considering action to revise the rate structure. The City retained Coopers and Lybrand
to conduct the financial review. The report itself is exempt from public inspection under ORS 192.660.1.f
which allows this record to be treated as confidential. For this reason we have only attached the scope
of review for the study (Attachment A) and Cooper's report synopsis (Attachment B) to this memorandum.
BACKGROUND REGIONALLY_, The issues surrounding solid waste have generated activity by the State
legislature, METRO and Washington County. Following are some issues which are being discussed on a
larger scale which will impact our decisions.
SENATE BILL 66: This was effective on 711191. This is a comprehensive reform of the state's recycling
laws. The bill redefines the state law requirements for programs which provide an 'opportunity to recycle'.
The City implements that requirement through the City's franchised solid waste haulers. One section of
S866 establishes newrequirements which affect rates and requires that the 'net costs' incurred in providing
the opportunity to recycle be built into the rates or funded by an alternate method. Net costs are defined
In SB66 as follows: 'reasonable costs for collecting, handling, processing, storing, transporting and
dvl:'J~rrniv ~nllnntinrj onn/rune aifiliot=H hi, f8ntnr to ~J:v-Citnt fir nrnrnerJn 3rnJn the S,°i°. rCvj'iilli3~v
"y 1" J N'vvv...wv
material'. While we have discussed rates per container in the past, it is also Important to look at what
services are provided for the rate charged. Attached is a matrix showing the curr Nnt recycling services
offered in Tigard & a comparison of services & can rates for Tigard, Portland, and Tualatin (Attachment C).
WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED: METRO is mandating delivery of solid waste recycling services to
be provided by cities and counties. Tigard has joined the cities in Washington County to form the
Washington County Wasteshed. The Wasteshed deals collectively with meeting METRO & SB66
requirements. However, Tigard is solely responsible to address the following issues within its City limits:
• Service levels provided within Tigard
• Adjusted rates to support services
• Enforcement (franchise ordinance, Metro mandates, & SB66)
PAGE 2OF2
FEBRUARY 3, 1992
SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY REPORT
1
PRICE WATERMOUSE REPORT: In November of 1991, the Maulers Association approached Washington
County with concerns about the inadequacy of the rate structure specifically noting concerns about subsidy
between service types and the cost Impact of adding services. The Association hired Price Waterhouse
to develop a detailed report for County review. It Is anticipated that the County Commissioners will respond
to their report findings this Spring and determine what rate structure Issues should be addressed.
V11A2 PRESEIN"t'A770N.
The meeting of 2111192 is a Council Study Session with SWAC and Tigard's franchised haulers. City staff
will be leading a discussion regarding the rate structure Issues that have been raised by our City process
and regional actions. During the open portion of the meeting, Coopers & Lybrand will present an overview
of their study results. Detailed discussion of the study will be held In executive session to protect the
Individual hauler's business trade secrets. This is in keeping with the Tigard solid waste franchise
ordinance, which requires the City to maintain the confidentiality of financial study results Yo the extent
allowed by the Oregon Public Records Law". j
A full copy of the study results will be forwarded to the Council and SWAC members, under executive
session privilege, no later than Thursday evening, 216. See Attachment D for the City LeyJ Counsel's
memorandum regarding the confidentiality issues surrounding the study. It will be Council's decision the
night of the meeting as to whether they wish to include the franchised haulers In the Executive Session.
DIREC770M FPOM COUNC/L
.i
The City must continue to discuss solid waste issues on an on-going basis as the Industry changes and
the City Implements METRO mandates and SB66 rules. Issues being discussed regionally are: rate of
return computations, annual report guidelines, owners compensation reporting, impacts of pass-through
costs, performance measurements, rate structure and subsidies within the rates, whether rates should be
calculated on weight or volume, timing of equipment replacement, depreciation guidelines, when rew '
services should be implemented, how to pay for new services, etc.
In order to focus the discussion to a narrower range of issues to be dealt with on the 11th, staff will focus s
attention on the following questions:
Subsidy between service lines: Should each service
• type make a profit or should there ,
be some subsidy?
• Rate of return: What is an equitable rate of return and on what element of the business
should the rate of return be computed? }
• Should rate Impacts of future service enhancerrlenis be fc'viotwcv p,-,vr to Ir.:plamsntation?
x
Given the complexity of the issues and time constraints on the 11th, we will be prepared to continue
discussion to a future study session.
{
1
s
t
j
x
ATTACHMENT A
CITE' OF TIGARD
FRANCHISED SOLID WASTE HAULERS
FINANCIAL REVIEW
PROPOSED SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
BACKGROUND
The City of Tigard solid waste disposal services are provided by
three private solid waste disposal companies. Each company has
been awarded exclusive rights to collect solid waste in specified
areas of the City through a franchise. The franchise ordinance
requires payment to the City of a three percent franchise fee based
on gross receipts of each company collected within the City and an
annual financial report to be filed by March 1 by each hauler.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The City of Tigard desires to retain a consultant to perform a
financial review of each franchised solid waste company operating
within the city. The report shall show individual company reviews
as well as an aggregate study. The scope of the review is as
follows:
o Review last three calendar years annual reports filed by
haulers and determine accuracy of reports.
o Determine cost allocation methods used to separate revenue and
expenses between service types and jurisdictions and report
whether allocations were correctly made based on methods used.
o Determine cost of service by type and frequency of service.
Identify the reasons for differences between haulers.
c Determine that correct amount was paid as franchise fee.
Report any discrepancies.
o Based on above information, review annual reporting form and:
o Evaluate adequacy of form;
o Recommend consistent cost allocation methods (i.e. ways
MEMO to consistently compute owners' compensation; disclose
related party transactions; efficiencies of service-
delivery, etc.);
o Examine system of replacement of capital items and report
reasonableness in light of industry standards; and
o Other recommendations the contractor may wish to submit.
o Prescribe method of computing pass through fee changes
throughout the rate schedule.
ATTACHMENT H
CIS' OF 7RIGARD
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
OBS~ ON'S
1. Overall return on revenue for 1990 of 12%
2. Commercial is subsidizing residential
3. Recyycling cost increases exceed increase in recycling reve--aaes
4. Revision of rate structure to generate-equal retu rn-waald mn -
major changes
a. residential would increase 24%
b. commercial woifld-decrease-28
c. rates would be substantially different than 'other
jurisdictions
~cxte71LGa and. LGAAt,GCL party oompensadon, which
averaged 10%n of total revenues for 1990, varied widely between
haulers
VRAM
6. The increase in dump fees creates a potential for higher return
without increases in levels of sen ice
HIM all
IMMI
i
CITY of ITGARD
SOLID AS DISPOSAL
REC0MlY1J NDAr 0 S
1. Address whether to have consistent rates of return for all
services
2. Consider factors in addition to return on revenues when settir. g
rates
3. Limit impact of pass-through cost increases such as dump fee;;
4. Encourage disciplined systein for ca€rtaring additional pick UP0
to ensure such unscheduled services are billed
~ s
.5. C.6ti' idar irnplerna ting iirmits to the. amount of labor costs to
owners and related parties that mi be claimed wiiffiin Lhe rate
of return calculation
f
epos-enhancements:
a. Set specific guidelines for allocation of costs between
jurisdictions and haulers to impro,%-e uniformity of repo r 'ng
b. Require use of depreciation guidelines
c. Combine recpcliug data with the related service line to
enhance understanding of combined. service one operations
CITY OF TIGARD
Franchised Mauler f'Inanclal Information (aggregate)
For the year ended December 31, 1990
Drep : RoaWontSal : TOtr1 ; Cerrunardd Told : lAedldN F,.
Vhxh. Bo>< F1aoM4nttal Hacyo6np 'Hs4ldennrq'' CatkMrefat fUe:yeSrip Conuswtdat 1wae9r Toa( „Ptno4titepa toanS~apa
Hawnuaa $1,023,x'0 $1,119,646 820,064 51,175,009 $1,621,100 862,466 01,079,067 Q4,t3D.t768 100.00% 100.0011
OryaraOnp Cewta:
Wages A W"Ilta 206,206 728.420 80,720 416,216 275.888 67,462 277.960 03,771 21.86% 20.99%
Fuel 24.066 20.776 6,700 20,106 21.426 6600 27.024 77,266 1.07% 3.17%
Al 66,757 68,766 31,349 120,107 74,071 15,884 60,696 279,790 6,77% 6,26%
0hpoodFa 466,019 901,967 1,006 303,346 462,106 642 462.846 1,221,007 20,66% 90,65%
Ftancnlo4 Fee 30,900 94.320 766 96,186 $6.817 069 60.770 122,266 2.00% 2.77%
767,%76 MM 129,244 609.021 627,307 16,420 803,727 2:004,007 03.04% 68.14%
Ills
wag" 6 00M6n LO.881 100,313 30,t3o 130,443 03,017 18,470 111,467 332,761 8.06% 6.6t%
OBba Evena. x6,128 31,296 6.312 43.647 32.446 CM 06,141 107,664 2.61% 2.23%
Tana A LSoansn 36.334 42.024 11.9% 63.069 38,827 6,025 47,062 137.200 3.32% 3.62%
Hunt 20,048 22,141 0,822 38,003 26,868 8,218 36.176 103,187 2.50% 1.60%
Doprocktlon 73,664 73,371 12.600 66,971 113,450 16,269 120,712 200,037 7.01% 4.66%
Saks sAdveMall 437 266 3,770 4,002 214 23 237 4,736 0.11% 0.31%
PtaleWonal Fa4a 9,480 11,200 2,086 14,264 11,611 2,346 13,656 1,602 30,112 0.96% 9.11%
Othw COOK'a n CO51a (1,014) 2,750 4,367 :,118 2,188 1,681 3,547 01049 0.24% 1.7096
261,306 200,420 $4,021 378.340 321,721 66.667 3600408 1.602 1,024.686 24.60% 21.04%
Not%Conw7(bao) (1137,036) $48,940 45104,101) (8147,761) 8772,181 (S782,BM 8080,622 ($1,602) $602,324 12.18% 0.02%
mO~..m.om.. mmmmmammmmm ...mmm.mmmm o....... Nmmm...... mmmmmmmmomm mmme.m«.mmm mmm....mmmm
Hato of Return
>'~,7'.1~► 4.16% 10.10% -167.609iM?`:6d.0460 ;:12id16
ms/.m~o~wm0 mm~~mm~~~.. ..mm....mo m~m~mm~~m~m mmm~m~mwmmm 1m.mmmmmmm0 mmm.... pmm wnumn.mmm
1
MOM
~Il # loom:
1 ~ ru .
•Yrd
city Revenues
-
Recycling C;Osts Vs
~jaulers
Aggregate All
34 .3
9n Thotasands
400
300
15
200 7 .6
100 9 27.3
9990
3
9989
0
1988 hosts
Revenues
City o Tigard
Collection Fee Comparison
(Unaudited)
Fee
$136
$120
$106
$9t1
f1:.yn
' will,
(2~ ;3:37{. ~r~.,'• :yf
IT"
~int: ~~•"`y "iSi"i
'iii:i _ •o~r " ~ :3,i
.1 Can 2 Cana 1 Cu Yd 2 Ct Yd 2N Cu Yd 30 Cu Yd
R sidonllal C~.tl,merolal Drop Box
Ava agn of Citi®n withln 76gard (711101) ` 19ard (976 r0turn)
.
Way Ington County
a 4K to -This emparlson dote not avempt to take Into oaradetallandiflersnnan
in setv£aa Ieveds that MY adst between DurdodIGIlM .
City of 71gard
Illustration of Different Rate of Return Analysis
Return of Revenue:
Company Company
A B
Total revenues $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Direct operating costs 700,000 700,000
Indirect cos}w 200,000 250.000
Net income $100,000 $5
Return on Revenue X10% 5%
Return on Eguity:
Company Company
-A
Assets $800.000 $800.000
Liabilities 300,000 600,000
Equity 00,000 200,
000
$800,000 $800.000
Return on Equity 220% 25%
1111111111, Emma= I
JIMMEM
City of 71gard
Mustration - 'ect of Dump Fee Increase
on Rate of Return
Kim Assume:
1) Targeted return on revenue of 107o
2) Increase in dump fees of $2009000
3) Pass through of dump fee increase in rates
4) No change in service level
Additional In-
After Pass crease to Provide
Before Dump Through of Dump for Return on After Addi-
Fee Increase Fee Increase Revenue of 10% tional Increase
Revenue 51,000,000 $1,200,000 522,000 $1,222,000
Direct operating costs 700,000 9001000 900,000
Indirect costs .200,000 200.000 200,000
Net income 5100,000 5100000 522.000 S122,000
Return on revenue L0% 83% 10%
C. '
EMEMEMMMM sim=
ATTACHMENT C
CURRENT RECYCLING SERVICES OFFERED IN 77GARD
y as of 01131192
ITEMS TO BE PLACED OUT MILLER'S PRIDE SCHMIDT'S
Newspaper x X X
Corrugated Cardboard x X X
Glass Bottles (sort by color) K X X
Tin (food cans only) X X X
Aluminum x X X
Motor Oll X X X
Milk Jugs X
Scrap Metals X
Magazines
Yard Debris
Plastic (1 through 7)
RECYCLING COMPARISON WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
as of 01131192
t ITEMS TO BE PLACED OUT TIGARD PORTLAND TUALATIN
$12.05 * $17.50 * $16.60
Newspaper x X X
gnaw Corrugated Cardboard x X X
s
Glass Bottles x X x
Tin /food cans only) X X X
Aluminum x X X
Motor Oil X X X
Milk Jugs x X
Scrap Metals x X
Magazines x X
Yard Debris x
Plastics (1-7)
* = Single residential can rate picked up once each week
C
IBM
ATTACHMENT D
OTONNELI, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATMRNBYS AT LAW
SAUOW do WRM14T BVIIDING
1717 N.W. Hoyt Sa-w
Portland, OreW 97209
TELEPHONE: (aw) 222-4402
- FAX: (503) 243.2944
DATE: February 4, 1992
TOt Mayor and Tigard City Council
FROMt James M. Coleman, City Attorneyts Office
REt confidentiality of Records Related to Solid Waste Rate
getting
A new section was added to the Solid Waste Franchise as a result
of the amendments that the Council recently enacted, Section
11.04.065 deals with franchisee financial records and requires tha
franchisee to make such records available to the City for audit or ,
review. Subsection (b) of that section includes the following
provision:
"The City shall maintain the confidentiality of such
records to the extent allowed by the Oregon Public
Records Law."
The franchisees have made their financial records -available to
Coopers & Lybrand, who has performed a review of solid waste
disposal services and provided that document to the City. Much of
the information disclosed to Coopers G Lybrand, and included in
tiioir review document, constitutes records which qualify for
exemptions from disclosure pursuant to the Oregon Public Records
Law. The records constitute trade secrete and are, therefore,
exempt from public inspection pursuant to on 193.501(2) and ORS
192.502(S). The latter exemption applies because much of the
information constitutes a trade secret as defined in the Oregon
Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to ORS 646.475. The information
also includes business reoorda zu mittod -o a loverrnmental body to
allow determination of fees and is exempt pursuant to ORS
192.501(5), and information submitted to the City in confidence and
not otherwise required by law to be submitted and is exempt
pursuant to ORS 192.502(3).
The City, through the referenced City Code provision, has obligated
itself to maintain t% .e confidentiality of the records to the extent
allowed by the Public Records Law. To the extent that the Coopers
& Lybrand document is discussed during a public meeting, it should
be only discussed during an executive seseion held pursuant to ORS
192.660(1)(f). That provision of the Public Meetings Law allows
r
O'DONNI~U, RAMIE, CREW & CORRIGAN
Memo re: Confidentiality of Records Related to Solid Waste Rate
setting
February d, 1992
Page 2
the Council to consider public records during an executive session
that, are exempt by law from public disclosure.
The City Council will be receiving some information concerning the
solid waste rate regulation issue during meetings which are public,
The council will also receive documents which are public records
aubject to public inspection in the course of its deliberations on
this issue. All of those matters are appropriately discussed
during the public meetings.
Howrever, the information: contained in the solid waste review
document presented by Coopers & Lybrand is exempt from public
inspection Psnd must remain confidential. During the public
discussion on the rate regulation :Ratters, the information which
constitutes exempt public records contained in the Coopers &
Lybrand document must not, be di :uuesea nor disclosed without the
prior agreement of the franchisees,
If at any point during the Council's consideration of this matter
any member of the Council is not clear as to whether a particular
picas of information can be disclosed, that question should be
referred to the City's legal counsel in attendance at the meeting.
The City staff will be preparing an administrative rule in the
future which note forth with some .particularity the types of
information which is confidential under the Public Records lAw and
will describe the limitations on disclosure of that information.
.'SIC: dd
2~4J92
S4-u
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Pat Reilly, City Administrator January 30, 1992
FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Utility Undergrounding Policy
1
This is a summary of the issues regarding undergrounding of
utilities as a condition of development, as discussed at the
Council study session on January 28th. As a result of issues
ffim raised recently by several developers and by Portland General
Electric (PGE), we are requesting Council policy direction in
interpretation of the Community Development Code (CDC).
In general, there is full agreement that undergrounding is required
where new utilities are installed in new subdivisions or where new
utility services are installed to new buildings. Also, the CDC is
clear that undergrounding is not required for high voltage power
lines such as those along Pacific Highway.
Where question has arisen is regarding the undergrounding of
existing overhead utility lines along the frontage of new
developments. This is a growing issue as an increasing portion of
development is in-fill development in areas with existing streets
and utilities.
Existing Code
CDC Chapter 18.164 provides the standards for street and utility
improvements for subdivisions and other development. Section
18.164.120 requires that all utility lines be placed underground
except for electric lines operating at 50,000 volts and above.
Historically, staff has interpreted 18.164.120 to require the
undergrounding of existing utilities along the frontage of existing
streets abutting new developments, in the same areas where half-
street improvements are required. This requirement has been waived
only where the development frontage was too short to practically
accommodate undergrounding or (in a few cases) where the final
development decision unintentionally omitted the undergrounding
requirement.
Others read the CDC to require undergrounding only for new utility
lines. Since 18.164.120 refers to "subdivider" in some of its
conditions, some interpret the undergrounding requirements to apply
only to subdivisions and not to Site Development Review projects.
Clarification is needed.
Reasons for Underaroundina
There are some safety reasons for undergrounding of power, phone,
and cable TV lines. Undergrounding re.',..ices the number of poles
along the streets and sidewalks. It reduces the chance of
accidental contact with power lines. And it reduces the chance of
storm damage to the lines.
However, the primary reason for requiring undergrounding is
probably aesthetic.
Arguments for Underaroundina
Placing lines underground at the time of development avoids a
number of problems for the City and for property owners. If
undergrounding occurs after development is complete, costs are
generally higher due to the need to disrupt established streets,
sidewalks, grading and landscaping. If lines are undergrounded at
the time of street improvements, utilities usually share in the
cost of undergrounding, since they are avoiding the cost of
relocating existing poles. If undergrounding occurs later, the
total cost will be borne by the City and/or the property owners.
If undergrounding occurs at the time of development, the costs are
borne by the developer. If the undergrounding is deferred to a
later date, it would probably be necessary to form a local
rr' improvement district to fund the undergrounding or to pay for the
l_ undergrounding out of citywide funds.
Arguments against Underaroundina
Developers object to undergrounding primarily because of the costs.
The costs vary according to the type and number of lines involved.
In general, major utility feeder lines exist along arterial and
collector streets and cost more to underground than the service
lines on local streets. In some cases, the undergrounding can cost
nearly as much as the half-street improvements.
PGE objects to undergrounding in segments of less than a quarter
mile. Undergrounding of short segments, while remaining segments
remain overhead, causes a variety of technical problems for PGE and
frequently requires the installation of additional equipment and
poles at the transitions from overhead to underground.
In many areas, the overhead utilities share poles on one side of
the street. If you develop on the side with no poles, you only
have to pay for, an underground service line. If you develop on the
side with existing overhead lines, you may have to pay for the much
greater cost of undergrounding major feeder lines for power, phone,
and cable. This creates an apparent inequity.
C Council Action Requested
We request Council policy direction in interpretation of the
existing CDC or modification of the CDC requirements. With general
policy direction, staff can prepare a formal revision to the CDC to
clarify the undergrounding requirements. The formal revision would
be brought back for Council consideratio.: at a later date. In the
meantime, we could administratively apply the Council policy
direction in interpretation of the existing CDC provisions.
Alternatives
Possible alternatives include:
• Continue to require undergrounding along the frontage of all
developments.
• Exempt developments with frontages of less than a quarter mile
(1320 feet).
• Exempt developments where the street width and curbs are
already constructed to City standards (as suggested in the
attached letter from Spieker Partners).
• Accept a waiver of remonstrance against a future LID for
undergrounding.
• Establish an undergrounding fee to cover the future costs of
undergrounding. This fee could be paid at the time of
C development by properties on both sides of the street,
regardless of the location of overhead lines. We would need
to investigate the legal complexities of establishing such a
fee.
• Require undergrounding only in locations where new utilities
are being installed.
Recommendation
There are benefits to undergrounding of utilities. However; if
undergrounding only occurs for short distances along infill
development, the benefits appear to be quite limited, the costs are
high, and some technical problems exist. So, I recommend that
projects with short frontages with existing overhead utilities be
exempted from the undergrounding requirement.
New subdivisions and major street projects would still be required
to install underground utilities. A private development with an
extensive frontage would still be required to underground existing
utilities along the frontage. Staff would work with the utilities
to develop some appropriate criteria for defining when a project
becomes large enough to warrant undergrounding of existing
utilities. The criteria could then be adopted as part of the CDC.
rw/ug-utl
5550 S.W. Macadam Avenue, Sidle 300
Portland, OR 97201
P.O. Box 5909
Portland, OR 97228-5909
503 221-5700 Q(} SPIEKER
FAX: 503 221 8627 I {1 v
® ,
ViNg n'&02
January 22, 1992 01" of. -T1GARD
City of Tigard
Attention: Randy Wooley, City Engineer
P.O. Box 23397
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Placement of Portland General Electric Power Lines
Underground Along S.W. 72nd Avenue
Dear Randy:
I understand that you will soon discuss with City Council the policy implications of applying
Section 18.164.120 of the Development Code to site developments which front on improved
streets. Please submit this letter to the Council, along with your comments.
This issue was raised with respect to the current phase of our Nelson Business Center, which
fronts on S.W. 72nd, north of S.W. Bonita Road. Our Site Design Review approval recognized
that S.W. 72nd Avenue was constructed to its full standard, except for sidewalks, and our
project was conditioned to install sidewalks along our frontage. During the building permit
process, John Hagman notified our engineer that we would also be required to place the existing
a PGE power line underground, based on Section 18.164.120 of the Code.
Our subsequent research indicated that PGE does not favor placing this section of power line
underground. Further, neither our previous phase of Nelson Business Center nor the PacTrust
project south of S.W. Bonita Road were required to place their respective sections of this power
line underground. If this is required of our current project, it will be the only section
underground in this area.
From a policy standpoint, I believe that Section 18.164.120 was drafted to address the
construction of new streets in subdivisions. Although it could be interpreted to apply to all cases
where building permits are required, I do not believe that this has been the case in the past, and
in particular, not in cases where the abutting street has already been improved to City standards.
If this code section is rigidly interpreted, property owners will be faced with a choice of either
huge costs for placing power lines underground in existing improved streets, or applying for
variances on a case-by-case basis. Neither alternative is appropriate.
3
!i
i
City of T igard January 22, 1992
i
It would be appropriate for the City Council to indicate that it is the City policy to require power
lines to be placed underground where streets are improved to City standard as part of a project, h
but not in cases where the ultimate travel lanes and curb line are already established.
i
Please let me know when the Council will be considering this matter.
Thank you for your assistance. 1
Sincerely,
1
SPiEKER PARTNERS
"hn B. Souther, Jr. f
Partner
JRS: nn
cc: Pat Reilly - City Administrator
Lans Stout - Mackenzie/Saito & Associates
i
i
I
S
t
i
air=
V {fit Ca-
Morning ~t U~ a ! c,
Fill Homeowners Association
F.O. Box 230433 .Z) it /1, Tigard, Oregon 97223 c/
We, the undersigned property owners and residents of Tigard, Oregon, residing in a
Morning Hill development areas six, seven and eight;
Do hereby petition the City of Tigard to change the following two street names from
their present designation to S.W. Benish:
1) S.W. Hart Street between 133rd Avenue and 135th Avenue
2) S.W. Toland Street between Morning Hill Drive and 133rd Avenue.
Purpose
1) To make a continuous street for purposes of identification. Presently these three
streets are only two or three lots in length. Benish is the longest.
2) Safety of location. Confusion exists with Hart Road in Beaverton which also
has a cross street of 135th Avenue. Emergency vehicles have responded to
the Beaverton location by mistake.
N me Street Address Phone
Y/Ak
13Z 1"4
A~y
I3A p3 -S,4 L I -D Lt _-)PS 5
13,11-3
ra36, 0 CvPo
Zia e-D
l
=0 21,
low
MIN
Mbrn!ng Hill omeo:vI Assaci atiorm 2
P.O. Box 230433
Tigard. Oregon 97223
We, the undersigned property owners and residents of Tigard, Oregon, residing in
Morning Hill development areas six, seven and eight;
Do hereby petition the City of Tigard to change the following two street names from
their present designation to S.W. Benish:
1) S.W. Hart Street between 133rd Avenue and 135th Avenue
2) S `.J. Toland Street between Mon-ting Hill Drive and 133rd Avenue.
Sam
Purpose
1) a o make a continuous street for purposes of identification. Presently these three
streets are only two or three lots in length. Benish is the longest.
2) Safety of location. Confusion exists with Hart Road in Beaverton which also
has a cross street of 135th Avenue. Emergency vehicles have responded to
the Beaverton location by mistake.
i
Name Street Address Phone ~
UU~}~7 c (1713" f'uJ ,S2 y-e AZ
10rosw l' ire dr. - ~r - Say S7 s'7
f4ri'A JJg3~SW ~'JB~~1;L~,gl~~I~r~n~mil 5"zy-VUZ
a 1A p>4,d~ AA _ 1111-0 -w tvzQV-I n r J • Il I~ z4 g-BB9
If9si- -5-W /r1csrarc► l7'+'IJ J3- S'24---D?R9
f 33 Z~ 1„~ jut fri pr. (azy - 7733
f33~ 7 1,cc~ ~~4P/6
L 1 13 ?al se'uvm 44r►•_r7 it L 2
r
13q fGs/ ~GafS 16r,4P 91- 35-(0375'
~~t"l~~o S LJ SCa,~tS `7~ of COY ~ y a
C ll+; .1 9 13 3-G S-, ~r~ 13,;'1..._ /p•
Morning Hill Homeowners Association 3
P.O. Box 230433
Tigard, Oregon 97223
- We, the undersigned property owners and residents of Tigard, Oregon, residing in
Morning Hill development areas six, seven and eight;
Do hereby petition the City of Tigard to change the following two street namees from
their present designation to S.W. Benish:
1) S.W. Hart Street between 133rd Avenue and 135th Avenue
2) S.W. Toland Street between Morning Hill Drive and 133rd Avenue. -
Purpose
1) To make a continuous street for purposes of identification. Presently these three
streets are only two or three lots in length. Benish is the longest.
2) Safety of location. Confusion exists with Hart Road in Beaverton which also
has a cross street of 135th Avenue. Emergency vehicles have responded to
the Beaverton location by mistake.
Name Street Address `Phone
132,3Z-:>L0 7 C AA51WDG L, --?)q GS
D-i
►v
l 2 S 5: ~ 3~ `3(4 is
2L *?j A *1 V 4 A/ SO Z'
v --2 3Su-) ~Vf) U~ ~
/2 3 S. w~ 3~-r - 6ZL 1
5V':~,L 6~_U ill n e ~ ~ ~ 1 5c 13~ C kS 4 -)1
i 2 S w 13 C I" f,~ Sr y- i 7 4
<<q9S stJ W"Ce- 4? 52,i 331`4
(cl 1 s L, 6 ! Ioc-/L.I ~~f 4 01b- t/IC . 5-z T - J I SV
Moming Rill Homeowners Association
Q.O. Box 230433
Tigard. Oregon 97223
We, the undersigned property owners and residents of Tigard, Oregon, residing in
Morning Hill development areas six, seven and eight;
Do hereby petition the City of Tigard to change the following two street names from
their present designation to S.W. Benish:
1) S.W. Hart Street between 133rd Avenue and 135th Avenue
2) S .W. Toland Street between Morning Hill Drive and 133rd Avenue.
Purpose
1) To make a continuous street for purposes of identification. Presently these three
streets are only two or three lots in length. Benish is the longest.
2) Safety of location. Confusion exists with Hart Road in Beaverton which also
has a cross street of 135th Avenue. Emergency vehicles have responded to
the Beaverton location by mistake.
Naq)d Street Address Phone
, LL1713'. e~l/ 6-z51-,576-7
~ u % i 5 (c Est f: r~r; y3 _ W y "1
f~ !
C_ COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Li
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council /
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: February 3, 1992
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, February - April 192
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally
OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council
Calendars.
February 192
11 Tue Council Meeting
REM Nam
Workshop w/Solid Waste Advisory Committee (5:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
17 Mon Presidents' Day (City Hall Ofcs. Closed)
18 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
Workshop with Planning Commission (6:30)
Metro Presentation - 2040 Plan (8:30)
25 Tue Council Meeting
Discussion with Gary Bullard (5:30)
Update from TVEDC - Mary Tobias (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
March '92
10 Tue Council Meeting
Workshop Meeting with Park Board (5:30)
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
17 Tue Council Study Meeting (0:30)
Update from TVRFPD
24 Tue Board and Committee Interviews (5:30) r
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
April 192
14 Tue Council Meeting
Workshop with Library Board (5:30)
Council Studv Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
- Oath of Office - New Council Member
21 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
28 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
C Council Business Meeting (7:30)
h:\login\cathy\cccal
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
(Local Contract Review Board)
AGENDA OF: February 11, 1992 _ DATE SUBMITTED: January 3u, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to /PREVIOUS ACTION:
advertise for bids on CIP projects 11,4,4
PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL -
Shall the LCRB authorize advertise ent for bids on certain Capital
Improvement Program projects?
-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids on the projects listed
below.
INFORMATION SUMMARY -
In accordance with the City's purchasing rules, authorization is requested to
advertise for construction bids on the following projects:
Bonita/Hall traffic signal
Major pavement maintenance
\ Pathways near Metzger School
97th Avenue Bikeways
Budgets for these projects were previously approved by Council. The signal
and pavement maintenance projects are part of the FY 91-92 Streets CIP
approved by the Council in October 1991. The pathway project is part of a
CDBG project approved by the Council in April 1991. The bikeway project
involves a state grant accepted by the Council in March 1991.
After construction bids are received, LCRB review will again be required
prior to awarding a contract on each project.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
FISCAL NOTES
rw/agenda
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Feb. 11, 1992 D SUBMITTED: JAN. 29, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: New easement IOUS ACTION: None
for an existing sewer ARED BY: Greg Berry ga
DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the sewer easement described in Exhibit "A" be extinguished?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the resolution authorizing that the easement be
extinguished.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Currently, there are two easements for a City sewer within a vacated
portion of SW Locust St. The first was created by Washington County in
a 1972 instrument that vacated a portion of Locust St. containing the
sewer. Another easement for the sewer was granted to the Unified
Sewerage District in 1984 but contained a mistake in the legal
description. The owner has submitted an adequate easement for the sewer
to the City and requests that the two previous easements be extinguished
y in exchange.
The attached resolution will allow the easement to be legally
t extinguished.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize the City Administrator to sign the easement
extinguishment.
2. Deny authorization of the easement extinguishment.
MUM
FISCAL NOTES
No additional expenses are expected.
t i
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
C41%)KNtaQ-tL ~r4b fe-~N COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: Januarys 28, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: 1/15/92
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Wise Annex. REVIOUS ACTION: None +
ZCA 91-0019 Zone Change AnnexatVcvHf
PREPARED BY: Victor Adonri
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADM IN OK QUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
PAM
ISSUE B E THE COUNCIL
Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of a parcel consisting
of approximately 0.95 acre located at 12287 SW Lansdowne Lane to the
Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the
Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designation to the property in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This annexation request consists of a parcel totaling 0.95 acre that is
contiguous to the City of Tigard on Lansdowne Lane. The owners of the
property requested annexation in order to obtain sanitary sewer service.
Attached is a resolution to forward the annexation request as well as an
ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-6 to City of
Tigard R-4.5 in conformance with the City's Urban Planning Area Agreement with
Washington County. There has been no response from neighboring property
C owners. Also attached is a vicinity map and staff report.
Although it would be desirable from a policing standpoint to ultimately annex
Tippitt Place, at this time those property owners apparently are not interested
in being anntrxed, and the City has no means to require annexation. Although
the Wise annexation request could be "saved" and used as part of a double
majority method at a later time, it does not seem likely that there would be
enough interest to use a double majority method to annex Tippitt Place in the
near future.
It should be noted that Tippitt Place is already within the large
unincorporated "Walnut Island", and as such, could be annexed by "island method
at any time.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to
the Boundary Commission and to assign plan and zone designations to the
property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL NOTES
The City of Tigard will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $140 for annexation.
The current tax assessment is $88,190. The City couuld increase its tax base
by approximately $165.00 (Assessed value multiplied by City tax base portion
of tax rate of $1.87/1000 as of 1/1/90 = $164.92).
C a
va/2CA91-19.3um
l
I
OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATTORNEYSIT LAW j
BALLOV& WRIGHTBUTLDING
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97709
1
TELEPHONE:(503) 2224402
FAX:(503) 243-2944 i
i
PLEASEREPLYrO PORTLANDDFFICE
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
.'s
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONSIST OF ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED BELOW. IF THE READER OF
THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO
DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF T141S COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND
RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.
THANK YOU. '
DATE: February 10, 1992 CLIENT NO.: 90024-04
TO: Patrick Reilly
City Manager
FAX (503) 684-7297
Phone (503) 697-4171 Ext. 317
FROM: Kenneth M. Elliott, Esq.
FAX # (503) 243-2944
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: Me:norandum.re: Enforcment of
Nonremonstrance Agreement between J. Allan Patterson and City of
Tigard.
COMMENTS:
3 PAGES TO FOLLOW, EXCLUDING COVER SHEET.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE UNDERSIGNED
AT (503) 222-4402 IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
SIGNED: Nancy Kyker, Secretary
pN ORTGINAUS BEINGMAILED: x AN ORIGINA11S AVAR ABLUPONREQUEST:
't
lI1
• OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATTORNEY8I.T LAW
BALLOV& WRIGHTBUILDING
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
TELEPHONE-(503) 222-4402
FAX: (503) 243-2944
DATE: February 10, 1992
TO: Patrick Reilly, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth M. Elliott, City Attorney's Offic
RE: Enforcement of Nonremonstrance Agreement be een J. Allan
Patterson and City of Tigard.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the City enforce a sanitary sewer contract it entered into with
J. Allan Patterson, which included a nonremonstrance against
annexation clause, against purchasers of land from Patterson where
the contract is unrecorded?
ANSWER
No.
FACTS AND DISCUSSIONS
On October 15, 1975, City of Tigard entered into an agreement with
the unified sewerage agency of Washington County and J. Allan
Patterson to provide sewer service to his land outside the city.
Paragraph 3 of the agreement provides as follows:
"As a condition of the use of the City's sewer
trunk lines, owner does hereby consent to the
annexation of the owner's land to the City of
Tigard, and an order may be entered at any
- time without notice by the Metropolitan
Boundary Review Commission as annexing the
land described in said Exhibit "A".
This agreement was never recorded in the Washington County deed
records.
It is our opinion that the nonremonstrance agreement may not be
enforced against purchasers of lots from Patterson because they had
no notice of the nonremonstrance agreement.
O'DONNELL, RAMS, CREW & CORRIGAN
i Memo re: Enforcement of Nonremonstrance Agreement between J. Allan
Patterson and City of Tigard.
February 10, 1992
Page 2
own
The City could enforce the agreement against subsequent purchasers
if they had constructive notice of the agreement. Gail C. Englert
of our office tells me that title companies would not make a search
of city planning files for such an agreement. Moreover, the only
search they would make of city records would be the city°s lien
docket and then the title companies would pick up only monetary
liens. There is little reason to believe that title companies
would have looked for or found this contract so that subsequent
purchasers would have been on notice of it.
In conclusion, since there is no evidence that the subsequent
purchasers were on notice of this agreement, the city may not
enforce the nonremonstrance agreement against them.
I have attached a memorandum dated January 12, 1984 from Adrianne
Brockman to the city regarding the enforceability of
nonremonstrance agreements. The memo points up the importance of
recording these agreements if they are to have any legal effect.
c-: Timothy V. Ramis, Esq.
Attachment
kme\9WZ414\re111mcr.mem
'O'DONNELL. ')ATE January 12, 1984
SULLIVAN & RAMIS !
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1727 N.W. HOYT STREET To Bob Jean, Frank Currie & Bill Monahan
PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
15031222.4402 FROM Adrianne Brockman
RE: Nonremonstrance Agreements
Mom
You have asked me to review a number of nonremonstrance agreements.
Recently, you have asked me to review a form entitled "Consent
to Annex to the City of Tigard and Waiver of Right of Remonstrance."
The purpose of this memorandum is to raise what may be legal
defects with this process and to recommend that nonremonstrance
agreements be used as a last alternative. You should understand
that I am not signing to the effect that a nonremonstrance
agreement is legally enforceable when I sign it as to form, but
rather that it is proper as to form. The question is whether
nonremonstrance agreements are legally enforceable and, in fact,
I am of the opinion that they absolutely are not enforceable if
they are not recorded. The following are the issues which I see.
You may wish to direct us to research the matter, but I want to
caution you that it will be time-consuming because this issue
has not been litigated, yet. It has not been litigated because
jurisdictions have "backed off" when it has come to the doorstep
of litigation. The issues are:
1. Is the right to remonstrate a "right to vote?"
Certainly it has that effect because if the people
owning 66% of the property object to the project,
~A it is dead for at least six months. So, the right
to object is, in fact, a right to vote.
2. If the right to remonstrate is a "right to vote,"
under the U. S. and state constitutions can the
city hold services, etc. as a hostage until the
property owner relinquishes or signs away the
a right to vote?; and
3. Under the constitution can you enforce a contract
with someone whereby the person has contracted away
their constitutional right to vote?
4. Assuming the nonremonstrance agreement process is
legal with regard to the person who signs the
agreement, can I take away the right of some future
owner's right to remonstrate? That is, if I sign
an agreement, can I bind the purchaser of-my property
to a nonremonstrance agreement?
Hopefully, the above questions will assist you to see the possible
problems. Therefore, the city should not rely on the remonstrance
agreement as being anything more than a bluff. I am not suggesting
that you do away with the process because it may be legal. Rather,
you should use it but be conscious that we may not be able to
enforce it.
AB:mch
1/12/84
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ~b
j • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
1/28/92 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: -Brrri~ex` i-993 DATE SUBMITTED: December 9, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Fence Regulation PREVIOUS ACTION: Plannina Commission
Amendments 11A f /f Recommendation of November 4, 1991
t / PREPARED BY: _DickBewers_dorff
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
IS UE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The main issue is whether the City should amend its current regulations to allow higher than
three foot high fences in front yards. And if so, should these taller fences be allowed
outright for all front yards, or just those which abut a collector or arterial street?
-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The current regulations regarding fences should be changed in two ways:
1. Front yard fences should be allowed to be higher than the existing limit of three feet
when the front yard abuts a collector or arterial street, thereby eliminating the need
to request a variance; and
2. The standards relating to vision clearance and special setbacks on street side yards
should be changed to improve safety and eliminate a 'nuisance" strip of land.
Staff believes that changing the regulations as proposed would streamline the development
process by eliminating the need for a variance and afford added privacy to those homes facing
busy streets. Yet, the regulations would still address the voiced concerns of avoiding
'walls', keeping the sense of community, maintaining an attractive appearance and assisting
with police and community surveillance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The issue of fence heights was discussed by the City Council and staff in a meeting on July
16th. At that time, staff was suggesting modifying the fence height regulations for front
yards fences along arterials and collectors, with the idea that the City Codes discourage any
new houses fronting on these streets.
r The Council indicated support for changing the current regulations, and suggested that they
C would be supportive of allowing up to eight foot high fences not only for those houses
fronting a major street, but for any front yard. It was decided to go to the NPO's and
Planning Commission for advice, and to return the issue to the City Council at a public
hearing.
The NPO's were split on the issue, with NPO's 4, 6, and 7 favoring limiting the front yard
fence height to three or four feet; and NPO's 3 and 5 favoring allowing six or eight feet
high front yard fences.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue on September 26th, and voted in favor of
recommending allowing up to six foot high front yard fences along arterials and collectors
(as opposed to the staff recommendation of eight foot), and keeping the current standard of
three feet high front yard fences in all other locations.
In any case, the building code requirement for obtaining a building permit for any fence over
six feet in height would remain the same.
The Planning Commission also recommends the other changes proposed by staff.
-
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Leave the fence regulations as they are currently written (three, foot maximum for front
yard fences, except for the other proposed minor changes.
2. Amend the fence regulations as proposed by the Planning Commission, allowing up to six
foot high fences in front yards along arterials and collectors, and making other minor
changes. This alternative is attached as Ordinance A.
3. Amend the fence regulations to allow up to eight foot high fences in any yard area,
including front yards, as originally favored by the City Council in the July workshop.
This alternative is attached as Ordinance B.
4. Amend the fence regulations to allow up to eight foot high fences in front yards along
arterials and collectors, as proposed by staff, Nc crdi:arce is attached, but it would
be e yr
------_-,,--------as-Ordinance-A with the one change in height.
FISCAL NOTES
Minor fiscal impact ...may not collect as much in fees for variances to the fence height
limitations.
Ed/Fencel.Sum
i
EXHIBIT "B"
C 18.100.090 Setbacks-for-Fences of Walls
A. No fence or wall shall be constructed which exceeds the I
standards in Subsection 18.100.090.8. except when the
approval authority, as a condition of approval, allow
that a fence or wall be constructed to a height greater
than otherwise permitted in order to mitigate against
potential adverse effects.
B. Fences and walls may be permitted in any required yard or
up to the property line provided that no fence or wall
shall exceed eight feet in height. For any fence over
three feet in height in the required front yard area
Permission shall be subject to administrative review of
the location of the fence or wall.
[B.] C. Fences or walls: All fences or walls shall meet the
clear vision area requirements Chapter 18.102).
r
[1. May not exceed three feet in height in a required
front yard or six feet on a corner side yard or
eight feet in all other locations and, in all
cases, shall meet vision clearance area
requirements (Chapter 18.102);
C 2. Are permitted outright in side yards or rear yards
to a height of six feet;
3. Located in a side or rear yard and which are
between six feet and eight feet in height shall be
subject tc building permit approval;
4. Located in the front yard or corner side yard and
which exceed the height limitation shall comply
with the setback requirements for structures set
forth in the applicable zone; or
5. Located within a corner side shall be, no closer
than two feet from the property line, and shall
satisfy visual clearance requirements. (Ord. 89-06;
Ord. 85-14; Ord. 83-52)]
D. All fences or walls greater than six feet in height shall
be subject to building permit approval
18.102.020 Visual Clearance: Required
C. Where the crest of a hill or vertical curve conditions
contribute to the obstruction of clear vision area at a
street or driveway intersection, hedges, nlantin_nc_
fences, walls, wall structures and temporary or
C permanent obstructions shall be further reduced in heicrht
or eliminated to comply with the intent of the required
clear vision area.
e City Council on the application. The City Council will /hholdat ing on th
is application before making a final decision.
o Asso ' to Planner Jerry Offer indicated on the wall map the and r ted area. He distributed copies of 3 letters recei
pertain to this its. These letters were from Garry P, cMurry,
attorney resenting the owners of Tax Lot 101; Don Mo ette Homes,
Inc.; anu F. Worley, NPO #4 (see Exhibit B).
He provided hi rical background advising that th alignment of the
Murray Boulevar tension was changed in 1988 f what it had been in
1986 when the 5 ac area was designated as Nei` orhood Commercial Zone.
He advised that staff vored delaying a de ion on this application
until boundaries of the 'te have been rec figured and designated,
especially in light of the ew informati submitted in support of the
application. He requested ontinuanc ntil the meeting on December
16, 1991.
After discussion, Commissioners a essed agreement in favor of
continuing the hearing to Decemb 1991.
APPLICANT'S COMMENTS
o John Schonkwiler, attorne epresenting pro rty owner Margery Crist,
said he was in favor of ntinuance.
o Garry McMurray, 43 nj. Franklin Plaza, Portla Oregon, 97258,
representing prop y owner Scott Russell, advised favored continuing
the hearing.
* Commissioner. stile moved and Commissioner Moore secon to continue
the hearin o December 16, 1991. Motion carried by unani s vote of
Commissio s present.
MEETING RED D - 8:05 PM
MEETIN CONVENED - 8:15 PM
5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0003 A proposal to consider amending
the Community Development Code Chapter 18.100.090 Setbacks for Fences or
Walls to allow fences up to eight feet in height in front yards along
designated arterial and collector streets excluding clear vision areas;
and to amend vision clearance requirements Chapter 18.102.101 (C) to
address topography and vertical curve situations.
o Senior Planner Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the issues which involved
height of fences in front yards, current setbacks, and clear vision
problems. He elaborated on each of these issues He discussed the uses of fences. He exp1 wined that the staff's proposals would make the
regulations more flexible.
PLANNING COMRtISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1991 PAGE 2
i
o Commissioner Fessler raised the issue of living fences, and-Senior
Planner advised these would not be covered by the fence Code.
o Commissioner Castile noted there was an area with arborvitae obstructing
clear vision along SW McDonald. Discussion followed concerning the
regulations governing clear vision areas.
t
PUDL16 it TEST iMONIT
o Herman Porter spoke on behalf of NPO #3 stating they approved of the
proposed amendment with one restriction. They suggested that at an
intersection with a side street on a hill going up to an arterial or
collector, that the height of the fence or hedge be measured from the
bottom of the 30 feet. Further, they recommended that where there is a
stop sign, that the height of the fence be measured at the stop sign.
o Gill Gross, 3019 SW Hampshire, Portland, Oregon, stated he is a member
of NPO V. He spoke in support of the proposed amendments. He noted
there was no consensus among the NPOs regarding fence regulations. He
favored limiting front yard fences to 4 or 5 feet as opposed to 8 feet
in height.
REBUTTAL
MEN
o Senior Planner commented that from the staff's point of view, it is
C easier not to regulate the height of fences, but it is a matter of
community choice. He reviewed the needs for privacy and noise control
on minor collectors.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
o Commissioner Saxton favored higher fences on arterials and eliminating
the 2 foot setback requirement. He did not see a need to regulate the
front fence height except for clear vision areas.
o Commissioner Moore favored eliminating the 2 foot setback, and he was
not opposed to the 8 foot height.
o Commissioner Hawley expressed concern about encouraging a walled
community, but she did not favor restricting front yard fence height.
She indicated she had not decided on the issue of the 2 foot setback.
o Commissioner Boone was opposed to regulating fence heights in general,
and he noted height should be determined by topography rather than
regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1991 PAGE 3
o 'Commissioner Fessler discussed the increasing need in some neighborhoods
to mitigate the traffic noise. She said this seemed to be an indication
that too few streets are doing too much work. Regarding the setback
issue, she pointed out the difficulties in establishing property lines
and said that right-of-ways are sometimes unclear. She favored limiting
the fence height to 5 feet on a major collector. She expressed concern
about security problems, where a high fence could help burglars go
undetected.
o Commissioner Saporta was opposed to allowing 8 foot height, but he
thought 6 feet was maximum acceptable. He expressed concern about the
aesthetics and the possibility of a walled community developing.
o Commissioner Castile stated that 5 feet was his preference for height
limit of front yard fences.
o Commissioner Barber favored eliminating the 2 foot setback. She did not
agree that there would necessarily be a security problem involved with
higher fences.
o Discussion followed concerning the living fences, hedges, and trees; and
Senior Planner explained how these are regulated with regard to clear
vision area.
* Commissioner Hawley moved and Commissioner Moore seconded to recommend
to City Council to approve amendment to the Community Development Code
Chapter 18.100.090 revising of the City's fence regulations as per
staff's recommendations, except item B. (2.) will be to allow fences "up
to six feet in height in front yards adjacent to any designated
arterial, mayor co ector or minor collector street" excluding clear
vision areas.
Discussion followed regarding fence heights in rear and side yards.
Living fences were discussed further. Consensus was that living fences
should be excluded from the fence code.
Motion passed by majority vote of Commissioners present, with
Commissioner Boone voting "No." Commissioner Hawley abstained.
5.3 INANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0004 A proposal to con amending
the Coin velopment Code pertaining to Tempor gns (Ch.
18.114.100); an . . .ons (Ch. 18.114.015 proposal amendments
will limit the number o ry sig. usiness to one with a
maximum of 35 square feet of a Dire a permit for all temporary
signs; limit temporary si its t 'ssued for periods no longer
than 30 days and fob aximum of three s per calendar year and
include all tem a signs (banners, rigid, wa be within the same
cl assi fi catar.
C
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4, 1991 PAGE 4
alum
i
Council Agenda Item
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1991
• Meeting was called to order at 5:41 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie
Johnson and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly,
City Administrator; John Acker, Associate Planner, Ron Bunch,
Senior Planner; Loreen Edin, Administrative Services/Risk
Manager; Ken Elliott, Legal Counsel; Ron Goodpaster, Chief of
Police; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy, Community
Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Relations
Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy
Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
WATER STUDY PROPOSAL: Staff members Pat Reilly, John Acker and
Loreen Edin reviewed the top three proposals for a water system
study. After discussion and reviewing the elements of the
proposals, council consensus was for staff to perform reference
checks on two firms James M. Montgomery and Murray, Smith &
Associates.
TRIANGLE STUDY: Ed Murphy reviewed this item as proposed in
Consent Agenda 3.5. The study would conduct a land use analysis of
the Tigard Triangle that may result in proposed changes -to the
current Comprehensive Plan. This planning effort will further the
Council's goal of "promoting a balanced economy and enhancing the
vitality of the community, creating a stronger sense of identity
and strengthening the quality of interaction with citizens."
Last fall, the Benkendorf Associates corporation was selected by
staff as being best able to complete the desired work. After
discussion, Council consensus was for concurrence with the staff's
recommendation to enter into a contract with the Benkendorf
Associates for services to create a Master Plan for the Tigard
Triangle as outlined in the Scope of Work.
FENCE PERMIT: Staff members Ed Murphy and Dick Bewersdorff
reviewed a staff memorandum overviewing the proposal to change the
Development Code with regard to fences. Development Code
regulations restrict fences and walls in a required front yard to
three feet in height. A change to the height regulation, along
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1991 - PAGE 1
with other minor modifications to the Code relating to fence
locations and heights are being proposed.
It was recommended that the City's fence regulations be revised to
allow fences up to eight feet in height in front yards adjacent to
arterial and collector streets except where clear vision
requirements must be met.
In addition, it is proposed that the clear vision requirements be
modified to restrict fences where topography limits vision. The
fence regulations should also be changed to eliminate the
requirement for a two-foot setback for corner side yard fences. i
After discussion, Council consensus was in agreement with the
general recommendations of staff with the exception that they would
like to see fences allowed up to eight feet in height in any front
yard. There would be no fee; however, fences over 3-feet in height
would require a staff review to assure clear vision needs are met.
An eight-foot fence would require a building permit.
Staff will take this issue to the NPOs and Planning commission for }
their review and comment prior to a public hearing before Council.
UPDATE FROM TVEDC PRESIDENT, MARY TOBIAS: Ms. Tobias reviewed the
status of the Western Bypass process. ODOT is still in their
public comment phase. There was discussion on Washington County
cities and potential impacts if the Bypass is not approved. Ms.
Tobias urged the Council and citizens to attend an ODOT open house
on July 17, 4-8 p.m. at the Tigard High School. The purpose of the
open house is to present information and receive feedback on a
range of possible strategies to address north-south and
circumferential travel in Washington County. Also, Mayor Edwards
will visit :pith the Mayors of Tualatin and Sherwood to coordinate
efforts and show support for the Western Bypass.
Ms. Tobias said that TVEDC will be contacting the Economic
Development Committees for several cities. TVEDC would like to
work in an advisory capacity with these Committees.
Mary Tobias is also a member of the Metro Charter Commission. This
Commission has been established to produce a Charter for the
Metropolitan Service District which will include the structure of
METRO, and scope of authority/responsibilities. A series of public
meetings have been held throughout the tri-county area: Multnomah,
Clackamas and Washington. The Commission has not reached any
decisions at this time
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE (EMS) POLICY BOARD REPRESENTATIVE
Council consensus was to support Tualatin Mayor Steve Stolze as the
area's representative on the EMS Policy Board.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1991 - PAGE 2
s
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
R76, 11,11M- COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: DATE SUBMITTED: January 9, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearin PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Com.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Front ---'r Recommendation= 12-2-91
store e--RV's ats etc. PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff
DEPT.' HEAD OR CITY ADMIN K 1 REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
-
ISSUE BEFORE HE COUNCIL
Should the City Council repeal the res rictions on storage of recreational
vehicles, boats, trailers, campers, cam er bodies or commercial vehicles in
excess of 3/4 ton in required front yard areas within residential zones?
The issue is primarily one of neighborhood aesthetics from a community
standpoint versus the convenience and desire of individual property owners to
store this type of vehicle on within the front yard setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the regulation be repealed for the following reasons:
in many areas storage of campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. can
still be stored in the front yard because they are placed beyond the required
setback; and there appears to be strong sentiment against enforcement by many
property owners.
If q In December 2, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
-5-Council retain the existing regulations, citing neighborhood aesthetics as
the main rationale.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The development code restricts storage of recreational vehicles (etc.) in the
required front yard area, although enforcement of this section of the Code
has been lax over the years. As outlined in the attached staff report, NPO
5 initiated an amendment to repeal these restrictions, following a series of
neighborhood complaints and discussions on the issues. Reactions from the
NPO's were mixed. Since the code applies only to the required front yard
(normally 20 feet) campers, recreational vehicles, boats, etc. can be legally
stored in many front yards. Many newer subdivisions offer protective
covenants that restrict such storage. Older subdivisions, many times, have
greater setbacks which would allow front yard storage.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve NPO 5's application and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to
repeal Section 18.96.060 A.
2. Deny NPO 5's application and retain the existing regulations as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
FISCAL NOTES
None anticipated one way or the other; staff would shift priorities depending
L on the Council's resolution of this matter.
3GENDA ITEM 5.3
s MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM,. Planning Division
DATE: November 12, 1991
SUBJECT: NPO 5 application to repeal requirements limiting vehicle
storage in front yards
OVERVIEW:
Summary: The Tigard Development Code Section 18.96.060 A. requires
the following:
Boats, trailers, campers, camper bodies, house
trailers, recreational vehicles, or commercial
vehicles in excess of 314 ton capacity shall not be
stored in a required front yard in a residential
zone.
° This section applies only to the required yard which ranges from 15
to 30 feet depending on the particular residential zone. NPO 5 has
made application to repeal the above requirements.
Policy Implications: Should the City continue to restrict
recreational vehicle and other similar types of storage in front
yard?
Financial Impact: Because of the varieaty of circumstances relative
to the number of recreational vehicles stored in yards and
individual circumstances, a considerable amount of code enforcement
time would have to be expended to consistently and uniformly
enforce existing regulations. No fees are involved.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the regulations be repealed
unless it becomes City policy to proactively enforce the existing
regulations.
ANALYSIS:
Background: NPO 5 has made application to delete Section 18.96.060
A. of the Tigard Development Code. In late April, 1991, the City
Code Enforcement Officer cited a property owner for parking a
recreational vehicle in violation of the above code section. The
action was the result of a complaint. The City had not been
C enforcing the requirement without receiving complaints. The
d
property owner who was cited pointed out a number of other similar
violations. To be consistent, the Code Enforcement Officer then
cited a number of other property owners. As a result, the City
then received numerous complaints regarding the enforcement of the
provisions. Enforcement was, suspended and all NPO's were asked to
review a proposal by NPO 5 to change the front yard storage
regulations to apply only to lots smaller than 7500 square feet.
3
NPO review was completed during the summer. A summary of NPO
comments is attached. Since NPO 5 did not find a reasonable
solution to fit existing circumstances from the NPO sessions, it s
filed an application to delete the requirements.
Issue: The issue of whether a recreational vehicle or other
similar boat, vehicle or trailer should be allowed to be stored in
the front yard is primarily one community values revolving around :-s
aesthetics. Side yards are, in some cases, not large enough to #
allow storage. Some residential areas favor the existing
regulations, others do not. Many subdivisions have covenants or
deed restrictions that restrict such storage. Even though such
CC&R's control the storamae, some subdivisions prefer that the City
have a similar restriction so that the City would do the
enforcement.
Recommendation: If the City is to retain the regulations, staff
agree that it should be enforced proactively. Enforcement by
complaint is not the best policy even though it is sometimes
necessary due to the lack of resources or time. Since CC&R's can
control parking and storage in neighborhoods that so choose, it
appears that repeal of the provisions may be warranted.
1
if l
O.
ljg
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner
FROM: Liz Newton, Community Relations Coordinator LA
DATE: July 17, 1991
SUBJECT: NPO Comments on RV Storage Ordinance
On Wednesday, July 10, 1991, I facilitated a discussion with NPO's 1/2, 4 & 8 to
discuss the NPO 5 proposal regarding RV storage.
By a vote of 13 - 2, the members present favored some regulation of RV storage
in front yards. Six people favored leaving the ordinance as is, 5 favored some
modification to regulate front yard storage.
Suggestions for regulation of front.yard storage included the following:
o Prohibiting front yard storage except in cases of hardship.
o Allow front yard storage as long as vision clearance requirements
are met.
o Allow front yard storage as long as the vehicle is behind a legal
fence.
o Allow front yard storage where there is a minimum of 50' frontage.
Most of the people in attendance felt that the 7500' minimum proposed by NPO #5
is discriminatory. There were concerns raised about pie shaped lots that may meet
the 7500 minimum but may not have room in the front to store an RV or smaller
lots with front yards that are adequate.
There were some concerns raised regarding the city's current 'enforcement by 5
complaint` policy. Some felt that if ordinances can not be actively enforced they
should be repealed.
The biggest concern expressed was that if RV storage is permitted in the front
yard vision clearance provisions must be met.
s
E
3
i
1
NPO 1#5 MINUTES
July 17, 1991
ROLL CALL:
Present: Hopkins
Bieker
Doty
Hawley
Absent: Takahashi (excused)
MacKinnon
The meeting was called to order in joint assembly with NPO #6 in Town Hall at 7:30 p.m.
The only item of business in the joint meeting was consideration of NPO 5's proposed
amendment to the municipal code having to do with R.V. storage. After a brief
background presentation by Craig Hopkins, Dick Bewersdorff moderated the subsequent
discussion. Most of the comments were in response to the memorandum he read from
Liz Newton that summarized other NPO's comments on this issue.
After the discussion, both NPO's adjourned to their separate gatherings in order to further
deliberate issues pertinent to their areas.
As a matter of old business, we continued to evaluate our R.V. storage amendment
proposal. We concluded that considering Tigard's uniquely diverse neighborhoods, any
amendment would fiend to be discriminatory. Therefore, it seemed that the most
reasonable thing to do was pursue having the existing ordinance removed from the Code.
Craig Hopkins and Bill Bieker volunteered to continue working with Liz Newton on proper
draft language for an amendment presentation to Tigard's Planning Commission and City
Council.
Under "New Business" Wendi Hawley shared that NPO 5's comments regarding the Raze
Meadows project were part of Hearings Officer's final decision.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. r
Respectfully submitted,
Craig Hopkins
h:Voginl olnpobmin.712
1
i
t
I
e
NS MUTES
NPO V8
WEDNESDAY JULY 10, 1991
Meeting began at 7:30 pm with a joint meeting of NPOs 1/2, & 4 to
discuss the present RV Storage Ordinance, with the possibility of
recommending some changes.
The present ordinance requires that RVs not be stored in the
required 20 front yard setback. They may be stored in the side or
back yards, and may be stored in the front yard if the yard is deep
enough. There were suggestions from. NPO 5 that front storage be
allowed if the lot exceeded a certain minimum area. There was a i
variety of opinion in -NPO 8, which was genera 1.1 y against the "area"
exception. Some members were interested in some modification of
the present ordinance, but most favored staying fairly close the
ordinance as written.
Chairwoman Chase called the roll for the regular meeting at 8:35
pm. Present were: Chase, Blomgren, Epler, Iford, Hein, Juve, and
Stevens. John Nolan is no leaving the NPO.
Alicc moved t; at he Minutes of the June 12 meeting be approved as
presented. John seconded. 'Passed-unanimously. -
Cathy said that the areas of "special concern" will be discussed in
the August meeting.
We continued the discussion from last month on the problem of brush
and other sight obstructions at corners. There does appear to be
a Tigard City ordinance which addresses this problem.
Cathy reported that she had received-no notices of decisions.
Cathy presented a notice of the WESTERN BYPASS MEETING ON JULY 17.
We will discuss the town meeting at the August NPO meeting.
We discussed the Minor Partition request by Cloy Haeffele on
property at 10900 SW Hall Blvd. After determining which piece of
property we were discussing, we noted that there were problems
accessing the property, because the State did not want to grant
additional entrances on HALL Blvd. Cathy stated that if the owner
could get the necessary access, she would not have a problem. Joel
said that we should approve the minor partition, with a note
mentioning the possible access problem. Cathy was concerned about
the possibility of creating a flag lot because of the access
problem. Joel felt that the parcel was to large to cause a flag
lot concern, that it would probably be subdivided eventually.
C l i f f pointed. cut that the property is 270' deep which would be i
LM reasonable for- a cu l de sac. I
i
i
ASW NPC . JL+L.Y 1 991
_ i
Jim moved that we have no problem with the minor partition, but
that we had some concerns about the access. Stevens seconded.
}
Cathy questioned the Zoning. Bob noted that it was already zoned
R12. That the MP request did not ask for a zone change. The R12
zoning is designed for apartments.
Motion passed unanimously.
John moved adjournment at 9:00. Stevens seconded. Motion carried.
1
.Meeting Adjourned at 9:00pm.
f
x
a
i
j
1
i
i
t
P
4
t
l
S
J
j
7
t'
i
9
1
2 ;
i
I
ILMI
9JF
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: February 11, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: January 3, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Revision of City PREVIOUS ACTION: None
Street Vacation Ordinance
/ PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff'I
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
-
POLICY ISSUE
Should the City revise its Street Va ation notification requirements to
coincide with 1991 changes in Oregon State Statutes?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached ordinance to streamline city street vacation
procedures.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The current City of Tigard ordinance for street vacations is to
cumbersome, time consuming and complicated in comparison to many other
jurisdictions. The Oregon Revised Statutes were revised in July, 1991 to
allow publication of street vacation petitions once a week for two
consecutive weeks prior to the hearing instead of four and the posting
and publication of notices not less than 14 days before the hearing
instead of 28. These minor changes will significantly reduce time and
advertising costs while still providing adequate notice to potentially
interested parties.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the attached ordinance as submitted.
2. Modify the attached ordinance and direct staff to make the
appropriate changes.
FISCAL NOTES
The amended notification process will reduce City Council time, staff
time and reduce advertising costs.
cb/StVac.Ai
i