Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 01/17/1995
6 F - F. I a I i PUBLIC NOTICE Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the f appropriate sign-up sheets). If no sheet is € vad le, ask to be recognized by the Mayor 1 at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda Items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer ma s can be set for• a future Agenda by contacting efther the Mayor or ~ the City Adminl tom i 77mes noted are a at it Is recommended that persons Interested in testifying be present by 7:75 p.m. to sign in on the tesilmony sign-In sheet. &nom, f in a- Av_sisZZve LrsierVng Dovcios ease available ft, parsons with impaired how-n vir;c-1 should ; : ;S TbefidS39:Y 1` iui is~JSt^irs>se by Fic- n Un 1hu Monday prior is ffe Please av,R 6-2~:3-i X71, . (vc;ice) or 684-27-12 (TJD - Telecommunica oas Devices for th,-" 0030. r f Upon rCL;fiu&-LY, t hce` C" 4y, 2zo e9"3d1 i-?vor to arrange for Una fo;1l oi!f3!'dg sL".rvices f Qua- :fied sign /emigungv intarpreter5 for persons with speech or• hearing Impa Qualified l;liia fgual interpnetors. Since ihose services muss bo scheduled ,,YliM, outside service providers,, it i impaitant to ,vIow as much lead time as gossibie. Please notify the Cify of your nc^d by 5.00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the nesting date at Uie same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4979, Ext. '209 (vote) or 68d11-2772 (TDD - T'eiocorr municF-UUons Devicm for the Deaf). SEA: A 5N Cf-=ED AGE,', Eh'I i 031Jt lCiL AGENDA - JA ARY 17, 1995 - PAGE 1 41L V AG t JANUARY 17,1905 ~ r . AGENDA 6:30 P.M. :.y✓ 1 STUDY SESSION. F ' . 3 i a Citizen Involvement Team Update - _ Agenda Review 7:30 P.M. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call.to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Cali s 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 3 i 1.4 Council ,Communications Liaison Reports ~ 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda items C 7:35 p.m. 2. VISII"TCR'S AGENDA CFWo Minutes, or Less, Please) (7:35 p.m.) x":45 p.m. , = 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may use _ anacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an tern be removed by motion for discussicn and separate action. Motion to: i ^niin~I Minutes, Joi : city Council/Planning Cornmission ` Vforkshop of November 21; Council Minutes of Novernbsi 2%7 29 and Decsrnbsr 6 1994 7.2 Receive and rile: Council Ca snd.ar and F entatNrc Agenda 3.3 Enter into tE o Washington County Wsstoz~h d Reduc ion Intergovernmental Agrernenr - Resolution No. ~)5- 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Appoint Agent of Record -Eton GraybeFd of JBL&i Ins€,oranco b. Lrthoriza the City Engineer to Advertise :err Bid for Construction of the Cock Park Picriic'Shs ler Replacernf;M an,d the Grant A.~senue Side-vialk :50 p.m. OM-2 UPDATE Finance Director Wayne Lcvtry r COUNCIL AGE-§ DA - jJaNUA Y 17, 1095 - PAGE 2 8 p.m. 5. - PUBLIC HEARING m COUNCIL. CALL-UP TO REVIEW THE SITE DEVELOPMENT M G N-0019/15LANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PO 94-WM/SENSMVE LAND REVIEW RTI /FRI- "*IAN R. LOCATION: 1226-5 S%V 712nd Avenue (WCTM 181 38CD, tax lot 2005 and 2S1 iBA tax lots 100, 101, , 401, and 402). A regLwist for Site Development Review, Planned Development Review., and Sensitive Lands Rec approval to allow € onstruction of a general retell and professional office i canner providing up to 342,5,' v square li of WWI and commercial office space. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.82, 18.80, 18.84, 18.90, 18.92, 18.94, 18.88, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, i 18.108, 18.114,18-116,18.120,18.144,18.150, ' and 18.164. ZONE: C-G (PD) (General Commercial, Planned Development) The C-G zone allows pudic agency and adminl tine services, publics support facliitles, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real ewe services, business support services, general retail salmi, and eating and shrinking establishments among other uses. The RD (Planned Development) overlay zone provides a means to use new techniques and technolcW in community development. I he Planned Development zone facill=es efficient economic use of land and presences to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities. 8:05 e. Open Public Hear!ng 1 6:08 b. d3edanaions or Challenge 8:10 L. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony n 8:20 Applicant (Time Umit: 20 minutes) r, 8:40 e Opponents Mme Urnit: `10 minutes) 6':5 Proponerft ('D'ime Limit: 10 minutes) s 4 ,iTLw i f S Mme U.'na: lo ms' tla as, --9:.,0 0. Council, a sti')ns 9:20 f. Close F't b;k, Hearin,- 9:21 Staff flecomrnenda~on 0:2 Y h. Cf3LP)!-il al'L r on 6. a' tea'` ~ w, ` u C e'v ~7 i R:50 p.rn. 7. u'`° M U W7_7 Z1S5 K)aa: The 71ciard City Cou Ed! go into E: Ci:l,fii` O Sqsssion under t' he provisions of CPS 1,92.6.60 (1) (d), (e), f~t (h) to discuss lalbor relations, r ai properb, fr re aviior , current and pending litigation i®rsue . 10:15 P.m. try t X ~~r i 97.~s 1-11.. AG ~iIDA - JP-.NiJAIRY 17, 11.25 - PAGE 3 r' V r i r. , i Council Agenda item , s TOC Q TY Q0 L w i MEEnNG MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 199 i. a Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoll. p BQLLLALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawlev, Paul Hunt, t. Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckl:a. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bowarsdorif, Senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator (for the CFT review only); Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. ' Cuero Inv I-yement Team U adate - A list of attendees is on file with the Council packet. CfT Facilitators and Resource Team members met with the City Council. Discussion included a review of the citizen involvement process. The following , ideas were reviewed: r , i=ec ;rato>';~ si3n;sfd ryrr,uir°r n~~utrrf, b-Lq iE ~ight to ;ard2posa opt'sooz.:, ii tlic croup noels i zelp doing this (loaders up role). Need to id€ziVi y ways to move OT nnernbtar s to action (it a!i item isn't for educational beneR on',i. f . At. nos ii 87?ay be eppropriate to ask pr£s baler to includea suggestions for a~± off. DZ:lVB Wopa form 1''et6er.,. completsd at CI T miFiDtings, lormulcabng tha posi1!oP or Conn, ms noted by the QT n::robsrs on issues. s his :euer could, u4h r ba brought 'to till Council or su r i II` od$ for the Cc un-.il 1:3rac%st. CI T me nbor could ca present d1j ing the Council Uai on Report section of the agenda to ?cur, about the CI T 's `ca f;me ts. Req estcd either a minority report. or for CF €narnbsrs to sign the form latter fis'dr g thornseIves as either pro or con on the iss-ue. The Pa.-It joint CIT/Coon ;i6 rii-sating wiil be in April or 'Prlay. oC G' e w CCt.kfti7;" ~r~~'iNa~ o~ 1~r. ~~~-w,: - 3i.~;~:2 m't 1r', 12--`5 - PAGE a Lye Session: The 11gard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:08 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, read property transactions, current and pending litigation Issues. Executive Session adjourned at 7:30 p.m. BUSINESS MEETI Council Communications Tree Task Ford: Councilor Hawley updated Council on the work in ` progress by the Tree Task Force. The Task Force is no longer concentrating solely on the proposed ordinance language. They are also looking at where trees are growing and discussing horn these trees can, or should, be protected. They hope to have a final report ready by E' February 28 to present to the City Council. Non-Agenda" Initiative Petition: Legal Counsel Ramis surnmarized this :agenda item. The City Attorney's office, at the request of a group of citizens, prepared a proposed ballot title for an initiative measure. This measure would amend the Tigard Charter to require voter approval of street design under certain circumstances. Tile prooczed ba,U)t ti It was posted at City Hall on January 12, 1G95. APy parson eIsa Y(isfie with the ballot title prepared by the city Attorney for the 3 rnsa,,;ure may appeal to the City Council, asking for a different ballot title. The appeal must be in writing, must give the reasons for the appeal, and must ate why the ballot title prepared by the City Attorney was improper. ` The viriitZen appeal must have been filed with the Cite Recorder at Tgard Coy HO no 1F,Ior than 5:00 pray., January 17, 1955. An app al vial a .std by Mr. Gen rJcAd',arric, who r OgLlasts-d a changa in the ballot title to read ~',s foil v,,s: „Amend Qroard Cleaner to require voter approval of fr et dss'sg°a affective July 1, 19262 Cry AuLornoy Ramie advised Caunci i that ft was his opi!ioI that the Council and/c~ &he CiL~F Attorney possessed no au i° oriiy to change the substance. or the ballot trilo as requested in 'Mr. McAdams' appoo.l. ,.,s sOUsVsrlL y`.ti y.E,=1 B "ti."'d Mf-it i -JANUARY 17, 1S@45 ,f - - i i i Staff, in response to questions from City Council, advised the petitioners had been notified of the appeal. i A minimum of 1, signatures would be necessary to place the measure on the ballot. Mr. Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon, 97223, 3 testified that the purpose of his proposed revision to the ballot title was to give developers of property and property owners advance notice of this Charter amendment. He advised that this amendment would affect any property adjacent to a park or wetiand. Discussion ' followed. Council members noted their concerns and disagreements with the proposed ballot title; however, majority consensus vYa that if the wording was in proper form, then the petitioners should gather signatures and submit the question to the voters. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to approve < Resolution No. 95-01: ' RESOLUTION NO. 95-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Tff ARD APPROVING A BALLOT TrTLE FOR AN INITIATIVE MEASURE CONCERNING STREET DESIGN iMolior, was approved by a majority vote of Council present. (~.-Ia nor Nicol! sYi as eeisi~e e~,.e,vo ::^P'i_`S Rohlf .lts3.':f. Ha:v!e" Y de Hunt - _ T o'Na l `r ee JP ACT Representative: City Adininstra€cr ,Ionahan noted that Gou €Lil cornsideratiun for naminatif~n of a JPAC f' rsprosonta,ve for Washington County cities vveould be considered during the non-agenda por'iicn oy the rneat4ng, at the end of fi -~a rogUar agenda. 2. VISITOR'S AOE,"A€D.A .lack'Pdc-ns, 16000 S.W. C aac n Vic1oria, King Ciis, Oregon 972-. 4 rcferrad F._ to water issu s and mentioned , 11 vity at both the State and o letro I~v~ls. i He Sasso naiad ccincerns vAih annexation issue's R relator, to King ci'L f. C IT",;' COLE CIL l41EETI INN MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1 ~ - PAGE S :j { 3. ` CONSENT AGENDA There was a brief discussion. It was noted that for Consent (Agenda stern 3.4(b), the Grant Avenue sidewalk ;portion of the staff request was being pulled for consideration at a future meeting. (Mayor Nicoli noted he had been contacted by several property owners concerning the Brant Avenue sidewalk, There was a need to meet v^Ih these property owners to clarify some information. Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, with the exception of removal of the Grant Avenue _ sidewalk proposal's requested in item 3.4{b} 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop of November 21; Council Minutes of November 22, 29 and December a, 14 3.2 Receive and rile: Council Calendar and Tentative Agenda 3.3 Enter into the Washington County Westeshed Reduction Intergovernmental Agreement Resolution No. 954-22 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Appoint Agent of Record Ron Graybeal of JRL&K insurance b. Authorize the City Engineer to Advertise for Bids for Construction of the Cook Park Picnic Shelter Replacement o N notion wais approved by a i..56'ianimaus vote of Cox.€3'ZC 9 vote of Council prGsant. (Mayor 1,ftoii elnd Councilors Have€sy, Hunt, R ahli and Schsckla votad "yss.") Firs-nca P , ctor ~gayno Lowry revis-vied his agenda item. Hx. revia•ed thF) history c th'a ~Vl zgc x Park issuers (sae ~.;ial repot Find attac ad rnernorc ndurt t from V./myna Lomy to Bi l ~3,Q=ahari dats.i Jamijar'y+ 9, 1C^~215 on 5io li ith the Council Packet r ate lal.) Vjith rag and to contirau Dd ra.rticipation in -tiers Local Improvement Diisb iot forTigard area resia~~ fts, the Cky Council has until June 30, 1995 to decide about tila F,~~ase of Ms zae park ending. i Mr. L owrr,'s meimor e duna recur. d sae options for lh City C-oundi. -3 he first threa captions depit wish the Coiriv act`s, position with regard to the Local Improvement UESmet assessment. CE tbn 4 our-lined the possiibaii qy oa the Cif pursuing the v ftthdsa~=ral of Mgard prows lies from the LID. The wvKhdrav!al viouid great;y impair l; tier funding av i ablo to the Cour;tb, for operation of the para. Cif Y CAL++iNCIL fioim'sA °r` _ le li y TES - :'AUARY 17, 1C,9 - PAGE 4 Option 5 concerned that County's Inquiry as to whether 'Tigard would consider taking over the management of the perk through a contract %4th the County. It j was noted that, In that past the Metzger Park Board, has not favored such a proposal. In response to Council inquiries, staff explained than double taxation issue for Tigard residers Tigard residents are paying for Tigard parks through their taxes plus the LID expense for Metzger perk. In addition, Washington Square, which pays _ $12,000 of the $40,003 assessment to operate the park, submitted a letter to Council in 1993, stating concerns that it cost too much to rash the hark. During discussion, it was noted that the LID and the management of the perk were # separate issues. j Councilor Scheckla noted he had visited with persons concerning the park. He said that there appeared to have been an issue over payment of utilities for usage of the building for as City-sponsored program. Council consensus was to meet with the Metzger Park Advisory Board during a Dora workshop session to become acquainted and discuss these past issues. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL CALL-UP TO REVIEW THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SDR 94 13/PLAItiINED ®EVELOPIVIIENT REVIEW PDR 94- 2/SENSMVE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94- 0v MARTIN/TRI-COUNTY CENTER. a. Public: Hearing was opened. b. Bsclarations or Chall"rages t,layor Nlc-n~li asked the fallowing questions: - Do any mernbers of Council wish to report any ax panto contact or information gainod ©utsido the I nearing, including any s tra) visits` Nona ka;ere reported. - Have all members far~:iiiarizdd theanselves vvith the a-pplic:ar'aon? Council mar nbars ir;dicated Choy had. - Are there any chaalcng: 3 horn tho audianca pertaining to tho Council's jurisdiction to bear this matter or is there a challenge on tha pari;icigp aZio a of any m'ombor of the, Council? T bore `Mere ro chal!snacs. Cir( C'OU ; CII- MEE-FING M-I i S - JA Il ARY 17, 1995 - PAGE 5 } C. Staff Report Mayor Nicoll made the following statement: For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise ` an Issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and parties an 1 opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the l..and Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence r must be directed toward the criteria that staff will describe or other t i criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. Senior Manner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report. Copy of the staff f report is on file with the Council packet material. Mr. Bewersdorff advised an additional letter had been recei~►ed from the Thousand Friends of Oregon dated January 17, 1995 from Keith Bartholomew, Staff Attorney. d. Public Testimony ; Mr. Ed Christensen, who was representing the applicant, presented City Council with a project overview and referred to a number of exhibits, listed as: frs,l.v"sS. N . s. 2. d ri-Ccun y Canter Site F-Lln (Revisad) i 3. s ri-county Genter Site Plan (As rovizvied by Planting Commission) 4. 0--vai'l n Concept PUn 1 5. Contour Map and Tree Survey 5. Colored Landscape and Sipe Pi nn 7. Atrial Photograph eroi site (40' x S'') 8- Photograph of Landscaping at Morcantila Villo.ggia (4` x 6") ~ l7oi;oviing are potinls inciuded in Mr. Christian's review: i Mr. Christensen revie,%,ed th-e d;t.d, includino- ble chaiiancge s of msotinn Arneric ans %AMh Disat)iitics sect requiranisi its. m Ho rs-vi vjed concerns regarding the transp or to for a planning rubs and t zdasrrian mnner ion. ar: ~ g g,r1RY -3 6'd7~ 19C-5 r` -N!EQ^~ . S^TNN;G tdal3 ~UITH--3- - JANli.}- S E"~-s= f i t , i { ® He reviewed building design because of topography, to allow for pedestrian movement. He described tho Impacts of Costdo and Cub Foods in relation to this project. ® He reviewed a new site plan (Exhibit 2). { He described landscaping, drainage, and building pad locations. • He distributed a picture for Council viewing of Mercantile Village (Exhibit 8). He noted this was similar to the vision of this particular j development. • He referred to the landscape plan (Exhibit 6), noting that it is " conceDtuai only, and advised that 2rs6% of the property is open space, which is in excess of the Tigard Triangle master plan. He discussed buffering, noting the adjacent land which Mr. Martin owns and for which he will grant an easement. • He explained why a change was being requested for the sound wall and described the sound wall. a He described the iypeLs of plantings which would be used for a bUfferi'lg sdreer. a Ho described architecturai eleane Fts, noting this davelopmant was v;ewed as a tra.n iiion point frarn ohs rest cf th yornmerciai properti ~ in the Triangle. He referred to D€hib 4. He d--scribed this censer :.S a,~ `LIPSCala center," designed for an urban enivironment. He raferred to the "Transportation Planning Rule as re relatiDd to tha 10,040 Friends of Oregon concerns. rip, advissd that the grades wore an issue when dasigning the Lase of the preps riy. _i Fie cRed testimony t'vAh regard to pedestrian and bus arms i. 1 CrTY COUNICli_ W E-T6s~-U N~sINU b EUS _ JNNU-°ePN T rf-0 ' SAGE T - n --7777777 777-77_7 L.. _ -s i He noted he was also involved with the Cub Food development, advising that 43 bicycle racks were installed, but he had never seen any bicycles parked there. 4 He noted the Triangle was created to draw regional customers and was auto oriented, • He advised he had tallied to the chief planners with Tri-Met. Tri-Met Is not expecting to put a bus line through this area within the next ten yew. Ught rail is not expected within the next twenty years. n He advised that ono-stop shopping availability II reduce the nurnoer of auto trips. Council recessed of 9:06 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. 7 Proponents: Kathy Godfrey, 7435 SW Herrnoso Way, advised she had no complaints with the project that was being proposed to be built. She i - wanted it noted that certain drainage easement connections were z ; specified. r0s. Godfroy also :°siarred to an al-lz mata Fimergcncy entrance and cxst. She idenffiecl: the area where this emergency vehicle access c'017~1 n'SY z:r: e. rir d.y..a t+i- .r. '.......a - ~ss~C7U dlr'd.j woZIEL3 not Viai 1t iii 1~~ access ripen for publ;c Use. Jamy Korbsriein, 7455 SAA1 Ooveiand woad, a'ised he had concerns evjilh n oisq'a and the loading dock. y Ni . '<a barlsnn also had concerns vvath access cantos Cf y~o property. He woOd not want an emergency access becauss it wodd not mace it possibl for an e oient sound barrier. He said he had concerns Frith sandstc-sping, primarily becausis Whafi arias b)ing shown was nconcaptual.,: a _ 3 t Bill Erdle, 7405 SW Beveland Load, noted concerns about protecting the area and said he agreed %vith Mr. Korberleln's testimony. He noted the neighborhood held a meeting; abut this proposal. The ' neighborhood Is In agreement with the development as long as the - i neighborhood is protected. i Mr. Erdle presented to Council a paper signed by residents which stated; 3 "We, the residents of Beveland and Hermoso Streets, ask that Gordon Martin's site development contain a sight and sound i barrler." G. 3 In response to Mr. Christensen's earlier testimony with regard to limited usage of the bicycle rack at Cub Foods, Mr. Erdle advised that he used the bicycle rack. i Mr. Rex Burkholder, ilk Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3rd, No. 300, Portland, Oregon, 67204, introduced to City Council a rough sketch representing his recommendation for internal streets for the ~ - proposed Tri-County Canter. ' He noted that strategy be used to f 1 create an internal road systern to accommodate pedestrians and provide aa*ss for motorists. Hu advised this would represent a new downtown for Tig-~rd and a gocc' system of struts should ba considered. ® Leval3a Xon, 11570 Royal Villa Drive, Tigard, Orragon, 97224, noted he had' viorked on the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 19-83. He ~ adviss . ; moved rt~rt~ the Triangle ` one and one-half scars ago, but I i sOe had concerns Sikh daveiopment of the area. He noted his primary concerns inciudeo a sight-and- sound b~arrisr and tram=1- problems. dir. Allen noted the proposal lookod iike a i , i good proposal." Rebuiftal: Mir. Christensen advised he had i,eard a lot of good comments. E said that he b~~eisved the appls,aton cost the goals and intent of reg uleflo s. He referred to b,-rifering issues, noting t haft 0-ie prcjsct has a groat deal of sound bri Bring. He noted tahare ti~siil be spo sold nail : e Cii-fY CC'a3..IN(341. N'itEEPNPC- 'MINUTES -JANUARY 17, IS,95 PAGE 9 i j i _ - r 77, ~7-777 i - f created by the development, although he anticipated there would be l no refrigerated units attached to the buildings. He referred to the 3 depressed dock area and the sound wall which would be eight feet high around the project. He described where the sound barriers I would be placed. a With regard to building pad locations, he advised that because they were dealing with a national retailer there were constraints about ; placement because of their design. He noted there was no F architectural review designs in 'figard`s Code. He advised this was s rilce neighborhood, but the Triangle was evolving. He noted the school had been put up for sale. He referrers to the request for emergency access. He noted Exhibit 2 shows a potential access point in the future. With regard to the comments from Mr. Burkholder, Mr. Christensen i advised new the new plan addresses, much better, pedestrian ' movement throughout the site. f In response to sa question from Legal Counsel Ramis with regard to elevation drawings, r. Christensen responded that the only drawings were these tha► were being used as exhibits. 4 In response to question from Councilor RohU, Mr. Christensen advised that tha Army Corps of Engineers has approved thF, water gi aRy roport; another request for approval has not bean recelved at this time. in response to a question from C ounci?car Schuckla, Wir. Christensen arjAsad that waVand rnitiaafon v;as planned by doing work can a portion of property adiac ent Eo Cook Park. In response to as inquiry by Coundlor Schackla, €hare was discussion on rniariga ion or watland impacts by trzding one site for anothar. if the mitigation is not tors as proposed, thsn the dav,--lI apmant cannot proceEid. There was d:s cusz,ion on building design, noting ti"-re would by sine building that was tuo stories v ith a ds cription of h- _w the grade.s v ould ban done. vii. Christensen responded to questions from C©:ii`d!or -Hunt regarding .a retaining 'a^. all and 'iha scout wajl, CITY COUNCIL PAEETUAG 'MINUTES - JANUARY 17, 1995 - PAGE 10 rc Mr. Christensen also discussed with Councilor Hint the pedestrian and bike routes, including refer. ences to topography and driveways. There was discussion on drainage ways of Red Flack Creels. There w discussion on the trees that would need to be removed. i netting it was not economically feasible to save a great number of . trees. Councilor Scheckla noted ho did not like this argument. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoll, Associate Planner PtotZcr explained that was the required landscaping amount. J In response to earlier testimony by Kathy Godfrey regarding sewer stab-outs, Mr. Martin noted that he has voluntarily agreed to provide sewer stub-outs along his north property line for property owners. The property owners would have the option of hooking up to the sewer main later if they so desired. . ; In response to questions regarding the sewer hook-ups, Mr. Christensen advised these hook-ups were not part of the approval j process. Mr. 11~artin has agreed to do this outside the planning process. Providing sewer to additional properties on Hermoso has not been evaluated. He referred to the aerial reap to illustrate sewer alignments. He advised they will be able to service some of the Hermoso Park properties, but not all. in response to a question R they foresavu a problem it a ccandition, of approval was placed on that one rjor non lime, r. Christensen advised he did not see a _ problem. Council revi v,, d the c;rnorg,ency exit. Some of th residents testified than they did not %nant to havo the emergenc-,y ex~- there while one r sir3g,nt r3e_iup-stod the exit. There was also a qur stian as to whather foot and bike traffic; to the area was considered. In response to a question tram Avlaycar Nicoli, Asscda.te Mannar Roberts advised tba Poiic.a Dec,,.r`rner tt rev4°,'ed "he pmpo al but 6d not have any corns- e-W-3. Scund and sight barriers v4sre discussed. Nim AEe-n nosed it wa+.s, his c;. tid:,rstanding that an sio, t-trYoot sound barrier would bs provided at the Ngt test paint. M,,. Ffjv~ tiro advised he had tried to accommodate the ne-10, burs, rooting the security wall ,cold be eight feet high. There vnas discussion on the wail for security and sound abatement, vfah Mayol Mco i noting he was concerned 4th thka livability of existing dingle tamiiy hornos. a C11 -Y COUNCIL MEEWIG i-JIINUJIES - jANUARY 17, 19 5 - PAGE 11 ' Mr. Robinson, Legal Counsel for the applicant, advised they would draft language to attempt to address the concerns expressed and review the Issues with the neighbors. r i Additional discussion included the following: • Wetland mitigation as reported in the Planning Commission findings. ;i Local Improvement District (LID) for pathway and five-year time limitation. Also dis^ussed was the requirement for impact studies to be prepared by the applicant to determine appropriate cost-sharing amounts. Mr. Christensen noted the ~ _ j willingness of the applicant to set aside $40,000 for five years. : Footprint of the buildings, landscaping, and potential retailers F and types of uses were discussed. ) • No design standards are set forth in the Code. p Discussion on the difficulty Council members have in making a decision based on conceptual plans. City Attorney Rarnis noted that there are no provisions in the Code for a "concept ' plan." He said that what is presented is "...either the plan or [ iii°s nat the plan." a iarioargrr and UtilMOS: r°SSC'3G'iate Planner Rubd-NES 6-t existing underground utiftios for lho five existing homes are to be rcreoved. All new a ndermrcLirid Wilities are to be provided e~t. tI?:. ~ro,PtY3.r<.d sAtv Irl`3proVerrler;..S. e A minimi_irn 25-foot buffer is to be provided for watl ads area which are off-Site. F ® Di culssion on precluding a request for a reimbursement district requost later for the sewer mair limo which vAl be roads ava.ilablo to soma of the resicisMs. Concerns about an ernergency access anti/car F pe-destrian/bicycle acozss beivvea , the nay ghhorhcoo and this k dzvelopn ems. Most ies4irr!ony by neighbors indicated troy world nra. vtant such an accasa. "Ar. Christensen advised there is a 6-foot padeStrian oa:; rnsrrt for future Hermoso bark, homsoAT.ers should they cracide they viould vv,ant 'st. C UNICIL M, EE ?G 11,M LJ i ES - JANUARY 17, ` 1-45 - PAG- E "l 2 i, E • Concerns over whether or not the drawing presented qualified { as the elevation drawings for the site review. City Attorney k ` Ramis advised that the Corte requires an elevation for each i. building. If Council accepts the drawing as meeting that E standard, then the submission requirement Is met. The consequence is that the drawing then becomes the required G architectural plan and, in ordor to make a change to it, then ` it mast come back through a process of amendment. • Mr. Christensen advised the plan Is conceptual. He agreed that the site plan and specific users on the site have not been ,i determined and would not be until the project was leased out. He said they would be coming back with specific elevations I for each and every building. These would be in conformance with the concept plan. There was discussion on process and the fact that the Council was in the rebLtWI phase. After some consultation among the applicant's representatives, a recess was requested by the applicant in order to determine if Council's concerns could be addressed. 1 Council meeting recessed: 11:03 p.m. council mooting reconvened: 11:32 p.m. Mayor Nicol; surnina,rized the proceod#jngis and advised that there i~,6cirre.r nrtari tc, It CSif']'".t. Concept Plan. 't -t i iulayol, Nicoll reported to t to Council the, discussion that lie had with tine appEcants dUring thq recess. This discussion included different op►iens tha applicant may have available to satisfy the Council's F ~ oncsrns. Tiey also diGcussed and d reviewed procedures` end skatcl as for different options. f me constraints on this project were also discussed by the M yor and the applicants' representatives. i Because the above discussion was "exparte," Mayar Nicoh asked if ! there vas anyone in the audience who would like to offer rebuttal on the above, surnmary € f Iffie conaocrsation between hirnsed and the applicants' representc1jve.s. No rebu tai wcr-- €-i ffered. Councilor Schee'da noS,sd that many people +,~to had testified earlier had left tho rnsoVng. CFF';° CO13NGi`V. ~~EEFING s~,A3NUTES - UAw1J,~RY 17, 1GS5 - PAGE 13 i i i 7 1 } Mr. Michael Robinson, legal counsel for the applicant requested tentative approval so the applicant could prepare findings for Council's final approval. He described the process and t~a- hate findings would contain. 0. Discussion followed on process, after which Mayor Nicoll closed the t public hearing. f. Council consideration: City Attorney Ramie gave his assessment of procedurel options for Council: Council can approve the project; app, ve in a modified way; deny it; or remand it to the planning Commission. The threshold question is whether to accept the amended application for consideration. The Council is operating under a Code provision that says the Council is to decide the case bused upon the record established below. However, the j Council is empowered, in its discretion, to accept additional evidence. The applicants; have advised that they have additional ' 4= evidence to present to the Council in order to seek approval x.11 m o IftCa$iBrD_ Thliq ranupst to annrove with rr odific atilon vA- o is one of tf e optic nv available to the Council. ' Mr. Rarnis sugg sted ti at the Council rely can the drawing as meeting the subi-nission requirernent for architectural elevations. He said the Ccundl couid specifically address the drawing 'sonio way, eilhtir by a condition of approval or tie the C'ouncii's decision the draining. if the Council was to approve vithout modification, there the Council would adopt the Planning Commission's order as presented. If the Council was to approve with modification, then they would need to speNil those modif onions so the staff and applicant can prepare some alternatives. i if tine Council denies the application, the Council must give reasons for tha denial relating to the Code and issues discussed in the case. CRY COWICIL MEETING MiNl TES JANUARY 17, IIG5:,5 - PAGE •14 r-.x7-77 77 - The Council could remand the application to the Planning Commission; however, Mr. Farms noted time constraints due to the 0120-day decision clock." After discussion, with it being noted that the Council would like submittal by the applicant of the final elevations, architectural l elevations and the landscaping plan, Councilors also made the following remarks: Councilor Rohl$ advised he was sorry to see any development r go in which would tape away from the natural beauty of that particular area. He would prefer that the property, if developed, be as attractive and enhancing as a commercial development could be. He said he would want to know whether this will truly be an upscale shopping mall. He wanted some guarantees that landscaping will be as presented and the quality of building would not add blight to j the Triangle area. F s He wanted the development to enhance the area. t , l Councilor Hawley advised of the following: 1 - (Referring to the Planning Commission findings): page 22, Section 25 B add Wdh no oWsjda storage r~~L merchandise." i ; d walla on She want assura;,,ces Vhat people cau sidewalks and vvaikways at all times. i f ~~cteon 25 C (referring to bicycle p rlcsng spa s) - where i. says 'preferably under building canopy." She requested to strike the word "praferably." Section "I" at Via bottoms of that page, where it says: In order to help, compensate for he visual impec of the grading sa tree removal, the Director may plate a 3-inch rr3ininium size requirernant..." She requester;, to strike the lord "may" and replace with "she!"." - Condijo rs of approval to includ3 requiring the senior access and stub ou'6 for the Her moso Waly residsnts. _i { 711 77~17 -7-7-77=17-77 7)7'777-717771-F,L 'n } landscaping will be required as promised by the applicant. ` rh.-P.Gning, in the m- editions of approval, the sight and sound barrier. is Referred to similar concerns as stated by Councilor r , Rohlf with regard to setting standards on commercial r development. j Councilor Scheckla advised his concerns were similar to Councilors Rohlf and Hawley with the added emphasis to wetlands and tree preservations. He also advised of concerns ' with noise mitigation which might result from some of Me uses ~ proposed Co.e., outside seating for a restaurant, which might a include music.) He stressed his concern for protecting the livability of the neighbors. Councilor Hawley added that she would like a condition which would preclude the opportunity for a reimbursement district application for the sewer mein would benefit the Hermoso { Way residents, a Coisricilor Fiur+t noted he an-reed with the previous Couricilars' cornments. Mayor Mcoli noted he vns impressed with the vjay thq cqppiicaia desigmad the site, given fad that the site fain 60 fat from one side to the other. He said he was not apposed to any of 'die condMons requested by Counciior Hawley. lie commented on Councilor Schackl€'s concerns abort noise and noted that there are current stag Laws that dictate acceptable noise levels for rrolae-,i s di cani° to a living area. He said that he would not he in fav ,r of ir4reasing those guidellrtes. Fie advised he like the project. He vv: t&j not have a probism accepting the concep' plan if there Baas a requirement vvith regard tO a landscaping plan and ; paci` c elevations. i CITY CCUN°e,.Il.. POE-E-1 iiNaG IMl-Ni.S - JANUARY 17r °l9:5 PACa- 16 { i f l ,after discussion, it was determined that a special Council meeting would be held on January 31, 1995, to consider, the final order for this application. y Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley to tentatively approve the application subject to revilew of the 3 conditions addressing the Council comments to be provided by the applicant and staff. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.. (Mayor Ni^ oli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") S. NON-AGENDA i°1 EMS Motion by Councilor Aunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to nominate Mayor Rob Drake of the City of Beaverton as the JPACT representative for Washington County cities. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") a. P ;ECU TIVE SESSION. The Tigard Cy Council v e?it into Executive Session at J 12:11 a.m. under the provisions of ORS IS2.680 (d), Sz (h) 4o discuss labor rd--Dons, real pvoperly transaclions, curron-I ana p'enaing litigation i 5~,7ues. 8. ADJOUP'Nf'VIENT: 12:40 a.m. Catherine V-1heatley, City Hecord6r c-:, OI107-05 r' CI-Pf COUNCIL IV9:EIINI1G MIi? U-rES - JANUARY '17, 1C-95 - PAGE 17 Date: F, 1 i 7 - ^Y INC ( E I V IT NEWSPAPER% a Le al g P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (5113) 684-0360 Afa~gfce?`~` 8 07 8 gi JAN 18 19% BEAVERTON, OREGON 37075 Legal Notice Advertising CITY OF TlCAR(y k amity of Tigard a ® Teersheet Notice j 13125 SW Hall Blvd. eTigard,Oregon 97223-8199 ® ®pupticateAffidemit I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION S ! STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 'ss. h 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that farce the Advertising F Director. or his principal clerk, of theU.3.gard-I'uayatin T}ries ~ a newspaper of gonerel circ1lonn aaa defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published at g ;n the of asaid county and state: that the C; L_y_Counci-T Business Nitg__-J- - s printed cap/ of which is horato tannoxod, evas publishad in the untira insue of laid newspaper for f?lE____--successive and co?lsocutive in the follovAng issa'mra: - ~ U: ,nuary i < d1 Lin S;;;Dscrihed and st.,orn to efors rye this!2-tb da~r-o-£_7-anu r ~ r r ° i _ L' nL SEAL ' ~ ROi 10 A. BURGESS c-, NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON ~2 ~ rL>.f;S r~~d MO 0245 4 r ~ ic f z ' . or Oregon t ot;? S ,t a ~.+1" CO}~~~ oU;' ~~CPIRES Ptnf 1~~97~ ~ ~ ~ '"`nF~ 3A V N i i i l_ for yo , r.§t9Y" i c , Full, a yl~y t ~h3 City M2 i S ~a . Hail $ f ~d, 1 . =UM,voA, Yet O gbn yFa.~".c by t:Afiig 6,39.41717 =4 O Y ONT, Fu V'i•fSNESS NIFE[°INCi ~ 1995 jAM-TkRY 17 , 13125M. HALL DCRH AGY?ts, D, VGARD. OREGON ,.SY d `e~ Sion (I'~ 9 Hall 4 llfere- , Room) - (6:310P.M.): ! _ ,r ~ Stto:r c 4~~rlf. (7:30 P.1,4.): t9 i It i}S ie fEt.C.. Df.Fi -.~Lo$ twP cull up to fG-vicw t.l, FILE' Di_vel(?pm `rye k-.-. Rb v a SUIT 0 O }!CN ned,DvMopmen R cOe PDfn-,, l I , 2 k _ ' n 6,t:n_.n WMan: 12265 MV. 72nd AJC..nu, ApIrD hca cen _r dSlvvid4I1;~ 44Z oyO ccr.tv:tc,'- ' ' i 1' Y F i7lcss w ml Nz letzgcr Yr._ki,. Lf caj lsilr r11.'+:~ (`4.: Di € ict status, 1, 9 ~fi aE, MY= Tb c 4 i ~A-~d i_i; Cc...-,Wil m r p • soon under zh,.~ Ps- a„as)s cif 02"2 191600 t R ~ (d). St 'r- - ' . ~ i E f V?w ~ i i f I - i i„ 1 - i r INC. V e g t~C l E 1 _ Lega P.O. BOX 370 RHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 075 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ; Legal Notice Advertising 'City of Tigard Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. "IPigard jOregon 97223 ® ® Duplicate Affidavit a ® e , deg a r 930 a9 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION a STATE Or OREGON, s i,; a . COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, i Kathv Snyder F_ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising l - n TP mes Tua lat Director, or his principal cl7rk, of theTigard n newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ' and 183.020; published at T1gard -in tho I ' - - aforesaid county and state; that the , E ' f tJeye rmo _S Site n printed copy of v 7hich is her6to arm5xed, was published in tho entiro isGue of p aid n3w s y er for_QNE successive and ~ ~ % 1Jq ii, ` q corsocutivo to ti's '100VAng 146uos: , - . ~ e- ' ~...~....nm.,>~. ,..-....rte., S JA and sworn to b •e rn,'j this5s i__dr3~caf T~nuar;', 19~~ ;.h G<<'t IF.L u1'_ ROWN A. NOTARY !5LI Oi ' >C 1 i' ~ ~ ~ N N0 Note u te for Crogon I f"i"y cam^i~ cion Exp rcG: a 3 1 F" r> i i E` 1 1 1 , 4 u . . t„ F: a 3 sty i ou>scil o~ 1 r.ri) 1~ ~i)a~ d;f)e ~~tS~c3 r a fi + ~'I ( ~ ar tia dl} 31'i! C' tt L'.Ilt i ~110F1i a -lull Ror)m 131 <LI 1C 7 ~ , iL ' nient Ui ec"if t," C4Y Rt¢nCo do at th Ap I AD from to CM1R'w icy T { M cal1 o Q 639 1171. yon i are sroviwd io stibinit writ try t or b or , a .a t , er d +uric rad' r _c tau lec `ae~*i s tlrs~ .r ant' ca i t2st.-n any n! ~ $ a< .1Y's7,~ Q x' E N,-,taring. as3 ) E ~ ~ aawCit➢b '{Li b L-iGd! C d in c.c^ "Fk ~>ri' ~~U1 l h d j . 1 ,zf o Vii, a G~ All, -e7at= } plicabr Chap,!e. 19.12 U vo0ablo ak City 1 J ? "'n - W any Y'Y3ls, crt 13.,.ru:,ijl27i' 'n¢}f~,..by Uva G, n Iy~adFL±~x'f`I'~'sa 1?r ar}i t?Z~~ff~ ~lir _ E6 AtiNED 1 fir L Cl ~l~/~ c reiY{rr 1C~\/~Y ~x 4! r P i'!f~Y ~ ~I~) _ 1=N 2NZ t ,i2„ 'I`ION: 12:16 d. %V. I2,f.1 Avcr ,~e ,~~,c.YxM , < 3 ACM ~aN lot A a czicst ter d 402) ` i . aid tad :r 4 2S 11 tB 1 w x o 100. ou w satt a ci d A ' L; r i hilt - E' ii CS c' a `CY C fi5T1P' Sill CS { A l it t7i GSS:.C,71 rev-01 t 7 i G ow r'ie SvG: aFi+ oJ xi i(J vi cc,Ftsiila of C of ° t;311 F' Y 2 ht~' „B 3 . s_ v 1 olfilce u n, .D)c e d:,lt'fi Q to A.: on ' LrL' FFI!i'., (lit OlII E Sync- ~ . , 133A ' ( r Su.,>~ 1 ~.b~ a ~Z5T4> i Y'9 r ~ -j, _ t o t3 titan; ~~Ctf?Oi)tre+ loo d3;it16, i3 It3S 1$ Zr d ch ls i . . ! 92' 1 ; 94, 1 ' CI Eft .I 7' ~.~CSC~ (?Yea.'1ff 11's4q L lt,1 1 ~ ~l'I~la i`u J. Z,~5: c33i C diRl r C iMv S t lC S 1p1' PC i)osl-- ~ -t r t fw , and d"~11~C Lr~ laa trl )r Yt) sas IFF ~ 'tC ,~1 S a i i B. ol r" i n) r ,l 3' i st s is S ca6llr r';" do ' „ r, UPT r t~uY 1i)t 3 C[i > Sri 4 w ntJ (h a s~arx~I .mms Oyu w oz ti j . a : ri } plo oe."" o I!l li,s) ii tL i ~7121t~ .S an 'u hinol o I s c P r pT "i_ i,U. f nlti.,t r t tC )le t ll IY` s - 1 . . c n bi ;ll~ ~Cll T CS1t a use 6f l an"i a;z 1 p, er,cr, !'o tho gicatest e xte"'lk orsL.~ isa r i; a . - no _.krl'I, i ndKOM r -t:m-~ ilfi t..FP.:,I r F} } AGENDA ITEM # ,l,1 FOR AGENDA O) F [ 7 ( ~ ' ` JOINT CITY COUN LANNING CON SSItJN WORKSHOP November 21, 1994 a . CAU TO ORDER t m 1v'fayor Schwartz and Planning Commission President Fyre called the workshop to order at 5:45 p.m. _ i The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center at 13125 SAY Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALi Present: Mayor Schwartz; Councilors Hawley, Hunt and Rohlf: President Fyre and Commissioners Holland, Moore, Saxton, Schweitz and Wilson. Also present was Jim Nicoli, Mayor-Elect. Absent: Commissioners Collson and DeFrang and Councilor Scheckla Staff Present: John Acker, Associate Planner, Michael Anderson, Senior Project Engineer; Carol Landsman, Senior Planner; Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Ray Vallone, Assistant Planner-, Randy Wooley, City Engineer and Leslee Gemmill, Secretary 3. John Acker, Associate' Planner, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to assist the City Council i _ to decide whether to hold a public hearing to consider land use changes in the Tigard Triangle. He said S . , the Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing, voted unanimously to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. . y John Acker then reMewed the history ofthe Tigard Triangle and gave a brief overview of the elements of the Specific Area Plan. in conclusion, Johm Acker outlined the available options for the City Council to consid r - to }proceed vii:h the land use hearing' do not have a heqring _md nnncider nn t Irther chr"nge or to direcE starr to propose transportation and/or iuban design changes. r a President Fyre said the City's intent was to assist the development of the Tigard Triangle as it was felt the area was not progressive. q in response to Mayor Schwartz' qucstiori regarding the Citizen Advisory Committee's involvernent in the process, Jobn Acker said that the purpos2 of the committee v as to get input from a diverse group of people who had a vested interest in the Tri=gle,. He said a number of rnerrrbers did not avant to do anything and one individual was interested in ,seeing something happen. I Mayor Schwa.r`tz asked the Planning Commissioner;, for their reasons behind the decision to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. t - President Fyre responded that the Planning Commission was risked to get involved and `ue Er, nary in their involvement to ace ifthe area could be shaped to benefit the City. At that point, there was not I alot of economic growth in the, area. President Fyre said the Commissioners received ernotional input from. ~.riangle residents at the public rearing held at Phil Lewis School. The neighbors asked what was going on and why the { Ccmpreahensivc. Plan was being changed deer the NPO developed it and also annfothcr concern voiced r L was the G-C zoning change. President pyre said following the meeting, the planning process continued but in the meantime, things were happening that demonstrated ecoromic development in the area. He cited Cub Foods and Costco and the school,district wanting the underlying; zoning of the school site reverted back to G-C. 1 The night of the motion to deny, President Fyre spid the Planning Comminsion received organized and rational neighborhood input. After the hearing, th=-- Commission unanimously approved a motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change and forward that recommendation to the City Council. c Commissioner Holland responded to Mayor Schwartz' comment regarding the school site zoning and ` residents comments that they preferred it to be an office site. He said that his involvement as a ` 1 Commissioner came later in the process and at that time, the concept included the school staying. ' Commissioner Holland said after hearing public testimony and looking at the Comprehensive Plan, he ` became more informed and began to question the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He talked briefly about Dartmouth St. then suggested the City look at each piece of Triangle property and see how it best fit the community. In conclusion, Commissioner Rolland said he thought the City should do what was good for the community and best tax base in the future. e Commissioner Wilson referred to previous meeting minutes and pointed out that only one person G . testified in favor of the proposal and the opposition was overwhelming. i President pyre said the oPPosing testimony was presented rationally with legal reasons and the 1 F individuals were well prepared. He said it was nice to have _a vision for something that looked good and ideauistic <ard then talked abcui having seen visionary plaanning`of other communities that failed because, they weren't thought out 1 arrt a market-driven base. President Tyre said he saw this happening K -J 'Ic ~.-:....,t,. ..3 si..._..C ]...,'.S .,.d sue. a aIt Lti'v L1Lamr., w11 411blvlvlr \.;GL:ILLuL LV vVLH 6arallza, it. { i Commissioner Wilson talked briefly about Metro and the Por,Ahnd area trend from auto-oriented plamun g and said the a riat3gle should be auto-oriented as it was surrounded by three major aster lams and a natural for Iarger developments goinn in there. Councilor:rzwley said she had a edarent impression of the process and, vihat she rernembere.d was the City Council saw a window of opportunity fad planning for development in the Triarigie and she was thrilled viah the concept. She fit there was considerable, support with thx-- project when the City Council asked the Planning Commission to work or. it. Councilor Hawley refi.-rred to the hearing at Phil Lewis School and said there were lots of questions and concerns and she said she didn't hear the alarm fTorn the Citizen Advisory Committee referred to by President pyre. She s id that perhaps with her enthusiasm for the plan, she didn't look into every sillgle detail before suppoi tirtg it but `felt it was well thought out with slot of involvement from both sides. Councilor Hawley said for two years now, the Commission had worked without alot of objection and she had compassion for Triangle property oviners. Her perception of the process was the City Mad an opportunity to put a plan tar place, a plan with vision and things were different row and that opportunity may have been missed. s JO-TN-' CITY COT.T_NCTL/PLA-1 TNTNG C'ONTTVUSSI®I~l WORKSHOP - I,7ovtiml;er 21, 1994 - Page 2 Coranissioner Schwartz commented that he thought there was a wide range of support by people in the Triangle to leave the area residential as evidenced by public input during the process of rezoning . . and development of 72nd Avenue two years ago. He said he was surprised by the opposition now 1 heard from residents. Conunissioner Saxton said as much as the City would like to create an aesthetic pleasing area in the Triangle, two 'criteria in the Comprehensive Plana may have been overlooked i.e., change of E circumstance or a mistake was made. He said the input heard was overwhelming to leave the area as g j is to aAlow for the maximization of revenue from the sale of properties and then questioned the population and viability of the school. + . . ' President Tyre addressed the visionary aspect of the process and talked about whether the impact of ' j the process was taken into consideration. He said the impact of this plan was the zoning which was the fundamental issue. President Tyre said there was alot of planning and money involved in the process and there was nothing wrong with the quality of the plan. The Planning Commission's key concern however, was whether a mistake was made in the Comprehensive Plan or was there a pressing need for change and he said the Planning Commission saw neither. ® Cox ITU'ssioner Holland said there was not a demand for office-professional and a demand for high t i density residential but not in this particular area. c - • . Commissioner Schweitz said he didn't hear argument about what could or couldn't go in the Triangle F ! but did hear input to leave the Comprehensive Plan in place. The input asked for equal treatment L received by other areas in the City. e _v ayor S: hwa_rtr, said he rem,-mbered discussion that addressed the Connorehensive Plan concerns and Councilor Hawley said she remembered the issue being addressed also. Councilor Hawley said that when the City Council gave direction to staffto work on the plan, they believed circu;nstances had ~ changed enough aYrd also about to recognize another major change wits, Dartmouth. t Carol Landsman clarified thy; two systems, quasi judicial and legislative, under which the Comz).-ehensive Pier, could be changed. She explained the diff'erence between the t-wo and the reason why quasi-judicial vxas chosen. Mayor Schwartz expressed his disappointment and said he thought there was strong property owner k support mid he was not in favor of continuing now. He d fie was inclined to go NvIth the Pianning Commissions recommendation to deny the amendment aird zone change. Councilor Hawley said that even though the City ;wasn't going ahead -,sigh the original Tigard Triangle plate, she Believed the City had followed its pla1i as outlined. She c-spressed her disappointrmcnt about the rniss.ed opporturdty and said if the people warted to "Jump ore the bus", she'd ldap too but xas sorry about the missed opportunity. Councilor Rolilf said lie was inclined to 'bring the matter up again for a full public hearing. JOITN ' CITY COUNCIL/PLAI I'ilgiiNG CCTvih✓iISSICi4 WORKSHOP - Novem',;cr 21, 1994 - Page 3 a Councilor Hunt said he thought that two years ago there was agreement between the City Council, Planning Commission and the neighborhood and he was quite surprised when the Planning Commission voted no. Senior Planner Landsman explained the three options and asked for clarity from the Council. Commissioner Moore said he recommended the City Council hold a public hearing to hear what the ~ Planning Commission heard regarding the Tigard 'triangle plan. There was a brief discussion about the two land use concepts presented to the City (ouncrl at the beginning of the process. Mayor Schwartz suggested that the City Council hold a public hearing to listen to the area residents t concerns as there might be some variations that could be done for planning in that area that might answer some of the concerns of the neighborhood. j Councilor Hawley said she would like to see the completion of the process and requested the Planning f Commission attend the public hearing to be available to answer questions as their input would be valued. Mayor Schwartz said it was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with a public hearing an this ' matter to hear testimony from property owners. ggeste+t the hearing be included in the %ityScap and be widely advertised for a { C ounciltsrohlf su good crass-section on input. City Adrni istrator Monahan sue csted the hearing be held at or after the serord regular naeetinrs in January and indicated the schcduh~ could be discussed fiuifh r ::t the regaziar City Council meeting on November 22, 1994. g Mayor-Elect Jun 11Ticoii invited citizens in the area to attend the meriting in January to present their ideas and asked therm to corre forth and give their input. M. The worksession adjourned at 7:05 p.rr. PItr$y a11% C4,1 t 2LtU~, JOENT CI'-f COUNCDA" ANTI-41 dG CONQvIISSION -WORKSHOP-November 21, 1994 -Page 4 F [ epanding on the number of person 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 It necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to s supplement oral testimony. i. f PUS LIC HEARING - COUNCIL CALL-UP TO REVIEW THE SITE DEVEL PMEAT REVIEW S® f 94-0019/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PDR 9 2/SENSI°C,&VE LANDS REVIEW SLR 94- 0004 MAR'TIN/'TRI OUN TY CENTER. LOCATION: 12265 SW 72nd Avenue (WCTM I S1 36CD, tact lot 2005 and 2S1 1BA, tax lots 100, 101, 300, 400, 401, and 402). A request for Site Development Review, Planned Development Review, and Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow construction of ; a general retail and professional office center providing up to 342,500 square feet of retail and j commercial office space. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 113.32, 18.62, 18.80, 18:84, 18.50, 18.82, 18.54, 18.08, 18.88, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 15.108, 18.114, s? 16.118, .16.120, 18.144, 18.150, and 18.164. ZONE: C-C ('RD) (General Commercial, Planned Development)) The G-G zone allows public agency and administrative services, public support facilities, E professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, business support ;services, general retail sales, and eating and drinking establishments among other uses. The PD 'Planned Oeveiopmentd overlay zone provides a means to use new techniques and technology in = development. Tine Planned a®valocrttent zone facllitatas efficient economic use of land and ' crr2mu~ iit' i; y preseNnn to the greatest. extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities, F' me Address ero E ~ Mwo '@.'r tiP. Y'~vi ~ Iddroas F rei t j -Ad / a BrriW 4KL16e 16L C~°GGf~. Address Address _Ytf !~/G Yv S~t'iL F4=0 * e V\Y,+..zvk Io f:"r", is A~~T M MEN=- Address v :Nama s - trra0 ~ I; It 33 i I Addma3 P n)~:~m Rz a ao~ Nmno E Address ~Jdross ~ SEA - - E3 5 - - Mama 3j ~lamoe. - a~idr, s a Addren PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking in Favor) Opponent - (Speaking Against) rs" ~rESZS, ~sidrese is zava~r Name Adelresa Address g. Name rdatl8 .Pe0dr65& rase dress e d r e Address t .e_. ~ A.~LCGS- ~ f'.t~^'rf:3 _ ~~t ®s r.. k ~..w___-__r.._,.W t __._.a__•_...r._~_.. O 1 C i~.S k W u ~ O 11 ~ S ~ pj ~ iSY v~• mot. O S M _ E: Y Ul mo LM VI V4 -Ile tea _ raj i A u Ll a Ca ~7 U A~ 1 i i , ® ~y t ~ rD ~ S S S A 21 61 s1i ]1 'm v, `yam[( - - i Fa1 g - S 2.1 3 S i NQ K O ffi1 S 43 ~3 r~~S 1 r= Qm 'TMA 1 1=21 67 i2 nu E 2 L c~i is in d* v a a s s w o 1 J' x o is a' v Z5 - r) C. ca mw lJ .N `Tx a` L1„ xa t~ i. m v. ` x ua) a i P da 3 v; m y' erz as o 03 ca --n t5 EF Q `y 'li Jna r~ b. s> r 9X V `A O ~ SJ fll C7 ~ L °U fi •J ~ 4l Pki d Q I ~ 1.L2 0 ' - c s 1 Cl F3 m. w~~g 1 ~ ya U s.1 ~ ~ ~ C, tc3 ~ iC L9 ti v.a S a ~3 c~ z, t~ ; q) a U Jl i O U s't y R qi f'f 75 ti7 Xcl ca ca as r U as 0 ea d c a m m5 o F~ ' a V. ::3 p Q aJ d.7 ~ B O ~y _U s €i sa o ca a 7~J a. ~ sa Io -:J w 'CCU c3 I ~ e} eS ca^o ~ ~ ~ O LL. ps t~ ca a- a V4 z r°3 Sa ~ min a ' Z 43 13 A, ?.M 10 cs R-- 72 va = -C J2 a a~ e C as t~ 8A { m e~ a < y a~ 6a m sb < m C5 S 11 i. s r' r r y o a o~ a '2 Jl S a, e 2 t3 0- E! 16, AA 112:1 a % o -3 0 y o as Q a 4-1 M +g ,b s sa o mn a3 ski A (~s s ' 5) .sa y Q Js..l m r~yaa pQ° 43 3 as .z ,sS w °4y' Si~,• as 'b p &Y 15 a ~ x5 . , ~ 5 ~s ~x y ~ ~,y ve v ~ a ~ as~ ~ c5 ~ a- a.5 ~ ~ a'~S T: ~ e+ G% i C,b r,{ rr~ ac vii' .5 1}.. qqtyy ai as °i ~u spa' O .Is!-- k b i~ a6"i U U y' a~ ,.,~'j tJ n`S a~ i o~ rJ N aka tS1 1L b y m~ 1) 41 i~ A~ C V u 111 LL 'L7 .li U is 4 va (i9. LL C,3 V Ll f~ u9 r ¢t lL v w ((1 M 4) ~9 ly- ~il u 41 -11 j - I{I 3 1 f.i 6) 3~ d.~ 'a3 2 ~ ~ ~3 15 = ~ ~ N L d ~ GS ~~,1 y v5 ~ i.f C) i y~ m tx` a~ s y w n E .u M.- s:;: v 2 r~ a cd _ 43 6] L) .iS S °C3 +a (:y C3 Q ~L] 01 i Ls Q .L~ I~ tD N iSS 1~~l yt'~ Q) F3 N ~a rd t;~ J IF '63 ~ ~ ~ G1 d~ PJ 6. ~ ~ lD ? Sv s' ~ 4-b 6' s? i1 ..a ai iE p c3 i7 a~ U aQ (e 1 C3 6s i:. % (:S t? 7n 4i (j ~'i 0.S si• 2 m : t (a c1 Ca a.a a o3 _ F, cE c fib'. r L > m' 6l t) s ~ ,a ca u~ G c s Q r3 ua ~a. s L c3 fz- r SJ. 'b"~ 1= IJ Air P'3 bl 1 ( ~l) t"il v 41 ~j rA~j U d r$ 9~ 1= „y '~3 4) .£.a ~-a .yy Pj v ~ ~ o _ .a as a3 ~ m ea.. u ( u i cG 6. "CS m._ IR T ti ? >.s d n~ n b- Ea-, i b ca i7 L] u7 .w ' .2: r= .SS lL ~'3 1 i LA) J k Zt6z ~ ~ _ s~Ly F ~ /z_~ J l FYI / ~C cl C / d ! d l~$'~`~y . j F l --d az p% Y ~ene~/ t2ct~~¢7°z - `U ! . r-/ tp -C w-al Sol C. f. i ~1 ire,' /~c v ~ , /-I `['p ~2 _ _ - _ C' - P Tigard City Council 13125 S. W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: Subject: Appeal--Ballot Title As Filed With The Tigard Elections Officer On January 12, 1995 Concerning Voter Approval Of Street a Design This transmittal contains a formal appeal requesting a change in the ballot title for the above captioned. It is requested that the ballot title be revised to read as follows: AMENDS TIGA,RD CHARTER TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF STREET DESIGN EFFECTIVE 1 JULY 1996. 1 i The ballot titie as prepared by the City Attorney is improper because it does not deal wji l flIlp E-pn1ity of hf zrrlch 1-6 s --e_~ ir v 10i~e~s+ ipvri Citizens, property owners, subdividers and land developer, attempting to do business vJth and in the Cih,' of Tigard. The chaos vihich will likely develop should the rneasure be approved and immediately becorne lavt+ needs to be mitigated, For example, a sUbdivider would likely find it next to impossible and very costly to t dave lop subdivisions if he were unable to plan and implement street improvements. The proposed -neasuie , as written, could prevent installation of needed utilities such ! as electrical service , gas, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and telephone utilities because a change in street design rniight very well alter location of necessary rights-of- way. Such a de!Fy could Prove to be very time consuming and costly. There should be a concorn as to tha impact upon the city goal of street connectivity l and tragic ;lour. This measure may yell encourage development proposals contrary to l that objective so as to avoid costly delays near areas that may potentially qualify as parks and/or wetlands. Fart of any subdivision negotiation with the Citt}+ ai'rdays includes a discussion of "open f E G space". As a subdivider or developer, when would any "donation of open space" to f F enhance the attractiveness and marketability of a development turn into a park and require a vote of the people two years hence? Obviously, under this proposed law,it would be`'only prudent for a developer to provide as few "public areas" as possible. F' Any such result would .obviously be contrary to city objectives. A fixed date for implementation is mandatory to partially mitigate cost impacts, delay and confusion of this arbitrary ballot measure. The date of °1 July 1996 is recommended so as to allow a limited time for the City of Tigard and concerned taxpayers to adjust to this proposed and very significant additional burden. s This urgent request is forwarded on behalf of concerned residents and taxpayers who have authorized me to represent them regarding this important, potentially expensive ,.d and bureaucratic proposal. F 3 Respectf Yours, ; G. Eugene McAdams 1 j~ i f 4 No%-ICE OF RECEIPT OF TIT Notice is hereby given that a ballot title for an initiative ~ waasure was riled with the City Elections officer of Tigard on January 1.2, 19950 1 y person dissatisfied with the ballast title prepared by the City att-orney for the measure may appeal to the City Council asking for different ballot title. The appeal must be in writing, Mast give the remans for the appeal, and must state my the ballet title 1 Imenared _ by the City P ttorney is improper. (THC 1.12.120) The written appeal t be filed with the City Recorder at the Tigard City 1, 13125 S.W. X11 Boulevard, Tigard, gown 97223 (Tele a Nom 639-4171) no later than 5 p.m., Jan 19, 1995. fte lot title caption is: i Ammm °im To P v APPMVAL PF STRMT fte ballot title iju6stion is. r Should the Tigard Charter _ e voter approval of street design for s t& passing through or n,.-xt to parks or vetl.an ds? sun7rnary 7,s-. a this n c aazuxr ;You-d ze' r- the ~ . City oolmm cif to ssek' Vats approval 02 ~;s>=..xat .1 ti LLv '1g3 bafo a t e- J6nitiatz.g CZ=-Q9 or"icr,s p-:~ei a, ena r- or fund the c amt =i=l an of f' n a&u sty'c or vcticr- of treats. SV3Lted to tale '~'4+'.~Fs.r,G.i at th~o aviary tT'n ~ Prepared day pads J. o s a~ 3 P L I✓yve s°Si~ L~y d rid o P r;r P ?e r i. an"IIaoxy 12, 3-995 ~ yl `a i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON i `mot TO: Honorable Mayor and City CdUauil j FROM: Dill Monahan, Interim City Administrator i DATE: January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, January - March, 1995 Regularly scheduled council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OX , we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. h cT~Yttlcdry *10 TUGS Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 16 Mon Martin bother ling Day - City Offices Closed E *17 TUGS _i Employee Recognition Receptions 4-5 p.m. j Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Steady Session (CIT review) " Business Meeting Taxes Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Steady Session Business Meeting *1 Tues noi3 c 1 Meet-i g 6:30 stlady Session Business Meeting 20 Mon Presidents' Day - City Of ices Closed -I ',1:21 Tues Council Study Meeting (6:30 p.m.) *26 Tues council 1'eeting (6:30 p.m.) " Study Session! Business Meeting I-larch *14 Tues Council Meeting v 6:30 p.,ii. Study Session Business Meeting Spring Vacation - Wcea of € arch 20 *21 Tues Council Study Ueeting (6:30 p.m.) *28 Tues Council 'Meeting (6:30 p.m.) study session BuoiI'1e^ss meeti n hs \~c:~ i~ac~iil~yycccal i ~ f 1 . { Agenda Item No. 3•a Council Meeting of ~_-S - BELO`v7 IS A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL AGENDAS FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS- PLEASE CONTACT CATHY IF YOU HAVE CHANGES, COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS... f t ~ a Updated: January 10, 1995 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS _ January 17 February 28, 1995 k S . January 17 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting ~ v 7:30 porgy. Business Meeting Consent Agenda- ` . Resolution to enter into a Washington County Wasteshed Reduction IG.A year 5 of 5-yr. plan J . LCRB Agent of Record Council Calendar Tentative Agenda F Council discuss ioivrevicw CIT 'L7Ddate u ?Metzger Par._ Issues (;1ayna ) - Public Hearing: ,j . Martin/Tr i-County Center ,January. 24 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 V. in. Dus~.n©ss Meeting Council ConsiderE.tior,: Budget Corunittee. Appoin-k- ent Public Hearings Tigard Triangle (Hearing to begin at 8:30 p.m.) < FH_ Regulation Revie-w(m-L'd. homes and sensitive land responsibility outline) < Waymire Easement Vacation Naming of Walnut Street est of 135th Avenue (Wooley) 7-77 --7 F t i ' Jan . 31 or Feb _ • ? a Annexation PO LOY - • Speed Humps • undergrounding of Utilities Dolan responses - Code amendments necessary to comply with the court decision ! • • How much staff should encourage growth Council's philosophy on who should pay for growth • Does Council support the 2040 plan and/or the ' transportation planning rule? ; is Councils policy on half-street What • improvements Discussion of restrictions placed on the City by State law February 4 9 a.m. Council Training/Goal Setting February 14 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Consent Agenda: Council Calendar Tentative Agenda Council. consideration: Puolj.~ Hearings (3:30 p.n..) Tree ordinance (development j p ravision 3 ) • Sierra Pacific Conpreha ns i.<<,a plan Designation February 21 i 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting p Parks SIlC Structure February 26 i 6:30 p.n11. Study IFaeeting Agernda : ` Consent R Appr_ov. a- Council. Goals Business Id-ae--ing i Public hearings ' Hunt/Martin Annexation _ Halrnut Island f i i To be scheduled: • Annexations "Alcohol" ordinanc • Planned Development Ordinance • Update on Notification process a proposed amendments to land use notification procedures j Community Development Fee Increases - Resolution j • ordinance Proposed amendments to Initiative & Referendum process March - Codemaster transition i i r MEMORANDUM 0../i CITY OF TIGADD, ORE ON , j TO: Onthy Wheatley FROM: William Monahan, City Administrator { DATE: December 22, 1994 ,j SUBJECT. Upcoming Council Agenda Items - Engineering Randy Wooley provided me with a list of potential Council items for the coming year. They are as follows: { A possible Study Session on City Council's development policy. We need to discuss with Council their philosophy on whether or not we are promoting grovAh. Within this discussion, the following issues could arise: I . Dolan rssponsas - Code amendments necessary to comply with the court doci,,ion. i 2. How mu ;h staff should encourage growth. 3. Council's philosophy ors vjho is to pay for growth. 4. Dcas Council support the 2040 Ceara and/or the Transportation Planning ;yule? 5. 'What is Ccund!'s polices on half--streat irnprovemeras (last discussion 6. Discussion of restrictions placed an the City' by Stale lave. ~ Discussion of tha Trisngla Plan. Foy lo4jintg this decision, Council should review the transportation and panes clement of tho Triangle Plan. The DK , Pian has not ha-in, adopted yet. - - .uuicau~~ ~ u e a xani i~~_ug1h - -----x- ~a-_u v r o I u~--0 ar1 r-ra n--y 1-101 - -v - ~{7S3 r1 ulC i~l~ riGl A!'prlHJtkluEl~ ~ - r ~ au rifi, t there Is a concern for running sewer lines outside the City. At this time the F City's reimbursement district process does not allover districts outside of the City. We have people who want to annex to the City who need engineering help and are awaiting action In 1995. G 2. Utility undergrounding - Staff still needs a discussion meeting so that a new ordinance can be drafted. 1 3. Speed hump - Staff needs to prepare criteria for priortiaing speed humps so Council can decide where to put the first installations. ~ Febrca h 1. We need to come back with a municipal code change dealing with hours E for delivery of products and materials to commercial canters as well as the i use of shopping center vacuums. There is a concern on noise which needs to be addressed by, restricting the hours in which noise generating activity such as these occur. i 1. Realise of ne-Ighborlhood corn mercial zone - This is not an engineering issus, but is one that Paul Hunt asked us to come back wtZn. WANI/jh \ia3iil\jc,\tivvm9~?~ z i f AGENDA ITEM . For Agenda of 01 17 95 CITY OF TIG , OREGON COUNCIL ;AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 1994-95 ''WASTE REDUCTION YEAR 5 PLAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1 AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY t a PREPARED BY' DEPT HEAD O OI CITY ADMIN OK ' ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i Should the City participate in the Washington County Wasteshed Plan to meet r Metro waste reduction goals? E STAFF RECOMMENDATION Participate in Year 5 of the Waste Reduction Plan in coniiunction with all cities within Washington County by approving an intergovernmental agreement j with the County: INFORMATION SUMMARY ' Metro has established a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan which includes a Waste Reduction Chapter. This plan provides that Metro must establish a five-year work plan for solid waste reduction 'and identifies specific c' .programs for local governments to implement. The cities and 'County in i - 'Washingtcn Count_i determined in 1990 that it would be Gist cost effective to particip ai_e together and adopt an annual work program as the rrlashington County Wasteshed, This was done for Years 1 through 4. It is nog.- time to i adopt the Year 5 work plan. In the attached folder, is a summary of the Year 5 tasks and revenue allocations as well as the intergovernmental agreement faith Washington h_ County. As in the past, under the plan each City will pay to Washington County, as Program Administrator, the amount identified as that City,s share for administrative cost as allocated under the annual plan from Metro. Tigard`s share of the program costs is $11,480 for this fiscal year. j A resolution adopting the intergovernmental agreement with other Washington County cities and the County is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i a Do not participate in the County-wide progr_ara and adopt a plan for the City of Tigard pursuant to the requirements in ORS Chapters 268 and 459. ` FISCAL NOTES ' Funding for the 94-•95 wo__k plan is provided by Metro grant monies which Tigard will pay to Washington County to administer the program. d i j i i is 9 { _,v a -1 ! 0 Fri TT Z 1 - J 1 •7 h.: a=., f f r . . I r f`r f l I , 41 K A a HHH f s ~ ~ \ , _ _ _ . r I ~F 1 cy~ p± aqy V ~ .O. I ~ G f.d ~ ate. ~ `.~G ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ O ~ F. g ~ ~ ~ ."Coe ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] 7 o v a N' a as a ~p e v .Qsj' { - GSi tlio w M gem &Z, n I 1 q N > •L. Sj ~ a L,D .n ~ m 7 N W N ~ p w .per aC.. ro •g O G A .c o a v a p V u ml FJ ~ _ ~ Y. LPG • C ' pp , y Q E E^ Cil r I PPa`4m C1 0 C tf • ' ~ 4~; ~ n a oo d v u ~ u'~ ~ (l~v`1.J ~•tio~ i ~ ~ t ro ® J K y ` p r C] N Q i .v O `C r w N 'h O ~v Q C1 O 26 w ' ~ ~w~`a E- ~ .o ~ -w ,vv ~ b ffi A ~ of 9_ ~ a, 3: y. "3 " titi~' tl ° r G^ J ~ x .`y h Y ~ `u 4 a . a A w ~ N G'd ~ .!r~ . . • t V ti ~ 7 CM'"~ . ~ CI•'1T, ~„~1 ~-"Li y ~ 95 ~ 'Q. Y~.' C23 ~~..yy ~ w L.. T3 , e.Zl M a o a Q .k a c c s' o i c' s " f i h VIA u x u c7 y _ v : O0 ~ ~ c ~ (GJ1 s . 'pq.:~5' ~ „ ~ ~ 40`, 22yWyW`.. • a e ffi 'Cx~ 0 3 e 'tea. a. V °-r 'po &I- r - o 'y ~ •°a Oc9~:.r adi~Ua.?.g0.c21 .~C&`5 °?iWa'."..`a i r, ac ~ +L x7U ~ U " i ~ 4 mu A"~... P. ~ •qc y. a ti y q~i ,~.n' ~ ® c Y ~ °~G'i, ~ 'mss C CC ~n ~ `~q `Lq c s' ~ - (5 JX r : ~ ~ ~ V.. I V th ~ UT I h I UT Gi O O G G O O O O O O G Cj- pj ~ bJ ~ .a~i ~ J} LlT e' 'J V I Gi o ci e? •i~ 9 yr <v Z, vi I . ch cn 116 cry > S K' - a r ~s b C M n n o ~ ~ ca5 ~o ~ ~ a in o o ~ t<'i r • ~ 'c3 o rici <n ~ c .r ~ ' 7 ~ N N ~ M cD "Jl Q 1 V _ r ! ~ u y A! V ~ ry ° Tn G~ C 1 • ~ w ~ v a c='. ~ 6 ~ v ~E'3 cam' ~ ~ wit a U E ~ a •G s~~ ro Z T. f Sri. J ~ F..,L C ~ O L 1 i.r:. s t tv RD'= T-- WASHINGTON COUNTY WASTESHED WASTE REDUCTION ' INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 1. Parties a Parties to this Agreement are Washington County (hereinafter "County") l and the individual signatory city. Plan Participants expected to sign agreements are the County and the Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius. Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King `City, North Plains, Sherwood, 3 Tigard, Tualatin and Wilsonville (hereinafter "Cities"). Any reference hereinafter to 'local government shall include both County and Cities. II. Statuto[y Authority j This Agreement is entered into pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 and ORS 459.065(1)(b). lli. Purpose Pursuant to ORS Chapter 268, ORS Chapter 459, and related administrative rules, the Metropolitan Service District (hereinafter "Metro") has established a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, including a i ;waste reduction chapter. The 'Metro plan provides that Metro shall establish a five-year work plan for solid waste reduction and identifies Specific programs for local government to implement the Metro plan. Metro has established guidelines for local government participation in the form of an Annual Waste Reduction Program for Local Government for Year Five (July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995) of the five-year 'plan. The Metro plan requires local governments to `adopt a work program annually. The Annual Waste Reduction Program for Local Government establishes minimum requirements for local government work programs' for year five and provides that local governments may work cooperatively with f leighhoring local governments if intergovernmental agreements i documenting cooperative arrangements are submitted with the local government program. The purpose of this Agreement is to document the cooperative arrangements among the local governments and to establish 1 the duties of the County as administrator of the fifth=year local' government work plan for the fifth year (1994-1995), and to provide a structure for continuing working relationships among the local governments during the final year of the five-year Metro work plan. i i. IV. Term of Agreement All local governments shall decide whether to participate in the fifth year local government work plan by September 30, 1994. Participation shall be accomplished by adoption of the plan and by entering into this Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be i from September 40, 1994 to June 30, 1995. This Agreement may be renewed by the County and the individual signatory city for successive one-year terms. Renewal shall be accomplished by action of the governing body of the City and of the County to adopt , j the proposed local government work plan for the succeeding year, and to renew this agreement with amendment to Attachment "A" that reflects the funding and duties of the proposed local f i government work plan. . V. Administrative Structure 1 A. The Washington County Wasteshed Technical Committee shall t consist of a staff member from each local government appointed by each of the local government administrators or governing bodies. _ -i County staff shall act as administrative coordinator of the Technical Committee. The `l-ec:hn;cal Commidee shall develop and propose: an annual work plan including projected annual expenses and revenues for future years as necessary. The annual work plan will be developed ` i in a timely manner to meet all deadlines set by Department of Environmental Quality, Metro and partidpating, local governments. ~ Annual work plans will be presented for approval by the governing body of each local government on one-year intervals only. The annual work plans shall provide local governments with minimum waste reduction standards consistent with the Metro plan; individual local governments may impose higher standards for waste j reduction. f vi. Duties of Artie- A. County duties as Program am Administrator The County shall perform work requiring technical expertise, including plan develo; meat, data collection and compilation, report writing, program coordination, technical advice to participating governments, and general information to the public. The County shall recommend policies and develop model ordinances as necessary, and generally promote the local government waste reduction programs. The County shall also perform field work including performing waste audits, single-family recycling, multi- family recycling, school education, community education, and special event promotion. The County shall also perform work requiring, coordination with Metro, DEQ, and other agencies, and represent the local governments before such agencies. In addition, the County shall perform the specific duties outlined in Attachment "A" (page 2). B. Counter Duties as Grant Applicant The County may act as agent for all participating jurisdictions in applying for waste reduction and recycling grant funds as determined appropriate ` by the Technical Committee. Disbursement of funds will be to local participating jurisdictions or franchised haulers based on a formula to be determined by the Technical Committee or set by grant' requirements. This does not preclude any local government from applying individually for any waste reduction and recycling grant. C. Duties of Each Local Government Each local government shall undertake annual program tasks that are internal in nature, such r as office paper recycling and procurement of recycled products. Each local; government shall also be responsible for enforcement of solid waste reduction; plan standards with respect to the solid vast( collection ordinances and franchisees within each local` government jurisdiction; enforcement may include complaint investigation, service standard review, reporting and revisions to local government codes based upon the model code developed by the County. In addition, each local government shall be responsible for establishing rates for collection franchisees within each local government's jurisdiction consistent with the waste reduction program. Each local government designates the County to act as its agent in receiving appropriate recycling grant funds. In addition, each local government shall perform the specific duties outlined in Attached "A" (page 2). Vil Fundina Each local government shall pay to Washington County as program administrator the amount identified as the local government's share for '7-77 i . administrative costs as allocated under the annual plan recommended by the Technical Committee and approved by the participating local governments. For the 1994-1995 year, each local government's share shall consist of all revenue from the Metro "Challenge" grant for the 1994- 1995 program year, in accordance with Attachment "A" (page 3). Washington County shall act as administrator for revenues collected by cooperative efforts of the local governments. Each local government shall have the right to audit for up to three years County records relating to Metro grant funds received through this Agreement. Each local government shall be responsible for establishing solid waste collection rates that allow a reasonable return to franchised solid waste } i collection businesses based on local rate review standards. Local governments retain authority to review hauler costs and to perform audits of hauler financial records. d f a Title Date CITY OF I By - :i Title fate ig~yr5.dcc 1 vw { 4 1 1 Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program Year Five, Annual Waste Reduction Program Fiscal Year 1994-1995 Mission: G The Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program is an intergovernmental organization formed by the cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Durham, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, King City, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville, and unincorporated Washington County. The Cooperative Recycling Program is committed to providing solid waste management, including waste reduction program planning, public education, recycling and collection services in an efficient, affordable and environmentally sound manner in order to achieve j state mandated and regional waste recovery goals. The Cooperative Recycling Program's goal is to reduce duplicate efforts on the part of participating jurisdictions in achieving recovery goals and providing service. Priorities for the Cooperative Recycling Program are: 0 Complying with state law. J Providing education and information on solid waste, waste reduction, re-cycling, and reuse. Providing program coordinadoo with other jurisdictions and agencies. Ensuring efficient, affordable, and consistent services for the public. History: The cities and unincorporated county first met in 1989 to develop a joint approach to yard debris recycling. In 1990 the cities and county again met and formed a coalition of governments interested in developing a coordinated approach to providing services and programs, thereby conserving both fiscal and environmental resources.' For the fifth year, fiscal year 1994-1995, the Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program has i developed the yearly waste reduction work plan to submit to Metro. 1 Stakeholders: The Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program (1AJCCRP) governments work to provide the 360,711 residents and approximately 8300 commercial establishments, A,,nual Waste Reductron P,-ogam Year 5, 1994 - ] 9115 Revised November 17, 1994 1 j alternatives to disposal, such as waste reduction, reuse options, and recycling opportunities. Voter approval of a state-wide ballot measure which limits tax dollars for ! a variety of programs, reflects the desire of the public to receive cost effective services. f` `j Solid waste collection and recycling services are provided by 26 franchised haulers and a j number of recycling firms and processors. i' 3 Program Structure: ± The Cooperative Recycling Program is guided by the Technical Committee, whose members are representatives from each city and the unincorporated County. Washington County staff administer the program on a day-today basis and monitor overall compliance with state law and regional goals. Each local jurisdiction is responsible for A rate-setting and enforcement within their legal boundaries. The full scope of -responsibility is outlined below in Figure 1. Current active committees within the program are Finance, Education and Promotion, and Waste Reduction. Sub-committees are formed in specific program planning areas; for example, commercial recycling and yard debris recycling collection, on an as-needed basis. E. 7 i Figure I Local Government Scope of Responsibility COUNTY AS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR CITIES & UNINCORPORATED COUNTY ROLES IN PROGRAM j Plan Development Rate Setting Authority for Franchised Haulers ! Data Collection & compilation Internal Recycling Programs: E' Reporting Requirements In-House Recycling Programs Program Coordination Procurement Policies 6 Technical assistance to local governments Building Design Review Adoption i General Public information Multi-Family Recycling Service Resolution or i Ordinance General Prmotion Waste Reduction Enforcement: Public Education Program Implementation Assurance Program Implementation: Complaint Investigation Residential Curbside Recycling Program Service Standard Adoption Coordinate and Conduct Waste Audits Report Requirements Commercial Recycling; Program Code Revision Multi-Family Recycling Contribute Revenue to program for Administrative costs: School Education Designate County as t',ulti-Farrnly Grant Administrator f> Community Education Designate County as Challenge Grant Administrator Special Event Promotion Authorize County to Apply for Waste Reduction Grants as applicable i Coordination with Regional, State, and Local Governments and Agencies _ Contribute revenue to program and administrative ! costs as lead .jurisdiction. Since local governments retain authority over the rate-setting process, it is each government's responsibility to assess the fiscal impacts of the new waste reduction programs included in the Year 5 Plan and the continuation of existing programs for their franchised haulers. Funding: Disposal fees and franchise fees furl the area's waste reduction programs. The i Metropolitan Service District (Metro) collects a portion of the disposal fees paid by area residents and re-distributes a small percentage of the money, in Challenge Grants, to ti)e i Annuli Was(e RedlClOn Program ] i c ' Year 5, i99s• 1995 t I Revised November 17, 1994 l I local governments in order to conduct waste reduction activities. Challenge Grants are ~ awarded on a per capita basis to each city and county (see Table 1). Each of the jurisdictions participating in the Cooperative Recycling Program assign their funding, through an intergovernmental agreement, to Washington County to administer the Cooperative Recycling Program. In addition to the County's Challenge Grant money, the County contributes franchise fee generated funds, which matches the amount of Metro funds, for use in administering the Cooperative Recycling Program. Table 1 reflects the 1991-1995 level of funding for the program. . Priority will be given to complying with State requirements and maintaining programs established in the first four years of the waste reduction program. The WCCRP governments should assess the impact of reduced funding on programs and determine whether new funding sources should be secured. _ t Table 1 Population and Funding Allocations 4 jurisdiction 1993 Metro Franc ise Fee Tote Furor i-ng Population Challenge Funning Grant I u~ Allocation iaanics 570 400 -0- 400 ~eaverton 60,00 - 21,42$ -0- 27,428 i Lorne e-z Durham 6,550 800 2,339 $ 400 0- -0- 2,339 j 400 1 ---j - Forest Grove 1 14,175 b 5,067_ -0- $ 5,(% 2 oro 4 a 15,100 -0- 15,100 King City 2,085 $ 745 North a:ns 1,025 400 -0- $ 400 1 i Sherwood 4,040 1,4 3 -0- $ 1,443 :gar 32,145 11,480 I -0- $ 11148-0--- Tualatin vvi sonx- e 16,805 9,580 6,002 3,421 -0- -0- ,002 $ 3;421 t r€nc. 1 1 70,656 60,947 129,167 140,1 s a Yle~i sJty~nb ~17 i County i' lC~T%lt~s 3&€2,71 '129,17 X1`29,-~~7_ X258,334 r~ Annual Waste, Peductron Proorarn Yea- 5, 1494 - 1995 "!t Revised NasTrn-~r 17, 1994 E k' i i.: E 1. Regional Waste "'eduction Program Planning OBJECTIVES: To establish long and medium range waste reduction and recycling targets j for the tri-county region and to develop a strategic plan for Metro and local governments to work as partners in facilitating the creation of efficient programs to achieve these targets. Metro j j Metro will update the Waste Reduction Chapter of the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan with a 1995-2000 Regional Waste Reduction Strategic Plan. Metro will seek; input from the business community, the collection industry, local governments, l and the general public through public meetings and public hearings. r z Washington Countv Cooperative Recycling Program: Strategy: s l Continue to be an active participant in the development of the Regional Strategic .i ° Waste Reduction Program Plan. Including seeking the involvement of the cities of ' ' the Cooperative Program, the solid waste and recycling haulers, business, and citizens. e~5 Target Date: On-going Responsibility Assigned to: Washington County staff in coordination with the Cities of the Cooperative Program. fI. Regional Coordiriation OBJECTIVE: For Metro `Haste Reduction Division staff and local governments to share information, pool resources, and coordinate activities so as to mininize duplication of effort, provide uniform programs where appropriate, and to provide Metro area residents with the most cost effective waste reduction and recycling programs possible. Metro Metro wi!I facilitate and/or coordinate waste reduction programs that are most effectively implernewed on a uniform basis region-wide. Metro Waste Reduction Division staff wil! male themselves available to attend planning and coordination meetings at the request of local governments. nnnurl Waste Reduction Program Yoar 5, 1994 _ 1955 q f.e,iied !'JOVCmber 17, 1994 4 { V" Cahlr•Iztorl Cuuriiv Cooperative Recyclincr PrMram Strategy; Continue to coordinate recycling and waste reduction programs with regional and state players, in order to avoid duplication of efforts and to most effectively conserve fiscal resources. 1 i Target Date: On-going Responsibility Assigned to: County staff and the Technical Committee of the ' Cooperative Program. ' Strategy: Continue to coordinate solid waste, recycling, and waste reduction programs and j activities within the Cooperative Program. Target Date: On-going { Responsibility Assigned to: Washington County and the Technical Committee of i the Cooperative Program. 111. Compliance with the 1991 Oregon Recycling Act OBJECTIVE: To comply with the provisions of the Act and to document that compliance. Metro tAetro vvill submit an Annual Waste Reduction Report to DECD on behalf of local 1 governments and Metro. i Washing on County Coo - erative Recycling Program: Strategy: Continue to comply with the Department of Environmental Quality program .J elements chosen by the Cooperative Program. The program elements are as follows: 1. Provide recycling containers to residential collection service customers. 2. Pro" de on-route col!er_tion at least once each week of source separated recyclable materials within the metropolitan service district boundary. 3 3. Provide an expanded recycling education and promotion program. 4. Establish and implement a recycling` collection program for each multi- family dwelling complex having 5 or more units. Annual Waste Reduction ~Iragram ti Ycar 5, 1994 - 1995 Y.evisad Novembx i S, 1994 I 3 Target Date On-going lesponsibility Assigned to: Each local government and the County, as program enforcement and rate-setting authority. Strategy: Continue to document compliance by providing a brief annual report on programs and promotional/educational activities. The report will be submitted to Metro and include samples of promotional and educational materials. Target Date: August 1, 1995 Responsibility Assigned to: County staff as program administrator in cooperation with each local, government. t IV. Implementation of Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, Waste Reduction Program Washington County Cooperative Recycling Program: OBJECTIVE: - To continue to provide the opportunity to recycle to residents. Strategy: Continue to maintain and refine waste reduction and recycling programs as listed below. -i j Target Date- On-going Responsibility Assigned to: each local government as program enforcement and I rate-setting authority. 1. Single Familv RecvclinII: Continue to provide weekly curbside recycling services and educational materials to residential collection service custorners. Continue to add new materials to the curbside collection programs, whenever economically or technically feasible. 2. Multi-Fanjiv Recyclin Continue to facilitate the installation of recycling systems that accept at least four principal recyclables at substantially ail apartment complexes by July 1, 1995. 3. Yard Debris Recyclin . Comriostin ; A. Collection Programs Banks: Outside the metropolitan service district boundary. Backyard burning is Annual +Va;te Reduction Program R l Year 5, 1994 - 1995 _;51 1 Revised r,ovember i7, 1994 6 i allowed by DEQ. Residents may use a yard debris depot or compost. Beaverton: Will in, plemeni an every-other-week curbside collection program on ' j October 1, 1994. Monthly yard debris depot is available. Cornelius: Backyard burning is allowed by DEQ. Yard debris depot or on-call service available. Compost bin pilot program to start Fall 1994. Durham: Weekly, curbside yard debris collection service. Yard debris depots available. Forest (Grove: Backyard burning is allowed by DEQ. Yard debris depot or on-call service' available. Hillsboro: Will implement an every-other-week yard debris collection program _j , sometime in the Fail 1994. Backyard burning is allowed by DEQ in parts of city. Yard debris depot or on-call service available. King City: Yard debris depot or on-call service available. Population is under 4,000, jurisdiction is not required to provide weekly or equivalent yard debris collection. North Plains: Outside the metropolitan' service district boundary. Backyard burning is allowed by DEQ. Yard debris depots available. Sherwood: Curbside yard debris collection and/or home cornpost bin program. Tigard: Every-other.-week, curbside collection program. Implemented July 1, 1994. Tualatin: Weekly, curbside collection grog,-ami, Wilsonville: Weekly, curbside collection program. Washington County: Urban areas receive every-other-week curbside collection service. Strategy: Continue to collect data, maintain records, and participate in regional waste characterization studies, in order to refine programs as necessary. J Target Date: On-going Responsibility /assigned to: County staff in cooperation with the Technical i Annual Waste keduction Program 1 ear 5. 1994 - 1995 Rvvlsed November 17, 1994 _ j A , 7 l . pr==' C i i Committee, and the franchised haulers B. Home Composting Strategy: Continue to promote home composting through written materials, displays, and _ Metro's home composting demonstration sites. Assess the effectiveness of a compost bin distribution program and grass-cycling education programs as a means to keep yard debris out of the wastestream. i C. Yard Debris Compost Marketing Strategy= f Continue to promote the use of yard debris compost. i° 3 Target Date: On-going i Responsibility Assigned to: Washington County staff in coordination with t'ie Cities of the Cooperative Program. I l 4. Camrs*.er; ial Recyci'sng strategy: ' To implement a cornprehensive commercial recycling program. (see attached plan) Target Date: A.ugusk i, 1994 start date Responsibility Assigned to: Each ioca9 government as prograrn enforcement and I rate-setting authority. _I l 5. Construction and Demolition lante I Strategy: Continue to distribute educational materials on opportunities existing for h con struction(dernolition waste recycling and for resource-efficir-nt building practices. \Norl: with the franchised haulers to develop cost-effective programs to meet the needs of the development and building con-Irnunity. j Target Date: August 1, 1994 Annual Waste R°ducvon Program Year 5, 1994 - 1995 Rrv;,^d tJO•.2 tuber 17, 7994 c 1 Responsibility Assigned to: Each local government as program enforcement and rate-setting authority. ' Strategy: Review locai codes/ordinances for barriers to using resource-efficient building f practices for government construction projects. i Target Date: June 1, 1995 Responsibility Assigned to: County staff, in cooperation with the Technical { Committee. Each local government as program enforcement. Strategy: Facilitate the selection of construction projects that may be used for Metro demonstration projects. Work in coordination with Metro, Metro's contractor, and the franchised hauler, in order to meet the needs of the development and ` - building community. Target Date: ' August 1, 1994 ' Responsibility Assigned to: County staff and each local government as program enforcement and rate-setting authority. 1 t' 1 6. Promotion and Education i Strategy: i Continue to mee, the criteria of the 1991 Oregon Recycling Act for expanded i ; j education and promotion. in order to meet or exceed the requirements some of the Cooperative Recycling Program's educational components are iisted belov ~ "The Waste! ir,e" a direct mailer reaching all residents and businesses in the county. r -,a Educational displays on home composting, proper preparation of materials, yard debris depot locations, and in-house recycling. Recycling brochures for residential and multi-family residents (Spanish translations available), new service letters, press releases, school educational programs, waste audits, buy recycled information. Participation in a wide variety of community events such as Washington County Fair, Earth Day events, and Recycling Awareness `:Meek events. nictrih ljinr r,crlyv~rG fnr :all rnatr rink inr-h rrrlnc the Welcome Wagon, libraries, cultural community centers, building permit centers, health clinics, and city halls. Annual IiVasle Reduction Program Year 5, 1994- 1975 kcri5 et'I+'n~rrt~Ikr 17, 1994 9 . E i a a k i Presentations, upon request, to community groups by County staff on a r variety of issues. 4 f t F- 'i k Strategy: Continue to coordinate efforts with regional players on promotion/educational activities, Target Date: On-going € i Responsibility Assigned to: County staff and each local government r i Strategy: Develop and distribute materials on commercial recycling and waste reduction opportunities. Target Date: August 1, 1994 start date ' Responsibility Assigned to: County staff, in cooperation with each local government, and the franchised haulers. i 7. Buy Recycles Strategy: Continue to prcrnote source reduction strategies in conjunction with buying recycled content products at the in-house level and for the general public. l Target Date: On-being i Responsibility Assigned to: County staff and each local government 3. Technical Assistance i Strategy: Continue to work with Metro in planning, research, and implementation of pilot f projects. Target Date: As needed Responsibility Assigned to haulers i i County staff, each local government, and franchised 9. Funding for Waste Reduction and Recycling; Annual Waste Reduction Program Year 5, 1994 - 1995 Revised November 17, 1994' { Strategy: Continue to provide staff or other resources as practical, in order to implement the € region's waste reduction plan. The commitment is possible only if meaningful levels of funding are returned to the local governments for waste reduction E programs. 1 Target Date: ©n-going Responsibility Assigned to: County staff, each local government, Metro ~ s ~ i { l; t 'j l f. t j : E t f i 1 t i f-^ Annual Waste Reduction Program Year 5, 1994 - 1995 Rcvised n'ov^_mbcr 17, 1994 PREPARED 131 ~a 3 DEPT HEAD OX a-C-- CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council set policy for insurance purchases by adopting Tigard Purchasing Rules (Section 10.070). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve appointment of Ren Craybeal with JBL&K Insurance as the Insurance Agent of Record from 02/01/95 through 02/01/98, and authorize City staff to negotiate a personal services contras: to be signed by the City Administrator. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has an on-going relationship with an insurance broker to act as our Agent of Record. This agent assists the City in the following ways: • to search the insurance market for appropriate policies that would adequately cover the City's exposures in all areas other than employee benefits; analyze bids and place insurance coverage; s sere+ice insurance policies; aosist'with non-' caditional risk financing; • keep the City current on insurance market trends; .asist tre V ,y in rsducing number of chins and severity Gi clairns (includes training, hands-nn review of activitic c programs); assist Edith propel v luations (conduct cn-site at Isaat once event' five years); and omer f~inGtons includa: consulting advica regarding insurance and indemnification ciauses in contracts; fire protection and life safety; developing special policy wording; assist with foss adjustments; cleiir auditing and at times adjusting. The City's Purchasing Rules spacify thst u.a s:vili opan selEction for Agent of Record at least once every three years. The current Agent of Record of is Ron Craybeai of Ji L&K and his contract expires 0?J01/95. The firm has been our Agent for tine last three years and has given us excellent servico. On 11/23194, the City received written proposals from three companies fishing to serve as the City's Argent. All tlirae companies (JBL&K, Sedgwick, & Stamm Stuart Bybee) were intervig'ved by the city's Selection Committee (cmiprised of Pam Beery, Wayne Lowry and Loreen Edin). After careful review of t,`~e proposals and services offered, the City's Se!ection Committee recommends JBL&K for another three years. Give further direct on to staff. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES $450,5 is currently budgeted for b)e City's commerdai insurance purchases in this fiscal year (excluding ernp'oyee E benefil). The base contract fcr Agort of Record fill cost $12,700 per year and will be offset by commissions roceivcd by Jl3,LPd*%. i 1 , AGENDA ITEM .1 For Agenda of ianua*ry 17_ 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (Local Contract Review Board) ' j ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Authorization to advertise for bids , ( PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK S _ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL `I 1 Authorization to advertise for bids. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Engineer to advertise for bids for construction of the Cook Park Picnic Shelter Replacement and the Grant Avenue Sidewalk. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 24, 1994, the Council approved the 1994-95 capital improvement program (CIP). The Purchasing Rules require separate Contract Review Board i" authorization for each project prior to advertising for bids. 7~ Two CI? projects are nearly ready to bid: Cook Park Picnic_ Shelter Renlacerient_. This project will replace the existing shelter- which is in poor repair. The intent is to advertise this project in January so that construction car, he completed prior to the start of the park reservation period. Included in this project is replacement of the roof of a nearby concessions building and construction of additional concrete pathways to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. Grant Avenue Sidewalk._ This project will add sidewalk improvemeni_s along one side of Grant Avenue between Johnson Street and C.F. Tigard School. Staff is recommending that the sidewalk construction be on the west side of the street. Attached is a letter explaining the reasons for selecting the west side. After bids are received, Council approval will again be required prior to award of the contracts. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i_ FISCAL NOTES The picnic shelter replacement and Grant Avenue sidewalk. projects are funded in the 1994-95 CIP. The concessions building roof replacement and the ADA sidewalks are funded in the 1994--95 parks maintenance budget. E ~rw/bzd r Grant Avenue Sidevialks neighborhood meeting was held December'', 1994, to discuss the project and the faros and cons of the sidewalk options. Resident owners from three properties, the principal from Charles F. Tigard Elementary School, and a representative from St. Anthony's church attended the meeting. A majority of the funding is from a federal grant through the Community Development Stock 'rant (CCSG) program. The grant is intended to provide pedestrian improvements to Grant Avenue from Johnson Street to C.F. Tigard school. At the neighborhood meeting, we discussed the options of constructing the sidewalk on the east side of Grant (replacing the existing asphalt pathway) or on the west side. If the sidewalk is constructed on the west side, the existing asphalt pathway on the east side would remain. Ideally vie would have a full curb and sidewalk on hoth sides of the ,treed. Hovuever the funding available at this time is oniy adequate to complFte the sidewalk on one side. I have diseusdsad with e the City Engineer the various comments erorn the Dec.ernber 7th i Enooting. We have concluded that the best use of the funds would be to construct the curb and sidewalk cn tho west side of Grant. This option provides two benefits that wa believe are important. First, it will result in pedestrian facilities on both sides of Grant (the I new sidewalk an the west and the existing asphalt pathway on the east). Second, it will provide a safer walking route between the adjoining; neighborhood and'C.F. Tigard 1 elannentary school. With a sidewalk on the west side, a majo ty of the students will not have to crass Grant Avenue, McKranzie Street and the driveways to St. Anthony's. A wo93t i;ido sidovgalk also provides a safer route between Walnut Street and the school. i We vjill begin the final design in January and gill be contacting individual property owners adjacent to the proposed sidewaik in late Jan a y and Fobrauar;r to revievr project dstails. Construction is scheduled for the spring and surnmer of 1995. Sincers~y pct Ertg;neer vyGl:t:,mrt2.~! 13126 ':1411 Nall 13lvd, `flgard, OIL 9722,3 (503) 6:39-4171 I DD (503) 684-27.72 i i i t j AGENDA ITEM # - For Agenda of January 17. 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON r COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY f, ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE tXtsdate or 3;iet"r Park PREPARED BY: T#av ne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK k ' " ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Follow up on the Metzger Park Issue, 3 _ ST MP RECOMMENDATIOH i N/A NFORMATION SMH4ARY 3 In October 1992, the Tigard City Council requested than the County withdraw ~ 1 the area of the Netzger Park LID within the City boundary from the LID. Over r i 70% of the assessment funds collected by the LID for the operation of the Park come from City property owners The Council wanted to stop the double taxation of City residents for Parks services. In ensuing conversations with the County, it was discovered that the City t Council was never asked to approve the 1988 increase in the Assessment for ~ the Park. In order to 'resolve this problem, the County asked the Council to pass a resolution approving the i nci ease. In August 1,993, they Council passed a resoluticn approving the inr_reas.e in the assassuient but only for the 1994195 firncal year. The council minutes of that ~action as3.ed staff to gather information to assi=st them in their dete:rminatior. of x-,7hatheb the City should continue to support the LID i assessment or pursue other options for the Park. Council also asked to be 'he actual operationx costs of the park. advised of The County f umds, the operation of the Park from the as essme - which raises about $40,000 per year and from rental -revenue which runs about. $77,000 per year. The last two years actual data and data through Dec. 1994 for Park operations are shown below: 1992/93 1993/94 i 934-/95 Revenues : Taxes 41,335 40,956 34,446 Rentals 1693_86 'L7,4i5 8,372 Total 55,021 58,431 42,818 Exioernses : Wages & Ben 36,520 41,051 21,6711, 11T S .1-2,477 11 ,?'56 4,528 Other 7.? 1 6 t .s 1 4 c 974 j To'Cal 56,258 58,938 31,1.76 f l- 'S Of the annual assessment of $40,500, taxpayers within the City pay about 71% i -;or an estimated $28,700. Washington Square, which is the largest property J -owner in this LID, pays an estimated $12,400 per year. The City Council has until. June 20, 1995 to decide if it will authorize the increase in the post 1988 assessment. For additional information, see attached staff report. OTHER ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED See attached staff report. FISCAL NOTES j N/A F 1 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON t TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator PROM: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director ~ ~w•h-! DATE: January 9, 1995 SUBJECT: Metzger Park Staff Report Backcround t ' The City and the County have had several conversations over the past several ? years regarding the operation and maintenance of Metzger Park. The Park is located in the Metzger area outside the City limits and includes about 7 acres and a meeting facility. The Park land was given to the County for Park purposes in the early 1970's and " the LID itself was formed in 1975. The original LID raised funds for improvements and then continued to provide funding for operation and maintenance. The original assessment was $18,000 per year. This amount was raised in 1981 to I $27,000 and then raised again in 1988 to the current level of $40,500. 4 . + When the City annexed a portion of Metzger in 1987, many properties within the ~ - LID became properties also within the City limits. In fact in the current year, over 71% of the assessed value in the LID is inside Tigard's City limits. As a ' result, $28,700 of the total assessment of $40,450 is paid by Tigard property owners each year. An estimated $12,400 is paid by Washington Square alone. ` + ^ The budget for the operation and maintenance of the Park has averaged about $58,000 per year. Revenues total about $58,000 with the LID providing about 7096 r and rentals on the building amounting to about 30% of total revenues. j F. i. storms In October 1992, the Tigard City council requested that YIashington County withdraw all properties in the Citv from the LID to avoid Tigard taxpayers from having to pay for Park twice. During it's examination of this issue, the Countv found that the Tigard City Council had never approved the increase in the assessment in 1908 from $27,000 to $40,500. The County then asked the Council to pass such a resolution so that the total assessment could be legally; levied. i The City council made an effort to seek citizen input about how they felt about I paying the assessment. Only six responses were received. Four were in favor of keeping the assessments, one did not want to pay more, and the last wanted to be i eliminated from the LID altogether. i The council considered a resolution in August 1993. Council took action to l approve the increase in the assessment but only for one year. The assessment for .1994/95 was the assessment year covered by that resolution. This action meant that taxpayer.:; assessments stayed the same as they had been in the previous year. The Council minutes from the August meetings indicate a concern for cutting, off finding for the park immediately. In addition, the council asked` staff to gather _ information to help the council determine whether the City should continue to support the LID assessment or to pursue other options for the Park. e° i Alternatives The Tigard-City council has until June 30, 1995 to decide what to do about the t t future of Metzger bark funding. The Council has the following options: 1) The Council could pass the required resolution approving the current assessment level for another year. This would result in no change for Tigard taxpayers and no change in the level of funding to the County for the operation and maintenance of the Park. This option would leave the door open for the Council to consider this issue again in the following year. 2) The Council could pass the required resolution approving the current assessment level for ever with no time limit. This would result in no changes to the current situation but would preclude the Council from future action regarding the amount of the assessment. 3) The Council has the option to take no action to approve the increase in the assessment for the 1995196 fiscal year. This action would reduce the assessment on Tigard properties to the pre 1988 level which would result in a 33% decrease in the assessment to Tigard taxpayers. County funding from the LID for the Park would decrease by an estimated 23%. 4) The Council could pick up the issue of withdrawing Tigard properties from the LID and continue that effort with the County. The County, however is not required to grant the City's request to withdraw. Such a withdrawal would greatly impair the funding now available to the County for operation of the Park. They would have to secure other funds, increase the levy on the remaining properties outside the City or cut expenditures for Park operations. 5) The County has approached the City about putting together a proposal to take over the management of the park through a contract with the County. The Mee-zger Park board has been especially hostile to past proposals from the City to become involved in the operation of the Park. There is no evidence that such sentiment has changed _in 'recent years. Nevertheless, the Council could explore the benefit to Tigard citizens of the City's involvement in the operation and maintenance of the Park. I have set forth what I believe to be the alternatives available to the Council regarding Metzger Park. If you would like more information about this issu°, release let me know. i i i i i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO, 93- a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING A W CAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF METZGER PARK FOR ONE YEAR 3 WHEREAS, in 1976 a local improvement district for the operation and maintenance of Metzger Park was established by Washington County; and. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard annexed approximately 54% of the parcels in the Metzger Park LID in 1987; and WHEREAS, the maximum annual operations and maintenance assessment for r Metzger Park was increased to $40,500 in May, 1988 after annexation of i a portion of the district to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the LID assessment annually is charged against the non-school taxing district's tax limit of $10.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation; and WHEREAS, Washington County compiles a Tax Coordination Plan annually, which in part forecasts the future tax rate for all non-school taxing districts. NOW, TiIBIRE :ORE, BE !T RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council hat: Section 1. The ongoing maxiiviamnt annual operations and maintenance j assessment for Metzger Park in an amount not to exceed $40,500 is herby approved only for the tax year berlnning January 1, 1994. Section 2. In the event the Tax Coordination Plan forecasts, the tax rate within the City of Tigard nearing the limit, :imposed by Article XI, Section llb of the Oregon Constitution, by reaching $9.00'per $1,000 of assessed valuation, the City of Tigard' will confer with Washington County to determine a means by which the City of Tigard's' ability" to levy taxes within the property tax limitation is not impeded by tine LID assessment for Metzger Park. h:\login\jo\tidres.mxa - l RESOLUTION No a 93-41 k Page 2 Council Agenda Item TIGARD CITY COUNCIL r MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Jerry Edwards. E f: j 1. ROLL CALL { Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy Fessler, Wendi Conover ~ - Hawley, Paul Hunt, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, E Community Involvement Coordinator; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Catherine i Wheatley, City Recorder; and John Acker, Associate Planner. k STUDY SESS1ON1 Agenda Review- Council briefly reviewed the business agenda. One item discussed was r I the Metzger LID issue. It was noted that a copy of a 1988 letter was received from Jack I Reardon of Washington Square. This letter outlined concerns with an increase in the i assessment for the Metzger LID. Council discussed the park and the effect that a reduction in the LID assessment might have. Council consensus was to ratify the assessment for one year. Staff will gather information to assist Council in their determination of whether the City should continue to support the LID assessment or to pursue other options for this park. Citizen Involvement Teams t l?"s -Facilitator training was co raplEtted last week; 12 people pa ticipated. There will be a one-"hour "Dick-off° meeting (3/31 - 7-8 p.n-i.) to make assignments, discuss the timing of the first meeting and begin work on the draft { i agreements. i Review, ofeAgenda Item N(:L 4, Gag Natural Area Local Improvement District - it was noted Council must repeal the resolution approved previously with regard to the petition process (resolution No. 93-37). If Council should decide to proceed with the LID process, they would need to approve a resolution to start the process on Coin di's own iriN ative. Review of -Agenda-item ~lo. 3. Consideration of FinalOrder - Ames Orchard ll, SUB 93- 0002 - Legal Counsel Coleman advised two pieces of correspondence were in the Council's meeting material. Legal Counsel Coleman advised the letters were received after close of the Public Hearing. Council should note the letters were received, but that they woe„4ld not be considered part of the public testimony. The letters should not be accepted as part of the record of the ;proceedings. li ^ouncil would want to hear more on an'v issue, the Public Tearing would ha-ve tole reopened and proper notice rust be Cl- Y, COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 1 ! F j ' There was further discussion on boundaries and clarification of process by staff in response to questions from Council. ' After lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Councilor Fessler, seconded by { Councilor Hawley,to initiate a preliminary feasibility study (engineer's report) by City Council direction and to have the petitioners bear the cost of the engineering . report. E Motion failed by a two to three vote. Councilors Hawley and Fessler voted "yes"; ; i Mayor Edwards and Councilors Hunt and Schwartz voted "no." i 5. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION - METZGER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT - City Administrator Reilly summarized the issue for Council. The issue before Council is to decide whether or not to ratify an increase in the assessment established by Washington County in 1988. Without approval by the City, the County advised the operations and maintenance assessment levied on property within the City would have to be reduced to the pre-annexation amount. The 1988 annual maximum assessment of $40,500 would be reduced to an annual maximum assessment of $27,000. t. City Administrator Reilly noted an article had been written in the Tigard Times and large property owners were sent letters, asking for their opinion on the Metzger Park LID. One letter was received from Washington Square. Mr. Jack Reardon ' seat to City offices a May 5, 1988 letter from him to `Beanie Hays, Chairperson of the Board of Commissioners for Washington County. Intr. Reardon, General Manager of Washington Square, advised his comments in the 1985 letter were still vaiid. in this letter, Mr. Reardon advised he felt the Board could work with the asse=ssment of $27,000 per year, which was a more than an adequate arnount to C maintain the park. (Copy of this letter is on file with the Council meeting packet). Mr. Bsiily advised the City received six responses from residents. Four parsons were in favor of continuing with the LID payments, and two residents indicated they did not wish to pay more, or asked to be eliminated entirely from the LIB. Mr. Reilly outlined options for Council. These options included: 1. Affirm the increase in assessment by approving the proposed resolution. 2. Approve the increase in assessment, with limitations. 3. Decline to afiirr.n. i .sCI3 CC Iii aL ME ETING MINUTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - IMAGE 6 Mr. Reilly advised his recommendation would be to affirm the proposed resolution for a set period of time. Council discussed the issue briefly. It was determined Council would like to be advised what the actual operating costs are for the park. There was concern - l_. - a.__i. the park- Lei .....1 !~-aJ!_i_L _ expro5tsea ihat' !IVL be C;LAL 0-11 itiIu1.rIauicualy uniii some determination can r. be made as to the need for operating costs for the park. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to approve the proposed resolution (Resolution No. 93-41), with an amendment being added that such approval would be for a one year period of time only. (Note: Legal Counsel noted that in Section 1 it would read as follows: The ongoing maximum annual operations and maintenance assessment for Metzger Park in an amount not to j exceed $40,500 is hereby approved for the tax year beginning January 1, 1994.) RESOLUTION NO. 93-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF METZGER PARK FOR ONE YEAR. d Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. 6. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER - AMES ORCHARD 11, SUB 93-0002 i.; L Legal Counsel Coleman noted that the Public Hearing had been closed. Two l letters included in the Council packet would not be accepted as part of the record. Legal Counsel recommended that the Council clearly make a determination that the letters will not be considered. If Council should feel they v-rould want to take- new information, then the City would need tore-notice and advertise the Public Hearing. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Coundior Hunt, staling that the r; Council conducted a Public He=aring on e this issue. Additional information received aver the close of the Public Hearing would not be considered as part of the record for thus issue. i Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. ~ Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the staff report. He referred to the final decision before Council for ratification. During the course- of his presentation, Mr. Murphy recommended that Condition No. S be amended. (see Page 25 for !tern No. 6 on the Ames Orchard Final Decision, which is attached to Resolution Po. 93-42). The proposed change to Condition No. 6 would require additional documents be recorded to give `notice that each individual lot in the subdivision will be required to participate in a `reimbursement district or 'other f nv-,nniM mp(:hPniQm tr% chnro in fnc, nrwoF cavYr,.., e:.,, c+t.ai r•*r......,a ,..~~a AL .,..............y - .na.aeae aav -'W "V .s w frontage of the subdivision. In this manner, property owners will be advised at tha timo of the purchase of the firianciai obligation with regard to the reimburs emend district. GiTY COUNCIL',AEETING ,Mfl",1UTES - AUGUST 24, 1993 - PAGE 7 i k t 4.2 Billboard on Scholls Merry Update F No new information. Community Deve!opment Staff to submit request to 1 legal counsel for determination as to whether this billboard violates the intent of the Code. 5. CONSIDERATION ' OF RESOLUTION - GAGE NATURAL. AREA LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - RESOLUTION NO. 93-_. . This issue was postponed to august 24, 1993. Deadline for receipt of information for or against the proposed LID to be received at City Hall no later than 5 p.m. on August 16. 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION/ACTION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. t i City Engineer Vvooley reviewed the staff proposal for the remaining projects under the Streets Capital Improvement Budget for FY 93-94. i Gena Corbet asked several question and made brief presentation concerning ;pedestrian walkway information to Council. Additional information for Council review will be forwarded from Ms. Corbet. E, After brief discussion Council approved the remaining Projects under the Streets i it Capital Improvement Budget for FY 1993-94. A motion to so approve was made by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Fessler. i Projects approved: f $40,000 in gas tax funding to be used for pedestrian improvements in the t Park/Wa kins neighborhood. Staff will .,iork with the neighborhood to deiormine prdciso improvements to be- made, the goal being to provide the greatest benefit to pedestrian safety with the funds available. Assicin the remaining $44,0010 of traffic impact foe finding to the design of the i mth/Wintorlake bridge connection. Miotion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Caunuilocs Fesslor, Hanley and Hunt voted "yes.") CONSIDmATiON OF t"- ESOL.L TiON - UIE'1`7GER PARK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT F DISTIRICT ASSESS-MENT - RESOLUTION NO. 93--e_ . Litt' Administrator Pt;ifly rWvie%,vod information on this agenda ifiern. After is . ' diseu siran; Council decided to table this issue to August 24, 1093. Consensus of -4> CiTY CIOUNCIL s,YzEETING MINUTES -,august 10, PAGE 5 t~ t Council was to attempt to solicit information from those property owners affected ; in the Metzger LID area..' i, r 5.. CONSIDERATION OF CHARTER AMENDMENTS - RESOLUTION NO. 93- City Administrator Reilly reviewed the staff report. He advised that if Council did F 1 not go forward with a November election, the next available election for the Charter - Amendment would be in March, 1994. Councilor Hunt advised he would prefer to ~ review the Charter amendment proposals more thoroughly to study ramifications C of the proposed changes. He said he was opposed to going out for a November k i election. Councilor Fessler advised she agreed with Councilor Hunt. Councilor j Hunt further requested that this issue, if delayed until a March, 1994 election, be kept to the forefront of Council items for consideration. Council members agreed to schedule this for a Study Meeting in September. j 9. I CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES - ORDINANCE NO. 93-21 E A. Chief of Police Goodpaster summarized the staff report. The intent of the language was to restrict on-street storage of large vehicles, while still allowing reasonable access for residents. B. ORDINANCE. NO. 93-21 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY UPDATING DEFINITIONS; REPEALING SECTION 10.28.020; SPECIFYING PROHIBITED PARKING; AND REGULATING THE ; PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES ON PUBLIC STREETS. C. Motion by (.amour icilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance 93-21. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present (Mayor Edwards, Counc.i;ors Fessler, Hawiey, and Hunt voted "yes.") 10. INON-AGENDA ITEMS: done 11. *EXECUTIVE S- SSION: The Tigard City Council went nto `&,ecutive Session at 3:45 p.m. under the provisions of OILS 192.660 ~ I) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real proper~y transactions, current and pending litigation issues. *Note: Mayor Edwards announced, out of Executive Session, that no action world l I Le taker on Agenda itern 3.5. This itern will be considored Ggain on Auc ust 24, 1993). CITY CGllNCls MEETING R.Il, .lJ s ES August 10, 1993 PAGE 6 -j F f. council discussion followed on safety concerns. t Bikepaths, according to the City Engineer, would be required on both sides, of the street to encourage bicycling on the correct sides of the street. Mr. Wooley noted difficulty in making connection of right-of-way areas, along this street. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWOUPDATE (Continued from Study Session): ~ • Western Bypass After hearing update on status cf the F , Bypass process from the city Administrator, City Engineer E and Community Development Director, majority Council (4-1; Councilor Johnson dissenting) consensus was for the City to continue to participate in the process. a Councilor Johnson noted her continuing concern with the F Murray Boulevard Extension remaining as an option and expressed misgivings in participation in the process. City Administrator recommended that the City remain involved in the ODOT process (Draft Environmental Impact 1 Study - DEIS) to persist in voicing the City's objection f to the Murray Road extension option. Community Development Director Murphy reviewed the Land i< ' Use Transportation Air Quality (LUTRAQ) alternative. (See October 13, 1992 memorandum from Ed Murphy to Pat Reilly which has been filed with the Council packet material.) 3 Coo erat ve Library Advisory Board Representation: Yvonne Burgess' term as CLAB representative has expired After di-ucussion, council consensus was to appoint City dr-.iinistrator as primary representative with the Library Director designated as the alternate. This representation will more closely match the representation F of CLAB`membership from the other member libraries. In addition, -the Administrator and Library Director have F., benefit of direct access to the City Council and are familiar with their viewpoints on financial. matters. E Council asked that the Administrator notify Ms. Burgess and to express thanks and appreciation for her willingness to serve for the last few year;. Netzge~_PaY.k LOC I tF3roJPdTte17$ -District (LZD_1; Council discussed withdrawal from the Metzger Park LID. Councilor Kasten advised he would not participate in the F, discussion noting a conflict of interest because he lives in the subject area. City Administrator noted the double taxation implications for these City of Tigard residents since they pay for parks in my City's tax base, CITY C01UMCIL MEETING 1?111TCT ES OCTOBER 13, 1992 PAGE: 4 I i , f. F'. Council consensus was to direct staff to approach the Washington County Board of Commissioners requesting withdrawal of the Tigard portion now participating in the V_7 Metzger Park LID. l Transportation Project: At the last Council meeting, council decided not to fund a Main Street Project. Coxzsensue of Council was to ask the Transportation S Advisory Committee to review their project priority list and select a replacement project. r Water Issue: Council received a copy of Tigard Water f i District Resolution No. 16-92 " ..committing to work with the Cities of Tigard., King City and Durham to create an Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement to form a joint ` water agency." Council consensus was to focus on efforts to prepare a 190 Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement.; The public hearing scheduled for November 10, 1992, to consider withdrawal of the City from the Water District will not occur at that time because of the renewed 11190 Agreement" effort. 7. ADJOIJEhMNT : 9:30 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder i Mayor, City of Tigard f ~ E- Dat:~ : an, 1013.92 i i i i i` r` CITY COUNCIL I1BETING MINUTES _ OCTOBER 13, 1992 PAGE 5 t xt..1 ni 1 rl p L c tt` l Y Metzger ar Hall < e__ u *r-r CY 7 8400 S.W. Hemlock Street 4 C ` r ' _ ~1~Up OR 7l253 Portland, t (503) 246-099$ _ i Are you aware that Metzger has a park dating back to the early 1900's? ~ The park was part of the 241 acres that Henry Metzger purchased in 1908. t In 1919 the Metzger residents built the original building with donated materials and labor. In'1921 the property ` was deeded to Washington County for Metzger Park. Later, in 1925, again with donated materials and labor, a j gymnasium was added. 'T'hrough the years Metzger residents and organizations cleared land, provided picnic facilities and landscaping, and were responsible for operations and maintenance of the building. A war memo- rial was conceived in 1946. ti i Lunches for Metzger School were prepared at the Clubhouse before the school cafeteria was built. ` - Washington County assumed administration of the park in 1970. At that time, due to a lack of funding, the building was boarded up a:ad the grounds were no longer maintained. In 1972 Metzger residents approached e County in hopes of saving the park. As a result, in 1975 the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID) was approved by residents and ratified by the Washington County Board of Commissioners, providing a viable funding source to reclaim and upgradre the property and to build anew facility. 71-mr ks to the hard work and dedication of the Metzger residents, WasWngton County and the Oregon National f 'r Guard, residents can be proud of its neighborhood park. The Current building was dedicated in May of 1977. The park is funded by residents and busint isses within the LrD. The current tax assessment for the residents j - within the LID is less than ten cents 10) per thousand of assessed property value. Revenue is supplememed with income frorn the building rental and other activitics. t The sever. C:l'Ac e p,-ark offense An indoor rental facility including a kitchen for weddings, receptions, anniversaries, company parties, group picnics, business meetings, seaunars, training sessions, memorial services and a host of other event with parking available. Quiet nawral areas, picnic spaces, playground equipment, play area for small children, ie n-nis courts, basketball Bops and horseshoe pits. The Metzger Park Advisory Board, lMetzger Wornen's Club, Metzger Garden Club, Citizen Participation Orgimization (CPO 44) and the Tigard Chapter of the Northwest Steelheaders all currently use, the building for _i rr1°.~b:ings. r M . " .~F - . . _ \\\ld ty t~P~ u! C l ( INN ~\y~, J < { u.. p`"a1t"-' 1wr 1_~! Ilr•$~"~~ iL___~ f'l fl x(~./ 1~ ~H. •r,. E ^,C Ii t ult K o '"\\`w~ ' ( q- , 1\ - opt : f•'^;;.~ °s Y _..1 !_°S,J:.J~_ .SJJ.,~.. _ 1~ a Y 1 ~ 1 tr U ='1 S ~cr nr 4t 1 ~°`i o J ` t°1I a,• y~ JJI~`'+ it `tl r`\\ \ 6 L o , i a i 1 C i n~~'~ A,cti, ~~/i Nas~,nG 1 1~. e 1 1\ it`J M w r! 'I a u I f• pill ~s'~~v- . •cl,. \ \ 1,"° j c i~ I ''I. 6l•• a ° //^•o. N J`+n/i'Y~~/ ~~4~~ ~~~..y_ _ ~ ~ ~_~^=-•-~^.'/"/P 1, I~-: `I l ~ ~:b o v.f I~IK- t. Kr~lisr) 6 1~,°L~, ~ ,n. r i r• e~ t.- N c I lt,,,+ M Y~ ( - ~I off,! s J~. ..~~~~\~p....:~r~°~,~LI _l~'Sle~~ ~r~ c.~__'~r._..o ~r.:_-~-.-.---~.o. ='~p~'~'"• ~r q 1. w ~.Lti-\} ~w~~ s, .lam! J` f ll ~1+ '~s""SH?1, °I c r~l-_..+t> . t`e\:. `.~.._~-•~7 ,r r tv ~ ~o. JI Ii Fit. is A.. 0, j - _ ' jC'~ ' I X11_ C a• w ]lr>SOnrx• v \\i ~L6 1 \ ( F. ~l C y o a w~ Is 1 •:I•w " e o E~ ~ 2i fI ~~m•~1N ~\li ~~I ~1 • ~ ~ ~ ✓ r ~ ~`~~~I:_ x~, , ~ ~ _ u r I ZS R NaW ~~,K ~ r I r ~ ~„"-"l~' , .o n o °t' o _ t,,_ T r s4 e( tom. s `n~J!__~_ ~ I I I ....o ss.. "tom\gGV~d =•-•SI I~u t. 'c 1 C~(\+ ~ oq z G >y 1. .u ~OLC~ 4'. ~~~f~~ _,,.,`JC'R°J.o , L-- .-t ar~."'.. tom... c•,`~ \ 1ti-°~''~'~'$~~_ - Av it 5L S U J =I r-u--- c ' .5 ar •a p~ a ,.r 04 AV I _f ~ ( ~ a'` 6S N - aG a.-g~;1 Gy _J 1 r°t4° 1 1 ar w~4~9„ 1 z1 ( p a y ~~~_r$__ G 2~ ,w u a t 4 ® N x 6 j ie Z°~ ~ c , ° ~ u lea 3 L~~~a ld f3 ~ ,o• [ ? ~r--°+y --1~{~ r -a r,~.J 59 ~~~Y9"J~~+ _ .r• E ~~e e3tni~r~~f~ 65<i ' l c°,t'".'~t9.,~,j II \ oj_. Ifl o- d F'__"1 ~.rt jitlf-- ~I ! A' ! . ; + FI. _ ~ < s r_ s1a ~.c~L it j cl'~ ~ 1 - ' \ K $1_1~ r'~ r•~,✓•,' I`°lc ,1C1FN$ T 1~: \ t 1 v' I `°-,-.•~•I'~ - _ -~1' „r~ 7!! a f $I 7~1 1 c ~y l sil l 1 n L- -1,. ` ~I W !:1 g -L" 7-L - ---z~_ w I _J L ~3^ a c~ ~1 3nv x+`ff (,jt; 26 w c J~~/ % - a c S ~ c , z N 1 i/ JI N( ~e ok ( / I r-~ Llz 1s Svc . :;i: ' SE- Oti% v C c r vv 21 J(4 ( r,~~sl 11I rC ''~j' ~/Gv\l 4'!/`, ~ G ' GP Y - F I ( 1` \t"r 1 \ - j \U; le- -'~"•`'1'S'.a 201 `'~c. ~ 3 ~ ~a%~ c - -/ri•_c~~~c~o+~•, f: ~ - - 1 of 1 •:l r' \ y l l J r c I 77 -77-7777 77= 77-77--7 O 3 October 26, 1992 E. i The Honorable Bonnie Hags & Commissioners Washington County Board of Commissioners t 155 North First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 9712 Dear Bonnie and Commission Members: 3 ~ - The Tigard City Council requests modification of the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID) to exclude all properties within F' the city limits of Tigard. Wo believe Tigard taxpayers within the Metzger Park LID are subject to double taxation since Tigard taxpayers support parks through the City°s tax base. Y is aux understanding t-In at are :init iat:° a reviei9 by the. Coo-nty with this request. , If fur-U-aer information is required, please let t Me R_no~,Y. Ban~~r~ ab`r ck j,. Reilly + Cis Ad-rdnistratar c : Metzger Park Boca' ere9u25.92 r- s t f _ tr ~ ~ r f C ~ t i r r - ~ t L r r JfF h ~s''• t r t° 1 S y ~ ~ - r f t 7s! G i> 1 ° J~ s 1 r F'- - .tr f e trj ~ f t i a .rid ! ~6} 4f~S it ri S/ 1 1 ~ J 1 a ~,s - ti it { if• dSf~~'=,~4 ~~a S.. (r 7 i t~r{r;1 J tS ~~t ~ g' r tilt t f d ^4 4 9 'A 7 + a; f l4 9-14178 r-" FaX VEMYniftal MOM 7672 16 :6'ic i ~ ~'i ®v [fin [jceuwa t ~V 41- Wmplam An" 14, • rQ ©ti e 7': MET ZGEk PARK i ? AGENDA ITEM # } For Agenda of January 17 1994 F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY i ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PDR 94-0002/SDR 94-0019/SLR 94-0024 Gordon Martin/Tri- County Center - - PREPARED BY: Roberts DEPT HEAD OK 'fZ CITY ADMIN OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve the proposed Tri-County Center? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the Tri-County Center as revised by the applicant subject to the Conditions of Approval imposed during the Planning Commission review of this proposal and direct staff prepare a 3 revised final order. INFORMATION SUMMARY ~ At the December 27th meeting the Council requested that the Tri-County Center be reviewed' due to concerns with the screening provided to adjoining a residential properties. The Council also expressed concerns with the vision 3 of this development as it relates to the Triangle Area. The Planning Commission approved the plan with numerous conditions on November 21, 1994. An amended notice of decision was issued on December 15, 1994 to correct errors in the previously issued final decision notice. These errors related to accurately portraying the Commission's changes in a couple of conditions and attacriing the correct alternative site plan. There may or may not be issues for Council review denending on how they feel the applicant has addressed those issues. If there is concern over general design issues such as building design and general appearance; it must be understood that the existing code offers li!tle in the way o definitive criteria with which to judge building quality and design as it relates to existing developed areas or developing areas. The Triangle Specific Plan has design guidelines but these have not been adopted. Other issues could include buffering, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), _ preservation of natural features. f Relative to buffering, the development has planned and was .required to include a 20 foot buffer adjacent to residential properties to the south. This meets code standards. Extensive planting and screening is suggested by the developer and is required by the code in the buffer area. This will be detailed in final plans. Many of the existing Douglas Fir plantings on site are intended to be incorpora.ed into the buffering and screening. This should mean more mature plantings. An eight foot solid wall was required by the Planning Commission along the southern property lines to help screen and attenuate noise identified within a noise study provided by the applicant. Relative to the TPR, the Planning Commission accepted the arguments of the r r a applicant that the number of buildings oriented to or near the streets and an ",extensive sidewalk system to Dartmouth Street and 72nd Avenue met the intent of the TPR." The Commission recognized that there are no bus routes planned for either Dartmouth or 72nd and' much of the emphasis of the proposed development will be auto oriented. ` ' Issues relating to building orientation, creation of a pedestrian friendly -1 environment and transit orientation of the development as it relates to the TPR still have not been clearly defined in the region at this point. The proposed development includes extensive regrading of the site, loss of most of the existing trees and movement of much of the drainage and wetland f. areas. The drainage way and extensive landscaping are proposed to be moved to the Dartmouth frontage to enhance the center's appearance. Modifications to a wetlands area requires approval by the State Division of Lands (DSL), 's Application for wetland mitigation is now under review by the DSL. The ! .t existing code clearly calls for preserving existing trees, topography and ! ' natural drainage as much as possible. During the Planning Commission review the applicant argued that to develop the site to, its potential and create a sidewalk system which complies with the 'Americans _with Disabilities Act (ADA) that extensive regrading was warranted. The applicant also states that leaving the existing drainage and open space area through the middle of the site would not only create f separated building sites but would also create a canyon effect because of the grading necessary for the pads The Planning Commission accepted those i arguments. 1 Since the Planning Commission review the applicant has also chosen to propose changes to the plan which involve the addition of up to 3-8,1.20 square feet of retail- space. This change would allow the applicant to develop up to 360,620 square feet of office and retail space rather than the 342,500 squar- feet approved by the Manning Commission. This change reduces the total nua._ -~r of 'I parking spaces proposed on site and improves pedestrian circulation hur_ does _ not reduce the amount of open space proposed for the site. The site oul.d still be developed with 26== open space and landscaping. 1 rased on a traffic study update this increase is expected to have no additional traffic impacts due to a revised mix of land uses. The current ' approved plan includes a number of smaller pads which would be expected to be occupied by uses such as banks and fast food restaurants. The revised site plan is designed to put greater emphasis towards smaller general retail uses and would limit the site to a maximum of two drive through uses. 7 Attached is the final order appro,,,ed by the Planning Commission, the proposed revised site plan and traffic study update. ! OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Modify the conditions imposed b:' the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a revised final order. FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal impacts. i CITY OF TXC Washington. County NOTICS or SED FINAL ORDER - BY PLaAIra3ki~ dtJN 835t5tJ 1. Concerning Case Ydumbar(s):SDR 94-0019/PDR 94-0002/SLR 9~-b009 4 1 ? 2. Name of owner: Gordon Martin Name of Applicant : Sates 3. Address 12265 SW 72nd Avenue City iq' rd State ®R dip 17223 t 4.. Address of Property: 12265 SW 72nd Avenue F 1 Tax Map and Lot loo(s) 1S1 39CD tax lot 2005 and 2S1 .18A, tax lots 100, 101f 300, 400,, 401, and d02. 5. Request: re feet retail and - 1 commercfal off ice snace APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: 18 84 18. . 18.92 18.9418.96, 18.98, 18.100, 18.102, i is.106, .1081 18.114, 181.116, 0. 18.144 150, and Planned Development) The C-G Zone: C-G (PD) (General Commercial, ` zone allows public agency and administrative services, j public support facilities, professional and administrative services, financial, insurance, and real estate services, i business support services, general retail sales, and eating and drinking establishments a=ng other uses. The P© (Planned Development) overlay zone provides a means to use new techniques and technology in community development. The Planned Development zone: facilitates efficient economic use of lane; and preserves to the. greatest extent posaihle the existing landsraapa ycta tu.res and amenities. 6. °•pprcv3l as r® aFJatcd 7a ti© : _ X Appro,,al ,iith conditiono Denial 7- NatiC'. ,Iorice wa.s Published in th €s nc~sJ pzapcz, posted at City Hall, and railed to: X The acplicant and owner(:s) X Cl--ners of _ucorr.' wit::^.in the requirad distance { Affected gcv r mental agencies S. Final Decision: T-qU DT-CIS1011 04-'ALL BL F11U9, ON Dnaor;hor 28, 1994 "are as R': 7 Ay=tea is FiLl" J. The adocted findings, of fact, dcc_ision, and tatament of conditions `an be obtained frcm the Pla.ir.inq Deaa::tmnnt, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW s Hall Blvd., Tigard, Or~igon 97223. t 9. Anneal: ?lny party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with 18.32.290(3) and Scct'ion 19.32.370 which provides that 3 a ~,ritten appeal mar be filed within 10 day:, after notice is given and E -ent. The aoes--al may he z-,ihmitt_ed on City farmo and must be accompaniod by the appoal fee ($315.00) and transcript coots, (varies up to a zi:imum of fi500.00), i r_ Van dcadlimis fo= fil-I ng of ^~'t appoal is 3:30 p.. _ Dncc'L fir 20, 1994 s. 10- cu'-?stions: If you hav:.- any questie ns, plea.sa call the CiCy of 'rigard ,y Planning D''part.nent, 639;171. L I i CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION a FINAL ORDER NO. 94.08 PC GORDO MARTIN - GORDON DTI - APPLICANT All .r~ ED yINAL ORDER APPROVING SITZ DEVELOPMMM REV'IL 94-®07.9, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 94-0002, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW 94-0004 j ADDR- ESS G AN ERROR IN THE ADOPTED C O I0.°XONS OF APPROVAL. A. FACTS 1 . a 1a fg=a , !2 1 Site Development Review SDR. 94°0019 Planned Development Review PDR 94.0002 Sensitive Lands Review SLR 94-0004 t A development approval request- for Site Development " Review, Planned. Development, and Sensitive Lands Review approval to allow the construction of a 342,500 square foot commercial retail center and related facilities. a Applicant: Gordon Martin j 12255 SW 72nd Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Agent: Alpha Engineering 5500 SW Qa}s Street, 4230 Tigard, OR 97223 t3~arxer : Goz doa i Martin Location: The southwest corner of the SW 72nd .venue and Dartmouth Street intersection (WCT14 1S1 36 CD, tax lot 2005 and 'V;CTM 2SI -.BA, tax lots 100, 101, 300, 400, 401, and 402. N ~rlicaol e Review Criteria: Corrmrmunity Development Code Chapters !8. 62, 2.8 , 80, 13. 18 , 90, 18.96, 7.8.100, 2.8.7_02, 18 -105, !3.108, 18,120, 18.150, and 13,164. Stare Trans'nos:tation Planning Rule CAI? 6110-12-045 2. ~sackr~un lz~armat:i_0 _z The _tv has been zoned for General Commercial use since the Comr)rehesxsry ye Plan was adopted -in 1983. It is w t ei the 2r~-,c nc-wh as the Tigard Triangle. The Triangle has been the focus of a plan-ning effort over the past two nears. Them is presently a draft Tigard Triangle ct':~ti ISED _ T_NAL 94-1 9/?DR 94_-02/SL A P U-. 1 i Specific Plan that is undergoing public review. The € a Planning Commission and City Council have scheduled a joint meeting to discuss the draft plan. The use proposed for this site is consistent with those that would be allowed by the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also addresses site design, landscaping, transportation and access, open space and pedestrian trails. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is "now in effect. For review of development applications, CZAR 660-12-045 contains the relevant provisions which give direction to localgovernment about the methods to use to promote alternative modes of transportation. The city has adopted a number of provisions which address several of the TPR requirements, including public facilities and bike parking. Other TPR provisions such as building i, location and orientation remain to be incorporated into the code. For the review of this application, both the Community-Development Code provisions and the remaining TPR requirements in the OAR must be considered. On November 21, 1994 the Planning Commission conducted a t - Public Hearing concerning these applications and ' . recommended approval subject to the atached conditions. - On December 5, 1994 a Final order was issues which mistakenly included a condition concerning the location of loading areas for the Pad A retail site. The Planning Commission action dial not include a reauirement for a revised location of this loading area. The loading ar--a was approved as shoran on the proposed site plan. Slot! pre-vi ous rinal order also a.~cluded an ~c;t s to plan may ,,7hial_ was not bevlcwed by the PlarLuinc~ Ccyssioz, . 3. Vic4ni1y Cn ax_riation The property is bordered by SW 'Dart-mouth Street or_ the north side. A Cub Foods store is Located on the opposite S1CZ O the Strew. cP, WeCent-'V 00e3led COSr-CO ,StO_" IS lccated to the ncr'.1,west, on the other side of Red Rocn Creek., which runs to the southwest between the two 7 properties. Commercially zoned property that is rpredoininant.ly wetland, lies to the west. A residenuia l sulcdi vi si cn is _mmediately south of the property. Std 72nd Ave ue abuts the property or. the east frontage. l Sincic~ family residences are located cn tae east side of SST 72nd Avenue. A 108 - unit' apartment complex is under construction to the south. on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue, The zoning on the east side of SW 72nd. Avenue is a r,ixture cz C-°C (directly east, , R-3.5 ` (northeasr_ and east) , and. C-R (southeast) The zoning designatior_s in the surrounding area are shown in Figure i. i R-V7ST7D F'I-NAL CRDF.R-SDR 94-19/PDR. 9,1--C)2/SL--Z 9~,-Oa-TRl-COUdT;' PAGE 2 i SW Dartmouth Street Is designated as a major collector. Existing improvements include five travel lanes (except ~j near the crossing of Red Rack Creek which is three lanes), bicvcle lames, and curbs. Sidewalks are being installed as a condition of development approval fos: properties along the street. In addition, a landscaping ¢ concept has been, developed axed implemented for 'new development on SW Darmouth Street. 1. SW 72nd Avenue is also designated as a major collector street. Existing improvements along the property frontage and the immediate vicinity include two travel lanes and gravel shoulders.. + Tri-Met bus service is not available to the site. However, two routes are within walking distance of the property. Route #12 provides service on SW Pacific Highway with stops on SW Pacific Highway near SW 78th/Dartmouth intersection and SW 72nd Avenue. Route ##78 travels on SW 72nd Avenue, SW Hampton Street, and SW 88th Avenue, which parallels SW 72nd Avenue approximately r' 1,200 feet to the cast. g, site n o tm The property consists of a number of parcels that will be consolidated to allow the construction of this project. "there are four rez;idences and a number of accessory building which are generally located in the southeast portion of the site. The property has been used for a variety of agricultural uses, `including Christmas trees which can he found along S.4 Dartmouth. Street. The grad-i! s on the property are variable. in the southeast corner of the site (southeast of Fad H), the grade is one to fide percent. To the northwest anti doses, u:,e hiil they vary between five and slightly over 10 Percer°- (near ?ads H, F, and the adjoining parking areas) . The western half of the property has grades tha r_ cne to five percent (?add A-E and related parking area). ?led Rock Creek runs alone, the port htt?est corner of the site. in addition, a w--,r_! anti ct app ox ma e.y r-, - _ae? is located o;-. the south side of the creek. 1~ has been ide:-tified as a significant wetland in the city`s inventory. a f A s;ital7_ drainage way and .ralated wetlands run through the ite from the. intersection of ,W 72nd ?venue and SW 1Dar ollStraz-%. uo the nc oxJ..iilate mid-point of the w.rescarn sitee boundary. A separate wetland a.° ea :mss located in the sauthwcot come - of the v The AS ~ ai~Fl O? ~k-S7g: 9/P.D gs _C 2/SL2 3^•-v^' wT 2 dfiij~i'`r ~ i~` 3 f f. L r r t: wetlands total about 63,867 square feet. in addition ~ a to the drainage way and wetlands, there are a. significant number of mature trees, with diameters in excess of 12 inches. These trees tend to be concentrated in the southeast portion of the site and along the drainage way corridor. ' t ~ 5. sa1_.~ I~~r•~-mot; n Proposed Improvements a - The applicant proposes to build a 342,500 square foot ` retail center. This total retail floor area will be divided by a number of buildings, including a large anchor store (Pad A) of 143,000 square feet located in t the southwest corner of the site. Seven "pad" sites are proposed along the SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue k.~ frontage with sizes of 33,000 (Pad B), 13,880 (Pad C), 8, 000 .(Pads D and E) , • 72, 240 (Pad V, 9,580 (Pad G), and f 54,800 (Pad H) square feet. The proposed height of the i buildings is not provided. The remainder of the site will be used for parking (1,546 standard and handicapped i spaces), driveways, loading, and landscaping. E t A total of four full-access driveways are proposed. r- Driveway A is located on SW Dartmouth Street in the northwest corner of the site, between Pads B and C, ' Driveway s is -proposed to be located or. SW Dartmouth ~ Street across from the Cub Foods driveway, approximately 4635 feet west of the SW Oartnouth/72nd intersection. Driveway C is located on SW 72nd Avenue approximately 300 feet south of SW Dartmouth street. The second driveway ID) is ar, additional" 2SO feet farther south. she appiicant proposers that the access across from CUB Foods will eventually be a signalized intersection. Pedestrian 1 7c~ , i l -a access to the center is ~ prov c.z by sidewalks along at least one side of each o the drives-iays. A i _ system of walkways is shown on the site plan which is intended to provide walking links between the eight buildings on the site. Builc:i ^g entrances are ontinted to:Jard pa_'c-na area as shoL,,rn on the site nia.n. These entrances range from i a zroxi mately 70 to 600 feet from the street bronta e . Site Gracing extensive amount of site grading and filling is propose,_-'. The applicant proposes to trade the entire site and f:-1' the ,,;eszern area to provide a level area for the anchor rat-ai], c;sii fYirirt ran A6 a are J marl i n T `i ` t- Tti sa rT.- i ilS ED _ T~TIa.L 0R3 ER-SIDR -19 /PEED 9-_-02/,SLR 9,1 -0?• TR1-C:OUNTY P G f > depth of fill on the western portion of the property is generally proposed to be 6 to 10 feet, with a maximum i depth of 18 feet in the southwest corner of the site. This filling will 'require a retaining wall along the west z-' and southwest edge of the project that will be between 2 f to 14 feet. Wetland and Drainage tray ' i. f The wetland area along Iced Rock Creek, in the northwest portion of the project, will be partially retained. The drainage way and related wetland areas are proposed to be f relocated along the S`Gd Dartmouth Street frontage. The relocated drainage way will join Red Rock Creek in the 3 northwest corner of the property. The wetland in the southwest corner of the property is proposed to be [ filled. The applicant proposes to replacement this loss of wetlands by providing new/enhanced wetland area on the north side of Cook Park. A permit application to relocate the wetlands has recently been submitted to the Division of State Lands, and a decision is pending. j Parking and Loading F 3 The site plan has 1,546 parking spaces of which 34 are r for handicapped use. in addition, there are 68 "Preferential" parking spaces shown near building entrances. Sixteen can-street parking spaces are shown on SW 72nd Avenue. A truck loading area is indicated at the raa-" of Pad A, but the number of >loading spaces i j not re<realed. No bicycle parking facilities are shoran, howev:r, the applicant has previously indicated that bicycle parkingg will be :provided, generally in the ,ricinity of the building e tear ces . Transit As noted earlier, there are no transit routes which run adjacent to the site. Because of the potential for t:r°ansic on SW 72Nd. Avenue and/or Dartmouth Street in the future, two transit stop locations are shown on the site plan. One is located immediately crest of Driveway A on Sv1 Dartmouth Street ` and the second is .4h own no--t- of Drive gay C on SW 72nd Avenue. Landscaping r plan has ~ -sue ~ } conceptual _ landscaping plan h~..s ~~....Z included wit.._ the anc ication. Though it is not clear from the plan, it i appears -that the only existing trees on the site that kl L 1~E 3-~zta i nc*A n-ra l nc-ated in the norchcast cn=er of the T_)2:c )erty -wherc the existing drainage way/wetland will R ViSED FINAL ORDER-SDR 94-•1.9/?DT.t 94-02/SLR 3,1-04--TRI-COUNTY PAGE 5 7 1 remain in its present location. The concept indicates that trees` and shrubs will be provided along the southern perimeter of the project. The remainder of the plan; shows the location of other landscaped areas on the site. i Signs The site plan indicates that one monument sign will be placed at each of the driveway entrances. No other r i information has been submitted regarding the size or ' design of the signs. 1 6. Aqg.ngy and e • orh o O t • omm is The Engineering Department has the following comments: 1 Traf f i c The applicant has submitted a "Transportation Impact j Study" entitled "TRI-COMITY CENTER, Tigard, Oregon", ' prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. of Portland, E Oregon, dated July, 1994. Subsequent to the submittal, E. various meetings were held with the applicant, the consultants, City Staff, and the City's consulting traffic G engineer for the Tigard. Triangle .Area, Mr. Randy McOourt ~ of DKS Associates. Pursuant to the meetings, amendments tc, the traffic report and the site plan were submitted to supplement the application. The letter of September 26, 1994, by Kittelson & Associates, highlights the changes to the site plan that were to be made in response to the c ritique provided by the City consu-.ta:st. i To summar Sze, the project adequat y provides =or the ' proposed traffic impacts by the inclusion of the fol1cwing design features: ` a.. The four driveways to the site, two each frcm Sw Dartmouth 4 tweet and SW 72nd avenue have beer. located in accordance ditti the overall street arld driveway alignments for the area. i rtir~auth Street were the b. The two driv`,.yw,ays on SW Da were tf , subject c= an intensive i nvesti gaz' on, w hic__ r=su i t e d the use o- wider dr-'vewavS wi ^.e,~7 nc; a = S14 Dartmouth Street: tc, -crov? de . additional left-turn storage, as shcwri on r'i g . 2 of fa~oin Kittelson L said letter of September 26, 1994, - Associates, inc. C. "he. _=r_~_scn report indicates that traffic sic;nal warrants will he satisfied for the p~u-alit.: street ( St"' - ...~a/Sr a- '72~~... .ter,' v c.s u.- 1.. V1Se'D _ `N.;;-T- 017,ZDe~-SDR 94-02 /3:~!-. 94 -04-TRI-CCUNT Y ?AU? r' i i in 199.9 with the opening of the Tri-County Cznter i The applicant should construct the signal concurrent i with the new construction. As an alternative, the 1 traffic signal construct-lon could be included in a new area-wide Local Improvement District. Traffic Impact Fee credits are available for portion of the ~ work-in SW 72nd avenue and for the traffic signal at . SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72nd Avenue. d. The Kittelson report also provides Level of Service calculations for the proposed Driveway "A" which indicates that the driveway will operate at a .Level "E" in 1995. it is recommended that the applicant i. consider installing the traffic signal at this drivewsy to enhance the ability of the potential Qstomers to enter and exit the new development with less delay than that which will occur as indicated by the Level "E" determination. 1 As recommended in the Kittelson letter of September 26th, SW 72nd Avenue should be designed as a five-lane street ~ • south of SW Dartmouth Street to accommodate future traAfis and 'turn movements. As part of the detailed design of the improvements to SW 72nd Avenue, additional traffic engineering review is needed relating to the driveway spacing on SGT 72nd Avenue. of concern is the potential for proposed Driveway "C" to be blocked by future- peak-hour traffic queues from the i signal at SW Dartmouth Street. Also, the> City needs to be assured that the l eft-turr: lane has sufficient storage c,a.zaacity for vehicles turning into the drivewavs (including f utu.-e commercial driveways to the property on the east side of SW 72nd Avenue) and "for vesicles waiting to turn into the public streets. Sf Sufficient left-turn storage space is not available, it inay be necessary to el i mi rate. 'eft turn; to and -from Driveway C" To avoid tra.fffic operations problems, Driveway "D" should be aligned with the centerline of existing SGT Elmhurst f Street, which would he widened in the future with the development of the adjacent property to the !north. The tryfgic r-iaor., zoints out that intersection revisit-)1- are needed on Sid Dartmouth Street a .t. 99W to allow for left turns from two lanes. The report assumes that these revisions will be made by the Costc.a development. While t 1'S sSLZmpti is raxo.[)ajLbly correct, it is not certain. Completion of the recommended intersection revisions shoo,-.d be r_acl2ir2d prior to the opening oJff the 1ri-County Ccntcr. c r~ a ~ ~c^VTSWD riDl~.I,OF~JE~?-..DP 94 -.t9/-DR. 9so-02/S~e. 9_-O~-I'FZI-eC~JNi~ PAGE 7 Streets Both SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue are Major Collectors as shpwn on the C11-y Comprehensive Street Plan. The applicant should dedicate right-of-way for both streets to comply with the recommendations of the traffic reports and a final street plan, and construct the streets to the proposed widths.to provide for the following; a. Additional left-turn storage in SW Dartmouth Street as shown on the Figure 2 noted above. b. Widen 5W 72nd Avenue to provide a total of four lanes; two southbound, a northbound left-turn lane and one northbound lane, with the initial Tri-County Center development, as recommended in the September 26, 1994 letter noted above. Dedication of additional right of way will be required along the south side of SW Dartmouth Street and along the west side of Star 72nd Avenue. The additional right of way on SW Dartmouth Street is a result of the locations of the driveways of the proposed development and the need' for side-by-side left turn lanes on SGT Dartmouth Street between Driveway "B" and SW 72nd Avenue, as noted above. in addition, the widening in SW Dartmouth Street will provide for the sidewalk separation from the curb and the streetscape landscaping approved by City Council for this tiorrion of the SW Dartmouth Street within the Tigard Tr i angle . On Sod 72nd Avenue, the additional right of way is needed to accommodate the long-range need for a 5-lane street. In the long term, SW 72nd Avenue is projected to carry between 1,200 and 2000 vehicles in the peak, hoar (depending on which traffic study you use as reference) between SF~,? Dartmouth and SW 'Hampton Streets. This proposed develo'cmenu is projected to generate approximateiv 500 vehicles per hour on SW 72nd. Avenue or 25-10 of the lone-range traffic on SW 72nd Avenue. The proposed development has approximately 20-I of the frontage of SW 72nd avenue between SW Dartmouth Street and SW bamcton St--ae_s. Thus, the proposed dedication is 'deemed to be roughly ^roportior_a- tc the need generated by this development. in addition, a portion of the existing power poles and overhead lines serving the area are located along the -'ar:~i.erlV _;lde cf SW 72nd Avenue. Street l=Qhti_^_C, iS provided on the existing poles in both fronting streats. Hcweve:^, the anulicant should be required to instal -I City StuPCl.ard StYF?F?r _ay hbir_g _lU_l~ SW 72n-1 1PdeIl.U~~ REVISED FT~,TAL OFZJSR-SDP 94-1 9/?DR 94-02/SLR 9?.-04-TRI-COU1\IT`? PArF 8 f c F'. i_ Sanitary Sewer The existing 811 public sanitary sewer in SW Dartmouth Street has a number of sewer lateral stubs constructed with the Dartmouth LID to serve the site. This existing sewer has sufficient capacity to serve this development. The existing sewer in SST 72nd Avenue should be extended to a point opposite SW.Elmhurst street and stubbed to the east. Storm Seiner The site currently drains on the surface to the existing natural swale that crosses the property from northeast to southwest to the Red Rock Creek and the contiguous wetlands. The applicant proposes to fill a portion of the existingswale and wetlands and has submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State Lands for the permits. The plan would provide for mitigating wetland restoration off-site. The final plan should also be submitted to the City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency for their review and approval. The Unified Sewerage Agency has established and the City has agreed to enforce (Resolution and order No. 91-47) Surface Water Management Regulations requiring the construction' of on--site water duality facilities or fees in-lieu of their construction. The `proposed site grading and underground system has been designed to incorporate a water quality facility° that treats the surface stormwater flows prior to the disposition of the storm water into the e .fisting Red Rock Creek area.. The final design should also include provisions both low flow water °quality treatment, and 25 your and 100 year design flow by the cc,nstructiori of an outfall directly to the Ped Rock Creek culverts crossing SW Dartmouth Street 3t the rjesterly edge or the site. The Building Division has no objection to the proposal. Ti ar_d Police De=artrnent would like an oric~crtu lity to raview and comment on detailed Mans for the ext.ari or lighting and landscaping. - Portland General Electric and k7orthvrest Natural Gas have no objections to the proposal. The Tualat'' n Malley Water District has no objection to the application buu it Teill need to work Tvith the applicant on the final design details of the watn.r system improvements. RBI=$ED iNa_?, QRD 2-SD2 94-19/PDR 94-02/'SL? 94-04-TRT-COUNTY n;,-CB 9 Tri-Mat reviewed a preliminary site that is not identical E to the one being reviewed in this report. However, the bdii c plan layout was basically the same with pad locations near SW Dartmouth Avenue and 72nd Avenue and one large pad located in the southwest corner of the property. The agency indicates that no service is planned in the immediate future on SW 72nd Avenue. However, the site could accommodate bus stops on either street in the future. Tri-Met has the following comments a. If bus service is provided in'the future, stops are ' typically provided at signalized intersections to allow for safe pedestrian crossings. Secondary stops may be located near driveways. b. At bus stop locations, a five-foot wide by eight foot deep landing pad is needed. C. Distances between buildings should be kept to a minimum to promote pedestrian access and convenience. The Oregon Department of Transportation has commented E_ that: a. Given the impacts to the local street system., restricting certain traffic movements an driveway 3 and C as well as future' sz-nalization of driveways A and D is encouraged. b. The impacts of commercial development in the Tigard Triangle area an the local street network area CDOT facilities should be. anal_ zed. The current zoning 'i in the Tigard Triangle A ea. was based on the assuz~iption that certain transportation improvements WoUl.d be made that may not materialize, such as six lanes on. rhwav. The city should evaluate t :,--S relationship bet een_ land uses and j transportation capacity. No other comments have been received. f ~ l B. itiL?JOR issu.S ~i This portion of the retort outlines tine major_ issues pertaining to the proposal. This summary is followed by findings and conclusions in Exhibit A. 1. TrMnsncrtat4on planning Rule (_TPR1 because the TPR is now in effect, there are a number of new trans-uortation issues which must be addressed. R E I I S E D r.JT.~L 0RDER-S:D F. 94-19/BDR 94-02 /SiR 94-04-TR.=-C0TJ '?y PAGE 10 2 i { j i - - - Subsections 660-12-045 (3), (4), and (5) of the TPR apply to land development applications. The city has adopted - Community Development Code (CDC) standards to address Subsection (3). These standards pertain to bicycle I; , parking, sidewalks, and bikeway: on major streets and 1 within developments. The requirements of this subsection will be met through the implementation of the applicable CDC standards and criteria. - i Subsection 660-12-04S (4) provides that new retail, office and institutional buildings at or near existing or planned ! transit stops should have building entrances oriented i toward transit stops (existing or planned), buildings ~ clustered around transit stops, and buildings located as close as possible to transit stops. With the exception of j preferential parking provisions in Section 18.106.020 W., G the city has not adopted requirements that relate to these s issues, and therefore,, this subsection of the TPRR must be t applied directly to the application. } This section of the TPIR requires that i is at or near an existing i route A shall provide i new development that or planned transit:. - orientation of building entrances toward transit stops Clustering of bus ldinjs near transit stops; and Building location "as close as possible" to transit stops. As mentioned earlier in this report, tkjere is not any transit service adjacent to the site. However, transit service is a-,.ailable cjithi.n a all W t er tl14 1 ? Of the Site . In addition., sine` both SW Dartmouth Street and Sou 72nd Venlae -major co11eCt0''att°_~at5, _raZ3sit service 1_ tL7z future is certa_lnl v feasible. has proposed two Due to t'r_ss potential, the applicant future transit stop locations on _ the site.. With the exception of pad '1, which is approximately 600 feet from the streezd , t:.he proposed building locations are consiszent w:.th the, rep-ui.•r_ment to cluster buildings near transit stops. The entrances to the buildings need to be amended so they are oriented toward the stops cFnd/or the s,,reet 'Frontage in addition to the parking lot. Pad A could re moved closer t:ocaard the street in order to ,tee consis en? : w? cry this requlrem,--tams . LCl C~llll i! illy e appropriate di Lance from the building to Z the street ? S a subjective judgment. Fowever, the proposed distance of _r REv7•SED ~1'V71L, ORDER .-SDP. 94-19/=D1? 3= -02/SLR 94-04-` R -COU'1,4-.Y PAGE 2 600 feet is the equivalent of three downtown city blocks. Clearly, this will not encourage walking to Pad A from the street. The site plan could be redesiernpd to significantly reduce the distance between the building entrance and the street. Subsection 660-12-045 (5) provides that local governments shall adopt land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance can the automobile. A portion of this section lists strategies for reducing the number of parking spaces,- including the establishment of maximum parking standards. Maximum parking- standards have not been developed by the city and it is a complex issue that will reauire 'further study. i 2. Access Driveway access to the site is generally acceptable as noted in the' comments from the Engineering Division. Additional study will ba required to develop a suitable design for the driveways on SW 72nd Avenue. Access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the site is provided by i existing or proposed sidewalks and bicycle lanes on SW Dartmouth Street: 3. Clearing and Site Grading a The applicant proposes a significant. amount of grading and filling thza° would completely transform the site. It will raise the lave of the western half of the property to 1 reduce the driveway and parking lot grades in an east-west dir=ection across the site, Having a direct, east-west, driveway access hetween Pad A and SW 72nd Avenue appears ;-n be Part c.f the motivation behind the grading plan. This is the primary reason that none of the significant trees on the site are proposed to be saved (except for a few that may be saved in the northeast corner of the site). Thouch the Community Development.. Code standards may permit this type of site modification, the Planned Development provisions of the Community Development Code encourage the i retLntion of existing trees and topography. Section 19.80.120 A. 3. a. (i) states: 3 The streets, buildings, and other site e'emencs shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possiole Subsection (r) states: ,.E7;iS?ED : 1i c'L 0 R.DE -S DR 94-?.9/ PaR 94 -02/SL;{ 34-04-TR1-CCUNI%" P:aGEE 12 E I Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet € in xeight, from ground level, shall be sacred where possible The key to the interpretation to this section of the code 3 is the word "possible". It appears that with relatively minor amendments to the proposed site plan, the extent of the grading and filling for the project could be drastically reduced. The primary change in the approach to developing the site is to view it as an "upper" half } near SW 72nd Avenue and a "lower" half on the west, rather 9 than trying to reshape it into a single site with more uniform grades. There is no doubt that the upper half, with areas of significant slope, will need to be graded to ' accommodate the project However, the existing grade of the western half is not appreciably different than the proposed grades which are in the range of three percent. There are potentially four basic advantages to reducing the amount of grading and filling: The need for retaining walls will be eliminated or substantially reduced along the southern and western s boundaries of the property; Clusters of significant trees can be retained within and adjacent to the wetland; 1 i i A larger portion of the eXSt4ng wetland ca.*_1 be loft in its present location; and - The !arge building (Pad A) VJil 1 not need to be ?wilt an fill that is up to iii feet above the existing grade, making it: much easier to buffe_' the back side of, this building from the residents to c he south. Through their deliberations the Planning Comi-iiission found that due to issues concs ;ling viability or the site as a commercial development, the quality and function of the wetlands areas and the unique nature of this site as an area wade commercial shopping destination that development of the site as a'single site was 'appropriate `based on the applicable Community Development Code criteria. P a -r nc FtecTuired Parking S*paces of the ?,546 parking spaces proposed, only 857 are re~Ta.ired n-v the Code using the 11aeneral retail sales" category, which recpl _es one space .for every 400 square f feat of building area. The actual parking requirem~~.,nt may be slightly different i r some of the develonme t is FZE',T?SED x Tii_ZJ~ ORDER-:SDR 9w-i °/FDFt 94-02/SLR 9~-Q4-TR~_COLTiJZ'Y PACE' 3 1 partially devoted to "eatincg and drinking establishments" s (1 'space/50 sq. ft, of dining area) or "financial, € ` f insurance and real estate's U space/350 sq. ft. of floor urea:) for example. Because of the nature of retail business, it is recognized that exceeding code requirements may be necessary to accommodate the customers during peak business pe.-iods. However, exceeding the Code ~ standards by nearly 700 spaces appears unnecessary and inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter of the TPR. Paving of land contributes a significant amount of storm eater and heat during the summer months. Some adjustments to the site plan to provide increased amenities (such as trees, screening, and pedestrians ' facilities) at the expense of some parking is justified. i Handicapped Parking k, The handicapped parking; spaces are appropriately located I. in front of, proposed building entrances. These soaces should be moved as the design is amended to always be in front of the building entrance. These spaces should not require crossing a driveway to reach the building_ ' entrance. For this reason, the handicapped parking shown in front of Pad A must be changed to be next to the building entrance. Preferential Parking The site plain shows preferential parlving spaces located 1 next to the handicapped spaces. CDC Section 18.106.020 W1. requires preferential marking space, for vanpools/carpools F. _ then the amount of "long term" parking spaces exceeds 20. l The Iona term spaces in this case would refer to employews ' ;or3twing in the development. Though the applicant has ?iovna these preferential spaces near building entrances, 3.r is not neCeJ Sai~ at they be located in this sway. necessary is+r. also, business owners avdll not want to inconvenience customers ror the sate of the emzloyees. In the inal :;zte design, the applicant should indicate the nurnber or employee parking spE,ces and their location in the project. of these spaces, five percent are ~ r8at.'.=red t0 :tee t:Ze preferential variety- wh1C2 D:'=oxide the i best access to the buildi_^_y in which the- emzlpv_eez will work . ! F- th e a_ plicant is attempting to meet the five percent reaui_ement for emvloyees, the proposed 68 preferential spaces are adenuate for 1,360 empl oyeeo . Obviously, in t:ne linen site design, the nurnber of preferential spaces may be reduced substantially. AS 37.SCLiy cu ur_dz= the `-`Z - :;0- -DT? _ the distance betr'jear. Pad A and S4= Dartmouth Sr=-`et should ~ R-IaSED - 77,T , Ci,:,DE -SDR 9a-19/=Dr 95-02./SLR. 9,_--04--TPI-C°OCINTY PACE 141 ; 4 F be reduced. When this building location is moved north, the resulting space on the south side of the building can ~ be used for employee parking. Preferential parking spaces for employees near an employees, entrance could be used here. Bicycle Parking The applicant does not indicate the number or location of bicycle parking spaces for the project. Section i..- 18.105.020 0. requires 1 bicycle space for every 15 required vehicle spaces. The bicycle parking is required to be located within `5o feet of the primary building entrance. The plan" should be amended to include a minimum r of 58 bicycle parking spaces as required by the CDC and to distribute the bicycle parking throughout the site so that ] it is easy to see and use by customers and employees. j where possible, these spaces should be located under a building canopy or eaves. 'Employee bicycle parking can be provided indoors if a specific area is designated for this use. S. L,„d. lner Section 18.106.080 of _the CDC contains loading space racpuirements for industrial and commercial buildings that are intended to receive and distribute material or merchandise by truck...". For these activities, the CAC require; con«-iercial buildings which are greater than 10,000 square feet to have a minimum of one loading space. 't`here is no specific requirement for uses that will only receive material by truck. Depending upon the ultimate use o the pads an the site, loading spaces may or may not. be required by the C.DC. For example, a restaurant, which only receives truck deliveri!zs, would not need a loading space while a fu_2iture store, which receives and delivers ?i TitP_rC:hu.n'.z1.sz by ~rL'l.k, wCtwld he required t0 have at least I one loading space. i a i it appears likely that Pad .A will have one or more loading spaces to accommodate such a large general, retail use. The site Plan shrws a loading area on the south :side of ad A, but it is not clear hoTN many -spaces it .represents. This loading activity is recommended to be moved to the s,re_37 side cf the building to reduce the potential' for conflicts with the reigni.orincg residents to the >south. Chile some buffering is proposed, it is difficult to macderate compat,bility problems associ.atea Tvith noise from vehicles (asnecial l`I idling trucks) , exhaust fumes, ara T't'] C'? collection, forklifts, er..c. Moving the load) ng area and related activity to the vast or some irizdz Jic;b ?,_=VI SED F iN L OF-DE -SDR 94-1 /PDR 9,1-02/SUFI 94-04-TRI -CC U""T`? PACE 15 location is the best way to reduce potential conflicts. _a 6. Lands cap1ng and acreeniMq Because of the site grading noted above, virtually all of the existing vegetation is proposed to be removed for the buildings, large parking lot, and some landscaped areas. The landscaping concept presented is consistent with the 1 basic CDC standards.for landscaped area and parking lot _ landscaping. A final landscaping plan should be submitted to confirm code compliance. In addition to these: general standards, screening and R. buffering are important because of the extent of the s ' grading, vegetation removal, and the scale of the project. A building and parking area of the size proposed can have a very imposing presence. Section 18.80.220 A. 4. requires that thought be given to screening of buildings, rooftop equipment, parking lots, and loading areas. In i order to provide -improved visual screening, the following . ; items should be included in the final landscaping plan: r . - The specific number and location of the landscaping materials, including existing trees to be saved. - ?k minimum 20 fact wide landscaped buffer strip along =he entire southern boundary of the project which is in addition to all paved surfacers such as : ide al.ks . - l,ands,caoed islands with trees that have mature heights- equal to or greater than the height of th-e build-4--rig orn Pad A on the east, no_•th, and south sides of the building. Also, a lands;caged area for s subis, etc. should bl e provided on the east and north building faces. `'hese features are intended to soL~_-e'n the mass of the building, help screen rocftap eQuipi-iie=, and help focus; aL:.enL_on toward the entrance and wa__1 signs. Trees and other appropriate landscaping along the western boundary of the project to establish a partial vegetat_iV_ scr'aen between the building and retaining wall and the prccerties and Highway 23.7 to the west. This screening will be especially, irnnortant if the proposed grading plan is imp:Lemt~!nted, resulting in a retaining wall of iq Lee- tocrned by a building of 25 to 35 feet. This portion. of the landscaping plan should also ' e coordinated with any signs on this si&e_ c the development. , :tEVI.SED FINAL GRDE:?-5DR 94-19/PDR 9,1--02/SLR 94-Q4-TRT-C(D I-iy PAr=E 16 a A plan for the parking lot trees that will provide a canopy when they mature. The canopy should cover ! 35 percent of the parking area when the trees reach ' mature size. The view corridors for signs should be E 1 identified by the applicant so that the trees selected provide the maximum amount of screenings while allowing visual access to the wall signs after ~ the trees mature. ~ _7. UP' oimpacts ; A noise study has been submitted with the application which describes the background noise on the site and the potential noise impacts caused by the proposed development. The study also indicates possible mitigation measures that can be taken to reduce noise impacts to surrounding properties. In addition to the noise impacts considered in the report, there are a number of noise issues that can cause compatibility problems even if the j noise does not exceed State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or city noise standards. Such sources of noise include vehicles, HVAC and refrigeration units, t" parking lot sweepers, employee activity, and garbage ` collection. - F, in order to reduce the potential for noise impacts on the residences to the south, the fallowing amendments should be made to the site plan; - Cove the loading space(s) to the Er ast side of Pad.. A cr the reasons ind.ica-ted above. Reaardless of the s and related buftaring that is provided, truc] activities v~~11 cause noise that w-L 1 lie problematic for the neighbors. Sound walls should be provided which are is r, inimum of 3 feet tall and con: t:-uc ed of material, as describer in the noise study, to have a, meaningful r reduction of noise levels. All ancillary equ -prment such as HIVAC Units, generato=' refrigeration units, and trash rec actacles and compactors, should first be located so as to minimize the potenL'ial for noise impacts. This equipment should generally be loc-ated as far away from the south property line as possible and placed behind buildings and/or sound walls. Second, the spncisic design and noise buffering methods for t the eauinmen'c should be evaluated during the building ;permit process to ensure compatlbili t:y with neighboring properties. REVISED c T'dAL C?Dk-SD_R 9 Al -?.9/PDFt G4-02/ST, 9a-04- za -CCL'`e X ACE 1? -7- 77 ' 8 W t1and-a t As indicated above, the applicant has applied to the Division of State Lands to move the existing drainage way to the north and the replace a portion of. the wetland with a new/enhanced wetland near Cook Park. The Sensitive Lands chapter of the CDC applies to the proposed relocation/filling of much of the drainage way and wetlands found on the site. Sections 18.84-040 C. and D. contain' approval criteria that apply to this application. f The criteria which apply to environmental impacts and water flow capacity will be addressed by the Division of State Lands and the Engineering Division. 'these two sections of the code also state that landform alterations in drainage way and wetland areas should "not create site disturbances to the extent greater than that rewired for the use.. 0 As mentioned above, the grading plan which requires the relocation and filling of these i areas as well as the removal of virtually all trees on the site, does not appear to meet this criterion.. C R.ECONB=ATION The Planning Commission approved SDR 94-0019, PDR 94-0002, and SLR 94-.0004 subject to the following conditions. Unless otherwise noted, allconditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of 1 building permits. 1 a IOT Ti3 7-1) l f§j TAI'iC`_F, OF A BU:KLIDTT?TG PFMv11_'C` THE _FC)LL0G`,TNG C©PTD - T ICES ~,vi~.R_Y~I_?3E SW'PIS~'Y~?~ Ci?2 FI'~+~NCTF+~,7C,~T SECTTfZF.~T"~: Adc.itional right-of-way small be dedicated to the Public along the SW Dartmouth Street frontage to increase the right-of-way to a minimum of <t8 feet from centerline, between the westerly property line a.rld Drip,*- °'At, anti S9 feet from centerline, between Drivewav "B" and SW 72nd Avenue, transit'_ons beeW"e: Dr'..v ways scan and "B" snail be tied to ti.e exJ.stinc right-of-kray dedication, dncument shall be on City forms. available from the "Engineering Department. .7oiln Fiag-man, Engineering. Department. with appropriate Tire descri otiOn centerline. The Instructions are STAFF CONTACT: 1-4C44ticnal r`aht-of-way shall be dedicau c;- co the ?u!DlI C along the SPA 72nd -venue froncage to i ncreas` t_..e z iyi:C-or= -way to =i feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forma. Instructions are available from the ngineering Department. S 1F~ CONTACT: John Hagman, =ng._ne.ering !,apartment. REVISED =INAL ORDER-Sr7R 9f_-19/PDR 91-02;'SU2 S4-04- -TRI-COUNTY P?1GE 13 I r! i C i t r 1 3. Standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, _ driveway apron, curb, reinforced Portland cement concrete pavement, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed along the SW Dartmouth Street 3 frontage to widen the pavement to 45 feet from centerline between Driveway "S" and SW 72nd Avenue, as measured to the cure `face, ` consistent witaa the recommendations of the traffic t reports, to an alignment approved by the Engineering Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering 1 1 Department I 4. standard half-street improvements, including concrete sidewalk, driveway apron, curb, asphaltic concrete pavement ,.sanitary serer, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities ~ shall be installed along the SST 72nd Avenue frontage to widen the pavement to 33 feet from centerline on the westerly side of the street. Depending an the width of the existing pavement, widening on the easterly side of the right-of-way may be required to provide for the northbound left-turn packet as recommended in the traffic report. improvements shall be designed and construct-ad to major collector street standards C consistent with the recommendations of the traffic reports, and shall ;conform to the alignment of existing adjacent . improvements or to an alignment approved by the Engineering f Department. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department'. S. The applicant shall prepare a striping plan for SW Dartmouth - Street to be installed with the new construction for approvral of the City Engineer. S'LLF CONTACT: Michael. Anderson, Encrineering Department , G. Additional right-of-way and street improvements shall be r . provided in SW Dz tvaoutn Street to provide for the transition as shown in Figure 2 of the September 26; 195,4 :i.ettei from Kitte:lson . ~.s`sociates. S"TAj'F CONTACT: Michael l.rsc'.erson, Engineering Department. 7. The applicant shall_ install a traffic signal, at the intersection of St^3 Dartmouth Street and SW '72nd Avenue in E accordance with City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer, or provide for the. sig-nal installation work to he assumed by an L 7D. STAFF COYI-ACT: Michael Anderson, ; ~ngin.eerin:g De cart: ment. 8. The applicant shall install cc.-duit along SW Dartmouth Street between the intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and D v i ewra.y "All to 1 provides'' for the future hard wiring of the traffic signals to provide direct iriterconnec;ticn and operation control. STAFF -J CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering De?aartmento. F~'JT~,SFD FT, 0:2DLi~-SiJ. 94-19/11E)17, 94-02-/SLR 9?-0<•-`ZRI -CCUNY PAGE 19 .j ' 91 The intersection of SW Dartmouth Street and 99W shall be revised d to allow deft turns from the existing through traffic lane,' as recommended in the applicants traffic report. The , applicant shall participate in work assumed under an LID. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 10. A final grading plan shall be, submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. - STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 11. The applicant shall provide: an on-site water quality facility -i as established under the guidelines of Unified Sewerage Agency F Resolution and Order No. 91-47. The water guility facility , shall be designed to comply with all USA standards and the plan shall indicate that the facility is to be maintained by the property owner. STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering ' Department. 12. The applicant' shall submit ` final hydrology and hydraulic r- j study for the new on-site storm drain system and provide an underground system for the 25 year flow to the Red Rock Creek, l and provisions for the overflow conditions of the 100 year flow. STAFF CONTACT: Greg. Berry, _ Engineering Department. 13. The applicant shall obtain a joint permit form the US Army - Corps or Engineers and State of Oregon Division of State Land s for construction in the wetland area. STAFF CONTACT: Greg f4 Ber-y, Engineering Department. 3.4. Two (2) sets of detailed public improvem-nt plans and profile - construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Enctin --exing -Department. Seven (7) sets of approved d.ra.einas and one. (1) itemized construction cost estimate, all prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be submitted for final review and approval (NOTE : these plans are in addition to anv drawings -required by the Building Divisicn and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. ST_7~,F F CONT 'ACT : John Hagman, Encrineering Department. 15 ~ The applicant z hall make an appointment for a pre-construction meetin. with the City of Tigard Engineering Department after appxo.ral of the public improvement plans but before starting work on the site. The applicant, the applicant's engineer and s contractor shall be required to attend this meeting prior to receiving the approved plans and pernits. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department, 1G. The anolica,nt shall provide a construction -renicle access and parking plat: for approval by the City Engineer. All F construction vehicle parking shall. be provided ,on-site. No R~VTSED FTV~. OPDE.r2-SLR? 94-19/PDP. 9G-03/SLP. 9, -0 _-T:~T-COC1i!TY DOGE 20 ~ k construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to perk on the adjoining public streets. Construction vehicles include the i vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of the site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all ? suppliers and employees associated with the project. F a 17. Construction of the proposed public improvements and issuance of Building Permits shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the public j improvements plans, a street opening permit or construction compliance agreements has been executed, execution of a developer-engineer agreement and payment of all permit fees. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment is - required. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. 18. An erosion control plan - shall be provided and shall conform to ~ "Erosion Control Plans-Technical Guidance Handbook, November .1959. o" STAFF CONTACT: Greg Berry, Engineering Department. 19. The applicant shall obtain a "Joint Permit" from the City of `Y. Tigard. This permit shall meet the requirements of NPDES and Tualatin Basin Erosion Control Program. 20. The applicant shall construct the sewer main in SW 72nd avenue k on the westerIv side of the street, within the area to be y Health Department recquired f *riciersecl, to provide he necessar- se- arat; : an from the existing 36" trunk water main. The test of this s,,rcrk may be assumed under reimbursement agreement. They a pli.cant may also provide an acceptable alternative design onti.on to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STAFF Cviv I'ACZ : M' Ghael _ncier ion, Engineering DeparfiM , t. 21. Derr,e;1..it4 on perm- its must be obtained from the Building Division prior, to the re-mova3_ of any structures on the site. S_1 Z%FF CONTACT: Turgid Scott, Building Division. 7.2. All existing underground utilities shall be removed during site work operations. STAFF CONTACT: oavid Scot;_, BuIl ing - Division. z, 23. An agreement: shall be executed, on forms provided by the City , I which waives the property owner's right to oppose or remonstrate against the future local improvement district formed c© install a traffic signal or otherwise i -mnrova SW Dartmouth Street. STAFF CONT.V-CT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Depaitmerit. 24. The applicant shall provide, as a minimum, a 25 foot buffer which meets the requirements of Section 6.06.3, caf US r2~ rla 1~ FID1t~h O:ZDER-SD1? ag-~ 9/~~tZ 5~-02~9T_:E 4~-(}~TRr~COTJ,,71 Pi_GE'22. I _ m _ _7-7-77777 r - - - - - - j Resolution and Order ` No. 91-47. STAFF CONTACT: Michael Anderson, Engineering Department. Revised site, grading, and landscaping plans, which contain the f'oliawing'element.9 sha_s.s be: 5uaasnic~~st for Planning Director approval A. Raisedcrosswalks shall be used to delineate all pedestrian crossings. l s B. Sidewalks and walkways on the site will have a minimum amount of usable width of eight feet, with oars parked up to the curb. C. Fifty-eight bicycle parking spaces shall be provided and distributed throughout the site so that they are easy to ' see and use by customers and employees. At least half of 1 the required spaces shall be located within 5o feet of building entrances, preferably under the building canopy. Employee bicycle parking can be provided indoors if an area is designated for this use. The bicycle rack design shall also be submitted for approval. 1 D. Street trees shall be.provided along the SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street frontages. The Sin? Dartmouth Street tree plan shall be consistent with the "Landscape i Development Standards for Dartmouth Street Extension", dated October 1, 1992. ,j E. Landscaped islands shall be pro i,ded w it-h trees that have mature heights over 30 feet near the east, north, and west sides of Fad A. F. Fa--king lot trees will be provided to create a canopy that co,.rers a minimum of 35 percent of the parking area when they mature.. 'the view corridoro for s=igns shall be identified by the o.pplicant so that the trees selected rovide the maximum amount of screening w:_i7 e alle~:ing visual access to the wall signs after the trees mature. G. Trees and other vegetation shall he provided along the hase of anv retaining walls located on the perimeter of j the project. i :i. Plantings near drive:,*av entrances shall meet visual j in order to help compensate fcjr the visual impact of f t'h Director a 3 inch cr~..~ad_nc and tree removal, the may place . soeci'ic rain _imu.m size r ecu_. iremont nn reziacement trees in locations to provided the desired level of screen i eg . R=✓rSED FT_ 3AL CRDER-SDR 94°19/P17t2. 94-02/SLik2 94-04 -Ta.>-CoU-LT,ry PFGE 22 i _ J. Buffering between the project and adjacent residential 1 F`_ uses to south shall include an eight foot high, solid wall which meets the specifications noted in the applicants noise study and supplemental letter datad ^:.tober 1-994 3 submitted by VGO, Inc. K. The lighting plan for the entire site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The plan shall i provide adequate lighting for the project while not causing light and glare to affect adjoining properties. L. The applicant shall prepare an impact study which addresses the fair share of the construction of a pedestrian pathway. Based on the impact study the applicant shall pay into an escrow account with funds dedicated for construction of a pedestrian pathway from SW i Dartmouth Street to the southern property line. The amount of the deposit shall be based upon the fair share _ of present day improvement cost estimates for a 10-foot wide paved pathway. if the pathway is not constructed within five years, the account shall be refunded to the 1 applicant. S'T'AFF CONTACT: Mark Roberts, Planning Division. IN ADDITION Tkr APPLICANT SHOULD SE AWARE OF THE -FOLLrJWI-MI G S7.C TONS T S OF =COMiMNITi DEVELOPMENT COME,- TH S INOT -AN EXCLUSIME LIST 3 s I . SECTION 18.120.060 BONDING AND P0--SL °dtm'ES A. On all projects Dahere public imprcvements ;are required the Diaec:tor shall: _C.. Require a bold. in an amount not greater ttian ILIU percent of other adequate assurances as a condition of appro-xal of the site development plan in order to ensure tl"ie completea; project is in conformance with the approved plan; and 2. 'upg;rove and release: such bonds. 3. The bond Shall be release when the Director finds the Comnleted project cor-f orms tc the accro-veC site deve!cpment plan and all conditions of approval are Sat- isLied. 2. SECTIO±: STYZEET cUD UTILITY IMPROVSME'N STANDARDS. Section 2,10t .c_ ~:o rlt:Y Rea-1 ired t :i REVISED FI~~~ ORDER-= 9^ -1.9/pDR 94-02/SLR S'4-04-rRI-COUYr7-,r PAGE 23 E' work 'shall not begin until the City has been notified in 3 advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the -City is notified. _ { D. DECISION The Planning Commission concludes that the conditions of approval of within the Staff`Report shall be revised as provided within the ~ Final order. it is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be notified of the entry of this order. pAS,EL : This day of December, 1994 br , e Planning k Commission of the City of Tigard. I M on y e j Pl .ning Co ssio President E 1 1 - I: I. t l { t 1 : f i _ f I f f ?.."V 13 `.u , 1 t~-. O=cJ~c~-SDrt 9 _ _9 , 4 - 02/~~L_, 9 4 0,:- CiLlli'I"jr' A_" 2 1 i t XBIT A P'9ND=GS AI'M CONCLUSIONS The applicant has presented a report for the Tri-County Center that provides information about the center and hoc it conforms with the applicable Community Development Code provisions. This report also includes an environmental analysis prepared by ASCG Incorporated. A separate traffic study prepared by Kittelson and Associates and a noise study prepared by VGO, Inc., were also submitted as part of the application. These documents are referred to as the "applicant's statement" below. 1 The relevant Community Development Code provisions are found in _i Chapters` 18.62, 18.80, 18.84, 18.90, 18.96, 18.100, 18.103, 18.106, 18,108, '.18.114, 18.120, 18.180,18.164, and State Transportation Planning Rule Section ,OAR 660-127!045. The proposal, as modified by the staff recommendations, complies with these criteria as described below. " 1. Y,}eA2t&'° 3 Q r 2 en=a_ Comm - cial Aist~ Section 18.6^2.030 is satisfied because the proposed general retail sales activity is permitted in the C-G zone i". l f- F * = 2. c h_?r ~8_. 80 Planned Devglmer t The majority of the approval criteria In this chapter befer to other portions of the Code which are addressed elsewhere in this rer-'or t . The critar is that rer ' Tu ire an amzieazdment of the proposal relate to tree preservation and screening (Section ?8.80.120 A. 1 3 . t The nature of the development -,q 11 require a aurastart-.al. a':L:tcant o tree rer~trs sal. once addit-_onal trees are preserved or clanted as recom;itG%i°d~.c3 in the e9 w+ staff reportr these criteria will be 1 satisfied. { Ci'I t~ Pr : 8[t Jr ram' %L. y T~anas { e•'. With. the ~T1?iiC~LC ~Tl t of the gradAMg plan to reduce the amount of +l ,r o? the site and the landf'=nn alteration on the western portion approval of the Di~rision of State ?,ands -.aid the engineering ~ Division, the p_=GSal will m~m.et the aonl.ic:able criteria in Section ? 8 . 8, .040 C. a D e< 9 ~ r f V~xY1' Y "S ^ ~Y ~ Provided the lighting plan, amendment to thr:! site pian, and the noise buffering reqpi.ired by the decision are implemented, this tht CDC _Z Gate -3 REVISED I;, 0?DEP.-STR 94--7.9/?DR 9~°04- I-Ca"f it :-)-kG . 25 ` FE S. Chapter .96 Addiciaona Yard a^etbaCk Ret ui emezits and 1 = , " This chapter is satisfied because the development provides the ra(r.~re- Setbwcks from SW 72nd Avenue and S Dartmouth Street. 0 Q~. a a c- The proposed landscaping meets the general Code requirements. Additional landscaping details to assure code compliance, street trees along SW Pacific Highway, and screening (as described in the conditions of approval) must be provided to satisfy this chapter. ' 7. b tPr S x.02 Visual ilea aagg Apeas Compliance with the provisions of this chapter must be confirmed during the review and approval of the final landscaping plan. The conceptual plan indicates that trees and other plantings will be ; located an vision clearance areas. The size and species of these s plantings must be selected and placed in a manner the provides # adequate ;risibility at the driveway entrances. r a. Chabter 18. L a6 C~f~ eet Parkins and Loading Section 18.106.030 requires one parking space for every 400 square. :feet ' of general retail floor area.. This yields a parking requarament of 857 spaces. The site plan shows a total of 1,546 t 1 , spaces. r i Section I-8 . 1,06.020 1). requires one bicycle parking space for every 15 required vehicle parking spaces. A total of 58 bicycle parking spaces are required, and these will he shown in the "inal site clan { The d.imensioral standards outlzneu an Secr_i_c~~s 18.106.050 ace satin Eie . Simsection 1.6.106-050 J. states that access wives from ~!ai':imuz~ the street to off-street parking and loading areas "provide J safety for pecestri an ane vehicular traffic... " The proposed clan :j will satisfy this criterion. 9. Chapter 19.1_C~t? E?cc.r. rr~rF s anu Circul-at-ioTI The proposed access driveways meet the recruirements of this i - chapter.- Also, the driveway locations are cor..siscent with the access plan for SW Dartmouth Street. 0. Ch._cte.r13.114 ,v fans S 4 gn s w 11 be reviewed through the appropriate process at a later l t-me. i - 11. C ?an - l ?0 Site pgvel--~, ~rjment Review R V=S D FINAL CEDER-5D? 94-I9/?DR 9,-1-02/SLR 9Q-04- T Rl-C=,.I Y 1Gr 2, k -1 ti i As in the Planned Development chapter, this chapter calls for the protection of existing trees (Section 18.120.180 A. 2. a.) . The existing site plan does not address this issue. it is acknowledged _j that the majority of the trees on the site must be removed to develop the property as it is desig-nated in the comprehensive plan. However, it does appear that greater attention can be paid to tree :i preservation as recommended in this report, _ noted earlier, more attention needs to be given to screening to reduce the significant impact of the building and parking area. The amendments proposed for the site, grading, and landscaping plans 'will,' provide the necessary additional level of screening required by the code (Section 18.120.080 A: 4.) . , ' _ Providing improved linkages to transit are required by Section 18.1:20.080 A. 12. and the Transportation Planning Rule. The amendments recommended in this report will comply with this section. 1 12. Kanter 18 150 Tree gmoval in order to satisfy the criteria in Section 18.150.030, the applicant must show howl reasonable efforts are being made to ,a preserve trees on the site.'..-In addition, to.help compensate for the visual.' impact of the trees removed, the applicant will be required plant trees of an appropriate number and size as part of the development. i 13. 'i N_Gr 18.161_ S'trL and r ~~%3_ s.t~r I ~rc~verta~lt S~ nd c3 1 As coaditioned by the Engineerinar Department, the standards, of thin char.~ter w 11 be :satisfied. . L _S 14. State TW_r,2E~ -As conditioned by this decision-, the estate Transportation Planning Rule will be _ satisfied. All l1 city standards om ~._v . will r.-i us ne_rtai ni.n _g to 'T'_R ;•riis he met as cart of this approval. The TPR real-iirements relating to _ building orientation and location to transit have also been addressed and will be met as part of this decision. I i i REe,7:zED FINP,-L CRDER-SDR 94-19/PD:. 9~ -02/aliR 9? -04 -TIZ1--CUIT_-I Y PAGE 27 i Z 6 S, N P as MAP ? ~r - 77, '"`°`~O P LA LEI f s > ~ atg y ~ ~.7- - --J 9v, - t , A `-~"~A ~,F?^„.,._,..,., _ '•r'!ti,.e..~!;~ ✓ %-e-~rS~ _~~I/.J _ ~.!~~t..°'~~''~~ yi°2'_~G ~ ~ z~~ /r ? r ?,-C.t ~'~i ------f-` -t=fJ~`i 41 y.~P;n~.,'.'_;~ d:.jC.b r~ i € y -111/w b Tri-County Exhibits 1. Tri-County Utility Plan 3 2. Tri-County Center Site Plan (Revised) 3. Tri-County Center Site Plan (As reviewed by PC) 4. Elevation Concept Plan _ 5. Contour Map and Tree Survey i j.. 6. Colored Landscape and Site Plan 7. Aerial Photograph of Site (4011x60") -i 1 z t 7 ~ p f r PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES A SURVEYING ~ - December 30, 1994 Mr. Marls Roberts City of Tigard Planning Department 1312$ SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: SDR 94-019 Tri-County Center Application Job No. 324-003 t Resubmittal for City Council Review Dear Mark: f . 5 Attached are 15 additional copies of the revised site plan for the Tri-County Center project for review by the City Council. As addressed at the Planning Commission hearing and approved by them, we have revised the site plan to reflect a synthesis between the two originally submitted site plans in order to better facilitate the economic realities of this site. We have increased the building square footage to 360,620 SF and reconfigured them and the parking lot to better d facilitate pedestrian movements throughout the site. The revision also reduced the number of parking spaces and the overall site parking ratios. However, we did not reduce the original f arnount of open space. Is, addition, we Dave enclosed a revised trip generation analysis as prepared by Kittelson and Associates. The total number of trips Lenerated from the site is actually reduced by going to this revised plan due to the as'usnotion that the center is morQ ret it oriented and has less fast food\bank square foot-age. The new configuration has actually reduced both the number of daily and peals trips. Should you hav any questions or rewire any additional information, please feel free to call me at (503) 452-8003. f SuEcerely, E `aAL PHTA ENG!*IEEFjNG, INC. Ed Christewen, P.E. Project Idanat er i' cc: Dick Dewersdorf Gordon S. Martin Gordon R. Iylartin Randy ,Vooley~ v 5 AtUZvrlir3en, f 324fr~3\r„vb3.ec FLA2A W/F_iT e SUITE 230 n 9600 SW OAK POR-D-AND, OR 97223 e 503-452-8003 ~ FAX 503-452-80"'3 f j .,..:--~-._,-gym.--. "':-.>------,~-:,rte-•----":.r °~,.'-r•-:^--;':.,.^-----'r-....,..,;r.---•T.,....,..~.<-_...,~-~ ,-..~,..~-'-'.,.-~'~.'di`. w KI ELSE & ASS CIATE% IN C. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC EMGINEERING % 610M ALDER, SUITE 700 ® pi)RTLAND. DR 97205 • (503) 228.5230 • FAX (503) 273-8169 f I DEC a 199,1 December 30, 1994 Project No.: 1024.02 5 Mr. Ed Christensen Alpha Engineering ` 9600 SW Oak E Portland, OR 97223 Subject: SD R 94-0019, Mart '-County Center ,1 I Bear Ed: At your request we have examined the proposed site plan modifications for the Tri- ~ County Center with regard to trip generation and potential transportation impacts. The paragraphs that follow summarize the results of our analysis. ` The original traffic study we submitted for the Tri-County Center assumed a 320,100 square foot development with 307,300 square feet classified as general shopping center ! + ITE Land Use 820), 0,400 square feet classified as fast-food restaurants with drive through vvin.dows (I1"E Lanzd Use 834) and 6,400 square feet classified as banks with drive through windows (TTE Land Use 912). The revised site plan proposes a 360,620 gross square foot development. The major changes to the site p1wo are the elimination of a number of the smaller pads that could be occupied by uses such as banks and fast-food restaurants' and replacing them vvith larger buildings that w oiald be used for more general retail purposes. For the purposes of estimating trip generation for the revised plars, we have assumed that the center would consist of 354,220 gross square feet that would be classified as general shopping center space (ITE Land Use 820), and 0,400 gross square feet classified as fast food f restaurants with drive through windows (as assumed in our original report). We . believe there laud use assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case development scenario given the current site plan configuration. The attached Table 1 il1_ustrates a compari,orn of trip generation between what was assumed in lthe original study we submitted and what is currently being proposed. As indicated in. Table 1, the revised development plan is anticipated to gereraily result i in a slight decrease in trip generation. `:1`he reason for the decrease is primarily due to f^~ j BELLEVUE ~ E~1~i"~ dNCJ SACRAMENTO E i Mr. Ed Christensen December 30,1994 V Page Two the elimination of the banking uses. A drive-in bank has a peak hour trip generation rate (per square foot of development) that is approximately 10 times the trip j generation rate of general retail space within a shopping center of approxmately 350,000 gross square feet. Given that the total trip generation is not anticipated to change significantly with the revised plan, the findings and recommendations from our previous analyses with respect to off site traffic impacts and traffic control/geometric design at the site - driveways are applicable to the current site plan as well. We trust this information adequately addresses any traffic impact related concerns the City of Tigard may have regarding the proposed site plan modifications. Please`do not hesitate to call me at 228-5230 with any questions or comments. 1 Sincerely, a KITTI•;LSQN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 'T rlr. A. Vandehey, P. Associate cc: Gordon S. Mattin :j s j Table 1: Trip Generation, Comparison for th e Tri-County Center Original Kitteison Study vs. Revised Site Plan Aver Floor Area Gro., (GSF) Trii ,j farad Use Assumptions in Original Kit lson Study Shopping Center 307,300 14,27 Fast Food (w/drive thru) 6,400 4,04 y Bank (w1drivethru) 6,400 1,69 + Total 320,100 20,01 i Ladd Use Assumptions for Revised Site Plan Shopping Cantor 354,220 15,57 Fast Fours (w/shrive thru) 6,400 4,04 Total 360,620 19,62 Not'®ifference In Trip Generation -3: Reference: ITE Trip Generation (5th Edition) j s II i i t - i r 3o deity E PM Peak Flour Net New Gross Not New F (rips Trips Trips i 11,421 1,342 1,074 E 2,428 234 140 1,018 280 168 i 14,866 1,886 1,382 12,463 1,465 1,175 2,428 234 140 14,891 1,703 1,316 25 -153 -66 1. ; C 4 1 t i 1 - r . . I -x.' - , Ru ~ rtry nw P,w r • . ~ ..v ~ ' ~ JT ,~i; - _ u n~raxp~ro nm ie~ a r \ r 1 _ \ \ , ti ,rG ~ ° ~ ~ 1 \ \ _ ~ ' ~ is ~'1 _ \ I I . ~ . II rT,.,, I .f I fi ~ ~ I - I ~ ~ ~ N..w~n~, 09 2. ; '1,: - r^a ..1. ~ i._.. ~ tL. wvni rUx wall .y . ~ / w~ ` ru.'wlmo n.,, wvm ru. wunn , - ~ / ~ 5 / -.o-p.a .wp. ni IoP. al aw.ra .lop. Ja I .wpe xi. x~ >so 1 v' b'' ma.. wW"FK.. \ j~ b~ tB' II' II' I9 II' I e' 05' I b' 65' B' II' 9D' P' 11' S' Bb' b' 05' OY~ b' eDl B' S' II' h' II' 6' 55' b' OS' Zi gg _ ~ v y m i i i i ~ i iii i ~ ~ i J~ o~ 1 ~ 1~ \ ~ o ~Y. ` r~ a ~ ~e ~ q ~ day ~ e~~ ~4' o p @-? z9~e - ~ ~ ~ Wo I ~ `,t. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ GTIO -A U TIMAT '12N A NU d S.W.'12th AY : o A TMOUTN ST T a o p ~ ~ pARTMOUT~ISTREET 5E N A i ' ~ DARTMOUTH STREET SECTION B-B SECTION G-G ,3 ~i qF ~ ~ - - ~ _ PAD 8 _ LEOENp ~7 ' - nsaoo sF.:' '`Q~ 1 . , \ : ~ FF .1125 , / w ~ \ ~ _ • ~MP~f ` ~ ~ \ _ I PE°EeipalpLCE9B 9?1rE X1.4_... 'r`" :w.'~. .:-.Y-..t._.__ • i:' _ - Q - - ...I b' -~-FD... _ . _ ~ I I F6 B; ~ i Pn• FLP~R AE.LbobtO SF. Nlaa~ ~ g \ \ ~ \ ` ` CONCRETE'PEDESTRIAN rora: 017E 4raa ssm 4CF£B } g t@ u eraNpA® p QI ~ K I WAYC OSSINGS ~ rorxwaou~oFEa r.tlco]P. ° < \ g7, - 1 l~w.a...,.. ,r... ~ « I.. iOtGL PARCN46PdGEa N35 Qt U5110WEFF4 k ~ 0 I _ euaon+a BNmveE LOarlal ® g ~ g PAD - C I ~ ~ i:: ag g. g'g.. g - \ urenrArrve emunce LOUtlal b 0- ff.I180 ~ w scar a~w L g Q gm-1 ~ l``~~~ - JI NA401L4^PED POFK]GL lan L[ jSw: t Q ~ ~ i - \ \ L PF~EIENfIdL PdBCPG LOCdnOH : p - ~ ~ ¢ Qrr'>~t<aw I ~ m ` a ~Jal \ _ © , Y T eTaOAgG E ~ C a 55T4WalA ~9 d r, Q9n ~ ~ - _ _ a ~ _ b .x ~ _ o 0 0 , I ~ f w r 3, avr.",~ ~ , I ~ I I ~ . ~ ° as 33a:. t~ as a:. ' 1~ ~ nbr4NOam ,t iPf-i1/:.- ~ °p py ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ d S g ~ ~ ~ ~ t ]Tao. 1 9,590 ~ ~ ~ g W ~ 1 ,FF • 700A 5~0 ~ S S - z gg gg _~g gg 'g e`g ~ ggg ge qg gg p gg a gggg gggg gg ppp g ; Q8g pg gg gg ggg 8g c~ ~ oBramae>` ~ ~ ' mm ma ~p sa ~g ~ ~ „a ~ B a ~a ~ a m d~ sa o n~ - ~ ~ PAD - ~ P ~ A m i ^ ~ A ~ ~;s Brow: = wrm. . a~ r 'i. E11TIldNCE ria]e•Bmp 1 - x O K PPPPP 60' 60' bB'- 60' 60' ,q FA i1~~0 fiF. k, If -vt>`sl FF = 1900 i OWER d • J ~ ~ . - . 9€ f3 ff. 206.0 LEPER ,t~' 6,~ , ry ;T:: } } a4 ~ - . ~®fff111 5 iy~ a -C P P P P P O Ik~: ^P,q~ F• II B1aNDaB) Ci p ~ ' r 4U g - P - 1 C1 i ry1 Dots `li, £ ~ r is i~ T` W. Te5'91.a~ ~r IR~.T. 2giFI11K'~a>~F`~ 'Ib ad F Yf; 2 ~ X B. - C A xl"`' 115: kL 5 BTNJDMD a 6 BTMDAIm ~ • Y • 4 : S N ~ ~ $ LIJ - rv 5' NR! ADA PE°W4T mfr \ ? ~ , • .PAD = C~ .B, . Z pq. 5.taoo 5F ~ i Uf bBr~~ gg @ g g ~~+,i~ff . 23bLOWERi '~`7PMOLLt1, a•I aDq~ _ Sgg pap Q 4 p FF .2370 UPPER o - J ~ ~ U - o a° mm _ - g b]Ta~ 34 it 1 h p ' . T_ `PAD - ~ µo4 ]bTaro4~ T '"1'rxra?=r3ES~'~'D;~ B,~yTp l z u3.OO~ g a ~ ~ FF • 1800 u ar4roaoe T ara\o, d Bt]IIDA ~ i r,~<. ; ~ I I 1 & IvoLam~~e° bsr,wc<~ 1 I I - , I ~ I 1 l f 1 I I I ~ I I I I ~ ~ I I I ~h I I I I ~ I P41NUaY iF 4LaiED MiD4b / i I I le. LorEaPEi¢rY : "Y~ I~ BiMb411D 4 / _ - _ 0 I I I CuNER _ - - ' -=1 gal , - -1--,__ Rh1pgA -~--_1_ I ; i , . - v e'PCGElrP1AV eABErIEHi 7. - - rnq wneu PEObem a+ I I. - I ~ 101DEW4LKIF /FAlcBIED ~I BY NER'9e4 P4VC _ / uGi'Ep1NER6, - . loll l :,rn~ _ t. _ 08121196' °••'1 In ICI IAI I I I i I ICI I III ~ I 1111 I I I I IIII _ pj n ,~„~a ~4- uo idol oVil ui~i ill t Ihl r" i 19 - ,,1 e ~ 1. „ d...::, ...r..+C' d. _ - d <„+n.~.;~„n rr m.nn ' .r FROM -0IiI6/31' I2t~3 P. 534 SW Third avenue, Suite 300, Partlana, Oregon 972114.2$97, Phonc: (503) 447-1(XX) • FAX: (503) 223.0071 ' FRIENDS OF OREGON 3 ' BY EL) CTR ONIC TRANSMISSION Date: January 17, 1995 To: Mayor ' dim Nicoll City Councilors ' City of Tigard ; From: Keith Bartholomew, Staff Attorney ~ Re:`Tri-County Center, Project 324-003 i I am writing on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon regarding the above-referenced item. Please include this letter and the attachtnents thereto in the record and please notify me of any actiontaken by the city in this matter. Whilc- the site design presented by the applicant has some good features, this regionally significant development proposal fails to meet the letter and the spirit of the Transportation Planning Rule. Crucial bicycle and Pedestrian connections to existing 1 development-.s are missing and r-he buildings on the site are 4;~yl oriented towards the central p - azkin.g lots rather.' than to trans~ t , and the ;;treeu as required by the Transportation Planning R:ale. r. The goal of the Transportation Planning Rule:Goal 12 (OAR 660- 012) is to reduce dependence on the automobile. In order to achieve this, various land use and transportation strategies are mandatecs in the T?R, including: _orienting building entrances to the transit stop or s~ation, clustering g. buildings around transit stops arid locating buildings "as close as possible,, co transit stops (01hR 660-12-0d5(d)b); i -provi,3ing s=afe, convenient and adecjua e bicycle and pedestrian facilities within and from new clvelo pments to _ existing developments and activity areas, including the use of separate bike or pedestrian I-lays to minimize travel distances (CAR 660--12-045(3)b) k a ^sere?v locating building pads closer to the street does not ensure that they will be easy to 4ralk to or that they ,aili . encourage transit use or enhance the pedestrian environment. F € vv-l.G-Ud5(4) (b) (A) requires entrances co face transit-. stops. 7 j i - - y Ekull 01116192 12:44 P. 2 Yet, most of the building pads in this proposal turn their backs on the street and require considerable out of direction travel to f; reach the building entrance:. For example, the clistanc-ca frr,m rt,a bus stop on Dartmouth, at Driveway .A, to the entrance of Pad B will be approximately 550 feet, and, as a sidewalk isn't provided on the west side of the driveway, a transit user must either crossing the driveway, twice or travel out of direction to the r west to get there. The entrance to Pad C is about 450 feet from f' the bus stop and pad A is almost 900 feet away: Putting building pads this distance from transit will ensure that whatever, store built: will, by design, become "auto-oriented,' no matter what it sells How can it be otherwise? Residents of Hermosa Park live within rock-throwing distance of Pad A yet, due to the lack of a pedestrian accessway from SW Hermosa Way, will have to walk almost half a mile via a very circuitous route to go shopping, it is almost guaranteed that residents will drive, evert for a loaf of bread. k.< For the above reasons, the site layout as approved by the Tigard Planning Commisvion tails to comply with the Tranaportatiora Pl arming Rule (O 660-012) In order to bring this project into compliance with the ^ransportation Planning Rule we would Like to offer the fallowing recozrmendat:ions: k tr Since bring:4.ng Pad A uj~ to the ot=avt 1o not oasily accepted (,end znayb* not rons~ble) conaidar b=ingina the €atreot to Pad. by cre-at.i.ng tin ir~t-3snana arty oa?t oyct em sa l ong nartlh-couth and aanta- wc-at; azcWs of site. E-»fko at t .hod sketch) -The city of Portland is in the process of developing their zt:andards for 'building orientation and this proposal is being favorably received by the development community. -By building access streets up to urban standards, with sic7ewalks, landscar-i g, etc., bringing the street grid into the site would imQrove access to every part of the site for pedestrians, c„rclists and motorists. { Orient building ~aa#:r~erxcc~ towardo SW 72n xivo nua and Dartmouth Street rather than facing tho cGzitral parking area: j _.Reconsider the relocation of the drainaae swal.,- from the center or the site to alona Dartmouth Street. This creates barrier to pedest Tian ac-cess alcag 1-h- `~'Iheie frontage, i -acquire windce» facing sidewalks both internally and. can street frontages. For example, Gresham and Portland r_qui.we- that 20~; of the wa;_l area of the first story, up to 9 feet., be windows. s -T im probi?m could be addressed by orienting bi:ilding pads t ~y h E r ;l j , FROM 01/16/92 12:44 F'. 3 to the internal street system proposed above. ' *I=proves 4 to 1 bicycle and padastrian c1rci9lat;ion by: -creating internal "street system" with bike lanes and sidewalks along inorth-south and east-west axes. -providing pedestrian walkways within large parking areas, with landscaped sidewalks between each row of parking. Driving customers need safe, convenient and adequate pedestrian facilities, too. This was done at the:ollywood _ West Fred Meyers r -all pedestrian ways must be built to ADA standards. m Improve access to aurwovLndsrag neighborhoode d developments -Add sidewalk from property line to SW Hermosa Way along Lot 1, Hermosa Park subdivision. This should be built to ADA' standards: -Provide separate bicycle/pedestrian way from SW Hermosa Way into site. Loading area for Pad A may need to be relocated to reduce out-of-direction travel. ~ - dd i d - "d d. _ _ a _an scape me an, pedestrian cross-Lng Lsl',ands and lets turn refuges on Dartmouth extend sidewalk west on Dartmouth to costco site. rte, 'hank you for the opportunity `:en comment. C J v 'd ;v:c.i cE."3l%l0 n~ 3 F~ ~~d ``s=~3a `~3 g Li C'_ ~ M 1 LLL - 2 M1r y~M Ak VR9 7 ,rf j 6;~~ ~y~;.s•, h._ t ^rY.irl?~:-tl¢; cj.~i!#~:`yy~ r~"p' ~y.'x+ j~E ~r ~ „ Y ~ ~ P 1. s~": M~ .li P~~. ~w'.'[C~:;;~- :.1-c '~'.'ii`yf'yCted.k,:~.,:,.. s: ~~:'''j. x~!q:~$- . ~`t'~ 'k..zr'.}~ "fir ~r~~ ,~;v ~.,+,.~Ft; :1. ~ s".'.r;`~. it~F.'; .x:wt';.: -~pq..yj`'..,"`a=~.i T:j"i .$:n ;..~rra~i?~,".,i. ~ 4 ~ 4 y 7 r C' ~ ~lS tf43,~"`S~ .,~'e',k~r~3}r~L ~ ~ r _i 1 y r i es [fin f? ~T,,kk~r^~~`~~,Ss ~ u z_ ~ F} t ~ fist t4 ; ~ u ~'r `~~y s a~ ~S. ~ r ~ r,' t ! 'rb e ~r v e; a !r•' ( ~ ~ y. ~ , : r,~ fi3 ~ r ?a. " ~ i' 4 r ♦itrl ~i ~i f.k~.~{~'k~.'r3iSk'J.~~h' 4 ~ L t '11 4.,{ . j J fry IY 's"IrK'~d ' ~ke=t~'. Iii ~y,..h-„~+~~f,' 'I ~ ~ i, - ~.i:' .Ili"{':J t 4-5;.~~,{.;,4 54±~~~ aF- ~r4 ~ f, .iy, -~,u, h 31 y.P;. • ~.~gi.Y~~:'.r.>;,; Ski:'; i:<:~' m< - yeti'.,, q:! _ ^id ,~~'~l:,F` `~''3~'r,,:,?Cif'....'".'i:t~'~'.R'~'%.Y,t:,:. ::~,z:e~i~:.~:-t I r 1 ' E 1 1 4 ~C ~ "t ~~iF4~ r {~d~'} N,y { ~ sit' p~"C~.' f C f~dd f J stq~lb~'rEi ["..'x.13 f;" c' it 1. 4y.; ^~,~UL:%F~, t~ ~ 4 . e.T.. is g.'~f;~5 ~ ~,,i,,:'~ ~ Ste!«~7~t ~~r ~ ~ a _,p, O, C.. -7' e~`~'~ . 'W° 01'' } l,i i ~ l~ ~ , rix~~~~~a ' i t 1 1. is y r'.4H, Ifs- Yi '~'"f _ t'k ~ f, ~~.'i,.....,;:;~ fit.. " _ a ~ 3 ' r~ a7 r- ~ ~ .i"- ~ cif S 1 ~ ` I I:.. . Y. . r , f ~ f ~`r„ ' . , f -ta ~,1f~~1 P I i r ~r p'. i ' ~C w r '~a1 ~ ,r:s'.~' r . ..v ~ r_tiJ'~' `jr. a~.:~y .,.tr~ , ~,~x~. '~.mtm,i~'i..:i,.:..ask:i«.it.:.....~.~s.t.:s'.:..<......_..r._~. j'~ai~~ "~~,.:'~.u;~,%:.........,~:_a~... ~..u...,u..... _ _ _ , _ " ..e eaS~.-- ate.--~~.e~u. j l l ' .F 1i t'- if i.. , ~ ~~a~ r, - s ~ ~ ~ '4: _ ~ ~r-'~ i - - L ~ , _ • . , - Jae _ F ~ - ~ ~ w ~ a _ i t~~ ~I~ 1 _ " ` - ~ f' 4= _p I _ ~ts ~ i 1 .4 ,1~ ~ ! na a ra.tr~ _ _ ; r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ra,~. . , ~r-~~ ~ fi~~k.'t _ _ W~w' G.t`r?a'~ H~ t ,v ~ ! r`, e i,. , ~41 ~k r F z i - i,# c i f f { 1 Y", . "tl ~4'~l}SM%~'XYr'F~'rit^sS~i"~'.~'::.4~J ~svJ='1'r ru%J~`.1F:%.a_.,, u~~.. . v ;e ■ n ~f'b - S~~ -08121196:.. - in~!~iu (I dui t I~t1 ~ ~ i i i r i i i~~ il~~~~i i ~ ~i ~!'i~m~' i dui ~u i i i.~ i~o-~i i i i i, a i i i i ~~q;~!'! <3~ , r,: ~~,y iiimauVmitiiliui'1~I~~iimi~Pil~ii1lduumil~iiiiiiihoii~oloi~milliiiiflfiiiii uiiiTb~iuiil~i~i Ri6miudiliiiiiliilioi1h~ui~idiiuunlfiuilllllii uiirudBlifu ~lua HIV ii~9~ii~l ~ ~iliti~~tilmu~ t: ° f,--, ~ ~ `.i ' r ; ~ ~ ~ - fi.- - ~if ~ - .``tY, .sY.{{{~y'!~~~"ryv.',`y.P;lp'; t,-~:'fy'.i:~{'~'I i a h. h ~ iF q" v~~4 -t ' --IT ~ t ~ 4~~ - prf,i d ~~^`Emyrii`i ~~p x ~ s~ n 1 3 'r! ~ ' , - ~r~4 1.. :.1:.:'.t r iti _ ~N= ~ 4 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a rt - y" ~ * ~~t 1~ ~ , ;i, ~ - ~ - n; - - ~4'. t ~ ~ ; a,• - ~ ~ ~ ~ t`a i ~ ;~s _ _ ~ _ =u ~ - _ c :i ~ ~ _ } e ~ _ - * ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ - _ . ' - ~ - ' _ - 0~ ~ 1 ~ . ~1 ~ ~s~ r 'i._1 ~ - ,v } _ Y`5'' ~ It - - - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~u~ b~ ~ ~ uh ~1 ' - '~f 6p(How erion a , . i ~ ~~d - I II a, ~I v~,,- _ . ~ `s: _ ~ . , _ _ . z . ~ c.. . is , . ~ ( fi s - i , - , . n _ _ • r . . ~ ~ - ' _ tl... ' ~t _ . 3 1 . ; J a i S 1 e;~ 7t 5 ",j _ _ ~ - ,g 0812.1_ /96 . ~nlggi.l~ii dill p ~iq~~~i tIII~PI ~ll~i I q_ .I~~~il~.l,i~ i iiU~gl i a ~ ~~~I~l1 ` uioimliiiiiiiiliiiii~iiui(~~IiI~IPiiimluuii(ifii6uidmimilimiildu"umlluu~uil~rimiVmiilili7i~iluiiiluViiaiduui~iihTium6iu~uiViuoul6uiudiiu~Yli~~it1~ii Vu~~I~G~iidiu~i~~dTihu~ i ~ ~