Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 04/20/1999
- - - "'t". - ,,i x ',y' .,,„:r •:fi - s'R' - r' if^ + 'r ^x•,4 HJ._' .y ..y) i. , I• .t ;t: I. . 'rr C'tl7 rriY'C '?t; .*,A. ..Ir." r'r 7 t r'w,'?~ ::..v,:i:, „ '%:rtr:• q°A'ri~''•T% r. .f} ~f;`-v . r . r'•4:.• • k„r:-~'~+~. {{11 .11 I i..`7•, J 1'i /.,~.IG f. 'ni(:. AJ ♦5 .F k:.'4 •t. A,J. ,.1. •:,'11h\1'. TI t::KY .S ,4 `-{t Y.. Y.i 1' •..1 ,'t! r ( . 11 - 'iy<nL ' 1.„`~'h','.:'tr, . r, .x i- 4. J, . ~'n ` , '•„-~a.:T u,..• r > . -4 ^l t t k ,.?R,.',,4 '%I9, r~ >'j, . aroC. t , t _ r%r .,A":: J f+: t: - J : i V4 L'°~~ I r h' i$ :a~~ t Y~'f r'. t a. ar., 4,, .t~~~ s.-'r h ,z •a',..'r. S dt J,i i i 1. J~i . j y. , f I :c " 5 ti' ' F , i' ,U.y... F''S l' 'r r> Y- I. y nt r.~ Y 1 r i G^ iF 1' 't yl.:, -Y, Y . y; 'irk :t a, .S ..~.4 . ` ' .Q ~ti ,F 7 ` . v m t''" f . 1 ' art: ~''y'r' r3 , y,. r . .r'Sh! s , - . ! , ,rY.,• ;'.l'~i~. • ,",;1.'J ,ice . e 'Q '',jt \ •,r., i.'4J rr,. -t.}s !1 ''n,„,, 4 9 ' Y { { :.3 r1~ J 1' t y, , S i , :r,' ~"i It , .1 \ pt 'hrr's• . i 5 y. , : a-'~ a . i(. r,1 "R rv. 1 i , :'t'om? :1 II < . V . +Y.. - I ,J ~~t~ r nrG ~ t`(S . , . . '•F t.' h; -f•. xt: f.i ).4a j r } :n" v'ii': .'.K-,I' r M`. '+i+- y v., ! fit: to ii+r ,.,r ,.iii .r. ,LT. de%` `t.i'.ri tia) r• 4 .1 •r+ fir.. ::Y...,i , ; y., - _ =1r 1F h ':b ,.i t i ,m," f 4.. Y ' l f 4 .y..tc i t ti,. ii ~ '~s' • ~1l ST~'' :x ~1~; r r ~t , ,1: rt l ' d. `a " . n st v ,F, 11 , - 'IV ;I.,, n, , Y:`t;..., K• ' - ' , , r t }r r.. 're.,.t5'::L. . , . r:/ •!4s i;f:^kcaw'S ;i0. A r; r:.:i'' ,r r. ~:l ' t ti>,l•4 . ,4 ie'J %'J': }INN„ fit ~1''n,}.14' ,,il.}' i4~ ':'S., it}. SS \ T., 5„ . .}3 ,yr, ::"rIf .,.k. • kt,, 1, f,: er: •e ' L .1i r1.~• i l } 3 .t`• e; - c•^ %•til~ 1t t ` . f, 4* P 41iv ~ 11 11 .I I" >f 9: ' i i. ~tr,.r, ry' ,:9r..i. ( 4 ' ' f . - W., ra," .fro { Lf. - t il, \\11 % ,4 Al}.. u jl tt , ~ ' r~ t n "r ` it+• .e. . r x • Y `•j i. *iF; - - , , ,i b 7 i . - V ..":11. ~ "I. I I I 11, r, !w i' ' .,i t p ..rv "w:r t r ht t i ~'•q;l '~y- r, y. is 4?: i.; r a' r p . f Y?'` 5 r 1 f' +'Y -1., Pi ~ Y• -11 ~Y. w i' ' ~ ' ~ J~ ~.f • 1',. e ;1i. :v 1,_: 1 ,a, 1 r. j s+' ~t ? 3 :e. " ~r W - I I 1 : F 5 P: G :'r ,tx S e } rw t r`r?d. 7:' ~ i- i' e . ::I'n', { Y. ~,J : : -tia`: i t. '{1, i•J~. .tr.. ff J' f. . y,, +i ,y {"r SJ J i-' M; 1-i f,.L': ` .'t ;Lr , TIP Y' r: a; 1: 'I. ;r. - r . . . , , - ~ ~ , " "i ~ - ~ , ,A RM . or :t :r- ,.A1 ;.'L n!r l s i r • .y:: - .::r i~, Vii.: -.11,7-j 'r ^ "a , }::'r•f I . j.. . t' ' ~{.~7,~ ;iii i'ce'.': •i 1'>u. i . r:'. : i "~'i x, rj• - f•,''': :i r, , .L t -Viy i : : 4' Fr. ' t O ® •,3 i' . a - . , I i.... - ~ , , I.-- : ~ - .1 _ - , - - - ~ ..F. ~ . , , ~ - I 1. , , I ".1--.1 -11 --~,t- - , _ 1~;:-- , M: , 5 ii ~i .'C - ;.y,r',, t i- I - t. ' : i'. , ,1. i'; J : ; . , , _ i ' . s. . : y:: r , .r r : 1 r _ _ .-l .,7•• _ } .IL :r r' . . ;';1., i . t: ,l . - .j?': ' ' .•1 ;i ' -4; -r 'r., . 'rt y,;~~':; _ ,,t1V., 't %f`t•i :C d 1; y'r _ t` !y ii u & a 6% IL E . . , t._ E T - yyl'• ~t; - - - - - - _ . ,r` - :i: s,. , . 11 n d' , F.'• ipl.'V i:~admyesslcabcpkt2.dx - y. „l;;",:'> - . 'i7 .),i_YrS,: , tyro - ; i. A.:. i t it :6j ,r ..1 1F'' S' ~ w.! i .77;1'': _ .C t•'^}' '•~C'r. : 1 " tt JLJ.,., r ) t•r; r.J+, y N Y {~y ,J k.. t`r :.r.: >t • i~ r', ti'.1 , e:.. ' f.::.!.nr'•,,':~ ..w,ki y!'.' D. Z 'fi :.S.. ~ I- I - Lom i 7 Revised 411511999 ,1 CITY OF TIGARD ,y r 69 M AyJ ~SY.lt~r~y '1^~~i~r Y Fl` z Fr-'~Pi-~ t ~S-tl~}~2x1' d a.A■K 8 ~t•',~. °1~1 ~'~~~~1., r °5~~~r }n1.~ h t5~.t llTTT,~} 3 its y} Z < M > ~ t ~ ~ i ty wql ~M1f 1. ?i r.r~~~+~;~. t W`t'£ ~i ! ~ S . yF[ ~t a e~'~l~ ~©nr: ,Erg sw~~Ln" jQi/~Da~~,ir~! i} f.° cif I ~ v.-;•5 , A`~'4.ep.•;~ n~s^ r~ <-k ~iqr tb en r3 >tr''r pr r'Kt! y~r N S.r's a,;~.{ y`4 nY hi~{~~+.. vrJ'~%' ~S r°2~ ~tY~C r ~ .gtrw PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639.4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Dc[rices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for parsons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 20,1999 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 20,1999.6:30 PM 6:30 PM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (f) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public records. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 7:30 PM 2. WORKSHOP MEETING • Call to Order: Mayor Nicoli • Pledge of Allegiance ® Council Communications & Liaison Reports • Call to Staff and Council for Non Agenda Items 7:35 PM 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL BOARD 8:30 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING FINAL ORDER- (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-001ONAR 98.0010 The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41-acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district Is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development, PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement, to facilitate the efficient use of land, and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, a 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. i a. Staff Report: Planning Department b. Public Testimony (No new testimony will be allowed; however, the public may comment on the findings submitted to the City Council for approval.) . c. Council Discussion/Questions d. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 20,1999 - PAGE 2 a 9:00 PM 5. WATER PROJECT FINANCING ® Finance Department 9:15 PM 6. POTENTIAL ROAD BOND PROJECT FINANCING m Finance Department 9:30 PM 7. TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE ® Request by Councilor Moore for Council Discussion on Projects/Issues for the Task Force to Consider 9:45 PM 8. ANNEXATION OF THE WALNUT ISLAND DISCUSSION Y Community Development Department 10:00 PM 9. UPDATE ON BUILDING FEE APPEAL Community Development Department 10:15 PM 10. REVIEW OF COUNCIL GROUNDRULES • Administration Department 10:30 PM 11. RECYCLED WATER - CONSERVATION BY WORKING WITH UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGEND 0 Request by Mayor Nicoli for Council discussion. 10:45PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10:55 PM 13: EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (f) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and exempt public records. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. i 11:00 PM i 14. ADJOURNMENT i I:\ADM\CATHY\CCA\990420.D0C 7 COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 20,1999 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item NO. !1 of 5' DS, 44 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES APRIL 20,1999 Council Present: Mayor Nicoll, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Cathy Wheatley; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, current & pending litigation issues. o Mayor Nicoli adjourned the Executive Session at 7:30 p.m. 2. WORKSHOP MEETING Call to Order Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Cathy Wheatley; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx A Boy Scout Troop led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Nicoli thanked the troop and presented the members with a City lapel pin. 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE TIGARD/TUALATIN SCHOOL BOARD School Board members present included Al Hieb, Richard Carlson, Tom Sharp, Pat Biggs, and Susan Stark Hayden. School District staff present included School Superintendent Russ Joki and Tom Kurt. 3.1 School Fields/Facilities 3.2 Use of Facilities for City-Endorsed Recreation Programs CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 1 Mayor Nicoli stated that his comments did not speak for the entire Council. He mentioned that over the past four years he has worked towards one of his primary goals: establishing a parks and recreation district. He indicated that such a district could take over maintenance of the school athletic facilities, except possibly the high school, and provide reimbursement to the District for use of its buildings and other facilities. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the Task Force recently established to work on this issue, including himself and two School District representatives. He said that he believed that over the past year he and Tom Brian found that the majority of the County Board appears to be in favor of creating the district. He noted that City Councilors had concerns regarding the operation of the district but the Council agreed to contribute $15,000 towards an $80,000 study that Atfalati needed to do. He pointed out that the City's only big park with athletic facilities was Cook Park. He said that the District would benefit greatly from a parks and recreation district by transferring the burden of maintenance to the recreation district. Russ Joki, School Superintendent, stated that the District staff was very interested in using a recreation district to help maintain the quality of their numerous fields. He mentioned their concern regarding a schedule of development and maintenance, citing the varying condition of the existing fields and the ongoing projects to upgrade several fields in the District. He indicated the District's interest in maintaining its long-standing relationship with user groups, noting the agreements between the District and some groups to allow those groups priority use of the facilities. Mr. Joki stated that Rich Carlson reported to the Board regarding the proposed fee distribution schedule. He referenced Tom Kurt's work for the District on this issue. Rich Carlson, School Board, reported that, following the Task Force meetings, he advised the Board that Atfalati was requesting the District to contribute $5,000 towards the study. He concurred with Mayor Nicoli that a successful recreation district would bring a significant benefit to the District in terms of facility maintenance and possibly new construction. He expressed his hope that the Board would agree to commit the requested funds to do the study. Mr. Carlson commented that they have returned to a discussion about fees for maintenance, similar to the unsuccessful discussion held a year and a half ago with the user groups. He said that the user groups would rather contribute towards a single project than assess a flat fee for maintenance. Mr. Carlson asked what would happen with field maintenance in the interim while Atfalati went through the formation process (1.5 to 3 years). He asked if the Council has discussed participating in field maintenance or upgrade projects. He agreed with Mayor Nicoli that the majority of the fields and gyms belonged to the District but he argued that what benefited the District benefited the community. He suggested working out a joint arrangement between the District and the City until Atfalati got off the ground. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 2 91 I'll 101 MM11111111111 I Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council had different funds that it could draw on but those funds had certain restrictions. He asked staff if they could pay for these capital expenditures out of the parks SDCs. Bill Monahan, City Manager, pointed out that presently the Council has restricted the park SDCs to carrying out the City's Parks Master Plan. He explained that staff based the SpC methodology on a fixed plan to arrive at the dollar amounts. He said that if the City took on more responsibility, then staff would have to re-analyze the situation to see if they should increase or maintain the dollar amount to pay for those additional projects. He agreed that the master plan suggested developing joint usage of some school properties. Mayor Nicoli suggested that Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, talk with the District maintenance staff to gain a better understanding of the District's needs for maintenance and equipment and to see if the City could help. He commented that, without a list, he found it difficult to say yes or no to a request for help with maintenance. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that some people asked him recently why the Little League maintenance of the baseball fields did not include mowing the outfield. He spoke to also looking to the needs of the children who did not play team sports in order to keep these kids motivated and on the right track and away from gangs. Councilor Hunt stated that, while he had no problem with Atfalati as an organized group, he was very concerned at setting up another taxing entity. He commented that he saw this as an attempt to get around the Measure 50 mandate to reduce taxes. He indicated that he needed more information on this issue. He pointed out that neither the District nor the City would lower its taxes in response to the addition of a new taxing entity.. He emphasized that he would not support another taxing entity, as it would only add taxes, not lower them. Tom Kurt, School District staff, reported that the Task Force talked with representatives from three parks and recreation districts: North Clackamas, Chehalem (Newberg), and Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District (Beaverton). He spoke to giving the Council the opportunity to hear how comprehensive these programs were in encompassing all age groups from children to senior citizens. Mr. Kurt reported that he and Superintendent Joki met with the City of Tualatin last week. He said that Tualatin was still trying to decide whether to join Atfalati or to do something independent through an IGA with the Tigard-Tualatin School District. He mentioned that the District was trying to get Tualatin to jointly develop recreational properties, possibly including a teen center. Mr. Kurt agreed with Councilor Scheckla that they needed to meet the needs of all the kids. He cited the school shootings at Denver today as a prime example of the dangers of addressing only a small populace. Councilor Scheckla mentioned that charging fees could prevent at-risk kids from low income families from participating in programs. Mr. Kurt stated that the District did not eliminate any child from participating in recreation program because of financial need. He emphasized that they did try to reach out to the at-risk kids. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 3 Tope Sharp, School Board, commented that the points raised so far in the discussion were all valid points: not excluding participation based on economics, an activity center, concerns about raising taxes. He pointed out that currently the community used many of the District properties for a variety of activities. He asked what the intent and scope of work were for the consultant's study. Mayor Nicoli explained that Atfalati needed to meet certain requirements for the County before it could form a district. He compared the study to a business plan. He reported that the Task Force members asked the same kinds of questions of the three recreation district representatives at their last meeting. He said that the Chehalem and Clackamas representatives advised that a new district not overwhelm itself with those concerns. He described the successful methodology used by both the Chehalem and Clackamas districts to gradually help implement programs of interest to the community as opposed to abruptly taking over programs or facilities. Mayor Nicoli commented that Atfalati would probably not take over team sport clubs but it would take over maintenance of the fields and negotiate a program with the School District. He commented that Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District was very different than the other two recreation districts because they got a lot of money and the other two did not. He agreed with asking the Chehalem and Clackamas representatives to address the Council and the Board regarding how the districts operated. Mayor Nicoli mentioned the concern that Atfalati would take over all the parks and facilities of the City and School District. He stated that he heard the recreation district representatives describe using a different process to work through delicate issues and implement programs requested by the community. He emphasized the use of negotiation in dealing with the tough issues. Mr. Sharp agreed that hearing presentations from the two districts was reasonable. He reiterated his question regarding the content of the business plan or consultant study. Mr. Monahan mentioned the work of Mr. Wegner and Paul Henin from Tualatin on developing the RFP for the study. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, explained that the Task Force set up a subcommittee composed of Paul Henin (City of Tualatin), himself (City of Tigard), Dave Nicoli (Atfalati) and John Anderson (Atfalati) to develop the scope of work for the consultant's study. He reviewed the key tasks identified. He said that the first eight tasks had to do with fact finding and facilitating meetings in order to reach a consensus from all the entities - Tigard-Tualatin School District, City of Tigard, City of Durham, City of Tualatin, City of Sherwood, Sherwood School District, and Washington County - about whether or not to move forward with the formation of a parks and recreation district. Mr. Wegner said that the last four tasks included the first and third year budgets required by law, and the inventory of all facilities available "on the block" for possible use in the district. He characterized the study as a facilitation of all the entities that would be working together. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 4 indicated that the intent was to build a consensus with regard to the major points needed to either make a deal or to not make a deal. He said that he would fax a copy of the RFP tasks to Superintendent Joki. He mentioned that the $5,000 figure included both Phases 1 and 2. Mr. Sharp asked what the timespan was of Phases 1 and 2. Mr. Wegner said that they wanted to get both phases completed in time to get the district on the November 2000 ballot. Pat Biggs, School Board Chair, asked about the inventories. Mr. Wegner confirmed that Tigard recently completed its inventory but other entities did not have one. He mentioned that entities might not want to put all their facilities "on the block," citing Sherwood's YMCA as an example of a facility already restricted by agreements. Councilor Scheckla asked why staff left out King City. Mr. Wegner said that the Atfalati Steering Committee invited King City to participate but King City decided not to participate at this time because they already had a King City Recreation District with a golf course, library and art center. He commented that a complete recreation park district included a senior citizen program. Mr. Kurt pointed out that many Tigard and King City senior citizens used the District's aquatic centers, something that could become a component in the negotiations. Mayor Nicoli noted that the three recreation district representatives described their plans to handle out-of-district users. He mentioned his surprise at learning that all the districts went over their budgets. He said that their operating money came from 50% tax base and 50% the user fees. He said that he had thought that the districts received 100% of their operating money from the tax base. Mr. Carlson pointed out that the tax base for the North Clackamas district actually decreased because of the extent of the usage. He agreed with Councilor Scheckla that they needed to address the needs of all the young people, not just the athletes. He commented that there was not much for kids to do in the community other than play sports, citing his experience with his teenage son. He mentioned the afterschool programs begun at the middle schools as a way to address this issue of giving the kids not involved in sports something to do and keeping them off the streets. Mr. Carlson argued that a recreation district provided answers to a lot of these questions and concerns. He conceded that there might be a cost to it but held that the community benefited from a recreation district, especially if it kept young people busy. Mr. Carlson described the Task Force discussion as starting small and encouraging people to become involved, including recreational facilities in the district, and incorporating things into the district as they came along. He said that they have not discussed building facilities as soon as the district formed. I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 5 IRWIN Nicoll NMI Mr. Carlson reiterated his question regarding what happened during the interim three years it took to get the district up and running. He said that, from the District's standpoint, they needed to maintain their facilities and that the contributions from user groups only covered a small part of the cost. He asked how they could jointly address the cost issue. Mayor Nicoli brought up the issue of using recycled water to irrigate District fields. Mr. Kurt stated that currently the District spent $153,000 to mow and $27,000 to irrigate. He confirmed that Fowler and Tuality Middle Schools were the two irrigated fields in Tigard. He said that he and Mr. Wegner have discussed the feasibility of using USA recycled water to irrigate the Templeton-Tuality area by running a line from the existing line at the Summerfield golf course. He agreed that doing so would be beneficial to the District in both the long and short term. Councilor Hunt mentioned hearing some discussion at Summerfield and King City that they paid for the pipe to the golf course, not the City of Tigard. Mr. Wegner said that he believed there had been a cooperative deal in installing that pipeline but he did not know who owned it. He agreed with Mr. Kurt that running a line to the Tuality-Templeton area was doable, as long as they could meet everyone's demands. Mr. Kurt agreed with Dr. Carlson's suggestion that he, Mr. Wegner and Mr. Munroe get together to discuss what resources each had available. He confirmed to Mr. Sharp that he was talking about an interim IGA. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council has given staff broad abilities to works with other government agencies for joint use of equipment. Mr. Wegner pointed out that the biggest problem for both the City and the District was manpower. He said that the City was already short three employees to take care of its own parks and greenspaces. He agreed that it made sense for the City to take on some fields but emphasized that it would cost either the District or the City money to do the day-to-day maintenance of the fields. He concurred that the user group volunteers preferred capital projects to the mundane day-to-day maintenance tasks. Mr. Wegner reiterated that the biggest hurdle for both the City and the District was the additional employees needed to do the work. He commented that there were ways to share costs and equipment but manpower was the difficult issue. Mr. Kurt agreed that the City and the District could do many things jointly over the next two years. He commented that he saw a tremendous need in Tigard for a parks and recreation district. He questioned whether a district would want to inherit Sherwood's $8.5 million bond for parks and recreation. He noted that the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District was years ahead of where Tigard was and served as a prototype for what other communities would like to achieve one day. He commented the Nicolis for pursuing this ambitious goal. 3.3 Road Improvement Plans 3.3.1 Realignment of Walnut Street - Construction During Summer 1999 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 6 pill 111MM7 Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that the City has scheduled the realignment of the Walnut/Tiedeman intersection to occur over two years because they could not get all the work done in one year. He said that this year they would do the undergrounding utilities work. He explained that they did not know the specifics yet because City's bidding and award process for this project did not begin until early May. He noted that construction was slated for July. He mentioned that the work would significantly disrupt road traffic but they intended to work with the contractor to develop a schedule and scope of work that worked for everyone. 3.3.2 Possible Changes to Tiedeman Avenue and North Dakota Street and School District Plans for Fowler Middle School Mr. Duenas stated that this project was speculative at this point. He reported that the consultant for the Transportation System Plan update recommended putting in a north-south connector road between Tigard Street and North Dakota. Another recommendation was to make the North Dakota/Tiedeman/Greenburg Road intersection one way in order to alleviate the problems at that intersection. He mentioned a possible right turn in, right turn out only. He said that staff believed that they could provide for better local circulation with a connector road and reduce the reliance on this intersection. He stated that he put the project on the list of potential road bond projects but emphasized that this project would not happen for three to four years, if at all. Mr. Duenas described the no left turn from Tiedeman to North Dakota at Mr. Sharp's request. He pointed out that currently cars trying to make that left turn blocked all the traffic behind them. He noted the other reason to reduce reliance on the intersection: reducing use of the marginal bridge and avoiding the need to replace it at this time. He said that they would prefer to put the money into a road that would provide an interim connection on this long block. Mr. Duenas confirmed that the Walnut intersection by Fowler would be a signalized intersection. He commented that staff was trying to be creative in finding ways to handle the big island at that intersection. Mayor Nicoli advised the Board that the Council has appointed Councilors Moore and Patton to sit on an 18-month Task Force to identify projects for a November 2000 road bond measure, similar to the process used 10 years ago when the City did Greenburg and Durham roads. He mentioned the Councils interest in street lighting and sidewalks in addition to roadway projects. He spoke to committing more money than last time to connecting sidewalks on major thoroughfares and school routes in order to address foot traffic needs on key routes through the city. He asked for District input. Ms. Biggs commented that the Board appreciated the Council's consideration of those issues. She cited the District's bussing of children who could not walk safely to school. Councilor Scheckla asked the Board to bring forward to the Council any problems with bus routes or the Balloon Festival's impact on Tigard High School that the Council should know about. Superintendent Joki said that they appreciated the Balloon Festival Committee's work CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 7 with the District and the Police Chief's involvement last year. He mentioned that Police Chief Goodpaster was the best contact they have had so far in working with the City. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Festival turned into a major community event with some money finding its way back to the District. 3.4 Review September 1998 Train Days - Did the District Find the Event Worthwhile? Should we repeat in every other year: 2000, 2002, etc. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that Mayor Rob Drake of Beaverton suggested holding this event every two years. He commented that he really enjoyed the event but he did not know what the District thought of the event. The School Board indicated that they thought it had been a good event for the kids. Mayor Nicoli indicated that next time the City might consider finding funds from other sources to subsidize the weekend rides provided by the non-profit groups. He explained that the groups made very little money from what they had hoped would be a fund raising event because of the costs of operating the train and the high fee they had to charge. Councilor Hunt mentioned that the extensive use of volunteers helped produce a great project with a minimal amount of dollars spent. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that they had no complaints of injury or about the noise. 3.5 School Resource Officer Mr. Monahan mentioned the joint City and School District application for federal funding to add a third School Resource Officer. He said that they were cautiously optimistic. He explained that the cooperative relationship between the City and the District was a plus factor (including the District's offer to pay half of the nine-month salary each year) but Tigard did not have a lot of gang activity, one of the primary criteria for receiving the grant funding. He said that they should hear the results in one to two months. Councilor Hunt asked if the school resource officer program would help combat a situation such as happened at Denver today. Superintendent Joki said that he did not think that the grant specifically addressed such a situation. Superintendent Joki commented that it was very difficult to prevent what happened at Columbine High. He stated that the past 15 years of using school resource officers has established a presence that has helped to control a number of issues and perhaps prevent incidents. He said that the fact that every student at the high school and middle schools knew that there was an officer on campus was a wonderful deterrent. He indicated that, while he could not answer the Councilor's question, he did think that they could take a sense of accomplishment in the fact that they had an ongoing partnership with the City and they were doing something. Susan Stark Hayden, School Board, mentioned the work of Officer Cheryl Pierce with the Teen Court and finding creative ways to help the District provide its share of funding for this form of community policing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mr. Kurt invited the Council to attend a presentation by Gregory Bowden Hammer at Tualatin High School on May 19 regarding crime prevention at schools intended for parents and the community. He said that Mr. Hammer would work with the school counselors and administrative staff during the day. He mentioned that Mr. Hammer was a nationally renowned speaker on the topic, served as the lead person in the Thurston issue, and had worked as a police officer in Los Angeles in developing that city's adolescent crime prevention programs. He stated that they used grant money to bring Mr. Hammer in. He commented that they were trying to educate students and to identify youngsters who might need help. Councilor Scheckla spoke to parents and educators working cooperatively both at home and at school to prevent situations such as occurred today and last year. Councilor Hunt pointed out that the School Resource Officers had the ability to communicate with the kids and to develop a rapport and relationship that gave the kids someone they felt comfortable talking to regarding these situations. He commented that often a few kids were aware of a problem before it happened but did not want to be stool pigeons. Ms. Biggs said that they have officers who built those trust relationships with the kids. Mr. Carlson mentioned that some of the officers became involved in student activities as part of building those relationships. Mr. Kurt asked if it was possible, through the City's maintenance budget, for the City to assist the District's operation of the aquatics center during the summer programs. He pointed out that the community used the center during the summer months when school was out. He said that they would like to share the operations and maintenance costs of providing this service to the' community. Mayor Nicoli directed Mr. Kurt to discuss the matter with Mr. Wegner. He asked about using qualified volunteers. Mr. Kurt said that they could if the volunteers met the criteria for water safety. He commented that he had been thinking of the City making more funds available from the parks and recreation money to jointly share in the cost of the summer operation of the pool. Mr. Monahan recommended that Mr. Kurt submit a proposal with dollar amounts through the City's budget process. He said that he was not optimistic, given the increase planned by staff within the five-year financial plan to meet the City's additional needs for parks and police officers. Mr. Kurt pointed out that if the City subsidized the aquatics center, they could lower the $2 fee and make the pool available to more kids. He said that he would make the submittal. Mr. Sharp spoke to the concept of an interim IGA. He suggested identifying what resources each entity had and sharing what they could. Mr. Monahan agreed that the City needed to look at how it could assist with field maintenance. He said that the City also needed to look to the District for assistance on recreational programming, as the City provided no recreational programming other than some pilot programs. He commented that he understood that the pilot programs would like to use school facilities more but they saw the facilities as less available to them. He supported the City and District staffs exploring these concepts together in order to reach a middle ground that would solve all their issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 9 I 'IN NINE Mr. Wegner mentioned the Washington County Cooperative Public Agencies that published a catalog of equipment to rent and services available at each of the participating agencies. He said that he did not know if the Tigard-Tualatin School District was part of this group. Superintendent Joki commented that the District staff member who had been involved has retired. He said that it was a good thing for the District to get back into. o EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(f) exempt public record. o Mayor Nicoli reconvened the regular meeting at 9:08 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FINAL ORDER - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-001ONAR 98-0010) The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 1091', north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100,00200, and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 square feet); $-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development (PD). The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type of design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48,18.80, 18.88, 18.92, CRITERIA: 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearing and testimony procedures. n ' a. Staff Report Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner, noted Attachment 3, the memo containing the outline of the non-clerical changes. She reported that staff realized (after the packet was prepared) that the findings left out the condition approved by Council as part of the preliminary approval: a installation of speed humps on Kable Street both within and to the east of the development (Condition 11, page 3). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 10 Ms. Hajduk mentioned the disagreement over the requirement to construct a sidewalk to the east of the development. She read the revised language of Condition 10, agreed to by both the staff and the applicant, for the construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of Kable Street from the eastern site boundary to SW 100`x' Avenue with the City paying the cost in excess of $30,000. She recommended that the applicant state his acceptance for the record. William Cox, 0244 SW California, Portland, attorney representing the applicant, stated that they have reviewed Condition 10 and accepted the revised language. Jim Coleman, City Attorney, reviewed the three letters received by staff commenting on the findings. He recommended rejecting Mr. Paul Norr's April 16, 1999, letter as it included attachments with traffic counts completed after the close of the record. He stated that the Council could accept no new evidence. He explained that the letter and the attachments formed an integrated whole, and therefore he recommended rejecting the entire letter. Paul Norr, 931 SW King Avenue, Portland, attorney-at-law, suggested deleting Section E of his letter and the attachments as new evidence. He contended that the first four sections contained argument only and did not address any new evidence. He asked to leave the remainder of the letter in the record. Mr. Coleman said that Mr. Lasswell's letter contained no new evidence. He recommended deleting the portion of the Malnati letter on the first page beginning with "First and foremost" down through "Policy 2.1.1." He explained that that portion related to procedural objections and some meetings that might or might not have happened. He said that Ms. Hajduk could find no evidence in the record of the Planning Commission or City Council relating to those alleged facts. Mayor Nicoli asked about the Norr letter. Mr. Coleman said that the Council had the choice to strike the entire letter or only those portions suggested by Mr. Norr. He commented that if the Council struck only Section E and the attachments, they would probably avoid a procedural objection. Nikki Malnati, 10529 SW Naeve Street, objected to the striking of a portion of her letter. The Council discussed the letters. They agreed by consensus to strike Section E and the attachments from Mr. Norr's letter and the portion described by Mr. Coleman from Ms. Malnati's letter. b. Public Testimony Bill McMonagle, 12555 SW Mall Blvd, stated that they have resolved their problems. o Mr. Cox stated that he had nothing to say now but he would like the opportunity to speak later. o Nikki Malnati, 10529 SW Naeve Street, read from the portions of her letter not stricken from the record. She said that she did not represent the neighborhood but was speaking as an individual citizen. She stated that the evidence in the record proved that the findings did not meet the provisions of 18.160.120 and 18. 1 64(m)(1)(b). She argued that the safety concerns raised by the Naeve neighbors over the past two years were not satisfied by the findings. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 11 M 111MIN =J Ms. Malnati cited three issues: approval of the 17% grade variance for Naeve Street, extension of Naeve Street straight north for excessive lengths, and no traffic mitigation on Naeve Street that met the City standards. She referenced the staff report statements on page 10. She argued that the neighbors understood that SW Naeve would be connected as a result of this development; their concerns centered on how it was connected. Ms. Malnati disagreed with the staff report statement (page 16) that the safety concerns associated with the steeper streets was more than outweighed by the increased connectivity. She questioned the City saying that the needs of the developer and the issues of connectivity were of greater importance than the safety of the children and citizens of the city. She argued that, other than sprinklers, the findings provided for no safety measures, such as traffic calming or mitigation. She disagreed that the variances were necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision (page 16). Mr. Coleman advised the Council that if they varied from the three-minute time limit for one person, then they needed to do so for everyone. Mayor Nicoli asked Ms. Malnati to wrap up her comments. Ms. Malnati stated that Finding 1.160.120 could not be adopted because the safety measures were not met. She cited the Uniform Fire Code provision regarding grades in excess of 15%. She said that it was not possible to meet the variance because no landings or grades were made in the findings. She contended that it was not possible to build a street safely and properly based on these findings. o Mark Lasswell, 10430 SW Kable Street, held that the council had sufficient information to show conclusively that the subdivision would violate the City codes. He agreed that the Council could take the City Attorney's advice and not consider all the information. He questioned whether that action was good government or representative of the citizens. He suggested that the findings prepared by the applicant did not reflect the kind of government and process desired by the Council. He stated that his letter showed that the traffic analysis was incomplete, inconclusive and downright poor. He said that, as a professional engineer, he found that it bordered on negligence. With all due respect, he questioned the staff's competence to review the analysis. Mr. Lasswell compared this dilemma to the dilemma faced by the Council over the water issue. He argued that the Council would not ignore information that came to light after it made a decision regarding a water source, if that information demonstrated that it had made the wrong decision. He argued that such information would demonstrate that the option could put the citizens at risk. Mr. Lasswell contended that the Council had information that suggested that the developer oversimplified the true issues and that building a specific section of a street would put citizens at risk. He held that the developer had no reason to invest sufficient money to find a complete answer, as the City did with the water issue. He argued that the developer's sole motivation was to get the development approved at the lowest possible cost and to make the most money from it. He held that if the Council held that same motivation, then it was a death spiral for the community. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 12 Mr. Lasswell contended that his letter and other testimony argued that the applicant's work was incomplete, inconclusive and did not prove the findings. He held that allowing these findings to stand was a travesty of the process. He apologized that the neighbors did not make better points during the hearings but he pointed out that it was the developer's job, not the neighbors' job, to prove that the development met the Code. He asked the Council to deny the application because it would violate the code. o Warren Sanders, 15360 SW 1601n Ave, stated that his neighborhood understood that the new development would provide benefits and change the quality of life in their neighborhood. He said that they did not believe that Randy Sebastian did not have the right to make a profit; they believed that he did not have the right to make a profit at the neighborhood's expense. He argued that this development plan dramatically affected the quality of life for those neighbors who have lived in the area for 30 years. He asked the City to approve a development plan that met the Code. Mr. Coleman explained that the testimony tonight should address the findings, not re-argue the case. He commented that he knew that this was difficult and procedurally awkward but pointed out that this was a process that required the City to be fair to all participants, including the applicant. He confirmed to Mr. Sanders that the findings was the document itself, not the design or impacts. s Bruce Manning, 1845 SW Fable, asked the Council not to approve the plan as it was. He explained that he was new to the area and did not know all the history of the issue. He stated that he wanted this to be a win-win situation. Gary Stephens, 9840 SW Kimberly Drive, commented that he did not have a problem with the subdivision because of urban growth but he did question the concept of connectivity. He stated that Applewood, a new 200 unit subdivision with only two entrances and exits on to Hall, has already started impacting his street, located off SW 98`" Street. He questioned encouraging connectivity from a subdivision to Hall via Murdock, Kable, Hoodview or Lady Marion right in front of Tuality Junior High. ® Randy Norgaard, 10466 SW Lady Marion Drive, held that the staff report did not adequately address connectivity as a whole. He stated that the Tigard Code defined neighborhood streets in terms of speed, the amount of traffic, and where the traffic came from. He argued that the staff report looked only at the traffic volumes and did not address where the traffic came from. He referenced the staff report discussion of the TIF fees paid by the developer for streets built specifically for the development of the property. He held that that alone was sufficient reason to address connectivity as a whole, where the cars were coming from, and the neighbors' safety N concerns. Mr. Norgaard disagreed with the staff report's characterization of the neighborhoods' work to try to reach a compromise plan as self-serving. He held that the neighbors asked questions about connectivity and the use of the streets to provide internal circulation within the subdivision. He said that the Code did not say that all the streets had to connect to Royalty Parkway. He mentioned questions about how the streets related to the Tigard City Code provisions about neighborhood streets versus minor streets. He asked why they looked only at traffic counts when the majority of the traffic on these streets would be cut through traffic. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 13 ® Bruce Paulson, 9920 SW Kable, said that he lived on the "S" curve section of Kable, the portion impacted most by the street connections. He disagreed that the proposal would meet the Code and provide a safe environment. He stated that they already had safety problems that they brought to the City's attention in the past. He argued that the traffic volumes would double, thus exceeding the Code. He asked the Council to consider the true facts and the significant hazard this proposal would create. He asked the Council to make the developer do a better job and to meet the Code requirements. ® Paul Norr, 931 SW King Ave, Portland, Attorney-at-law, representing Debra and William Eckhart, distributed copies of materials already in the record. He referenced the first page of his letter from last week. He read the request for denial of the application because of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan requirement that the applicant prove that there would be less than 1,500 vehicles per day on SW Kable between SW 98"' and SW 100'h after completion of the proposed development. He argued that the existing record did not prove that, and therefore, the Council could not make that finding. Mr. Norr referenced page 24 of the proposed findings. He noted that SW Kable was actually three separate sections with three different characteristics. He contended that the Council was being asked to find that the existing level of traffic on all three street sections was 300 cars per day currently, and that the future daily traffic level would be 1,310 cars per day. Mr. Norr referenced page 26 of the findings. He stated that, according to the findings, the Council concluded (based on the redistribution analysis) that there would be no more than 1,310 cars per day on SW Kable. He said that the Council was required to find that there would be less than 1,500 cars. He argued that the Council could not make that finding based on the redistribution analysis. o Debbie Eckhart, 10390 SW Kable Street, commented that she did not think it was fair that she had to hire an attorney to get to this point. She stated that the neighbors have been asking for a better street plan throughout this process (page 12). She cited the statement on page 28 that the street configuration was the result of the developer's choice to maximize the number of buildable lots. She argued that there were other options available. She asked why the City was not looking for a better plan. She stated that the neighbors did the best they could to agreed on a plan. She said that the neighbors wanted to cooperate but they also wanted a safe development. ® Mr. Cox said that he had nothing to add. 1 c. Council Discussion Councilor Hunt asked if the resolution included the changes described by staff regarding the sidewalk. Mr. Coleman said that a motion to approve the resolution included the understanding that it included the revised Condition 10 and the speed hump condition. He noted the applicant's agreement to Condition 10. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 99-24. s a The City Recorder read the number and the title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-24, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL ORDER FOR A SUBDIVISION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND VARIANCE, ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION SUB 98-009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 14 Councilor Scheckla said that he would not vote on this matter. Motion was approved by a majority voice vote of the Council present. (Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, and Moore voted "yes." Mayor Nicoli voted "no." Councilor Scheckla abstained). [3-1-1] The Council considered Agenda Item 7, Transportation Bond Task Force, at this time. 5. WATER PROJECT FINANCING Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, referenced a handout dated February 16, 1999, provided previously to the Council. Mr. Lowry explained how the revenue bond process worked, pointing out that neither Tigard nor the Tigard Water District have issued revenue bonds before. He referenced ORS 288.805, the Uniform Revenue Bond Act. He said that the Council passed a resolution stating its intent to sell revenue bonds and the dollar amount. The public had 60 days from the posting of the notice to gather signatures of 5% of the electorate on a petition to send the bonds to a vote of the people (1100-1200 signatures in Tigard). If someone filed a petition, then the resolution was held in state until the election was over. He commented that he understood that revenue bonds rarely ended up on ballots. He mentioned that the Council could also send the bond directly to the ballot. Councilor Hunt asked if each member of the IGA had to vote on the petition. Mr. Lowry said no. He explained that only the citizens of the government that passed the resolution voted on the bond. He noted that the King City, Durham and unincorporated water customers had no vote while the Tigard residents who did not get their water from the Tigard water system could vote. He stated that once the 6- day period passed with no petition, the Council had the authority to issue the bonds supported by the water rates. Councilor Scheckla asked if Mr. Lowry recommended using revenue bonds. Mr. Lowry recommended revenue bonds as the financing option of choice for what the Council wanted to do. He mentioned the possibility of structuring a ballot measure to gain voter approval to use the City's taxing authority to support the revenue bonds. Mr. Lowry stated that the actual issuance of revenue bonds was also out of the ordinary in N Tigard's situation because of the IGA. He said that bondholders looked at the customer base because that provided the security along with the City's authority to set the water rates. He mentioned that language in the IGA might have an impact on how the bonds were structured. Councilor Scheckla asked for verification that the customers in King City, Durham, and the unincorporated area could do nothing about increased rates due to a revenue bond. Mr. Lowry said that he believed that was true because the IGA gave the City of Tigard City Council the right to manage the water system. He mentioned language in the IGA talking about the IWB's function in rate setting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 15 x.. Mr. Lowry reviewed the issue of reserves. He explained that revenue bond holders were skittish because their only security was the City's ability to raise rates to a sufficient level to pay back the bonds; there was no tax support. He said that the bond issuers required a year's worth of debt service to be held in reserve at any one time. He explained that normally that amount was added on to the bond total. If a jurisdiction needed $42 million in bonds, it asked for the authority to issue $45 million in bonds. He noted that the reserve money earned interest and generated cash flow. He said that the reserve paid the last year of debt service on bonds. He stated that they compared the Portland and Willamette options with the reserve paying off the last year of debt service. Mr. Lowry mentioned the issue of coverage. He said that the bond issuers wanted jurisdictions to charge 125% of the rates that it would need to cover its operation and then pay them back. He explained that the intent was to insure that extra money was available during a low sales year. He said that that was also built into the analysis of the two scenarios. Mr. Lowry reviewed the issue of rates. He referenced the analysis of the water fund showing what it would look like at the end of the next fiscal year. He mentioned the $8.5 million balance in the fund at the beginning of this fiscal year. He said that staff transferred $4 million of that to a separate CIP fund to get started on the preliminary engineering and studies for the water options. He noted that staff has spent only $300,000 of that $4 million and Mr. Wegner expected to get reimbursed by others who participated in the Willamette River study. Mr. Lowry stated that staff projected revenues of $4.8 million next year and expenditures of KFR $6.4 million for an ending fund balance of $2.9 million next fiscal year. He pointed out that this was the first time that this fund has ended with a lower balance than it started with. Councilor Hunt asked if Tigard has had to pay the demand penalty that it had to pay this year. Mr. Lowry said that Tigard has had to pay a peaking penalty for 1 mgd in the past. He observed that with the increased usage at 4-5 mgd, the peaking penalty hit hard this time. Mr. Lowry said that staff projected a loss of $1.5 million for the year, provided Council did nothing.with the rates. He indicated that the peaking penalty took almost $1.2 million of that $1.5 million. He pointed out that, without the peaking penalty, the fund would almost break even. He mentioned adding staff for water operations, equipment replacement and unusual expenditures as accounting for the rest of it. Councilor Scheckla asked if Tigard bought water only from Portland now. Mr. Lowry said no, they bought water also from the Tualatin Valley Water District and Lake Oswego. He explained that the Portland rate doubled from 64 cents to $1.22 but the Tualatin Valley rate remained at 85 cents. Mr. Lowry mentioned that Councilor Hunt requested different ?Itematives for the rates. He reviewed three alternatives. He said that the first option was to just break even in 1999/2000 and to not save money for the impending project. He explained that, in order to save enough CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 16 money to make a difference, they would have to raise the rates impossibly high. He described this option as compensating in the rates for the Portland penalty for just this next year by raising the rates 53 cents a unit or from $1.32 to $1.85 (a 40% increase). He pointed out that he assumed that the penalty went away after the first year, leaving that $1.5 million as additional funds in the second year. Councilor Hunt disagreed that the penalty would necessarily go away because they could have another peak demand year. Mr. Lowry conceded that was possible but reiterated that he considered the peak demand last year as an extraordinary event that would not happen again. Mr. Lowry used the Willamette River option to illustrate the second alternative but noted that the Portland option would work also. He said that if the Council wanted to achieve the average rate needed to fund the Willamette River option within two years ($2.30 per unit), it could require a 49-cent increase in each of the two years ($1.81 in 1999 and $2.30 in 2000). He indicated that it was more difficult to find an average rate for the Portland option because the debt issues were staged over the 50-year period and the rate was erratic. Mr. Lowry said that the third alternative was to achieve the average rate in one year, increasing the rate to $2.30 in 1999. He said that would add $1.32 million to the ending fund balance. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Council start determining what the rate increase should be now, in conjunction with the IWB. He pointed out that, no matter which option Tigard chose, the City still needed to raise the money. He spoke to accumulating money now to pay part of the projects. He argued that such money would not cost the City interest and thus save the taxpayers money. He asked the Council to consider proposing to the IWB that they raise the rates on July 1. Councilor Hunt mentioned a comment from Mr. Lowry that raising the rates too much could create a situation similar to West Linn. He noted that the West Linn voters petitioned to vote on the water rate increases when the City proposed doubling them, and won. He said now West Lien's infrastructure was deteriorating because the City could not increase the rates to raise sufficient money to maintain their system. He reiterated that he disagreed with Option 1 because of the assumption that the City would not be penalized another year for peaking. The Council discussed the peaking penalty. Mr. Lowry commented that it was so convoluted that he did not understand how it worked. Councilor Hunt recommended setting up a Council subcommittee to study the matter and report back to Council. Mayor Nicoli suggested sending it to the IWB for their recommendation. Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Lowry for his recommendation. Mr. Lowry commented that he saw Alternatives I and 2 as the same thing, raising the rate 50 cents by July 1. He questioned whether the City could adequately justify a rate increase by July 1 and get the IWB's concurrence. He advised the Council to be careful as it went through this process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 17 Councilor Scheckla asked if they could set a different start date for the rate increase. Mr. Lowry said yes. He suggested that the Council also ask CHZM Hill to update the rate study it did for the City two years ago. He pointed out that the work he did with the Cities of Wilsonville and Sherwood did not include a rate study. They simply compared the two water options. He reiterated that if the City intended to raise its water rates by this much, then they should have someone familiar with the rates review the work to be sure that the rates were substantiated. Councilor Hunt agreed with working with the rate structure to see which way it should go. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that it would take six to seven months for all the jurisdictions to make their decisions on the water option. He suggested looking at a range of costs from the high to the low. He commented that he did not want to shock ratepayers at one time. He supported raising the rate 30 to 50 cents this year and then adjusting it as necessary once the Council made the final decision. He cited the West Linn ratepayers' rebellion as a concern. He spoke to not waiting to increase rates until after a study but rather making the decision and then asking CH2M Hill to update the rate study. Councilor Hunt spoke to moving forward with the process to determine the appropriate rate as soon as possible. Mayor Nicoli concurred. Mayor Nicoli asked how much of every dollar sold on a bond came to the City. Mr. Lowry said that the City received 98 cents of every dollar. He mentioned estimated bond costs of 2%. Mayor Nicoli said that he would support Alternative 1 at this time with the understanding that they would revisit the issue once they knew what the final cost was and that they have a rate study done. Mr. Lowry commented that they could justify Alternative 1 regardless of which water option Council chose. Mr. Lowry recommended that staff review the IGA in detail to verify what the role of the IWB was in setting rates. The Council agreed by consensus to ask Councilor Hunt, with staff assistance, to take this issue to the IWB and start the process. Mr. Lowry noted the sample bills included in the packet, showing the winter and summer residential costs under each alternative and the current rate structure. He pointed out that the bills included sewer and storm water also. Councilor Hunt asked to see bills showing only the water figures. Councilor Scheckla asked if the people who went south for the winter had to pay when they were not in residence. Staff explained that the billing fee was a flat fee of $3.60 every two months. She said that people routinely asked USA to suspend their sewer billing if they were gone for more than 30 days. She confirmed that they were not charged for water. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 18 6. POTENTIAL ROAD BOND PROJECT FINANCING Mr. Lowry reviewed the tax rate impacts from a $15 million and a $25 million bond for 10 and 20 years. A $15 million bond was 60 cents/$1,000 for 10 years and 38 cents/$1,000 for 20 years. A $25 million bond was $151,000 for 10 years and 63 cents/$1,000 for 20 years. He encouraged the Council to stay as short as possible on bonds like this. He expressed concern at tying up the City's taxing capacity for 20 years for projects that could be done in two to three years. Councilor Moore commented that the City had a number of items needing financing in the near future. He spoke to priority balancing of the City's taxing capacity. Mr. Lowry pointed out that shorter bond issues assessed taxpayers at a higher rate for a shorter time and put more of the money towards actual projects instead of interest. Mayor Nicoli commented that the number of both large and small projects needed in the City would overwhelm staff if scheduled over only a five-year period. He asked if they could issue a two phase bond measure in which they collected $10 million in the first year, built projects for five years, and then collected a second $10 million for another five years worth of projects. Mr. Lowry said that jurisdictions used that approach quite a bit. He mentioned that they incurred some additional cost through a second bond issue, and they might have to word the ballot measure specifically to allow the City to do that. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the current expectations of the financial wizards that the nation would be in a decline and recession in three years. He asked if Mr. Lowry took those projections into account. Mr. Lowry said no, he did not. He explained that property taxes did not react to economic fluctuations as sales and income taxes did. He stated that, while he could not state for sure what the impact of a recession would be on bonds, he did think that it would be less significant because GO bonds were property tax supported. Councilor Hunt asked if the City could get voter approval for a bond with the understanding that the City would not sell the bonds until it actually needed them, thus saving the interest. Mr. Lowry said that it could do that or the City could do two $5 million bond issues five years apart. He stated that he would hesitate trying to sell a $10 million bond by saying that they would not issue the other $5 million until later. He argued that doing so tied the City's hands. Mayor Nicoli asked if they could split a bond issue voluntarily at the Council level or as part of the ballot title. Mr. Lowry said that they could do either but he recommended talking to a financial advisor more familiar with the kind of ballot measure language needed. He pointed out that the City would be tied to the ballot title and explanation language. e The Council considered Agenda Item 5, Water Project Financing, at this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MII,,IUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 19 7. TRANSPORTATION BOND TASK FORCE Councilor Moore commented that he and Councilor Patton wanted to avoid any confusion between what the Council expected from the Task Force and what the Task Force brought back. He asked for Council discussion of the Councilors' concerns. He mentioned the previous discussions on including sidewalks, pathways and street lighting along with roadway improvements. Councilor Hunt asked for an outline of what Councilor Moore thought the Task Force's task was for Council review and modification. Councilor Moore explained that, at this first Task Force meeting, he intended to discuss the Council's goal on transportation, including a bond measure for street improvements, street lights, sidewalk improvements, etc. He mentioned that safety was the key word. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would discuss Tri-Met bus service. Councilor Moore said that Tri-Met bus service was another issue, something that the City of Tigard had no control over. He commented that he thought that they would consult Tri-Met regarding major roads. He mentioned that he contacted the School District for any suggestions. He confirmed that they would focus on city-owned roads only. Mayor Nicoli asked that the Task Force discuss "early-on" the time period for a bond (10-15-20 years) and how much revenue different bond lengths would generate at 50 cents/$1,000. He asked what the variation in the bond rate had been for the previous bond. Mr. Lowry said that the previous bond started out at 85 cents but went to 75 cents when the assessed values turned out to be higher than anticipated. He said that the last year the bond rate was 50 cents. Mayor Nicoli commented that if the Task Force returned with a $2.00/$1,000 rate, they had a problem. He spoke to identifying what an appropriate burden was to ask of the taxpayers, look at the 10-15-20 year payback, and then matching up the projects to that target. Councilor Moore said that he thought that the Task Force would create a prioritized wish list and then mix and match which projects to include in the road bond. He mentioned presenting the Council with several choices. Mayor Nicoli explained that he wanted to install streetlights and/or higher wattage light bulbs on all the major thoroughfares and the passageways from all the schools. He said that he also wanted to look at where sidewalk connections were missing along the major thoroughfares and school pedestrian routes, especially where development would not fill in the gaps. He mentioned looking at park routes also. He spoke to having a sidewalk or pathway on at least one side of the street. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the gap over by the Albertson's on Barrows Road as an example. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 20 Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the County still owned roads that the City often thought of as its roads. He mentioned the County's agreement during the last bond issue to turn Greenburg Road over to the City along with some money with the City using its own money to fix it. He offered to talk to Roy Rogers and John Rosenberger if the Task Force wanted to cut a deal. Councilor Moore asked the Council to call either Councilor Patton or himself within the next two days if anyone had anything to add. Councilor Hunt mentioned the Council policy to discuss how long the meeting would run at 10 p.m. The Council discussed the matter. It agreed by consensus to discuss agenda items 5, 6, part of 8, and 11 tonight and to postpone items 8, 9, and 12 until next week. i The Council considered Agenda Item 6, Potential Road Bond Financing, at this time. 8. ANNEXATION OF THE WALNUT ISLAND DISCUSSION Mr. Duenas explained that staff needed to annex 11 lots in the Walnut Island in order to include them in the 19-lot sewer reimbursement district that was part of the Walnut/Tiedeman realignment project. He said that the quickest way was through a forced annexation. Mayor Nicoli asked if they could extend the program as an alternate to forced annexation at this time. Mr. Monahan explained that the City had no authority over the people residing in the County, and could not make them part of the district. Mr. Duenas said that the property owners have all indicated their support for sewer service. He said that the best way was to call a neighborhood meeting, describe the process, and inform the property owners that they did not have to do anything but not object. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, explained that because this was an island annexation (and therefore a forced annexation) the property owners could not file objections to the annexation. Councilor Scheckla asked if this was similar to the Johnson Street situation. Mr. Hendryx explained that the Johnson Street residents experienced septic tank failures and needed to annex to the City to obtain sewer service. He said that, in this situation, the City was improving the street and wanted to put the sewer in before the street was paved. Mr. Duenas reiterated that all the property owners expressed interest in the sewer but he noted that they did not realize that they had to annex into the City in order to get sewer service. He said that he would explain that during the neighborhood meeting. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City had funding for this project. Mr. Duenas said that they had funds in the unrestricted sewer fund for the project. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed with the annexation. Mr. Monahan mentioned that the remainder of the annexation discussion was continued until the next meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 21 9. UPDATE ON THE BUILDING FEE APPEAL This item was continued to next week. 10. REVIEW OF COUNCIL GROUNDRULES This item was continued to next week. 11. RECYCLED WATER- CONSERVATION BY WORTHING WITH UNIFIED SEWAGE AGENCY Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to consider setting aside money allocated for water conservation to a project to run a line from the USA sewage treatment plant through the industrial and commercial areas of town and over to Washington Square. He said that the intent was to bring recycled water to the large water users for use in irrigation. He pointed out that currently most people irrigated with potable water ($1.32/unit) when recycled water was available at 20 cents/unit. He suggested installing the line in segments over the next 10 years and asking people to convert their sprinkler systems to the recycled water line. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that they built a water treatment plant or a pipeline for potable water to accommodate peak demand. He argued that they could reduce that peak demand if they converted a significant portion of that demand from potable water to recycled water. He observed that they could then build smaller facilities. He held that a dual system in the city at this time would cut the peak demand in half, as 5 mgd of the 13 mgd of peak demand was water used for irrigation purposes. Mayor Nicoli said that he was not proposing that aggressive a program but he did support using water more wisely as part of water conservation. He explained that they could charge 50 cents/100 for the recycled water from USA (bought at 20 cents/100) and use the additional 30 cents to pay off the costs of installing the pipeline. He spoke to converting the large water users first and eventually looking at residential users. He argued that it made financial sense to look at this type of system. Councilor Hunt asked how the Mayor intended to pay for this. Mayor Nicoli said that Mr. Wegner was preparing a cost analysis report. He stated that he was not proposing a specific project at this time but only that the Council make a commitment to get serious about this concept of using recycled water over potable water for irrigation purposes. He commented that, while the Oregon Environmental Council might not see this as a conservation method, he did. He spoke to reducing the amount of water that they had to treat or transport. Councilor Scheckla commented that residential areas would not get the benefit of this. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he wanted to work on getting the bigger users off potable water first. He pointed out that a neighborhood adjacent to the pipeline route could look at taking advantage of it. Councilor Hunt noted that the heavy water users would buy into this concept because it cost them less money. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 22 Councilor Hunt asked for Mayor Nicoli's thoughts regarding running two lines if they went to the Willamette River. Mayor Nicoli described how that might work. He said that it did not matter whether they took a line off of USA or brought a line parallel to their trunk line. He reiterated that they would no longer be building a plant to treat water for peak demand because they provided recycled water to meet part of the peak demand. Councilor Hunt asked if they could get enough water from USA to take care of Tigard's future needs. Mark Lasswell stated that the USA plant produced an excess of 30 mgd of recycled water. He mentioned that the water had restrictions on it because it was treated waste water yet it was one of the highest quality waste waters around with the fewest restrictions. He encouraged the Council to access the information on costs and other considerations that his fine provided to USA four years ago when they did a re-use plan for USA on selling the water to people instead of putting it into the Tualatin River. He stated that he thought that the Council was on the right track in terms of "incentivizing" conservation, as it did not make sense to spend a lot of capital money for a one month peak during the summer. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that they would recoup the funds allocated to a project by the sale of the water. He pointed out that this would also start to bring down their per capita use of potable water. He commented that he believed that they had an abundance of water in the city. He stated that, while he thought people should have all the water they were willing to pay for, he also did not believe in wasting water. He argued that using potable water to irrigate was a waste of treated water. He spoke to using recycled water as a way of helping the environment because they no longer depended on the chemicals and energy of the water cleaning process. Mayor Nicoli suggested asking staff to look at the report and make a recommendation to Council, if the Council agreed to pursue the concept. He stated that they would be sending a message to the Oregon Environmental Council that Tigard was doing its part in reducing potable water usage. Mr. Lasswell advised the Council that USA would probably charge nothing if the City would take the water from its expanded Rock Creek plant, just to keep it out of the river. Mayor Nicoli noted that Bill Gaffee was not opposed to the idea. He agreed that Tom Brian would help. Councilor Patton said that she liked the concept of finding ways to use recycled water in order to reduce potable water usage. She agreed with working with the commercial users first. a 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 23 Baum 14. NON AGENDA ITEMS 14.1 Resolution No. 98-25 Mr. Monahan presented a resolution recognizing the contributions of Hank March to the CDBG program over the past 20 years. He stated that, if passed, Councilor Scheckla would handcarry the resolution to the CDBG meeting Thursday evening. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve Resolution No. 98-25. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-25, A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION OF HENRY "HANK" MARCH TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS OF TIGARD AND WASHINGTON CO. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 14.2 Miscellaneous e Mr. Monahan reported that staff has received letters regarding the water option following the stated deadline for receipt of such letters. He asked if the Council wanted to receive these letters. The Council discussed the matter and decided by consensus to enforce the deadline and to not receive letters submitted past the deadline. ® Mayor Nicoli noted that he and Councilor Hunt would represent the City at the Channel 2 Town Hall on water options, taped Thursday night and broadcast Sunday. Mr. Monahan announced a pot luck and roast for Wayne Lowrey (who was leaving the City) on Thursday, April 29, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 11:13 p.m. ea UV,1A-,-U A-)II-'eo-ZEZ~7 Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City RecordereJ r, City o Tigard Date: l07 I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\990420.. DOC CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 20, 1999 - PAGE 24 ISBN COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9378 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising 'city of Tigard ® ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SI7 Hall Blvd. ®Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit 0Accounts Payable i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the T; gard-Dialati n mimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the Council/R yi w Boar? Ileeti ng a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 011E successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 15,1999 Subscribed and sworn to re me this i 5th day of Tpr i 1, 19 9 9 ' OFFICIAL SEAL lLL~hti7 ROSIN A. I3 MQEBS I ot_a Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON *COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16. 2001 AFFIDAVIT Ue following,~etin$ highlights are published for your i0onnation. Full agendas•inay,,be obti,iited 'from the City Recorderi.A3125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. REVISED r TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING April 20,1999 6:30 PM* ' TIGARD CITY HALL- TOWN.HALL ' 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Reports and updates to Council on the following topics:! * Executive Session * Joint Meeting =Tigardfrualatin School Board * Public Hearing Final Order - (Council Call-up) -Erickson Heights. Subdivision.(SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010) 1 * Annexation - Walnut Island Discussion * Financing - Water Project * Funding Alternatives= Pbtentiai Rdad Bond Ptdjoct ` . TT9378 - Publish April 15;1999. ; . MGM9MROJOIN s AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 DATE: April 20, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING FINAL ORDER. (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98.00091PDR 98.001ONAR 98.0010) The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41-acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S1 IODA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-(Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district Is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development, PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement, to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA; Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS d AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - PLEASE PRI Public Testimony (No new testimony will be allowed; however, the public m comment on the findings submitted to the City Council for approval.) ddress and Phone No. ddress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone n+ 4-(z4 No. /Zsss"~S~-✓ ~ ~0~((,G Sit ~ . e, Address and Phone No. e,, Ad ss and Phone No. , Address and Phone O/V No. Doti Qjmr, Address n No. dress and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone Arrv.4I No. vz Y~aaf N ess and Phone No. e, Address and Phone o. Address and Phone (.e' S 1 J2 No. P- b6 1-e 02- 10~ q n Sind ~ b crai-rj 4, -7'Zz f - e Address and Photo Na Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. l s"3c~~ `l\~._ e,Address an Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone ~2v ,~},I Vl A,~ No. y1ZZ~ G S e, Address and Phone No. Name Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone ! No. C~8KV 5 __r-~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - PLEASE PRINT Public Testimony (No new testimony will be allowed; however, the public may comment on the findings submitted to the City Council for approval.) Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Agenda Item No. Meeting of 4)aa1q9 joint Meeting Tigard-Tualatin School District and City of Tigard AGENDA April 20, 1999 1. School Fields/Facilities 2. Use of Facilities for City-Endorsed Recreation Programs 3. Road Improvement Plans a. Realignment of Walnut Street - Construction During Summer 1999 b. Possible Changes to Tiedeman Avenue and North Dakota Street and School District Plans for Fowler Middle School 4. Review September 1998 Train Days - Did the District Find the Event Worthwhile? Should we repeat in every-other year: 2000, 2002, etc. Badm\bill\joint meeting ttsd and City - agenda.doe MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T®: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder DATE: April 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Revised Agenda for April 20, 1999, Council Meeting Attached are the following items: 1. Revised Agenda for 4/20199. Two items were added to reflect changes requested by Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore. Item No. 7 was inserted to note a discussion on projects and issues relating to the Transportation Bond Task Force. Item No. 11 was inserted to note a discussion on furthering the program using recycled water from USA. 2. Agenda Item No. 4 - Erickson Heights Subdivision a. Memo - Bill Monahan to Tigard City Council b. Comment Letter - Paul Norr c. Comment Letter - Mark Lasswell d. Comment Letter - Nikki Malnati 3. Agenda Item No. 8 - Annexation Discussion a. Jim Hendryx requested we send Council meeting minutes of February 16, 1999,which summarizes Council discussion, which might be helpful for this topic. b. Memo from Ron Goodpaster regarding Police Costs/Services I:\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\MEMO-4-20-99 PACKET.DOC A RAMIS CREW CORMAN & BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street MEMORANDUM Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: James M. Cole n, City Attorney's Office DATE: April 19, 1999 RE: Erickson Heights At the direction of the Council a revision to Condition 10 has been prepared. The applicant had offered to contribute $30,000 for the construction of the sidewalk along Kable Street. After the Council discussed this matter, the engineering staff raised concerns that the amount may not be enough to do the project as a public project. The $30,000 estimate was based on the applicant doing the construction as a part of his overall public improvement work. I was given an estimate of $42,000 for the project if done by the City as a public project and asked by staff to seek additional money from the applicant. I took the liberty of presenting that request to the applicant's attorney. Their response was that they would rather build the sidewalk and be reimbursed for any amount over $30,000. I presented this to staff and was told this was a preferable approach for them so long as the City has the right to approve construction plans and any changes thereto. I also included the right to question and audit the justification for the claim. Below is the suggested revision to Condition 10 that was agreed upon by staff and the applicant: "10. The applicant's construction plans shall include the construction of a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of SW Kable Street, from the eastern site boundary to SW 100"' Avenue. This work shall be completed by the applicant as a part of the project's public improvements. Plans shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to construction, and no changes shall be made in the approved plans without prior City approval. Construction shall be coordinated with the City. If the cost of the sidewalk improvement exceeds $30,000 the applicant may submit and the City shall pay a claim for the amount in excess of $30,000. The submission of the claim shall include justification for the amount sought, and prior to payment the City shall have the right to audit the applicant's project records in order to be satisfied that the claim is fair and reasonable and the project costs and accounting are consistent with standard industry practices." 4 r Memorandum re: Erickson Heights April 19, 1999 Page 2 Before comments on the findings are taken, staff can put on the record that a revision to Condition 10 has been agreed upon by the applicant, read the condition into the record, and note that the findings will be revised to add a statement regarding the applicant's agreement to the condition. After comment has been received, the resolution adopting the findings can then be approved with the change to Condition 10. Jmc/accn/90024/ericksonhgts.me3 I MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William Monahan l DATE: April 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Erickson Heights Subdivision Attached are three pieces of correspondence received today regarding the Erickson Heights Subdivision. The final order is before Council on Tuesday, April 23, 1999. Due to the lateness of the submittals, 1 caution Council that these materials may include some new evidence. Staff will review the information before Tuesday and if necessary identify new information which Council should not consider during its consideration of the final order. cc: Julia Jim Hendryx LM M SILU990416MEMO-ERICKSON HEIGHTS.DOC PAUL NoRR #4 - Erickson Heights Subdivision ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW THE Hisnoaic W1Lcox House April 20, 1999 931 S.W. K1No AVENUE, SECOND FLOOR PoRTLANo. OREOON 97205 TELEPHONE: (503) 2283862 FAX: (503) 225.1028 HAND DELIVERED April 16, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli Council Member Paul Hunt Council Member Brian Moore Council Member Joyce Patton Council Member Ken Scheckla Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Erickson Heights Planned Development SUB 98-0009; PDR 98-0010; VAR 98-0010 REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED BECAUSE: A. THE CITY'S CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVE THAT THERE WILL BE LESS THAN 1500 VEHICLES PER DAY ON S.W. KABLE BETWEEN 98TH AND 100TH AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND B. THE EXISTING RECORD DOES NOT PRONE THAT. Dear Mayor and Tigard City Council: I represent Deborah and William Eckhardt, who own property and reside at 10390 SW Kable in Tigard. The Eckhardts have ~ Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights subdivision) April 16, 1999 page 2 participated in this case before the Planning Commission and before the City Council. Mark Laswell has previously testified before the City Council on behalf of the Eckhardts. Summary of Main Objections to the New Proposed Findings: 1. The Proposed Findings are wrong. The Applicant's January, 1998, traffic analysis does not say what the Proposed Findings claim it says. The -Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E", which the Proposed Findings rely on as the sole supporting data for estimating the projected average daily vehicle trips on S.W. Rable, does not provide any such documentation. 2. The data in Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E" does not add up to the projected 1,310 trips per day the Proposed Findings say it does for S.W. Rable. How does the Staff get from the Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E" to that number of 1,310? Can City staff explain that to the City Council? Should the City Council claim those numbers are accurate in the Council's Findings if Staff can't explain where those numbers came from? 3. The applicant's average daily traffic volume numbers are estimates, not actual counts. The only actual count in the record, supplied by the S.W. Lady Marion neighbors, shows that the applicant's estimate is off by 44.7%. The applicant estimates 380 existing trips on SW Lady Marion while the known actual count is 550 trips. The applicant's estimates are not reliable. 4. The Proposed Findings use as an underpinning the assumption that since the January, 1998, traffic analysis was done based on 66 homes, and the currently proposed plan is for only 58 homes, the "-lesser dense" development, expected to generate less traffic, must be acceptable. The Kittelson figures, however, used in the Proposed Findings, actually show a hdcrher traffic volume with the new plan: 3,050 vehicles under the new Tigard City Council (Re% Erickson Heights Subdivision) April 16, 1999 page 3 plan (Findings, page 24) compared to 2,860 under the January, 1998 plan (January, 1998 Traffic Analysis, page 30). There is an obvious unexplained mistake in these numbers. The City Council should not accept the applicant's estimates as reliable. 5. All of the applicant's traffic data is out of date, bai.ug based on what were then estimates of the January, 1998, traffic volumes, and projections for complete build-out of the development in 1999. The development, however, will not be built-out in the year 1999, and new projections for some future built-out date must be provided. The staff now has current actual traffic counts in hand, and City Council should want to know what those actual current counts are, rather than relying on last year's estimates. The applicant's old estimates are not reliable. The new actual counts that the staff has should be used. I. THE RECORD IS CLOSED. It is my understanding that the record in this case was closed prior to the City Council's vote on a preliminary decision at the February 10, 1999, hearing. No materials, arguments or information submitted by the applicant, by opponents, or by City staff after the record was closed should be considered part of the record. In the event any such materials are to be considered part of the record, then I request that the record be re-opened to allow public comment on those new materials, and I request that this letter also then be included in the record. II. THE CITY COUNCIL'S "TENTATIVE" DECISION. At the February 10, 1999, hearing, the City Council voted on a "tentative" basis to have the applicant and staff attempt to provide written findings which would support a Final Decision Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights Subdivision) , April 16, 1999 page 4 approving the application. Now it is time for the City Council to review those proposed findings and to decide whether those findings have actually been provided. The City Council must now decide, as a "Final Decision", whether to approve the application, to deny the application, or to tell the applicant that the applicant must submit the required supporting evidence before the application can be approved. III. LUBA STANDARD OF REVIEW. In the event of any appeal of the City Council's decision in this case, LUBA will review the evidence in the record to determine whether the City Council's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, whether that evidence is credible, and whether a reasonable person could reach that same decision based on that evidence in the record. For a more detailed discussion of the standard of review, please see Section A on pages 2 and 3 of my attached letter dated March 4, 1999, addressed to City Attorney Jim Coleman. IV. THE FINDINGS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ARE NOT BASED ON RELIABLE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. The staff's recommendation of approval presented to the City Council prior to the City Council's tentative" vote on February 10, 1999, was based in large part on the Kittelson letter of October 21, 1998, and the information contained therein. After that staff recommendation and the City Council's tentative vote, I wrote to the staff (see my letter of March 4, 1999, attached hereto) and explained why I believed that the information in that October 21, 1998, Kittelson letter is wrong. The applicant and staff apparently agree with me, because on page 25 of the proposed findings, the staff asks you to find that the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis itself, along with the 11E111111111111 Ell Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights Subdivision) April 16, 1999 page 5 October 21, 1998, and the January 21, 1999, letters from Kittelson, all contain "typographical errors", and that they "misstate" basic information, and even ask the City Council to acknowledge the existence of the mistakes and recognize the "confusion" with regard to the existing and projected daily vehicle counts for S.W. Kable. The proposed findings, however, continue on page 25 to say that the City Council still finds the underlying traffic analysis to be credible in spite of the errors, mistakes and confusion with regard to daily trip volumes on S.W. Kable for the sole reason that the "Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E" provides accurate underlying data. Attached to this letter is -a copy of the complete Appendix E called "Redistribution Analvs;s". I am attaching a complete copy of that Appendix E so that you can see for yourselves that there is no backup data in Appendix E for the applicant's estimated daily trip volumes on S.W. Kable between S.W. 100th and S.W. 98th, as the Proposed Findings claim. It is critical for the City Council to understand that the "Redistribution Analysis, Exhibit E", which the Proposed Findings holds up as the sole correct supporting data to explain away all the mistakes in the daily traffic volume tables, has nothing to do with the daily traffic volumes on S.W. Kable. It only addresses the a.m and p.m. peak trips in relationship to the 7 discussed intersections (none of which is on S.W. Kable). None of the data on the "Redistribution Analysis, Exhibit E", can be made to add up to any of the numbers allegedly summarized in the daily traffic volume charts which the staff acknowledges contain "typographical errors" and "mistaken" information. For a more detailed discussion of the lack of credible current and projected traffic data for S.W. Kable between S.W. 100th and S.W. 98th, please see Sections B, C and D on pages 2 through 6 of my attached letter dated March 4, 1999, addressed to City Attorney Jim Coleman. Comm= Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights Subdivision) April 16, 1999 page 6 V. S'URY There is no credible evidence in the record which allows the City Council to know that the maximum of 1500 vehicle trips per day will not be exceeded on S.W. Kable as the result of this proposed development. The applicant must provide this supporting documentation before the application can be approved. full Res y, Paul Norr PN/2 c: Deborah and Bill Eckhardt T y ' r• PAUL NORR ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW THE HISTORIC WILCOX HOUSE 931 S.W. KING AVENUE. SECOND FLOOR PORTLAND. OREGON 97205 TELEPHONE: 1503) 228.3852 Fix: (503) 225.1028 SENT VIA FAX NO. 243-2944 March 4, 1999 James M. Coleman O'Donnell Ramis Crew et al 1727 NW Hoyt St. Portland, OR 97209 Re: Erickson Heights Planned Development (City of Tigard SUB 98-0009; PDR 98-0010; VAR 98-0010) REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED BECAUSE THE EXISTING RECORD DOES NOT ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC ON SW KABLE BETWEEN 98TH AND 100TH WILL BE LESS THAN THE 1500 VEHICLES PER DAY AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OR ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST THAT THE RECORD BE RE-OPENED TO ALLOW FURTHER HEARINGS. Dear Jim: I writing to you in your capacity as City Attorney for the City of Tigard. Please provide a copy of these materials to the appropriate City staff. I represent Debra and William Eckhardt, who own property and reside at 10390 SW Kable in Tigard. The Eckhardts have participated in this case before the Planning Commission and before the City Council. Mark Laswell has previously testified before the City Council on behalf of the Eckhardts. The purpose of this letter is to point out a serious flaw in the existing record of this case which will, in my opinion, result in the appeal and remand of any approval given by the City Council based on the existing record. WIN Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 2 The serious flaw is: The existing record lacks the necessary substantial credible evidence required to legally support a finding that the resulting traffic on SW Kable between 98th and 100th will be below the 1500 vehicles per day required by the City's Comprehensive Plan. I understand that the City staff and the City Council might be tired of this case, and would like to move on to other matters, but this case must still be handled properly. In the long run this case will be less trouble if it is handled right at the local level. If the applicant had supplied the required supporting evidence regarding traffic on SW Kable between 98th and 100th, I would not be making this request. A. LUBA Standard of Review ORS 197.835(9)(a)(C) authorizes LUBA to reverse or remand the challenged decision if it is "not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record". Substantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record viewed as a whole would allow a reasonable person to make that finding. Dodd v. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179 (1993). In viewing the evidence in the record, the local governing body must first determine which evidence is credible. Doob v. Josephine County, 31 Or Luba 275, 279 (1996). In reviewing the evidence, LUBA will review to determine if a reasonable person could reach the decision the local government made. Mazeski v. Wasco Count Y, 28 Or LUBA 178, 184 (1994), aff'd 133 Or App 258 (1995). LUBA recently sustained the objections made by opponents, overturned the local government's decision, and remanded for further hearings in a case where the opponents challenged the inadequacy of the record with regard data and projections supplied by the applicant's consultant. LUBA found that the evidence in the record would not permit a reasonable person to adopt the projections of the applicant's consultant. Rogue and Don Carroll v. Jackson County, 33 Or Luba (1997). If the City Council approves the application based on the existing record, and an appeal is filed on behalf of the opponents, the appeal would challenge the adequacy of the record mom Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 3 with regard traffic data and traffic projections supplied by the applicant's consultant with regard to SW Kable between 98th and 100th. B. While the Kittelson materials assume that SW Kable carries uniform traffic volumes over its entire length, SW Kable is actually 3 distinct sections, each with its own traffic volume. There are actually 3 distinct sections to SW Kable: 1. SW Kable from the dead-end to SW Hoodview Drive; 2. SW Kable from SW Hoodview Drive to SW 100th; and 3. SW Kable from 100th to 98th (the S curve section). The Kittelson materials make the simplistic assumption that all of SW Kable - from its western end to its eastern end - carries a uniform traffic volume over all 3 sections, now as it exists and for all scenarios projected for the future. This assumed uniformity of traffic volumes on all of SW Kable now and in the future cannot be considered substantial credible evidence because: 1. It assumes that the existing traffic level on the dead- end portion of SW Kable (west of SW Hoodview) is the same as the existing traffic level on the middle section SW Kable (between SW Hoodview and 100th), even though all of the traffic to and from SW Hoodview in addition to all of the traffic to and from the dead-end section of SW Kable absolutely must travel on the middle section of SW Kable. It is physically impossible for the dead-end section and the middle section as they exist to be carrying the same amount of traffic. 2) It assumes that the existing traffic level on the western dead-end portion of SW Kable (west of 100th) is the same as the existing traffic level on the eastern thru-traffic portion of SW Kable (between 98th and 100th). Existing evidence in the record directly contradicts this assumption. Maps and testimony in the record amply demonstrate that the dead-end portion of SW Kable cannot now be carrying the same number of vehicle trips as the thru portion of SW Kable. I 121M min Jim Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 4 The point is this: The Kittelson assumption, that there is now the same level of traffic on both the dead-end section and on the thru street section of SW Kable, and that this uniformity will continue under all scenarios of project development, defies logic and common sense. Such an assumption, if adopted by the City Council, would not be sustainable as a reasonable finding based on substantial credible evidence in the record. Frankly, it to me looks like the Kittelson letter of October 21, 1998, simply contains a typographical error, and in the second column of Table 1 it should say next to SW Kable Street: "SW Naeve Street to SW 100th Avenue". It is hard to believe that this Table 1 is really intended to show traffic volumes for the section of SW Kable from 100th to 98th. C. There is no credible evidence in the record which tells the City Council what the existing level of traffic is on SW Kable between 98th and 100th. The applicant did not provide any traffic counts telling the City Council what the currently existing traffic volumes are on SW Kable between 98th and 100th. To approve the application, the City Council is required to make a finding that the Comprehensive Plan maximum average of 1500 vehicle trips per day (ATD) for this local street is not exceeded on SW Kable between 98th and 100th. Basic planning theory dictates that in projecting future traffic counts, the City should start with the existing traffic counts and then add the theoretical increase to be caused by the new development. I believe the record shows that the section of SW Kable from 98th to 100th is a thru street which carries traffic from the southeast to the northwest and vice-a-versa, as well as carrying local traffic to and from the residential area to the north and west. The City Council needs to have a reliable number based on credible substantial evidence in the record to put into a finding that says what the existing level of traffic is on SW Kable between 98th and 100th. Without this number, the Council cannot reasonably project future traffic levels, and cannot reasonably find that the projected future levels will be below the maximum allowed 1500 average trips per day. Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 5 The Kittelson letter of October 21, 1998, says that the new development will place 1010 new vehicles per day onto SW Kable (See Table 1 - Revised Neighborhoods Street Analysis). This Table assumes that the existing level of traffic on the dead-end portion of SW Kable is now 300 vehicles per day. However, without knowing the existing traffic volume on the s-curve section of SW Kable between 98th and 100th, the City Council doesn't know what number to increase by 1010 to determine whether that total is less than or more than the allowable 1500. D. There is no credible evidence in the record which tells the City Council what the projected traffic will be on SW Kable between 98th and 100th after the Erickson Heights subdivision is built. The Kittelson letter of October 21, 1998, projects 1310 vehicles per day on all of SW Kable between SW Naeve and 98th if the existing dead-end is opened up and SW Kable becomes a thru street from SW Naeve to SW 98th (Scenario fflA). This is the scenario tentatively adopted by the City Council. The total of 1310 vehicles per day is apparently based on the assumed increase of 1010 new vehicles per day by opening up the dead-end portion of SW Kable after development of Erickson Heights, and adding the new 1010 trips per day to Kittelson's assumed 300 vehicles per day on both the thru and the dead-end portions of SW Kable. (See Kittelson Table 1 in the October 21, 1998, letter). Once again, the Kittelson assumption is that there will be the same number of vehicles on all 3 sections of SW Kable after development and after opening up the now dead-end portion of SW Kable. This again is contradicted by evidence in the record that shows these three portions of SW Kable are used differently. Again, a simple glance at the Kittelson map (Figure 1) attached to the October 21, 1998, letter, will tell the City Council that some amount of traffic from SW Hoodview Drive, SW Lady Marion Drive, SW 100th, and SW 103rd, will filter onto the portion of SW Kable between 100th and 98th, in addition to the traffic using SW Kable west of 100th as a thru street. It is not credible to believe that all 3 portions of SW Kable will have the same number of vehicles per day, which the Kittelson materials estimate to be 1310 for all 3 sections. Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 6 Again, the point is this: The Kittelson assumption that there will be the same level of traffic on all 3 portions of SW Kable defies logic and common sense, and no reasonable person can credibly make such an assumption. (E) Existing new evidence, which is not now in the record, demonstrates that the Kittelson numbers are not accurate. Existing evidence supports my claims set out above that the Kittelson numbers are not reliable and are not credible. I understand that this information is not part of the record in this case, and cannot be used by the City Council to justify a denial, but I want to supply all recipients of this letter with this information for three reasons: First, I believe this is compelling information which the staff is entitled to know when evaluating its position in this matter, and when evaluating whether staff believes the applicant's traffic estimates are reliable and credible. Second, I hope that providing this information will assist Kittelson & Associates in re-evaluating their estimates. Third, my clients are anxious to find a workable solution, and believe that sharing this information is the best way to accomplish that objective. The existing evidence which supports my claims set out above is as follows: 1. An actual traffic count was performed by Traffic Smithy for the section of SW Kable between 98th and 100th on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. A 2-page copy of their survey is attached. This survey shows 614 east bound trips and 477 west bound trips, for a total of 1091 daily vehicle trips. This is 264% higher than Kittelson's assumed existing 300 trips per day on this section of SW Kable. 2. When the known existing 1091 trips on this eastern section of SW Kable are added to the Kittelson projection of 1010 new trips to be generated on SW Kable by the development of Erickson Heights, the result is 2101 vehicle trips per day. This is 40% more than the maximum allowed 1500 trips per day for this local street. Tigard City Council (Re: Erickson Heights) March 4, 1999 page 7 3. The City has an existing traffic count for the portion of SW Kable west of 100th, taken December 8 - 11, 1998, which shows an existing 430 vehicles per day on the section of SW Kable between SW Hoodview and 100th. This is 43% higher than the Kittelson estimate of 300 existing daily trips for this section of SW Kable. (F) Summary. There is not sufficient substantial credible evidence in the record upon which the City Council can reasonably rely to support an approval of the Erickson Heights project as the record now stands. It is the applicant's burden, not the neighbors', to design an acceptable plan and to prove with substantial credible evidence that all of the applicable approval criteria are met. Unfortunately, the applicant has not yet demonstrated that the increased traffic from the proposed development will be consistent with the local street designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan for SW Kable between 98th and 100th. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you, City staff, and the applicant and his representatives at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow at the City's planning office. I look forward to discussing this matter then. Resp fully, Paul Norr PN/2 c: Debbie and Bill Eckhardt Frederick S. Carmen, via fax no. 648-0907 FR,". TRAFFIC SMITHY PHONE NO. : 507,6438966 Mar. 03 1999 03:09PM F2 ROADWAY TRAFFIC SURVEY I Roadway: KABLE STREET Location: WEST OF 98TH AVENUE Direction: EAST BOUND Date: 3/2/99 Day of Week: TUESDAY Traffic Smithy Axles per Vehicles: 2 Traffic Survey Service Hour :00- :05- :10- :15- :20- :25- :30- :35- :40- :45- :50- :55- Hourl of Day :05 :10 :15 :20 :25 :30 :35 :40 :45 :50 :55 :00 Tot. 00- 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 01 01-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-05 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 05-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 06-07 0 0 4 3 2 0 4 2 1 0 1 3 20 07-08 3 5 3 1 5 4 4 6 11 4 1 3 50 08-09 1 5 7 8 11 0 1 2 9 3 1 1 49 09-10 2 3 4 0 4 5 0 1 0 2 3 1 25 10-11 4 3 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 16 11-12 5 1 3 1 0 2 10 5 3 3 7 4 44 12-13 5 7 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 6 6 42 13-14 3 0 5 5 1 1 4 2 7 0 1 0 29 14-15 5 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 2 4 5 4 36 15-16 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 0 5 1 1 2 23 16-17 3 5 3 0 4 3 4 7 5 2 4 3 43 17-18 3 5 1 1 1 5 12 2 3 2 0 5 40 18-19 4 7 2 5 5 8 7 3 1 3 2 5 S2 19-20 4 1 3 1 3 2 5 1 3 5 3 3 34 20-21 3 5 1 0 0 7 2 3 0 5 1 3 30 21-22 2 6 7 3 7 4 3 6 10 8 5 1 62 22-23 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 8 23-24 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Daily Total: 614 AM Peak Hour (07:25-08:25) 65 10.59% of Daily Total PM Peak Hour (20:55-21:55) 64 10.42$ of Daily Total 4th Highest Hour (08:00-09:00 )49 7.98 % of Daily Total 8th Highest Hour (17:00-18:00 )40 6.51 % of Daily Total r Emil FRAM TRAFFIC SMITHY PHONE NO. 5036438866 Mar. 03 1999 03:10PPM P3 ROADWAY TRAFFIC "SURVEY Roadway: KABLE STREET Location: WEST OF 98TH AVENUE Direction: WEST BOUND Date: 3/2/99 Daly of Week: TUESDAY Traffic Smithy Axes per vehicles: 2 Traffic Survey Service Hour :00- :05- :10- :15- :20- :25- :30- :35- :40•• :45- :50- :55- Hour of Day :05 :10 :15 :20 :25 :30 :35 :40 :45 :50 :55 :00 Tot.1 00-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01-02 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 02-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-05 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 06-07 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 13 07-08 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 5 1 2 2 3 19 08-09 1 4 3 3 5 2 2 0 5 1 0 2 28 09-10 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 12 10-11 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 13 11-12 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 3 0 1 2 1 16 12-13 6 1 2 1 0 3 2 2 3 6 4 2 32 13-14 3 1 5 3 3 0 2 4 2 0 1 1 25 14-3.5 3 3 4 0 0 1 6 6 2 6 4 4 39 15-16 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 2 3 2 0 15 16-17 1 2 6 2 1 3 1 8 6 1 6 6 43 17-18 3 5 1 0 2 7 10 4 2 3 1 5 43 18-19 4 5 7 3 4 5 8 2 2 2 3 5 SO 19-20 2 1 3 1 1 2 5 3 0 2 9 4 33 20-21 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 6 19 21-22 3 8 6 2 5 3 2 6 $ 8 6 1 58 22-23 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 7 23-24 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Daily Total: 477 AM Peak Hour (07:35-08:35) 33 6.92 Ir of Daily Total PM Peak Hour (20:55-21:55) 63 13.211 of Daily Total 4th Highest Hour (17:00-18:00 )43 9.01 k of Daily Total 8th Highest Hour (08:00-09:00 )28 5.87 V of Daily Total PPpe~d,K E ~ a, Redistribution Anaysis K ~ 1 a Redistribution Analysis A Trip tes rips Percentage OveraH Pass-Through rips AM AM PM PIM Sub-Area Units AM PM AM PM Directional Proportion Distribution AM PM Entering Exiting Entering Exiting 1 1 A o 5% 18% 20 --W 0. 113 39 0 0 1 1 4 7 0 4 1 1 1 1 4 E 19 0.75 1 141 19 0 1 5 11' 4 4 , 1 --N 45 55 0 1 0 5 19 25 5 14 1 -f. Ti 1 1 0 737o 410 1 4 5 3 . 1 5o So 410 1 o o L 4 •a~ J~ • ro ~ o qr' S%^ ! yl~: ! Y i i 1 e' r St's ~ . ZL ~r ' Vyn {L ; 3 J ~Jf FYr.'W 3 f' REDISTRIBUTION SUBAREAS ERICKSON HEIGHTS FicuRe TIGARD OREGON C_~ ®Q( JANUARY 1998 C i 30MC0RFaES%30DOF00l.CDR , 4`e r~.ek-c~ovNb T~-c r~ 9~E t~ s~'~iQvT ~ p elf h ~Y o~ mm 3 J ~ '=1 dC a - 21 0 - 3 7 - A1+ 26 .:.:,:i.._.,.,._hu,....._-......__..~.,:,.';'~`~.._.-.W„~.:;`',~.- _t~2:.•:s i._'.,~~_~-...c~"„i`..~~•:.;i ac.u..r~.:'"~~arsrn~.v... ~.ra~~. sc.rON't %t Lit- 'N 0 '.-11 '9~ 41L r ~ ~ ~ r. i f -41 ~N I"-777, ; C "'T'-'T 1" ,~m-,n~rr,~...~..-:-nom RECEIVED ~ - ~ ~ r C KSc~ rl APR 16 1999 flee yif's SU i ✓Sj c1~1 Nikki J. Mahiati COMMUNITY OEV116NEW 10529 SW Naeve Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 April 16, 1999 Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor NicoW and City Council Members, It is with great concern that I come before you this evening. Upon reviewing the findings for the final order #98-of the Erickson Heights project, I find it impossible for you to accept the findings and approve the final order. I am here this evening, as an entitled citizen, to tell you why the findings can not be adopted. What follows will show that evidence has been submitted and is on record that prove: Policy 2.1.1,18.160.120 and 18.164. M1B have not been met by Staff or Applicant. First and foremost: -Proper Notification for neighbors and residents was not met. As stated on page 13 of the final order: Policy 2. 1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by applicant on July I, 1997. According to the Planning Commission Administrative Policy (Per Jim Hendryx 4/16/99) "An application must be filed within 6 months of the neighborhood meeting." The application must have been submitted by January 1, 1998 to have met the policy and requirements for proper neighborhood notification. The applicant would then be required to hold another neighborhood meeting. No application was received by 1/1/98. Per the records: -June 15, 1998: Planning Commission Meeting was held for: Zone Change request and Planned Development Overlay, 98-00001 -June 23, 1998: Final Order 98-06PC denied zone change -August 24, 1998 Application filed for planned development of Erickson Heights with zone designation of R3.5. If another neighborhood meeting would have been held, we believe that we would not be speaking before you tonight. This issue is the crux of the problem. The application that was filed 8/24/98 was significantly differ- ent in street layout and design than the one suggested 13 months prior. Policy 2.1,1 was not met. Therefore the findings can not be accepted. For the past 2 years, the Naeve Street neighbors have stated our safety oncems regarding these issues, and they have not been satisfied in the findings: -The approval of the 17% grade variance for Naeve Street - Extending Naeve Street straight North for excessive lengths. -Lack of Traffic Mitigation on Naeve Street that will meet City Standards. Imi It was never the goal of the Naeve Street residents to not have connectivity into the new development, as stated in the staff conclusions, page 10 "The concerns about opening SW Naeve were also addressed by the neighbors." It would have been naive of the homeowners of a brand new neighborhood to think otherwise. However, we have ALWAYS been concerned in the HOW the connectivity was to occur. -The 17% grade variance of Naeve Street and Forrest Drive: Page 16: Staff states "The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of oronerty. And further states, "safety concerns associated with these steeper streets are more than outweighed by this increased connectivity and practicality of con- struction that the variance affords." Also on page 16, the Applicant states that "the variance is required to remedy this development challenge." Staff concurs. Is staff and City Council really saying that the needs of the developer and the issues of connectivity are of greater importance than the safety of our children and the citizens of the city? I can not fathom this statement or position by the City. Other than the installation of sprinklers in the new homes, staff has not included r~u measures for safety provisions in their findings. None what so ever. No traffic calming, no traffic mitigation, nothing. Page 16: Staff states that "The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision." This finding has not been proven. As stated previously, several of the proposed layouts addressed this issues specifically. If City Council and Staff evaluated the true need for 6 points of entry and connectivity into a 58 home development, the streets could be designed without the 17% grade North/South direction. Streets could be built that run East/West and would alleviate the need for the excess grade and length of Naeve and Forrest Drive. Whether the City points fingers at the Applicant or vice versa, it was never the responsibility of the neighbors to develop a safe and "code proper" development. It was both of yours, and both of you failed. Finding 18.160.120 can not adopted. Safety measures were not included or met. - Extending Naeve Street straight North for excessive lengths. Staff states, page 17: "per the Uniform Fire Code, homes on streets with access exceeding 15% over 200 feet must be fire sprinklered." The proposal has Naeve Street extending an additional 622 feet on the 17% grade street which is already 355 feet in length (from the curve in Naeve). This will create a street that is close to 1000 feet in length on a 17% grade, with no safety concerns addressed with the exception of sprinklers in the new homes. Also the City and the Applicant violated the Uniform Fire Code by not installing sprinklers in the homes that are on the current section of Naeve Street. Again, finding 18.160.120 can not adopted. -Lack of Traffic Mitigation on Naeve Street that will meet City Standards. Page 17: Applicant states: "Without this variance, a road system can not be developed for this site that is practical to construct, provides access to the proposed single-family lots and meets aH of the remaining City f ~ standards for streCt;;_' Staff concurs with the findings. Even with this approval, staff can not meet the remaining standards for street development. As submitted to you previously, we have shown the City and Staff that Tigard Municipal Code for landings and grades, 18.164.5 M1B is impossible to meet with this variance approval. The code states "streets intended to be posted with a stop sign or signalization shall provide a landing averag- ing 5% or less. Landings are that portion on the street within 20 feet of the edge of the intersecting street at full improvement." Again, as stated as evidence previously, with a 17% grade, the applicant would have to flatten out Naeve street to a 5% slope 20 feet on either side of each intersection. The application does not provide for such cutting and grading. The applicant has not even asked for a variance for this code and the staff has not addressed how this section of the code could possibly be met. Even Bill McMonagle stated on the record, that the steepest section of Naeve Street is right at the proposed intersection of Naeve and Kable, where the stop signs should be in- stalled. Neither Staff nor applicant has addressed anywhere in the 33 pages of the final order how the City standards for Landings and Grades for stops signs will be met. According to a conversation with Brian Rager, these issues are decided much later in the pla*tning process. This violates proper procedure for City Ordinance and Municipal Code. Therefore, once again, finding 18.160.120 can not adopted. Finally, although it has been addressed in detail by the Kable Street residents. For the record, the traffic analysis by Kittleson and Associates should not be accepted by Council as proper evidence. The analysis was inaccurate and incomplete with regards to the number for Naeve Street. Page 24 of the final order shows a chart for all of the current traffic and future traffic numbers. Of the proposed 1950 daily trips on Lady Marion, Hoodview and Kable Street, Kittleson states that only 100 of those cars (less than 10%) will travel down Naeve Street. As stated previously, with the connection to the Albertson, Rite-Aid, and Starbucks complex, traveling down Naeve Street is the most direct route to these facilities. We believe at least 20% of the 1950 cars would travel down Naeve, which woull put Naeve Street over the 500 car local street designa- tion. This correction would then not allow for the minimum right of way and paved widths to be approved. It is our intention, if the City Council fails to recognize these errors, to go forward with an appeal to LUBA. Thank you for your attention and consideration. I truly believe that these issues must be addressed by City Council and Staff and the findings of the final order for the Erickson Heights subdivision can not be accepted. Sincerely, Nikki J. Malnati 10529 SW Naeve Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 e #4 - Erickson Heights RECEIVED Subdivision City of Tigard April 20, 1999 APR 16 1999 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97224 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Erickson Heights Subdivision Honorable Mayor and City Council; On Tuesday, April 20, 1999 you will render a final decision regarding the approval of the Erickson Heights Subdivision. This decision may be one of the most important for you individually and collectively, because it will clearly require you decide what is right and in the best interest of the community - or what is easy. It will either be an exemplary example of community government working as it was intended or a glaring example of a process gone bad. Traffic impacts from the Erickson Heights Subdivision have been the center of the neighborhoods' concerns. The Final Order, page 26, concludes that " The local streets that will be extended into and through the site will experience increased traffic and associated safety problems but not beyond the limits of the local street standards..." THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE. The subdivision plan will create conditions that will almost double the applicant's estimate and result in numbers far above the local street standards of 1500 ADT, violating City code. Residents in the "S-Curve" area previously cited safety concerns to the City regarding existing traffic levels. The high fixture traffic volumes ( if allowed to happen) will significantly increase this hazard. City staff is fully aware of this important information and it's implications. As a community member and councilor, I hope your thought process and decision is simple- You can't approve a subdivision that you now know will create impacts that will violate City code and impose a significant safety risk. The evidence clearly supports this decision and it is the right thing to do! Anything else is a failure to represent the best interests of the community and uphold the reason for City codes. How do you do the right thing considering all the protocals, procedures and pressures of the process ? Simple. You accept the substantial evidence previously presented at the hearings, reinforced by current testimony, that the applicant did not meet their obligation to prove that their subdivision will meet all traffic impact code requirements. The Final Order, page 25, states " We find that the study fairly represents the facts regarding traffic volumes and flow patterns which we believe presently exist and can be reasonably expected..." This statement is not supported by the record. Specific to the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)( the study) that is claimed to provide this proof, you determine it is incomplete, inconsistent and insufficient because: 1. Only one page in the TIA discusses the estimate of existing and future street traffic volumes and no supporting information is provided to clearly explain how these estimates were developed and justify the adequacy of the results. 2. The TIA "Redistribution Analysis" does not document how these estimates were developed, in fact was used to assess intersection impacts, not street traffic volume impacts. 3. The TIA did not conduct any actual street traffic counts, nor access any available traffic counts, to accurately establish existing street traffic volumes. Evidence has also been presented that shows the TIA's estimates of existing traffic volumes are inaccurate and low. A sound TIA must start with accurate existing traffic volume and the applicant's TIA is clearly inadequate. 4. The TIA was overly simplistic and inaccurate in considering the entire length of a street to achieve the same traffic volumes, even though, for example on Kable St., there will be four distinct street sections, defined by intersections, that will impact traffic volumes. City code requires compliance within each street section and the TIA's averages are inadequate to prove code compliance. 5. Because of the clear inaccuracies of the existing traffic estimates mentioned above, there is no confidence in the accuracy of the future estimates. Without this confidence, and evidence to support a sound and complete TIA, full compliance with code can not be determined. More than enough information is in the record to justify denying the proposed Erickson Subdivision on these grounds. It is not the City staffs, nor the neighborhoods' job, to prove compliance. That responsibility is clearly the applicants, and the bottomline is, the applicant didn't spend the time or money to do a complete and comprehensive TIA necessary to clearly prove code compliance. You now know the proposed subdivision will cause traffic impacts that will violate code and you can truly justify the right decision. I respect the important role and contribution you are making to the community. It's often a tough, thankless job. I also recognize you are likely frustrated, as we all are, by the somewhat convoluted and confusing path followed to get to this decision. Dispatching this issue quickly, with an ill- supported approval, may seem easier, but it will, in fact, make the process more difficult and expensive for everyone involved. Based on the information in hand, our neighborhood is resolved to take this to whatever level necessary for the right solution. We have already spent nearly $4000 to get to this point and may have to spend another $6000-5000 to appeal to LUBA, if you should make us do that. That's an awful lot to spend just to get the correct decision justified by an incomplete, inconclusive application. We implore you, please represent your community and sound local government, and make the decision you know is right and justified... DENY THE ERICKSON SUBDIVISION AS PROPOSED ! We are confident that a better plan can be developed that is fully code compliant and approvable and we will work with all parties to achieve this objective. Thank you for your patience and consideration. Re t ly ~ub rk Lass 1, PE 10430 SW Kable St. 0 • c~ cv is o u c- ; •Y. s3'+' . `tT..i, + ITY COUNOR f S` f r I W Hang LE_ 11L unut Bill c 4' `b.-xZ' K g~ .:~5 . ~.~,~P ~C 1. zx ~t i , H ;yt r r~S, ,~sr~ f' ; ~ }i. i ?L.tc.fG~.~`- s r~ayi` ~s 1 i~+•~' r 2!': t_"iii. .J.n.+...... .5t .,.;lry: ,..:t':`. ..Y_„u... S.x.. ~:n_..... rr,3',.1. . ..kr't,.... +s-,ti5...;v.tt :.i"..•cG'?+' ".yQ_ ~1Un~ ..nx $ 120 DAYS _ 118199 Extended to 2-28-99 and then graned- ditional 3 week extension SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0009 Planned Development PDR 98-0010 Variance VAR 98-0010 PROPOSAL: The request is to build a 58 lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. The proposal also involves a request for a Variance to allow streets with a grade up to 17 percent, whereas the code states that the maximum street grade is 15 percent. APPLICANT: Renaissance Development Co. OWNER: Albert and Yerlene Erickson 1672 SW Willamette Falls Drive Partnership And Trust West Linn, Oregon 97068 1230 N. Grant Street Canby, Oregon 97013 ENGINEER: Harris-McMonagle Associates 12555 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5 with Planned Development; PD Overlay. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Renaissance Heights Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview Subdivision and Marion Estates Subdivision. WCTM 2511 ODA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. SECTION IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION ut Y ty Cou ci9'nee ~Ri ►The SC qty Council `voted .at'~the 2'1 A 99 ~~i q t t Og . to nrOiminan( R ie ove Fief proposal subject to :certain conditeons of;appioval 'kThe?findings Rand conglugions on is M e- ,decesiori is based are`noted in Section 1V The Cify.,COtuncil,5dopted the-,findings and~irondr orbs, iri•this report M the:Council meeting on r t A SUB 98.0009IPDR 98-00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 33 10111 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL . ° • ~ T c~~s- ~ , - ~ • pan ass er~nr se e i ve sa $f ® i ® i s a , roan agerwi h a rtg Wean ep tt03 , 39 u:~.t't ;;.Yw;}3~X:: ~."~.'.K*t:.,.aTV• .".~1eT.°"..7.Tf'k'n'S'. -w.+"'i'w"re`gb. S+.-.>"L~.1 d[`1~?t:.^•~~~.s'~'r'!' .f1 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five/six (5/6) sets of detailed public improvement. plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all.suppliers and employees associated with the project. 4. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated on SW Royalty Parkway to provide 30 feet from centerline. This dedication shall be made on the face of the final plat. 5. The following right-of-way widths are approved for this subdivision: SW Naeve Street (from south property line to SW Kable Street): 50 feet; SW Naeve Street (between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive): 42 feet; SW Kable Street: 43 feet; SW Forrest Drive : 42 feet; SW Hoodview Drive: 46 feet; SW Lady Marion Drive: 50 feet. 6. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Royalty Parkway. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; SUB 98-0009R1311 98-OOIOIVAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 33 D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; 1. underground utilities; and J. street signs. 7. The following paved widths are approved within this project: SW Naeve Street (from south property line to SW Kable Street): 32 feet; SW Naeve Street (between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive): 28 feet; SW Kable Street: 32 feet; SW Forrest Drive Place: 28 feet; SW Hoodview Drive: 32 feet; SW Lady Marion Drive: 32 feet. 8. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 9. Lots 1 and 58 shall not be permitted to access directly onto SW Royalty Parkway. 10. The applicant's construction plans shall include the construction of a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of SW Kable Street, from the eastern site boundary to SW 100th Avenue. This work shall be completed by the applicant as a part of the project's public improvements. 11. The applicant shall install speed humps along SW Kable Street within the development and to the east of the development site. 12. SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive can be designed and constructed with a grade not to exceed 17 percent. 13. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12 percent of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval. of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 14. All lots within this subdivision are to be served from the City's 550-foot pressure zone. 15. The applicant shall provide a looped connection between the water line in SW Naeve Street and the existing water line in SW Kable Street. SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-001WAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 33 16. The applicant shall provide a looped connection between the proposed new water line in SW Kable Street and the existing 12-inch public water line in SW Royalty Parkway. The applicant may need to extend the 12-inch water line southerly in SW Royalty Parkway to reach the proposed intersection of SW Kable Street. 17. The public water system plan shall take into account that all houses lying adjacent to SW hlaeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, will be protected by approved automatic fire sprinkler systems, unless otherwise permitted by the Uniform Fire Code. 18. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 19. The applicant shall provide sanitary and storm sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped properties to the west (Tax Lots 00201 and 00202) or to the east, based on agreement with applicant and staff, based on existing service and topography. 19a. The applicant shall revise the proposed storm drainage plan, specifically adjacent to lots 21, 22, 28 and 29 to avoid diagonal alignment across lot lines. 20. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facilities shall be dedicated in tracts to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facilities for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The developer shall maintain the facilities for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facilities and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facilities. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facilities unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 21. The applicant shall provide maintenance access roads to the facilities and any drainage structures within the facilities to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access roads shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. They shall also be contained within the tracts that encompass the facilities. SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-0010A/AR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 33 22. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 23. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 24. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 25. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 26. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 27. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three (3) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard; C. The right-of-way dedications for all streets shall be made on the final plat; D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City a has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work; and 3 E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer's signature. 28. Submit a street plan that shows the proposed street trees will meet the tree spacing standards. SUB 98-00091PDR 98-00101VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 33 29. Confirm the size of the development site and, if necessary, adjust the number of lots accordingly. - C) ~O E~I~S (~E ~ B Vill11 C~ t'J ess MUUMUU otetl~~the ffi o c a e na ; er V d.C, +it; tz ~~-i. J.ICkW.;ar.'. :.•CS:~IL d.S4FD,~.,Yi. ~q,.=. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 31. Prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, includingg franchise utilities; 2 all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt, 3) any aff site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished; and 4) all street (fights are installed and ready to be energized. 32. Prior to issuance of building permits for lots lying adjacent to SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street andSW Lady Marion Drive, the builders shall indicate on the house plans that each house will be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler system shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division. ~dcµ Q''8 ~.4 Y.f eRy ftt,:f wav V~ a..~:q.w'+v1 ~~t•u. w ..s. ka p+:n*:w trvcm~a,'aGa+urma. :.s<e. . L Y #y f'RIOR~T®"THE ISSUA Y.~ P,,EI~CE'OF;OC.Cl1PA ( RMITS ~I~ ' Er"~""` w r :v~ AU+r.taZ,.~~k~ at•','~r s~ ~k ro f"* .,~-td?'_~nFr€.i'r.~ are x1J OILO~AfII+IG CONDITION SHALLE~~1SFiE®*' Y ~ ~,,~i s ~ tl;er6(iise noted 'e~taff ~nfa= t Ball i q 4 ~VVEL ' U. U f~a~+~ o:~s~~ t. f''~~ a c~-rLXr "'pt+~ r'~r3s..w~ < ~~~a ~`rlt.»l,. ~*~~rk,+~~~d`zWlth'~he ,lannmg~swn;at503.. 89-41?~1., ~ti~ . w .K m.~~~~.•~: ~d,s .M_ 5 r..,.. . ?d,.. ~,3-z-rr.-. a,rrs~t^ts~. ,+rr-• ~_.-r.w,t.rr-ati.:r~cstixvl?~r?U~.ro::ti",,.u~zscs :...ss. s3.._,... ~,r1'i~"~:?rati'~a`. *~xe: .?r-,;, 33. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved plans. ri Fr i" ° r < ' III i4 DITiYOP1, TIE ►PPLiCA14TdAI `.O 8E YS' ~ RE~~~t~E IFOLi.(SWING,SECTIONSYl7F T~t-IE CO~fll1lIUI~IMY! LP ENT : ,i trF,a, -CODE'., HlS.IS*NOT}AN EXGL .SINE S~' t I:iw)v a.. .'t . '4. ~.:i ~':t~,tt'.y..kLi . ,..e: . . a2.r4ai_4atS.d#-.t`t'~:t.,C:a:.ti:?Fi•-~'~tX,F'.i~r»:F 2 r:..L:s , tr'?is:7v`7:1. P~ et'ii?FFv3t~s,~~; 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the wort; and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. SUB 98-OW91PDR 98-00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 33 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writing that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final plat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: Three (3) copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and SUB 984)009/PDR 98-OOIC 'AR 99.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 7 OF 33 3. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PTs). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be placed underground, except for surface- mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, and high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. i If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 3 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required a The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98.001WAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 8 OF 33 WA. I '~ISPP~,iRO D~IR~1`>~~>i~1~8' ~ . L:ay,atst ~ s'n u A'~ w .,(»r •mr"•~r.y':y ~f« x ..,Ur.^}`in,yfr^. .F r e t w.s. .R®6liR?HE 4. is f.err.,,'. Ni+y„t L£ c~ciRtA a'~i.-L~,.,si rk7'_r~'2.~•~: f; ,.4uWf tsMir.-tt}"1 {c* ..y w, ~ t.i 'Em SECTION Ill. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: This site was a Washington County registered Wood Lot. Registered wood lots are exempt from the tree removal standards. The property owners previously obtained permits from the Department of Forestry to log the property. Questions were raised about whether City permits were required to log this property. The Community Development Director made an interpretation that the logging of the site was a material change and thus, Site Development Review was required. The property owners appealed this interpretation and the decision was overturned. The applicant obtained a Site Work permit (SIT 97-0040) from the Building Division to log the property. The applicants came to the Planning Commission in June 1998 to request a zone change (ZON 98-0001/PDR98-0002) from R-3.5 to R-4.5. The zone change request was denied, but the Planning commission did vote to approve the Planned Development Overlay on this site which will allow a planned development. The site size mentioned in the zone change request was 16.02 acres. The site size in this request is 16.41 acres. Staff is uncertain where this additional property came from as the lots included in this proposal are the same as those included in the zone change proposal. Staff recommends a condition be attached which requires the applicant to confirm the site size and, if necessary, adjust the number of lots accordingly. A revision resulting in fewer lots due to confirmed site size density requirements will still be in substantial conformity to the approved plan. Vicinity Information: The site abuts SW Royalty Parkway, SW 109th Avenue, a small acreage with a single-family home and an undeveloped parcel on the western boundary. The Renaissance Summit Subdivision and 3 undeveloped parcels abut the southern boundary of the site. The eastern boundary abuts the Hoodview Subdivision, the Hoodview No. 2 Subdivision and the Marion Estates Subdivision. The Canterbury Woods Condominiums adjoin the northern boundary. The subdivisions and tracts to the south and east of the site are zoned R-3.5. The apartment tracts to the north of the site and west of SW Royalty Parkway and SW 109th Avenue are zoned R-12. Site Information and Proposal Description: The property is 16.02 acres. There is a slope from north to south with an average grade of 13.5 percent. There are no significant natural features such as wetlands, waterways or significant drainage ways, historical features or cultural features identified on the site. The site has a "Developing Area" designation on the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for a 58 lot planned development subdivision. Council Considerations This matter came before the Tigard City Council on its own motion for public hearing on December 8, 1998 and at the request of applicant the public hearing was continued until January 26, 1999 in hopes of resolving issues with the neighbors. On vote of the City Council sus 98.0009/PDR 98.0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBOMSION PAGE 9 OF 33 the public hearing was again continued until February 10, 1998, to allow additional opportunity for public input and finding common ground between the neighbors. Notice setting forth the nature of the request, applicable standards and time and place of the hearing was issued pursuant to City of Tigard standards. A copy of said notice and date of issuance is by this reference incorporated herein. The Council interprets City of Tigard codes and ordinances governing land use hearing notice and specifically finds that the issued notice meets the appropriate standards. Opposition testimony was presented by individuals and representatives of neighbors surrounding the development site. The opposition was primarily focused at keeping increased vehicular traffic from the particular street upon which each opponent's home was located. The opponents living on SW Lady Marion Drive did not want that street's "stub" removed and the Drive extended due to their opposition to increased traffic along SW Lady Marion Drive. Likewise the people concerned-about SW Kable Street and SW Hoodview Drive opposed extension of those stubbed streets into the subject property for the same reason the SW Lady Marion Drive people opposed extension i.e. increased traffic. The concerns about opening SW Naeve were also addressed by the neighbors. A compromise design for the subdivision street layout agreeable to the neighbors was sought by the City and Applicant. The solutions proposed by the neighborhood, however, were inconsistent amongst themselves with no apparent basis for agreeing to a common proposal which met City Code, including providing sufficient connectivity of public streets. The City Council weighed the various concerns stated and selected what appeared to it to be the best option. That being the option supported by the City Planning Staff to the extent that support differed from the City of Tigard Planning Commission decision under review. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify, the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of--way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required transportation system improvements and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures intended to minimize the impact this development will have on the transportation system. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson foe the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan If/Resolution 95-61, incorporated by this reference in this record, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the collector and arterial street system. The report does not address the SUB 98-0009/PDR 98.0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 33 additional unmitigated impact development has on the local street system, but the Council finds that the applicant's traffic study establishes that this development will impact the surrounding local street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189. The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. The applicant did not present substantial evidence that undermined the credibility of the Larson study as applied to this application. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Royalty Parkway, a minor collector. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a 'cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Royalty Parkway is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). That estimate is not contested by the applicant. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $110,142 ($1,899 x 58 dwelling units). Based on the Larson study conclusion that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $345,740 ($110,142 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered the minimum unmitigated impact this development has on the transportation system. Since the TIF paid is $110,142, the minimum unmitigated impact is $235,598. All streets within the development are local streets intended to serve the subdivision. Because the streets are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are directly required to meet the impact of this development. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction on SW Royalty Parkway as well as the streets intended to serve the development. As will be discussed further in this report, staff is recommending and the Council agrees that the applicant be required to construct a sidewalk along the south side of SW Kable Street from the eastern site boundary to SW 100th Avenue, due to the impact on pedestrian and traffic safety on SW Kable Street, resulting from the development. Engineering staff has estimated the costs of these improvements will be approximately $30,000, the applicant estimates the cost to be $70,000, both figures being much less than the unmitigated impacts of $235,598 and the improvement requirements. Therefore, the transportation system improvements required for this development are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from this development." More discussion on the requirement to install sidewalks is provided under the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section of this report. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL STANDARDS Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As will be discussed further in this report under APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS, the proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-3.5 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Tigard Development Code. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-OOIONAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 33 a The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has provided evidence of the subdivision name reservation from Washington County. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. The street layout extends streets stubbed to this property through the development site. Street and connectivity standards are discussed in more detail further in this report. An explanation has been provided for all common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. The improvements are discussed in detail and conditions applied, if necessary, further in this report. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision plat approval standards have either been met outright, do not apply or are discussed and conditioned in further sections of this report. APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements and Development Standards (Section 18.48): Section 18.48 states that the minimum lot area for each single-family lot in the R-3.5 zoning district is 10,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement is 65 feet for detached units and 90 feet for duplex units. The following dimensional requirements must be met: Minimum lot size 10,000 Square Feet Average lot width 65 Feet190 feet Front setback 20 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior side yard setback 5 Feet Corner side yard setback 20 Feet Rear setback 15 Feet Maximum building height 30 Feet While the dimensional standards apply to the R-3.5 zone, the applicant has applied for Planned Development approval which allows for smaller lot sizes provided the overall development does not exceed the density allowed. The smallest lot is 6,917 square feet and the largest lot is 14,784 square feet. The majority of lots less than 10,000 square feet are on the interior of the project and along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to R-12 zoned property. The lots adjacent to existing R-3.5 developed lots are over 10,000 square feet with the exception of lots 14-17 and lot 36. SUB 984009/PDR 98.0010MAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 33 SON- 111 = MIMI In accordance with the Planned Development standards, the front and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as required in the base zone. For interior lots, the side yard setback does not apply, and the front and rear yard setbacks shall not apply except a minimum 20-foot'setback is required for any garage structure facing a street or a minimum front yard of 8 feet for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street, provided required off-street parking is met. The lots are large enough and of sufficient dimension to support the conclusion that it is feasible that the houses placed in the perimeter lots can meet the required setbacks. Each lot will be reviewed during the building permit phase to insure compliance with the applicable Uniform Building Code setbacks. FINDING: Because the Planned Development will allow flexibility in lot sizes, and building review for perimeter lots will insure the required setbacks are met, the dimensional requirements standard has been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Citizen Input: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on July 1, 1997. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet, posted at each street stub into the proposed development and published in a newspaper of general circulation. Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6.1.1 is satisfied because it continues to allow for low density residential development. FINDING: The proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Solar Access - Section 18.88.040 states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single-family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. The applicant has stated that lots 11-23, 26-33 and 46-53 should not be included in the required percent, stating that it meets criteria 1 for the Adjustment to Design Standards. Criteria 1 is adverse impact on density and cost or amenities. Staff concurs based on the analysis provided in the narrative. FINDING: Because adjustments to the design standard warrants a reduction in the percent of lots that must comply with the solar access basic design standard and because lots 1-10, 24-25, 34-45 and 54-58 meet the basic design standard, this has been satisfied. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 13 OF 33 111- V.- Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands, land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. The gross area of the site is 16.41 acres (714,856 square feet). The net developable area of the site, after deduction of 134,147 square feet for public right-of-way is 13.33 acres (580,709 square feet). With a minirnum of 10,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 58 lots under the R-3.5 zoning designation. The applicant has proposed a 58 lot subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the plan meets the density of the site. Landscaping and screening (Section 18.100) Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tali, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. The typical street section and the narrative indicates street trees will be planted, however,. the plans do not show the size or spacing so staff can not determine that this standard has been met. Because this requirement has specific type and spacing requirements, and sufficient street right of way and easement areas are provided, it is feasible for the applicant to meet this standard by simply providing a plan that shows the type of tree to be planted with the required spacing. This should be required as a condition of approval. Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This criteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential development abuts single-family residential development. FINDING: Because the type and spacing of trees has not been provided, staff can not determine if the standards have been met. If the applicant submits a street plan that shows the proposed trees will meet the tree spacing standards, the criteria will be met. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 OF 33 CONDITION: Submit a street plan that shows the proposed trees will meet the tree spacing standards. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.102): Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. This standard will be reviewed at time of development for individual lots. FINDING: Because the review of individual lots will insure vision clearance standards are met, this is not applicable at.this time. Off Street Parking (Section 18.106): Section 18.106.030.(A) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review for the individual lots. Access, Egress and Circulation (Section 18.108.070.A): This Section states that the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15 feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permit Plan Check. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.C. states that access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision's for the turning around of fire apparatus by a hammerhead configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. There are no streets or access drives in excess of 150 feet that do not provide through circulation at this time. The streets are discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS and Variance Criteria. FINDING: Staff finds that, as proposed, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. Additional review will be required at time of building permits to insure that individual driveways are in compliance. Tree Removal (Chapter 18.150): Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-OOIOAIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 95 OF 33 standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This property was a Washington county registered tree lot and received commercial logging permits from the Department of Forestry in 1997. Registered wood lots are exempt from the tree removal standards. Because all trees on the site are/were permitted to be removed in accordance with registered wood lots, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because the site has been logged in accordance with the forestry permit process; the tree removal standards do not apply. Subdivision Variance - Maximum street grades: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides Stan ar s or granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum street grade standards to allow grades of up to 17 percent on SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The applicant states this is needed to meet connectivity, block size and block length standards. They state that the streets would require cuts of over 30 feet to meet the grade standards of Section 18.1'63.M. The review of the variance request is discussed below. (NOTE: The PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Section of this report will address the streets in detail). There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The applicant states, "Existing street patterns and concerns for connectivity dictated the placement of 6 access points into the property. With these points established, the proposed street pattern then had to respond to standards for block size and block length, which in turn dictated the use of two streets that will run perpendicular to the slope of the site. Because of the steep grades on the site, SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive would have to be cut into the ground at least 30 feet to meet the grade standards, making the streets impractical to build and use. This situation is unusual and peculiar to this particular site, and a variance is required to remedy this development challenge." Staff concurs with the applicant's statement on this criteria. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. The applicant states, "A variance is required to build a road system that is practical to construct, provides required connections to existing neighborhoods abutting the site and that meets the requirements for block size and block length." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings on this criteria. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. The applicant states, "The streets that will require the variance to slope standards are located on the interior of the site and will have no impact on adjacent properties. The variance allows for a street pattern that meets standards for block size and block length and provides connections to 6 existing access points into and through the Erickson Heights site. The variance allows for increased connectivity, which in turn allows for greater dispersion of traffic for the entire area and SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-00101VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 OF 33 multiple access routes for emergency vehicles in case of emergency. Safety concerns associated with these steeper streets are more than outweighed by this increased connectivity and practicality of construction that the variance affords." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings, with one exception. As per the Uniform Fire Code, homes on streets with access exceeding 15 percent over 200 feet must be fire sprinklered. This standard can be met provided a condition of approval is attached that requires fire sprinklers to be installed for homes along SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The applicant states, "Without this variance, a road system can not be developed for this site that is practical to construct, provides access to the proposed single-family lots and meets all of the remaining City standards for streets. Development of this site would be severely limited by the strict imposition of the street grade standard, which would place and extraordinary hardship on the owner of the site and the applicant. The variance is necessary to preserve the right to develop this land as it was intended to be developed and to maximize the development potential of land within the Urban Growth Boundary. A variance will allow development to proceed, which is in the best interest of the property owner, the applicant, the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision variance criteria have been met. CONDITION: Record a deed restriction for lots along SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive that states fire sprinklers are required. Prior to issuance of building permits on these lots, sprinklers must be installed. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access on a public street and requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street The dedication and improvement standards are discussed and conditioned further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.164.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The property extends all streets through to existing streets with the exception of SW Lady Marion Drive. This street will extend through the property and stub at Tax Lot 00201. This street will be SUB 98-00091POR 98.00101VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 OF 33 =Mimi extended to SW Royalty Parkway at the time of development of Tax Lot 00201. The street extension issues are discussed further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. ' Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(G) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint is not sufficient ' to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The criterion is satisfied because all streets abutting the site will be extended through the development. Existing Rights-of==way: 18.164.030(1) requires that whenever existing right-of-way adjacent to or a.4thin a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. The applicant will be extending streets through the property. The only existing road being required to be improved adjacent to the property is SW Royalty Parkway. This street is being required to be improved with half-street improvements. This is discussed in more detail further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Grades and Curves: 18.164(M).1 states grades shall not exceed ten percent of arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to this standard. This was discussed and approved previously in this report. Block Design: Section 18.164.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(6)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The blocks within the development do not exceed 1,800 feet. SUB 98.WW/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 OF 33 Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The block lengths on SW Naeve Street, SW Forrest Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive do not exceed 600 feet. Conformance with Transportation Plan This application consists of. an infill of vacant, bypassed lands, between areas of development. Development at urban levels is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to construct 58 units of residential housing on the subject property. The proposed density is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed development. design, including without limitation, the street layout and points of connection, is consistent with City ordinances governing street design, including block distance, street length and connectivity. The requested variance for grade adjustment is permitted given the need to acknowledge topographical realities as well as City street design and related code provisions. This is a PUD, which by definition allows flexibility in design to reflect topographical reality. Permit conditions relating to fire safety issues are in place which will require fire suppression sprinklers to be installed in homes in areas where such extra protection is necessary. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The Planned Development process allows flexibility in the lot size, depth and width standards. Because this is being processed as a Planned Development, this standard does not apply. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley, unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. All lots exceed the minimum 25-foot frontage requirement for single-family units. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant must construct full street improvements for the new streets. Standard street improvements include sidewalks. Refer to the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section for additional information on sidewalks. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the Street and Utility Improvement Standards have either been met, will be addressed further in this report, or do not apply. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the density range provided through the Comprehensive Plan. This type of subdivision normally permits higher density than would he possible given the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. SUB 98.00091PDR 98-0010MAR 980010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 OF 33 The Planned Development Review is a three step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. The applicant applied for and received a Planned Development Overlay as part of ZON 98-0001 and PDR 98-0002. The applicant has requested Conceptual Planned Development approval with this application to comply with the second step. Because this application is for a subdivision, Section 18.80.015(E) allows the Conceptual and Detailed portions of the Planned Development Review to be consolidated as is proposed through this action to comply with the third step. The Planned Development Code Section 18.80.060 states a Planned Development shall be allowed on all lands shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map a developing. This site has a "Developing Area" designation, thus meeting this criteria. Section 18.80.120 (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Community Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 18.32, 18.50, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106,- 18.108, 18.134, 18.150, 18.160 and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides additional review standards for Planned Development. The following standards have been addressed previously in this report: 18.80.120.A.3.f (Access and Circulation), 18.80.120.A.3.k (drainage). Many of the Planned Development standards do not apply because the development is for a single-family subdivision as opposed to a multi-family or commercial development. Because certain standards do not apply. to this development, they will not be discussed in this report The inapplicable standards are : 18.80.120.A.3.c (Privacy and noise), 18.80.120.A.3.d (Private outdoor area: Residential Use), 18.80.120.A.3.e (Shared outdoor recreation areas: Residential use). The following are the applicable additional review standards for the proposed Planned Development: Relationship to the natural and physical environment (18.80.120.A.3.a): 1. The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; 2. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; 3. There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; 4. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and 5. Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; SUB 98-00091POR 98.0010AIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 OF 33 The applicant states, "The development plan for Erickson Heights has respected the natural and physical environment and has limited the impacts to this site. The roads and lots have been designed to preserve the topography and limit the amount of grading that will occur on the site. There are no significant drainageways on the site and the site was recently logged and no significant trees remain on the site. There are no areas subject to ground slumping or sliding on the site. The setback standards proposed for Erickson Heights will provide adequate distance between buildings for light, air circulation and fire protection. The topography, existing street patterns and block standards have dictated, for the most part, the orientation of lots. However the lot sizes allow a variety of building configurations and orientations to take advantage of the sun and wind directions." Staff concurs that the applicant's plan has considered the natural and physical environment in as much as possible, while still being able to develop the site in accordance with density requirements. Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses (18.80.120.A.3.b): Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier;- 2. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; 4. The required density of the buffering; and 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: 1. What needs to be screened; 2. The direction from which it is needed; and 3. Whether the screening needs to be year-round; Screening and buffering are not required where single-family detached residential uses adjoin other detached single-family residential uses. Landscaping and Open Space(18.80.120.A.3.g): Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20% of the site shalt be landscaped; SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 980010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 OF 33 The Planned Development Review requires that a minimum of 20 percent of each site be landscaped. This standard is applicable to each lot and will be reviewed at the time of building permit plan check. Public transit (18.80.120.A.3.h): Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: 1. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and 2. The size and type of the proposed development; The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: 1. A waiting shelter; 2. A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and 3. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; The site does not abut a public transit route; therefore, this standard does not apply. Signs (18.80.120.A.3.i): In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: 1. Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and 2. The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; The applicant has indicated a project identity sign will be located within an easement in the northwest corner of lot 1. They indicate the sign will be oriented to SW Royalty Parkway and will not obscure vehicular driver's sight lines. The signage at the site will be reviewed to insure compliance through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. Parking (18.80.120.A.3.j): All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of the residences to be developed on these parcels will be reviewed during the building permit plan check process to verify the provision of required off-street parking spaces. Pooodplain Dedication (18.80.120.A.3.1): Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This site does not adjoin areas within the 100-year flood plain. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 980010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 Of 33 FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that, the Planned Development review standards either do not apply, have been met, will be addressed further in this report or will be addressed as part of the building permit plan check process. The Planned Development review standards, therefore, have been met. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Streets: This site lies adjacent to SW Royalty Parkway, a minor collector street, and is also adjacent to several stub streets: SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Naeve Street. Traffic Stud Find inqw. tra ffic impact stu y, dated January 4998, was submitted by Kittelson & Associates, as apart of the zone change application proposed by the applicant (PDR 98-0002/ZON 98-0001). This impact study was generated to give the City an idea of how the potential rezoning and development of this site will impact primary intersections in the area and existing local residential streets. The study analyzed seven primary intersections as follows: Highway 99W/SW Canterbury Lane; SW Canterbury Lane/SW 109th Avenue; Highway 99W/SW Royalty Parkway; SW Royalty Parkway/SW Naeve Street; SW 98th Avenue/SW Sattler Street; SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street; SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. The study found that under existing traffic conditions all of the above intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS), except for SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street, which is now operating at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods. The study indicates that in 1999, the background traffic (which includes assumptions about the traffic that will be generated from the Applewood Park Subdivision at SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard), SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street will continue to operate at LOS F. NOTE: Matrix Development, as a part of developing Phase 3 of the Applewood Paris Subdivision, is required to install a traffic signal at Hall Boulevard/Sattler Street. Once that signal is constructed, which should occur prior to Summer 1999, that intersection will operate at acceptable LOS (A or B). Kittelson also raises a concern with the intersection at SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. Under 1999 background volumes, the PM peak hour may meet signal warrants. The study analyzed the same intersections assuming development of the Erickson site and extension of the local streets that currently terminate at the site boundaries. Under 1999 background volumes, plus the additional traffic from this project, the intersections listed above will continue to operate at acceptable LOS, except for SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street and SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. Again, once SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street is signalized, which should be completed by Summer 1999, .that intersection will function at LOS B, which is acceptable. Kittelson also found that under these volumes, the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection will likely operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods, which is unacceptable for an unsignalized intersection. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98.0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 23 OF 33 Kittelson conducted a specific signal warrant analysis at the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection. Under 1999 background volume conditions, they found that during the PM peak hour, two signal warrants are met. Those same signal warrants are met when the Erickson development traffic is added. Staff also talked with Kittelson about the comparison of AM peak hours at this intersection. It appears that two signal warrants would be met under 1999 background traffic and also after the Erickson development traffic is added. Therefore, Staff was able to determine that the Erickson project, by itself, will not degrade the level of service of the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection below the condition that it will experience under background traffic volumes. No additional improvements to this intersection should be required of this development. The City will need to monitor this intersection in the future to verify if, indeed, warrants will eventually be met. The Kittelson study also studied the adjacent streets to determine what traffic volumes currently exist and what traffic volumes may be experienced once the subdivision is constructed and the streets are connected. The streets that were addressed were: SW Lady Marion Drive; SW Hoodview Street; SW Kable Street; SW Naeve Street, from SW Kable Street to SW 109"' Avenue; and SW 109' Avenue, from SW Naeve Street to SW Summerfield Drive. The Kittelson study had analyzed these streets based upon a previous street layout for this project which had SW Hoodview Street as the roadway that would connect to SW Royalty Parkway. The current layout indicates that SW Kable Street will connect through to SW Royalty Parkway. Kittelson revised their traffic analysis to reflect the current layout and submitted a letter to Staff, dated October 20, 1998. The following is a summary of Table 6 out of the traffic analysis and the supplemental letter, dated October 20, 1998: Street Name Existing ADT Future ADT (veh per day) (veh per day) SW Lady Marion Drive 380 440 SW Hoodview Drive 190 200 SW Kable Street 300 1,310 SW Naeve Street 300 400 SW 109' Avenue 600 700 All of the above streets are classified as local residential streets that can accommodate approximately 1,500 vehicles per day. It appears that after this project is occupied, the streets will continue to function with traffic volumes well under the maximum limit. Staff acknowledges that the volumes on SW Kable Street will approach the upper limit. However, it must be noted that the above estimate was made based upon the final connection of SW Lady Marion Drive not yet being connected to SW Royalty Parkway. Once the SW Lady Marion Drive connection is made to SW Royalty Parkway, the estimated volumes on SW Kable Street will drop to approximately 850 vehicles per day and the volumes on SW Lady Marion Drive will increase to approximately 900 vehicles per day. SUB 98-00091PDR 98s0101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 OF 33 ==J In addition to the conditions of approval set forth in the Planning Commission Decision, as explained in the staff report of November 2, 1998, it is the decision of this Council to clarify, enhance and otherwise modify the Planning Commission findings as follows: A majority of the opposition to the subject application centers on future traffic flow and volume on SW Lady Marion and SW Hoodview Drives and SW Kable Street. As the Planning Commission found and the City Planning Staff Report expresses the streets presently stubbed to the subject property's borders will alter the current traffic flow and volumes. The existing flow and volumes are created because temporary street stubs have heretofore blocked through traffic on those streets. City connectivity policies, rules and codes mandate the extension of the subject streets. Without a compelling reason to exempt the neighborhoods served by those streets from City policy and code provision, the street and drives need to be opened to through traffic as originally planned when the streets were stubbed instead of ended in cul-de-sacs. The public has been aware not only because of the type of barricades in place for some 30 years but also signage announcing the streets were subject to extension. The opposition questioned the accuracy of applicant's Traffic Engineer Study and the City Planning Staff acceptance of that study as indicating City Code regarding traffic volume and capacity by street designation had been met. We have listened to and reviewed the evidence presented regarding opening of the streets. We have reviewed the expert testimony of Kittelson and Associates which conducted a site specific Traffic Impact Analysis. We have considered opposition testimony regarding the study's accuracy and conclusions and find that the study fairly represents the facts regarding traffic volume and flow patterns which we believe presently exists and can reasonably be expected to exist upon the opening of the presently stubbed streets. Some of the confusion surrounding the January 1998 Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis, as amplified by Kittelson and Associates letters dated October 21, 1998 (addressed to Brian Rager, P.E. for the City of Tigard) and January 21, 1999 (addressed to Bill McMonagal), can be traced to a typographical error contained in Table 6, page 30 of the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis and Table 1 in the above mentioned October 21, 1998 letter. The tables contain confusing information in the tables' subheadings, under the heading "Location". The sub headings misstate the length of the streets used for measurement. The tables should have been titled to indicate the area of study ended at SW 100th Street instead of SW 98th, which is further east. The confusing information is in the 'Estimated Existing ADT' on SW Lady Marion Drive from SW Naeve Street to SW 98th Avenue and on SW Kable Street from SW Naeve to SW 98th Avenue. We recognize the existence of the mistake because SW Lady Marion Drive does not extend easterly beyond SW 100th. In addition, the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis contains the background data and statistics from which the tables were created. The correct measurement parameters are found in a document attached to the report entitled "Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E" (no page number). The "Redistribution Analysis" presents information on trip rates, pass through trips, direction of travel during A.M. and P.M hours for Sub Areas A through I. Those parameters of each Sub Area are identified on "Redistribution Sub Areas" Map E-2 also attached to the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis. The information indicates that statistics for Sub Areas D, E and F represent measurements SUB 98.00001POR 98-0010/VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 25 OF 33 ;MJ from SW Naeve to SW 100th Street for both SW Lady Marion and SW Kable. Sub Areas H and I measured traffic presently using SW Kable east of SW 100th to SW 98th and beyond. The present primary course of vehicle travel is north and south on SW 100th and east and west on SW Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th. The opening of SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, by development of the proposed subdivision, further to the west of SW 100th than they are at present, will allow some traffic presently forced to use SW Kable Street between SW 100th and SW 98th to reach a collector or arterial, to turn west onto either SW Kable Street or SW Lady Marion Drive from SW 100th and thereby avoid what to some may be a more circuitous route. The reverse of this scenario is likewise true for return trips which retrace the above described travel patterns. The "Redistribution Analysis" indicates the varying number of vehicular trips to be expected on each section of existing streets once those stub streets are opened and what portion of traffic presently using SW 100th and SW.Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th will alter its course to take advantage of the new connectivity allowed by completion of SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Hoodview Drive. The redistribution analysis reflects expected traffic counts resulting from alteration of traffic patterns. Those traffic counts, after completion of all anticipated street improvements, indicate that none of the subject streets will exceed their local street design capacity of 1500 trips per day. The City finds that the expected traffic volumes established in the "Redistribution Analysis and Map E accurately reflect the expected results of extending the subject streets and drives. The City Council concludes, as does the Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Analysis, that: "The proposed new connections on SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, and SW Kable Street will not increase average daily traffic volumes on these local neighborhood streets above the City of Tigard standard for that functional classification". Traffic Impact Analysis, page 32. The City Council recognizes that the unamended portion of Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis was originally conducted to support applicant's request for a zone change. It contains information about development at present zoning and at the higher density originally requested by applicant, but denied by the City of Tigard. The conclusions reached in the 'Analysis', to the extent that they speak to higher density development are. determined to be relevant for the lesser dense development presently before the City for approval. If the traffic created by a higher density development meets City standards then a lesser amount of traffic will also meet City standards. This conclusion is further supported by additional information submitted by Kittelson and Associates. In summary, the Erickson Heights Subdivision development will not impact the surrounding major intersections to a degree that required intersection improvements. The local residential streets that will be extended into and through the site will experience increased traffic and associated safety problems but not beyond the limits of the local street standards with the exception of Kable Street east of the project site. SW Royalty Parkway This roadway is classified as a minor collector street on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The majority of this roadway was constructed as a part of the Arbor Heights apartment project SUB 98.0009/P DR 98.0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 26 OF 33 to the west. There is a portion of the roadway adjacent to this site that is not fully improved. The right-of-way (ROW) requirement for this roadway is 60 feet. The applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW adjacent to this site to, and is improved in this area, with the exception of sidewalk and street trees on the eastern side. The applicant will be required to widen the pavement section to provide 20 feet from centerline, construct a concrete sidewalk and plant street trees adjacent to the site frontage. The applicant's narrative indicates they will provide these improvements as a part of this project. SW Lady Marion Drive: This roadway is a local residential street and is described on the City's Transportation Plan Map as a "local street connection" between SW 100' Avenue and SW Royalty Parkway. The map is somewhat confusing because the roadway is given a purple color on the map that corresponds with a minor collector. The existing portions of SW Lady Marion Drive, east of this site, are not constructed to a minor collector standard. The ROW width is 50 feet and the paved width is 32 feet, which matches the City's local residential street standard. It would appear that the text portion of the map would govern in this case and, therefore, the roadway should be considered a local residential street. As was stated previously, the expected traffic volumes on this street, after this project is constructed and occupied, is less than the maximum limit for a local street. The applicant proposes to construct the new portion of SW Lady Marion Drive to match the existing improvements with a 50-foot ROW and a 32-foot paved width. This is acceptable to Staff. SW Hoodview Street: As was stated above, SW Hoodview Street is classified as a local residential street. The applicant proposes to match the paved widths of the existing street east of this site (32 feet curb-to-curb). The ROW Width proposed is 46 feet, which is acceptable because the applicant proposes to locate the street trees within a 10-foot-wide public utility easement. SW Kable Street: SW Kable Street is a local residential street that serves the residential area east of this site. The roadway would provide a continuous connection between this site and SW 98th Avenue. The roadway is constructed inside a 50-foot ROW, with a curb-to-curb width of 32 feet, but there are no sidewalks on either side of the street between this site and SW 100th Avenue. Evidence has been presented from the residents who live on SW Kable Street, who indicate that there is a high volume of pedestrians who use the street, most of which are school-age children who walk back and forth to the elementary and middle schools located on SW 97th Avenue. Because there is no usable area outside the curbs, pedestrians must use the street to walk and jog. Staff has visited this site and SW Kable Street on a number of occasions and was able to verify that there is a well worn path through the subject site where pedestrians cut through to get to SW Kable Street. Pedestrians walk easterly on SW Kable Street to SW 98th Avenue, where there is a designated pedestrian path adjacent to the east side of the road. From there, the pedestrians can walk northerly to SW Murdock Street, where there is a sidewalk that can take them to SW 97th Avenue and the schools. The Council agrees with the residents on SW Kable Street that pedestrian safety will be compromised once more vehicle traffic is introduced to this street as a result of the SW Kable SUB 98-0009/POR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 27 OF 33 Street connection to SW Royalty Parkway. The applicant's traffic study supports the conclusion that the traffic increase on SW Kable Street is directly attributable to traffic from this development and new through trips that will result from the street opening. The Council finds that as a result of this development a pedestrian safety problem will exist on Kable Street east of the development. Because of this, the applicant's proposed design and layout does trigger need for sidewalks and speed humps. The Council concurs with the resident's concerns and concludes that the applicant must either make off-site sidewalk improvements to mitigate this safety problem or wait to develop the project until the sidewalk is in place. The applicant must also install speed humps along SW Kable Street within the development site and east of the development site. This PUD must comply with the Comprehensive Plan and not adversely affect the safety of the community. TMC 18.10.010, 18.32.250. The transportation system . standards in the TMC implement and must be construed in light of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policies. TMC 18.10.010. Policies 8. 1.1 and 8.1.3 require that the City plan for a safe street system and developers commit to the improvement of existing streets to the extent of the development's impact. The Council cannot approve this development and allow construction until the sidewalk is in place due to the adverse affect on the community and safety degradation that will occur as a result of this development. TMC 18.10.010, 18.32.250. Because the project is designed in a way that will provide a straight connection to Royalty Parkway, the traffic volumes on Kable Street are higher than would result if a different street layout were proposed. This street configuration is the result of the developer's choice to maximize the number of buildable lots in the development. Since there is adequate ROW on SW Kable Street to accommodate the sidewalk, the applicant will not need to acquire any additional property. There are topographic constraints on the north side of the roadway with existing retaining walls and steep driveways, but the south side appears to be very feasible. SW Kable Street is approximately 1,280 feet in length from this site to SW 100th Avenue. The estimated cost for the applicant to construct a sidewalk improvement for this distance is approximately $30,000. The Council finds that the unmitigated impact from this development is well above this amount, and therefore warrants the off-site sidewalk improvement requirement in lieu of a denial of the project due to safety concerns. The Council has the authority to impose such a condition. TMC 18.32.250 A, E. The applicant's plan for the new portion of SW Kable Street calls for a 28-foot wide paved section within a 46-foot ROW. The development code allows for a narrower, 28-foot wide width on a local street when the average daily traffic is expected to be less than 500 cars per day [18.164.030(E)]. However, the applicant's traffic analysis shows that the expected volumes on SW Kable Street will be over 500 cars per day. Therefore, Staff finds that the new portion of SW Kable Street should be constructed at the standard width of 32 feet curb-to- curb. A ROW width of 46 feet could be used; however, because the street trees could be located within the wider, 10-foot public utility easement. SW Naeve Street: This roadway is also classified as a local residential street, and was constructed south of this site with a paved width of 32 feet and a ROW width of 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to continue the 50-foot ROW and 32-foot paved widths up to SW Kable Street, and then, as permitted by the Planned Development, reduce the ROW to 42 feet and the paved width to 28 feet from SW Kable Street to SW Lady Marion Drive. From the traffic analysis, it appears this roadway will carry less than 500 daily trips, therefore it can qualify for a narrower, 28-foot paved width [TDC 18.164.030(E)]. SUB 98-00W/PDR 98.00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 28 OF 33 Grade Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to the City's grade standard in 18.164.030(M), which states that grades shall not exceed 12 percent, except local streets can have sections of 250 feet that can be upwards of 15 percent. There are two north/south streets in this project that will be difficult to be constructed to meet this standard: SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The existing north/south topography of this site exceeds 17 percent. The applicant's engineer has attempted to lay the streets out to meet City standards, but found that excessive cuts of up to 30 feet would be required in order to meet the standard: With cuts that severe, the streets would not practically serve the lots that would be platted adjacent to them. The applicant also indicates that their geotechnical report shows that there is a significant amount of rock on this site at fairly shallow depths. Therefore, the more cutting that is required, the more difficult the construction will be. If a developer must excavate through rock, the construction methods can also be disturbing to surrounding property owners because of vibrations. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the City's standard to allow these streets to be designed and constructed with a grade not to exceed 17 percent. Staff is of the opinion that the variance should be granted, but must note that the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), Section 902.2.2.6, states that the maximum grade on a street is to be 15 percent. If a variance is granted to the grade standard, the UFC recommends that any buildings served by that street be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (UFC 902.2.1, Exception 1). Staff concurs with the UFC standard and would therefore recommend that all houses served by SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, be protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Based upon the findings above, with the added condition for fire sprinkler systems, Staff finds that the variance request is reasonable in this case and that it should be granted. Water: This site will be served from the City's public water system that exists in the existing streets adjacent to this site. The applicant has proposed extensions of the main lines in all of the streets that stub into this site and is providing looped connections that will result in a more efficient water supply system. The Public Works Department has reviewed this application and submitted comments related to the water system. Public Works indicates that there are two pressure zones near this site: the 550-foot zone and the 410-foot zone. Public Works states that all lots within this development are to be served from the 550-foot zone. They indicate that the applicant should interconnect the 8-inch water line in SW Naeve Street to the existing main line in SW Kable Street. Also, the new water line in the new portion of SW Kable c Street must be interconnected to the existing 12-inch main line in SW Royalty Parkway. The 12-inch line in SW Royalty Parkway may have to be extended further south to the proposed intersection of Kable Lane in order for this connection to be made. Sanitary Sewer: a There are existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer lines in SW Lady Marion Drive and SW Naeve Street that the applicant is proposing to extend into this site for service. Both main lines are adequately sized to handle the additional sewage flows from this development. The applicant's engineer spoke with Staff recently about the preliminary sewer line layout for this project. The preliminary plan may not work due to the high concentration of rock on the SUB 984X)09/PDR 98-00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 29 OF 33 site and the difficulty in excavating deep sewer trenches. For this reason, the applicant's engineer may propose an alternate alignment for the new sewer lines that would place the lines in back yards of some of the new lots. The City Council finds, based on city staff representation, that it is feasible to provide sanitary sewer to the site and that this issue can be handled as a part of the construction plan review process. There are location criteria that Staff would require the applicant to meet in order to ensure adequate access for City maintenance personnel. The applicant's plan does not provide a public sanitary sewer stubouts to Tax Lots 00201 and 00202, which is an undeveloped parcel uphill of this site. TDC 18.164.090 states that a sanitary sewer layout shall consider adjacent properties and make provisions for serving the immediate drainage basin. Storm Drainage: The site falls primarily to the south. There are existing storm drainage lines in SW Hoodview Street, SW Kable Street, SW Lady-Marion Drive and SW Naeve Street. The applicant was required to submit a downstream analysis as a part of their subdivision application. The applicant's engineer submitted calculations that were submitted to the City during the development of the Summerfield project to the south. These calculations included the storm line and inlet structure on SW 109th Avenue at SW Naeve Street where the applicant is proposing to direct his storm water. The calculations were based on the required 25-year design storm and took into account the area (undeveloped at that time) north of SW Naeve Street. When the Arbor Heights apartment project was developed, an up-to-date downstream analysis was conducted by W&H Pacific, dated April 10, 1996. That analysis studied the existing storm system downstream of the inlet structure at SW 109th Avenue and SW Naeve Street. The study assumed a total drainage area of approximately 77 acres, which included the subject site. W&H Pacific found that the existing drainage system was more than adequate to handle the development of the upstream properties. Based on the applicant's materials and the downstream analysis for the Arbor Heights project, Staff finds that the existing public storm drainage system is adequately sized to handle the additional flows from this site and there is no need to require on-site detention. The applicant's plan does not show public storm drainage stubouts to the adjacent Tax Lots 00201 and 00202. The plan will need to be revised to show that these adjacent sites can be served from the public storm drainage lines that will be provided in this development. i J Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by { the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of th6 storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. SUB 98-0009/POR 98-00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 30 OF 33 The applicant is proposing to provide two on-site water quality ponds to handle the additional storm water from this site. Preliminary sizing calculations indicate that the proposed ponds will adequately serve this site. The applicant must provide maintenance access roadways, meeting City standards, to each of these facilities from the public street system. The access roadways must be a part of the tract containing the facility and shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting these facilities as public facilities, the developer shall maintain them for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The ponds shall be placed in tracts and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facilities for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facilities and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facilities. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facilities unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. This site lies within the Urban Services Area that is covered by the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Washington County. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 31 OF 33 This application is for preliminary plat approval for a 64-lot single-family attached Planned Development. The site is located south of SW Barrows Road and east of and adjacent to SW Menlor Lane (WCTM 2S1 05DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS have not been met. The standards can be met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval summarized at the beginning of this report. Staff finds it is feasible for all of the conditions to be met. If the conditions are met, staff can determine that the standards have been met and approval can be granted. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: 1) No parking signs and curb markings on one side of SW Forrest Place, SW Naeve Street and SW Kable Street; 2) Demolition permit for house and structures; 3) Provide geotechnical review of the two 4-5 foot rock walls surcharging existing lower two walls; Compaction reports for all fill existing and now; 4) Rock walls exceeding 4 feet shall be engineered or built to design standards of American Rockery Association; 5) Perf pipe behind rockery CAN NOT be used for storm drainage system from roof, underfloor, etc. Tight pipe storm system to swell; 6) Provide compaction report for fill on lots 1-10; 7) Lots 34 and 35 need storm drain lateral; 8) Provide fire hydrant flow test; and 9) Separation of fire hydrant exceeds 500 feet. Provide additional fire hydrant at the SW Hoodview Drive intersection. Relocate SW Forrest Drive fire hydrant to mid point of SW Kable Street. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The existing 8-inch water main in SW Naeve Street to be connected to existing SW Kable Street (410 zone). All lots to be serviced from 550 zone. Water main within proposed SW Kable Street (west end) is to be looped (connected) to the existing 12-inch water main in SW Royalty Parkway. This may require the existing 12-inch to be extended further south to SW Kable Street. The City of Tigard Property. Manager/Operations Department and the City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered which have been incorporated into the body of this decision with the exception of comments regarding a "Sensitive Area". According to maps available at the USA offices, there is a sensitive area on the eastern side of SW 109th Avenue. a Staff Response: Staff went out to the site and it appears that the sensitive area was a drainage ditch which has since been culverted and filled. The property to the south of this property has an open ditch and a culvert feeds into it from the north. It is staffs assumption that the sensitive area mapped on the USA map no longer exists. Metro Area Communications, US West, Portland General Electric (PGE), TCI Cable, and 3 NW Natural Gas have also had the opportunity to review this application and have a offered no comments or objections. General Telephone has had an opportunity to review the proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to provide trenches and conduit per GTE specifications. Developer to pay for any relocation costs or replacements to facilities. ~ §UBDiVlSIOI~I rA ,MR-3 V_ ASt_ L SHAL!.§BE~Vi~'LID NLY~rIF`tw ,FIN/ry:t 01 . ~.A:+.S;rsSrr 7: .J 'Y.4vA p';.Q l...ta.+:nr.•L L,r.....,a. a.Zr ~„n a. •.:.ycIXrnw .ttR.>,w,n., •r.. ~i::at. SUB 98.0009IPDR 98-0010NAR 08-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 32 OF 33 4 , °iwwIB~ VL7, M~~Q~ I~y ~7 (D 7tMs +~sfu1N SECTION VII. CONCLUSION The City of Tigard City Council has APPROVED, subject to the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL contained within this staff report, Subdivision (SUB) 98-0009, Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0010, and Variance (VAR) 98-0010 - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. Q ~ 0 €D ~ d iskxuplnyuiia\sub\ericksonCCfinaW15-99.doc SU8 98-0009/PDR 98-00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 33 OF 33 << v AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF: April 20, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: City Council Review of Erickson Heights Subdivision (SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 np PREPARED BY: Julia Haj_duk ' Y DEPT HEAD OK 11110~'104 MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The City Council will take testimony on the findings only (no new evidence may be presented), as required by the development code when findings are prepared to another party. The Council may then adopt the findings as revised, supporting the approval with conditions of the Erickson Heights Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the findings from the Planning Commission staff report with the changes recommended by Staff and the revisions based on the public record by approving the attached Resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicant requested preliminary plat approval to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. The proposal also involved a request for a Variance to allow streets with a grade of up to 17 percent, whereas, the Code states that the maximum street grade is 15 percent. Staff recommended approval, with conditions of the proposed plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 2, 1998, and approved the proposal with some changes to the staff recommendation. Following the Planning Commission's Final Order No. 98-10PC, many neighbors of the subject site submitted letters and attended the City Council meeting requesting Council to call the matter up for further review. The Planning Commission's decision was called-up for review and a public hearing was scheduled for January 26, 1999. The Council held a public hearing on January 26, 1999, and moved to continue the hearing and decision. The continued hearing was held February 10, 1999. At this meeting, the City Council voted to tentatively approve the proposed subdivision with the understanding that the applicant would prepare findings addressing issues that were raised and discussed at the public hearing for City Council's final review and approval. The recommended findings are attached (Attachment 1). This document has the changes that Staff made to the findings based on discussions raised during the public hearing process. In addition, the document has portions of the additional findings provided by the applicant. While the applicant submitted addendum findings to the City for review, not all of the findings submitted were appropriate to be placed in the final report and were, therefore, omitted. Staff has attached the entire addendum findings (Attachment 2) provided by the applicant to this packet 4/20/99 City Council Agenda Item Page I oft ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION i:\cityw ide\sum\ericksonais04O999. sum for the Council to review. For the convenience of City Council, Staff has prepared a memo summarizing the changes to the findings. This memo is attached (Attachment 3.) The Tigard Development Code requires that when findings are prepared by an outside source, interested parties be given the opportunity to comment on the findings. The meeting of April 20, 1999 is to allow individuals the opportunity to comment on the findings. The public hearing is closed, therefore, no new testimony may be provided. The public will, however, have the opportunity to comment on the findings. Notice of this limited meeting was mailed to the property owners within 250 feet of the subject site, all parties that submitted verbal or written testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings and all other parties that requested to be notified. A copy of this notice is also attached (Attachment 4.) The time permitted for each individual to comment may be limited in time at the Council's discretion. The Council should then adopt the attached Resolution adopting the final order with the appropriate findings. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Modify the findings prior to final adoption. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A 4/20/99 City Council Agenda Item Page 2 of 2 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION i:\citywide\sum\ericksonais040999.sum RIENN ~:ACHMENT I A TT enly.0F, It ,S , bra d? . CI'11f COUWCIL t ' Cottrmunlty% ve pmenf f'FI0AL~01;®~I!~ ~®e _ ;Shcp~ng A eetter't . ...c Muni 120 DAYS 1/8/99 Extended to 2-28-99 and then granted an additional 3 week extension SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION Subdivision SUB 98-0009 Planned Development PDR 98-0010 Variance VAR 98-0010 PROPOSAL: The request is to build a 58 lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. The proposal also involves a request for a Variance to allow streets with a grade up to 17 percent, whereas the code states that the maximum street grade is 15 percent. APPLICANT: Renaissance Development Co. OWNER: Albert and Yerlene Erickson 1672 SW Willamette Falls Drive Partnership And Trust West Linn, Oregon 97068 1230 N. Grant Street Canby, Oregon. 97013 ENGINEER: Harris-McMonagle Associates 12555 SW Hail Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential; 1-5 units per acre. ZONING DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5 with Planned Development; PD Overlay. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Renaissance Heights Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview Subdivision and Marion Estates Subdivision. WCTM 2S11ODA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. APPLICABLE REVIEW i CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18.80, 18.88, a 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.138, 18.160 and 18.164. a SECTION 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 3 The City Council. voted at the ',2-10.99 City Council. ~ meeting to preliminarily approve :the. a proposal subject to certain conditions of approval. The ;findings andconclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. The City,Council adopted the findings and conditions; in this report at the Council meeting on ; SUB 98.0009lPDR 98-0010A/AR 08-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 33 s d. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AL:~. CONI~I NONS SjUL UBE SATISFI"kD PjRIOR'I'6a kki OR®1N`3 ~r ♦ i yy /r~ sC, u ✓,y{,~ ® T r,per h 4 J, . If '9Yf `TIHIE dI~O VO~'1~~I~IY~~ 1 4®~~ rf f ~f41 r! ri f1 + tir e r + tr~!t ~U r: r f,,.,,,~ t+r r 1 y. f jr. r r 1 ~gxSrr 1`y ,rt ,Y{1r.,a'~..;,f w vgl,ln6essrotherwe~e.~specified, ~o stiff contact fortall condi~Bor~sf'ia ; ' . Nth" 6I Engine®ring ID~partenan# a~ 603 639 ~~1 ~ 3rra~ l iitiis w s. 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, a public improvement permit and compliance agreement is required for this project. Five/six (5/6) sets of detailed public improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for preliminary review to the Engineering Department. (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements. Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design Standards, which are available at City Hall. 2. As a part of the public improvement plan submittal, the Engineering Department shall be provided with the exact legal name, address and telephone number of the individual or corporate entity who will be responsible for executing the compliance agreement (if one is required) and providing the financial assurance for the public improvements. For example, specify if the entity is a corporation, limited partnership, LLC, etc. Also specify the state within which the entity is incorporated and provide the name of the corporate contact person. Failure to provide accurate information to the Engineering Department will delay processing of project documents. 3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on site. No construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles include the vehicies of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project. 4. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated on SW Royalty Parkway to provide 30 feet from centerline. This dedication shall be made on the face of the final plat. 5. The following right-of-way widths are approved for this subdivision: SW Naeve Street (from south property line to SW Kable Street): 50 feet; SW Naeve Street (between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive): 42 feet; SW Kable Street: 43 feet; SW Forrest Drive : 42 feet; SW Hoodview Drive: 46 feet; SW Lady Marion Drive: 50 feet. 6. The applicant shall construct a half-street improvement along the frontage of SW Royalty Parkway. The improvements adjacent to this site shall include: A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet; B. pavement tapers needed to tie the new improvement back into the existing edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage; C. concrete curb, or curb and gutter as needed; SUB 98-M9/PDR 98.001 WAIN 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 2 OF 33 D. storm drainage, including any off-site storm drainage necessary to convey surface and/or subsurface runoff; E. 5-foot concrete sidewalk; F. street trees behind the sidewalk spaced per TDC requirements; G. street striping; H. streetlights as determined by the City Engineer; i. underground utilities; and J. street signs. 7. The following paved widths are approved within this project: SW Naeve Street (from south property line to SW Kable Street): 32 feet; SW Naeve Street (between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive): 28 feet; SW Kable Street: 32 feet; SW Forrest Drive Place: 28 feet; SW Hoodview Drive: 32 feet; SW Lady Marion Drive: 32 feet. 8. Full width street improvements, including traffic control devices, mailbox clusters, concrete sidewalks, driveway aprons, curbs, asphaltic concrete pavement, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, streetlights, and underground utilities shall be installed within the interior subdivision streets. Improvements shall be designed and constructed to local street standards. 9. Lots 1 and 58 shall not be permitted to access directly onto SW Royalty Parkway. 10. The applicant's construction plans shall include the construction of a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the south side of SW Kable Street, from the eastern site boundary to SW 100th Avenue. This work shall be completed by the applicant as a part of the project's public improvements. 11. SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive can be designed and constructed with a grade not to exceed 17 percent. 12. Any extension of public water lines shall be shown on the proposed public improvement construction drawings and shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Water Department, as a part of the Engineering Department plan review. NOTE: An estimated 12 percent of the water system costs must be on deposit with the Water Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans from the Engineering Department and construction of public water lines. 13. All lots within this subdivision are to be served from the City's 550-foot pressure zone. 14. The applicant shall provide a looped connection between the water line in SW Naeve Street and the existing water line in SW Kable Street. 15. The applicant shall provide a looped connection between the proposed new water line in SW Kable Street and the existing 12-inch public water line in SW Royalty Parkway. The applicant may need to extend the 12-inch water line southerly in SW Royalty Parkway to reach the proposed intersection of SW Kable Street. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 33 16. The public water system plan shall take into account that all houses lying adjacent to SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, will be protected by approved automatic fire sprinkler systems, unless otherwise permitted by the Uniform Fire Code. 17. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage details shall be provided as part of the public improvement plans. Calculations and a topographic map of the storm drainage basin and sanitary sewer service area shall be provided as a supplement to the public improvement plans. Calculations shall be based on full development of the serviceable area. The location and capacity of existing, proposed, and future lines shall be addressed. 18. The applicant shall provide sanitary and storm sewer laterals to the adjacent undeveloped properties to the west (Tax Lots 00201 and 00202) or to the east, based on agreement with applicant and staff, based on existing service and topography. 18a. The applicant shall revise the proposed storm drainage plan, specifically adjacent to lots 21, 22, 28 and 29 to avoid diagonal alignment across lot lines. 19. Final design plans and calculations for the proposed public water quality facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) as a part of the public improvement plans. Included with the plans shall be a proposed landscape plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed facilities shall be dedicated in tracts to the City of Tigard on the final plat. As a part of the improvement plans submittal, the applicant shall submit an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the proposed facilities for approval by the Maintenance Services Director. The developer shall maintain the facilities for a three-year period from the conditional acceptance of the public improvements. A written evaluation of the operation and maintenance shall be submitted and approved prior to acceptance for maintenance by the City. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facilities and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facilities. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facilities unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. 20. The applicant shall provide maintenance access roads to the facilities and any drainage structures within the facilities to accommodate City maintenance vehicles. The access roads shall be paved and a minimum of 15 feet wide. They shall also be contained within the tracts that encompass the facilities. 21. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings. The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans - Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994." 22. A final grading plan shall be submitted showing the existing and proposed contours. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots, and show that they will be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility SUB 98.00091PDR 98-0010NAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 33 approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 23. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report shall be incorporated into the final grading plan. A final construction supervision report shall be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. 24. The applicant shall obtain a 1200-C General Permit issued by the City of Tigard pursuant to ORS 468.740 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 25. The design engineer shall indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. 26. Final Plat Application Submission Requirements: A. Submit for City review three (3) paper copies of the final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative; B. The final plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards. set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard; C. The right-of-way dedications for all streets shall be made on the final plat; D. NOTE: Washington County will not begin their review of the final plat until they receive a letter from the City Engineering Department indicating: 1) that the City has reviewed the final plat and submitted comments to the applicant's surveyor, and 2) that the applicant has either completed any public improvements associated with the project, or has at least obtained the necessary public improvement permit from the City to complete the work; and E. Once the City and County have reviewed the final plat, submit two mylar copies of the final plat for City Engineer': signature. 27. Submit a street plan that shows the proposed street trees will meet the tree spacing standards. 28. Confirm the size of the development site and, if necessary, adjust the number of lots accordingly. PRIOR,TO THE."'ISSUANCE 01=,RUILD1 G P!ERMI TS, THE 1=0LL!6vi nNIG +C4NDdT10NS §HALL EE.-.`&, -`(Unless otherwise no(ed, the staff contact=sihall be~Bnan.Ragerf , 'wig the Engeneenng'Depautmentrat 5t13-63J=417x'd SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 33 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a recorded mylar copy of the subdivision/partition plat. 30. Prior to issuance of an building permits within the subdivision, the public improvements shall be deemed substantially complete by the City Engineer. Substantial completion shall be when: 1) all utilities are installed and inspected for compliance, including franchise utilities; 2 all local residential streets have at least one lift of asphalt; 3)) any off- site street and/or utility improvements are completely finished; and 4) all street lights are installed and ready to be energized. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits for lots lying ad* cent to SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street and_ SW Lady Marion Drive, the builders shall indicate on the house plans that each house will be protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. The sprinkler system shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division. ""PR IOR`TO'T6 E ISr UANGE OF'OC1Ct1PA,PICY iPERMITS Tt E ' f 4 F',~`~ 3 r Iv~ i:r P1+.n e r - ~ Gvs^,f wA. t. '~^x a- aernn r~ 9 r 3 .7t Si s 1'i` Lim. x: a®LL.`®~I~PIB+fiCICif~NDlTi®f,1.SWAALI e Jt3E SA'TiSP1ED ,r r rrw ' t` . { d ) f r rw n r: a• tj¢n r s ax I 1 u f: ar ~ yY~ ? t ra ~ f.,~F~ll~nless,otherwn~'~,note'~~t~e.;~~aff~,~ontactis~~~~IIYL#A~P04~f~~A`JD~IJ~'~~,{~}' - r .,vintlh i<h~ I?lannmg 13evisoon at 503-639-~17~1 . =.~y . . .r... 't e r.' 34. All site improvements shall be installed as per the approved plans. {IPl A®®ITI®N, i.HE'APPI_1C NT S~-I0 , LD,;BE ~►1N ►RE~O~-°fFIE I FOLLO~i'ING,SIrCTIONS OF THE COIiAIV UNI'I7. DEVEU0PMEN ' COfaE "'-HIS 15 NOTSAN E; pp IVE~L.IS1' 18.160.170 Improvement Agreement: Before City approval is certified on the final plat, and before approved construction plans are issued by the City, the Subdivider shall: 1. Execute and file an agreement with the City Engineer specifying the period within which all required improvements and repairs shall be completed; and 2. Include in the agreement provisions that if such work is not completed within the period specified, the City may complete the work and recover the full cost and expenses from the subdivider. The agreement shall stipulate improvement fees and deposits as may be required to be paid and may also provide for the construction of the improvements in stages and for the extension of time under specific conditions therein stated in the contract. 18.160.180 Bond: As required by Section 18.160.170, the subdivider shall file with the agreement an assurance of performance supported by one of the following: 1. An irrevocable letter of credit executed by a financial institution authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon; SUB 98.00091PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 6 OF 33 milli 1111M 1111111M 1110111111M =====j 2. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon which remains in force until the surety company is notified by the City in writirig that it may be terminated; or 3. Cash. The subdivider shall furnish to the City Engineer an itemized improvement estimate, certified by a registered civil engineer, to assist the City Engineer in calculating the amount of the performance assurance. The subdivider shall not cause termination of nor allow expiration of said guarantee without having first secured written authorization from the City. 18.160.190 Filing and Recording: Within 60 days of the City review and approval, the applicant shall submit the final plat to the County for signatures of County officials as required by ORS Chapter 92. Upon final recording with the County, the applicant shall submit to the City a mylar copy of the recorded final slat. 18.162.080 Final Plat Application Submission Reguirements: Three (3) copies of the subdivision plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to practice in Oregon, and necessary data or narrative. The subdivision plat and data or narrative shall be drawn to the minimum standards set forth by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 92.05), Washington County, and by the City of Tigard. STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: Centerline Monumentation In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 92.060, subsection (2), the centerline of all street and roadway rights-of-way shall be monumented before the City accepts a street improvement. The following centerline monuments shall be set: 1. All centerline-centerline intersection points; 2. All cul-de-sac center points; and 3.. Curve points, beginning and ending points (PC's and PT's). All centerline monuments shall be set during the first lift of pavement. Monument Boxes Required Monument boxes conforming to City standards will be required around all centerline intersection points, cul-de-sac center points, and curve points. SUB 98-0009/l 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 7OF33 The tops of all monument boxes shall be set to finished pavement grade. 18.164 Street & Utility Improvement Standards: 18.164.120 Utilities All utility lines including, but not limited to those required for electric, communication, lighting and cable television services and related facilities shall be planed underground, except for surface- mounted transformers, surface-mounted connection boxes, and meter cabinets which may be placed above ground, temporary utility service facilities during construction, and high capacity electric lines operating at 50,000 volts or above. 18.164.130 Cash or Bond Required All improvements installed by the subdivider shall be guaranteed as to workmanship and material for a period of one year following acceptance by the City. Such guarantee shall be secured by cash deposit or bond in the amount of the value of the improvements as set by the City Engineer. The cash or bond shall comply with the terms and conditions of Section 18.160.180. 18.164.150 Installation: Prerequisite/Permit Fee No land division improvements, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, streets, sidewalks, curbs, lighting or other requirements shall be undertaken except after the plans therefor have been approved by the City, permit fee paid and permit issued. 18.164.180 Notice to City Required Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance. If work is discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City is notified. 18.164.200 Engineer's Certification Required I The land divider's engineer shall provide written certification of a form provided by the City that { all improvements, workmanship and materials are in accord with current and standard ' engineering and construction practices, and are of high grade, prior to the City acceptance of the subdivision's improvements or any portion thereof for operation and maintenance. THIS APPROVALSAALLBEV/ALID Fglk 1$1 IUIDNTHS FROM THE-EFFECTIVE-DATE-OF---.THIS : FINAL ORDER.- SUB 98-00091PDR 98-0010AIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 8 OF 33 SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: This site was a Washington County registered Wood Lot. Registered wood lots are exempt from the tree removal standards. The property owners previously obtained permits from the Department of Forestry to log the property. Questions were raised about whether City permits were required to log this property. The Community Development Director made an interpretation that the logging of the site was a material change and thus, Site Development Review was required. The property owners appealed this interpretation and the decision was overturned. The applicant obtained a Site Work permit (SIT 97-0040) from the Building Division to log the property. The applicants came to the Planning Commission in June 1998 to request a zone change (ZON 98-0001/PDR98-0002) from R-3.5 to R-4.5. The zone change request was denied, but the Planning commission did vote to approve the Planned Development Overlay on this site which will allow a planned development. The site size mentioned in the zone change request was 16.02 acres. The site size in this request is 16.41 acres. Staff is uncertain where this additional property came from as the lots included in this proposal are the same as those included in the zone change proposal. Staff recommends a condition be attached which requires the applicant to confirm the site size and, if necessary, adjust the number of lots accordingly. A revision resulting in fewer lots due to confirmed site size density requirements will still be in substantial conformity to the approved plan. Vicinity Information: The site abuts SW Royalty Parkway, SW 109th Avenue, a small acreage with a single-family home and an undeveloped parcel on the western boundary. The Renaissance Summit Subdivision and 3 undeveloped parcels abut the southern boundary of the site. The eastern boundary abuts the Hoodview Subdivision, the Hoodview No. 2 Subdivision and the Marion Estates Subdivision. The Canterbury' Woods Condominiums adjoin the northern boundary. The subdivisions and tracts to the south and east of the site are zoned R-3.5. The apartment tracts to the north of the site and west of SW Royalty Parkway and SW 109th Avenue are zoned R-12. Site Information and Proposal Description: The property is 16.02 acres. There is a slope from north to south with an average grade of 13.5 percent. There are no significant natural features such as wetlands, waterways or significant drainage ways, historical features or cultural features identified on the site. The site has a "Developing Area" designation on the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is for a 58 lot planned development subdivision. Council Considerations This matter came before the Tigard City Council on its own motion for public hearing on December 8, 1998 and at the request of applicant the public hearing was continued until January 26, 1999 in hopes of resolving issues with the neighbors. On vote of the City Council the public hearing was again continued until February 10, 1998, to allow additional opportunity for public input and finding common ground between the neighbors. Notice setting forth the nature of the request, applicable standards and time and place of the hearing was issued SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010AIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMStON PAGE 9 OF 33 pursuant to City of Tigard standards. A copy of said notice and date of issuance is by this reference incorporated herein. The Council interprets City of Tigard codes and ordinances governing land use hearing notice and specifically finds that the issued notice meets the appropriate standards. Opposition testimony was presented by individuals and representatives of neighbors surrounding the development site. The opposition was primarily focused at keeping increased vehicular traffic from the particular street upon which each opponent's home was located. The opponents living on SW Lady Marion Drive did not want that street's "Stub" removed and the Drive extended due to their opposition to increased traffic along SW Lady Marion Drive. Likewise the people concerned about SW Kable Street and SW Hoodview Drive opposed extension of those stubbed streets into the subject property for the same reason the SW Lady Marion Drive people opposed extension i.e. increased traffic. The concerns about opening SW Naeve were also addressed by the neighbors. A compromise design for the subdivision street layout agreeable to the neighbors was sought by the City and Applicant. The solutions proposed by the neighborhood, however, were inconsistent amongst themselves with no apparent basis for agreeing to a common proposal which met City Code, including providing sufficient connectivity of public streets. The City Council weighed the various concerns stated and selected what appeared to it to be the best option. That being the option supported by the City Planning Staff to the extent that support differed from the City of Tigard Planning Commission decision under review. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Impact Study: Section 18.32.050 states that the applicant shall provide an impact study to quantify the effect of development on public facilities and services. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standard, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with a requirement for public right-of-way dedication, or provide evidence that supports that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. Section 18.32.250 states that when a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. Any required transportation system improvements and the Washington County Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) are mitigation measures intended to minimize the impact this development will have on the transportation system. Based on a transportation impact study prepared by Mr. David Larson for the A-Boy Expansion/Dolan II/Resolution 95-61, incorporated by this reference in this record, TIF's are expected to recapture 32 percent of the traffic impact of new development on the collector and arterial street system. The report does not address the additional unmitigated impact development has on the local street system, but the Council finds that the applicant's traffic study establishes that this development will impact the surrounding local street system. Presently, the TIF for each trip that is generated is $189. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010AIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 33 The total TIF for an attached, single-family dwelling is $1,899. The applicant did not present substantial evidence that undermined the credibility of the Larson study as applied to this application. The applicant is being required to construct half-street improvements along SW Royalty Parkway, a minor collector. The Engineering Department has estimated the cost of half-street improvements to be approximately $200 per lineal foot. Assuming a cost of $200 per linear foot, it is estimated that the total cost of the half-street improvements for SW Royalty Parkway is $38,000 (190 feet x $200). That estimate is not contested by the applicant. Upon completion of this development, the future builders of the residences will be required to pay TIF's of approximately $110,142 ($1,899 x 58 dwelling units). Based on the Larson study conclusion that total TIF fees cover 32 percent of the impact on major street improvements citywide, a fee that would cover 100 percent of this project's traffic impact is $345,740 ($110,142 divided by .32). The difference between the TIF paid and the full impact, is considered the minimum unmitigated impact this development has on the transportation system. Since the TIF paid is $110,142, the minimum unmitigated impact is $235,598. All streets within the development are local streets intended to serve the subdivision. Because the streets are needed to serve the development and to meet the standards of the code, they are directly required to meet the impact of this development. In addition, the applicant has concurred with the construction on SW Royalty Parkway as well as the streets intended to serve the development. As will be discussed further in this report, staff is recommending and the Council agrees that the applicant be required to construct a sidewalk along the south side of SW Kable Street from the eastern site boundary to SW 100th Avenue, due to the impact on pedestrian and traffic safety on SW Kable Street, resulting from the development. Engineering staff has estimated the costs of these improvements will be approximately $30,000, the applicant estimates the cost to be $70,000, both figures being much less than the unmitigated impacts of $235,598 and the improvement requirements. Therefore, the transportation system improvements required for this development are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from this development." More discussion on the requirement to install sidewalks is provided under the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section of this report. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL STANDARDS Subdivision Design: Section 18.160.060(A) contains standards for subdivision of parcels into four or more lots. To be approved, a preliminary plat must comply with the following criteria: The proposal must comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances and regulations. As will be discussed further in this report under APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS, the proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan Map's Low Density Residential opportunity for the site, as well as, with the applicable policies and regulations of the R-3.5 zone and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Tigard Development Code. SUB 98-0009JPDR 98.OOIOAIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 33 MENEM KIM The proposed plat name must not be duplicative and must otherwise satisfy the provisions of ORS Chapter 92. The applicant has provided evidence of the subdivision name reservation from Washington County. Streets and roads must be laid out so as to conform to the plats of subdivisions and maps of partitions or subdivisions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction and in all other respects unless the City determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern. The street layout extends streets stubbed to this property through the development site. Street and connectivity standards are discussed in more detail further in this report. An explanation has been provided for ail common improvements. The applicant has provided an explanation for all common improvements including the provision for public services such as sewer, water, drainage and street improvements. Therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. The improvements are discussed in detail and conditions applied, if necessary, further in this report. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision plat approval standards have either been met outright, do not apply or are discussed and conditioned in further sections of this report. APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Dimensional Requirements and Development Standards (Section 18.48): Section 18.48 states that the minimum lot area for each single-family lot in the R-3.5 zoning district is 10,000 square feet and the minimum lot width requirement is 65 feet for detached units and 90 feet for duplex units. The following dimensional requirements must be met: Minimum lot size 10,000 Square Feet Average lot width 65 Feet/90 feet Front setback 20 Feet Garage setback 20 Feet Interior side yard setback 5 Feet Corner side yard setback 20 Feet Rear setback 15 Feet Maximum building height 30 Feet While the dimensional standards apply to the R-3.5 zone, the applicant has applied for Planned Development approval which allows for smaller lot sizes provided the overall development does not exceed the density allowed. The smallest lot is 6,917 square feet and the largest lot is 14,784 square feet. The majority of lots less than 10,000 square feet are on the interior of the project and along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to R-12 zoned property. The lots adjacent to existing R-3.5 developed lots are over 10,000 square feet with the exception of lots 14-17 and lot 36. SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-0010A/AR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 33 1111111M11V11 IMIN11i In accordance with the Planned Development standards, the front and rear yard setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as required in the base zone. For interior lots, the side yard setback does not apply, and the front and rear yard setbacks shall not apply except a minimum 20-foot setback is required for any garage structure facing a street or a minimum front yard of 8 feet for any garage opening for an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street, provided required off-street parking is met. The lots are large enough and of sufficient dimension to support the conclusion that it is feasible that'the houses placed in the perimeter lots can meet the required setbacks. Each lot will be reviewed during the building permit phase to insure compliance with the applicable Uniform Building Code setbacks. FINDING: Because the Planned Development will allow flexibility in lot sizes, and building review for perimeter lots will insure the required setbacks are met, the dimensional requirements standard has been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Citizen Input: Policy 2.1.1 provides the City will assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning and development review process. Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because a neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant on July 1, 1997. Notice of the public hearing was provided to owners of property within 250 feet, posted at each street stub into the proposed development and published in a newspaper of general circulation. Housing Needs: Policy 6.1.1 states that the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. Policy 6. 1.1 is satisfied because it continues to allow for low density residential development. FINDING: The proposal has satisfied the applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Solar Access - Section 18.88.040 states that the solar access design standard shall apply to applications for a development to create lots in R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5, and R-7 zones and to create lots for single-family detached and duplex dwellings in all other residential zones. Section 18.88.040(C)(1) contains solar access standards for new residential development. A lot meets the basic solar access lot standard if it has a north-south dimension of 90 feet or more and has a front lot line that is oriented within 30 degrees of a true east-west axis. A subdivision complies with the basic requirement if 80% or more of the newly created parcels meet this standard. The applicant has stated that lots 11-23, 26-33 and 46-53 should not be included in the required percent, stating that it meets criteria 1 for the Adjustment to Design Standards. Criteria 1 is adverse impact on density and cost or amenities. Staff concurs based on the analysis provided in the narrative. FINDING: Because adjustments to the design standard warrants a reduction in the percent of lots that must comply with the solar access basic design standard and because lots 1-10, 24-25, 34-45 and 54-58 meet the basic design standard, this has been satisfied. SUB 98-M9/PDR 98-00101VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 13 OF 33 IN -0 f; Densi : Section 18.92.020 contains standards for determining the permitted project density. The number of allowable dwelling units is based on the net development area. The net area is the remaining area, excluding sensitive lands, land dedicated for public roads or parks, or for private roadways. The net area is then divided by the minimum parcel size permitted by the zoning district to determine the number of lots which may be created on a site. The gross area of the site is 16.41 acres (714,856 square feet). The net developable area of the site, after deduction of 134,147 square feet for public right-of-way is 13.33 acres (580,709 square feet). With a minimum of 10,000 square feet per lot, this site yields an opportunity for up to 58 lots under the R-3.5 zoning designation. The applicant has proposed a 58 lot subdivision. FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the plan meets the density of the site. Landscaping and screening (Section 18.1001 Landscaping: Section 18.100 contains landscaping standards for new development The applicant must comply with the standards set forth in Section 18.100.035 which requires that all development projects fronting on a public or private street, or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length plant street trees. Section 18.100.035(B) states the specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: 1. Small or narrow stature trees (under 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 20 feet apart; 2. Medium sized trees (25 feet to 40 feet tall, 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 30 feet apart; 3. Large trees (over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching) shall be spaced no greater than 40 feet apart. The typical street section and the narrative indicates street trees will be planted, however, the plans do not show the size or spacing so staff can not determine that this standard has been met. Because this requirement has specific type and spacing requirements, and sufficient street right of way and easement areas are provided, it is feasible for the applicant to meet this standard by simply providing a plan that shows the type of tree to be planted with the required spacing. This should be required as a condition of approval. Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix indicates that where detached single-family abuts detached single-family structures, there is no required buffer and screening. This criteria is satisfied as buffering and screening is not required where single-family residential development abuts single-family residential development. FINDING: Because the type and spacing of trees has not been provided, staff can not determine if the standards have been met. If the applicant submits a street plan that shows the proposed trees will meet the tree spacing standards, the criteria will be met. SUB 98-00091P DR 98-001ONAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 14 OF 33 1111111 1111111110MOMMI I NIMBI I N ~J CONDITION: Submit a street plan that shows the proposed trees will meet the tree bpac?nry standards. Visual Clearance Areas (Section 18.102): Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a 30-foot distance along the street right-of-moray and the driveway and then connecting these two 30-foot distance points with a straight line. A clear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, signs, or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three feet in height. The height is measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed. This standard will be reviewed at time of development for individual lots. FINDING: Because the review of individual lots will insure vision clearance standards are met, this is not applicable at this time. Off Street Parking (Section 18.106): Section 18.106.030.(A) states that each lot is required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces. Review for compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during building permit review for the individual lots. Access. Egress and Circulation (Section 18.108.070.A): This Section states that the minimum driveway required for each lot shall be 15' feet with 10 feet of pavement width. Section 18.108.070.A states that the minimum access -width shall be 25 feet and the minimum pavement width shall be 20 feet for private streets serving between 3-6 lots. Compliance with individual lot driveway widths shall be reviewed at the time of building permit Plan Check. Emergency vehicle turnaround: Section 18.108.070.0. states that access drives in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus by a hammerhead configured, paved surface with each leg of the hammerhead having a minimum depth of 40 feet and a minimum width of 20 feet. There are no streets or access drives in excess of 150 feet that do riot provide through circulation at this time. The streets are discussed in more detail under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS and Variance Criteria. FINDING: Staff finds that, as proposed, the Access, Egress and Circulation standards have been met. Additional review well be required at time of budding permits to insure that individual driveways are in compliance. Tree Removal (Chapter 18.150): Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a subdivision application. The tree plan shall include identification of all existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program defining SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 15 OF 33 standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. This property was a Washington county registered tree lot and received commercial logging permits from the Department of Forestry in 1997. Registered wood lots are exempt from the tree removal standards. Because all trees on the site aretwere permitted to be removed in accordance with registered wood lots, this standard does not apply. FINDING: Because the site has been logged in accordance with the forestry permit process, the tree removal standards do not apply. Subdivision Variance - Maximum street grades: Community Development Code Section 18.160.120 provides standards or granting a variance as indicated in "bold" print below: The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum street grade standards to allow grades of up -to 17 percent on SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The applicant states this is needed to meet connectivity, block size and block length standards. They state that the streets would require cuts of over 30 feet to meet the grade standards of Section 18.163.M. The review of the variance request is discussed below. ((VOTE: The PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS Section of this report will address the streets in detail). There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property which are unusual and peculiar to the land as compared to other lands similarly situated. The applicant states, "Existing street patterns and concerns for connectivity dictated the placement of 6 access points into the property. With these points established, the proposed street pattern then had to respond to standards for block size and block length, which in turn dictated the use of two streets that will run perpendicular to the slope of the site. Because of the steep grades on the site, SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive would have to be cut into the ground at least 30 feet to meet the grade standards, making the streets impractical to build and use. This situation is unusual and peculiar to this particular site, and a variance is required to remedy this development challenge." . Staff concurs with the applicant's statement on this criteria. The variance is necessary for the proper design or function of the subdivision. The applicant states, "A variance is required to build a road system that is practical to construct, provides required connections to existing neighborhoods abutting the site and that meets the requirements for block size and block length." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings on this criteria. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the rights of other owners of property. The applicant states, "The streets that will require the variance to slope standards are located on the interior of the site and will have no impact on adjacent properties. The variance allows for a street pattern that meets standards for block size and block length and provides connections to 6 existing access points into and through the Erickson Heights site. The variance allows for increased connectivity, which in turn allows for greater dispersion of traffic for the entire area and SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0070NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 16 OF 33 IIIM 1111111111MIN5111111111 11111111mmmi multiple access routes for emergency vehicles in case of emergency. Safety concerns associated with these steeper streets are more than outweighed by this increased connectivity and practicality of construction that the variance affords." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings, with one exception. As per the Uniform Fire Code, homes on streets with access exceeding 15 percent over 200 feet must be fire sprinklered. This standard can be met provided a condition of approval is attached that requires fire sprinklers to be installed for homes along SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right because of an extraordinary hardship which would result from strict compliance with the regulations of this title. The applicant states, "Without this variance, a road system can not be developed for this site that is practical to construct, provides access to the proposed single-family lots and meets all of the remaining City standards for streets. Development of this site would be severely limited by the strict imposition of the street grade standard, which would place and extraordinary hardship on the owner of the site and the applicant. The variance is necessary to preserve the right to develop this land as it was intended to be developed and to maximize the development potential of land within the Urban Growth Boundary. A variance will allow development to proceed, which is in the best interest of the property owner, the applicant, the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole." Staff concurs with the applicant's findings. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the subdivision variance criteria have been met. CONDITION: Record a deed restriction for lots along SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive that states fire sprinklers are required. Prior to issuance of building permits on these lots, sprinklers must be installed. Street and Utility Improvements Standards: Section 18.164 contains standards for streets and utilities serving a subdivision. Improvements: Section 18.164.030(A) states that no development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access on a public street and requires streets within and adjoining a development to be dedicated and improved based on the classification of the street. The dedication and improvement standards are discussed and conditioned further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Future Street Plan and Extension of Streets: Section 18.184.030(F) states that a future street plan shall be filed which shows the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division. This section also states that where it is necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be developed and a barricade shall be constructed at the end of the street. These street stubs to adjoining properties are not considered to be cul-de-sac since they are intended to continue as through streets at such time as the adjoining property is developed. The property extends all streets through to existing streets with the exception of SW Lady Marion Drive. This street will extend through the property and stub at Tax Lot 00201. This street will be SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 17 OF 33 extended to SW Royalty Parkway at the time of development of Tax Lot 00201. The street extension issues are discussed further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Street Alignment and Connections: Section 18.164.030(6) requires all local streets which abut a development site shall be extended within the site to provide through circulation when not precluded by environmental or topographical constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. A street connection or extension is precluded when it is not possible to redesign, or reconfigure the street pattern to provide required extensions. In the case of environmental or topographical constraints, the mere presence of a constraint Is not sufficient to show that a street connection is not possible. The applicant must show why the constraint precludes some reasonable street connection. The criterion is satisfied because all streets abutting the site will be extended through the development. Existing Rights--of way: 18.164.030(1) requires that whenever existing right-of-way adjacent to or within a tract are of less than standard width, additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision or development. The applicant will be extending streets through the property. The only existing road being required to be improved adjacent to the property is SW Royalty Parkway. This street is being required to be improved with half-street improvements. This is discussed in more detail further in this report under PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS. Grades and Curves: 18.164(1!).1 states grades shall not exceed -ten percent of arterials, 12 percent on collector streets, or 12 percent on any other street (except that local or residential access streets may have segments with grades up to 15 percent for distances of no greater than 250 feet. The applicant has requested a variance to this standard. This was discussed and approved previously in this report. Block Design: Section 18.164.040(A) states that the length, width and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate building sites for the use contemplated, consideration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and recognition of limitations and opportunities of topography. Block Sizes: Section 18.164.040(B)(1) states that the perimeter of blocks formed by streets shall not exceed 1,800 feet measured along the right-of-way line except: 1. Where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development or; 2. For blocks adjacent to arterial streets, limited access highways, major collectors or railroads; or 3. For non-residential blocks in which internal public circulation provides equivalent access. The blocks within the development do not exceed 1,800 feet. SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-0OIOIVAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 18 OF 33 4 Block Lengths: Section 18.164.040(B)(2) states that when block lengths greater than 600 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. The block lengths on SW Naeve Street, SW Forrest Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive do not exceed 600 feet. Conformance with Transportation Plan This application consists of an infill of vacant, bypassed lands, between areas of development. Development at urban levels is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to construct 58 units of residential housing on the subject property. The proposed density is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed development design, including without limitation, the street layout and points of connection, is consistent with City ordinances governing street design, including block distance, street length and connectivity. The requested variance for grade adjustment is permitted given the need to acknowledge topographical realities as well as City street design and related code provisions. This is a PUD, which by definition allows flexibility in design to reflect topographical reality. Permit conditions relating to fire safety issues are in place which will require fire suppression sprinklers to be installed in homes in areas where such extra protection is necessary. Lots - Size and Shape: Section 18.164.060(A) prohibits lot depth from being more than 2.5 times the average lot width, unless the parcel is less than 1.5 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. The Planned Development process allows flexibility in the lot size, depth and width standards. Because this is being processed as a Planned Development, this standard does not apply. Lot Frontage: Section 18.164.060(B) requires that lots have at least 25 feet of frontage on public or private streets, other than an alley, unless the lot is for an attached single-family dwelling unit, in which case the lot frontage shall be at least 15 feet. All lots exceed the minimum 25-foot frontage requirement for single-family units. Sidewalks: Section 18.164.070 requires sidewalks adjoining all residential streets. The applicant must construct full street improvements for the new streets. Standard street improvements include sidewalks. Refer to the PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS section for additional information* on sidewalks. FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the Street and Utility Improvement Standards have either been met, will be addressed further in this report, or do not apply. Planned Development: Section 18.80 allows the option for an applicant to create a more efficient, economically viable development that preserves natural land features while implementing the density range provided through the Comprehensive Plan. This type of subdivision normally permits higher density than would be possible given the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district. SUB 98.0009IPDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 19 OF 33 The Planned Development Review is a three step process as follows: 1. Approval of a planned development overlay zone; 2. The second step is the approval of the planned development concept plan; and 3. Approval of a Detailed Development Plan is also required. The applicant applied for and received a Planned Development Overlay as part of ZON 98-0001 and PDR 98-0002. The applicant has requested Conceptual Planned Development approval with this application to comply with the second step. Because this application is for a subdivision, Section 18.80.015(E) allows the Conceptual and Detailed portions of the Planned Development Review to be consolidated as is proposed through this action to comply with the third step. The Planned Development Code Section 18.80.060 states a Planned Development shall be allowed on all lands shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map a developing. This site has a "Developing Area" designation, thus meeting this criteria. Section 18.80.120 (Planned Development Review - Approval Standards) requires that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of other Communi Development Code Sections. The applicable criteria in this case are Chapters 78.32, 18.50, 18.80, 18.88, 18.92, 18.100, 11102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.134, 18.150 18.160 and 18.164. The proposal's ' consistency with these sections has been reviewed within this report. Section 18.80.120(A)(3) provides additional review standards for Planned Development. The following standards have been addressed previously in this report: 18.80.120.A.3.f (Access and Circulation), 18.80.120.A.3.k (drainage). Many of the Planned Development standards do not apply because the development is for a single-family subdivision as opposed to a multi-family or commercial development. Because certain standards do not apply to this development, they will not be discussed in this report. The inapplicable standards are : 18.80.120.A.3.c (Privacy and noise), 18.80.120.A.3.d (Private outdoor area: Residential Use), 18.80.120.A.3.e (Shared outdoor recreation areas: Residential use). The following are the applicable additional review standards for the proposed Planned Development: Relationship to the natural and physical environment (18.80.120.A.3.a): 1. The streets, buildings, and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve the existing trees, topography, and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible; 2. Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding; 3. There shall be adequate distance between on-site buildings and other on-site and f off-site buildings on adjoining properties to provide for adequate light and air circulation and for fire protection; 4. The structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where possible; and 5. Trees with a six inch caliper measured at four feet in height from ground level, shall be saved where possible; SUB 98.OW91PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 20 OF 33 The applicant states, "The development plan for Erickson Heights has respected the natural and physical environment and has limited the impacts to this site. The roads and lots have been designed to preserve the topography and limit the amount of grading that will occur on the site. There are no significant drainageways on the site and the site was recently logged and no significant trees remain on the site. There are no areas subject to ground slumping or sliding on the site. The setback standards proposed for Erickson Heights will provide adequate distance between buildings for light, air circulation and fire protection. The topography, existing street patterns and block standards have dictated, for the most part, the orientation of lots. However the lot sizes allow a variety of building configurations and orientations to take advantage of the sun and wind directions." Staff concurs that the applicant's plan has considered the natural and physical environment in as much as possible, while still being able to develop the site in accordance with density requirements. Buffering, screening, and compatibility between adjoining uses (18.80.120.A.3.b): Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses (for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential, and commercial); In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix, the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under Chapter 18.100: 1. The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier; 2. The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose; 3. The direction(s) from which buffering is needed; 4. The required density of the buffering; and 5. Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the screening: 1. What needs to be screened; 2. The direction from which it is needed; and 3. Whether the screening needs to be year-round; n N Screening and buffering are not required where single-family detached residential uses adjoin other detached single-family residential uses. Landscaping and Open Space(18.80.120.A.3.g): P Residential Development: In addition to the requirements of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) of section A of this subsection, a minimum of 20% of the site shall be landscaped; SUB 98-00091PDR 98-001ONAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 21 OF 33 The Planned Development Review requires that a minimum of 20 percent of each site be landscaped. This standard is applicable to each lot and will be reviewed at the time of building permit plan check. Public transit (18.80.120.A.3.h): Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on: 1. The location of other transit facilities in the area; and 2. The size and type of the proposed development; The required facilities shall be limited to such facilities as: 1. A waiting shelter; 2. A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and 3. Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area; The site does not abut a public transit route; therefore, this standard does not apply. Signs (18.80.120.A.3.i): In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.114, Signs: 1. Location of all signs proposed for the development site; and 2. The signs shall not obscure vehicle driver's sight distance; The applicant has indicated a project identity sign will be located within an easement in the northwest corner of lot 1. They indicate the sign will be oriented to SW Royalty Parkway and will not obscure vehicular driver's sight lines. The signage at the site will be reviewed to insure compliance through the sign permit process for conformance with the provisions of Chapter 18.114. Parking (18.80.120.A.3.j): All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.106; Each of the residences to be developed on these parcels will be reviewed during the building permit plan check process to verify the provision of required off-street parking spaces. Floodplain Dedication (18.80.120.A.3.1): Where landfill andior development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the Floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway plan. This site does not adjoin areas within the 100-year flood plain. SUB 98.0009/PDR 98.0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 22 OF 33 FINDING: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that, the Planned Development review standards either do not apply, have been met, will be addressed further in this report or will be addressed as part of the building permit plan check process. The Planned Development review standards, therefore, have been met. PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS: Streets This site lies adjacent to SW Royalty Parkway, a minor collector street, and is also adjacent to several stub streets: SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Naeve Street. Traffic Stud Findin s: traffic impact study,-dated January 1998, was submitted b Kittelson & Associates, as a part of the zone change application proposed by the applicant (PDR 98-0002/ZON 98-0001). This impact study was generated to give the City an idea of how the potential rezoning and development of this site will impact primary intersections in the area and existing local residential streets. The study analyzed seven primary intersections as follows: Highway 99W/SW Canterbury Lane; SW Canterbury Lane/SW 109th Avenue; Highway 99W/SW Royalty Parkway; SW Royalty Parkway/SW Naeve Street; SW 98th Avenue/SW Sattler Street; SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street; SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. The study found that under existing traffic conditions all of the above intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS), except for SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street, which is now operating at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods. The study indicates that in 1999, the background traffic (which includes assumptions about the traffic that will be generated from the Applewood Park Subdivision at SW Sattler Street and SW Hall Boulevard), SW Hail Boulevard/SW Sattler Street will continue to operate at LOS F. NOTE: Matrix Development, as a part of developing Phase 3 of the Applewood Park Subdivision, is required to install a traffic signal at Hall Boulevard/Sattler Street. Once that signal is constructed, which should occur prior to Summer 1999, that intersection will operate at acceptable LOS (A or B). Kittelson also raises a concern with the intersection at SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. Under 1999 background volumes, the PM peak hour may meet signal warrants. The study analyzed the same intersections assuming development of the Erickson site and extension of the local streets that currently terminate at the site boundaries. Under 1999 background volumes, plus the additional traffic from this project, the intersections listed above will continue to operate at acceptable LOS, except for SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street and SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue. Again, once SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street is signalized, which should be completed by Summer 1999, that intersection will function at LOS B, which is acceptable. Kittelson also found that under these volumes, the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection will likely operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods, which is unacceptable for an unsignalized intersection. SUB 984M/PDR 98.00101VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 23 OF 33 r Kittelson conducted a specific signal warrant analysis at the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection. Under 1999 background volume conditions, they found that during the PM peak hour, two signal warrants are met. Those same signal warrants are met when the Erickson development traffic is added. Staff also talked with Kittelson about the comparison of AM peak hours at this intersection. It appears that two signal warrants would be met under 1999 background traffic and also after the Erickson development traffic is added. Therefore, Staff was able to determine that the Erickson project, by itself, will. not degrade the level of service of the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection below the condition that it will experience under background traffic volumes. No additional improvements to this intersection should be required of this development. The City will need to monitor this intersection in the future to verify if, indeed, warrants will eventually be met. The Kittelson study also studied the adjacent streets to determine what traffic volumes currently exist and what traffic volumes may be experienced once the subdivision is constructed and the streets are connected. The streets that were addressed were: SW Lady Marion Drive; SW Hoodview Street; SW Kable Street; SW Naeve Street, from SW Kable Street to SW 109' Avenue; and SW 109th Avenue, from SW Naeve Street to SW Surrimerfield Drive. The Kittelson study had analyzed these streets based upon a previous street layout for this project which had SW Hoodview Street as the roadway that would connect to SW Royalty Parkway. The current layout indicates that SW Kable Street will connect through to SW Royalty Parkway. Kittelson revised their traffic analysis to reflect the current layout and submitted a letter to Staff, dated October 20, 1998. The following is a summary of Table 6 out of the traffic analysis and the supplemental letter, dated October 20, 9998: Street Name Existing ADT Future ADT (veh per day) (veh,per day) SW Lady Marion Drive 380 440 SW Hoodview Drive 190 200 SW Kable Street 300 1,310 SW Naeve Street 300 400 SW 109°i Avenue 600 700 All of the above streets are classified as local residential streets that can accommodate approximately 1,500 vehicles per day. It appears that after this project is occupied, the streets will continue to function with traffic volumes well under the maximum limit. Staff acknowledges that the volumes on SW Kable Street will approach the upper limit. However, it must be noted that the above estimate was made based upon the final connection of SW Lady Marion Drive not yet being connected to SW Royalty Parkway. Once the SW Lady Marion Drive connection is made to SW Royalty Parkway, the estimated volumes on SW Kable Street will drop to approximately 850 vehicles per day and the volumes on SW Lady Marion Drive will increase to approximately 900 vehicles per day. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 24 OF 33 In addition to the conditions of approval set forth in the Planning Commission Decision, as explained in the staff report of November 2, 1998, it is the decision of this Council to clarify, enhance and otherwise modify the Planning Commission findings as follows: A majority of the opposition to the subject application centers on future traffic flow and volume on SW Lady Marion and SW Hoodview Drives and SW Kable Street. As the Planning Commission found and the City Planning Staff Report expresses the streets presently stubbed to the subject property's borders will alter the current traffic flow and volumes. The existing flow and volumes are created because temporary street stubs have heretofore blocked through traffic on those streets. City connectivity policies, rules and codes mandate the extension of the subject streets. Without a compelling reason to exempt the neighborhoods served by those streets from City policy and code provision, the street and drives need to be opened to through traffic as originally planned when the streets were stubbed instead of ended in cul-de-sacs. The public has been aware not only because of the type of barricades in place for some 30 years but also signage announcing the streets were subject to extension. The opposition questioned the accuracy of applicant's Traffic Engineer Study and the City Planning Staff acceptance of that study as indicating City Code regarding traffic volume and capacity by street designation had been met. We have listened to and reviewed the evidence presented regarding opening of the streets. We have reviewed the expert testimony of Kittelson and Associates which conducted a site specific Traffic Impact Analysis. We have considered opposition testimony regarding the study's accuracy and conclusions and find that the study fairly represents the facts regarding traffic volume and flow patterns which we believe presently exists and can reasonably be expected to exist upon the opening of the presently stubbed streets. Some of the confusion surrounding the January 1998 Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis, as amplified by Kittelson and Associates letters dated October 21, 1998 (addressed to Brian Rager, P.E. for the City of Tigard) and January 21, 1999 (addressed to Bill McMonagal), can be traced to a typographical error contained in Table 6, page 30 of the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis and Table 1 in the above mentioned October 21, 1998 letter. The tables contain confusing information in the tables' subheadings, under the heading "Location". The sub headings misstate the length of the streets used for measurement. The tables should have been titled to indicate the area of study ended at SW 100th Street instead of SW 98th, which is further east. The confusing information is in the 'Estimated Existing ADT' on SW Lady Marion Drive from SW Naeve Street to SW 98th Avenue and on SW Kable Street from SW Naeve to SW 98th Avenue. VVe recognize the existence of the mistake because SW Lady Marion Drive does not extend easterly beyond SW 100th. In addition, the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis contains the background data and statistics from which the tables were created. The correct measurement parameters are found in a document attached to the report entitled "Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E" (no page number). The "Redistribution Analysis" presents information on trip rates, pass through trips, direction of travel during A.M. and P.M hours for Sub Areas A through I. Those parameters of each Sub Area are identified on "Redistribution Sub Areas" Map E-2 also attached to the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis. The information indicates that statistics for Sub Areas D, E and -F represent measurements SUB 98-OMIPDR 98-MOIVAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 25 OF 33 from SW Naeve to SW 100th Street for both SW Lady Marion and SW Kable. Sub Areas H and I measured traffic presently using SW Kable east of SW 100th to SW 98th and beyond. The present primary course of vehicle travel is north and south on SW 100th and east and west on SW Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th. The opening of SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, by development of the proposed subdivision, further to the west of. SW 100th than they are at present, will allow some traffic presently forced to use SW Kable Street between SW 100th and SW 98th to reach a collector or arterial, to turn west onto either SW Kable Street or SW Lady Marion Drive from SW 100th and thereby avoid what to some may be a more circuitous route. The reverse of this scenario is likewise true for return trips which retrace the above described travel patterns. The "Redistribution Analysis" indicates the varying number of vehicular trips to be expected on each section of existing streets once those stub streets are opened and what portion of traffic presently using SW 100th and SW Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th will alter its course to take advantage of the new connectivity allowed by completion of SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Hoodview Drive. The redistribution analysis reflects expected traffic counts resulting from alteration of traffic patterns. Those traffic counts, after completion of all anticipated street improvements, indicate that none of the subject streets will exceed their local street design capacity of 1500 trips per day. The City finds that the expected traffic volumes established in the "Redistribution Analysis and Map E accurately reflect the expected results of extending the subject streets and drives. The City Council concludes, as does the Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Analysis, that: "The proposed new connections on SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, and SW Kable Street will not increase average daily traffic volumes on these local neighborhood streets above the City of Tigard standard for that functional classification". Traffic Impact Analysis, page 32. The City Council recognizes that the unamended portion of Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis was originally conducted to support applicant's request for a zone change. It contains information about development at present zoning and at the higher density originally requested by applicant, but denied by the City of Tigard. The conclusions reached in the 'Analysis', to the extent that they speak to higher density development are determined to be relevant for the lesser dense development presently before the City for approval. If the traffic created by a higher density development meets City standards then a lesser amount of traffic will also meet City standards. This conclusion is further supported by additional information submitted by Kittelson and Associates. In summary, the Erickson Heights Subdivision development will not impact the surrounding major intersections to a degree that required intersection improvements. The local residential streets that will be extended into and through the site will experience increased traffic and associated safety problerns but not beyond the limits of the local street standards with the exception of Kable Street east of the project site. SW Royalty Parkway: This roadway is classified as a minor collector street on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The majority of this roadway was constructed as a part of the Arbor Heights apartment project SUB 98.0009/PDR 93-0010AiAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 26 OF 33 to the west. There is a portion of the roadway adjacent to this site that is not fully improved. The right-of-way (ROW) requirement for this roadway is 60 feet. The applicant will need to dedicate additional ROW adjacent to this site to, and is improved in this area, with the exception of sidewalk and street trees on the eastern side. The applicant will be required to widen the pavement section to provide 20 feet from centerline, construct a concrete sidewalk and plant street trees adjacent to the site frontage. The applicant's narrative indicates they will provide these improvements as a part of this project. SW Lady Marion Drive: This roadway is a local residential street and is described on the City's Transportation Plan Map as a "local street connection" between SW 100' Avenue and SW Royalty Parkway. The map is somewhat confusing because the roadway is given a purple color on the map that corresponds with a minor collector. The existing portions of SW Lady Marion Drive, east of this site, are not constructed to a minor collector standard. The ROW width is 50 feet and the paved width is 32 feet, which matches the City's local residential street standard. It would appear that the text portion of the map would govern in this case and, therefore, the roadway should be considered a local residential street. As was stated previously, the expected traffic volumes on this street, after this project is constructed and occupied, is less than the maximum limit for a local street. The applicant proposes to construct the new portion of SW Lady Marion Drive to match the existing improvements with a 50-foot ROW and a 32-foot paved width. This is acceptable to Staff. SW Hoodviewr Street: As was stated above, SW Hoodview Street is classified as a local residential street. The applicant proposes to match the paved widths of the existing street east of this site (32 feet curb-to-curb). The ROW width proposed is 46 feet, which is acceptable because the applicant proposes to locate the street trees within a 10-foot-wide public utility easement. SW Kable Street: SW Kable Street is a local residential street that serves the residential area east of this site. The roadway would provide a continuous connection between this site and SW 98th Avenue. The roadway is constructed inside a 50-foot ROW, with a curb-to-curb width of 32 feet, but there are no sidewalks on either side of the street between this site and SW 100th Avenue. Evidence has been presented from the residents who live on SW Kable Street, who indicate that there is a high volume of pedestrians who use the street, most of which are school-age children who walk back and forth to the elementary and middle schools located on SW 97th Avenue. Because there is no usable area outside the curbs, pedestrians must use the street to walk and jog. Staff has visited this site and SW Kable Street on a number of occasions and was able to verify that there is a well worn path through the subject site where.pedestrians cut through to get to SW Kable Street. Pedestrians walk easterly on SW Kable Street to SW 98th a Avenue, where there is a designated pedestrian path adjacent to the east side of the road. From there, the pedestrians can walk northerly to SW Murdock Street, where there is a sidewalk that can take them to SW 97th Avenue and the schools. The Council agrees with the residents on SW Kable Street that pedestrian safety will be compromised once more vehicle traffic is introduced to this street as a result of the SW Kable SUB 98-0009/PDR 98.0010AIAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 27 OF 33 gill 11 Street connection to SW Royalty Parkway. The applicant's traffic study supports the conclusion that the traffic increase on SW Kable Street is directly attributable to traffic from this development and new through trips that will result from the street opening. The Council finds that as a result of this development a pedestrian safety problem will exist on Kable Street east of the development. Because of this, the applicant's proposed design and layout does trigger need for sidewalks. The Council concurs with the resident's concerns and concludes that the applicant must either make off-site sidewalk improvements to mitigate this safety problem or wait to develop the project until the sidewalk is in place. This PUD must comply with the Comprehensive Plan and not adversely affect the safety of the community. TMC 18.10.010, 18.32.250. The transportation system standards in the TMC implement and must be construed in light of Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policies. TMC 18.10.010. Policies 8.1.1 and 8.1.3 require that the City plan for a safe street system and developers commit to the improvement of existing streets to the extent of the development's impact. The Council cannot approve this development and allow construction until the sidewalk is in place due to the adverse affect on the community and safety degradation that will occur as a result of this development. TMC 18.10.010, 18.32.250. Because the project is designed in a way that will provide a straight connection to Royalty Parkway, the traffic volumes on Kable Street are higher than would result if a different street layout were proposed. This street configuration is the result of the developer's choice to maximize the number of buildable lots in the development. Since there is adequate ROW on 'SW Kable Street to accommodate the sidewalk, the applicant will not need to acquire any additional property. There are topographic constraints on the north side of the roadway with existing retaining walls and steep driveways, but the south side appears to be very feasible. SW Kable Street is. approximately 1,280 feet in length from this site to SW 100th Avenue. The estimated cost for the applicant to construct a sidewalk improvement for this distance is approximately $30,000. The Council finds that the unmitigated impact from this development is well above this amount, and therefore warrants the off-site sidewalk improvement requirement in lieu of a denial of the project due to safety concerns. The Council has the authority to impose such a condition. TMC 18.32.250 A, E. The applicant's plan for the new portion of SW Kable Street calls for a 28-foot wide paved section within a 46-foot ROW. The development code allows for a narrower, 28-foot wide width on a local street when the average daily traffic is expected to be less titan 500 cars per day [18.164.030(E)]. However, the applicant's traffic analysis shows that the expected volumes on SW Kable Street will be over 500 cars per day. Therefore, Staff finds that the new portion of SW Kable Street should be constructed at the standard width of 32 feet curb-to- curb. A ROW width of 46 feet could be used; however, because the street trees could be located within the wider, 10-foot public utility easement. SW Naeve Street: This roadway is also classified as a local residential street, and was constructed south of this site with a paved width of 32 feet and a ROW width of 50 feet. The applicant is proposing to continue the 50-foot ROW and 32-foot paved widths up to SW Kable Street, and then, as permitted by the Planned Development, reduce the ROW to 42 feet and the paved width to 28 feet from SW Kable Street to SW Lady Marion Drive. From the traffic analysis, it appears this roadway will carry less than 500 daily trips, therefore it can qualify for a narrower, 28-foot paved width [TDC 18.164.030(E)]. SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010ti 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 28 OF 33 Grade Variance Reguest: The applicant is requesting a variance to the City's grade standard in 18.164.030(M), which states that grades shall not exceed 12 percent, except local streets can have sections of 250 feet that can be upwards of 15 percent. There are two north/south streets in this project that will be difficult to be constructed to meet this standard: SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive. The existing north/south topography of this site exceeds 17 percent. The applicant's engineer has attempted to lay the streets out to meet City standards, but found that excessive cuts of up to 30 feet would be required in order to meet the standard. With cuts that severe, the streets would not practically serve the lots that would be platted adjacent to them. The applicant also indicates that their geotechnical report shows that there is a significant amount of rock on this site at fairly shallow depths. Therefore, the more cutting that is required, the more difficult the construction will be. If a developer must excavate through rock, the construction methods can also be disturbing to surrounding property owners because of vibrations. The applicant is therefore requesting a variance to the City's standard to allow these streets to be designed and constructed with a grade not to exceed 17 percent. Staff is of the opinion that the variance should be granted, but must note that the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), Section 902.2.2.6, states that the maximum grade on a street is to be 15 percent. If a variance is granted to the grade standard, the UFC recommends that any buildings served by that street be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system (UFC 902.2.1, Exception 1). Staff concurs with the UFC standard and would therefore recommend that all houses served by SW Naeve Street and SW Forrest Drive, between SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, be protected with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Based upon the findings above, with the added condition for fire sprinkler systems, Staff finds that the variance request is reasonable in this case and that it should be granted. Water: This site will be served from the City's public water system that exists in the existing streets adjacent to this site. The applicant has proposed extensions of the main lines in all of the streets that stub into this site and is providing looped connections that will result in a more efficient water supply system. The Public Works Department has reviewed this application and submitted comments related to the water system. Public Works indicates that there. are two pressure zones near this site: the 550-foot zone and the 410-foot zone. Public Works states that all lots within this development are to be served from the 550-foot zone. They indicate that the applicant should interconnect the 8-inch water line in SW Naeve Street to the existing main line in SW Kable Street. Also, the new water line in the new portion of SW Kable Street must be interconnected to the existing 12-inch main line in SW Royalty Parkway. The 12-inch line in SW Royalty Parkway may have to be extended further south to the proposed intersection of Kable Lane in order for this connection to be made. Sanitary Sewer: There are existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer lines in SW Lady Marion Drive and SW Naeve Street that the applicant is proposing to extend into this site for service. Both main lines are adequately sized to handle the additional sewage flows from this development. The applicant's engineer spoke with Staff recently about the preliminary sewer line layout for this project. The preliminary plan may not work due to the high concentration of rock on the site and the difficulty in excavating deep sewer trenches. For this reason, the applicant's engineer may propose an alternate alignment for the new sewer lines that would place the SUB 98-D009JPDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 29 OF 33 lines in back yards of some of the new lots. The City Council finds, based on city staff representation, that it is feasible to provide sanitary sewer ro iiic wic a1ii euL ; c be handled as a part of the construction plan review process. There are location criteria that Staff would require the applicant to meet in order to ensure adequate access for City maintenance personnel. The applicant's plan does not provide a public sanitary sewer stubouts to Tax Lots 00201 and 00202, which is an undeveloped parcel uphill of this site. TDC 18.164.090 states that a sanitary sewer layout shall consider adjacent properties and make provisions for serving the immediate drainage basin. Storm Drainage: The site falls primarily to the south. There are existing storm drainage lines in SW Hoodview Street, SW Kable Street, SW Lady Marion Drive and SW Naeve Street. The applicant was required to submit a downstream analysis as a part of their subdivision application. The applicant's engineer submitted calculations that were submitted to the City during the development of the Summerfield project to the south. These calculations included the storm line and inlet structure on SW 109th Avenue at SW Naeve Street where the applicant is proposing to direct his storm water. The calculations were based on the required 25-year design storm and took into account the area (undeveloped at that time) north of SW Naeve Street. When the Arbor Heights apartment project was developed, an up-to-date downstream analysis was conducted by W&H Pacific, dated April 10, 1996. That analysis studied the existing storm system downstream of the inlet structure at SW 109th Avenue and SW Naeve Street. The study assumed a total drainage area of approximately 77 acres, which included the subject site. W&H Pacific found that the existing drainage system was more than adequate to handle the development of the upstream properties. Based on the applicant's materials and the downstream analysis for the Arbor Heights project, Staff finds that the existing public storm drainage system is adequately sized to handle the additional flows from this site and there is no need to require on-site detention. The applicant's plan does not show public storm drainage stubouts to the adjacent Tax Lots 00201 and 00202. The plan will need to be revised to show that these adjacent sites can be served from the public storm drainage lines that will be provided in this development. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) Design and Construction Standards (adopted by Resolution and Order No. 96-44) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality facility that will meet the intent of the USA Design Standards. In addition, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. The applicant is proposing to provide two on-site water quality ponds to handle the additional storm water from this site. Preliminary sizing calculations indicate that the proposed ponds will SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 30 OF 33 17 adequately serve this site. The applicant must provide maintenance access roadways, meelin vii 6' ~~,u1.:~ - c--;... y y ^f +he~o facilitips from the public street system. The access roadways must be a part of the tract containing the facility and shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Prior to the City accepting these facilities as public facilities, the developer shall maintain them for a minimum of three years after construction is completed. The ponds shall be placed in tracts and conveyed to the City on the final plat. The developer will be required to submit annual reports to the City which show what maintenance operations were conducted on the facilities for that year. Once the three-year maintenance period is completed, the City will inspect the facilities and make note of any problems that have arisen and require them to be resolved before the City will take over maintenance of the facilities. In addition, the City will not take over maintenance of the facilities unless 80 percent of the landscaping is established and healthy. If at any time during the maintenance period, the landscaping falls below the 80 percent level, the developer shall immediately reinstall all deficient planting at the next appropriate planting opportunity. Grading and Erosion Control: USA Design and Construction Standards also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which accelerates erosion. Per USA regulations, the applicant is required to submit an erosion control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. The Federal Clean Water Act requires that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) erosion control permit be issued for any development that will disturb five or more acres of land. Since this site is over five acres, the developer will be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the City prior to construction. This permit will be issued along with the site and/or building permit. The applicant's design engineer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for review and approval. The plan shall detail the provisions for surface drainage of the lots that are to be "pad" graded to insure that the drainage is directed to the street or a public facility approved by the Engineering Department. A soils report shall be provided detailing the soil compaction requirements consistent with the requirements of Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The applicant will also be required to provide a geotechnical report, per Appendix Chapter 33 of the UBC, for the proposed grading slope construction. The recommendations of the report will need to be incorporated into the final grading plan and a final construction supervision report must be filed with the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The design engineer shall also indicate, on the grading plan, which lots will have natural slopes between 10 percent and 20 percent, as well as lots that will have natural slopes in excess of 20 percent. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections and/or permits will be necessary when the lots develop. This site lies within the Urban Services Area that is covered by the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Washington County. This application is for preliminary plat approval for a 64-lot single-family attached Planned SUB 98.0009/PDR 98-0010NAR 98-0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PAGE 31 OF 33 Development. The site is located south of SW Barrows Road and east of and adjacent to SW Menlor Lane (WCTM 2S1 05DA, Tax Lots 00300, 00400 and 00500). FINDING: Based on the analysis above, the APPLICABLE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS have not been met. The standards can be met, however, if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval summarized at the beginning of this report. Staff finds it is feasible for all of the conditions to be met. If the conditions are met, staff can determine that the standards have been met and approval can be granted. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Building Division has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: 1) No parking signs and curb markings on one side of SW Forrest Place, SW Naeve Street and SW Kable Street; 2) Demolition permit for house and structures; 3) Provide geotechnical review of the two 4-5 foot rock walls surcharging existing lower two walls; Compaction reports for all fill existing and now; 4) Rock walls exceeding 4 feet shall be engineered or built to design standards of American Rockery Association; 5) Perf pipe behind rockery CAN NOT be used for storm drainage system from roof, underfloor, etc. Tight pipe storm system to swell; 6) Provide compaction report for fill on lots 1-10; 7) Lots 34 and 35 need storm drain lateral; 8) Provide fire hydrant flow test; and 9) Separation of fire hydrant exceeds 500 feet. Provide additional fire hydrant at the SW Hoodview Drive intersection. Relocate SW Forrest Drive fire hydrant to mid point of SW Kable Street. The City of Tigard Water Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: The existing 8-inch water main in SW Naeve Street to be connected to existing SW Kable Street (410 zone). All lots to be serviced from 550 zone. Water main within proposed SW Kable Street (west end) is to be looped (connected) to the existing 12-inch water main in SW Royalty Parkway. This may require the existing 12-inch to be extended further south to SW Kable Street. The City of Tigard Property Manager/Operations Department and the City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered which have been incorporated into the body of this decision with the exception of comments regarding a "Sensitive Area". According to maps available at the USA offices, there is a sensitive area on the eastern side of SW 109th Avenue. Staff Response: Staff went out to the site and it appears that the sensitive area was a drainage ditch which has since been culverted and filled. The property to the south of this property has an open ditch and a culvert feeds into it from the north. It is staffrs assumption that the sensitive area mapped on the USA map no longer exists. Metro Area Communications, US West, Portland General Electric (PGE), TCI Cable, and NW Natural Gas have also had the opportunity to review this application and have offered no comments or objections. General Telephone has had an opportunity to review the proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer to provide trenches and conduit per GTE specifications. Developer to pay for any relocation costs or replacements to facilities. SUBDIVISION:APPROVAL SMALL Ot VALip,ONLYiF THE,OINA 0L1 ,AT~R~. { ~ { IS "SUBMIT'TEIJ TO`TFIE CITY OF TIGA12®V,IT.HIN }9,8 MONTHS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE AF THE PLANNIN(>>rCOMMISSION'S DECISIOPI G~ r ~r k ; MCI"" 10 ,f uaXO}n.,.Y.^,lGv,-. 'i+as/~.13.e}v;dVd.•.... uN PAGE 32 OF 33 SECTION VII. _CONCLUSIOiN The City of Tigard City Council has APPROVED, subject to the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. contained within this staff report, Subdivision (SUB) 98-0009, Planned Development Review (PDR) 98-0010, and Variance (VAR) 98-0010 - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. ti ,dk, o~i ~ 4hoi~~~~~. b ' ~Jh-+1- •Fi~ ~ S F' i-r'3!X'" -N ?MfT 1:\curplnjulialsublericksonCCfinal3-5-99.doe SUB 984)OOWDR 98-0010MAR 98.0010 ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDMSION PAGE 33 OF 33 Sent,by:- W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:08PM =TTACHMEN~ William C. Cox unorney Ill Iuw bind lave and I)evielopmenr Consullwitm April 2, 1999 Jim Hendryx (_:omrnunity DrvEtl opment Direct_.o.r City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Facsimile No. 684-7297 ate : Erickson Heights Subdivision, City of Tigard, Bile: No. SUB 98-0009, PDR 98-0010, AND VAR 98-001.0 Dear ..Tint, Attached to this cove..r.' l.t t:t:er please find the applicant's proposed findings addendum Lour= %:}1e dbove identified casefile approval. Please note that. I urn sending via facsimile copies of the c' lt.tac.~hrnent to 'rim Ramis and Jim Coleman. Also this letter will confirm my urider:starid ing that. these findings will be presented tx) the City Council at. its April 20, 1999 hearing and that the 120 day rule limitation for making a decision will be extended to reflr;~c: t this new her?ring date. T welcome your input in creating a final set of findings documenting the City's decision. Yours n:Mly am ox WCC/ahl, CC: Tim Ramis, E.sq. Pax 243-2944 Jim Coleman, Esq. Fax 243-2944 Rick Carman, Esq. Fax 648-7383 Client, Pax 656-1601 Please Neste: Original will not be sent via U.S. Mail unless requested. 0244 S.W. California Street - Portland. Oregon 97219 • (503) 246-5499 • FAX (503) 2411-8750 [~=1110= I= III lllimiligialill"-Il on M IIMMM Sent-by:, W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:09PM Job 242 Page 2 ADDENDUIri A FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 58 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION ERICIKSON HEX S SD,IVISZON CITY OF TIGARD FILE NO. SUB 98-0009, PDR 98-0010, AND VAR 98-0010 I'RODUCTORY FINDINGS: This matter came before the Tigard City Counc:i.l on i is own motion for public hearing on December 8, 1998 and at the r•cque:.t of applicant the public hearinq was continued until January 26, 1999 in hopes of resolving issues with the nQighbor , On vote of the City Coi.incil the public hearing was again (:ontinued unLi 1. Pebruary 10, 1998, to allow additional opportunity for public; input and finding common ground between Lhe neighbors. Nc~t.ice setting forth the nature of the request, applicable standards and time and place of the hearing was lssiled pursuant to City of Tigard standards. A copy of said notice: and date of issuance is by this reference incorporated herein. The Council intez°L'>rc r..s city of. Tigard code.,.; and ordinances governing land ,.use hearing notice land specifically f. ,ands that the issued 110L.i.ce meets the appropriate standards. Opposition LesLimuay was pr'ese:nled by individuals and representatives of neighbors surrounding the development site_ The opposition was primarily focused at keeping increased vehicular traffic from the particular- street. upon which each opponent' home was located. The opponents living on S.W. Lady Mari.nTI Drive did not want that street's "stub" removed and the Drive extended due to their opposition to increased traffic along S.W. Lady Marion Drivc. Likcwioc t.ho people rvr~c.er nF.ci about. S.W. Kable: S'LreeL and S.W. Hoodview Drive opposed extension of those stubbed streets into the subject property for t.hf:~ same reason thQ S.W_ Lady Marion Drive people opposed extension i.e. increased traffic. The concerns about opening S.W. Naeve were also addressed by the neighbors. -1- Sent,by:, W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:09PM Job 242 Page 3/7 A compromise design for the subdiviszoi2 5txeet l1d;i agreeable to the neighbors was sou ht b your T solutions proposed by the neighborhood, however,weerelicant inc . onsistent amongst themselves with no apparent basis for agreeing to a common proposal which met City Code, including providing sufficient connectivity of public streets. The City Council weighed the various concerns stated and selected what: appeared to it to be the best option. That being the option supported by the City Planning Staff to the extent that support diLfered from the City of Tigard Planning Commission decision under review. APPRQVAL CRITERIA City of Tigard Community Development. Codc Chapter, 18.:32, 18-48, 18.80, 18.86, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 1.8.106, :18.108, 18.134,18.138, 18.160 and 18.164 establish the standard-c3 governing review of the subject application. Approval criteria, considerations and proposed conditions are set forth in the stafi Report to the Planning Commission for its November 2, 1998 hearing. Said Staff Report is by this reference incorporated into these findings of fact and conclusions of law in its c..>.ntirety ar2d shall by this reference become part of rhea support for this approval, as amended by this order. In addition the Plann:irig Commission findings, conclusions and conditions contained in its November 2, 1998 decision are by this reference incorporated inLu this order to the extent there is tzo "2cc-"zsistencies between the planning Commission Decision and the November 2, 1998 Staff Report (as amended by this decision) and shall by this references become part of the support for this approval. Where the coriterit c)f the Planning Commission Decision and/or Staff Report conflicts with this addendum A, the contents of this addendum A shall control and shall represent the decision of the City of Tigard. COXFORMANC!p$ WITH THE TRANOPORTATION PLAN s application consists of an in.f.ill. of. vacant, bypass-,d land-q, stween areas of development. Development at urban levels is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to construct 58 units of residential housing on the subject property. Tile proposed density is consistent with comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed development design, including w,it}rcn,t. limitation, the street layout and points of connection, is consistent with City ordinances governing street design, including block distance, street length and connectivity. The requested variance for grade adjustment is permitted given the need to acknowledge topographical realities as well as City street design and related code provisions. This is a PUD which by definition allows flexibility in design to reflect topographa.c-;i1 realir.y. Permit conditions relating to fire safety issues are in 5ent•by:• W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:10PM Job 242 Page 4/7 Place which will require fate suppression sprinklers to be installed in homes in areas where such extra protection is necessary. AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES: The Staff report of November 2, 1998 itemizes and addresses the availability of and considerations related to Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drainage and Site Grading. In addition the same staff report addresses Police, Fire, Parks and Open Space. We adopt the Staff evaluation of service availability and find the applicant has shown that, provided the attached conditions are met, the subject property can be serviced in a manner suf-L ient to meet the applicable standards. The proposed density is consistent with Tigard's comprehensive plan and implementinq ordinances. MOI)IF CATION OF CONDITIONS 6ET FORTFY IN._PLAPdNINt~ COM ISSION DECISION AND STAFF REPORT In addition to the conditions of apprOval set forth in the Planning commission Decision, as explained in the staff report of November 2, 1998, it is the decision of this Council to clarify, enhance and otherwise modify the Planning Commission findings as. follows: (1). A majority of the opposition to the subject application renters on future traffic flow and volume on S.W. Lady Marion and S.W. Hoodview Drives and S.W. Kable Strcet. As the Planning Commission found and the City Planning Staff Repol'U expresses the streets presently stubbed to the subject property's borders will a.iter the current traffic flow and volumes. The existing flow and volumes are created because temporary street stubs have heretofore blocked through traffic on those streets. City connectivit;; poli..r..ies, T•ule=.s and nodes mandate, i.he e.xt:Prision of t}~__ subject streets. G]ithout a compelling reason to exempt the r.cighborhoode served by those streets from City policy and code provision, the street and drives need to be opened to through traffic as originally planned when the streets were stubbed instead of ended in cul-de-sacs. The public has been aware not only because of the type of barricades in place for some 30 year: but also signage announcing the streets were subject to extension. The opposition questioned the accuracy Of applicant's 'Traffic Engineer Study and the C'.i.ry Planning Staff ;ac cept;;~-nce of that study as indicating city code regarding traffic volume and capacity by street designation had been met. We have listened L0 and reviewed the evidence presented regarding opening of the streets. We have reviewed the expert testimony of Ki.ttelson and -3- Sent-by:. W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:10PM Job 242 Page 5/7 Associates which conducted a site specific Traffic Impact Analysis. We have considered opposition testimony regarding the study's accuracy and conclusions and find that the study fairly represents the facts regarding traffic volutne and flow patterns which we believe presently exists and can reasonably be expected to exist upon the opening of the presently stubbed streets. some of the confusion surrounding the January 1998 Kittelsor, and Associates' Traffic Impact- Analysis, as amplified by Kittelson and Associates letters dated October 21, 1998 (addressed to Brian Rager, P.E. for the City of Tigard) and January 21, 1999 (addressed to Bill McMonagal), can be traced to a typographical error contained in Table- 6, page 30 of the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis and Table I in the above- mentioned October 21, 1998 letter. The tables contain confusing information in the tables, subheadings, under the heading "Location". The sub headings misstate the length of the streets used for measurement. The tables should have been titled to indicate the area of study ended at S.W. 100" Street instead of S.W. 98"', which is further east. The confusing information i in the `Estimated Existing ADT' on S.W. Lady Marion Drive from S.W. Naeve Street to S.W. 98"'n Avenue and on S.W. Kable street from S.W. Naeve to S.W. _98rr, Avenue. We recognize the existence of the mistake because S.W. Lady Marion Drive does not extend easterly beyond S.W. 100`11. In addition, the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis contains the background data and statistics from which the tables were created. The correct measurement parameters are found in a document attached to the report ent:itlcd "Redistribution Analysis, Appendix E'l (no page number) . The "Redistribution Analysis" presents information on Lri.p rates, pass through trips, direction of travel during A.M. and P.M hours for Sub Areas A through I. Those parameters of each Sub Area are identified on "Redistribution Sub Areas" Map E-2 also attached to the January 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis. The information indicates that statistics fa.r. Sub Areas T), F. Arl<j represent. measurements from S.W. Naeve to S.W. J.OOcI` Street for both S.W. Lady Marion and S.W. Kable. Sub Areas H and I measured traffic presently using S.W. Kable east of S.W. 1001" to S.W. 98th and beyond. i The present primary course of vehicle r.ravel is north and i south on S.W. 100th and east and west on S.W. Kable between S.W. i 100"" and S.W. 98`?'. The opening of S.W. Kable Street and S.W. Lady Marion Drive, by development of the proposed subdivision, further to the west Of S.W. loot', than they az'e at present, will 3 allow some traffic presently forced to use S.W. Kable street a between S.W. 100' and S.W. 981" to reach a collector or arterial, to turn west onto either S.W. Kable Street or S.W. Lady Marion Drive from S.W. 100"' and thereby avoid what to some may be a more circuitous route. `:i'he reverse of this scenario is likewise -4- mom Sent 'by:. W X XOX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:11PM Job 242 Page 8/7 true for Y'@t71r21 grips which retrace patterns. the above described tr;ivr~l The "Redistribution Analysis,, indicates the varying number of vehicular trips to be expected on each section of existing streets office those stub streets are opened and what portion c:,f traffic presently using S.W. l0U"` and S.W. Kahle between S.W. 100th and S. W. 98th will alter its course to take advantage of the new connectivity allowed by completion of S.W. Lady Marion Drive, S.W. Kable.Street and S.W. Hoodview Drive, arialysis reflects expected traffic counts resThe reditrib ul.tingsfromution alteration of traffic patterns. Those traffic counts, after completion of all anticipated street- improvements, indicate that none of the subject streets will exceed their local street design capacity of 1500 trips per day. The City finds that the expected traffic volumes established in the "Redistribution Analysis and Map E accurately reflect the expected results of extending tlir subject streets and drives. The City council concludes, as does the Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Analysis, that: "The proposed new connections on S.W. Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, and SW Kable Street will not. increase average daily traffic volumes on these local. neighborhood streets above the City of Tigard standard for that functional classification". Traffic Impact Analysis, page 32. The City Council recognizes that the unamended portion of Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis was originally conducted to support applicant's request for a zone change. It. contains information about development at present zoning and at. the higher density originally requested by applicant, but denied by the City of Tigard. The conclusions reached in the 'Analysis to the extent they speak to higher density development are determined to be relevant for the lesser dense development presently before the City for approval. if the traffic created by a higher density development meets city standards then a lesser amount of traffic will also meet city standards. This conclusion is further suppol-Led by additional information submitted by Kittelson and Associates. (2). The Staff recommended condition of approval #10 be adopted by the Planning commission. Condition #10 mandated that the applicant be required to construct a five-foot wide si-dewal.k from the site to S.W. l00-h, a distance of approximately 1340 lineal feet. Condition #10 states: "The applicant' construction. j)lans shall include the construction of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk alurig Lhe south side of SW Kable Street, from Lhtie eastern site boundary to SW 100x', Avenue. This work shall be completed by the applicant as a part of the project's public improvements". F~ Sent by:. W.C.COX Attorney 5032448750 04/02/99 5:12PM Job 242 Page 7/7 The sidewalk would be located in front of and ucrvc Several blocks of existing housing constructed pursuant to City code about 30 years ago when sidewalks were noL being required for development approval. The Planning Commission decided condition #10 was not justified by the impact of the development and that the developer of Erickson Heights should not be responsible for bearing the cost of this off-site improvement. In addition, the Planning Commission imposed as a Condition, which we reject, the construction of a temporary barricade which would restrict vehicular traffic on a portion of S.W. Kable Street cast of the development cite until S.W. Lady Marion Drive could be extended to connect with S.W. Royalty Parkway. The applicant does not control the property which would allow such an extension at this time. The Planning Commission decision rejecting Condition #i:10 is amended to require that the App].ir:ant install the above described sidewalk provided the sidewalk qualifies; as a capital improvement. to which Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) credits generated by the applicant can be applied. The prerequisite to installation of the off-site sidewalk being that the sidewalk qualify as a capital, improvement to which T1F credits are applicable reflects the reaiization that the neither the number of pedestrians generated from applicant's development who will be using the approximately 1300 feet of off-site sidewalk nor the other portions of the record establish there is an impact: caused by the development that is roughly proportionate to the expense necessitated in constructing such.a major off-site improvement. Existing housing will be the primary beneficiary of the sidewalk. without regional participation, imposition of the cost of the improvements on the applicant can not be justified in light of the Common and Statutory law governing the subject. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: Applicants Erickson request for approval of a 58 lot residential subdivision is granted provided the conditions (cis amended herein) set forth the Planning Commission decision are met. I CHMEM City of Tigard Community (Deve6pment Srwping.A BetteiCommunity CITY OF TIGARR OREGON 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 TO: City Council FROM: Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner DATE: April 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Changes to the Findings for Council Review and Approval of the Erickson Heights Subdivision This memo summarizes the changes that were made to the findings that will be considered for adoption at the April 20, 1999 City Council meeting. Some of the changes were clerical changes, such as changing "staff recommends" to "City Council Finds" and removing reference to the Planning Commission decision and prior staff reports. Clerical changes such as these will not be addressed in this memo. Staff also made several changes based on information provided and discussed at the City Council meetings and the applicant provided some additional findings as well, as follows: PAGE # CHANGE TO, FINDING: TEXT CHANGE . PROVIDED BY: 9 Added background information under new section Applicant entitled "Council Considerations". 10-11 Provided changes to the impact study analysis to Planning Staff/ reflect information in the record and the Council City Attorney findin s. 13 Added finding to support the conclusion that it is Planning Staff feasible for future homes to meet the setback re uirement. 14 Added finding to support the conclusion that it is Planning Staff feasible to provide the required street trees. 19 Added new section entitled "Conformance with Applicant Transportation Plan" indicating that the proposed street layout and design meets the Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies and Development Code provisions. 24-25 The applicant provided additional findings that the Applicant traffic study indicates that traffic volumes will be within the parameters for a local street. The findings also responded to testimony provided at the public hearings, by citing information provided in the traffic studies that are art of the public record. 27-28 Additional findings were added to support the Planning Staff/ require ent for sidewalks east of the project site. City Attorney 30 Added finding to support the conclusion that it is Planning Staff feasible to provide Sanitary Sewer to the project site. This was a summary of the substantial changes that were made to the findings. As previously discussed in this memo, this is not a compete list of every change that was made to the staff report since it was last viewed by the City Council. I:\curplnyulialsub\ericksonccmem3.doc A°rTACWIINE11~1° J piko Community Dewropment SF.apingA Better Community IREEVEHAS E sum 111 E E T 111 G'h Krim 0 T I C E OUNTY CUUNCIL CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDER HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED BEFORE THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1999 IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER AT 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON. THE COUNCIL MEETING BEGINS AT 6:30 PM, HOWEVER, THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM IS TENTATIVELY SET FOR 8.30 PM. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER CLOSED ON 2/10/99, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY WILL BE RECEIVED. INTERESTED PARTIES WILL HOWEVER, BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE FINDINGS EITHER BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN TESTIMONY PRIOR TO THE MEETING OR PROVIDING VERBAL TESITMONY AT THE MEETING. A COPY OF THE FINDINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK BEFORE THE APRIL 20, 1999 MEETING DATE (APRIL 13, 1999). COPIES WILL BE MAILED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REPESENTATIVES ON FILE WITH THE CITY FOR EACH NEIGHBORHOOD. ADDITIONAL COPIES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT TIGARD CITY HALL AND COPIES MAY BE MADE AT THE STANDARD COPY CHARGE OF .25C PER PAGE. / l ' I / / / / / /I ///r . I /4. lI I /n P / O / : ~/4 / 4 % Y I / 4 / IO/// / I I / / I • L I / / I I.4 / / 4 I I 'I / l / 4 / I / / / / / % , ~ ' O. % : I / 4. : I /O / A / / 4 I / O O / I ' / % : ~ A I / / / / I /O. : I h ► / /.O. ' / • i I / FILE TITLE: ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION FILE NO(S): SUBDIVISION (SUB) 98-0009 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR) 98-0010 VARIANCE (VAR) 98-0010 The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 Square Feet); R-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development; PD. The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. Further information is available at City Hall and may be obtained from the Community Development Department or City Recorder at Tigard City Hall or by calling (503) 639-4111. (OVER FOR VICINITY MAP) SUB 96.ODWIPOR 98-MOIVAR 98-0010 REVISED MF_ETING NOTICE ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION 4 9 CITY MUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ORDER a tvttta A aRA~R~a lM/C N ato MAP VIC City af~i~ . ~1T5 SUS ~~~cKS x~ O c C3Pp G~~-$ ~ Y rn o x 4 G~ Q~ ~ ~ ST 3 ~ ~2 ~U v now 4 log PAUL NORR ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW THE HISTORIC WILCox HOUSE 931 S.W. KINo AVENUE. SECOND FLOOR PORnJwD, OREGON 07208 TELEPHONE: 1803) 228.3862 FAX: (803) 228.1028 HAND DELIVERED April 16, 1999 Kathy Wheatley Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Erickson Heights Planned Development SUB 98-0009; PDR 98-0010; VAR 98-0010 Dear Kathy, Enclosed are 5 original letters with attachments which I am providing to you for delivery to the Tigard City Council with their information packet for the Tuesday, April 20, 1999, Council meeting. Also enclosed are 5 additional copies for your use. Thank you for your assistance. fully, Paul orr PN/2 c: Deborah and Bill Eckhardt btL PAUL NoRR C((a ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAS! THE H15TOR1C N4(tOX HOUSE 931 S.W. IUNO AVENUE. SECOND FLOOR Ponn.ANo. ORerooN 97205 TELEPHONE: (503) 228.3862 FAX: (503) 225-1028 HAND DELIVERED April 16, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli Council Member Paul Hunt Council Member Brian Moore Council Member Joyce Patton Council Member Ken Scheckla Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Erickson Heights Planned Development SUB 98-0009; PDR 98-0010; VAR 98-0010 REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED BECAUSE: A. THE CITY'S CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVE THAT THERE WILL BE LESS THAN 1500 VEHICLES PER DAY ON S.W. ALE BETWEEN 98TH AND 100TH AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND B. THE EXISTING RECORD DOES NOT PROVE THAT. Dear Mayor and Tigard City Council: I represent Deborah and William Eckhardt, who own property and reside at 10390 SW Kable in Tigard. The Eckhardts have .Kittelson conducted a specific signal warrant analysis at the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection. Under 1999 background volume conditions, they found that during the PM peak hour, two signal warrants are met. Those same signal warrants are met when the Erickson development traffic is added. Staff also talked with Kittelson about the comparison of AM peak hours at this intersection. It appears that two signal warrants would be met under 1999 background traffic and also after the Erickson development traffic is added. Therefore, Staff was able to determine that the Erickson project, by itself, will not degrade the level of service of the SW Durham Road/SW 98th Avenue intersection below the condition that it will experience under background traffic volumes. No additional improvements to this intersection should be required of this development. The City will need to monitor this intersection in the future to verify if, indeed, warrants will eventually be met. The Kittelson study also studied the adjacent streets to determine what traffic volumes currently exist and what traffic volumes may be experienced once the subdivision is constructed and the streets are connected. The streets that were addressed were: SW Lady Marion Drive; SW Hoodview Street; SW Kable Street; SW Naeve Street, from SW Kable Street to SW 109' Avenue; and SW 109' Avenue, from SW Naeve Street to SW Sunimerfield Drive. The Kittelson study had analyzed these streets based upon a previous street layout for this project which had SW Hoodview Street as the roadway that would connect to SW Royalty Parkway. The current layout indicates that SW Kable Street will connect through to SW Royalty Parkway. Kittelson revised their traffic analysis to reflect the current layout and submitted a letter to Staff, dated October 20, 1998. The following is a summary of Table 6 out of the traffic analysis and the supplemental letter, dated October 20, 1998: Street Name Existing AGE' Future ADT (veh. per day) (veh. per day) SW Lady Marion Drive 380 440 SW Hoodview Drive 190 200 SW Kable Street 300 1,310 SW Naeve Street 300 400 SW 109' Avenue 600 700 All of the above streets are classified as local residential streets that can accommodate approximately 1,500 vehicles per day. It appears that after this project is occupied, the streets will continue to function with traffic volumes well under the maximum limit. Staff acknowledges that the volumes on SW Kable Street will approach the upper limit. However, it must be noted that the above estimate was made based upon the final connection of SW Lady Marion Drive not yet being connected to SW Royalty Parkway. Once the SW Lady Marion D&4e connection is made to SW Royalty Parkway, the estimated volumes on SW Kable Street will drop to approximately 850 vehicles per day and the volumes on SW Lady Marion Dare will increase to approximately 900 vehicles per day. SUB 9 40MPM 99-001avat 96-0010 EwcKSON HEI(iM SW M M PAGE 24 OF 33 from SW Naeve to SW 100th Street for both SW Lady Marion and SW Kable. Sub Areas H and I measured traffic presently using SW Kable east of SW 100th to SW 98th and beyond. The present primary course of vehicle travel is north and south on SW 100th and east and west on SW Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th. The opening of SW Kable Street and SW Lady Marion Drive, by development of the proposed subdivision, further to the west of. SW 100th than they are at present, will allow some traffic presently forced to use SW Kable Street between SW 100th and SW 98th to reach a collector or arterial, to turn west onto either SW Kable Street or SW Lady Marion Drive from SW 100th and thereby avoid what to some may be a more circuitous route. The reverse of this scenario is likewise true for return trips which retrace the above described travel patterns. The "Redistribution Analysis" indicates the varying number of vehicular trips to be expected on each section of existing streets once those stub streets are opened and what portion of traffic presently using SW 100th and SW Kable between SW 100th and SW 98th will alter its course to take advantage of the new connectivity allowed by completion of SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Kable Street and SW Hoodview Drive. The redistribution analysis reflects expected traffic counts resulting from alteration of traffic patterns. Those traffic counts, after completion of all anticipated street improvements, indicate that none of the subject streets will exceed their local street design capacity of 1500 trips per day. The City finds that the expected traffic volumes established in the "Redistribution Analysis and Map E accurately reflect the expected results of extending the subject streets.and drives. The City Council concludes, as does the Kittelson and Associates Traffic Impact Analysis, that: "The proposed new connections on SW Lady Marion Drive, SW Hoodview Drive, and SW Kable Street will not increase average daily traffic volumes on these local neighborhood streets above the City of Tigard standard for that functional classification". Traffic Impact Analysis, page 32. The City Council recognizes that the unamended portion of Kittelson and Associates' Traffic Impact Analysis was originally conducted to support applicant's request for a zone change. It contains information about development at present zoning and at the higher density originally requested by applicant, but denied by the City of Tigard. The conclusions reached in the 'Analysis', to the extent that they speak to higher density development are determined to be relevant for the lesser dense development presently before the City for approval. If the traffic created by a higher density development meets City standards then a lesser amount of traffic will also meet City standards. This conclusion is further supported by additional information submitted by Kittelson and Associates. In summary, the Erickson Heights Subdivision development will not impact the surrounding major intersections to a degree that required intersection improvements. The local residential streets "that will be extended into and through the site will experience increased traffic and associated safety problems but not beyond the limits of the local street standards with the exception of Kable Street east of the project site. SW Royalty Parkway: This roadway is classified as a minor collector street on the City's Transportation Plan Map. The majority of this roadway was constructed as a part of the Arbor Heights apartment project SUB 9&m9mW 98-0010hAR 98-0010 ERIGCSON HEIGHTS SUBONISION PAGE 20 OF 33 I J I f i1 s Redistribution Ana ysis E L N -a- A Trip Rates rips PercentagInDistrib Overall Pass- ou Tnps AM PM PM _.j Sub-Area Units AM Pli AM PM Directional Proportioutio n A Fhf Entering Exiting Entering Exiting t 1 0 1S 1, 113 139 S0 50% 3 A 047 0• 3T 9 0 50 1 a 11 7 7 4 a r 108 50 75o o 4 I 1 ,7 • 1 55% 100% 0 1 7 4 _ 1 -5-5-To- 5 0 1 o 55 % 11 6 7 4 f. 5 0 19 25 5 14 1 1 S 557o l 0 557o' _-F 77 i 1 4 5 l 1 5 33% 750 410 19 4j 12 0•.. .7• 5' A l 50 75% 410 1 3 2 i_ 0 75%1 0 26 20.L 261 -41 j I i. I I.J 19 L: AGENDA ITEM # 5 FOR AGENDA OF 4/20/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Water Financing Discussion PREPARED BY:- Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK W9+-- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL An update of water financial comparisons and water rate increases and a discussion of the use of revenue bonds. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY See attached Outline OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban and Public Services, Water #l. FISCAL NOTES To be discussed i citywideVumdot City of Tigard, Oregon Water Financing Discussion April 20, 1999 Study Session Outline 1. Updated Water proposal comparison 2. Revenue Bonds • Uniform Revenue Bond Act (ORS 288.805) • Council Authorizes issuance of Revenue Bonds • Notice and 60 day period • Petition for vote (5% of electors) • Actual Issuance • Coverage and Reserves 3. Water Rates • Projected sales for 99/00 - 2,954,000 units • Every $.10 increase in rate will raise estimated $295,400 • Ramping versus average rate Cost Eff, iencl costs I ny~ruction I 150th initial co of on9°►n9 and crosts and Winten~n~e m operatio n Evaluation Ut Costs Portland/Willamette Proposals n ■ Assumptions for Comparison ■ Construction posts ~ Repayme L of borrowed funds ■ operationland Maintenance Costs ■ Consolidated Net Rate per CCF Comparison assumptions ■ Demand per MSA report to Tigard Inflation 2% per year, growth rates as provided by MSA, ■ Pumping costs. ■ TVWD Wheeling charge Portland Debt Service rats adjusted to 5.25% culstruction CA012"osts ■ Tigard Share 70 ■ Portland $66.5 60 million so ■ Willamette $42.7 40 Portland million 30-1-1 11 Willamet 20 to 30 0 Cost Repayment of borrowed Funds ■ Portland total $139,417,182 ino ■ Willamette Total 120 $72,970,787 9 Portland 60 owmemet w u 20- 0-1 Deb[ Service BMW" I ;I III IN! 1111 Q4-Portland Combined Rates -Willamette Combined Rates q ~1111 MEN= III OEM ti mm7 E" } r; E' t i. fcd~, 68 a ~~nt nt F 2sr`y Q 4 ;~r t _t f ` (D > erg",t~~~~~P' ~ o ensP r~t+~»hgi~~e { a.H fd'FY Std ~Y'ra(3{~. ^}1tl~A' 3.4~`°i"~s~ r dis'r; 0 4kr~ 31 BOMB 5 ~~f a 4 Q. r, 0 m ~"'v r~ tk t 90 . ~A5 13 x ;flas C-D ~ m MITI }M'+tac~l+ttr L~tr~• CJ yy cY 2{~[ rat,,. Est H1 5S i ti'~.~L r ~ce p{~~_`-'era .._._-._.w_._..._.....__......_.._...._....._.. Table of Compared Rates at Five Year Increments { For City of Tigard d ; Willamette Difference i 20001 1.731 1.97 r _....~r... 0.24 ~ ' 2_0_05 i _ 1.97 2.26 f -0.31; , 2010 ~ . i ~ . 2.35 ` 2.26; 1 0.09; f 2015 ~ 2.46 2.33 _.u.....-_..__..~._ 0.13 1e~v..-..y..~ 2020 2.96 i 2.35 j 0.63 2025; 3.23; 1.51 1.72; _ _ _ _ . E 20301 3.16 ` 1.56 ! 1.591 2035; 2.67 f 1.66 i i 1.01 _2040 ~ _ 3.20 1.77 1.43 2045;._____.____._.._-_ , 3.13 1.66 1.25 I 2050 3.38! 2.00: 1.36' C~ U City of Tigard, Oregon C A,/, 'beater Financing Discussion April 20, 1999 Study Session Outline 1. Updated Water proposal comparison 2. Revenue Bonds • Uniform Revenue Bond Act (ORS 288.805) . • Council Authorizes issuance of Revenue Bonds • Notice and 60 day period • Petition for vote (5% of electors) • Actual Issuance • Coverage and Reserves 3. Water Rates • Projected sales for 99/00 - 2,954,000 units • Every $.10 increase in rate will raise estimated $295,400 • Ramping versus average rate City of Tigard, Oregon Water Fund Analysis City Council Study Session April 20, 1999 Water Fund Beginning Balance 7/1/99 4,528,579 Revenues projected for 1999/00 4,846,550 Total Resources 9,375,129 Expenditures projected for 1999/00 6,420,644 Ending balance 6/30/00 2,954,485 Loss for the year 1999/00 (1,574,094) Purchased Water Purchased Water projected 1998/99 2,074,917 Purchased Water Projected 1999/00 3,254,100 Increase 1,179,183 City of Tigard, Oregon Water Fund Analysis City Council Study Session April 20, 1999 Water Fund Alternative #1 Breakeven in 1999/00 Requires rate increase of $.53 per unit Per unit rate would be $1.85 Represents a 40% increase in the current rate Adds to ending balance in second year of estimated $1,000,000 Alternative #2 Achieve Willamette rates in two years Requires rate increase in 1999/00 of $.49 Requires rate increase in 2000/01 of $.49 Per unit rate would go from $1.32 to $1.81 then to $2.30 Alternative #3 Raise rates by full $.98 on July 1, 1999 Would add $1,320,000 to ending balance in 1999/00. City of Tigard, Oregon Water Fund Analysis City Council Study Session April 20, 1999 Water Fund Representative Residential Water Bill Comparison Current Alt #1 Alt ##2 Alt ##3 Units 1.32 1.85 1.81 2.30 King City • . Summer T5 23.36 31.31 30.71 38.06 Winter 7 12.80 16.51 16.23 19.66 Summerfield Summer 24 80.76 93.48 92.52 104.28 Winter 7 '58.39 62.03 61.75 65.18 Tigard Bull Mtn Summer 51 127.03 154.06 152.02 177.01 Winter 13 76.87 83.76 83.74 89.61 Tigard Summer 42 115.66 137.92 136.24 156.82 Winter 18 83.98 93.52 92.80 101.62 AGENDA ITEM # (P FOR AGENDA OF 4/20/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Transportation funding alternatives PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A discussion of the alternatives to financing road improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A INFORMATION SUMMARY See attached Outline OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Transportation and Traffic, #2 Improve Traffic Flow FISCAL NOTES To be discussed kkitywideVum.dot City of Tigard, Oregon Transportation Funding Alternatives Discussion April 20, 1999 Study Session Outline 1. Cost of Potential Projects - $50,000,000 2. Current Sources of Funds • Traffic Impact Fee Current Balance - $3,600,000 Annual Revenue - $900,000 • State Gas Tax Current Balance - $100,000 Annual Revenue for CIP - $700,000 • State and Federal Funds - Grants 3. Potential Road Bond Issue - $15,000,000 and $25,000,000 • Voter approval, November 2000 election • Term of Bond - 10 years, 20 years • Tax Rate Impacts 10 yrs 20 yrs $15,000,000 .60 .38 $25,000,000 1.00 .63 Agenda Item No. Meeting of y Iau I G2 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping .4 Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor Nicoli, Council Members FROM: Jim FiendrYx, Community Development Director DATE: April 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Annexation of the Walnut Island Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hunt raised the issue of proceeding with the annexation of the Walnut Island. The purpose of this memo is for Council to discuss and give direction on whether or not to proceed with annexing the Walnut Island. As Council will recall, at their February 16, 1999 Workshop meeting, Community Development staff provided an overview on how Council's goal on annexation was going to be addressed (see attached minutes). It was stated that a thorough analysis of annexation should be done to understand the ultimate costs of annexation. I proposed a process in which staff would conduct a capital facilities evaluation of the various areas under consideration. This analysis would allow Council to look at each area independently including capital facility costs and potential tax revenues. The analysis would serve as the basis for determining logical priorities and schedules for annexation. In the fall of 1999, staff would develop an annexation process for the various areas. Council has the ability to annex the Walnut Island partially or in total through the island annexation method. Island annexations are not subject to voter remonstrance. Under the new Metro annexation process, the City would be required to hold a public hearing after providing 45 days public notice. Council's affirmative action is forwarded to Metro, who then notifies the State, County, and other agencies. Timing of annexations remains critical to cities. Annexations occurring before March 31St of each year result in the annexed value being added to the tax roll effective July 1 of the same year. Annexations occurring after March 31St are not added to the tax role until the following July 1. Thus, any annexation occurring before March 31, 2000, would not provide additional revenues until after July 1, 2000. This does not have a great effect on small-scale annexations since revenues and service needs are relatively small. Timing on large-scale annexations is more critical. Infrastructure needs in the Walnut Island are extensive. A 1996 preliminary engineering study on sanitary sewer for the Walnut Island indicated that it would cost approximately $3,900,000 to 6 INN provide sewer for the entire area. Costs may have been reduced since development continues to occur throughout the area. Annual street maintenance costs were estimated at $35,342, while storm maintenance cost was approximately $49,980 per year. Other costs, including police, general government, etc., were not calculated. The Walnut Island has an approximate assessed value of $61,356,220. Based upon that estimate and an estimated population of 800 people and 358 parcels, the following table estimates the tax revenues and franchise fees that could be collected in the Walnut Island. Revenues and Fees Associated from annexing the Walnut Island. Revenues Property Tax @ $2.51 per 1,000 $154,000 Franchise Fees @$48 per capita 38,400 Shared Revenues @$18 per capita 14,400 Gas Taxes c@@$49 per capita 39,200 Storm Revenues @$36 per parcel 12,888 Total estimated revenue $258,888 If you assume the average parcel is valued at $171,000 and includes 2.2 population, each parcel annexed would yield revenue of $718. Another Annexation Related Issue The Walnut/Tiedeman Intersection Realignment Project is scheduled for bid advertisement in May 1999, and for start of construction on July 1, 1999. The project includes installation of sanitary sewer lines, which are intended to serve lots adjacent to the streets. The cost for installation of these new sewer lines should be paid for by formation of a Sewer Reimbursement District. However, eleven (11) of these lots are not annexed to the City. We need to have these lots annexed to the City to form the district and apportion the costs among the lots to be served by the district. Since time is of the essence on the formation of the district, we recommend initiating an island annexation of these lots so that the district can be formed and the sanitary sewer improvements constructed with the Walnut/Tiedeman Realignment Project. An island annexation is the fastest and most efficient method for ensuring that the lots are annexed in a timely manner. Engineering plans to conduct a neighborhood meeting to explain the situation and proposed action to the residents of the lots proposed for inclusion in the reimbursement district. The entire process for annexation is expected to take approximately two months. With Council support, we can begin the process immediately. Conclusion The City has 3 options to consider: 1. Move ahead with annexation of all of Walnut Island now. 2. Move ahead with partial annexation of the 11 lots, start a sewer reimbursement district. 3. Move ahead with partial annexation of the 11 lots, do a full study. Cdadmrjerreerjjim/gen/wain utisland.doc a Chief Goodpaster reviewed the history of this program that started in Portland several years ago under a Department of Justice grant. He explained that Beaverton and Tigard worked together to form a Washington County program. He said that the program was designed for the benefit of the tenant, the landlord and the police. He noted the three phases of the program: an eight hour training session to educate managers or property owners regarding laws, processes and procedures for enhanced safety, a security assessment of the property and semi-annual meetings of the police, the tenants and the management to discuss safety and security. Chief Goodpaster reviewed in detail the thorough four-page security assessment form completed by Officer Wolf and the property manager during a site visit, and the mandatory requirements of the program. He said that only Tiffany Court in Tigard has gone through the assessment phase, and they were slowing addressing the issues. Chief Goodpaster noted that some complexes, like Villa La Paz, have already started their meetings without going through the assessment phase. Chief Goodpaster mentioned the successes of the department in using similar actions to address crime and safety issues at apartment complexes prior to the program, citing the Maracene Terrace as an. example. He said that the owners addressed the issues and solved many of the problems. Chief Goodpaster said that the main focus of the program was to provide the tenant and the management firm with the tools they needed to effectively manage the property. He noted that the benefit to the City was the police not having to continually return to a particular complex to deal with recurring problems. He said that the department did not mind investing the substantial time up front to get this program going because their payoff of fewer police responses came later on. Chief Goodpaster commented that most property managers have not received formal training in eviction procedures, landlord/tenant law or applicant screening processes. Chief Goodpaster described how the police worked with various apartment complexes in Tigard in implementing this program. He mentioned the article in the March Cityscape. He stated that this program would be a tremendous tool for the City in working with these complexes to address problems without spending an inordinate amount of the City's resources on this one issue. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Scheckla asked how the police found out if a complex changed management. Chief Goodpaster said that most of the officers knew the apartment managers in town, especially Officer Wolf who kept in regular contact with the managers. Therefore, they found out quickly when there was a change in management. Councilor Scheckla asked how the department dealt with the language barrier at some of the complexes. Chief Goodpaster said that they had a few bilingual officers (Spanish/English), and they would provide bilingual notices. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Dousing, expressed her agency's support of this program finally coming to Tigard. 5. METRO ANNEXATION ISSUES: DISCUSSION ON PROCESS AND COUNCIL DIRECTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16,1999 - PAGE 7 STAFF REPORT Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, reviewed the current annexation process following the termination of the Boundary Commission in December. She said that the City relied on the City Code, state law, and Metro annexation requirements to process annexations, although they have not had any annexation requests this year. She mentioned a public hearing before the Council. Ms. Nicholson informed the Council that Metro was already revising the annexation ordinance they adopted in December. She explained that the ordinance mixed the issues of land use process versus governance and therefore Metro was revising the ordinance to sort out the issues. She emphasized to Councilor Scheckla that the City was not left without a process while this revision was going on, they used the adopted Metro ordinance as originally written. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on Metro's role in annexations. Ms. Nicholson said that Metro did not control annexations, it was a local process. She explained that Metro had to provide legislation for processing annexations in order to fill the void left by the Boundary Commission. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, she said that they had yet to see whether the new system was better or worse for the City. Mr. Monahan explained that Metro's role in the annexation process was to settle disputes and process the paperwork for the applications. He agreed that the intent was to leave the annexation decisions to the local jurisdictions. Mr. Hendryx clarified that Metro settled disputes between jurisdictions. Citizens disputing an annexation could appeal to LUBA. Councilor Scheckla asked what the difference was between the fee paid now to Metro and the fee paid before to the Boundary Commission. Ms. Nicholson said that the Boundary Commission fee was on a sliding scale based on acreage whereas Metro charged a flat fee of $450. She confirmed that Metro now performed the administrative and recordkeeping functions of the annexation process. Ms. Nicholson explained that the City currently waived the fees for covering local staff time. She stated that a few years ago staff determined that the fee to process annexation applications should be $1,100. She commented that the City could either pass the Metro $450 fee itself or pass it on to the applicants. Councilor Hunt expressed his discomfort in establishing an annexation fee without setting an annexation policy first. He pointed out that charging an $1,110 fee on forced annexations would be difficult. Mr. Monahan commented that the Council always had the ability to waive fees. He said that the City needed an interim annexation fee until the policy was set. He conceded to Councilor Hunt that an interim fee might discourage annexations. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1999 - PAGE 8 Ms. Nicholson reiterated that this staff proposal involved two fees: a fee to cover local staff costs and the fee for Metro. She explained that, under the old system, the City paid the Boundary Commission fee for Walnut Island residents but not for Bull Mountain or Metzger residents. She stated that, under the new system, the City would pay the $450 Metro fee for everyone because staff lacked a policy stating otherwise. She asked for direction on whether or not to charge the local fee and whether or not to pass on the Metro fee to the applicants. ® Mayor Nicoli left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Council President Moore supported recouping any Metro costs from the applicant, and charging an interim annexation fee for the local costs until the policy was set. He mentioned the Council's ability to waive the fee at its discretion. Councilor Hunt disagreed, arguing that they should have a policy that either waived the fee for everyone or for no one. Councilor Scheckla suggested splitting the local annexation fee 50/50 between the City and the applicant. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to pass through the Metro fee to the applicant. Councilor Patton asked what staff anticipated as the volume of annexations. Mr. Hendryx said that staff had processed about 6 or so applications a year. Council President Moore suggested developing a processing fee for developed property versus developing property. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the annexation goals and action plans presented in the Visioning document. He stated that a thorough analysis of annexation should be done, as it impacted the individual areas outside the city in order for the Council to understand the ultimate costs of annexation. He pointed out that different areas had different amounts and different kinds of urban infrastructure already in place. Therefore, land coming in from one area (with fewer public facilities in place) would cost the City more land coming in with the full urban infrastructure. Mr. Hendryx proposed a process in which staff conducted a capital facilities evaluation of each area that could annex to the city. This would enable the Council to look at each area independently or at all areas comprehensively. Following that, staff would do an analysis of the pros and cons of annexing specific areas, including capital facility costs and potential tax revenues. This analysis would serve as the basis for determining a logical priority and schedule for annexations. In the fall, staff would develop an annexation process for the various areas. He noted that this project would take staff time in Community Development, Engineering and Finance. Mr. Hendryx asked if Council wanted staff to take a proactive approach in contacting property owners regarding annexation. Mr. Monahan noted another question of whether or not Walnut Island was a Council priority. Councilor Hunt said that he thought that the Council said all islands, not just Walnut Island. Councilor Scheckla asked what impact annexations would have on City departments. He mentioned the space needs in particular. Mr. Hendryx agreed that cost considerations would be part of the pros and cons analysis. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1999 - PAGE 9 Councilor Hunt reiterated that he did not want to move forward with the local fee until they had a chance to study it. Councilor Patton concurred, pointing out that there could be differentiations in the fee depending what Council decided regarding the annexation issues. The Council discussed the local fee issue. Council President Moore asked if staff could easily separate applications for undeveloped property versus developed properties. Ms. Nicholson said that staff did discuss waiving the fee for certain acreage sizes. Councilor Scheckla argued that everyone had to be treated equally or the process was not fair. The City should either waive the fees for everyone or implement a 50150 match. He held that they should have a 50150 match at a minimum, given the amount of staff work involved. Ms. Nicholson explained that the $1,110 fee came from a survey done four years ago at the time of the adoption of the current fees. The survey looked at how much staff time it took to process the different kinds of applications. She said that it was a lengthy process no matter the acreage size. She noted that the Council decided to waive the annexation fee at that time. Council President Moore said that he would go along with Councilors Hunt and Patton's position to waive the local fee for everyone until they developed an annexation policy. The Council confirmed that they still wanted the Metro $450 fee passed through to all applicants. Councilor Patton asked if staff would re-figure the local processing cost for annexations. Mr. Hendryx said that they could re-evaluate it once they got some applications in for processing. Mr. Monahan asked for confirmation that Council wanted staff to pursue Mr. Hendryx's proposal for the annexation policy process and to present their capital facilities and cost analysis of all the different island areas at one time. Councilor Scheckla asked staff to include the costs of providing service from the different departments. Mr. Monahan confirmed that the process to annex areas that were not islands would be different because the City could not force annex those areas. Councilor Hunt asked for calculation of tax revenues to offset the expense. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to move forward with Mr. Hendryx's proposal as discussed. The Council heard Agenda Item 7, Summerlake Park, at this time. 6. COUNCIL GOALS 1999 DISCUSSION Mr. Monahan pointed out that four of the agenda items tonight directly addressed Council goals: apartment complex management, annexation policy, the Central Business District, and the master plan. He stated that staff used the goals as guidelines for their work plans. He mentioned quarterly reports to Council. He said that staff was trying to not stack up long agenda items on the same night. o The Council considered Agenda Item 9, Non-Agenda Items, at this time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -FEBRUARY 16, 1999 - PAGE 10 -r4ern 1\10. ,44 n", ~sCcc~s;i1Y~ CITY F TIGARD OREGON TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Dire or FROM: Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief DATE: April 16, 1999 SUBJEC'T': Annexation of the Walnut Island REFERENCE: Police Costs/Services Per your request, the following are police related costs to provide services to the approximate 800 residents of the Walnut Island, should it be annexed to the City of Tigard. We are unable to get response activities from either WCCCA or the Washington County Sheriffs Office regarding the Island but have not received any information that would require more personnel than what is recommended below. We would need to add one additional Police Officer to maintain our current ratio of 1.5 Officers per 1,000 population that we currently have for the existing City. This additional Officer would allow us to maintain our workloads and response times to existing residents so the annexation would not negatively effect the services we currently provide. It would also allow us to provide the same services to that area. The total cost of one Officer would be %73,000, $65,000 for salary and benefits, $3,500 for overtime and $5,000 for supplies and uniforms. If you need any additional information please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 W Q K1 ' '~,r. h{ P s o i s 4z Communityetopnt NMI AGENDA ITEM # . FOR AGENDA OF L a The staff report on this agenda item will be a verbal presentation. \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\VERBAL REPORT-AGENDA ITEM.DOC