Loading...
City Council Packet - 10/10/2000 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 109 2000 COUNCIL MEETING WILL DE TELEVISED H: U EAN N I EXD O C MC C P KT I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 6tTOBER.10 2000 6:30 PM . CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD :CITY HALL, 13125, SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 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 o.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 Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons 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 Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2000 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8T (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any Information discussed during this session. > Quarterly Meeting with the City of Tigard Budget Committee 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8z Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) Tigard High School Student Envoy Russell Rutledge 3. PROCLAMATION a. Designate the Month of October as Disability Employment Awareness Month 7:40 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 19, 2000 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Council Meeting Tentative Agenda 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award of Contract for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 2000. PAGE 2 7:45 PM 5. RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HERZOG-MEIER AUTO CENTER AND THE CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE USE OF A 1999 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE AUTOMOBILE a. Staff Report: Police Department 7:50 PM 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND FINAL ORDER IMPLEMENTING CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND VARIANCES (CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-00001/VAR 2000-0014/VAR 2000-0017/VAR 2000-0018/VAR 2000-0019) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 00-QK' 7:55 PM 7. HEAR AN UPDATE ON THE TRANSPORTATION BOND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS a. Staff Report: Engineering Department MOM 8. HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM OREGON ASSOCIATION FOR SAFE HIGHWAYS a. Staff Report: Administration Department b. Presentation: Colleen Pacheco, Oregon Association for Safe Highways 8:25 PM 9. CONSIDER WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD WORK WITH TRI-MET AND RIDE CONNECTION IN PROVIDING JOB ACCESS SERVICE TO LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS OF TIGARD a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Direction: Should the City Staff proceed with the proposed program? 8:55 PM 10. CONSIDER ENTERING INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD, NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY WATER COMMISSION, AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TO CONTINUE WORKING ON A LONG-TERM WATER SOURCE a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion approving the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); authorizing the Mayor to Sign the Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to finalize Phase 11 of the Engineering Scope of Services; continuing work with the Joint Water Commission and the Portland Wholesale Contract. COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 3 9:10 PM 1 1. HEAR A BRIEFING ON SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE CHALLENGES a. Staff Report: Administration Department 9:25 PM 12. REVIEW SW NORTH DAKOTA AND 130TH/HAWKS BEARD TRAFFIC CALMING DISCUSSIONS a. Staff Report: Administration Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Direction on Procedure 9:35 PM 13. REVIEW COUNCIL MEETING QUESTIONS a. Staff Report: Administration Department b. Council Discussion 9:40 PM 14. COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE a. Staff Report: Administration Department b. Council Discussion 9:45 PM 15. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:50 PM 16. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10:00 PM 17. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) 8z (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:10 PM 18. ADJOURNMENT I:ADM\CAT HY\CCA\001010. D OC COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 10, 2000. PAGE 4 Agenda Item No.-I. L._ Meeting of 10 4 - QQ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 STUDY SESSION Study Session was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Griffith. z Administrative Review - City Manager Monahan asked Council about process for the SW North Dakota and SW Hawks Beard at 130`' Avenue Agenda Item (Item No. 12). After brief discussion it was determined that City Engineer Duenas would introduce the topic to give the audience background information, then the Council would discuss to determine if it wants to review the traffic calming devices installed on these two streets. - Mayor Griffith advised City Manager Monahan that he and Councilor Scheckla would be available on the next few Mondays and Wednesdays to conduct the New Library Construction Committee position interviews and the Planning Commission interviews. All applicants for these positions will be interviewed. ➢ Quarterly Meeting with the City of Tigard Budget Committee was called to order by Mayor Jim Griffith. City Council Budget Committee Members Present: Mayor Jim Griffith, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. Citizen Budget Committee Members Present: George Burgess and Greg Zuffrea. Budget Committee Officers: New Budget Committee officers are needed. After brief discussion, consensus of the Budget Committee members present was to set over election of officers to the next Budget Committee meeting with the hope that there would be quorum of Citizen Budget Committee members present at that meeting. Introduction of new Budget Committee Member: Finance Director Craig Prosser introduced the newest Budget Committee member, Greg Zuffrea. Meeting participants introduced themselves to Mr. Zuffrea. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 1 Consideration of Minutes: Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Committee member Burgess, to approve the May 15, 2000, Budget Committee minutes as presented. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Budget Committee members present: Burgess yes Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla yes Zuffrea yes City Budget Adopted: Mr. Prosser advised that the City Council adopted the City Budget as proposed by the Budget Committee with one change. That change was to reflect the reorganization of the Community Development Department, which was done as a result of reduced Building Department activity. Funding in the Community Development Department was reduced by $109,000 and 2.5 FTE were removed from the budget. City Manager Bill Monahan introduced Pat Biggs, President of the Board of Directors for Good Neighbor Center and Rebecca Ambrose, Shelter Manager. Ms. Biggs and Ms. Ambrose reviewed operations of the Good Neighbor Shelter and reviewed the need for additional funding. The City of Tigard is being asked for an additional $5,000. Ms. Biggs reviewed the contributions for other jurisdictions including Washington County and the cities of Tualatin and Lake Oswego. Ms. Biggs and Ms. Ambrose answered questions about staffing, supervision, daily operations, house rules, and the fact that the shelter offers services for families with children and single women without children. The Center's staff works with individuals to establish work plans to address their issues. The Center also works with the Community Partners for Affordable Housing to find long-term housing for those staying at the Center. Consideration of Additional Funding Request: Motion by Budget Committee member Hunt, seconded by Budget Committee member Moore, to approve the request for an additional contribution from the City of Tigard to the Good Neighbor Center in the amount of $5,000. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Budget Committee members present: COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 2 Burgess yes Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla yes Zuffrea yes 2000/01 Budget Process: Finance Director Prosser asked for feedback on the 2000/01 Budget Process; that is, what worked well and what did not. Members responded as follows: - Committee member Patton noted she liked the format of information contained on one page. - Committee member Burgess said that overall the process went very well. - Committee member Burgess reminded that a social service subcommittee member would need to be selected at the next Budget Committee meeting. November Election Ballot Measure Review: Finance Director Prosser reviewed a number of the ballot measures, which had potential fiscal impact on local governments. A summary of these measures is included with the meeting packet materials on file with the City Recorder. In addition to the stand-alone impact the measures may have, there may be some impact with how one measure may interact with another. Committee member Patton noted the repercussions in some of the measures is subtle and not easily understood. Next Budget Committee meeting: The Budget Committee will meet again on January 23, 2001, just prior to the City Council meeting scheduled for that date. Agenda items will include election of Budget Committee officers and selection of committee member(s) to serve on the social services subcommittee. Budget Committee Meeting Adjourned: 7:32 p.m. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:32 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (e), (f) Sz (h) to discuss real property transactions, exempt public records, and current and pending litigation issues. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 3 ➢ Training Opportunity - Councilor Patton City Manager reviewed the conference in December on Oregon Land Use Law. After brief discussion, the general consensus of Council was in favor of Councilor Patton attending. This item will be placed on the October 24, 2000, Consent Agenda for formal Council approval. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - Mayor Griffith called the City Council az Local Contract Review Board to order at 7:45 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Hunt, Moore, Patton, and Scheckla. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Tigard High School Student Envoy Russ Rutledge City Manager Monahan introduced Mr. Rutledge, a Tigard High School Senior who will be attending the City Council meeting at its first meeting of each month. Mr. Rutledge will keep the Council apprised of activities at the Tigard High School. Mr. Rutledge distributed a Student Envoy Report highlighting student leadership activities. He noted the "LINK Crew" program where Junior and Senior students assist incoming freshmen students through scheduled activities to become more at ease with their first year of high school. Mr. Rutledge also noted that state government candidates have been invited to a candidates' forum that will occur on October 11, 2000. Mayor Griffith thanked Mr. Rutledge for his report, presented to him a City of Tigard logo pin, and noted the Council looked forward to seeing him at future Council meetings. Mr. Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon, indicated that he would like to address the Council on Agenda Item No. 12. Mr. McAdams, in response to a request from Mayor Griffith, indicated that he would wait hold his comments until later in the meeting when the Council considered this item. 3. PROCLAMATION a. Mayor Griffith noted that he had designated the month of October as Disability Employment Awareness Month. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 4 NJ Ell 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt the Consent Agenda. In response to Councilor Scheckla, City Engineer Duenas advised that the additional funding required by Agenda Item 4.3 would come from the sewer fund. Mr. Duenas noted that this project had been bid out twice and staff decided that the bids received were the best that the City could obtain at this time; therefore, the request is for the Council to award the bid. 4.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 19, 2000 4.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Council Meeting Tentative Agenda 4.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award of Contract for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements The motion to approve the Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla yes 5. RECEIVE INFORMATION ABOUT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HERZOG-METER AUTO CENTER AND THE CITY OF TIGARD FOR THE USE OF A 1999 VOLKSWAGEN BEETLE AUTOMOBILE Chief of Police Ron Goodpaster and Public Information Officer Jim Wolf presented the staff report on this agenda item. The City of Tigard entered into an agreement with Herzog-Meier Auto Center for the use of a 1999 Volkswagen New Beetle. This one-year, renewable agreement provides that Herzog-Meier will supply this vehicle to the police department at no charge in exchange for advertising on the vehicle. Mr. Wolf advised that the reaction from the public has been very positive noting that people find it very approachable and stop to visit and interact with the police personnel in or near the vehicle. In addition, this endeavor has received national news attention. The Public Works staff has customized lights and radio equipment for the car. A photograph of this car can be seen at the City's web site: www.ci.tiaard.or.us. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 5 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AND FINAL ORDER IMPLEMENTING CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND VARIANCES (CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-00001/VAR 2000-0014NAR 2000-0017/VAR 2000-0018/VAR 2000-0019) a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx reviewed the background and staff report for this agenda item. b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 00-28 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 00-28. The City Recorder read the following: ORDINANCE NO. 00-28 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP, APPROVING CERTAIN VARIANCES, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-00014, 00017, 00018, and 00019) The motion was approved, upon roll call vote, by a majority affirmative vote of City Council members present: Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla no 7. HEAR AN UPDATE ON THE TRANSPORTATION BOND AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS a. City Engineer Gus Duenas presented a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Transportation Bond projects and the status of the Capital Improvement Program projects. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is on file with the City Recorder. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 6 8. HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM OREGON ASSOCIATION FOR SAFE HIGHWAYS a. Staff Report: City Recorder Cathy Wheatley introduced Ms. Colleen Pacheco of the Oregon Association for Safe Highways. b. Presentation: Colleen Pacheco, Oregon Association for Safe Highways presented information and a short video showing safety issues with triple trailer freight tracks. Ms. Pacheco asked the Council to consider that the Association be allowed to use the City's name as a supporter of the Association's stand against raising the weight and size of freight trucks and/or direct staff to prepare a resolution to indicate the City's support of the Association. After brief discussion, Council consensus was to refer this issue to the Chief of Police, Public Works Director, and City Engineer for review and then forward to the City Council a recommendation about whether Tigard should support the Association's request. 9. CONSIDER WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD WORK WITH TRI-MET AND RIDE CONNECTION IN PROVIDING JOB ACCESS SERVICE TO LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS OF TIGARD a. Staff Report: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx introduced this Council agenda item. The job access program's purpose is to increase the ability of eligible passengers to use public transportation to commute to work, to training and educational opportunities, to access support services and childcare. Mr. Hendryx introduced Judy Edwards of Westside Transportation Alliance, Tony Mendoza of Tri-Met, and Carey Levitt of Ride Connection. Ms. Levitt described the program in additional detail and answered questions by Council members. Service will be targeted to reach neighborhoods and low-income housing areas where individuals with low income are clustered. The service will be contracted with transportation providers operating in Tigard using passenger cars and accessible minivans. This service is currently being provided successfully in rural Washington County. The service will be provided on a one-year trial basis utilizing a $50,000 grant provided by Tri-Met. After that time, the City will reassess the program to determine whether to apply for continued funding. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 7 b. Council Direction: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to accept the staff's recommendation to proceed with establishing additional transit service and cooperate with Tri-Met and Ride Connection in setting up the job access service. The motion was approved by an affirmative vote of Council present: Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla no 10. CONSIDER ENTERING INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD, NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY WATER COMMISSION, AND THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO TO CONTINUE WORKING ON A LONG-TERM WATER SOURCE a. Staff Report: Public Works Director Ed Wegner presented the staff report and viewed with Council a PowerPoint presentation on "Creation of a Joint Water Supply Entity on the Clackamas County River." A copy of this presentation is on file with the City Recorder. Staff requested the Council, on behalf of the City of Tigard's partners (the Intergovernmental Water Board) authorize the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with South Fork Water Board, North Clackamas County Water Commission and City of Lake Oswego to continue working on a long-term water source. Staff also recommended that the City of Tigard should continue investigating and working with the Joint Water Commission as well as continue to negotiate a wholesale contract with the City of Portland. b. Council Discussion Councilor Hunt, as the Council Liaison to the 1WB, was asked by staff to comment. Councilor Hunt noted that during his eight-year tenure on the Council, no project was more important than securing a long-terra water supply for the Tigard area. He advocated that the Council move forward with the South Fork option (noting that there may be a name change from "South Fork"). He listed the pros and cons of proceeding with South Fork or with the Joint Water Commission. He advised he was in favor of the South Fork option because it was the option that provided the most assurance of water rights and equal rights with other partners. While this option could be expensive, the COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 8 water rights and equal rights with other partners. While this option could be expensive, the City and its partners would be able to determine the costs before deciding whether to finalize this option. Councilor Hunt noted that it would be important to secure a secondary water supply source and the Joint Water Commission would be a good option to pursue for this purpose. He advised that members of the Joint Water Commission have been accommodating toward the City of Tigard. His concern in pursuing the Joint Water Commission option is that, because of the number of governmental agencies involved, it may be years before it is known whether this will work out as a long-term water source. In addition, it will be difficult to determine how much the Joint Water Commission will cost the City of Tigard and its water partners. Public Works Director Wegner noted that the South Fork option will need Lake Oswego's "buy in." In addition a pipeline will need to be built under the river representing costs and permitting challenges. Also, the present eight-mgd capacity pipe connecting to Lake Oswego will need to be enlarged. Councilor Patton agreed that it appeared important to proceed with all three options. She supported the idea of developing a secondary water source. After discussion, Councilor Hunt made a motion, seconded by Councilor Moore, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with the South Fork Water Board and to commit the amount of funding as outlined in the Council Agenda Item Summary. In addition, the motion included direction to staff to continue negotiations with the Joint Water Commission and the City of Portland. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of City Council present: Griffith yes Hunt yes Moore yes Patton yes Scheckla yes 11. HEAR A BRIEFING ON SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE CHALLENGES a. Staff Report: Risk Manager/Analyst Loreen Mills and Finance Manager Tom lmdieke presented information to the Council. ffim The United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered a permanent injunction in the case of AGG v. Washington County and the City COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 9 of Beaverton that prevented either jurisdiction from regulating the price, route or service in the transportation of mixed solid waste or recyclables taken from a single commercial source to manufacturers, recycling facilities, or material recovery facilities. Staff and legal counsel, based on the outcome of the above case, believe it is prudent to refrain from enforcing this aspect of Tigard's franchise agreement with franchised haulers until the an appeal decision has been rendered. However, the City's obligation to achieve specified recycling levels is unchanged. Staff also recommended that the Council's current policy for solid waste management should still be enforced. The City has authority to regulate all other portions of the solid waste ordinance other than exempt loads. The AGG decision also found that the current franchise system has been a "barrier to entry" into the business of solid waste transportation. Staff has been working with other jurisdictions and interested parties to develop an ordinance and process to address the Court's injunction and preserve the City's ability to carry out it responsibility associated with meeting the State's requirement of an Integrated Sold Waste Management Plan. On November 14, 2000, a public hearing will be held to change the ordinance to provide a registration process. This process is recommended to be applied regionwide in order to continue to monitor how well the region is doing in meeting recycling goals. Finance Manager Imdieke noted there will be financial impacts that could mean the Council will have to raise residential rates. (See fiscal notes contained in the Council Agenda Item Summary on file with the City Recorder.) Presently, there is a commercial subsidy offsetting costs to residential service. It has been a long-term policy of the City to eventually reduce this subsidy. Mr. Imdieke advised that more information would be known about the extent of a potential rate increase next spring during the rate review. Mike Leichner of Pride Disposal was present and commented that this was a "new area" and that he would know more about the financial picture by next March. City Attorney Ramis advised that the main two issues to monitor and consider are to work toward the recycling requirements and the fact that the more lucrative accounts would not fall under the franchise authority. Because the COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 10 court action is under appeal, there is also the possibility that the City's franchise authority would stay intact. 12. REVIEW SW NORTH DAKOTA AND 130TH /HAWKS BEARD TRAFFIC CALMING DISCUSSIONS a. Staff Report: City Engineer Gus Duenas reviewed the history and past actions concerning the traffic calming devices on SW North Dakota and Hawks Beard at SW 130'. He noted that on SW North Dakota, these devices have cut volumes and reduced speeds. He recommended that the Council decide what to do on SW North Dakota first before making a decision on SW Hawks Beard. b. Council Discussion Councilor Hunt advised that he asked for this item to be brought up again because of the policy of connectivity in the City of Tigard. He noted that he was disturbed by the way this issue was reviewed and presented, including the participation and actions by one of the previous Council members. He said that he had been in favor of all of the traffic calming measures proposed for SW North Dakota with the exception of the traffic diverters. Councilor Scheckla asked questions of the City Engineer concerning the diverter at Hawks Beard/SW 130` Avenue. Mr. Duenas advised this project was in progress when he started with the City of Tigard and that the diverter was part of the Winterlake bridge project. Councilor Scheckla noted his concerns with connectivity and that the traffc calming devices in these two areas were not consistent with that policy. He was concerned that support for the transportation measure could be in jeopardy because of these two streets. There was discussion on traffic volumes and speed control. City Engineer Duenas explained that traffic volumes dip for a short time only once speed humps are installed. The diverters are more effective in reducing traffic volumes. SW North Dakota is a minor collector and minor collectors should handle volumes up to 3000 vehicles per day. SW North Dakota, before the traffic calming measures were installed, was experiencing 4-5,000 vehicles per day. Councilor Patton indicated she had reviewed the information on the history of these issues and noted the effort, time, and energy expended in the eventual installation of the traffic calming devices. She said that she was troubled that one of the past Councilors was a spokesperson for the issue. In the case of SW COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 11 North Dakota, it appears that the Task Force's recommendations are doing what they were intended to do. She referred to the initial poor street layout of SW North Dakota. At this point, she said that she did not want to revisit this matter and that the City should not be spending time and dollars to review again. Councilor Patton commented on SW Hawks Beard and noted information contained in the staff summary, which included that there have been numerous traffic citations and other indicators that may mean that the diverter is not addressing issues effectively. Councilor Moore advised that he was in favor of connectivity. He distinguished the situation at SW North Dakota and other areas of the City in that cut-through traffic from neighboring cities were using this neighborhood. If other neighborhoods were also experiencing this type of cut-through traffic, he said he would also support a review process similar to that followed for this area. Councilor Scheckla said he believed that the traffic calming measures should have been implemented without the diverter to determine if volumes would have been reduced. Gene McAdams, 13420 SW Brittany Drive addressed the Council. He said Council should revisit the diverters. He noted that he believed the diverters represented a barricade that effectively turned the streets into private streets. Mr. McAdams recalled that the diverters on SW Hawks Beard were to have been reviewed by the Council after six months; this did not occur. He said drivers regard the diverter at SW Hawks Beard as invalid and a nuisance. He said the staff report indicated that the Committee was 100% in favor of the diverter; however, he claimed that because of the political issues, members did not oppose the diverter because some were concerned the bridge would not be built if the diverter was not supported. Mr. McAdams said all residents should be treated the same and asked that the Council review the past decisions made. Mr. Ed Halberg addressed the City Council advising he served on both the task forces (SW North Dakota and SW Hawks Beard). He said that he is disturbed that this issue was brought up again. With regard to the SW North Dakota traffic calming recommendations, the Task Force's goal was to make a bad situation better because of an initial design flaw for that street. In addition, Mr. Halberg advised that he was the spokesperson for this Task Force. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 12 Mr. Halberg noted that people who live on SW Hawks Beard like the diverter. However, he noted that the design may need to be reviewed and reported that additional development has occurred in this area. If this Issue is revisited, he supported the same process that was followed before. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckia asking if Mr. Halberg would support a three- month trial period of removing the diverter, Mr. Halberg considered that he was speaking as an individual, not knowing what others in this area may want, and responded "no" to the question. Council discussed that it appeared that Councilors Hunt and Scheckla supported a review of these two streets, while Councilors Moore and Patton would agree to review SW Hawks Beard only. Mayor Griffith said that he would like to consider this matter further. The Mayor will report his decision to the Council at the October 17, 2000, meeting. Due to the lateness of the hour, the Council decided to address remaining agenda items at the October 17, 2000, City Council meeting. 13. REVIEW COUNCIL MEETING QUESTIONS: Set over to October 17, 2000 14. COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE: Set over to October 17, 2000 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 18. ADJOURNMENT: 11:11 p.m. Attest: t erine Wheatley, ity ecor r 1 yor, city lg r Date: (7 A i COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 2000 - PAGE 13 CITY OF TIGARID, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, E-QSLA LL 14 begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an ay: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) D ® -J- which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated 1 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ \':-1z' day of dC_~n ,20©b 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon . 16k Subscribed and sworn to before me this -day of 20 Notary Public for Oregon pp OFFICIAL SEAL D L VASE My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMM OMM NO.320582 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. 11. 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 00- ag AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP, APPROVING CERTAIN VARIANCES, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000- 00014, 00017, 00018, and 00019) WHEREAS Applicant Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. has requested approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map, Zoning Map, and variances for certain property described as 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard within the corporate limits of the City of Tigard, said property also described as Washington County Tax Assessor's Map 1S135DA, tax lots 4600 and 4700; and WHEREAS The City Planning Staff has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the same with conditions and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposal with revised conditions; and WHEREAS The proposal was duly noticed for hearing before the City Council on September 26, 2000, at which time the Council heard from the applicant and its supporters, there being no public opposition to the proposal; and WHEREAS The Council, following such hearing, determined that it should approve the applications with the recommended conditions of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS The Council bases its approval of the proposed plan and zoning map amendments and the requested variances as being consistent with all relevant criteria as stated in the Findings and Conclusions in Support of the same set forth in Exhibit "1" attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS The City Council met on October _10th_, 2000 and voted to adopt this ordinance granting the aforesaid requests; now, therefore i THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: i i SECTION 1: The applications for plan amendment, zone change, and variances in file i nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-00014, 000017, i 00018, and 00019 are hereby granted and approved in the manner set forth below. SECTION 2: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as shown in the 1 attached Exhibit 2 with the amendment to take place at the time stated in Section 6 of this ordinance. Ordinance No. 00- od g Page I SECTION 3: The Tigard zoning map is hereby amended, with the amended map to be in the form of Exhibit 3. This amendment shall take place at the time stated in Section 6 of this ordinance. SECTION 4: The aforesaid variance requests are hereby granted, with the approvals effective at the time stated in Section 6 of this ordinance. SECTION 5: The Findings and Conclusions in Support of the Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Variance requests, as set forth in Exhibit "1" are hereby adopted as the basis for this Council action. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By f~(1Q,ort~M CLI' I ) vote of all Council members present after being read ny umber and title only, this 10th day of October, 2000. w Catherine Wheatley, City Reco r APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 10th day of October, 2000. ~Imes Griffi a Approved as to form: ity Attorney V I c9lt'0f 60 Date I:citywide\10-10-00 CPAH ordinance.doc ~ a Ordinance No. 00-0d-h Page 2 LM EXHIBIT "1" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019) The Tigard City Council finds as follows: SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY CASES: FILE NAME: VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000- 00001NAR 2000-00014NAR 2000-000171VAR 2000-00018NAR 2000-00019 PROPOSAL: A request for approval of legislative Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Low-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, Rezone from R-12 to R-40 and Variances to allow the following changes: 1. decrease required setback on north sideyard from 35 feet to 10 feet. 2. decrease required setback on south sideyard from 35 feet to 10 feet. 3. decrease required setback on rear yard from 35 feet to 20 feet. 4. change the minimum-parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. The subject property is located on 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard, 1 S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700. APPLICANT: Community Partners for Affordable Housing P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 OWNER: Cahn Trust 5795 SW Cranberry Ct. Beaverton, OR 97007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-12 LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Goals 1-19; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b) 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3; Community Development Code Chapter 18.370 Chapter 18.380.030, and 18.390.060(G). Metro Functional Plan. Lon ;FIN018DINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, , and 000019 Page 1 The Tigard City Council finds as follows: SECTION 11: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site History: The subject parcels were annexed to the City in 1987. The project sponsor, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH), first optioned these parcels in May of 1999. Currently, these parcels are located within the area being re-zoned through the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (WSRCP). Vicinity Information: The subject parcel is generally located north of Highway 217 and SW Hall Boulevard represents the eastern boundary for the site. The site is located within the area that will eventually be re-zoned for the Washington Square Regional Center. The proposed zoning for this site is MUR 1, or Mixed-Use Residential 1, which permits residential development to be built at a density of 50 units per acre and allows some commercial uses be constructed with a mixed-use project. Site Information and Proposal Description: Of the subject parcels, tax lot 4700 is .11 acres in size and tax lot 4600 is .73 acres. The surrounding properties are all zoned R-12, just like the subject site. The neighboring property to the west is developed as St. James apartments, which is accessed through a driveway along the north side of the subject site. The property to the south is developed as a single-family home. Properties across SW Hall Boulevard are developed as single-family homes, with two apartment complexes at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. SECTION III: GENERAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Tigard City Council finds and concludes as follows: The following evaluation and findings are intended to address both the requested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City Development Code. The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Goals 1-19: Oregon Administrative Rule 660-12-060; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.1, 12.1.1, 12.2.1; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.390.060 and 18.390.060(G). STATEWIDE GOALS Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires a citizen involvement program that ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.1 and Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18 provide for citizen participation and notice. The Council finds that notice of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and opportunity for response were advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Notice of both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings was mailed out to all property owners located within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Exhibit A is a map of all the properties that were sent notice of the hearings for this proposal. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 2 The applicant is also required to hold a neighborhood meeting to describe the proposal to neighbors before they can submit their application. Exhibit B is a letter from Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing Director, informing neighboring property owners of the neighborhood meeting. An affidavit of mailing and posting for the neighborhood meeting was also included in the applicant's packet (refer to Exhibit C). One of the application requirements is that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting and send notice of this meeting to all property owners located within 500 feet of the site of the proposal. The applicant complied with this requirement. The Council concludes this goal is satisfied. Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The Council finds this goal is met because the City has applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan policies and Community Development Code requirements in the review of this proposal. Since the applicant is proposing to construct a higher density of residential development than is permitted under the R-12 zoning, the applicant is meeting the intent of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan for this area. The Council Concludes this goal is satisfied. Agricultural Lands: Goal 3 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. The Council finds and concludes that this goal is not applicable because no agricultural lands are involved in this plan and zoning map amendment. Forest Lands: Goal 4 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to preserve and maintain forest lands. The Council finds and concludes that this goal is not applicable because no forest lands are involved in this plan and zoning map amendment. Open Spaces Scenic, and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: Goal 5 requires, in part, that adopted comprehensive plans be revised to conserve and protect natural resources and scenic resources. The Council finds and concludes that this goal is met because this proposal does not affect open spaces, scenic areas, historic areas, or natural resources. The Council finds that staff reviewed the City's water resources map and found that no water resources, or floodplain exist on this site. The following natural resource agencies were sent request for comments: Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, US Army Corps. Of Engineers, and Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). Exhibits D and E are Request for Comments forms from, respectively, the Division of State Lands and USA. Each agency representative stated that they had no objections to this proposal. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: Goal 6 requires the maintenance and improvement of the quality of air, water, and land resources of the state. The City of Tigard complies with this goal through its adopted comprehensive plans and policies regarding water resources (Tigard Comprehensive Plan Volume ll, Chapter 4 and Tigard FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 3 Development Code standard: 18.797). The proposals before the Council do not affect such compliance. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Natural Disasters and Hazards: Goal 7 requires the protection of life and property from natural disasters and hazards. This City of Tigard has existing regulations that address natural disasters and hazards. The subject is not located within the floodplain; therefore, it appears that no natural hazards would exist for this site or proposal. The proposals before the Council do not affect such compliance. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Recreational Needs: Goal 8 requires satisfaction of recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. The Council finds and concludes that this goal is not applicable because no recreational issues or destination resort issues are involved. Economic Development: Goal 9 requires the provision of adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities. The Council finds and concludes that this goal has been met because the plan continues to promote opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Tigard citizens. The proposed higher density and affordable housing development will promote economic development because it will create affordable housing opportunities for local service workers. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Housing: Goal 10 requires that plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at various price ranges and rent levels and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. The Council finds as follows: The applicant is proposing an upzoning from R-12 to R-40 which will increase the potential for more housing units in the City than currently exists. Furthermore, the applicant will require future tenants to demonstrate that their income level is at or below 50% of median income, and therefore they are in need of affordable housing. This project will make more housing units available and more units available to low-income individuals in Tigard than currently exists. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Public Facilities and Services: Goal 11 requires planning and development of timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The Council finds as follows: The subject site has full urban services available to it: police protection; sanitary facilities; storm drainage facilities; public transit; and transportation services. When the applicant goes through the site development review application process they will be required to meet the Tigard Development Code standards for street and utility improvements. Moreover, the applicant will be required to pay system development charges FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 4 for transportation, parks, sewer, water, and storm drainage. They will be required to make improvements for their frontage along SW Hall Boulevard. Request for comments forms were sent to the following providers of public facilities: City of Tigard Engineering Department, City of Tigard Police Department, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Public Utilities Commission, US Army Corps. Of Engineers, USA, Tri-Met, Tualatin Valley Water District, TCI Cablevision of Oregon, US West Communications, Portland General Electric, Tigard-Tualatin School District, NW Natural Gas Company, and General Telephone. Tigard Police Department reviewed the application and had no comments on it (Exhibit F), Tigard Water District had no comments (Exhibit G), Oregon Public Utilities Commission had no comments (Exhibit H), and USA had no comments (Exhibit E). The applicant received a letter from the Tigard-Tualatin school district, stating its support for the proposal (refer to Exhibit 1). For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Transportation: Goal 12 requires a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Council finds as follows: SW Hall Boulevard is an ODOT facility. ODOT provided comments on this application (Exhibit J). ODOT stated in its comment letter that it had no objection to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and variance. They have specific requirements as far as improvements that will affect SW Hall Boulevard. These comments regarding conditions of approval are more applicable during the Site Development Review process than the comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and variance application process. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Energy Conservation: Goal 13 requires that land and uses developed on land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. The Council finds that the land will be developed, and the uses on the land will be managed, to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The proposed building will meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this goal is satisfied. Urbanization: Goal 14 requires orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The Council concludes that this goal is not applicable because urban growth boundary issues are not involved. Willamette River Greenway: Goal 15 requires protection, conservation, and enhancement of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The Council concludes that this goal is not applicable because Willamette River Greenway issues are not involved. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 5 Estuarine Resources: Goal 16 requires recognition and protection of the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands and, where appropriate, protect, maintain and restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. The Council concludes that this goal applies to coastal areas and, therefore, is not applicable. Coastal Shorelands: Goal 17 requires conservation, protection, and, where appropriate, restoration of coastal shorelands. The Council concluders that this goal is not applicable, as no coastal shorelands are involved in this application. Beaches and Dunes: Goal 18 requires conservation, protection, and, where appropriate, restoration of coastal beaches and dunes. The Council concludes that this goal is not applicable, as no beaches and dunes are involved in this application. Ocean Resources: Goal 19 requires conservation of the long-term values, benefits, and natural resources of the nearshore ocean and the continental shelf. The Council concludes that this goal is not applicable, as there are no ocean resources involved in this application. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES General Policies: Policy 1.1.2, Implementation Strategy 2, requires that in order to approve quasi-judicial changes to the comprehensive plan map, the City Council must find: a) The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; and b) A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation, or c) A mistake was made in the original land use designation. The Council has already concluded that this proposal is consistent with statewide planning goals as addressed above under 'Statewide Goals' and that the proposal will confirm to all applicable Tigard plan policies and development code provisions for the reasons set forth below. The Council also concludes that the proposal conforms with the applicable portions of the Metro "Urban Growth Management Functional Plan" that was approved for adoption on October 24, 1996, by the Metro Council. In so concluding, the Council notes that the Metro "Growth Concept" map associated with the Functional Plan indicates this area as a Regional Center. Since the subject parcel is located within the Washington Square Regional Center boundary, this proposed increase in density will meet the intent of the Metro Functional Plan. In addition, this parcel is designated for 50-units per acre, mixed-use residential density development under the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The Council further finds that the proposal meets subsection b of Implementation Strategy #2: "A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation." The adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the public facility and service changes implicated thereby represent a physical change of circumstance and, once implemented, will change the potential for development within this area. The Council concludes that this policy is met. Citizen Involvement: Policy 2.1.1 states that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The Council finds as follows: The Planning Commission and City Council hearings were legally advertised. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 6 Notice of these hearings were sent to property owners located within 500 feet of the subject parcel (refer to Exhibit A). The applicant held a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting their application (refer to Exhibits B and C). For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Housing: Policy 6.1.1 requires the City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. The Council concludes that this policy is primarily implemented through OAR 660-07, the Metropolitan Housing Rule. The rule requires that the City maintain sufficient residential buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new units to be attached single family or multi- family housing and to provide for an overall density of ten units per acre. The Council finds that the City is currently in compliance with this rule. The Council finds as follow: The applicant is proposing an upzoning from R-12 to R-40 which will increase the potential for more housing units in the City than currently exists. According to the applicant's narrative, with which the Council agrees, Tigard is one of the least affordable cities in.the Portland metropolitan area, and one of the most imbalanced from a jobs-housing perspective. Furthermore, the Council finds the applicant will require future tenants to demonstrate that their income level is at or below 50% of median income, and therefore they are in need of affordable housing. The Council concludes that this project will make more housing units available and more units available to low-income individuals in Tigard than currently exists. By creating more affordable housing in the City, the applicant is meeting the intent of this plan policy. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Public Facilities and Services: Policy 7.1.2 requires that a pre-condition to development that: a. Development coincide with the availability of adequate service capacity including: 1. Public Water; The Council believes the staff report to the effect that the site accesses public water from Tualatin Valley Water District. 2. Public Sewer shall be required for new development within the City unless the property owner involved is 300 feet from a sewer line and Washington County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and The Council believes the staff report to the effect that the site can access sewer via a line located in SW Hall Boulevard. 3. Storm Drainage; The Council finds that the storm drainage facilities will be reviewed as part of the site development review application. b. The facilities are: 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and The Council finds that adequate facilities will be one of the review criteria of a site development review application. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 7 2. Designed to City standards. The Council finds that, as part of the site development review process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that facilities are designed to City standards. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Transportation: Policy 8.1.1 requires the City to plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The Council finds as follows: SW Hall Boulevard is an ODOT facility. ODOT provided comments on this application (Exhibit J). MOT indicated it had no objection to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and variance, while noting that that agency had specific requirements as far as improvements that will affect SW Hall Boulevard. The Council concludes that these comments regarding conditions of approval are more applicable during the Site Development Review process than the comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, and variance application process. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Transit: Policy 8.2.2: The city shall encourage the expansion and use of public transit by: a. Locating Land Intensive Uses In Close Proximity To Transitways; The Council finds as follows: This application is located in close proximity to transitways. Bus line #43 runs east west on Locust with a bus stop less than 0.4 miles from the subject parcel. The #12 bus line on SW Barbur Boulevard runs frequently and can be accessed within 0.3 miles from the site. A major transit center is located on SW Commercial Street in downtown Tigard, which is less than one mile from the site. In addition, a request for comments was sent to Tri-Met, which had no objections to the proposal (refer to Exhibit K). For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. b. Incorporating Provisions Into The Community Development Code Which Require Development Proposals To Provide Transit Facilities; And The existing development code addresses the provision of transit facilities. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. C. Supporting Efforts By Tri-Met And Other Groups To Provide For The Needs Of The Transit Disadvantaged. The Council finds that many of the residents in the proposed project will be transportation disadvantaged and providing housing near public transit meets this policy. For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Energy: Policy 9.1.1: The city shall encourage a reduction in energy consumption by increased opportunities for energy conservation and the production of energy from alternative sources. The Council concludes that the Washington Square Regional Center FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 8 Plan will encourage reduction in energy consumption by allowing the opportunity for housing to be located in close proximity to jobs and transit. According to the applicant's representative, Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, "The applicant intends to apply for any and all grants and tax credits for weatherization measures which go beyond code requirements. Additionally, conservation training is provided for residents throughout the year, focusing on water and electrical consumption and recycling of household waste." For the foregoing reasons, the Council concludes that this policy is met. Locational Criteria: Policy 12.1.3: The city shall provide for housing densities in accordance with: a. Applicable Plan Policies; The Council finds that the proposed project is in an area already planned and zoned for medium density residential development (R-12). A major apartment complex, St. James Apartments, is located adjacent to the subject parcel. b. Applicable Locational Criteria; 1. Medium-High Density and High Density Residential A. The following factors will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not committed to low density development; The Council finds as follows: The proposed project is in an area already planned and zoned for medium density residential development (R-12). A major apartment complex, St. James Apartments, is located adjacent to the subject parcel. None of the adjacent parcels are zoned for single-family (R-4.5) residential development. (2) Areas which can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas; The Council finds as follows: Existing development code has buffering standards. None of the adjacent parcels are zoned for single-family (R-4.5) residential development. (3) Areas which have direct access from a major collector or arterial street; The Council finds the proposed project has direct access to SW Hall Boulevard, an arterial street. (4) Areas which are not subject to development limitations; The Council finds as follows: The subject property is not subject to development limitations, such as wetlands, steep slopes, poor soils, or flood hazards. No delineated wetlands are located on the subject site, and the property is not located within the 100-year tloodplain. (5) Areas where the existing facilities have the capacity for additional development; According to the applicant's preliminary review, which the Council believes, the existing sewer, water, storm water and transportation facilities have additional capacity for FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 9 LMO development. The applicant will provide a detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed on facilities, as part of the site development review application. (6) Areas within one-quarter mile of public transit; The Council finds as follows: Bus line #43 runs east west on Locust with a bus stop less than 0.4 miles from this site. The #12 bus line on SW Barbur Boulevard runs frequently and can be accessed within 0.3 miles from the site. (7) Areas within one-quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers or business and office centers; and The Council finds that the subject site is located in close proximity to neighborhood shopping on SW Hall Boulevard and to shopping centers on Highway 99W. (8) Areas adjacent to either private or public permanent open space. The Council finds that Metzger Park is located within % of a mile away from Metzger Park. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan includes the creation of open space around the wetlands, approximately one mile to the north of the subject site. The Council concludes in weighing the above factors that the proposed medium-high residential plan designation and the proposed R-40 zoning designation are supported by the positive evaluation of the same set forth above. B. The following factors will be determinants of the density ranges allowed in the medium-high and high density planned areas should the City adopt more than one high density zone: (1) The topography and natural features of the area and the degree of possible buffering from established low density residential areas; The Council finds that the site is flat and should provide adequate buffering; however, the buffering requirement will be covered in detail during the site development review process. (2) The capacity of the services; According to the applicant's preliminary review, which the Council believes, the existing sewer, water, storm water and transportation facilities have additional capacity for development. The Council further finds that the applicant will provide a detailed analysis of the impact of the proposed on facilities, as part of the site development review application. The Council finds that requests for comments were sent to service providers and no objections were raised. (3) The distance from public transit; and The Council finds as follows: Bus line #43 runs east west on Locust with a bus stop less than 0.4 miles from this site. The #12 bus line on SW Barbur Boulevard nuns frequently and can be accessed within 0.3 miles from the site. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 10 (4) The relationship of the site to existing neighborhood and general commercial centers and office and business centers. The Council finds that the subject site is located within one mile from a variety of commercial and office centers (SW Hall Boulevard, SW Pacific Highway, SW Locust Street, SW Greenburg Road, SW Cascade Avenue, and SW Nimbus Drive). The Council concludes in weighing the above factors that the proposed medium-high residential plan designation and the proposed R-40 zoning designation are supported by the positive evaluation of the same set forth above. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS: Procedures for Decision -Making: Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, and Variances: Chapter 18.390.060 establishes procedures for consideration of legislative and quasi-judicial changes to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, implementing ordinances and maps. Section 18.30.390(G) lists the factors upon which the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions. The factors and Council findings are as follows: 18.370.010 Variances C. Approval process and standards. 2. The Director shall approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following criteria are satisfied: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this title, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; With respect to Variances 1&2, the Council finds as follows: The current setback standard for sideyard setbacks is 35 feet and the applicant requests the setbacks for the north and south sideyard be reduced to 10 feet. The proposed setback of 10 feet at the north abuts a 35-foot bermed and landscaped strip, which then abuts an access road to the apartment complex. The property to the north, upon which the driveway into the St. James apartments is located, is over 70 feet wide. The proposed setback of 10 feet to the south abuts a single-family residence, but is buffered by existing trees and the driveway to the residence. This boundary is also exposed to the least amount of building area since it faces the courtyard of the proposed development. In addition, the applicant will be required to meet standards for providing a buffer as part of the site development review application. The Council concludes as follows: When the Washington Square Regional Center plan is eventually implemented, there will be no required setbacks for the sideyards and rear yards. Because of the forthcoming changes to the setbacks, there is no material detriment to the purposes of the City's Development Code or to other policies and standards, which have been discussed elsewhere in these findings, nor to properties in the Regional Center area or the vicinity of the subject site. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014. 000017, 000018, ano 000019 Page 11 With respect to Variance 3, the Council finds as follows: The setback requirement for the rear yard is 35 feet. The proposed setback of 20 feet at the west abuts the trash disposal and garage area of a multi-family housing complex. The Council concludes that, under the Washington Square Regional Center plan, there would be no minimum setbacks required and the maximum setback would be 20 feet in the front and zero in the back. Again, because of the forthcoming changes to the setbacks, there is no material detriment to the purposes of the City's Development Code or to other policies and standards, which have been discussed elsewhere in these findings, nor to properties in the Regional Center area or the vicinity of the subject site Variance 4-The code requirement of the applicant for parking is 46 spaces and the applicant requests that amount to be reduced to 31 spaces. According to the applicant's narrative, which the Council believes, the proposed parking count of 31 rather than 46 spaces is a benefit to adjacent properties and the area since less impervious surface will be developed. According to the applicant's traffic study which the Council believes (refer to Exhibit L), low-income. housing projects require fewer parking spaces than typical multi- family housing projects. The planning staff had recommended that a condition of approval for the variance is that the applicant, as part of the tenant lease agreement, restrict each tenant to one car. The City Planning Commission amended the proposed condition to limit each unit to one parking space instead of limiting one space to each tenant, and the Council concludes, as did the staff with the Planning Commission, that this revised condition meets the need to assure that sufficient parking is available. If more parking is required, as evidenced by excessive on-street parking or neighborhood congestion then the applicant will be required to furnish staff with a lease showing where secure space for added parking is provided. The applicant has agreed to the limit of one car per apartment unit. b. There are special circumstances that exist which are peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; With respect to Variances 1,2,&3, the Council finds as follows: The setback requirements for the R-40 zone of 35 feet at the north, south, and west are sufficiently restrictive to render development of the site in a manner to meet the Regional Center Plan unfeasible. One reason for the 35 foot setback is to protect single-family homes; however, all parcels adjacent to this site are zoned R-12, a multi-family zone, and the surrounding uses are apartments, a wide driveway, and one single-family rental house. The setbacks proposed of 10 foot side yard and 20 foot front and rear yards produce a buildable site area of 26,500 feet while the current setbacks would yield a buildable area of only 15,000 square feet. The current setback would also prohibit the applicant to include amenities such as, open spaces or a courtyard on this site, which would make it a quality development. The applicant also contends that, under the current R-12 zone, a minimum of 9 units per acre would have to be constructed because of the new requirement that new development must be built at 80% of the minimum density standard. The eventual implementation of the Washington Square Regional Center represents a special circumstance because the applicant would not have to build 35-foot setbacks. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 12 111110111 With respect to Variance 4, the Council fends that the applicant's traffic study (refer to Exhibit L) demonstrates that affordable housing projects, such as this one, do not require as much parking as typical multi-family housing projects. In this case, the Council concludes that the parking lot would be underutilized if the applicant were required to construct the required number of parking spaces. C. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; With respect to Variances 1,2,&3, the Council finds as follows: The proposed use is permitted in the R-40 zone. The variance will not result in a higher density housing development than could otherwise be permitted, but would allow a better designed project than could be constructed under the current standards for setbacks. With respect to Variance 4, the Council finds as follows: it would be extremely difficult for the applicant to create a viable project that meets the minimum density requirements and the parking requirements without constructing a three-story building, or constructing underground parking. Building a three-story building and/or underground parking would be extremely cost prohibitive for this site, and would defeat the applicant's original purpose of building an affordable housing project. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development were developed as specified in the title; With respect to Variances 1,2,&3, the Council finds as follows: The development of the site with the proposed setbacks would not create conditions worse than if developed with the required setbacks. The amount of land disturbance, trees removed, or traffic generated will not be greater than would occur if the property were developed in such a way that it met the setback requirements. With respect to Variance 4, the Council finds as follows: The proposed site plan, with fewer parking spaces, will have less paved area creating less water run-off, less traffic, and a more attractive site. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the variance requested is the minimum variance, which would alleviate the hardship; The Council finds as follows: The hardship is imposed by the requirement to meet setback standards that were put in place to protect and buffer single-family detached homes from higher density apartments. Not only is that not the case in this location, but the City has adopted a plan that would eliminate the restrictive setback requirements on this property, once the plan is fully implemented. With respect to Variances 1,2,&3, the Council finds as follows: The hardship is imposed by the relatively small site and the restrictions placed on the applicant who is using government funding for the project. Small sites are normally developed with fewer units. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 13 Under the Washington Square Regional Center Plan design standards, the applicant would not have to apply for a variance on the setbacks. With respect to Variance 4. the Council finds as follows: Since the project will be an affordable housing project, the Council believes the applicant does not need to construct the number of parking spaces as required under the current standards. They indicate that the combination of requirements of minimum density, parking and height restrictions make it difficult to design a higher density project that creates a desirable living environment and is economically feasible. 18.380.030 QUASI-JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS AND PROCEDURES TO THIS TITLE AND MAP A. Quasi-judicial amendments: Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using standards of approval contained in Subsection D below. The approval authority shall be as follows: 1. The Commission shall decide zone change applications which do not involve comprehensive plan amendments; The Council concludes that it will decide this application, because it is combined with a comprehensive plan amendment. 2. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on an application for a comprehensive plan amendment and; This application involves a comprehensive plan amendment, which the Council concludes it will decide as part of these combined proceedings. 3. The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council on a zone change application, which also involves a concurrent application for a comprehensive plan amendment. The Council shall decide the applications on the record as provided by Section 18.390; 4. The Council concludes that this application involves a zone change, as well as a comprehensive plan amendment, and will be determined by the City Council as a part of these combined proceedings. C. Conditions of approval: A quasi-judicial decision may be for denial, approval, or approval with conditions as provided by 18.390.050. The Council concludes that it will approve this application with conditions and that this overall standard has been met. D. Standards for making quasi-judicial decisions: A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 98.390.060 TYPE IV PROCEDURE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 14 This land use action involves quasi-judicial amendments therefore, as per Type IV procedures two hearings, one before the Planning Commission and one before the City Council were held. Notice of the hearings was given to property owners within 500 feet, as well as to affected government agencies. G. Decision-Making Considerations: The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on the following factors: 5. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under the Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; These standards are addressed in Section II under 'Statewide Goals' in this staff report. The Council concludes that this standard has been met. 6. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; The State's Transportation Planning Rule is addressed in 'Statewide Goals' in the Goal 12, which is the Transportation Goal. The Council concludes that this standard has been met. 7. Any applicable METRO regulations; The Council finds as follows: In 1996, the Functional Plan designated the Washington Square Mall and the area around it as a regional center; an area of intense commercial, office, retail, and residential development. Under the 2040 plan, Tigard is required to demonstrate how it can comply with the concepts demonstrated under the 2040 plan. This proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone will create the potential for higher density residential development than is currently allowed. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan envisions this area to have higher density residential development and Metro supported the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. According to Metro staff, "[t]his proposal is consistent with Metro's Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation to Metro Council ...[I]t also supports the 2040 Growth Concept generally and the City of Tigard's Regional Center Plan specifically (refer to Exhibit M'". The Council concurs with this analysis and concludes that this standard has been met. 6. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and These standards are addressed under 'Compliance with Plan Policies' above. The Council concludes that this standard has been met. 9. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. The implementing ordinances are contained in the Tigard Community Development Code, which are addressed in this section of the staff report. The Council concludes that this standard has been met. As each of the standards set forth above have been met, the Council concludes that these factors have been met. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 15 Miscellaneous The Council finds as follows: Staff received two letters (Exhibits N and O) from a Metzger resident, Trudy Knowles, raising concerns with this application. She raises a number of concerns regarding environmental impacts of this application. As previously mentioned, no delineated wetlands exist on this site and it is not located within the boundary of the 100-year floodplain. During site development review, the applicant will be required to address issues of tree mitigation, buffering, traffic impacts, and landscaping. The Council believes the response to Ms. Knowles' letters prepared by the testimony and correspondence of Ed Murphy, a professional planning consultant. Overall Conclusion The Council concludes that the applicant has met all applicable statewide goals, comprehensive plan policies, Metro Functional Plan, and development codes and, therefore approves the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change. With respect to the applications for variances, the Council approves the same with conditions. The condition of approval relates solely to the variance from the parking requirements and is that each tenant would be allocated one parking space, or the applicant would give staff a copy of a lease for overflow parking for this project. EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A: Map of parcels where notice was sent of application EXHIBIT B: Letter from Sheila Greenlaw-Fink dated July 26, 2000 EXHIBIT C: Affidavit of mailing EXHIBIT D: Request for comments from Oregon Division of State Lands EXHIBIT E: Request for comments from USA EXHIBIT F: Request for comments from Tigard Police Department EXHIBIT G: Request for comments from Tigard Water Department EXHIBIT H: Request for comments from Oregon Public Utilities Commission EXHIBIT I: Letter from the Tigard-Tualatin School District EXHIBIT J: Letter from ODOT dated September 1, 2000 EXHIBIT K: Request for Comments from Tri-Met EXHIBIT L: Applicant's parking study EXHIBIT M: Request for comments from Metro EXHIBIT N: Letter from Trudy Knowles dated August 28, 2000 EXHIBIT O: Letter from Trudy Knowles dated September 1, 2000 EXHIBIT P: Letter from Thomas J. Murphy dated August 31, 2000 EXHIBIT Q: Applicant's narrative EXHIBIT R Additional exhibits submitted by applicants at the September 18th Planning Commission Hearing EXHIBIT S Draft planning commission minutes EXHIBIT T Letter from Ed Sullivan, dated September 21, 2000 I EXHIBIT U Letter from Pietro Ferrari, dated September 19, 2000 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS File Nos. CPA 2000-00002; ZON 2000-00001; and VAR 2000-000014, 000017, 000018, and 000019 Page 16 OEOORAPNIC INf ORMATION 5Y6TEM Coe~~lve Ply ,A~ u pensi Residential lv t I.eseed Compfe~ens~ve plan . ®g~,unda~►~ r r . The subjct tau 10ts, 0 (Vote. tare ~ a pensily Resider" bold crnsshat ium-~~9h ~ N 100 1~ 0 ~ ~~.1501eet ,1> ' one , Co c,~y of Tiga R l~~.Al7taw ~r1Mnmdtig~ Slow OEOORAFHIC INFOIMATION ETBTEM - ~~BIT 3 New Zonin o die the Adoptsg proposed Ordinance Legend C3 Zoning Boundaries R-12 D r r Note. The subject taxdots, dare indicated Wt 7a W bold crosshatch. e A N ~7 100 150 ~ Feel 0 SD ,..,sores C-G agbev6t%d TipMCW223 ~ardaut C-P ~T m!tV . and JDPIDD City e1 S~9 a -ure r 21000 ,,,lot N1e VAOvembe t summary itri~aC Impact andates unfunded m vision is the nos6ng n0 a te ~ a ke~ 9 a re to use 4 unfunded m rams using identified c because if the ossible { lot those pro9 ExPla~at~on act has been ble impait would be No fiscal imps ad Vitae notices ever, and to Pay added to provision hah Constrts tionn tat new Programs iannin9 itle andates was provision removed from the stab In local p .NO unfunded m in 1996, with a P Baled urre local gresource°`emmen that eXsstrn9 Measure uld be rep re4 ssumed this provision. the const,% . to ent V40 bet 2000. local ident~fred It ► 1 workload from m bet # Must cAnt+nue paying uirem ove unfunded State (Gents for state- that there enacted in N °no act has additrona 8A local 9overnsograms unless re-8A re-enacts the ~0 fiscal irnP would abso~ any mandated P Measure departments billion p million to $ rovision• rovistons Proh mandates P e from $80 have to Current constitue ltional ocation of sexually rang show this measure °f sexually te9ulation of th s with u J from vet, share Matron s to a loss hove h oriented busi ne teal nelg o{ location estimates Cevenu will, Aliows rebusi"O" es throug t or ac ulafion of state islatuSB Venues sure allows re9 ments. The legrevenue Reelves 87 oriented %b,eaterie 'Chi, mea only par year local govern state aid rec s zoning. h Zoning. a ers can act on odate the less at nsk• Ts This throug tl Oregon tax4 3 000 in federal direct imp accOmm therefore in as taxi' t excludm9 state 9 A 3 to $8.6 Curren a maXimum of $ $ measure would There r state bu the govemrnen revecould re $ e taxes aduct Hues C use a d aid. m taxes to be by uthe state with foca ra state shared sal tricorn a taxes P budget under this mess ts• on ih et y ° erating aired men Makes fede tible incomall {ede(al rnc°me er the ear in deduc s allow ncleat whe excise 000 P and P s req {or local governit is g1 paid full tax return It is u rake $810 o{ the General ductirngtol$ •A Iron million measure because Oregon deducted'atso acts core hen the 3.8 i° 1 costs for con 13 2 26 from this tee increases' measure ffeunclear pddtttona state and $ ue losses roving tax os fee (>h ven Itlsalso e{{ect. aority fo e 1 million for re es app the taxes. er-m ared nd measure will take royal by sutequire been prep easur See Fu by ve ates have ld treat ballot m ue source t collect voter tee 'Teases' Tr and char9 Requires x or fee ballot t►tle, Tetroac8 No esCrm voters wou revers and es validate a unknown how City of g e of fees voters rid (e must approve gain for moslangua9e rn virtually every etfor the tang s and unless to refu venues 93 taxes, fees; re4 roval ~o fle . 6.19g8 measuf a affects 2000-0~ budg a~ve, if it Pas City Wol have Suildin9 fees n is s This use the easure rs relro ears ,lhe e Y 2000-01. This cAuld mea percentage app Summanes rn the Yer the Past 2 w y interest and P F Cityl geca inareas of lh easure, 'th 45% in 1 of fee 1999-00 and Fund. refers d in violatito of 51°m pro horn the B%Oya 9 increase avesa9 to $600. increased an40p 000 a refund of $ LL' ui.l~.ull 1 1 v i t.. . Measure Title Explanation Impact 98 Prohibits using public This measure is aimed at the collection of Reduction in state expenditures for the biennial Voters' Pamphlet by $2.4 million. resources for political union dues from public employees, but it purposes; limits payroll may also have other effects. It would Local government expenditures for Local Voters' Pamphlets would decrease by deductions. prohibit city staff from lobbying elected $434,000. officials, and it would prohibit payroll deductions from public employees that Both cost reductions result from the elimination of candidates' statements from Voters' would be used for political purposes. This Pamphlets. would affect not just union dues, but also charitable contributions and some insurance. The measure would also eliminate Voters' Pamphlet Statements. 2 Creates process for requiring Administrative rules are used to help No estimated financial impact. legislature to review implement laws passed by the legislature. administrative rules. Rules are currently developed through a public process, including notification and hearings. This measure adds an additional requirement that upon petition by 10,000 qualified voters, the legislature must review an administrative rule. A rule not approved by the legislature is null and void. 3 Requires conviction before Currently, assets used in criminal The fiscal impact of this measure cannot be estimated, since it is not known how much forfeiture; restricts proceeds activities (cars, houses, and equipment) of the forfeited property could not be seized under the stricter standard. usage; requires reporting. are subject to criminal forfeiture, and penalty. proceeds from the sale of these assets The City of Tigard has budgeted an estimated $5,000 revenue in FY 2000-01. Actual are used to help support law enforcement receipts have ranged as high as $38,000 in prior years. activities. Assets may be seized after establishing 'probable cause but before Criminal Forfeiture revenues support DARE programs and drug enforcement. conviction. Measure 3 requires conviction before seizure. 7 Requires payment to Cities enact many regulations affecting Direct costs to state government are estimated at $1.6 billion per year and costs to local landowner if government real property. governments are estimated to be $3.8 billion per year. regulation reduces property value. 8 Limits state appropriations to This measure limits all state spending, This measure will reduce state government expenditures by an estimated $5.7 billion in percentage of state's prior regardless of the source of funds to 15% 2001-03 biennium. personal income. of the state's personal income in the prior biennium. There is no direct impact on local govemments. The legislature will, however, have to reduce the state budget to accommodate the loss of state revenue. Revenues shared There is no direct impact on local by the state with local governments could therefore be at risk. Tigard receives governments, though the state may $614,000 per year in state shared revenues (excluding state gas tax). This equals choose to limit or eliminate state shared 3.8% of the General Fund operating budget. In addition, Tigard receives about $1.7 revenues to help stay within the cap. million per year from the state gas tax. Because the measure limits all state spending, this transfer could also be limited. s AGENDA ITEM # f 5, n FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Budget Committee Regular Meeting PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK C~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Regular meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee - Information only STAFF RECOMMENDATION NA INFORMATION SUMMARY At its last meeting in June 2000, the Tigard Budget Committee decided to meet regularly throughout the year to receive updates on the budget and to receive information on issues affecting the financial condition of the City. An agenda for this meeting is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED NA VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA FISCAL NOTES N NA iacitywidesum.dot CITY OF TIGARD OREGON September 26, 2000 Mayor Jim Griffith 10914 SW Fairhaven Way Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Griffith: At the last meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee, we agreed that the Committee would.meet quarterly throughout the year to receive updates on the status of the City budget and to discuss issues affecting the City's financial condition. The first of these quarterly meetings has been set for Tuesday, October I Wh at 6:30 p.m. in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. The agenda for this meeting is attached. We anticipate the meeting will last one hour. The Council will go into their regular Business Meeting at 7:30. Please contact Heather Burris at 639-4171 ext. 431 if you are unable to attend. Otherwise, we will look forward to seeing you on October 10`'. Sincerely, Craig Prosser Finance Director Cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 jmj~iiijj Agenda Tigard Budget Committee Tuesday, October 10, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Tigard City Hall Red Rock Creek Conference Room I. Election of Officers II. Approval of Minutes III. Report on Final Changes to FY 2000-01 Approved Budget IV. Supplemental Funding Request - Good Neighbor Center V. Debrief - FY 2000-01 Budget Process A. What worked well B. What did not work C. Suggested changes for FY 2001-02 VI. November 2000 Ballot Measures VII. Schedule of future meetings VIII. Adjourn Agenda Item No. I D Meeting of !A - 13.00 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: June 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Good Neighbor Center Attached is a letter from Pat Biggs, Chair of the East Washington County Shelter Partnership Council doing business as the Good Neighbor Center. Pat's letter advises that the Good Neighbor Center is facing a shortfall of about $100,000 for the coming fiscal year. The City has included within its proposed budget for fiscal year 2000/2001 funding totaling $15,000 to fund the operations of the Center. The Good Neighbor Center is asking its "city partners" to increase their commitments. Washington County is being asked to provide funding in the amount of $100,000. Tigard is being asked to increase its commitment from $15,000 to $20,000. As the attached budget for the Good Neighbor Center shows, besides Tigard, the cities of Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Tualatin are expected to provide funding in the next fiscal year. It is not clear from the budget whether Sherwood, Wilsonville, Durham and King City have responded to requests for funding. Council may wish to consider increasing its contribution to the Good Neighbor Center, or a decision could be deferred until later once additional information is available regarding the Center's success in obtaining funding from Washington County and other jurisdictions. c: Craig Prosser I \ADM\GREER\MEM0S\000606WAM.00C RECEIVED C.O.T Good Neighbor May 31, 2000 JUN 2 2000 Center 1 ~ / M1t `r. fury 1 `~•~-~►I 1, I; I1`-'"I~. li' r Administration Jim Nicoli, Mayor 1 1 130 SW Greenburg Rd. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. Oregon 97223 (503)443 Tigard, Oregon 97223 -6084 Fax (503)443-3745 Re: Good Neighbor Center Dear Jim: On behalf of the Board, the staff and the residents of the Good Neighbor Center, want to thank the City of Tigard for the commitment of $15,000 to help fund the operations of the Center for the coming year. Will that money be available on July 1? At the same time we need to tell you that we are facing a shortfall of about $100,000 for the coming year. In order to give you as complete a picture of the shelter as possible, I want to share some history and some statistics with you. In November, 1999, we had a "Day to Care and Share" which was a campaign aimed at churches throughout the east Washington County, west Clackamas County area. We have raised over $39,000 from churches. Our "Quarters for Quarters" campaign which is currently running in the schools in the Tigard-Tualatin District has brought in about $7,500. It has done well and we plan to do these campaigns again in the coming year. We hope to expand them to reach children in other school districts within the area the Good Neighbor Center serves. We will continue to ask for money from individuals through the newsletter. In the past year we have raised $30,000 from individuals and corporations. At the same time we have spent virtually nothing on fund-raising. The costs have been covered by sponsors. We average about 800 hours a month donated by volunteers as meal providers, overnight hosts, shelter monitors and clerical help which is equivalent to an additional 5.23 FTE. We buy almost no food. Food is donated by generous community members providing an additional worth of about $65,700. This is a tremendous volunteer and financial commitment from our communities. Our fund-raising efforts will continue. The volunteer commitment from the community will continue. We received $43,500 from our city partners last year and have $37,000 in commitments from Tigard, Beaverton, Tualatin and Lake Oswego. We are asking all of our communities if it is possible to help us even more. We also are asking Washington County to underwrite this effort in the amount of $100,000. 1 am enclosing a budget so you can see where the money is going. Can the City of Tigard raise its commitment to $20,000 to help meet this projected shortfall in our budget? Thank you for your consideration of the needs of the residents of the Good Neighbor Center. Homelessness is not something any of us would like to face. The least we can do is help those who need it the most.. Si rely, at Biggs, Chair . E. Washington Co. Shelter Partnership Council . dba Good Neighbor Center t East Washington County Shelter Partnership Council, DB Good Neighbor Center - - - - - - - Percent of Qudget _ Budg FY FY 2000-01 - Total Budget FY 19"-00 et Revenue _ _ 40,000 ' RR 15.09% la Bxnce Forwanl CAO 15-U00 ' RR 5.66`Yo Bultmce Forwxnl-West Coast - g 100,000 - - CBG (County) 251000 s-RA/JN _ 9.43 0 - - 25,350 - ESG (Co $ ua- - S EHA (State) 20,000 ' JN 7.54°l0 20,05 - 0 23,334 • RA Ore on Dept of Education - - - - 18,750 ' RA/JN.- 7-.07% 15,000 ' RA City of Beaverton - 10,000 - - - 5.66% - T $ 15,000 15,000 xPB - City of Tigard - - - - 3.500 ' PB 1.32`)'0 CitY of I-Ake Oswe o 2 000 $ 3'500 • RAfPB 1.32% Y- City of Tualatin - - 5000 - 1.84% _ City of Sherwood - 2,500 - 0..94°!0 City of Wilsonville $ 0.9 2.500 _ . _ Ci of Durham S . - ,5 City of K4n1 City 2,500 _ 28,805 73,516 $0 27.73% Private Donations - - 20L.205 265,100 Total Revenue_----• - - - _ - ` - - Expenses - Hourly Rate - - - - - - - - - Personnel Cost S 124,640 S .32% _ $ 154,600 58 $ 16.83 Hrs i week - 35~~ - s 14.42 4400 Hrs- 1 weCk Shelter MtutaBer--- 0,000 - - - Shelterstaff asst. 1- 3- - - - - $ T-12.02 40 His ! week_ - - Shelter staff_` S-- - $ 12.02 40Hn/ $ 25,040 _ -11.54 20 Hrs / week. Shelter bluff - week 12,000 New Kithchen _ _ - _ - - 12,000 New Rotating. _ 11.54 20 Hty /week- Shelter staff (PT) $ - _ - _ 11.54 10 Hro J weCk S1iClterstxft(PT) Newoa ca - Shelter - $ 9,600 Cuvera'e 12368 611- 3% d Taxes r AA .S?O~f ----any covet '1 2 de .5 FICA C . 100 21.760 Em-~ tad - - - y Q f aot eoVe _ 400 Niedlc~at 2;160 no verod gtatf not c 8 if 4 Star Slaif b 252 Stafff-- - --''i- Life Ills _ - Retirement - - 1,500 3,300- s s 1600 I~u _ - 5 _ J - 3A, - dnh<lva TabilitY Over all auslueb~ L a>fi - - ' Co ctell CaTltracted ~p6Com. - _ - • - - _ _ _ _ - Cotrtracto _ - S -1,000 C1TCtlt ctecl CUTIIr'aLt Shelter - - 100Q. - - COW - ct uuieatioll Childre - $f _ _ 1000 _ 11 Wdistli uo Profetl'Tonal atiou _ - 2 _ f - ~'da__.1.-" y~uce Tcaat_ =c S 2,000 _ Move out ass► _ - gkills _ - - . - • Pareutin~holi in Ilse Client As~sl't-an - - c 25,700 9.6496 Facill~_ - - $ 4,840 utilities _ _ - - f-_ $ 2,500 _ Heat 1,000 _ - - - . El~_ $ 1,200 _ _ - - - - - . Wate^s 3000 S 2~~ --'--'--r'-""_ - - - Refuse $ 1,000 ,r end Carpet care J 15,560 S l 1,200 --r - - - _ - pacili Maintenence Costs $ 1,200 $ - - - - - m gu lies S✓-- 9 3:SS~a ~r J _ _ _ - S r 2,500 - - - - - - Adminl,trattoon $ _ _3.--- pffice Su lies _ S. - 5tb00 $ 500 - - - - - 500 Accouatiu Services 2,404 p-Y,,11 sere=ce Annual Financial Audit $ 2,600 5 1,200 Tra'utin $ - f 1,110 $ 200 0.83go Travel & Reimbursement $ Z,_- - _ _ . ----J~- 5 1'2~ - _ _ _ _ . - Volunteers 1,000 _ Recruitw 1,000 - _ . • 6,000 . _ . • . - - 1,500 $ _ Mstrketittg & Development 825 Pruitt,- S- 5 1,500 l000f & Brochures Art Nawaletters _ _ 5 - - - - . New donor _ _ - - - Grnat fund develop _ - - $ . , 265300 201,205 265,100 _ uses ToWtEx--- - _ r - - S City of Tigard, Oregon Budget Committee Meeting Minutes May 15, 2000 Members Present: Mike Benner, George Burgess, Craig Dirksen, Gene Farnstrom, Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton and Ken Scheckla. Members Absent: Jim Nicoli and Darlene Stevens. Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Heather Burris, Jim Hendryx, Tom lmdieke, Gary Lampella, Bill Monahan, Craig Prosser, John Roy, Nadine Smith, Paula Walker, Michelle Wareing and Ed Wegner. Visitor: Sue Beilke Call to Order: The meetingAvas called to order at 6:30pm by Gene Farnstrom, Chair. All members were present except Jim Nicoli and Darlene Stevens. Approval of Minutes: The meeting minutes of May 8, 2000 were approved. MSP Introduction: Craig Prosser, Director of Finance, introduced Heather Burris, Senior Finance Assistant. Libra : Paula Walker, Circulation Division Manager, presented this budget unit, which starts on page 76 of the Proposed Budget. The Library budget does not include any major changes or expenditures. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the Department is trying to save money for construction of a new library building. The second reason is that the reimbursement that the Library receives from Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) will decrease slightly in FY 00/01. There are no Capital Outlay expenditures budgeted. No new FTE positions have been requested. However, an additional .3 FTE has been added for additional hours for two existing positions - Volunteer Coordinator and MicroComputer Support Assistant. The goal of the Department is to maintain existing programs at the current service level. The Library Administration Division budget begins on page 77. This Division includes the Library Director, Volunteer Coordinator and a Senior Administrative Specialist. An additional .2 FTE is contained in this budget to increase the hours worked by the Volunteer Coordinator. i The Readers' Services Division budget begins on page 79 This Division budget contains the Reference Librarians, all Library programs and the Library collection costs. There is an 8 1 % increase in Materials & Services. About 51% of the increase is for the purchase of Library materials to improve the Library's collection. Paula noted that Library does receive a return on this investment because part of the WCCLS reimbursement is based on the amount a library spends on its collection. The additional increase is to cover part of the costs of the Young Adult programs that were previously funded through a grant. The Technical Services Division budget begins on page 80. This Division is responsible for processing and cataloging all library materials. The MicroComputer Support Assistant is also included in this budget unit. As discussed earlier, the MicroComputer Support Assistant position will be increased by .1 FTE. A goal of this Division is to decrease the amount of days it takes to process new materials and get them out on the shelf for the public to use. Paula noted that both Materials & Services and Capital Outlay have been decreased from FY 99/00. The Circulation Division budget begins on page 86. This Division is responsible for checking-in and checking-out all materials in a timely manner. Materials & Services has a decrease of 8.3% and no expenditures have been budgeted in Capital Outlay. There is a 7.9% increase in Personal Services, which is due to merit and step increases and benefit costs. Ken Scheckla asked what percentage of young people are using the Library and has there been an increase since the Young Adult programs were instituted. Paula responded that the Library does not have a precise way to track young adult library usage. Paula noted that the Young Adult programs are not being expanded. The added cost for these programs is due to the fact that a funding grant has run out. Gene Farnstrom stated that last year the Library was going through a difficult software conversion. Gene asked what the status was on the system. Paula responded that the system has been running smoothly for about 6 months. In March, the system had an "up-time" of 99% Paula noted that anticipated upgrades will help provide better service Ken S. asked how `VCCLS distnbuted 1`e1111bursernenls to the libraries. Paula responded that reimbursements arc h<ised on a complex formula that includes service area, collection sI;_e, c;irculaUcri, hours th(: Lihrnry is open, etc Hill Monahan noted that 69"o of the Library s budget revenues comes from the WCCLS levy Also, the vVCCLS levy nas been built into Washin(pton County's permanent tax rate Beiuie passage of Pleasure 50. the WCCLS rl101isure had to be renewe(I e:'eiv thre(' iC) ilv(t Veiiis , a Community Development: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, presented this budget unit, which starts on page 115 of the Proposed Budget Jim H. introduced his division managers - Dick Bewersdorff, Current Planning Manager, Gary Lampella, Building Official; and Nadine Smith, Long Range Planning Manager. The Community Development Depart is comprised of four divisions Administration, Building, Current Planning, and Long Range Planning. The Administration Division consists of the Community Development Director, an Administrative Assistant and the Development Services Technicians The Building Division includes the Building Inspectors, Plans Examiners, and Housing Inspector. The Current Planning Division is responsible for reviewing all current development applications and also includes the Code Enforcement Specialist position. The Long Range Planning Division includes future planning for next the 5 to 20 years, and the GIS mapping program. Jim H. stated that the Community Housing Program that was implemented last year has been successful. The Housing Inspector is responsible for ensuring that multi-residential facilities meet the minimal living requirements set by the City. Jim H. noted that he would be giving an update on this Program to Council in June. Community Development is responsible for overseeing all private and public construction within the City and the Urban Services Area. The total population served is approximately 50,000. The total Department budget has been decreased by 9% from FY 99/00. This includes a 10% decrease in FTE's. The reduction in staff is due to the removal of vacant positions from the budget. It was determined that these vacant positions would not be filled because of the decline in building revenues. Jim H. noted that the Building Division is considering a 51% increase in building fees. Jim H. stated that discretionary expenses such as training and purchasing were also reduced The Community Development Administration and Building Division budgets have been decreased from FY 99/00. The Current Planning Division budget has a minor increase due to cost of I;:-Inc; and waae increases. (1,atena±:: The Long Range Planning Division budget has a large increase in Services, which is due primarily to an increase in contract services Ken S. asked if the proposed fee increases were included in the hLidget Prosser responded that fee increases and anticipated revenues werzo includ'-d the budget Gene Farnstrom asked why Rents & Leases line item on page 122 went from zero to $34,430. Jim H. responded that the City decided to purchase the modular building, that it had been leasing, and will pay it off over five years. Public Works: Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented this budget unit, which starts on page 93 of the Proposed Budget. Ed introduced John Roy, Property Manager, who oversees the Parks, Street Maintenance, Fleet Maintenance and Property Management Divisions. Ed noted that Mike Miller, Utility Manager, who oversees the Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Divisions, was not able to attend. The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance and operation of all City parks, streets, sewers, vehicles and buildings. Ed stated that the Department's budget does not contain any large purchase items or new FTE's. Ed noted that the largest equipment purchase budgeted is a sewer cleaner. This expense is actually a carry-over from FY 99/00. The Parks Division budget unit begins on page 90. There is a 48.5% increase in Capital Outlay. The City's parks need to be upgraded to meet ADA requirements and Phase II of the Cook Park Master Plan will be started in FY 00/01. The Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Divisions budgets include the shared cost of the sewer cleaner discussed earlier. Ed noted that the Storm Sewer Division would be starting an Adopt-A-Stream program. This Division will be working with the City's Volunteer Coordinator to help create and implement the program. Ed noted that USA sanitation fees would be increasing 2.5% beginning July 1, 2000. Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer both receive money from USA for operating and maintaining the sewer lines. The Street Maintenance budget begins on page 103. This is a maintenance budget and no large purchase or new FTE's have been budgeted. The Fleet Maintenance budget begins on page 106. This Division is comprised of two mechanics and one coordinator and is responsible for maintaining all the City's vehicles. The Property Management budget begins on page '109. This Division is responsible for maintaining all the City's buildings. The Capital Outlay's increase of 36.9% is due to planned improvements to several facilities including new carpet for the Senior Center and additional card locks at City Hall. The large increase in Materials & Services is due to utility costs being transferred from General Government and several projects that were "on hold" must now be done. 4 The Water budget begins on page 112. Ed stated that the decrease in Materials & Services is due to a reduction in the water costs for City of Portland water. Ed noted that the Intergovernmental Water Board is considering a 3% increase to water rates. The increased revenue will help pay for necessary improvements to the water infrastructure and programs. Joyce Patton stated that the Fleet Maintenance budget includes a parts washer service contract. Joyce asked what this contract is. Ed responded that the City used to have a machine in-house that cleaned parts and gears. Due to changes in DEQ regulations, it was determined that it was more cost-effective to have an outside service perform this task. Ken S. asked if street sweeping was done in-house or if the City had a contract with an outside provider. Ed responded that the City did a cost study eight years ago and determined that it was cheaper to have an outside service do street sweeping. The street sweeping contract was just recently bid out and the new contract will be for three years. A discussion regarding street sweeping and the service provider's obligations ensued. It was noted that the City is not responsible if the street sweeping provider does not adhere to all DEQ requirements for disposal of the collected debris Craig Dirksen asked if the Land & Improvements line item of $90,000 in the Parks budget on page 92 was the City's portion of the purchase of property for Cook Park. Ed responded that the $90,000 is for improvements to the purchased land and ADA upgrades. The $136,000 in the Vehicles line item on pages 99 and 102 is the carry-over cost for the purchase of the sewer cleaner discussed earlier. Craig D. asked if a breakdown of the building improvement line item cost of 5182,500 on page 111 could be provided. John Roy responded that S125,000 is for the HVAC replacement in the older portion of the Police building, and S13.000 Is for a nev: roof for the niche The rest of the cost is for carpet replacement at the Senor Center, more card locks at City Hall, a new bathroom at Public Works and more parking lot lights for City Hall Social Ser,/ices_ _and-Communlty Events: Bill Monahan stated that the City COUnC11 ; ,isscd tree resolutions that designated three community events as Clty-s[wns.xed eras and set a base funding level. The three events and base fundinrJ i ;:els ar BrOcldway Rose Theatre Company, 510,000; Ti( lard Festival of Emil On-, > O,' an i Firl ir(j FOUrth Of .JUIy,57,500 The Social Services Subcommittee recommended that $71,800 be distributed to the social services programs. The amount remaining to be distributed was $15,850. City Council reviewed the community events applications and recommended the following grant distribution: For the three City-sponsored events: A Broadway Rose Theatre -$10,000 A Festival of Balloons - $10,000 Fourth of July - $7,500 For the other community events: ➢ Tigard Graduation - $500 ➢ Train Days - $4,000 Tualatin Riverkeepers - $1,710 ➢ Tualatin Valley Community Band - $1,250 The total grants to be allocated between Social Services and Community Events is $113,060. Council had recommended to set aside $1,000 for T19ard Country Daze, but Bill stated that the citizens, who had expressed interest in organizing the Tigard Country Daze parade, notified him that they would not need the money, since they were not going to do a parade this year. If the Committee approves the above recommendations, than a total of $8,400 is left for the Committee to allocate or it could be put into a contingency fund. A discussion regarding the use of the remaining funds ensued. Several Committee members expressed concern that if the funds are put into the General Fund contingency, the money will be spent on non-social services or non- community events. After much discussion, it was decided that the unallocated amount would be placed into General Fund contingency, but would be earmarked for Social Services and Community Event requests that might arise during FY 00/01. .The Budget Committee approved the recommended allocations to the Social L4 Services and Community Events. A total of $113,060 was allocated and the remaining $8,400 will be put into the General Fund contingency. Bill Monahan recommended that the Budget Committee meet quarterly during the fiscal year, so they can be kept apprised of the City's financial position and could review any future Social Service or Community Event requests. The i Committee agreed to start meeting quarterly in addition to the May budget approval meetings. a Debt Service: Craig Prosser presented this fund unit, which starts on page 175 of the Proposed Budget. 6 The General Obligation (GO) Bond Debt Service Fund includes $257,000 towards the bond that was issued for the building of the Civic Center in 1987. This bond will be paid off in FY 2003 In FY 99/00, a loan transfer of $30,000 from the General Fund to GO Bond Fund occurred. This was necessary because the GO Bond fund had been running in a deficit situation for the last three years. The transfer of $31,500 to General Fund in FY 00/01 will repay this loan, including accrued interest. Bancroft Bond Debt Service Fund pays the debt service on outstanding assessment bonds. An outstanding note related to the Dartmouth LID is included in this fund. It is anticipated that a long-term bond will be issued to pay for this note once the legal issues surrounding the Dartmouth LID are settled. Proposed Budget Adjustments: Craig Prosser stated that during the budget process a total of six budget amendments were identified. The proposed budget amendments are as follows: 1. Insurance rates were budgeted using projected rates provided by CCIS. Now, the City has the actual rates. Also, it was discovered that the worker's compensation code rates were not being applied correctly to some of the positions. These adjustments increase total costs by $15,231. 2. The Executive Assistant position in the City Management budget is being reclassified to a lower Administrative Assistant II position. Also, the position will be increased from .7 FTE to 1 FTE. These adjustments decrease total costs by $965. 3. A Management Classification/Compensation Study has just been completed. This Study recommends several new salary rates for specific staff positions. If Council approves these new salary rates, the increase to the total budget cost will be $59,714. 4. The Street Sweeper contract was bid out in FY 99/00. The Streets Division budgeted $111,650 for the contract. However, the lowest bid received was $118,497. An. additional $6,847 needs to be added to the Streets budget to cover the higher cost. 5. The Police Department was recently awarded a two-year grant to fund a third School Resource Officer position. The grant will pay the full cost of this position in FY 00/01 and FY 01/02. The General Fund needs to be increasers by 568.189 to offset the expenditure in the Police Department budget 6. Several changes were made to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and these changes need to be reflected in the Proposed Budget Ken S. asked if the $118,497 for the street sweeping contract was for one year or three years. Craig Prosser responded that it was the cost for one year of the contract. Mike Benner asked if the $68,169 for the officer position was the total cost for the position. Craig P. responded that total actual cost is approximately $80,000. However, since the officer will not start until September, the position was budgeted as a .83 FTE for FY 00/01. George Burgess asked how many positions would be affected by the salary rate changes mentioned in Amendment 3. Craig P. responded that approximately 10 to 15 classifications' salaries and benefits will be adjusted. A discussion regarding the $125,000 that was set aside as computer reserve followed. It was noted that the reserve goes into the ending fund balance, which is carried over into the next fiscal year's beginning fund balance. The reserve fund cannot be spent until it is appropriated during the budget cycle. State Revenue Sharing Hearing: Gene Farnstrom opened the State Revenue Sharing Hearing to the public at 8:10 p.m. Craig Prosser stated that the City would receive $205,800 in State Revenue Sharing Funds for FY 00/01. These funds will be placed into the General Fund and used for General Fund programs. Craig P. noted that the City will also receive three other State funds, but they are not subject to the State Revenue Sharing Hearing. The funds are as follows: Cigarette Taxes - $93,043; Liquor Taxes - $302,002; and State Gas Taxes - $1,726,129. There was no comment from the public regarding the State Revenue Shared funds. The State Revenue Sharing Hearing was closed to the public at 8:12 p.m. Other: Craig Prosser stated that a letter from a citizen had been included in the Committee's packet. The citizen, Sue Beilke, had expressed concern that the City did not have a natural resource (biologist botanist) position on staff. Craig P. noted that Ms. Beilke would be attending the meeting tonight, but was told to arrive around 8:30 p.m. A discussion regarding the City's need for this position, possible conflicts, and the timeliness of the request ensued. It was decided that it was too late in the budget process to consider adding such a position in FY00/01. City staff will be directed to further investigate the need for and the cost of a natural resource position. X • r Paul Hunt asked if $400,000 was set aside for a new library reserve. Bill Monahan responded that on page 181, it shows that $200,000 has been allocated to reserve. An additional $200,000 has been budgeted in the Facility Fund for future project costs. Public Comment: Sue Beilke, citizen, stated that she was concerned that the City did not have a natural resource position on staff. The City has many projects that could have potential effects on the City's natural resources. An in-house position would be able to provide input on the projects to help preserve the resources. Ms. Beilke noted that the position could inventory the City's natural resources including plants, trees and animal species. Ms. Beilke stated that the cities of Beaverton and Lake Oswego have a natural resource position on staff. Brian Moore stated that the Committee had discussed Ms. Beilke's request earlier and had decided that it was too late in the budget process to consider this position for FY 00/01. Brian noted that the Committee did recommend that City staff be directed to further investigate the need for this position, related costs, and potential problems. Budget Approval: Craig Dirksen motioned that the Proposed Budget with adjustments be approved. Joyce Patton seconded the motion. All Committee members were in favor. The Proposed Budget with adjustments was approved. MSP The Budget Committee was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. MSP Project Statistics Yearly Summary of Program Statistics ending June 30, 2000 The shelter re-opened for resident's on schedule September 13, 1999 and has operated without interruption. We provide shelter for families with children and single women without children. The shelter operates 24 hours a day, serving 3 meals a day, plus a snack. The Good Neighbor Center has paid staff of 4.5 Full Time Employees and operates an extensive volunteer program. The Volunteer Program contributed 7,951 hours of time on site in the shelter. Individuals contributed those hours by showing up at the shelter 2,359 times. We have served: 220 individuals 97 were children 12 years or younger 75 households Of the households served: 31 moved into permanent housing 6 moved into transitional housing 20 were evicted for rules violations 18 remained at their original status*** 0111~, 5 of these households completed the time at the shelter For the 42 households who completed our program; 36 households moved into stable housing This means that for families who completed their program over 80% were successful. We provided 5,574 bednigiits and served 16,722 meals on site. Mission The Good Neighbor Center is dedicated to providing safe emergency housing and supportive services to empower individuals and families to be self- sufficient. Philosophy and Values The Good Neighbor Center will.- Maintain ahigh level of integrity and values Maximize use of the facility and available resources Address the whole person including.- physica4 emotional and spiritual needs Provide a welcoming, safe, nurturing homelike environment Advocate and promote stable long term funding for homeless shelters in the region STRATEGIC PLAN Goal 1 Empowerlndividuals and families to achieve permanent stability A Provide basic living necessities that allow residents to establish financial stabi, y A Create appropriate programs for all residents A Help residents develop a vision for short and long-term life planning A Provide training, education and skillr development dlu'ng shelter stay A Assist residents in assessing needs and identring barriers to slabzliy A Integrate residents into the communiy A Advocate for residents Goal 2 Develop and maintain an independent and sustainable non-profit organization A Develop an organization to ensure stable long term funding A Develop a strategy forprivate, public, community and church funding A Provide community awareness and education on homelessness Goal 3 Develop partnerships with other community agencies A Create and promote partnersh ps in a strong network of community service providers A Develop collaborative programs in the areas of Afordable/Transitional Housing Fife Skillr Health Cara Menlal Heallh Educalionl EnipZ(ginenl Goal 4 Promote volunteer and community contributions to the shelter i nil aril/rllll an active volllnleL'1',)TO~J77r1J/ i' I\eauil, 1171111 and s1q5po1/ nobmleer:i 1l lrnllhlln an (Ill xoill9 rclallonshlp rvilh /host- who bare parlicipaled 1*11, Bred al, or nobinleelzd al lbe Sheller East Washington County Shelter partnership Council, IDBA Good Neighbor Center Budget Budget Percent of Revenue FY 1999-00 FY 2004-01 Total Budget Balance Forward $ - $ CBG (County) $ 100,000 $ - ESG (County) $ 25,350 $ 25,000 9.31% EHA (State) $ 20,050 $ 20,050 7.47% Oregon Dept of Education $ 23,334 8.69% FEMA $ 18,750 6.98% City of Beaverton $ 10,000 $ 25,000 9.31% City of Tigard $ 15,000 $ 20,000 7.45% City of Tualatin $ 2,000 $ 5,000 1.86% City of Sherwood $ - $ 5,000 1.86% City of Lake Oswego $ 10,000 3.73% City of Wilsonville $ 2,500 0.93% City of Durham $ 2,500 0.93% City of King City $ 2,500 0.93% Private Donations $ 28,805 $ 108,808 40.53% Total Revenue $ 201,205 $ 268,442 Expenses Personnel Cost $ 124,640 $ - 0.00% Hourly Rate Salary $ 145,000 Shelter Manager $ 35,000 $ 16.83 40 Hrs / week Shelter staff asst. $ 30,000 $ 14.42 40 Hrs / week Shelter staff $ 25,000 - $ 12.02 40 Firs / week Shelter staff $ 25,000 $ 1202 .40 Hrs / week Shelter staff (PT) $ 12,000 $ 11 S4 20 Hrs / week. Shelter staff (PT) $ 12,000 $ 11.54 20 Hrs / week. Shelter staff (PT on call) $ 6,000 $ 11.54 10 Hrs / week Taxes $ 11,600 FICA 07.7% $ 11,165 Workers Comp. 0.3% $ 435 Medical Insurance $ 11,040 Staff 1 $ 2,760 Emp. 100%, no dep. Staff 2 $ 2,760 Emp. 100%, Reimbursement Staff 3 $ 2,760 Emp. 100%, 2 dep. not covered Staff 4 $ 2,760 Emp. 100%, no dep. Staff 5 $ - PT not covered Staff. 6 $ _ PT not covered Staff 7 $ - PT not covered Life Insurance $ 252 Per Plan $ 252 Page 1 Retirement $ - Insurance $ 7,500 $ 4,600 Business Liability $ 3,300 Directors & Officers $ 1,300 Program Contract Client Services $ 4,000 $ 32,000 Shelter Food Needs $ 12,000 Over an ve donations ✓ Childrens Program $ 10,000 Contracted SupportGroups $ 1,000 Contracted Professional Counciling $ 1,000 Contracted Tenent Education $ 1,000 Contracted Life Skills $ 1,000 Contracted Parenting $ 1,000 Contracted Food Program $ 2,000 Walk-in distribution Clothing program $ 1,000 Walk-in distribution Client Assistance Expenses $ 200 $ 2,000 Move-out assistance Facility Utilities $ 12,300 $ 29,350 10.93% Heat $ 4,800 Electric $ 2,500 Water $ 1,000 Refuse $ 1,200 Telephone $ 3,000 $ 3,500 ? Floor and Carpet care $ 1,000 Facility Maintenence Costs $ 15,560 $ 14,150 ? Client Program Supplies $ 1,200 $ 1,200 Administration $ 16,780 $ 21,400 7.97% Office Supplies $ 3,000 $ 2,500 Office Equipment $ 5,600 $ 1,200 Accounting Services $ 12,000 P oll service $ 1,000 nual Financial Audit S 2,000 Training $ 2,600 $ 1,500 Travel 8c Reimbursement $ 1,110 $ 1,200 Volunteers $ 2200 0.82% Recruiting $ 1,200 Recognition $ 1,000 Marketing & Development $ 11,000 4.10% Printing $ 1,500 $ 6,000 Postage $ 825 $ 1,000 Newsletters 8t Brochures Art $ - $ 1,500 New donor development $ 1,390 $ 1,000 Ch*t fund development $ 1,000 Advertising $ 500 Took Expenses $ 201,205 $ 268,442 Page 2 EAST WASHINGTON COUNTY SHELTER PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL, INC. HISTORY The East Washington County Shelter Partnership Council, Inc., was formed in March of 1999, a month after the homeless shelter, formerly called the "RITE Center", in Tigard, OR, closed. The newly built 36-bed shelter opened in November of 1996 and closed in February 1999 due to lack of funds. Many concerned citizens came together and formed a coalition to get organized and reopen the shelter. Because of some of the issues surrounding the RITE Center, a new board was formed representing the various communities in the area as well as the faith community. This group called itself the East Washington County Shelter Partnership Council. The Shelter Partnership Council realized it didn't have any experience in running a shelter so they formed a partnership with Community Action Organization. CAO is a non-profit social services agency in Washington County who operates the shelter in Hillsboro as well as the Domestic Violence Resource Center. The Community Block Grant Office in Washington County provided a large block of money to get the shelter reopened and the EWCSPC committed to raising the funds for the coming years. In August 2000 EWCSPC ended the one-year partnership with CAO and began running the shelter. The coalition between EWCSPC and CAO allowed the shelter council to participate in the hiring process and staffing decisions. CAO provided financial services enabling the shelter council to understand the budget and spending patterns before taking over the operation. The Good Neighbor Center was the name selected for the shelter. The council became incorporated and gained non-profit status. Committees were formed for community relations, strategic planning and fund raising. In December the many churches in the east Washington County and west Clackamas County area did a fund drive called a "Day to Care and Share". In the late spring the students in the Tigard-Tualatin School District participated in a "Quarters for Quarters" campaign. We are hoping to expand that fund-raising with school children throughout our service area. Our community relations committee continues to work at making our communities aware of the plight of being homeless. The community support that helped build the Good Neighbor Center has been invaluable in providing volunteer support such as shelter meals and overnight hosts. These volunteers allow us to operate the shelter with a much smaller staff than most shelters need which in turn reduces our need for fund-raising. Washington County has a Community Safety Levy on the November 2000 ballot that will provide a funding base for the shelters. This will allow the Council to focus more on programs and less on fund-raising. Budget Committee CURRENT TERM EXPIRES/ ORIGINAL APPT. DATE MIKE BENNER 06-30-02 / 01-26-99 13748 SW Tanoak Court Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 524-3628 Bus: 286-8686, Ext. 208 ~ORGE BURGESS 06-30-01 / 10-26-87 13475 SW Village Glen Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 639-0903 CRAIG DIRKSEN 06-30-00 / 11-29-94 9131 SW Hill Street Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 620-4829 Bus: 423-3998, Ext. 22938 DARLENE STEVENS 6-30-01 / 01-26-99 14048 SW Fanno Creek Drive Tigard, OR 97224 Res: 684-1867 Bus: 684-1867 FAX: 620-0367 GREG ZUFFREA 6-30-03 / 08-08-00 12125 SW Summer Street Tigard, OR 97223 Res: 579-3412 Bus: 235-6979 COMMITTEE MEETS: As Needed STAFF LIAISON: City Manager (Budget Officer) Craig Prosser, Finance Director THREE YEAR TERMS -ORS 294.336.(5) RES 95-59 No person appointed after 1/01/96 may serve more than 2 full consecutive terms on the Budget Committee, non-withstanding prior appointment to an unexpired term. I:\ADM\Board & Comm Rosters.DOC Page 1 of 41 Revised: 10/10/00 Good Neighbor Center l~ lip From the Good Neighbor Center Volume 1 Issue 3 Summer 2000 East Washington County Shelter M • Partnership Council, Inc. Board of Directors The Good Neighbor Center is please come and visit the Board Todd Bernhardt operating on its own after a year- Meetings which are held the 4th Lete Davis long partnership with Community Thursday of the month at 3:30 Sheila Fink Action Judy Kizer Organization. With CAO pm at the Tigard United Toby Padgett running the center this past year, Methodist Church. There are Father Leslie Sieg it made it possible for the East also committees that need volun- Sydney Sherwood Pastor Wes Taylor Washington County Shelter teers and you're welcome to get Jane Turner Partnership Council to focus on involved. Max Williams fundraising and organization officers before taking over the operation. With CAD's help, the board has President- Patricia Biggs As of August 1, 2000, the Good designed a program for clients Vice Pres. Steve Schmitt Secretary - Arlene Voelker Neighbor Center is being run by that is based on empowerment. Treas. - Dick Roland its own board of directors and Residents are allowed to stay five Shelter Coordinator officers. weeks, but they must have goals, Rebecca Ambrose and an action plan on which they Shelter Resident Support staff As a gesture of support, the continually work. The year-end Melissa Shockman CAO Board presented the Good statistics show an 80% success Debbe Kettle Shelter ter Resident Support Stafi - Neighbor Center board with a rate with residents who stayed in Volunteer Coordinator gavel. Also, a brick with the their five week program and sub- Janet Sims names of the GNC Board stantiall reached their goals and Kitchen Coordinator y Pam Dorsey imprinted on it will be placed in moved in to stable housing. CAD's courtyard as a remem- brance of the successful partner- We continue to be grateful to car- The council meets the fourth ship. ing and sharing communities who Thursday of the month at Tigard are willing to lend a hand to het United Methodist Church. Everyone is g p welcome to attend. The Good Neighbor Center will people get back on their feet. Address: 11130 SW Greenberg Rd. continue to recruit board mem- Tigard, Oregon 97223 bers. If you have an interest, Pat Biggs, President Phone: 443-6084 1110111=1 mom MGM The late spring fundraiser the response from the Tigard- The campaign is being planned called "Quarters for Quarters" Tualatin Schools was outstand- again for next year and we wrapped up in June. There are ing. "The school children anticipate including other still a few boxes lingering out in collected over $5,000," said school districts. We also will the businesses, but the cam- Sydney Sherwood, chair of the do the campaign earlier in the paign has brought in about event. "This was a first-time year. If you're interested in $8,000 net. Although the cam- event and we learned every being a part of this campaign, paign got started late in May, step of the way." please call 403-0119. Rom fce I Sit 01 e by RetecCa AMbroSe Although we are not a United Way Agency, we can receive donations by having people designate that their donation go to the First Year Anniversaries are mile- Good Neighbor Center. Each year, United Way does its campaign stones no matter what the occa- in the fall and we are anticipating that many donors will designate sion. With the Good Neighbor us as non-profit they would like to assist. It's easy to do. Just Center, this is no exception. I have been working at the shelter mark on your form the amount and write in The Good Neighbor for one year now and the shelter Center. Donations are what keeps our operations going. will celebrate being open for one year on Sept. 13th. There are many people to thank for all their ® e e e work and at the top of the list are the volunteers. / have had the opportunity to work at shelters /n The Good Neighbor Center wants to recognize and honor the volunteers different areas and working in this for all their hard work and many hours of time they have given to keep shelter has been phenomenal. the center operating. On Sunday, Oct. 15, 2000 from 6:30-8 pm, please Without the outpouring of support j from this area, this shelter would oin us in celebrating the volunteers at a dessert in their honor. The not be operating. Everyday we event will be held at the Kelly Center at St. Anthony's in Tigard. experience miracles in the form of support for our mission. We have operatedIn a shoe-string budget and have not had a budget for ® ° e o ® e o e food. The volunteers are the core that keeps this program humming. So on this anniversary, / want to Perhaps you have driven by the Good Neighbor Center recently. We give the volunteers a salute for have a need for some volunteers to maintain our landscaping. Although their help and support! some of our residents have helped keep weeds at bay this summer, our landscaping needs some TLC. If you or a group you know have a few We have just finished the extra hours, we could use your help. Please call Janet Sims at the transition from Community Action shelter, 443-6084, and let her know if you can spare a few hours. Also, Organization and are off and we are in need of a few specific items that will assist in the maintenance running with some additional staff. The need for shelter has of our landscape. We need a ladder for cleaning gutters and at least a not diminished with the summer 100-foot garden hose, plus an outdoor extension cord. Let the shelter months, in fact, it increased in staff know if you want to help with this project. July. So as we start our second year, / would like to thank each and every one of you for your EE gifts of time and money. • o M Writer and performer Terry Talbot Terry Talbot not only writes music, 1M SM 1 and superstar of the 60's, Barry but performed as a guitarist with McGuire will perform a benefit such talents as Sonny & Cher, concert on Friday, September 15, Glen Campbell and Chad Mitchell. New officers and board members 2000 at 7:00 pm at St. Anthony's elected for the year 2000-2001 are in Tigard. Ticket price is $10.00. Barry McGuire has three earned as follows: Pat Biggs, Pres., Gold Albums. He was the lead Steve Schmitt, Vice-Pres., Arlene The concert is a benefit concert singer with the New Christy Voelker, Sec., Dick Roland, Treas. on behalf of the Good Neighbor Minstrels and wrote their hit, and board members - Todd Center and Neighborshare. Mercy "Green, Green." "Eve of Bernhardt, Judy Kizer, Toby Corps, which is helping sponsor Destruction," a 60's anthem, was Padgett, and Wes Taylor. We the concert, will also be recipient also recorded by McGuire. would like to thank these folks for of a free-will donation. their commitment to the shelter. Call 639-4179 for tickets. e ° e o e • During the month of July, Sweet Let me introduce myself. I am one of the successful clients that has benefited Tomatoes restaurant donated the from the program at the Good Neighbor Center. profit from drink purchases at their In order to fully understand why I became homeless in the first place, let me restaurant in Tigard. We recently tell you about myself. I am a single parent of a 12 yr. old son. I have an AA received a check for $500.00. Thank Degree in Arts and Science from Clark College in Vancouver. I also have a BS Degree in Psychology from Washington State U-Vancouver. So how in the you so much, Sweet Tomatoes! world does a person with this type of education and training become home- less? Through lack of opportunity and the death of my mother. Due to my .10 mother's death, I started the cycle of being "stuck". The executor of my moth- er's estate wanted me to leave the home I had shared with my mother and • 6 • step-father, along with my son for eleven years. To make a long story short, I had roommates that didn't work out, lived in a small house on the property of the church I used to attend and have been in three different shelters in Vancouver and three in Oregon. At one time, I was working for the Economic Opportunity Committee of Clark County. I only worked 24 hours a week and For many volunteers and visitors to was not receiving any assistance or child support at the time. After I was hos- the shelter, you may see staff and be pitalized for a week due to severe depression, I was terminated from my job. greeted by them but not really know This led to the feeling of failure as a parent, employee and a person. them. We'd like to tell you about Janet I finally moved in to the Good Neighbor Center with my son and boyfriend. Sims and Melissa Shockman. Having gone to school in Tigard, at least I knew my way around. If not for the staff at the Good Neighbor Center and the program at the shelter, I would not Janet Sims has been at the center be where I am now. I did the work to get where I am, However, without the since Dec. 1999. She came from the support, empathy and assistance I would not have found the energy to suc- Interfaith Hospitality Network in Hillsboro ceed. Janet, Rhonda and Rebecca hounded me until I found the will to suc- ceed. When my boyfriend left me, they helped me to realize how lucky I was to have my son, to have a roof over my head and a brand new job. They all let lack of funds. Janet has worked at Open me cry when I needed to, get mad when I needed to and then booted me in Door Counseling also in Washington the rear-end when I needed it. County. Janet has also spent time in Having been in as many shelters as I have, this is the best shelter that I have Seattle as the district director of Camp been in, ever. If not for Janet, the residents would not have overnight staff for Fire Girls. Almost all her work experi- protection or home cooked nutritious meals. Rhonda took a chance on my ence has been working with volunteers family and stood by me every step of the way even though she wasn't my in some way. In many jobs she has had case manager! Rebecca helped me find my strength, provided a guiding hand it has been working with the homeless or and direction when I needed it more than any other time in my life, except low-income families. when my mother died. Rebecca also helped me find a place to live when I had nowhere to go. Janet has a degree in Education, I now have a wonderful job at which I earn more than I ever have in my entire Sociology and a Masters in Christian life. Rebecca, Janet and Rhonda were there to share the good news with and Ministries. Janet's dedication to her to continually tell me I would do fine. I have a nice apartment that they helped work has made her a very valuable me find furniture for. Good Neighbor Center has done more for me than all addition to the GNC. the shelters I have been in combined. More than anything, I felt that although the stay is short term, residents can still find a place to call home. I know that for myself and my son, we would not be where we are now if we had not had Melissa Shockman says, "A little bit of the opportunity to stay at the Good Neighbor Center. Although I came in to dignity goes a long way." Her personal the shelter in crisis, I left the shelter with my pride restored, knowing that I experience includes many of the things would succeed. To share my success is the one gift I can repay and I do that bring our clients to shelter. She when I visit and let the staff know that I still care for them and to let them know I still have permanent housing and permanent employment. The bottom graduated from the Hope Spring line that remains is that everyone that walks through the doors (of the center) program and is attending college. has the potential to succeed and that without the support of the staff and the Her work experience includes childcare community, these people may not make it out of crisis and continue to be and working with women in recovery caught in the cycle of homelessness, loss of pride, loss of individuality. Those from domestic violence and drug abuse. are the things that make this program a success in this community and a gift ever so difficult to repay. She also says, "I am honored to be in a position of service and forever grateful to Thank you for the opportunity to share my story and for taking the time to read those who never gave up on me." it. Thank you for the Good Neighbor Center and bless each and every one of Melissa's compassion and understand- you and the part that you may play in making the shelter a success. ing make her a great asset to the Good Sincerely, A Former Resident Neighbor Center. Our Mission Statement The Good Neighbor Center is dedicated to providing safe emergency housing and supportive empowering services for individuals and families. Our Philosophy and Values Statement The Good Neighbor Center will provide a welcoming, safe, nurturing home-like environment, addressing the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the whole person. We will develop and maintain a high level of integrity and values in the work we do and advocate and promote long-term stable funding for homeless shelters in the community. Our Purpose Our purpose is to provide basic living necessities that allow individuals and families to establish a financial base by saving money to accumulate financial resources for stabilizing themselves in the community. Good Neighbor Pre-Sorted Standard Center US Postage llli~ PAID Permit #53 Tualatin, OR Good Neighbor Center 11130 SW Greenburg Rd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Good Neighbor Center Rebecca Ambrose 4£ Shelter Manager Good Neighbor Center 11130 SW Greenburg Road Tigard, Oregon 97223 I (503) 443-6084 • Fax (503) 443-3745 Email: goodneigFtborcenter@integraonline.com AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : October 10, 2000 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, /nADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED m-- (4 d a Inn S # I Z- Y~l~, 4 r H 1 H 1 ^y~ i VISITOR'S AGENDA Page 1 v>~it~l5 ~ .~?o1~A Tigard High Leadership f` 9000 SW Durham Road - Tigard • - 97224 Oregon (503 431-5518 - FAX (503 431-5410 • httP://ths.ttsd.kl2.or.us/leadershiP/home.html 1111 Y W fil%f IIiMR1Y0/YIAI l Y I/iN I I YMI I II STUDS EN NT OY REPORT T Leadership B nck 2 c 5 ho o I Bnck In the Saddle let%> August 29 - Back 2 School Deco bay September 9 Foreign Exchange E BB9v Q j<< September 13 - Cowboy Day September 13-14- Western Photos@ Lunch September 15 - Lunch BB Q Homecoming 2000. Lights, Camera, Actioni Jf....;:.:.:rh:..... September 26 Homecoming Court Elections September 30 - Homecoming Deco Da October 2 Homecoming Assembly October 3 - King/Queen Elections Powder Puff Football Game h'►s - Bonfire After Powder Puff October 4 -Powder Buff Volleyball Game - Ice Cream Social October 5 -Movie Night October 5 - Pep Assembly Parade Homecoming Homecoming Football Game October 7 - Homecoming Dance ``<< Student Government 27 Student Councit Meeting September October 11 - Candidates Foru m October 25 Student Council Meeting a LINK Crew i 1 - Hang With Fresh men Summer Out W j August 24 - F Registration reshman August 29 - TraininDn 9 Y A 31 Training Day September 5 With Keith Hawkins - Pep Meeting 6 - Freshman 1 Da of School September Y September 22 _ Link Crew Mixer 23 L Party Link Dance September September 30 - Tigard Daze October 14 Walk for Atfalnti Agenda Item No. 3 Meeting of October 10, 2000 2i!~~'•./,/~u ily+~µ` , PROCLAMATION mice `;migli Disability Employment Awareness Month WHEREAS, 20% of the population of the United States of America is comprised of ."n III people with disabilities, and WHEREAS, current studies place unemployment among the country's people with _ T disabilities at more than 70%, and r . " WHEREAS, more than two-thirds of adults with disabilities in this country desire to work Sul" but canna[ find employment, and - WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act provided civil rights protection for =tt America's 49,000,000 persons with disabilities, and j' WHEREAS America's shrinking labor force requires employers to utilize untapped human resources, such as persons with disabilities, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, )ames E. Griffith, Mayor of Tigard, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim: ri a ;3,+n The month of October, 2000, Is designated as Disability t Employment Awareness Month in the City of Tigard And I, Mayor )ames E. Griffith, call upon the residents of the City of Tigard -to observe _yU the month by learning about people with disabilities, their strengths, abilities, and Ea-, programs which serve their needs. unfi= Dated this aO day of `5,Q~ , 2000 t+ E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City • of Tigard to be affixed. ~!"!r (PA 434 14 1 roes E. Griffith, ay t ry of Tigard Attest: Y s City Recorder k rzr' , D ME AGENDA ITEM # ~I . FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: October 3, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, October 2000 - December 2000 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. October *10 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting *17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. * 24 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting November 10 Fri Veteran's Day - City Offices Closed *14 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. 23 Thurs Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed 24 Fri Thanksgiving Holiday - City Offices Closed * 28 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting December 1 Fri Tree Lighting Ceremony - 6:00 p.m. *12 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting *19 Tues Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Study Session - Business Meeting 25 Mon Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed * 26 Tues Council Meeting - Cancel ? i Aadm\cathyicound1%cccal.doc s` Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 11114100 -Business TV 10124100 -Business TV Noon 10117100 - Workshop Due: 11h100 @ Due: 10111100 @ Noon Noon Study Session Due: 1014100 @ Study Session Workshop Topics Discussion of Tigard Festival of Balloons - 1. Long-term Water Supply - Ed - 45 min e Cathy Wheatley - 20 min 2. Sidewalk Right-of-Way Maintenance Policy Discussion - Ed1Liz - 45 min 3. Bed & Breakfast Uses in Residential Zones- u is - min Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Approval of Bid for Lift Truck -Howard G Award Reservior Sealing Contract - Sam M Business Meeting D Business Meeting pH . ORD - Code Amendment Requiring Recognizing Korean War Veterans Who Live or Warranty & Indemnity for Hillside Developments a Work in Tigard - Bill - 30 min in Excess of 10°10 k B. - 30 min 0 Board & Committee Appointment Process Registration O r Solid Waste Franchise & Reg Modification - RES - Liz N - 10 min Modifications- PH -RES & ORD-Loreen M 3 PGD Telecommunications Franchise - ORD - -30 min Q O Craig -10 min Transportation Bond Election Results - Gus D - U 10 min 3 Q l~ I:/admlgreer/tentaty aglyear9g-O.xls page 1 101312000 N Tigard City Council Tentative Agenda 1'1121100 - Workshop 11/28100 - Business TV 12112100 -Business TV? Due: 1118100 @ Noon Due: 11115/00 @ Noon Due: 11/29/00 @ Noon Study Session Study Session Workshop Topics Initiative Results Discussion - Craig P -20 min Discuss Dec Mtg Schedule - Cancel Dec 5 & 26, Noise PermProcess - Cathy W/Greer - 15 min Dec 12 & 19 as Bus Mtg ? Update - BLUE SHEET NEEDED erestone rolect - BLUE SH it onsent Agenda Consent Agenda C Business Meeting Business Meeting Affordable Housing - Nadine S - 30 min Portion of Naeve St Vacation - PH - Julia H - 5 min Code Amendment Recognizing USA's New Water Quality Design Standards & Eliminating Overlapping Regulations - PH - Duane R - 25 Min Traffic Calming Review -BLUE SHEET NEEDED Downtown Parking Amendment - BLUE SHEET NEEDED f:/adm/greer/tentaty ag/year99-0.xls 10/3/2000 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM # Ll 13 CU. FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Award of Contract for the Construction of Ash Avenue and Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements PREPARED BY: Vannie en DEPT HEAD OK: Gu ,Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bi Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award for the construction of Ash Avenue- Burnham Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to APC Underground, Inc. in the amount of $215,042.30. INFORMATION SUMMARY The existing sanitary sewer line running from Ash Avenue south of Burnham Street across the railroad tracks to Commercial Street is currently undersized for existing flow. The sewer line varies from fl- inches to 15-inches in diameter and tends to surcharge frequently during the rainy season. The City currently cleans line sections at Commercial Street on a monthly basis to keep them from becoming septic. This project proposes to upsize the existing line to 15-inch and 18-inch pipes to alleviate the surcharging problem during the winter months. The proposed line begins on Ash Avenue from a point approximately 335 feet south of the intersection of Burnham Street, extends to the Ash-Bumham intersection and proceeds west on Burnham Streets for approximately 150 feet. The line then turns north into an existing easement for approximately 400 feet at which point it enters an existing casing under the Railroad tracks. After crossing the railroad tracks, it crosses an existing easement and proceeds north for approximately 143 feet before connects to an existing manhole in Commercial Street. The new design will also allow for future extension and improvement of the existing sanitary sewer system on Burnham Street, and will eliminate the need for the two existing systems that currently exist in the street. The first bid opening was conducted on August 29, 2000. Due to high bids submitted, the Local Contract Review Board rejected all bid proposals in the meeting of September 12, 2000. After rejection of bid proposals, the project was re-evaluated to see if any design change could be made for reduction of construction cost. Redesign options included pipe bursting and revision of vertical and horizontal pipe alignments. However, staff has decided to re-bid with the current design option because the other options will create extensive impacts to other existing utilities. Additional information regarding type of soil, depth of bedrock and groundwater level were obtained and included in the bid document to assist bidders in clarifying existing ground conditions. The project was re-advertised for bids on September 18, 2000 and September 21, 2000. The bid opening was conducted on October 2, 2000. The bid results are: APC Underground, Inc. Canby, OR $215,042.30 Three Dimensional Contracting, Inc. Portland, OR $228,684.00 Kerr Contractors, Inc. Tualatin, OR $254,365.00 Hubco Excavation, Inc. Gresham, OR $319,801.55 C & M Construction, Inc. Sherwood, OR $339,071.00 Emery & Sons Construction, Inc. Stayton, OR $344,146.00 Engineer's Estimate $185,000 Due to certain design factors that were unknown during the formulation of the Capital Improvement Program, (i.e. pipes need to be lowered for future extension and improvement of the existing sanitary sewer on Burnham Street), the construction cost exceeds the budget originally set for the project. APC Underground, Inc. indicated that the depth of pipes made their bid approximately $35,000 higher than the Engineer's estimate. However, APC Underground's bid is $25,000 lower than the lowest bid submitted by Miller & Sons Contractors, Inc. in the first bid opening. The Contractors feel that the depth of trench and the removal of the existing pipe under the railroad tracks could be difficult and would require a higher bid item price. We feel award of the contract is justified at this time. The first bid resulted in only two bidders submitting bids for the project. This bid has six bidders submitting competitive bids. We therefore conclude that the trench excavation is probably much more difficult than we had originally anticipated. The fact that six bidders submitted prices higher than our estimate leads us to believe there is nothing to be gained by rebidding the project. We therefore recommend award of the contract to the lowest bidder. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES This project is funded in the amount of $150,000 in the FY 2000-01 CIP Sanitary Sewer System Program. There are sufficient reserves in the Sanitary Sewer Fund to allow for higher costs, should award at a higher contract amount be desired. DAKpTA ST \ N ~ C O rj ~cf s sr ~ c4,, R~ 'ara sT ~ sr ~ eT t sr a J m S AGENDA ITEM Jr- FOR AGENDA OF 10/10/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Information Regarding Agreement Between City of Tigard and Herzog-Meier Auto Center PREPARED BY:_ Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK -0,,- CITY MGR OK Ut44`-` ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before Council is to receive information on the Agreement between the City of Tigard and Herzog- Meier Auto Center for the use of a 1999 Volkswagen New Beetle. This agreement provides that Herzog-Meier will supply this vehicle to the Police Department at no charge in exchange for advertising on the vehicle. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No recommendation - Information only. INFORMATION SUMMARY The vehicle being supplied by Herzog-Meier for one year will be used by the Police Department in a variety of ways, including school visits, community activities, crime prevention presentations, and similar engagements. The Crime Prevention/Public Information Officer will drive the vehicle to these various functions, and it will not be used as a police cruiser. The conditions of the agreement allow Tigard Police Department to add police equipment to the vehicle, such as light bar, police radio, and whatever else is deemed necessary; and this equipment will be removed by Tigard Police Department when the vehicle is returned to Herzog-Meier Auto Center. It is envisioned that this "friendly" looking vehicle will promote citizen interest in crime prevention and invite conversation and positive interaction with the public. It is more approachable than the typical police vehicle, which can seem intimidating to some. Already, the Crime Prevention Officer has been seeing smiles from everyone who sees this police beetle bug, and he has received many positive comments. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None FISCAL NOTES The total expense for the police light bar, siren, and police radio is $779, which is available in the existing budget. l:1dltyW1dc\suntdot AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Village at Washington Square CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-00001/VAR 2000- 000 1 4NAR 2000-00017NAR 2000-00018NAR 2000-00019 proposed ordinance and final order PREPARED BY: Laurie Nicholson DEPT HEAD OK i ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The issue before City Council is to adopt the ordinance and findings, implementing City Council's approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variances at the September 26, 2000 City Council meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance and findings. INFORMATION SUMMARY City Council voted to approve the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variances at the September 26, 2000 City Council meeting. The attached ordinance and final order will implement City Council's approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variances. City Council granted the applicant approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment from Low-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential, approval of the zone change from R-12 to R-40, and approval of the variance to decrease required setback on north sideyard from 35 feet to 10 feet, approval of the variance to decrease required setback on south sideyard from 35 feet to 10 feet, approval of the variance to decrease the required setback on rear yard from 35 feet to 20 feet, and approval of variance to change the minimum-parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces with the condition on this variance that the applicant provide staff with a copy of the apartment lease that would be given to future tenants that limit each apartment unit to one parking space. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1.) Council could deny the ordinance for the comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variances. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth Management Goal #3 The City encourages and supports private sector programs to maintain diverse and affordable housing; Strategy 4) Incorporate affordable housing policies into study of Downtown, Washington Square Regional Center, and other mixed use areas. FISCAL NQTES Not applicable i:\citywidc\I0-3-00 CPA 2000-00002.sum.dot r-- ~ I I I ; ; GEOGRAPHIC IM 1011YATIOY •Y!T(Y 1 AREA NOTIFIED --u-- - (5001) CE ST -4 ' r _ RU E _ EXMIT r- I ~ i 1 FOR: Jill Sherman I . -IHQ RE: I S 135DA, 04600 and ISBSDA, 04100 Slit t Ttslslotn9e STTTT~VE k. 1 ~uslutlat Property owner Information t~.= Ttuutena Is valid for 3 months from the date printed on this map. mtsaoial suelitt:al y r ~l EASe/41110" =55124" I~'-~-, ~ ~ nuswt2eo/ uusoumo __y r` ; 11 =SOSlita . - -1- : ' . . ~iaeiinn • sasoulat ST - i I aem TSisiatna L pr- ue log 1 ; is su r W i c4j - se11e ! - '7tIStW2ta y;. C - St cim I00 j I _ Tsnsuo12t1 l-- --~I swet oo __i II- oa it - N PEA FFLE 0 ,DO 200 30o 400 F..I V- 294 feet ~1 I City of Tigard r -i } - I - - . - _ Inbm tan on w! m•p Is for p•n•ral WwIon oNy and should be vnMC 1YN the Oavbprtlanl S•nnua pman ' - I-----~ L 17125 SW M•/ BIVO I_U Tparo. OR 97223 15071679-4171 I I ; + Q t------- ~ i°--'-r- -{~f--------,__ n1lp/hw.wu4paroor us Community Development y Plot date: Jul 26, 2000; C:VnagicWIAGIC03.APR MMeAss nil • Mel T) I if) III am „ -,41 ig 13 FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. INC. P.O. BOX 23206 • Tigard, OR 97281-3206 • Tel: 503-968-2724 Fax 5o.i z;,)8 A,,.' July 26, 2000 RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review and Variances Dear Interested Party: Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is in the process of purchasing the property located at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Blvd. The proposed development would be a 26 unit multifamily new construction. Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is a non-profit affordable housing developer serving the Tigard/Tualatin area that currently owns 117 units of housing. In order to develop this property, we are considering proposing a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site development review and variances. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, August 10, 2000 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Community Room (on the right side of building) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 8935 SW Burnham Street, Tigard Please notice that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. i I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 968-2724 if you have any questions. a Sincerely, 3 cu~ Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Executive Director AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING EaMIT STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. City of Tigard ) I. V I I I h e r m4 n being duly sworn, depose and say that on J ,J r t I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) S 19 on it t G S S w F-Itllf 61 d a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at 4 s , T 4 u d , with postage prepaid thereon. Jatur'e (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and swom/affirmed before me on the day of ~a0-5 OFFICIAL SEAL SHERMAN S. CASPER NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 323409 NOTARY PUBLIC OF ORE N W COMMISSION DRRES MAY 13, 2003 My Commission Expires: 1 1 (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) NA1qE OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: v 1 14 4 e a+ W cash In 94-51 11 S u r e I . I M t t • u M I TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 2 f; .J n . t I Name of Applicant/Owner: Co M m o n.+ y Pg r+ n e r s, f C. r A a r j u h l e H u s, n o _ I I-14 I B I• d. I I Address or General Location of Subject Property: I i i 5 ft a i d o f f 6 s S%'4 Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): I s I 350- p} 7 c a 'a- C C' V I L---------------------------------------------•------------------------ h:Wg in%paftyVnastm%affmaH.mst REQUEST FOR COMMENTS RgMURMNG DATE Aunust240999 i)IVISION OF STATE LAN.OS RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2000 TO: OREGON DIMSION OF STATE LANDS iuuu i IG 25 P 1: 2q CITYOFTIGAM FROM: City of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT. Laurie Nicholson. Associate Planner Phone: (5031639-4171/Fax [5031684-7297 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 00001/VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Q The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R-40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet; rearyard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments) 1 8.390(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Vadance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, PLEASE FAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO IAURIE NICHOLSON BY SEPTEMBER 5,20001503-684-72971. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. Ifyoru are unable to respond the above finable to respond the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY- We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Personlsl Commenfin9:`,c%. a ✓ Phone Numheffsl: CPA 1999-00001/SLR 1999-00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS j 08/28/00 09:32 FAZ 503 6403525 UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY X001 i REQUEST FOR COMMENT P2@1-H- 2 G 1- ["RD BATE AUgusti4,1999 LAUG11 2 S ? X00 TO: JULIA BUFFILIAN LISA FBOAL CRY of Tigard Plana-My Illtdslow STAFF CONTACT: lanrla Nicbelsaa, Amebic Planver Phone: 150316394171 / Fwe 15031684-7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002lZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Q The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parce located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application Involves comprehensive map. amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high dens residential (R-40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbac on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet; rearyard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change t minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA T Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapte 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendmer ts)18.390(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Variance); Comprehensive PI Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a8b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Mel Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a r, and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal In the near future. If you wi! comment on this application, PLEASE FAX YOUR C01511010 TO LAURIE NICHOLSON BY SEPTEMBF115, 20013 1503-684-72971. You use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to fesuond hY the a date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soc possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223 PHASE CHICK THE FOLLOW1116 ITEMS THAT APPLY- We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Nam®of Pers 21!'! 7 co mmeniif 2 Phone. NuMbef[sl: g - L CPA 1999-00001/SLR 1999.00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COA REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD DATE August 24, 1999 ommu.F. TO: JIM WOLF, TIGARD PD FROM: ION of Tigard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson, Assoclate Planner Phone: 150316394M/Fax- 15031684-7291 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Q The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R-40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet; rearyard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments) 18.390(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Variance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, PLEASE FAX YOUR COMMENTS TO LAURIE NICHOLSON BY SEPTEMBER 5,2000 1503-684-7297). You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. ft you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: ✓ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Name of Personlsl Comtnenttng: ,tM VVO~~ Phone NaMbefl[Sh V-b4 40AI x aao T CPA 2000-0000120N 2000-00001NAR 2000-00014 VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE REQUEST FOR COMMENTS REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CITY OFTIGARD DATE: August 24, 1999 TO: MINE MILLER TIGARD UTILITIES MGR FROM: City of Tinard Planning Division STAFF CONTACT: Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner Phone: [50316394171 / Fax:15031684 7291 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Q The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments) 18.3~0(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Variance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, PLEASE FAA YOUR COMMENTS TO LAURIE NICHOLSON BY SEPTEMBER 5 ,2000 (503-604-72971. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above 1111810, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: (please provide the following information) Name of Personts) Commenting: Phone Number(sl: V CPA 1999-00001/SLR 1999-00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS UU U5 26 jU:37 t'&A UK YU(: U'KiLLTY kmuul REQUEST FOB COMMENTS OrryOFn©ARD DATE: AoAest 24.1999 IT(, TO: OREGON FUSUO ®1 OES COEI1111=1019 _..L~....~ FROM: Qft of 11gM Planning Oi sn STAFF ce ff ACT: tamile Oilh®Iso-Z As 6098 211110r Phtne:15031639-491 i FML-15®316Wn§7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-0000220NE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE B The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels 1obdt6d on SW Hail Boulevard to 66nstib6f 6"126- unit multi-family development. The application involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R-40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet; rearyard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces, LOCATION: 11169 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments)18.390(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Vadance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro 'Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal In the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, P F-U Y008 gA111IEIE11iFS TG IAIIRIE NILifl4SDN BY SFMBEO & 20$0 IM03-664-7197]. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. 0ua® are 091IIS M '9=6W b91h9 2b ie daite, please phone the staff contact noted above •whh your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ISMS THAT APPLY: _ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. _ 1Ni'itten cor'rimenfs pro`vr(TecT€i'eTow: Post-It' Fax Note 7671 Date 2 Ze Pg9-' To Front ` (V~6r-~ r.,, CoJDept oo. Phone B 3q A- Phone # 3 7 9- 9 Z 3 ` • ~ , ` }r Fax M Fax A (Please provide the following information) f131~l~®ila[sIiiOmil»ieilltlfl9: Move H mborM: CPA 166M0001ISLR 1999-00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COMMENT Ob-'14;uu MON 17:18 PAX 503 89{ 2288 TIGOD TUAtATIN SCHOOL • r• ti/u ill~l Z Sheila Fink executive director Commune Partners for Affordable Housing P.O. Box 2 06 Tigard. OR 7281 Dear Shell Tbls tter is to support Community Partner's application to dcvelop multi-family housing unlit in the Metzger Flemen School attendance area. To in a room for additional students, the district has added a 2- assroom portable unit i t Metzger this year. Addition aill , Metzger's boundaries have been changed so that new stude who live on the south side of Pacific Hwy. will no longer a d Metzger, but will be enrolled at Templeton Element Over a next two years, these changes should open classroom pace at Metzger. enabling it to easily serve any new students g orated by your project. We c nsider Community Partner's involvement in the site's devil pment as a plus for our school district because of the extra s pport you provide for the children and the families who hve th re. We look forward to working with you as your project b mes a reality. Sin Lowder Su tendent o: s~ n -,,From: 9; I cA ~ T, d Qlotin' GPfF-t4 (h 9'4 -t 2a -7 S°+ S 6 rl Z 3 E-Malk MAih cC U , t 1 EXHMIT F Department of Transportation r ~ ,gon Region 1 ! 123 NW Flanders John A. Kitrhabcr, M.D., Governor RE( CF Portland, OR 97209-4037 li iTv a .Z JFj 'D (503) 731-8200 S E P - 6 2000 FAX (503) 731-8259 ,BY: FILE CODE: September 1, 2000 PLA9-1-2A-TIG-141 Proposal Number. 732 City of Tigard l~G Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Tigard, O 7223 A . Brian Rager Subject: CPA 2000-00002, ZON 2000-00001, VAR 2000-00014 Village at Washington Square 11159 & 11165 SW Hall Boulevard Dear Mr. Rager: We have reviewed the applicant's proposal to construct a 26 unit affordable housing complex. We have no objections provided that the mitigation measures outlined below are imposed as conditions of approval. The site is adjacent to Hall Boulevard. According to the Oregon Highway Plan (1999)1 Hall Boulevard is classified as a District Urban highway. The posted speed in this section is 40 miles per hour. Based on this speed and classification, the access spacing standard is 500 ft. The mobility standard is .95 volume to capacity (v/c). ODOT has permitting authority for this facility2 and an interest in ensuring that this proposed land use is compatible with its safe and efficient operation. We understand that the sidewalks along the site's Hall Boulevard frontage are substandard. We also understand that the City of Tigard's Transportation System Plan identifies future improvements to Hall Boulevard for widening to 5 lanes. The applicant will be responsible for sidewalk improvements and right-of-way dedication. An ODOT permit with minor deviation approval is necessary to obtain final ODOT approval. The existing access approach from the site to Hall Boulevard does not 1 The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan is an element of the Oregon Transportation Plan, which was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on March 18, 1999. 2 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051, see the following web site for the rule's exact language: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 700/OAR 734/734 051.html Form 734-1850(1/98) meet ODOT spacing standards. Given the location of approaches on adjacent properties, any approach from the site to Hall Boulevard would not meet ODOT spacing standards, and would constitute a "minor deviation 113 from ODOT standards. A shared access approach is the best way to mitigate this spacing problem. We support the proposed location of the site's approach access. The applicant worked with ODOT to develop a preliminary site plan. This site plan locates the development's Hall Boulevard access approach along the site's southern property line. This approach location allows for a future shared access between the applicant's site and the property directly to the south. To ensure this future shared access, the applicant must grant an access easement to the adjacent property to the south and record this access easement with both properties. Conditions of Approval In order to address the applicable approval criteria we request that the following requirements be included as conditions of approval: 1) The applicant shall obtain an ODOT permit with minor deviation approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. 2) The applicant shall improve the sidewalks along its frontage of Hall Boulevard to ODOT/ADA standards prior to the issuance of the building permit. 3) The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to ODOT as needed for a future 5- lane cross section for Hall Boulevard. 4) The applicant shall grant the adjacent property to the south an access easement. This access easement shall be recorded with both properties prior to the issuance of the building permit. MOT Permit Information (for the applicant): 1) Any work in the state-owned right-of-way will require an ODOT permit.a 2) An application for an ODOT drainage permit must be completed if the site's drainage enters ODOT's right-of-ways. A drainage study for the site may be required if: A. Total runoff entering ODOT's right-of-way is greater than 0.05 cubic meters per second, or B. The improvements create an increase in impervious surface area by s OAR 734-051-0320 4 OAR 734-055 'OAR 734-051-0160 greater than 1,000 square meters. Contact Joel McCarroll, Assistant District Manager, ODOT District 2A, at 503- 229-5267 for information on the written application process for these permits. Thank you for coordinating with ODOT on this land use application. Please provide us with a copy of the Notice of Decision and Final Report. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, I can be reached at 503-731- 4610. Sincerely, s,, ;r_AZ 4.48tit~ Matthew Larsen Development Review Cc: Glen Fleming, ODOT Joel McCarroll, ODOT Jill Sherman, Applicant SEP-0S 00 10:57 FROM:TRI MET / HS 503-239-2260 TO:5036847297 PAGE:01 SE ®051' FOR 002MIMMIENTS CIiY OFn®ARD DATE: Alm299 21 logo ENV& XWEGHBITA- TO: MICHAEL 19SM TR1-MEf ak;m C.:.. . c FROM: C10! ofDiard Planning dl ®0 STAFFCONTACT: Wile WOW 8' Mon: 15031 ISOM A Fax 15981684-DY91► COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 A VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE Q The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R-40) This application Involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet; rearyard setback from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments)18.3901Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Vadance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3. 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro Functional Plan. From information supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, UEIISIE W1898 00 MMF31?$ Ti! IApAIE NiCNOl50119V SEPlE1JI8IN 5, A0001503-5114-728J1. You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. -111101UMtlt18b1®to feS9001111hV the ebome date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLEASE CHECK THE EOUDWIN® ITEMS THAT APPLY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. Please contact of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. Written comments provided below: 7- (Please provide the following information) Name ofrom ILS1I1®It m@1 dRg.-'1:~;FAJ -6,940tol~ P1tQl~ rEt~taba~rlal: So Z Li 0 CPA "r$u"TOWSLR 1990-00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COMMENT: • ashington Square Parking ~yalysis Village atW 31 Ra uiramant CBS: Ci Spaces BLVD. PRGJECTOF PARKING SPA GPAM Stud HAIL OSE + 35°l0 10 NU~gBR Ratio 125 °i° Spaces 7.5 PROPD GPAN Stud Ratio 35 5.632 1.5 10.5 Spaces 0,13 5.47 1.75 Study Ratio 4,3 109 12.25 Units 0.54 4.1 5.27 1.75 40.25 g 0.81 0.88 B.19 6 3.9 AA 5 0.65 6. 1 2475 46 1 Bedroom 0.87 6 2 Bedrooms 6 18.3 31 3 Bedrooms . 7 6 4 Bedrooms 26 24 Totai : at 15010 Req. Parking Guest Park. AL rate ~°"~3y~roomax4 T07 Assumed Per tAo ou~nttourbeds units. ThteoBeds Ratio # Cars 0.83 # units 10 0.38 Yvro Bedtooms Ratio i2 3 0.86 # Gars 0,80 8 13 d Detail # units 48 0.83 20 ertiY Parking SW Y Ono Bedroom Ratio 80 io 0.81 GPAH Prop # cam 12 58 # units 8 0.42 72 12 5 Ula La Paz 12 13 0 GPAH armed multi-tamUY Wsin9 davetoPmo'ts Metzger 24 ement at the two curretd TO'f At. ngCie Pt04Y M • Survey campieted Ju1Y 2000 by Pin SENT 13Y: METRO GMS; 5037971911; SEP-8-00 11:47; PAGE 1/1 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS CM 17IrIGARD DATE: Asoust 34.1099 OfflMiTM TO: C0 EIL 01 IFROF& f "g !°1ew mm iTAFFCOTACT: Ll cis NichMaIL lid Fl mw Fb9N: (503303941A ! IFS: 15M OC41297 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2000-00002/ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 2000- 000011VARIANCE (VAR) 2000-00014 ➢ VILLAGE= AT WASHINGTON SQUARE 4 The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment, zone change, and variance for two parcels located on SW Hall Boulevard to construct a 26 unit multi-family development. The application Involves a comprehensive map amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high density residential (R-40) This application involves a request for a variance to allow the following changes: allow setbacks on north and south sideyards from 35 feet to 10 feet: rearyard setback .from 35 feet to 20 feet; and change the minimum parking requirement from 46 to 31 spaces. LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW HALL,1S135DA Tax Lots 4600 and 4700 ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments) 18.390(Type IV Procedure), 18.370(Variance); Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2(a&b), 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Statewide Planning Goals 1-19 and Metro Functional Plan. Attached are the site plan, vicinity map, applicants statement, and related information. From lnformation supplied by various departments and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a decision will be rendered on the proposal In the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, lPUM E6% Y8®i10O TO IA51s N klll CIDU 9N BY SEPIMEN 5, 300, (5034M4-72 You may use the space provided below or attach a separate letter to return your comments. It 104 IM MUM to resoM IV Me MM date, please phone the staff contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any questions, contact the Tigard Planning Division, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. PLMU RIM ME FOU MO THAT AMY: We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it. _ Please contact _ of our office. _ Please refer to the enclosed letter. L/ Written comments provided below: (Please provide the following information) Na11110QfI'®r=itsD90l a M11tI~Il[~]: 03 - ? 7 - 1-7 JJ ' at CPA 1988.000OVS1.11 1999-00003 FANNO CREEK TRAIL ALIGNMENT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS EXH~I7C~. August 28, 2000 Re: Proposed Land Use changes proposed by the Affordable Housing Dear Tigard Planning Commission: I am submitting written testimony to voice my concerns about the proposed change in land use density by the Affordable Housing group on the property located on SW Hall Blvd. The affordable housing group came to the local CPO 4M meeting several months ago. The members of the community discussed this with great interest and enthusiasm. However, now that I look closely at the proposal that the sign is showing it is calling for a change in what was endorsed. I would like to know why this group suddenly wants to be reclassified in designation from R=12 to R-40. This seems a little excessive for the area to handle. The property adjacent to this is an existing apartment complex. The apartments I am referring to are the St. James Apartments. The other property is a single family home. This proposal should not be allowed. I feel it will be a burden on the existing dwellings. These burdens are the following: 1. A environmental impact. What will happen to the existing vegetation and trees and wildlife. 2. What about the increase traffic flow? What will the parking structure or situation for parking be like? What provisions will be made for wildlife and pedestrians be? 3. The water surface problem needs to be addressed. Where will the water flow? Will there be water surface problems imposed on existing systems? 4. I am concerned about the noise from both the people moving into the proposed area and the noise from cars etc. 5. The animal habitat will be infringed upon. This is fairly close to the wetland and floodplains. What will this group do to ensure the quality of life for the animals? This is of utmost importance to the community. We are proud of the diversity of animals as well as the people. I truly feel it is time for the City of Tigard and this planning commission to really plan for growth which will be positive instead of negative to a community. The infrastructure to handle this growth needs to be in place. I do not think anyone is considering what impact it will have on the police force, the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, the Washington County Sheriff Dept. the local street traffic flow or even the pedestrian safety issues. All these two groups seem to think about is the revenue these proposal bring to your tax base. Well, it is time to envision something much more. I believe you need to consider not giving special variances and special concessions to every group that comes your way. Let the local neighborhoods have a say in what they want. Yes, we did say that we would endorse affordable housing to this group, but not this high density. Yes, we did say that the housing needs need to be reachable by everyone. But at the same time, this community already has its share of affordable housing that this group already oversees and owns. I would like this group to maybe consider moving this large of project somewhere else in the Tigard area. I would propose Bull Mountain, the area around Cook Park, the Templeton area. This planning commission needs to really look at this issue more in depth. I want to also state a couple of facts I found when I attended two functions in the City of Portland. The City of Portland has a wonderful group Seed the Future which gave out some wonderful literature. In it I found these quotes to be very meaningful to the Metzger neighborhood which is something I have been advocating for but says much more dynamically: 1. A house on a tree laden street commands prices that are 21 % higher than houses on barren laid streets. 2. For every four trees that die or are destroyed in the US only one new tree is planted. If this proposal goes through, what will it do? Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I must admit I would like the City of Tigard to really look at its future growth in a way that promotes and encourages citizens, homeowners and the developers to do so in a more cooperative manner. It should not be driven by the developer and groups to say one thing and do another. Honesty is a better policy than deception and corruption. Sincerely, Trudy Know s i EXHIBIT September 1, 2000 To the Tigard Planning Commission: I would like to clarify my last statement of my testimony which might be misconstrued as to say I think this commission is deceptive and corrupt. I would like to state that is not the intention I meant. Please accept my apology if this is what might be considered. It is not. I sometimes say things in the fit of a rage without having someone edit it for me. This is what I meant by the statement. This community like myself have purchased our homes with very honest hardworking and painstaking jobs. We are average working citizens who have not gone out and asked for something to be given to us free or with favors. Most of us have taken years to acquire what we have. We do not want your commission to give in to big business or special interest groups to allow favors to be done in the return for another favor. We want everyone and every group to be on equal terns. It is not fair for one group to expect something for nothing. This is something that is repeated over and over Please when you are considering this proposal by the affordable housing group keep in mind the residents who really love their community and want it livable, as well as keeping the character of business in check. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I truly get carried away sometimes. This issue is a real passion of mine. I want your group to consider all views and opinions both for and against. Thank you for your time once again. Sincerely, Trudy Knowles PO Box 230275 Tigard, Oregon 97281 trudyknowles@home.com rr~ Thomas J. Murphy 8152 S.W. Ashford Street Tigard, OR 97224 Telephone: (503) 968-2466 (503) 620-4540 August 31, 2000 Mr. William A. Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 - Re: Village at Washington Square Applicant: Community Partners for Affordable Housing Dear Bill, I recently was a guest at a board of directors meeting of Community Partners for Affordable Housing. One of the principal agenda items was the Village at Washington Square, currently in the planning process. Throughout the discussion, it was obvious that the City's staff has been extremely helpful to CPAH and has worked overtime (probably literally) to expedite this application and meet deadlines imposed by others. I understand that the Village at Washington Square raises some unique and challenging issues. I don't have enough information about the merits of the specific project to comment - though the need for affordable housing in our community is critical, and everything I know about CPAH indicates that it is an outstanding organization. I do want you to know that the extra work and care the City's planning personnel have put into this application are recognized and appreciated. Very truly yours, Thomas J. Murph /tjm cc: Jim Griffith, Mayor Brian Moore, City Council President ~ EJ HIBIT L Community Partners for Affordable Housing, *#A VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE AR1211cation for: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zone Change Variances Submitted to: City of Tigard Planning Department Project SDonsor.0 Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. Date: August 16, 2000 PO Box 23206 • Tigard, OR 97281-2306 Tel: (503) 968-2724 Fax: (503) 595-8923 • Website: www.cpahinc.org • s I. Key Information 1 II. Summary 2 M. Background Information (Urgency, Uniqueness, Uncertainty) 3-6 IV. Applicable Procedures 7-8 V. Summary of Neighborhood Meetings 8-9 VI. Compliance With Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies & Map Designations 2.1.1 Citizen Involvement 10 3.1.1 Development Umitations 10-11 6.1.1 Diversity of Housing Densities and Residential Types, Rndings 11-12 2,5,7,8 Implementation Strategies 12-14 6.2.1 Eliminate Unnecessary Provisions Which Increase Coat 14 7.1.2 Adequate Services and Facilities 1415 8.1.1 & 3 Safe and Efficient Streets & Roads, Transit Options, Parldng 15-16 8.2.2 Encourage Public Transit 16-17 4,5,6,7 Implementation Strategies 17 9.1.3 Energy Conservation 18 3,4,8 Applicable Policies 18-19 12.1.3 Medium-High and High Density Residential 19 a,d,e Implemerration Strategies 19-20 VII. Change in Physical Circumstances/Mistake Was Made 20-22 VIII. Applicable Standard of the Development Code 22-23 DC. Stat®wkle Planning Goals 23-24 1 Citizen Involvement 24 2 Land Use Planning 2425 5 Open Spaces, Scenic & Historic Areas, & Natural Resources 25-26 6 Air, Water & Land Resources Quality 26 7 Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards 26-27 8 Recreation Needs 27 9 Economic Development 27-28 10 HOUSING 28-30 11 Public Facilities and Services 30 12 Transportation 30-31 13 Energy 31-32 14 Urbanization 32 o • e X. Federal or State Statutes or Regulations ORS.197. Needed Housing in Urban Growth Boundaries 32-34 295-314 OAR 660- Land Conservation and Development Department- 34-35 007-0030- Division 7: Metropolitan Housing 0037 OAR 660- Land Conservation and Development Department- 35 008-0010 Division 8: Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing OAR 660- Land Conservation and Development Department - 35-37 007-0000 Division 12: Transportation Planning XI. Applicable Metro Regulations Metro 2040 Functional Plan 37 Metro Regional Affordable Housing Strategy 37-38 Washington Square Regional Center Plan 38-39 Xn. Applicable City of Tigard Goals I Tigard Beyond Tomorrow - Vision Task Force 39 XDI. Variances/Approval Criteria for Variances 1 Minimum Setbacks - Side and Rear Yards 40-42 2 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements 40-42 DC. Exhibits 43 A Property Location Map B Comprehensive Plan Map C Zoning Map D Site Plan E Photos of Site F Required Submittal Elements G Neighborhood Meeting H CPAH Parking Study I Preliminary Site Development Review 3 Letter from Mike Houck, Audubon Society K Excerpt from'figard Beyond Tomorrow" L Summary of Moro Regional Affordable Housing Strategy M Letters From Oregon Department of Transportation N Letter to Tri-Met O Letter From Tigard-Tualatin School District P Letters of Support for Project Q Letter from OHCSD Regarding Waiver of Notification XEY-INFORMA e Project Name: Village at Washington Square Property Description: 1S135DA, tax lots 4600 and 4700 Location: 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon Parcel size: 0.84 acres in two parcels. Tax lot 4700 is 0.11 acres, and Tax lot 4600 is 0.73 acres Current Comp. Plan: Residential - Medium Density Current Zoning: R-12 Applicant/Owner: Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) Applicants Representatives: Community Partners for Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Executive Director Affordable Housing, Inc. Jill Sherman, Housing & Resource Dev. Mgr. 9020 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 503- 968-2724 telephone; 503-598-8923 fax Housing Development Center Robin Boyce, Finance Director Project Consultant 2627 NE Martin Luther King Boulevard Portland, Oregon 97212 503-335-3668 telephone; 503-335-0475 fax Land Use Planner Ed Murphy, AICP Ed Murphy & Associates 9875 SW Murdock St., Tigard, Oregon 97224 503-624-4625 telephone; 503-968-1674 fax Architect/Site Designer Carleton Hart Architecture PC Brad Simmons and Brian Carleton 322 NW a Avenue Portland, Oregon 97209 503-243-2252 telephone; 503-243-3261 fax Legal Counsel Edward Sullivan and Doug Blomgren Preston Gates & Ellis 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1400 Portland, Oregon 97201-6632 503-226-5727 telephone; 503-248-9085 fax eftwphy&associates/clientdcpaWapplication4thdr/8/16/00 U-M In order for CPAH to develop the chosen site (Exhibit A) for 26 low-income housing units, the City must amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map (Exhibits B and C), review the Site Plan (Map Exhibit D, Photos Exhibit E) and grant variances on required setbacks and the minimum number of parking spaces. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change are consistent with all applicable state, regional and local regulations, policies, and goals, including: - The Department of Land Conservation and Development Statewide Planning Goals, particularly Goal 2) Land Use, Goal 10) Housing, and Goal 12) Transportation - The Oregon Administrative Rules on Housing and Transportation - The Oregon Revised Statutes on Needed Housing - The Metro 2040 Plan - Metro Regional Affordable Housing Strategy - The Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Vision - The Washington Square Regional Center Plan ❖ The applicants cannot wait for the Washington Square second phase study. At stake is a $3.1 million allotment of public and private funds to this project that the community will lose if action is not taken now (Required Submittal Elements at Exhibit F). ❖ The neighborhood is generally favorable towards the project. There is no known opposition to the proposal (Exhibit G). ❖ The key concerns for which the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (WSRCP) was delayed were transportation financing, open space and storm drainage. The project has little impact on any of those issues. ❖ The current setback standards of the Development Code require building setbacks that would restrict buildings on over 54% of the site. A project could possibly be built under those standards, but it would not be the quality of project that CPAH could get funding for or would want to build. The setbacks were intended to protect single family neighborhoods. They are not appropriate for this location. It is likely that the Code will be changed to accommodate the density provided in the WSRCP. ❖ The current parking ratios required by the City do not reflect the needs of the target population (see CPAH Parking Study, Exhibit H), and would result in a poor utilization of the existing land. CPAH's households average less than one car per unit, and disproportionately use other transit options. ❖ There is an urgent need for affordable housing now. This is a well-designed project. This is an excellent location. The project is fully funded. ❖ CPAH as developers, and this affordable housing project, are different than other developers and projects. CPAH is a non-profit organization. Low income family housing is a critical public need, and the attraction of significant public and private funds are necessary for its construction. edmwphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 2 N 0 • RMATION.. Brief History of this Proposed Project: The project sponsor, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. (CPAH) first optioned this parcel in May of 1999. The parcel is located within the area being re-zoned through the Washington Square Regional Center Plan (WSRCP), and is well located for high density residential use. All task force members supported this MUR1 zone along SW Hall Boulevard. The Task Force had been meeting for one year, and appeared close to submission of their recommendations. CPAH assumed the final implementation of the plan would be within a suitable time frame for start of construction. Inquiries were also made about a potential zone change request, but there was a preference to master plan the entire area at once. CPAH applied for state and federal subsidies for a senior housing project unsuccessfully, and then for family housing project successfully. Over three million dollars in funding commitments have currently been made to this project. Urgency: CPAH's project funders believed that implementation of the WSRCP would take place within a few months when they made their commitments. This project received funding during rounds of intense competition because of the urgent need for affordable units in Tigard, and specifically in the Washington Square area (currently 18,000 jobs match with 2,300 housing units). Tigard is one of the least affordable cities in the Portland metropolitan areas, and one of the most imbalanced from a jobs-housing perspective. CPAH's multifamily market studies for Tigard indicate there are only about one hundred 3-bedroom multifamily rental units in the city and no 4-bedroom units. Typically, these larger bedroom sizes are found only in single family properties with rents in excess of $1,000 monthly. The need for affordable larger units in our city is acute. In May 2000, when CPAH received the statement of conditions associated with state funding for this project, zoning certainty by August 2000 was a requirement. Since the WSRCP had been adopted with delayed implementation, they required that CPAH take other action to ensure that this project was ready to proceed. CPAH subsequently requested a 90-day extension from the state and negotiated an extension of the purchase agreement with the owner. Because CPAH agrees with the project funders that the need for affordable units in Tigard is extremely urgent, the decision to seek zoning certainty immediately was made. Waiting for WSRCP implementation would mean losing over $3 million dollars in funding for needed housing for the City of Tigard. Uniqueness; CPAH is unaware of any other affordable housing sponsors currently working in the Tigard area. There have been no new affordable units added to the housing inventory in the City for over five years, and it is highly unlikely based on the price of land and various impediments to development of this type of housing that any other projects will be proposed prior to (and perhaps after) adoption of the WSRCP. While there have been at least three acquisition/rehabilitation projects during the past five years which have preserved the affordability and enhanced the quality of over 100 market rate units, the city has not seen a net impact on the number of units available to low-income families. Competition for housing subsidies is extremely high, based on the critical need for affordable units throughout the state of Oregon. If Tigard loses the current subsidies, it is unlikely it will attract this level of funding again for many years. Since there is currently no land available in the city of Tigard at the R-40 density, a project of this type would not be possible outside a quasi-judicial zone change process or legislative adoption of the WSRCP. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 3 Zoning Compatibility.- The property is currently zoned R-12, but is suitable for development at a higher density. The proposed project meets the criteria for both R-40 (a currently available zoning designation) and MUR1 (the proposed WSRCP designation). For a six-month period in 1999, CPAH reviewed the inventory of properties for sale in order to find an appropriately zoned parcel. Since there was no land zoned R-40, and none became available at the R-25 designation, the next best option was the parcel on Hall Boulevard that appeared to be targeted by the City for an appropriate re-zone. Uncertainty: While we believe that it is the City's intent to implement the Washington Square Regional Plan, we have no certainty as to the timeframe for implementation. The ordinance adopting the WSRCP said "the amendments shall be made when the City Council finds by resolution that recommendation for storm water drainage, recommendations for open space and strategies and a financial plan for transportation improvements have been prepared and adopted by the City Council" We have reviewed the scope of work for the WSRCP Implementation TGM- funded project, and understand that the City is entering into a contract with a consultant team to complete that project. CPAH fully supports the Implementation Planning project, and will stay active in that process. However, we are aware of the complexity of the issues being reviewed and analyzed, and can easily imagine the implementation plan taking a year or more to complete, review through public meetings and hearings, and finally adopt. Even then, as the TGM grant application itself says, "this grant is intended to improve the likelihood of implementation of the transportation recommendations of the WSRC Plan". It is with that uncertainty and timeframe in mind that we decided to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change application for this very small (but very important) project within the WSRCP study area. Community Partners for Affordable Housing's mission is to build housing for families whose household income is substantially below the area median income. Specifically, they want to provide 26 affordable apartment units, plus a community room, on a 0.84-acre site on SW Hall Boulevard. The development financing comes from a variety of sources, but mostly from the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department, or OHCSD. The state agency has strict design requirements that the project must meet to be eligible for the funding. The table below briefly summarizes funding committed to the development. Project Funding Sources First Mortgage (preliminary commitment K Bank $859,622 Washington County HOME low-interest HUD loan $387,000 Deferred Developer Fee $47,015 Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity (preliminary commitment from Enterprise Social Investment Corporation)* $1,632,607 Community Development Block Grant $34,921 General Partner Equity/Loan $27,000 Housing Davelo ment Grant OHCSD Trust Fund $100,000 NOI During Absorption $15,609 Total $3,103,775 "ll//TC funding is the primary tool available today for affordable housing, and highly competitive allooatrons are made each year by the state's housing depart uxvt. In Or:tober, Tigard MY lose these credits borough reallocation if zoning certainty has not been achieved for this project. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 4 The property is currently zoned R-12, which allows multifamily housing at a density of 3,050 square feet per unit, or about 12 units per net buildable acre. This application is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Medium Density to High Density Residential, a Zone Map amendment from R-12 to R-40, Site Development Review approval for a 26-unit apartment complex with a community building, and variances of the side and rear yard setback requirements and on the minimum number of parking spaces required. Density and Use: The R-40 zone allows multifamily housing units without a maximum number of units or minimum lot size. This application is for 26 units on a 0.84-acre site, or approximately 31 units per gross acre. The site will be developed with four separate buildings, three of which will be three-story apartment buildings, and one of which will be a one-story community building. The buildings are clustered around a central play yard and courtyard, with the parking out near the street. The quality of design ensures that this project will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. The size of the individual units will range from 710 - 1,250 square feet. Out of the total 26 apartment units, eight will be one-bedroom, five will be two-bedroom, six will be 3-bedroom, and seven will be 4-bedroom units. It is anticipated that the average number of people living in these 26 units, when 100% occupied, will be approximately 85 people. These apartments will be rented only to familin whose household income is less than 50% of the area median income for Washington County. CPAH has committed to maintaining the affordability of these units for sixty years. The community building will likely provide for uses similar to those at CPAH's other sites: computer learning center, on-site library, multipurpose community room, a summer youth program, and a variety of family and community events and programs. CPAH contracts for on-site management of its properties with Pinnacle Realty Management Company. Access, Circulation and Parking: Residents will access the site from SW Hall Boulevard. No access is possible from the west side, since the site borders the St. James Apartments. Access from the north side is not possible because it is the driveway for the St. James Apartments, and the owners of that complex do not wish to grant an access easement for this proposal. Access to the south is limited because of the existing single-family house at this site. However, the design can accommodate shared access onto SW Hall Boulevard when this property to the south develops. CPAH made contact with neighbors to both the north and south to discuss the potential of shared access-the north neighbor (St. James) was not interested at this time, the neighbor to the south may be interested in a shared access when they develop their property. The proposed site plan would accommodate this arrangement. The site plan provides 31 parking spaces, including two handicapped accessible spaces. It also provides 13 bicycle parking spaces, and direct pedestrian access to SW Hail Boulevard. The number of parking spaces normally required for 26 apartment units is 46, including guest and overflow parking. Because of the close proximity to transit service, and the fewer number of automobiles and trips generated by lower income families (see CPAH Parking Study is (Exhibit H). 31 parking spaces will be adequate for this project. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16100 5 Landscaping and Screening: As the proposed site plan indicates, the site will be improved with generous landscaping, patio areas and walkways, a play yard, and a community building, as well as the landscaped parking lot. Fencing will be installed along the south property line to shield the adjoining property from any automobile headlights. The west side of the property is already fenced with a 6' high wood fence. CPAH will work closely with the adjacent neighbors on the type, height and location of fencing. Surrounding neighborhood: The surrounding properties are all zoned R-12, just like the proposed site. The property to the west is developed as the St. James apartments, which is accessed through a wide driveway along the north side of the CPAH site. The property to the south is developed as a single-family home, owned by an absentee landowner, who has expressed his intent to eventually develop the property. Properties across SW Hall Boulevard are developed as single family homes, with two apartment complexes at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. Environmental conditions: There are no environmental constraints to developing this property. It is not in a floodplain, nor are any wetlands present. It does not have any steep slopes. It does have several trees that are 6" In diameter or greater, some of which will have to be removed in order to provide room for the residential units and parking. Fortunately, most of the trees are located in the perimeter of the site, and will be retained wherever possible. Utilities, facilities and services: Sewer, water, storm drainage, and transportation facilities are available to the site and have adequate capacity for this project An on-site detention and water quality feature will help control the quantity and quality of storm water leaving the site. Other urban-level services, such as police, library, garbage and recycling pick-up, schools, and emergency services are available to the future residents. CPAH currently maintains Memoranda of Understanding and works closely with many of these partners (particularly schools, police and fire). edmurphy&associates/clients/c pah/application4thdr/8/16/00 6 . . PRQCE The Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code lay out the procedures for the types of application involved in this request. A Comprehensive Plan amendment and corresponding Zone Change (CPA/ZC) is a Type IV procedure, meaning that it is reviewed by the Planning Commission, who make a recommendation to the City Council, which is the final decision-making body. Typically, Site Plan Review approval is a Type II procedure, as are variances. In this case, however, because the variances are absolutely critical to the feasibility of this project, those applications are consolidated with the CPA/ZC application. The criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change are found within the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The applicable criteria is as follows: 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL CRITERIA CP Policy 1.1.2 Approval Criteria in Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan policy language is as follows: "2.The Community Development Code (C.D.C.) shall provide quasi-judicial changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map which may be initiated by the affected parties on a semi- annual basis and approved if the City Council finds: a. The change is consistent with applicable plan policies; b. A change of physical circumstances has occurred since the original designation; or c. A mistake was made in original land use designation". 2. TDC 18.380.030.8. STANDARDS FOR MAKING QUASI-7UDICIALDECISIONS (applies to both Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change) "A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the following standards: 1. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations; 2. Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of any provision of this code or other applicable implementing ordinance; and 3. Evidence of change in neighborhood or community or a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map as it relates to the property which is the subject of the development application" 3. TDC 18.390.060 DECISION MAKING CONSIDERATIONS "G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Planning Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1. The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon 2. Revised Statutes Chapter 197; 3. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; 4. Any applicable METRO regulations; 5. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; and 6. Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances." cdmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 7 This application will demonstrate how the request meets the criteria listed above. In addition, this application will show how the variances meet the criteria for variances. The criteria for Site Development Review are included for reference (Exhibit Y), and the criteria for variances is recited on pages 4042. • CPAH is an active participant in city and community-sponsored events and meetings. This project has been broadly discussed in a number of forums. Most notably, staff participated in many of the meetings of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan task force, the July and August 2000 Citizen Involvement Team meetings for Tigard, and attempted to deliver information to the Metzger Citizen Participation Organization meeting in July (which was cancelled). Notes from the required "Neighborhood Meeting" which took place on August 10, 2000, are attached as Exhibit G, and briefly summarized below. The meeting was well attended and very positive, although there were many questions about the project, there was no vocal opposition to it. Everyone in attendance seemed very supportive. August 10 Neigbbvrhood Needng, Purpose and Aftende+es CPAH staff welcomed everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to describe the proposed development and respond to questions and solicit comments and suggestions from interested neighbors and community members. The entire group did self=introductions. Present at the meeting were: CPAH staff, board, residents, management and development team members; nine neighbors including the resident managers of the St. James on Hall Apartments and the co-owners of Gatehouse Apartments; and other community members. CPAH provided a brief summary of its experience and that of its development team. Proposed Deveiopinent Design Brad Simmons, project architect, explained the proposed project design. Specific points included: how the placement of the buildings around a central courtyard would lend a community feel; that noise from the play yard would be shielded from neighbors because of its location in the center of the buildings; that improvements to Hall Boulevard would be made; and that many trees would be saved because the majority of trees are on the south and west boundaries of the property. He explained the proposed variances to required setbacks and required parking. He stated that the proposed decrease in setbacks on the west, south and north sides of the property would not, in his opinion, negatively impact neighbors, as to the south there are trees and a driveway, to the north is the driveway for the St. James Apartments and to the west is the garbage and recycling area of St. James Apartments. He discussed that the proposed development would have 31 parking spaces, less than the required amount and that this would be sufficient for the population of the proposed development and that he didn't want to add any more pavement to the project than absolutely necessary. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpaldapplication4thdd8/16/00 8 Quesdons and Comments • Traffic... Neighbors expressed concern about already existing traffic problems and the difficulty of pulling out from driveways to Hall Boulevard and the frequency of accidents in that area. Questions were raised as to the future expansion of Hall and whether it was planned to become a three-lane or a five-lane road. There is discrepancy in different planning documents. CPAH staff responded that our development would add significantly less traffic than a similar market rate development as residents are more likely to rely on public transportation, have fewer cars and make fewer trips. CPAH staff said that they had been in touch with Tri-Met regarding the possibility of future service on the part of Hall with the proposed project and would work to promote expanding service on Hail. CPAH also said it would be interested in working with neighbors and ODOT to address the issue of turning onto Hall from access roads and driveways and work to come up with a solution. • Building fitting in with neighborhood ...The architect and construction manager noted that the building would be designed to fit in with the existing neighborhood. One of the reasons to ask for the setback variance-was so as not to build something taller in the middle of the property that wouldn't fit in as well. • Cut through of yards ...A suggestion was made to put up a fence on the south side to discourage cutting through. • Property Management...CPAH staff explained that we expect to have four or more full time staff on our property management team and is committed to long-term ownership and management. • Other Questions and Concerns ...A neighbor wondered how many people would live at the property. CPAH staff expects a total population of around 75. A neighbor asked for details about playground size and whether it would be ADA approved. A neighbor asked if CPAH planned to purchase the property to the south for development. CPAH staff responded it had no plans to do so at this time. A neighbor asked about rents and how people qualified for apartments and CPAH staff explained process. A neighbor asked how this development would effect their property taxes and the zoning of their property. CPAH responded that the zoning on their property would remain the same. A neighbor asked when CPAH hoped to start construction and CPAH responded that the hope was to start in the spring. On her way out a neighbor commented that she had come to the meeting assuming she would oppose the project, but after teaming more about 14 this proposal would have her full support. edmurphy&,associates/clients/cpah/appiication4thdr/8/16/00 9 • • NSIVE,~ PC I C1 E5 • • • • APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Policy 2.1.1 Citizen Involvement The City shall maintain an on-going citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. CPAH advertised and held a neighborhood meeting on August 10, 2000, in accordance with the City of Tigard's neighborhood meeting notification process. CPAH notified all property owners within 500' of the property upon which it proposes to construct the apartments, inviting them to a meeting or to call the CPAH office. It also sent notices to all of the CIT facilitators. In addition, CPAH staff has discussed the proposed project with interested citizens at two of Tigard's Citizen's Involvement Team meetings July 6 and August 3, 2000. Additionally, CPAH contacted Metzger Citizen Participation Organization officials in order to provide information at their July 26 meeting (which was cancelled). CPAH will provide information for their August 23, 2000 meeting. Finally, CPAH has talked to individual property owners adjacent to or near the site, including the owners of the property immediately to the north and west (developed as the St James Apartments) and the property to the south (developed as a single-family house). CPAH has made an extraordinary effort to inform the neighborhood and the community of the proposed project, and has provided an opportunity for citizens to be involved in the planning process. In its spring newsletter which is mailed to over 1,000 area households, CPAH printed a drawing of the proposed project with a brief description. Therefore, the applicant has complied fully with Policy 2.1.1. Policy 3.1,1 The City shall not allow development in areas having the following development limitations except where it can be shown that established and proven engineering techniques related to a specdFc site plan will the area suitable for the proposed development (Note: This policy does not apply tlv lands designated as signiFcant wetlands on the tioodplain and wetlands map.): a. Areas meeting the definition of wetiands under Chapter 18.26 of the Community Development Code; b. Arras having a severe soil erosion potential; a Areas subject f v slumping, earth slides or movement; d. Areas having slogs in excess of 25%; or el Arras have severe weak foundation soils The property upon which the Village at Washington Square will be built does not have any of the development limitations listed above, nor is the land designated as significant wetlands or floodplain on the floodplain and wetlands map. On July 14, 2000, CPAH staff met at the site with edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 10 urban naturalist, Mike Houck, of the Audubon Society, who did not identify any environmental issues, and concluded that the proposed development was a good use for the site (See letter attached as Exhibit 3). Therefore, the applicant has complied fully with Policy 3.1.1. Policy &1.1 The City shall provide an opportunity for a diversity of housing densities and residential types at various prices and rent levels. This housing policy statement is supported by several findings, including the following two that are most applicable: in i A. The rapidly changing housing market will require the City to periodically reevaluate its housing and /and use objectives to provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the needs of future residents. The housing market has changed substantially over the past few years. The cost of new housing has outpaced the ability of wages to keep up, making Oregon now one of the least affordable housing markets in the United States. Between 1990 and 1999, housing costs rose by 100%, and median income rose by only 28°x6 in the Portland metropolitan area. Lifestyles and housing demand has changed also, with much more interest in living close to employment centers, mixed use activity centers, and in higher density apartments. The needs of future residents will not be met through the City's current land use plan and development regulations. The current zoning on this property, R-12, is in fact much too low a density considering its proximity to the commercial and office development around Washington Square and the Tigard Triangle, and the transportation network in this area. The applicant agrees with this finding, and asks that the city review its plan and zoning map, that limit the development of high density affordable apartments in this area notwithstanding the adoption of the Regional Center Plan and the available data on needed housing. ❖ Undue caoncentrat ions of public assisted or subsidized housing serves to isolate the recipients of such housing from the mainstream of the community, its full range of basic services and the diversity of its neighborhoods. For this reason, the City should take steps to disperse such housing within individual neighborhoods and throughout the City itself. The proposed project is not in an area of other subsidized apartments. The recipients of the housing subsidy - the people who will rent the apartments - will have a full range of basic services available to them, and will live in a diverse neighborhood. Approval of the application is consistent with this finding. The City can support affordable housing by zoning properties for higher densities, particularly with its highest density zoning district, R-40. The City has a very limited supply of buildable land appropriately zoned. In fact, there is absolutely no land available for development at the R-40 designation, and less than 50 acres at R-25. edmurphy&associates/clientstcpah/application4thdr/8/16100 1 The City has signaled its intent to do more for affordable housing through the adoption of related Council Goals, the Vision Task Force Report, "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" (see excerpt as Exhibit K), and the adoption of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, discussed below on pages 38-39. While the City is currently complying with the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07), which focuses only on housing types and density (requiring the city to provide the opportunity for at least 50°x6 of the new units to be attached single-family or multi-family housing, and that the city provide for an overall density of ten units per acre), the city could strive to provide more housing that is affordable to lower income families. Tiigard's past development patterns as well as recent job growth have left it at a great disadvantage to house its current workforce. As of 1990, only 2.5% of all rental units in the city were affordable to households at or below 30% of median income. Based on the same data, Tigard was the least affordable of Washington County's three largest cities. The County's Department of Housing Services has nearly 4,000 households on its waiting list for housing assistance. The typical wait is two to four years. HUD estimates that 74°x6 of the households eligible for rental assistance are not getting help. Both Metro and Washington County (in its most recent Consolidated Plan) estimate a deficit of between 20-30,000 affordable units in the County. Approving this request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zoning Map change would help the City meet this objective, as it would add to the diversity of housing densities and residential types, and at rent levels substantially lower than can be found elsewhere in Tigard. The application therefore complies with Policy 6.1.1. Implementation Stratewies The Housing Policy statement is followed by several implementation strategies, including the following that are most applicable: 2. The TI-gard community Development Code shall list a bread range of zoning districts which allow for a variety of housing types, and snmply with the adopted Metropolitan Housing Rule (SO-50 mixture of single family and attached or multiple family at 10 units to the net acre on buildable vacant land. The Development Code lists a broad range of zoning districts, but does not necessarily implement them on the zoning map. Densities in the range of 32 - 40 units per acre, for instance, are allowed (actually required) in the R-40 zone, but there is no buildable land zoned R-40. The majority of multifamily housing developments constructed in the Tigard area are nonconforming uses developed in lower density zones (i.e. Villa Ls Paz apartments are built at 26 units per acre in an R-7 zone, and is considered an allowable nonconforming use). Two of the multifamily properties developed on SW Hall Boulevard within close proximity to the proposed site are developed at a higher density than the current R-12 and R-7 zones showing on Tiigard's Zone Map. While housing at higher densities is allowed within the C-P (Professional/Administrative Commercial Zone) and the CBD (Central Business District Zone), the lack of available vacant edmwphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/I 6/00 12 OM buildable lands zoned either C-P or CBD, and the high prices of commercially zoned property in those areas, severely limit any opportunities for building affordable apartment units in those locations. Most of the C-P zoned property was developed as part of the Lincoln Center and Washington Square area, or as offices at SW Hall Boulevard and Highway 217. Similarly, suitable property in the CBD zone that is vacant, buildable, for sale, and affordable is non-existent. The R-40 zone itself is applied only to an already developed apartment site at SW Bull Mountain Road and 99W, and a small already developed apartment site just north of Washington Square and south of the Embassy Suites. With such severe land and zoning constraints, it will be extremely difficult for the City to meet its goals. This implementation strategy does not mean that the City should merely list zones in the Development Code, but rather is to apply those zoning designations to real property through the zoning map so as to provide for a realistic opportunity to implement this state, regional and City goal. This application would provide for less than one additional acre of R-40 zoning in the City. The application complies with the intended purpose of this strategy, which is to allow - through zoning a variety of housing types, including apartments built at 32 - 40 units per acre. This application is consistent with, and will help the City carry out, implementation strategy #2. 5, The City shall encourage housing development to occur, to the greatest extent possible, on designated buildable lands where public facilities and services can be readily extended to those lands. The property upon which CPAH wants to build affordable apartments is very buildable, has no environmental constraints such as wetlands and floodplains, and has every public facility already available. In addition, public services such as police (1 mile), fire (1 mile), library (1 mile), parks (0.75 mile) and transit (0.3 mile) are readily available and close to this site. Beyond public facilities and services, the site is near major regional employment centers along Highway 217 and 99W, and in the Washington Square (currently 18,000+ jobs vs. 2,300 housing units) and Tigard Triangle centers. This is an extraordinarily land and service efficient location to build this type of housing - close to jobs, public services, private services, and all forms of transportation services. There are four different bus lines with 0.3 to 0.4 miles of the site, and proposed hard rail access nearby. The application therefore complies with implementation strategy #5. 7, The City shall coordinate with the &Vashington County Housing Authority, H. UD and other Federal, State and regional agencies for the provision of subsidized housing programs in Tigard. This project involves significant commitments of local, state and federal funds, as well as private sector grants and investments (see "Sources of Funding" in the "Background Information" section of this application) The City of Tigard, Washington County, State of Oregon and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have endorsed this project through funding commitments. It is fully coordinated with - and fully supported by - local, regional, state, and edmu phy&associates/clients/cpah/npplication4thdr/8/16/00 13 federal housing programs. Therefore, the application complies completely with implementation strategy #7. 8. The City shall determine through census figures, surveys and organizational reports, such as those prepared by the area Agency on aging, the extent of the City's needs and projected need in the area of low and moderate income housing, senior housing and specaialty housing. The City shall encourage the development of such housing types to meet the idendfed and projected needs. According to estimates in Metro's Regional Affordable Housing Study (RAHS), reviewed by Tigard City Council on July 25, 2000, Tiigard's need for affordable housing serving households at or below 50% of area median income is 3,206. The RAHS recommends that the City set a goal of at least 10% of actual need--for Tigard 321 units by the year 2003. For Washington County as a whole, need for units at this income level were projected at 22,581. No units at or below 50% of area median income have been constructed or renovated in the City of Tigard so far during the five- year goal period 1998-2003. This project would provide 26 of those 320 units, or 8% of the City's five-year goal. If this Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change is approved by the City, it will provide an opportunity to address this identified need. By approving this project, the City will be encouraging the development of housing for low-income working households, therefore meeting identified and projected needs. Therefore, the application is in compliance with implementation strategy #8. Policy 5.2.1 - The City shall develop dear and eondse development regulations and standards to fadlitate the streamlining of development proposals, and will eliminate unnecessary provisions which could increase the housing costs without corresponding beneft: The current development code standards require excessive yard setbacks within the R-40 zone whenever it abuts a lower intensity residential zone, even if that zone if multifamily, and even if it is a use developed at a greater density than the R-12 zone would currently allow. The minimum yard setback requirements are 35' on both side yards and 35' on the rear yard, with 20' for the front yard. This provision clearly increases housing costs. Without variances on the yard setbacks, the current requirements would render over 54% of this site unusable for buildings. The application does not eliminate this unnecessarily restrictive provision of the code, but granting the requested variances has substantially the same effect for this particular project Therefore, the application complies with Policy 6.2.1. Policy 7.1.2 The Chy shall require as a pre-condition to development approval that: a. Development coincide with the availability ofadequate service capladly inducting; 1. Public water 2. Public sewer shall be required for a new development within the City unless the property involved is over 300 fee from a sewer line and Washington County Health Department approval for a private disposal system is obtained; and 3. Storm Drainage. b. The fadlides are., edmurphy&associates/cl ients/cpah/appl icationAthdr/8/ r 6/00 14 1. Capable of adequately serving all intervening properties and the proposed development; and 2. Designed to City standards. c All new development utilities to be placed underground. The project will be connected to public water, pubic sewer and public storm drainage, all of which are available with adequate service capacity. There will not be any intervening properties, as this development will connect directly to the facilities. The facilities will be designed to City standards. All new development utilities will be placed underground in accordance with City requirements (Tigard Development Code, Section 18.810.110). Therefore, the application complies with Policy 7.1.2. Policy 8.1.1 ]Ire City shall plan for a safe and evident street and roadway system that meets the cement needs and anticipated future growth and development 8.1.3 The City shall require as a precondition to development that., a. Development abut a publidy dedicated street or have adequate access approved by the appropriate approval authority; b Street right=of-way be dedicated where the street is substandard in width; 10 a The developer commit to the construction of the streets, curb and sidewalks to city standards within the development; d. Individual developers partidpat>e in the improvement of existing streets, curbs and sidewalks to the extent of the development's impacts; e. Street improvements be made and sheet signs or signals be provided when the development Is found tv create oriotensifya traffic hazard; f. Transit stops, bus turnout lanes, and shelters be provided when the proposed use of a type which generates transit ridership. 9 Parking spas be set aside and marked for cars operated by disabled persons and that the spaces be located as dose as possible to the entrance designed for disabled persons; and h. Land be dedicated to implement the bicycie/pedesbian corridor in accordance with the adopted plan. The development abuts a publicly dedicated street, SW Hall Boulevard, and has an existing driveway onto that arterial. The State Department of Transportation is the "owner" of SW Hall Boulevard, and an access permit will have to be granted by ODOT for access onto SW Hall Boulevard. Since there is an existing driveway on the property, and no other reasonable way to access the property, it is likely that ODOT will grant the permit (See MOT letter at Exhibit N1) CPAH staff have been in touch with ODOT to clarify an appropriate traffic study and permit application procedure. CPAH has contacted three traffic engineering firms to seek bids for such a traffic study. The applicant, CPAH, will dedicate additional necessary street right-of-way in accordance with City and state requirements and will install necessary street improvements to the City's standards. CPAH will also meet or exceed the requirements for landscaping and screening for the visual enhancement of SW Hall Boulevard. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpalVapplication4thdr/8/16/00 15 There are no public or private streets within the project. All on-site parking and circulation will be done to City specifications. The applicant commits improving the property's SW Hall Boulevard frontage with the construction of the streets, curbs and sidewalks to City standards, and to make appropriate street improvements if the development is found to create or intensify a traffic hazard. The proposed use will generate transit ridership, but since the current Tri-Met bus route does not use this section of SW Hall Boulevard, it is unlikely that Tri-Met or ODOT will require transit stops. CPAH will work with Tri-Met to make any reasonable pedestrian or transit oriented improvements that will encourage transit ridership. Through conversations with Tri-Met staff, CPAH learned that Tri-Met is currently reviewing the SW Barbur Boulevard corridor (which includes points within 0.25 miles north and south). CPAH was encouraged to submit a request for consideration of service on the portion of Hall Boulevard not currently served immediately in front of proposed project (CPAH's letter to Tri-Met is attached as Exhibit Pi). The site plan proposes setting aside parking spaces for cars operated by disabled persons in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. The site plan also illustrates land that will be dedicated to accommodate future improvements to SW Hall Boulevard, which is the bicycle/pedestrian corridor planned for this area. The street improvements will include sidewalks along the frontage of the site and additional bicycle lane connections. SW Hall Boulevard is projected to eventually be five lanes wide, according to the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, the draft Regional Transportation Plan and City of Tigard draft Transportation System Plan. (The WSRCP task force recommended requiring dedication of, or otherwise acquiring, enough right-of-way for five-lanes, but actually improving SW Hall Boulevard for three-lanes.) The WSRCP also recommends a People Mover and new transit center. In addition, improvements to the I-5/217 intersection are underway, a 99W Corridor study has been recently completed, the Greenburg Road overpass across Highway 217 has been recently widened and improved. The current and future transportation system can quite easily accommodate the traffic generated by this project. While the proposed development is high density, it will generate less vehicle trips than a comparably sized market rate development. According to CPAH Property Parking Study (Exhibit H) households in the targeted income range average less than one vehicle per unit, whether they reside in one, two or three-bedroom units. Focus group discussions with our residents indicate that not only are families unable to afford one or more cars, they are less likely to make multiple trips per day than other income segments. From a land use/transportation standpoint, the highest densities should be along arterials, and close to major employment, shopping, recreation, and other destinations. This project accomplishes that goal, and contributes to a safe and efficient transportation system. Therefore, the application complies with 8.1.1 and 8.1.3. Policy 8.2.2 The City shall encourage the expiansfoa and use of public transit by., a. Locating land intensive uses in dose proximity to transitways; b Tncorporatsng provisions into the community development Corte which require develoPMentPrWM/ to Provdde transit Jac Xes and edmurphy&associates/ctients/cpaWapptication4thdr/8/16/00 16 e Supporting efforts by Tit-Met and other groups to provide for the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. This application is in close proximity to b ansitways. Bus line # 43 runs east west on Locust with a bus stop less than 0.4 miles from this site. The #12 bus line on SW Barbur Boulevard runs frequently and can be accessed within 0.3 miles from the site. There is a major transit center on SW Commercial Street in downtown Tigard, which is less than one mile from the site, and another major transfer area is located at Washington Square, only one mile from the site. In addition, SW Hall Boulevard is a major arterial, and CPAH will advocate for additional service which will directly serve the proposed project. This project will meet the requirements of Section 18.810 of Tigard Development Code regarding transit facilities. The Site Plan will also be reviewed by Tri-Met. Many of the residents in the proposed project will be transportation disadvantaged. CPAH, the long-term owner of this housing complex, will continue to work with Tri-Met and the City to meet the transportation needs of the residents and other transportation disadvantaged individuals in Tigard. Implementation StraWa es Policy 8.2.2 is supported by seven implementation strategies. The applicable ones are as follows: 4. The City shall propose land use densities, within the Comprehensive Plan, along transit oriented corridors that support public transportation services. 5. The City shall work with Tri-Met and other transit providers to encourage transit service for the transit dependent population e.g., the poor and handicapped. 6. The City shall encourage its dawns to use mass transit systems, where possible, to make greater effectiveness of the transit system while redudng automobile usage: Z The City shall coordinate witlh the transit providers to encourage carpooling and investigate if there is a local need for carpooling in the Tigard area. This application supports implementation strategy #4, in that it requests the City's highest density zoning on the proposed site, which is along SW Hall Boulevard, a transit oriented corridor. CPAH has worked for and will continue to work with Tri-Met to improve transit service for transit dependent persons. The project encourages transit ridership by reducing the number of on-site parking spaces available, which provides a disincentive to own and drive a private vehicle. Finally, CPAH will continually assist and encourage the residents in establishing car-pooling programs, walking, biking and taking the bus as mechanisms to assist in balancing their limited household budgets. CPAH provides information and referral to outside agencies, and conducts financial literacy training on a one-on-one and group basis. Therefore, the application complies with Policy 8.2.2. edmarphy&associates/clienWcpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 17 Po/icy 9.1,3. The City shall encourage /and use deve%pment whirl: emphasizes sound energy conservation, design and constrzK on. The proposed project is the type of land use development that, by itself, reduces energy consumption because it is higher density than is typical for the Tigard area, which means less energy use per unit. The building itself will meet or exceed the standards in the Uniform Building Code. In addition, the building design will incorporate several energy conservation features. CPAH°s staff and development team members have received training in "Green Building" techniques and will explore all avenues for environmentally-responsive design, construction and operation. The project is located in an area that is rich in employment, shopping, services, and entertainment, so residents potentially will only have short vehicular trips, and can also walk, bicycle or take the bus for several of their trips. Policy 9.1.3 is supported by eight policies, of which the following three are applicable to this proposal: 3. The City shall locate higher densities and intensities of land use in proximity to existing and potential transit routes specffically with convenient access to federal and state highways, arterials and major collector streets. As noted under policies on housing and transportation, this project is in close proximity to bus routes #12 and #43 and is directly on a potential future transit route. In addition, it is close to access onto Highway 217, which connects to I-5 and US 26 (Sunset Highway). It is directly on Hall Boulevard, an arterial street connecting downtown Beaverton, downtown Tigard, and Durham Road near Tigard High School. SW Hall Boulevard is planned to eventually cross the Tualatin River to connect to Boones Ferry Road in Tualatin. The site is also served by three collector streets, SW Oak Street, SW Lincoln Street and SW Locust Street. 4. The City shall, in the Tigard Community Code;, allow for more flexibility in structure siting to provide for maximum solar exposure The development will meet the Development Code provisions; however, the solar access provisions that were previously in the Development Code have been repealed. Nonetheless, the proposed project is sited towards the north side of the parcel, and is generally laid out in an east- west orientation, making it ideal for maximum solar exposure. 8. The City shall coordinate with and support public and private planning efforts that advocate alternative forms of transportation such as mass transit, carpooling, ride sham bicycling and walking for commuter purposes. CPAH advocates alternative forms of transportation, and encourages car pooling, ride-sharing, bicycling and walking. It does this by working directly with the residents to identify and use alternative modes of transportation besides a single-occupancy vehicle for many of the trips the residents take. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/applicmion4thdr/8/16/00 18 The proposed design of the project encourages alternative forms of transportation by limiting the number of parking spaces on the site. In addition, it will provide 13 bicycle spaces, which is what the Development Code requires (TDC Table 18.765.2). Therefore, the application complies with Policy 9.1.3. 12.1.3. Medium-High and High Density Residential. A. The following faclais will be the determinants of the areas designated for high density on the plan map: (1) Areas which are not committed to low density development; (2) Areas which can be buffered from lore density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas; (3) Areas which have direct aces form a major collector or arterial street; (4) Areas which are not subject to development limitations; (5) Areas where the existing facilXes have the capacity for additional development; (6) Areas within one-quarter mile ofpublic transits (7) Areas within one-quarter mile from neighborhood and general commercial shopping centers or business and oA9ee centers; and (8) Areas adjacent to either private or permanent open space. The proposed project is in an area already planned and zoned for medium density residential development (R-12). There is a major apartment complex next door to the west, the St. James apartments. The property on which CPAH proposes the apartments, and the property to the south, while used for a single-family detached home on large lot, is not committed to low density residential area, but more of an under-utilized transition area. The proposed project has direct access onto SW Hall Boulevard, an arterial street. The property is not subject to development limitations, such as wetlands, steep slopes, poor soils, or flood hazards. Based on a preliminary review, the existing sewer, water, storm water and transportation facilities have more capacity for additional development. The applicant will provide a more detailed analysis of the impact on these services as part of the Site Development Review Application. No particular service problems were mentioned by the City Engineer's office in the pre-application meeting. The parcel is within 1/3 mile of public transit, and within one mile of a variety of commercial and office centers (SW Hall Boulevard, SW Pacific Highway, SW Locust Street, SW Greenburg Road, SW Cascade Avenue and SW Nimbus Drive). It is not adjacent to private or public open space, but the Washington Square Regional Plan includes the creation of open space around the wetlands, about one mile to the north of this property. In addition, Metzger Park is only Y4 of a mile away from this site. Policy 12.1.3 is supported by one implementation strategy with five sub-parts, of which the following three are applicable: 1. The Community Development Code shall: edemurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 19 a. lndude a broad range of residential districts; d. Require medium density and high density residential developments to provide a minimum of 20% of the gross ame to be landscaped e Require the dedication of land or monetary contribution to the public for pof*s or recreation facyliG m The Development Code includes a broad range of residential districts, including the requested R- 40 zone. However, the Zoning Map does not provide for this same broad range by zoning designations. Re-zoning the subject parcel to R-40 will help implement strategy La. The proposed project will meet the landscaping requirements of Section 18. 510.050.6., (See Table 18.510.2) of the Tigard Development Code, which includes a requirement that a minimum of 20% of the gross land area of the site to be landscaped. The proposed project will make a monetary contribution to the public for parks and recreation facilities in the form of the Parks System Development Charges. In addition, it provides a play yard and outdoor patio space for the residents. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Policy 12.1.3. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATIONS There are no comprehensive map designations that are applicable to this property. 04-0.7011 11 A change of physical circumstances has oc uffed since the original designation (Comprehensive Plan language) or evidence of a change in neighborhood or community (Development Code language). There has been a change of physical circumstances, and a change in the community, since the original designation of this property as medium density R-12. There is a much more acute housing shortage, and a far housing affordability problem. Due to a variety of factors, Oregon is now one of the least affordable states from a housing standpoint. One of these factors is the price of land, and the shortage of available, buildable land. This factor alone, forces developers of affordable housing to look for opportunities to build at higher densities, to try and keep the land cost per unit as low as possible. 1. Affordable housing shortage compared with residential development in the City. While market rate housing has flourished in Tigard, affordable housing has lagged far behind. The community has changed a great deal in the last several years-it has become less and less affordable. 2. Lack of other suitable land in area. Another problem is the lack of other suitable land for development in the area. Whereas in the past, planners expected and zoned for multifamily housing in the Tigard Triangle and in the Downtown Area, In fact, there has been no additional housing added to either area since the "Fenno edmurphy&associates/clients/c pah/application4thdr/8/16/00 20 Creek Apartments" were built in dowtown and "Hampton Court" was built in the Tigard Triangle. No below market rate apartments have built in either of those areas. With the adoption of the Mixed Use Employment zone in much of the Tigard Triangle, it is highly unlikely that anymore high density housing will be built. In fact, what is being built in the MUE zone is Class A offices. At the same time, the availability of land suitable for affordable multifamily housing has diminished, and land costs have skyrocketed. The Central Business District allows multifamily development at 40 units per acre, but there is little land available. The few formally vacant parcels along SW Burnham and SW Commercial Streets, for instance, have now been developed for commercial uses. It is difficult for affordable housing developers to find any suitable land, and trying to compete for land zoned for commercial uses is unrealistic. 3. Increasing densities. At one time, the current zoning, R-12, was thought of as higher density housing. Much of the R-12 and R-25 zoned properties were in fact developed well below the maximum densities allowed, until the City established minimum density requirements in 1998, when it revised the Development Code. A few years ago, multifamily developers in the region, other than downtown Portland, would not develop at densities much over 20 units per acre. Therefore, the City did not rezone additional properties R-40, because there was no market demand for that density. Now, however, densities around light rail stations can reach 30 units per acre and more. Densities at 40 units per acre in the suburbs are not unimaginable in the suburbs anymore, particularly in town centers and regional centers. In fact, the WSRCP requires a minimum of 50-units per acre in the proposed MUR1 zone. What has changed is the market-the type of housing that buyers want, and the location in which they want that housing. MISTAKE WAS MADE Mistake was made in original land use designation (Comprehensive Plan language) or evidence of..a mistake or inavnsistencp in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map (Development Code language). The proposed development is consistent with the WSRCP. That plan was adopted by the City Council on March 14, 2000, but the Council chose to delay its implementation. Ordinance 00-18, which adopted the WSRCP, includes the following language: SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and y posting by the City Recorder. The amendments provided for in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be made when the City Council by resolution finds that recommendations for storm water drainage, recommendations for open space and strategies and a financial plan for transportation improvements for the Washington Square Regional Center have been prepared and adopted by the City Council." edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 21 The Council did not delay the implementation of Section 6, which reads: "SECTION 6: The Findings and Conclusions in Support of Washington Square Regional Center ("Exhibit F'J are hereby adopted." Those findings and conclusions are currently in effect. There is an inconsistency between the findings that were adopted by the City Council, and the current plan for medium density housing on this property. The findings and conclusions recognize the need for high density housing, and for affordable housing. The adopting ordinance, however, delayed the full implementation of the WSRCP until further studies could be completed. The site proposed for the multifamily development is not in any of the "contested" areas of the Plan. That is, it does not contain wetlands, or effect wetlands. It is not subject to flooding. It was not identified as an open space area. Perhaps most important, it is not a major traffic producer. It is inconsistent to adopt findings and conclusions, and then to postpone worthy, publicly needed housing projects, until an uncertain date in the future, when the project does not significantly effect those issues of key concern to the Council. There is not enough land zoned R-40 in Tigard. Although the City is meeting its minimum housing density target of an average of 10 units per net buildable acre, and although the market for densities higher than 20 units per acre is a relatively recent change, the City made a mistake in not amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to allow higher densities in zones other than the CBD and the MUE zones. Recognizing the need, the City prepared the WSRCP. However, indefinitely postponing action, even for needed affordable housing projects, was, if not an outright mistake, at least an action inconsistent with the adopted findings. a o• 0 0 o I.V Demonstration of compliance with all applicable standards of the Development Cade or other applicable imp/ementyn+g Ordinance (Development Cade language). ❖ Allowed use in R-40 zone. Multifamily uses are allowed in the R-40 zone. ❖ Lot area minimum. There is no lot area minimum in this zone. ❖ Density, minimum and maximum. There is no maximum density in the R-40 zone. ❖ Parking. The normal parking requirements for multifamily units on a per dwelling unit (DU) basis, is as follows: 0 1 bedroom: 1.25/DU 0 2 bedroom: 1.50/DU 0 3-4 bedroom: 1.75/DU In addition, Section 18.765.030.E. requires an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents at the complex. The proposed project does not meet the parking standards. The applicant Is requesting a variance to the parking standards. ❖ Setbacks, front, side and rear. Normally, the R-40 zone requires a 20' front yard, 10' side yard and 20' rear yard setback. The proposed site plan meets that standard. However, Table 18.510.2 requires a 35' setback for any side or rear yard abutting a more restrictive zoning district. Since the R-40 zone is more restrictive than the R-12 zoning to the north, west and south, the development would have to meet the 35' setback on three sides. The edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16100 22 ell applicant finds that this standard presents a hardship, and is requesting a variance to the "additional" setback requirement of 35'. ❖ Landscaping, screening and open space. The proposed site design meets the requirements for landscaping, screening and open space. Several large trees on the site will be preserved and integrated into the landscape plan. For more information about how the proposed project meets the applicable standards of the underlying zone, see the preliminary Site Development Review responses to SDR criteria (attached as Exhibit I). e. There are 19 Statewide Planning Goals. However, several Goals are not applicable to the proposal, and deal with Agricultural Land, Forest Lands, The Willamette River, Greenway and the Coastal Goals. A brief summary of the 12 Statewide Planning Goals that are applicable to this proposal are as follows: 1. Citizen Involvement Goal 1 calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." It requires each city and county to have a citizen involvement program with six components specified in the goal. It also requires local governments to have a committee for citizen involvement (CCI) to monitor and encourage public participation in planning. 2. Land Use Planning --Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning program. It says that land-use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's policies into effect must be adopted. It requires that plans be based on "factual information"; that local plans and ordinances be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions and agencies; and that plans be reviewed periodically and amended as needed. 5. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Goal 5 encompasses 12 different types of resources, including wildlife habitats, mineral resources, wetlands and waterways. It establishes a process through which resources must be inventoried and evaluated. If a resource or site is found to be important, the local government has three policy choices: to preserve the resource, to allow the proposed uses that conflict with it, or to establish some sort of a balance between the resource and those uses that would conflict with it. 6. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality --This goal requires local comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as groundwater pollution. 7. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards Goal 7 deals with development in places subject to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires that jurisdictions apply "appropriate safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when planning for development there. 8. Recreation Needs This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them. It also sets forth detailed standards for expedited siting of destination resorts. edmtuphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4th&/8/16/00 23 LM 9. Economy of the State Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of the economy. It asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. 10. Housing This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate needed housing types (typically, multifamily and manufactured housing). It requires each city to inventory its buildable residential lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough buildable land to meet those needs. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against needed housing types. 11. Public Facilities and Services Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The goal's central concept is that public services should to be planned in accordance with a community's needs and capacities rather than be forced to respond to development as it occurs. 12. Transportation The goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic transportation system." It asks for communities to address the needs of the "transportation disadvantaged." 13. Energy Goal 13 declares that "land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." 14. Urbanization This goal requires all cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. It calls for each city to establish an "urban growth boundary" (UGB) to "identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land." It specifies seven factors that must be considered in drawing up a UGB. It also lists four criteria to be applied when undeveloped land within a UGB is to be converted to urban uses. Of the above twelve Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 10, the Housing Goal, is the one most relevant and applicable to this proposal. However, this application will touch briefly on all of the applicable goals in order to demonstrate conformity to the Statewide Planning program. COAL 2: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. To develop a atiien i ivolvement program that .irsurl S the opportunity for atiaens to be involved M all phases of the p/arming process, CPAH staff made presentations to Tigard's Citizen Involvement Team in both July and August, and held a neighborhood meeting that was noticed according to city standards. The City will send public notices for the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, and send out letters to property owners within 500 feet informing them of the hearings. The hearings will provide an opportunity for input. Therefore, the request complies with Goal 1. GOAL 2: PART I - PLANNING. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision[s] and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 24 The City of Tigard has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, and has updated its Comprehensive Plan through the periodic review process. Further, as evidenced by the findings adopted in support of the WSRCP (Exhibit 'F' of Ordinance 00-18), the WSRCP was done in conformance with Goal 2. This Goal requires cities to identify issues and problems, take inventories and gather other factual information, evaluate alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into consideration "social, economic, energy and environmental needs". It also requires a process for making revisions to the plan as needed to take into account changing public policies and circumstances. The need for affordable housing is clear and well-documented, and is much more acute than it was when the last inventory of housing in the City was done in 1990. The need for higher density housing in the Washington Square area was clearly established in findings adopted by the City subsequent to the adoption of the WSRCP. GUIDELINES FOR GOAL 2 B. REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Cities are expected to coordinate their plans with regional, state and federal agencies. The region has adopted a Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The City has created a plan that, when implemented fully, is coordinated with and implements that growth concept. The CPAH application is in conformance with the Metro 2040 Growth Concept, a vision for the region expressed through the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. This request therefore complies with Metro's functional plan. E. MAJOR REVISIONS AND MINOR CHANGES IN THE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be classified as a "minor change", and not a "major revision" according to this section of the guidelines. Minor changes are those which "do not have a significant effect beyond the immediate area of the change, should be based on special studies or other information which will serve as the factual basis to support the change. The pubic need and justification for the particular change should be established". The request for an amendment is based upon studies of housing needs and affordability. There is a vital public need for housing for families making less than 50% of the median income. There is no other land available where housing at this density is allowed. There is no better location that in the Washington Square regional center area, close to major transportation systems and major employment centers. The request complies with Goal 2, Land Use Planning. a GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC ARID MrSTORrC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spoace& Local governments shall adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve s vnir,, historic, and open space resources for present and future generations. These resour es promote a healthy environment and natural landscape than contributes to Oregon 's livabili4, The following resources shall ,be inventode& j a. Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fesh habitat; i b. Wetlands; G Wildlife Habitat; d, Federal W11d and Scenic Rivers; e. State Scenic Waterways; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 25 f. Groundwater Resources; g. Appr o ved Oregon Recreation Trails; h. Natural Arreas; i. WildernessAreas; j Mineral and Aggregate Resources; k. Energy sources; Cultural areas. Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to maintain current inventories of the following resources., a. Historic Resources; b. Open Space; e Scenic Dews and Sites There are no riparian corridors, wetlands, wildlife habitat, scenic waterways, ground water resources, Oregon Recreation Trails, natural areas, wilderness areas, mineral and aggregate resources, energy resources, cultural areas, historic resources, open space, or scenic views and sites on this property. Rezoning this site and developing it for multifamily residences will not negatively impact natural resources on the site or in the general area, nor will it negatively impact any scenic and histor4 areas and open spaces (see environmental letter, Exhibit 7). Therefore, the proposal complies with Goal 5. GOAL F: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY. To maintain and improve the air, water and land resources of the state The City of Tigard complies with this Goal through its adopted comprehensive plans and polices regarding water resources. The City is in compliance with the State Department of Environmental Quality air quality standards. This particular project will provide less than the usual number of parking spaces per resident, thereby reducing the amount of impervious surface of the site and the amount of storm water runoff from the site. The storm water runoff will filter through a Unified Sewerage Agency- approved water quality facility or feature before leaving the site. In addition, it is highly likely that residents of the Village at Washington Square will drive less than average, due to their limited resources, which will help maintain the current air quality standard. Therefore, this application complies with Goal 6. GOAL 7: AREAS SUBaECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards Developments subject to damage or that could result in loss of life shall not beplanned nor located in known areas of natural disasters and hazards without appropriate safeguards. Plans shall be based on an inventory of known arms of natural disaster and hazarlds. Areas of Natural Disasters and Hazards are areas that are subject to natural events that are known to result in death or endanger the works of man, such as stream flooding, ocean flooding, ground water, erosion and deposifion, landslides, edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 26 earthquakes, weak foundation soils and other hazards unique to local or mgional area s The proposed project is not in an area that is subject to natural events that can result in danger to lives or property, according to inventories done as part of the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. There is no stream flooding, ocean flooding, ground water, erosion and deposition, earthquakes, weak foundation soils or other hazards unique to the local or regional areas on this property. The building will be constructed under the standards of the Oregon Building Code, which takes into account general natural hazards such as earthquakes, or soil types. Therefore, the proposal complies with Goal 7. GOAL 8: RECRE47YONAL NEEDS. To satisfy the recr+esational needs of the c ifdxens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate to provide for the siting of necessary rteowf oval facilities including destination resorts This Goal is not really applicable because no recreational issues or destination resort issues are involved. The planned project will have a community room that can be used for indoor recreational activities, as well as an outdoor play area. In addition, the site is reasonably close to Metzger Park and Metzger Elementary School, which provide outdoor recreational facilities, and is on a bike path. In addition, the project will be assessed Park System Development Charges, which are used to purchase build and improve parks within the Tigard area. Therefore, this application complies with Goal 8. GOAL 9: ECON0110C DEVELOPiWENT. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the stage fora variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. This Goal has been met by the City of Tigard because of the amount of land the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map allow to be developed for industrial, office or commercial uses. The City has seen a substantial amount of industrial, retail and office growth in planned areas along SW 72nd Avenue, SW Sequoia Parkway, and SW Boones Ferry Road; within the Tigard Triangle; near Washington Square and Lincoln Center; and along 99W. Generally, the Highway 217 and I-5 Corridors have seen rapid and significant growth, making those corridors intense in job creation over the last 10-15 years. Unfortunately, much of the area adjacent to these job-rich locations are zoned for and developed as single-family detached homes, and many of the jobs being 1 created are service, retail and light industrial sector jobs which do not command the higher wages that manufacturing jobs would. This has created a shortage of affordable housing in short commuting or even walking distance from the employment areas. There have been only two or three new multifamily projects built within the employment areas, and those were market rate apartments or condominiums. Of the 24 cities within the Portland metropolitan area, Tigard has the third greatest jobs-housing imbalance. In order to continue to prosper, Tigard needs to create higher density housing of all types, and particularly below-market rate housing, for the people that make up the labor market. Further, this housing needs to be encouraged and supported in areas close to or actually within the employment areas, close enough for employees to get to and from work easily, with as low as edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16100 27 possible an impact on the environment or transportation system. The proposed site and proposed project are perfectly suited to provide this type of needed housing. Therefore, the application complies with Goal 9. GOAL 10: HOUSING. To provide for the housing needs of atizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventode+d and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Buildable Lands --refers to lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use, Government Assisted Housing --means housing that is financed in whole or part by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to 456.720, or housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federal or stage housing agency ora local housing authority. Needed Housing Units --means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing units" also includes government- assisted housing, A. PLANNING 1, In addition to inventories of buildable lands, housing elements of a comprehensive plan should, at a minimum, include; (1), a comparison of the distribution of the existing population by income with the distribution of available housing units by cvsp (2). a determination of vacancy rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and cost levels; (3). a determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges and cost levels; (4.) allowance for a variety of densities and types of residences in each community, and (5) an inventory of sound housing in urban areas including units capable of being rehabilitated, 2. Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the provision of appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Sue* land should be necessary and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs of households of all income levels. 3. Plans should provide for the appropriate type, location and phasing of public facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas presently developed or undergoing development or redevelopment . 4. Plans providing for housing needs should consider as a major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/ 16/00 28 conservation and development actions provided for by suds plans should not exceed t he carrying capacity of such resources. S. rNPLEAfEWrATIOIii 1. Plans should provide for a continuing review of housino need pro jections and should establish a process for accommodating needed revisions 2. Plans should take into amount the effects of utilizing financial incentives and resources to (a) stimulate the rehabilitation of substandard housing without regard to the financial capacity of the owner so long as benefits accrue to the occupants; and (b) bring into compliance with codes adopted to assure safe and sanitary housing the dwellings of individuals who cannot on their own afford to meet such codes. 3. Decisions on housing development proposals should be expedited when such proposals are in accordance with zoning ordinances and with provisions of comprehensive plans 4. Ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking irrtO avnslderation: (1), key facilities, (2) the econornir, environmental, social and energy consequences of Me proposed densities and (3), the optimal use of existing urban land pat cularfy in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. 5. Additional methods and devices for achleving this goal should, after consideration of the impact on lower income households, indude, but not be limited to: (1), tax incentives and disincentives; (2), building and construction code revision; (3), zoning and land use contrals; (4), subsidies and loans; (5), fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques, (6), enforcement of local health and safety codes; and (7), coordination of the development of urban facilities and services to disperse low income housing throughout the planning area. 6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal The site is suitable, available and necessary for residential use. The current zoning of the city does not "encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households", and particularly those with a family income of less than 50% of the area median income. The proposed project builds housing that is by definition "needed housing". Yet the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map do not allow for enough flexibility of housing location, type and density. This has resulted in a situation where there are virtually no buildable lands in Tigard upon which higher densities, such as 25-40 units per acre or above, can be built. In fact, recent inventories indicate less than 50 acres of R-25 vacant land exists, at least some of which is in parcels too small or inappropriately located to develop in this fashion, or including wetland or other environmental sensitivities. There is NO R-40 land available. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 29 The City has not provided appropriate types and amounts of land within the city limits or city's planning areas. The housring needs of families at all income levels is not currently being met. One of the findings by City Council in Ordinance No. 00.18 is as follows: The existing commercial and commercial professional zones do not allow opportunities for residential development with the commercial and office development. The new zoning will provide provisions that allow retention of existing residences, thereby preserving affordable housing, while still providing the opportunity for high density housing. Goal 10, Housing, is, therefore, met because the proposal provides for addition opportunities as called for in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Housing Rule, in addition to the Metro 2040 Plan." This same finding can apply to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change that is in the area targeted for high density housing by the WSRCP. CPAH is requesting that the City increase population densities within the City limits through its zoning and land use controls on less than one acre of ground. Changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to High Density, and the Zoning to R-40 on this property would provide more variety of densities and types of residences in the community, and therefore help implement the Housing Goal. Therefore, the application complies with Goal 10. GOAL 11: Plll3LIC FACILITESAND SERVICES. To plan and develop a direly, orderly and efficient arrangement of public faai/ities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development: The proposed site has full urban services available to it: police protection; sanitary facilities; storm drainage facilities; health services; recreational facilities and services; energy and communication services; and community governmental services. The application will meet the standards of the Tigard Development Code, for street and utility improvements. It will pay System Development Charges for Transportation, Parks, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage. It will improve SW Hall Boulevard along its frontage. The necessary public facilities are of adequate size and capacity to accommodate these 26 housing units (see letter from Tigard-Tualatin Schools at Exhibit O). Therefore, this application complies with Goal 11. GOAL IZ: TRA/NSPORTATIOI. To provide and encourage a safe, cvnvenientand ec»nomic transportation systlem A transportation plan shall; L consider all modes of transportation induding mass transit; air, wager, pipeline, rail, highway, bicyde and pedestrian; Z be based upon an inventory of local, rlagional and state transpwrtation needs; 3, cavnsider the differences in social con-sequences that would result from utilizing differing clvrnbinations of transportation modes; 4 a void principal reliance upon anyone mode of transportation; 3, minimize adverse social, eavnomic and environmental impacts and costs; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16100 30 6. conserve energy; 7, meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; & facilitate the flow ofgoods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; and 9. conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans. Each plan shall Include a provision for transportation as a key fadlity. The proposed multifamily project is in the middle of a large commercial, office and industrial area that is employment and service rich. The site is on SW Hall Boulevard, an arterial road that connects downtown Beaverton to Washington Square to Durham/Boones Ferry/72nd Avenue. It is within 600 feet of SW Pfaffle Street, which connects to SW Dartmouth Avenue, thereby providing close access to all of the jobs and goods and services within the Tigard Triangle area. The site backs up to, and is close to the on-ramps for, Highway 217, a freeway connecting the Sunset Highway with I-5. It is close to four existing bus routes, and most likely will eventually be served more directly with transit service as the area increases in density. It is close to the planned commuter rail line between Wilsonville and Beaverton. The site could not be in a better location to utilize the existing and probable future transportation system, and to make full use of all modes of transportation. In addition, since the residents of the Village at Washington Square will have incomes at or below 50% of area median income, we know that at least some, though likely many, will be transportation disadvantaged. Due to the location of the proposed site, these people will be able to live in an area where they can walk or bicycle to many destinations, or use the public transportation system, which is one of the objectives of the transportation goal. Therefore, the application complies with Goal 12. GOAL 13: ENERGY CON3ERVATdON: To conserve energy, The land will be developed, and the uses on the land will be managed, to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The building will meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code, and will actually go beyond the Code requirements in terms of weatherization and energy efficient appliances. A three-story, multifamily building is by its nature more energy efficient than separate dwelling units. The parking lot, if the variance on the number of parking spaces is approved, will be smaller in area than normal, and will therefore use less non-renewable resources in its construction and on-going maintenance. The residents will, as other similar projects clearly indicate, drive less and make shorter trips by single-occupancy private vehicles, thereby conserving energy. In addition, CPAH has programs that encourage residents to conserve energy through wise use of water and electricity, and it also encourages them to recycle their bottles, cans and other recyclable materials. CPAH sought and received grants for extensive weatherization improvements edmwphy&associates/clientVcpWapplication4thdr/8/16/00 31 M at all three of its existing sites. CPAH has experience with the State's energy tax credit and rebate programs. During its summer youth program and at other times, CPAH invites partners to provide on-site educational programs, such as "River Rangers" which addresses water quality and conservation. Residents are encouraged to seek energy assistance from the local NeighborShare office. Therefore, the application complies with Goal 13. GOAL 14: URBANIL4770N. To provide for an orderly and ei icient transition from rural to urban lanai use. This goal is not directly applicable because urban growth boundaries are not directly involved. However, it can be noted that using land more efficiently within the urban growth boundary by building at higher densities reduces the need to expand the Urban Growth Boundaries. The property is currently zoned R-12, for 12 units per acre. Zoning it R-40, for 40 units per acre, will result in a significantly more efficient use of the land. Therefore, the application complies with Goal 14. The City must comply with Federal and State Statutes or regulations. The applicable statutes or regulations are: ORS 197.295 - 314 on needed housing ❖ OAR 660-007-0030 through 660-007-0037 - Land Conservation and Development Department, Division 7, Metropolitan Housing. OAR 660-008-0010 - Land Conservation and Development Department, Division 8, Interpretation of Goal 10 Housing, Allocation of Buildable Land OAR 660-012-0000 - Land Conservation and Development Department, Division 7 Transportation Planning These statutes and regulations are addressed below. ORS 197.295- 314 NEEDED HOUSING IN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES. In establishing that actions and measures adopted under subsections (4) and (5) of this section demonstrably increase the likelihood of higher density residential development, the local government shall at the minimum ensure that land zoned for needed housing is in locaidons appropriate for the housing types identirled under subsection (30 of the Section and is zoned at density ranges that are likely to be achieved by the housing market using the analysis in subsection (3) of this section. Actions or measures, or bode, may include but are not limited tn; (a) Increases in the permitted density on existing residential land; (b) Financial inclenttives for higher derrsityhousing; (c) Provisions permitting additional density beyond thatgenerally allowed in the zoning district in exchange for amenities and features provided by the developer; (d) Removal or erasing of approval standards orproaedures; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 32 (e) Minimum density ranges, (f) Redevelopment and infill strategies; (g) Authorization of housing types not previously allowed by the plan or regulations; and (h) Adoption of an a verage residential density standard. The portion of the state law quoted above, which deals with providing sufficient buildable lands within the Urban Growth Boundary, and making sure urban land is used efficiently, offers methods by which the City can ensure that needed housing gets built. ("Needed housing" by definition includes government assisted housing - ORS 197.303(b).) Increases in the density permitted, permitting higher density in exchange for certain features, such as low income housing, and easing of approval standards are all actions or measures the City could take that would be consistent with this state law. 197,307 Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas; approval standards for certain residential development; placement standards for manu&ctured dwe✓Ilnys~ (1) The availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed Income, induding housing for seasonal and year-round farmwor*ers, Is a matter of statewide concern. (2) Many persons of lower, middle and flied Income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing. (3)(a) When a need has been shown for housing within the urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing, Induding housing for seasonal and year-round farmwor*ers, shall be permitted In one or more zoning districts or in zones by some eomprlelwasive plans as overlayzones with suffrdent buildable land to satisfy that need. Housing that is affordable to families making less than 50% of the area median income is needed. Government assisted housing is needed. According to HUD, 74% of the individuals and families eligible to receive rental assistance are not currently receiving it. HUD's annual report to Congress in 1999 also highlighted the fact that the majority (2/3) of these unserved households are in the suburbs. In HUD's 2000 report to Congress, the impact on the "urban fringe" of high-tech job growth (these jobs have grown 30% faster in the suburbs than central cities)--driving increases in residential rents more than one-ad-a-half times faster than inflation, and creating staggering jumps in home prices, as well. Higher density is one method of keeping the cost per unit lower, making the apartment units more affordable. The current zoning map and development regulations provide virtually no land within the City where well-designed, high density, affordable multi-family units can be built. By State law, needed housing must be permitted in one or more zoning districts. The City does not have any buildable, available high-density land designated on the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning map. Vacant or re-developable land within the CBD zone, where high density housing is allowed, is very scare, and is expensive due to the commercial zoning. Properties within the Tigard Triangle, where higher density is allowed, is also very scarce and very expensive, due to the Mixed Use Employment zone - essentially, a commercial/office zone. Even if more R-40 land were designated, the setback and parking requirements of the R-40 zone unreasonably restrict the ability of affordable housing developers to build affordable units. edmurphy&associates/elients/cpaWapplication4thdr/8/16/00 33 Sufficient buildable land is not available in Tigard to meet the housing needs of lower, and middle and fixed income, persons who wish to live in the City. ORS 197.307 requires that the City ensures that needed housing is accommodated in the zoning and development regulations of the city. Therefore, the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow the development of affordable, government assisted housing units is consistent with and helps the City meet the requirements of ORS 197.295 - 314. OAR 660-007 -0030 through 660-007-0037. Land Conservation and Development Department, Division 7, Metropolitan Housing. 660-007-0015 - Clear and Objective Apprxival Standards Required (12) "Needed Housing" defined, Until the beginning of the first periodic review of a local governments ac*now/edged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular pride ranges and rent levels. On and after the beginning of the rust periodic review of a local govemmentss acknowledged comprehensive plan, "needed housing" also means: (a) Housing that includes, but is not limited to, attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for bode owner and renter occupancy; (b) Government assisted housing; Local approval standards, special conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing must be dear and objective, and must not have the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. 660-007-0020 - The Rezoning Process A local government may defer rezoning of land within the urban growth boundary to maximum planned residential density provided that the prom for future rezoning is reasonably jusiifoed: (1) The plan must contain a jusirfcation for the rezoning prods and policies while explain how this proms will be used fv provide for needed housing. (2) Standards and procedures governing the process for future rezoning shall be bused on the retuning justiftcation and policy statement, and most be clear and objechive The Metropolitan Housing Rule was adopted to assure "opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the efficient use of land with the Metropolitan Portland urban growth boundary (UGB), to provide greater certainty in the development process..." The Rule called upon Metro to ensure that regional housing needs were met through coordinated comprehensive plans to meet projected housing needs. Jurisdictions like Tigard must designate edmurphy&associates/clicnts/epah/application4thdr/8/16/00 34 sufficient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential units to be attached single family or multifamily housing. There are few opportunities or this to happen, given the more likely commercial use of much of the appropriately zoned mixed use property in the Triangle, Central Business District, and WSRCP area. The proposed application, by upzoning one parcel from medium to high density residential, helps the City meet its goal in this area. Therefore, the proposal meets the requirements of Division 7, Metropolitan Housing. LAND C0NSERVA77ONAND DEVEL0P*VENTDEPAR7NFNT DIVISION 8 INTERPRETATION OF GOAL 10 HOUSING 660-008-0010 Allocation of Buildable Land The mix and density of needed housing is determined In the housing needs projection. Sufficient buildable land shalt be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each resident 141 plan designation. There is no buildable land available within the High Density plan designation. There is no vacant, buildable land zoned R-40 within the City of Tigard. There is not sufficient buildable land designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map to satisfy the need for high density multifamily housing. LAND C0NSERVA770NAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTKENT DIVISION 12 7X4NSP0RTA77ON PLANNING 660-007-0000 The purpose of this Division is to implement Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and promote the development of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban aiwas in other parts of the country might be avoided Through measures designed to reduce reliance on the automobile, this division is also intended to assure that the planned transporzation systerr, supports a pattern of travel and land use in urban areas which will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems fatted by other arenas of Me cvuntrf. This portion of the rule aims to improve the livability of urban areas by promoting changes in land use patterns and the transportation system that make it more convenient for people to walk, bicycle and use transit, and drive less to meet their daily needs. cdmurphy&associateVclients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 35 Changing /and use and have/ patterns will also complement state and focal efforts to meet other objectives, induding containing urban development, reducing the cost of public services, priote+ deg farm and forest land, reducing air, water and noise pollution, conserving energy and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that eontrYbute to global d/mate change. (1) The T5P shall be based upon evaluation of potential impacts of system alternatives that can reasonably be expected to meet the identtied &alnSpartation needs /n a safe manner and at a reasonable cost with available technology. The hollowing shall be evaluated as components of system affiwnadves: (a) Improvements to existing facilities or services; (b) New facilities and services, indudlng different modes or comb/nations of modes that could reasonably meet idendfred transportation needs; (c) Transportation system management measures; (d) Demand management measures; and (e) A no-build system alternative required by the National Environmental PolicyAa of 1969 or other laws. (2) Loral governments in MPO areas of larger than 2,000,000 population shall, and other governments may also , evaluate alt mat ve /and use designations, densities, and design standards to meet /oral and regional transportation needs Loral governments preparing such a strategy shall consider; (a) Inaaeasing residential densities and establishing minimum residential deasMes within one quarter mile of transit lines, major regional employment areas, and major regional retail shopping areas; (b) Sncreasing al/owed densities in new eommerdal oflrce and retail developments in designated community centers; (c) Designating /ands for neighborhood shopping centers within convenient walking and cyc ng► distance of residential areas; (d) Designating land uses to provide a better balance between jobs and housing considering: (A) The total number of jobs and total of number of housing units expert;ted in the area or subarea; (0) The availability of affordable housing in the area or subarea; and (C) Provision of housing opportunities in dose proximity to employment areas. edmuMhy&associates/clicnu/cpah/appiication4thdr!8/16/00 36 (3) The following standards shall be used to evaluate and select alternab ves: Increasing the residential density at this location is consistent with the Transportation Rule because it provides affordable housing in close proximity to major regional employment areas, in close proximity to major regional and local area commercial areas, and along a major arterial street. It provides the opportunity for the residents of the Village at Washington Square apartments to make fewer trips, shorter trips, and trips by alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the application is consistent with OAR 660-007-0000, the Transportation Planning Rule. APPLicABLt METRO. REGULATIONS Metro 2040 Functional Plan The Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGOs), originally adopted in 1.991 and amended as recently as 1995, include a set of integrated goals and objectives in the form of text and a map, called the 2040 Growth Concept. The RUGGO 2040 Growth Concept provided a blueprint to guide the development of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan). The Metro 2040 Functional Plan, adopted in 1996, set the stage for the Washington Square Regional Plan. One of the key provisions of the Metro 2040 Plan was the idea of Regional Centers, in which high intensity growth and development would occur. Regional Centers are to be characterized by the most intense commercial and office land uses, the highest density of housing, and government services. They would be characterized by a mix of various land uses, be served by transit, and serve a large population base. The site that is proposed for the Village at Washington Square apartments is within the Regional Center area. It is the type of higher density residential land use in a area near major commercial, office and public uses, served by various modes of transportation, that the Regional Center concept desires. Therefore, the application is consistent with and implements the Metro 2040 Plan. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Objective 17 of the RUGGOs states: "The Metro Council shall adopt a'fair share' strategy for meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a subregional analysis that provides for: a diverse range of housing types, specific goals to ensure that sufficient and affordable housing is available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction, housing densities supportive of the development of the regional transportation system, and a balance of jobs and housing." In June of 2000, the Metro Council adopted a Regional Affordability Housing Strategy, or "RAHS". No mandatorygoals were adopted. Tigard has a non-binding, five-year production goal of 320 affordable housing units. The RAHS does have a mandatory requirement for local jurisdictions, in that they are to amend their comprehensive plans to add affordable housing land use policies, and at least consider adopting land use-related affordable housing tools and strategies. Included in the list of possible strategies is a review of parking, as well as a review of development and design standards for impact on affordable housing. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 37 Even though the requirements of the RAHS are not mandatory, by other city adopted policies and goals, the City is clearly interested in looking at ways it can help housing organizations and developers create 320 units or more of affordable housing over the next 5 years. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Change and Zone Change, along with the setback and parking variances needed to make the project work, will result in the production of at least these 26 units of affordable housing in the first year. Therefore, the application is consistent with the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER PLAN The area around Washington Square was designated as a Regional Center in the 2040 Plan. A Washington Square Regional Center Task Force, staff and consultants developed the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, which was adopted by the City Council in March of 2000, but with delayed implementation. The boundaries of Plan were clarified during the process, and include the particular site under consideration for a CPA/ZC. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan suggested new zoning for much of the Plan area. A new "Mixed Use Residential District - MUR" was created, which was further refined into an MUR-1 and MUR-2. The subject property was to be zoned MUR-1. The MUR-1 zone would require 50 units per acre minimum, with no maximum density. It proposed setbacks of 0' front yard, 0' interior yards, 5' streetside sideyard, and 10' rear yard. The maximum height would be 75'. At a minimum of 50 units per acre, this 0.84-acre site would have to be developed at 42 units, minimum. One of the guiding principles of the WSRCP is to retain and develop quality housing, including affordable housing, for all income levels." By the adoption of the Plan, with its designation of the property which is the subject of this application as MUR-1, and by stating that one of the guiding principles is the development of quality, affordable housing for all income levels, the City has made clear its vision and its intent. With the new MUR-1 zoning, a request to place 26 multifamily units on .0.84 acres would have been considered a very straightforward and acceptable proposal. The precise development regulations have not been written nor adopted yet, nor has a development plan meeting those standards been created. Hypothetically, however, it is easy to see that the proposed use would have fit within the proposed MUR-1 zoning district. In fact, the Plan calls for this area to become very high density, partly to offset lower densities elsewhere in the Regional Center Plan. As discussed previously the City Council adopted the findings and conclusions of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, Exhibit F of Ordinance 00_18) on March 14, 2000. These findings stated that "one of Washington County's strategies to meet their required housing densities recommended that the area in unincorporated Washington County be rezoned from R-5 to R-40 to comply with Metro residential growth targets". The findings make it clear that one of the goals of the Plan is to ''preserve the existing single-family character of the Metzger neighborhood." The area in which the subject property is located is within an area chosen for the highest densities. If it were to develop at the current zoning of R- 12, that would undermine the Washington Square Plan, the Washington County housing strategy, edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 38 and frustrate the Metro 2040 Plan. It would be a mistake to allow this property to develop at an R-12 density when it is the intent of the City, the County and the Region that it be developed at a much higher density. The application is consistent with and helps implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan, and in doing so, also the Metro 2040 Plan. AOPL-ICABLE;CIT-YOFTIGARb'.GOAcLS TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW COMMUNITY VISION STATEMENT The City of Tigard initiated and continues t1] think about the future through a process called "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow." The City worked with task force groups centered on specific topics. One toplc was Growth Management. Although the Visioning document is non-binding, it does provide a sense of community and City Council direction. In that document, there are strategies related to housing, some of which are as follows: #3. The City encourages and supports private sector programs to maintain diverse and of ondable housing. 3). [The City will) Review City's zoning code and Comprehensive Plan o0cfes to provide maximum opportunity foraf edable housing. 0. Consider minimum densities, ladusionary zoning and density bonuses [asl tools to encourage ahsvrdable housing. The proposed Village at Washington Square apartments is consistent with the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow visioning document. The project provides the City with an opportunity to actively encourage affordable and support affordable housing, through its planning and zoning tools (Exhibit K). cdmwphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 39 -V -111AUCE Following are Variances which are being requested for the Hall Boulevard Housing project: VARIANCES VARIANCE 1 18.510.050 (Development Standards Minimum Setbacks: - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district: 35 ft. The current design has a rear yard setback of 20 feet and side yard setbacks of 10 feet, 15 feet and 25 feet less than the Community Development Code requires. See Approval Criteria below for discussion of this issue. VARIANCE 2 18.765.030 Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements - General Provisions E. Visitor parking in multi-family residential developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 15% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Per Table 18.765.2 and the visitors parking requirement, the total required parking for the project is 47 calculated as such: (8) one-bedroom units x 1.25 + (5) two-bedroom units x 1.5 + (13) three and four-bedroom units x 1.75 = 40.25 + 15% = 46.3. Parking provided on the site totals 31, 16 spaces less than the Community Development Code requires. See Approval Criteria below for discussion of this issue. APPROVAL CRITERIA C. Approval process and standards. 1. variances shall be pissed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by section 18.3-90.040, using standards of approval contained in Subsection 2 below. 2. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that the following aria are satisfre; a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this istle, to any oifiner applicable polives and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or rei©inity; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 40 M MJ Variance 1 - The proposed setback of 10 feet at the north abuts a 35-foot wide bermed and landscaped strip which then abuts an access road to an apartment complex. The property to the north, upon which the driveway into the St. James apartments is located, is over 70 feet wide. The proposed setback of 20 feet at the west abuts the trash disposal and garage area of a multi- family housing complex. The proposed setback of 10 feet to the south abuts a single-family residence, but is buffered by existing trees and the driveway to the residence. This boundary is also exposed to the least amount of building area since it faces the courtyard of the proposed development. Given these conditions, the proposed setbacks have minimal detrimental effect on adjacent properties. It should be noted that the property to the south can develop to an R-12 density now, and would only be required to have a 10 foot side yard setback. In addition, when the Washington Square Plan is eventually implemented, all adjacent properties will be allowed to develop to equally dense standards. Variance 2 - The proposed parking count of 31 rather than 47 spaces is a benefit to adjacent properties and the area since it requires less pavement which creates a more pleasant environment. b. There are special circumstances that exist whicfi are peculiar to the lot sine or shape, topography or other dravmstanaes over whidn the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning district; Variance 1 - The setback requirements for the R-40 zone of 35 feet at the north, west and south boundaries are restrictive enough to make development of the site unfeasible. The setbacks proposed of 10 foot side yard and 20 foot front and rear yards produce a buildable site area of approximately 26,500 square feet. With the required setbacks for the R-40 zone stated above the buildable area is 15,000 square feet which is not adequate to develop the site with the density, open space, and other requirements prescribed for the R-40 zone. The 15,000 square foot buildable area is also not adequate to develop the site in a manner that the State would find acceptable with regard to open space and access to the sun. The 35' setback requirement means that over 54% of the site is not usable for buildings, which would force a design that had a single building in the center of the property with parking lots all around it. The proposed design, with four buildings clustered around an outdoor play area and courtyard, is clearly preferable to what would result from strictly applying the code requirements. The 35' setback requirement most likely came from a desire to protect single-family homes built at low densities from high density multifamily zones. Yet in this case, the surrounding zone is R-12, a multi-family zone, and the surrounding uses are apartments, a wide driveway, and one single- family rental house on property that the owner intends to redevelop. Variance 2 - The attached traffic study demonstrates that affordable housing projects such as the one proposed for this site do not have the requirement for the parking of vehicles that other typical developments do. The provision of parking for the project in the amount required by the Community Development Code would mean that there would be unutilized parking nearly all of the time. edmurphy&associates/d ienWcpah/app1 ication4thdr/8/ 16/00 441 c The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this tide and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent tfi3t is reasonably possible while permjWng reasonable economic use of dl a land; Variance 1 - Please see the section by section response to the Community Development Code for compliance with its requirements. The use proposed is permitted in the R-40 zone. The variance will not result in a higher density than would otherwise be permitted, but simply a much better designed project. Variance 2 - With respect to parking space sizes, ratio of standard and compact spaces, disabled spaces, and access aisle requirements, the parking as designed meets all requirements of the Community Development Code. It would be extremely difficult to create a viable project that meets the minimum density requirements and the parking requirements without going to more than three story buildings, or providing parking underneath the buildings, which is not economically feasible at this point in time. d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited too tracer, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected any more Than would occur if the development were developed as spedfred in the tide; Variance 1 - The development of the site with the proposed setbacks would not create conditions worse than if developed with the existing setback requirements. If developed with the existing setback restrictions buildings would need to be centered on the site with parking around the perimeter which would likely create additional paved area due to the inefficiency of the parking layout. Such a scheme would not be as desirable as the proposed scheme and has not been explored because of its unfeasibility. The amount of land disturbance, trees removed or traffic generated will not be greater than would occur if the property were developed in such a way that it met the setback requirements. Variance 2 - The parking as shown, with reduced parking spaces, would create more desirable conditions than if developed with the required parking amount. The proposed scheme has less paved area creating less water runoff, less traffic, and a more attractive site. e. The hardship is not self-imposed and the vadance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Variance 1 - The variance is not self-imposed, but is imposed by a Development Code provision that should not be applicable to this site. Variance 2 - The variance is not self-imposed, but is necessary because of the Development Code requirements that require more than the appropriate amount of parking. The combination of requirements of minimum density, parking and height restrictions make it difficult to design a higher density project that creates a desirable living environment and is economically feasible. ~..n,t~y ~~iic :~~.}.Ys.::;~r ;Wr°~.srw 42 A. Property Location Map B. Comprehensive Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Photos of Site F. Required Submittal Elements G. Neighborhood Meeting, August 10, 2000 H. CPAH Parking Study I. Preliminary Site Development Review (for reference/not decision) I Letter from Mike Houck, Audubon Society K. Excerpt from "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" L. Summary of Metro Regional Affordable Housing Strategy M. Letters From Oregon Department of Transportation N. Letter to Tri-Met 0. Letters from Tigard-Tualatin School District P. Letters of Support for Project Q. Letter from OHCSD Regarding Waiver of Notification e&r nuThy&sv)ciates/clicnWcpah/application4thdd8/16/00 43 LM Sent t:y: .ielfax ►1910 20326; 01/04/00 15:14; )e-s_R.642; . Exhibit A c ses•sz'C zaf•.t 2400 ao 0 rrelral'e zee.e 7 } 2401 -1 too \ _ N 1< .61 AC. C9.6655 sea•az't ~ a) ? tcs.sz 2402 .44 AC. 200 10 6/ AC Htt•<2'OO~v r' 4600 , `d x E S U e 300 GATED y a I ,~e< .61AG ca X4700 a 1 t c. c. cok > 2 Q~Maa gca~tvIO s: f0 ~ 2202 ..j 400 , a6AC c .6,rAr- 1 \ r- 109TIAL POINI< r1 994HAN AC*VV Y O -9 VLCLTED To- - - -4 .6 500 i 2200 704 x /.5fAc. P6 slG: ~ 9 ~'c c 3800 .551V wc. o' 44 3 Ica 14 1 ,4 c. ' ji 2100 e 62 AC. 700 • O N i • BLK`tdh M ~ I y A jor TERA -r. a THIS MAP IS PROVIDED AS A COURTESY OF OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY rhls rnep Is medC so'ely tow the purpose of assisting in locating said premises, and the Cam. pony assumes no iaNlity for variations, it any, in dimensions. a•eas, and locations ascertained by actua: survey Exr~ibit ~ 'c r V L ,tJ M 0 C : d ~ '0 3 d 2 0 C z a 0 j P O•: f~ Ol• t ~A• 16 Z G iii1 1 e ~ n 4 s4 F S o std ti •~7_ u Y~ q zx ul. HgL4 J J ~ I~ tfik }~y f~ ~i{ yr + ` ; S/4'. 4~~ , t _ \•v\ Exhibit B ! 050U _ )Jj 4,1.1. i. Y yr,• f'~'.} f f~9. ; nmwi x~ia~+r,e - t ~ - r 'r N, ~ ~ i f~} 9 per' ry-__= - , t ycf'.. ~ t r ' r ' __~IaRN9Wl au~V~~ II ~ I, I" I I ' IS q' P ,y 3r~. 1^JA . dk~ T.= t r; y 950 FIF i rrTT nor x e I _ _LLLLl It; 4 ff < n I -a{ _T I~ t ~rr1 `V . IIJ I I 'T -I . f__7 I11. I~t I EL. - TT' 1I1 e 1 II ~ I I JJL. (D wlk. r.., (.A ~ _ 'fl L.•~ _...t .i . r r r l -.-i_.. i ; _ -L. I JAI 4 - _ . L TT • v V, l 1 iui'd`'u"'i" riy' I t,:1~ F E Exhibit C 105,0-( `c h \ fn ; y Y y t p I I \ ` m ! t a 9500 4 \ A d I I 'a a T \ a\ < \p / t r 915 , W) 17 n,1 e a W7.1 --I r%r 1 • / \ `1 .i m v~ N nl. re ♦ V,• - T. A, LL " ( t. t Iii 1^• i R_7- I n ♦ r~y1• i r:Y I 1 ~•,I I L i~, i,,P _ \ r I I :El -l_:. u n ♦ t r 1 „I I L F _ - 1 f \r f I mYi ~~L"' I ?7 1 i?I'•7 i, i I. 1 r TqT 3 , ~r ; 1`I , •C_l~l~-~ I (T1 i l ~ ~ 1 ~ ° I{~t f~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ f y ~ ~ r~ ~ _L _.L_ II I ) C.- -17 I L ,V,` 1.~__.~, _;1 - ._~.i ~,-''i••'.•. rr---- N - .~,al--' I i.ll_.)-.+L.' j_ ~'•IE _ _1r _rTill Vii.. - I uI •w3' Vlr1 - _~...-.~-rL, _ _ - _ s L i t J I Il 1~ N y. f ~ ~ I! :i .s I i' 1V 1T-I 1 / A V - \ _I C-p Rojo= I i~I ' C arm - .i v j\ WASHINGTON SQUARE REGIONAL CENTER STUDY ,.n, lr:[ly City of Tigard, Oregon rt........ CITY BOU E ARIES CC 0r REGIOP IALCENTEER R 814 N rel.t•: omm rrcul DRAF RAB0 Y J0 ®Ilrglb°1oaaCOmm.¢b] RE610ORY rro uu urucomm~cm 'OUpcES FIRST ZONING /PLAN PROPOSEDREGIONAL CENTER BIIOp' ®~;o arby 1011, x,, "41 0, rnrPr[urrlul iivard ~nny. Comp Plan ub ?p IharY Iraubul Cily>r TlparJ 4e7 tgnlrau bol Pir°61 Ooondam[ NC al Orun~~r [Ur rlUl W-hin,IonCountvAaTOepI. DESIGNATIONS u Pfau 300 Feet a~ I=a -.";;t[o ftf,p kit Itul WaC. 7..Q-Beaut.rton Sonm(♦ ~_s ®u,ii enpgnrrt vuasnlnyton C-ty 2I Inch = 350 feet ns 'pa°' !:>n'erar[Yturl. r.lm[rln.lp 1.1.M 1.9 .Ib IU I r1yllUl Ex~,ibit v A- Z ~tij ,p .T 0 CP 3 T- 0 C (P - 1 j s _ Z till N Qr y i cu 4 ~ - :,a C~ uk t U, Ile tj n~ o. N ~ n lip,LL C . J A ~ j ~ CFC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST • The sponsor must complete this environmental review checklist in its entirety and provide to the Regional Field Representative (RFR) prior to the RFR's site visit. The RFR will review the information during the performance of the site review. For HONE applicants, the HOME Housing Development Rep will then complete the Environmental Review Record for the file. Certification: This checklist has been completed accurately to the best of our knowledge, and the RFR has conducted an in-person site review. Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Exec. Dir. Sponsor Name Signa Date RFR Name Signature Date BASIC INFORMATION Sponsor: Community Partners for Affordable Housing Project Name: Village at Washington Square Project Address: 11159 & 11165 SW Hall Blvd City: Tigard County: Washington Sponsor Contact Person: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Phone: 503.968.2724 Lot Size: .73 acre Project Type: (X) New Construction? Rehab? If Rehab, are units vacant? N/A Projected # of Units: 29 Planned HOME-assisted Units: 4 J'7 Population to be served: kunits < 30% 6 units < 45% 1,6'units < 50% Sponsor must provide a sitelarea map with scale included. On the map, please indicate the following: (Please be sure that the site location is visible on any copies you send. Original colored maps copied in black and white sometimes are difficult to read). N/A Location of airport (if applicable) X Recreational facilities (park, activity centers, etc.) X Railroad (if applicable) X Commercial/retail facilities (grocery, department stores, etc.) X Nearest 4-lane highway or arterial X Nearby industrial facilities X Social Service agencies X Location of schools X Hospital, police and fire departments X Rivers, streams, ponds, springs, wetlands X Provide a copy of the most recent FEMA Flood Plain map including a copy of the Panel number and date List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding the following: Wetlands: Duane Roberts Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223 Public Water: Greg Berry Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd_ Tigard OR 97223 Public Sewer: Greg Berry Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 2000 CFC Application 4W Date: 20 Storm Sewer:. Jackie Humphries Date: 2.8.00 Phone: 503.846.8621 Address: 155 N 1" Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Zoning/UGB: Laurie Nichols Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 INFORMATION SOURCE CODING The source of all information used must be identified. Record the source here and indicate the appropriate code in the space provided throughout the checklist. FO - Field Observation. (On-site observation or personal knowledge of the preparer) Preparer: Craig C Kelley Date of field observation: 2/8/00 Address: 2627 NE MLK JR Blvd, Portland OR 97211 Phone: 503-335-3668 PS - Project Sponsor. PL - Planning Department. (Information supplied by local planning department or local official named on page one) RI - Report. (Information from consultant reports, databases, licenses, other authorities. Number such sources consecutively and list below) R1 Title of Report: Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Preparer: PBS Environmental Date: May 1999 LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBILITY AND URBAN U"ACT source RI PS, FO, PL What are the immediately surrounding land uses? (example: single family to the north, multifamily east, etc) Single family residence to south and east. Single/multi fancily residences to west. Multi-family residence to north. Is the surrounding area developed to a density of at least 30 units per 40 acres? Yes i Does the site have legal access to a dedicated public street? Yes Are there any barriers to emergency vehicle access? If so, describe. No t EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE source RI FO Are there existing structures on the site not included in CFC-funded construction or rehab? YES If so, do you plan to demolish any or all of them? There is one single family home on the proposed site which will be moved or demolished. SOIL SUITABILITY source RI PS, FO Is the site level or sloped? Slog If sloped, give the range of degrees of the slope. 0-5 degrees 2000 CFCApp/ication Arc there any signs of unstable soils in the vicinity? (cracked foundations, sinkholes) Are area soils highly erodible? Submit soil reports if available. No Describe soil type and bearing. Get soils type from Natural Resource Conservation Service (local county jurisdiction). Coarse sand to silt (USCS classification ML) R1 Bearing capacity 1500 PSF, Per John Cunningham, Alder Geotech HAZARDS source FO, R1 FO Are any natural hazards apparent? (dangerous trees, sinkholes, ravines, avalanche-prone slopes, etc.) No Are any of the following present: overgrown adjacent property, abandoned adjacent buildings, unfenced commercialfindustrial adjacent property, high pressure petroleum or natural gas pipelines, irrigation canals, drainage ditches, old wells, improperly screened street drains, deteriorated streets or sidewalks, adjacent power substations, high voltage power transmission lines through or adjacent, excessive vibration, odors, dust, field crops, livestock? Give details. No CONTAMINATION SCREENING source -F0,111 PS, FO, PL If this is a rehabilitation project or the demolition of an existing structure is contemplated, is there evidence of the presence of asbestos or lead- based paint? (generally, lead-based paint can be found in most buildings constructed prior to 1978). Describe the inspections made to identify these two hazards and results of inspections. If no inspections have been made, are they planned? Environmental completed on vacant parcel showed no contamination issues. We have ordered Phase I for single family home on property, and owner has offered to provide a Phase I from prior year. No evidence of any issues of contamination. Has there been an `environmental due diligence' investigation of the site performed (TSQ, Phase I or II, site characterization, etc.)? Is it available? Yes If so, submit the executive summary, main body of the report and any recommendations. See attached executive summary of Phase I environmental Assessment; No further investigation was recommended. If no `environmental due diligence' investigation is available, answer the following questions: Is there evidence of contamination or potential contamination on immediately adjacent properties? (landfills, chemical storage facilities, service stations, chemical processors, plating plants, dry cleaners, vehicle storage, wrecking or repair businesses, underground storage tanks, drums, distressed soil or vegetation, fill, contaminated wells, transformers). No Provide details. Is there evidence of contamination or potential contamination on site? (drums, chemical containers, distressed soil or vegetation, odors, accumulation of trash or debris, contaminated wells, transformers, potential USTs [look for old foundations, slabs, pipes in the ground]). Provide details. Small pile of debris at north property line. Tire and small pile of roof shingles at northwest. Small (1'x I') paint stain at southwest. Unlabeled pole mounted electrical transformer at southeast property corner. Appeared free of leakage Per RI Is there evidence of rill on site? If there is, does documentation exist to demonstrate that the rill was engineered and is appropriate for the intended use? Submit evidence. III No SITE SAFETY source FO. R1 FO, PI. Runway Clear Zones are areas immediately beyond the end of runways at civil airports. NO SITE IN A RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE OR ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE WILL BE APPROVED. 2000 CFC Application pg ~ Is the site located in a Runway Clear Zone? No Explosive and flammable hazards arc aboveground tanks which contain explosive or flammable materials. Common examples are: commercial propane tanks, fuel oil deports, gasoline storage, industrial solvent storage, refineries. Residential fuel oil tanks of 100 gallons or less are excepted. Tanks which are currently empty but have not been decommissioned and can legally be refilled will be considered `live.' Are there any explosive or flammable tanks within line of sight of any part of the proposed site? (aboveground) No. Are there any explosive or flammable tanks within 500 feet of any part of the proposed site shielded from line of sight by buildings but not topography? (buildings may or may not be an effective barrier, topography is an effective barrier). If so, describe. No. Are there any explosive or flammable tanks of more than 5000 gallons capacity more than 500 feet and less than I mile from the site that are shielded from line of sight by buildings but not topography? If so, describe. No. NOISE EFFECTS OF NOISE source FO. PS FO, PS, PL Is any part of the site within 5 miles of an airport with scheduled service (passenger, cargo or military)? No Is any part of the site within 3000 feet of a railroad? No Is any part of the site within 1000 feet of a highway of 4 or more lanes? Yes. Highway 217 located to SW in deep traffic cut. Noise shielded by topography Are any other noise generators located nearby (such as heavy industrial facilities, rail yards, shipyards, fine stations)? Identify them and give their distance from the site. Comment: Sites immediately adjacent to freeways and heavily traveled rail lines may not be acceptable. Most other sites will either be acceptable or acceptable with design mitigation to achieve the required inferior standard. No i i i i i AIR QUALITY a AIR QUALITY SCREENING source FO FO, Pi. Is the site subject to air quality impacts not generally shared with the entire community? (example: close proximity to freeway, gravel pit, pulp mill or other source generator or air pollution). If so, describe. Nc 2000 CFCApplication . 23 HISTORIC AND PRESERVATION VALUES HISTORIC PRESERVATION SCREENING source PL PL, R/ appropriate sources for firs! 4 questions. County assessor, current oxmer appropriate for question S. Every site, whether bare land, or scheduled for rehabilitation and/or demolition of existing buildings, must answer the questions below. Identify the source of your information. Possible sources include SHPO, local historical societies, city planners. Is any part of the site in an established or proposed historic or conservation district.? No Is the site or any structure on the site listed in a local historic or cultural resources inventory or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)? If so, describe. No Are any immediately adjacent sites or structures listed in a local historic or cultural resource inventory or the NRHP? If so, describe. No Are there any known or suspected archaeological resources on the site, adjacent sites or in the vicinity? If so, describe. No List name, address and phone number of persons or entities contacted for answers to above: Name/title: Duane Roberts. City of Tigard Planning Department Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard. OR 97223 List the year(s) built of any structure(s) on the site Single Family home 1968 . If over 50 years old, describe the structure(s) and whether you have yet contacted the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). List name, address and phone number of persons or entities contacted: Name/title: N/A Date: N/A Phone: N/A Address: COMMUNITY FACELITIES AND SERVICES SCHOOLS source PS Provide the following information on the schools which serve the project (not required for projects for the elderly or special needs populations where children will not reside): School type Distance from proied Elementary : Metzger Elementary '/2 mile Middle/Jr. High Fowler Middle School 1 '2 miles High school Tigard High School 1 '/2 miles 2000 CFCApp//cabon x.24 COMMERCIAL FACILITIES source PS FO, PS Provide the location and distance to the nearest full service grocery store. Provide information on the other commercial facilities located in the neighbc, hoorl. If a grocery is not within walking distance, is it accessible by local or mass transit? Metzger Market Hall & Locust mile Safeway Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard '/z mile Fred Meyers Pacific Highway and 72nd I mile Costco Pacific Highway and Dartmouth 1 mile SOCIAL SERVICES source PS PS, FO Will social services be provided on-site as part of this project? If so, describe. Yes. We have planned a multipurpose community space, to be utilized in a similar fashion to those at our other two sites. It will include a small on-site lending library, computer learning center, and space for individual and group meetings and events. Are social service agency offices located in the community? If not, where are the nearest social service agency offices? Yes. Neighborhood, county, private and religious agencies all within 3/< mile See map for listing and locations. SOLID WASTE source FO PS, FO, PL Is garbage collection available? Yes Is it by commercial service or local government? Commercial Will curbside residential recycling be available to the proposed project? Yes Is construction waste recycling available in the community? Yes WASTE WATER source Rl PS, FO, PL Is public sewer available at the site? Yes If public sewer is not available, explain waste water disposal arrangements. STORM WATER source PL PS, FO, PL Is public storm sewer available at the site? Yes If so, is this a combined wastelstorm sewer? No If public storm sewer is not available, how will storm water drainage be handled? Public storm sewer available POLICE SERVICES source PS PS, FO The Tigard Police Department operates out of facilities at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, approximately 3/. of a mile from the proposed project site. We intend to initiate a Neighborhood Watch group at the site, and will likely have officers visiting frequently with keys to the community room for their use as needed. FIRE SERVICES source PS Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has two stations near the site, one at 8935 SW Burnham, Tigard, and 8480 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Beaverton. 2000 CFCAppllcatlon Z~ EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES source PS PS, F•O Emergency care is available at three nearby urgent care facilities (OHSU on Pacific Highway, Health First at Oleson and Hall). The closest hospitals with emergency rooms arc Meridian Park Hospital in Tualatin (approximately 6 miles) and St. Vincents Hospital in Beaverton (approximately 10 miles). PARKS AND RECREATION source PS PS, FO Metzger Park with play areas, community room and tennis courts is within walking distance of the site. Other nearby parks include: Cook Park (2 miles away on Hall Boulevard near the High School), Commercial Park, and Metzger Elementary. Cook Park is the City's largest park (57 acres) with multiple playing fields, paths, play equipment, picnic facilities, river side access (Tualatin River), and is the site of numerous community events include the Tigard Festival of Balloons in June each year. The Elementary and Middle Schools offer many of the recreational and extra-curricular educational activities in the community. A regional theater company, Broadway Rose, operates out of the Deb Fennel Auditorium at Tigard High. TRANSPORTATION source PS PS, FO Mass transit is readily accessible on Hall Boulevard, and nearby Pacific Highway. Tri-Met bus service runs every 15 minutes on weekdays with a stop within mile of the site. NATURAL FEATURES WATER RESOURCES source PL Ps, FO, PL Is public water available at the site? Yes Are there any water resources in the immediate vicinity of the site? (streams, ponds, wetlands, springs, etc.) If so, describe. No FLOOD PLAINS source PL PL Federally supported construction activities are prohibited within the 100 yearJlood plain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) except under limited circumstances. Is any part of the site located within the 100-year flood plain according to the applicable FEMA map? Will any off-site construction occur within the 100-year flood plain? If so, you must submit a site map showing an overlay of the flood plain on the planned building(s) on your proposed site. No FEMA Map # 410238 0509 B, Panel 509 of 575 Effective date September 30, 1982 Comment: Even if your site does not fall into the 100 year flood plain, you must submit a copy of the applicable map panel with the proposed site sketched in. Please use black or blue ink. Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well If the panel is not printed, the site is not in theJlood plain. Local governments are required to haveJlood plain maps available 2000 CFC Application ~.2 1~ WETLANDS source PL PL, FO HUD has defined wetlands as "...only those designated wetland areas identified or delineated on maps issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior as areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth or reproduction. " The project site may also contain wetland designation areas from state, county or local entities. Has any part of the site (including off-site construction areas) been identified as potentially a jurisdictional wetland by one of the following sources? If Jurisdictional wetlands are anywhere on the site or adjacent to the site you must submit a site map showing an overlay of the wetland area and the planned buildings). Please use black or blue ink. Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well. Source Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers X Oregon Division of State Lands X US Fish and Wildlife X (National Wetlands Inventory Maps) Natural Resource Conservation Service X (Rural areas) Local Planning Department X (Goal 5 Inventories) Wetlands Delineation consultant X Comment: The local planning department should be cognizant of any identifications made by the above authorities. Submit any documentation available concerning the wetland status of the site. U potential jurisdictional wetlands have not been identified, does the site exhibit any of the following characteristics? Characteristic Yes No Wetland vegetation (such as cattails, rushes, X reeds, sedges, reed canary grass, creeping buttercup). Hydric Soils (Soil Conservation Service Maps) _ X Seasonally saturated conditions X Water table within 18 inches of surface X Wetland wildlife (such as ducks, salamanders, X frogs, nutria, etc.) Comment: For sites which possess .no potential wetland characteristics (such as building lots in established urban neighborhoods that are "high and dry, 'desert sites with no water resources in the vicinity, or sites with no water resources in the vicinity that are unvegetated or artificially planted [irrigation is a water resource], the above investigation may be cursory (an inquiry with the planning department and field observation). If water resources are on site or adjacent, the planning department indicates potential for wetlands in the vicinity, any of the above characteristics are present or the public has raised wetlands as an issue, a more thorough examination is merited. The services of a qualified professional may be necessary. OHCSD will not debate the delineation of any wetland (or the determination that no wetland is present) that has been documented as acceptable to the Oregon Division of State Lands. 2000 CFCAppll=1017 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE source PL, III see below Have any endangered, threatened or candidate species been identified in the quarter section of land surrounding the site? if so, provide details. Use Nature Conservancy's Oregon Natural Heritage Program for communities with identified species within their UGBs. No, per PL Have any rare plants or animals been identified on the site? If so, provide details. PL is appropriate source. No Has the locality identified the site or vicinity as wildlife habitat as part of its Goal 5 Inventory process? If so, provide details. PL is appropriate source. No Describe the predominate ground cover and any wildlife observed. FO is appropriate source. Grass, blackberries, small ornamental trees 2000 CFCApplication P~. 11159 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by PBS Environmental for the property located at 11159 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The project was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-97, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 1.2.1 Findings Historical sources indicated that the subject property was in agricultural usage with a small farmhouse and outbuildings, at least as early as 1936, the earliest year for which historical information was available. Construction of Highway 217 to the south coincided with increased infill of the area for residential usage. The farmhouse was demolished in 1997; a storage building existed briefly onsite, to house concrete plump hoses. The property is currently vacant of structures. No evidence of storage or distribution of bulk quantities of hazardous substances was observed on the subject property. Adjoining sites were also in agriculture use for field crops, pasture or orchards by 1936. The subject property is currently bounded by single/multi-family housing. No specific concerns for the site as a result of past or present adjoining property uses were identified. Databases maintained by EPA and Oregon DEQ of sites which have suspected or confirmed releases of environmental contaminants were reviewed to identify sites which pose a potential environmental concern to the subject property due to contaminant migration. Based on a review of the identified sites, none appear to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. 1.2.2 Conclusions same Recognized Environmental Conditions (see Glossarv in Appendix A for definition) No recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the subject property. Other Issues of Concern The following issues, although not included as recognized environmental conditions, were identified during this study. Although these issues could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts to the subject property, they are not included as recognized environmental conditions either because the condition(s), in PBS' opinion, is generally considered to pose a low concern, or because insufficient evidence was collected during the course of this study to come to the conclusion that the condition(s) has resulted in the "presence or likely presence" of contamination to soil and/or groundwater on the subject property. I) The use of agricultural chemicals under applicable regulations is considered an acceptable min agricultural practice. Due to their widespread use throughout the U.S., accumulation in soils is IN so common that it is generally not regarded as contamination requiring remedial action. Except in cases where these materials are present at high levels due to spillage, mixing, or handling of or a PBS Project 0 16004.00 Elmo Pg . 2c) 11159 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR these materials in bulk quantities, or where agricultural uses have been particularly intense, it is not expected that contamination levels would be found at levels for which the DEQ or EPA would require remedial action. No information was found indicating these conditions exist on the subject property. In summary, while there is a possibility that these materials are present at some level on the subject property, their potential presence does not appear to pose a significant concern at this time. 2) Residential concerns are generally related to possible use of heating oil storage tanks, septic systems, and wells. It is not known if these features were previously used at the property in association with the prior farm buildings or residences. 1.23 Opinion Based upon the findings of this study, no additional investigation appears to be warranted at this time. - PBS Project a t6004.00 o ' F O R A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G , 1 N C. F`O Box 23206 • Tigard. OR 97281 -3206 • Tel 503-968-272.3 Fd\ '5"R July 26, 2000 RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review and Variances Dear Interested Party: Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is in the process of purchasing the property located at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Blvd. The proposed development would be a 26 unit multifamily new construction. Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is a non-profit affordable housing developer serving the Tigard/Tualatin area that currently owns 117 units ofhousingAn order to develop this property, we are considering proposing a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site development review and variances. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, August 10, 2000 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Community Room (on the right side of building) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 8935 SW Burnham Street, Tigard Please notice that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 968-2724 if you have any questions. Sincerely, a a Sheila Green aw- ink Executive Director AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. City of Tigard ) 1. J I I I h e r q,~u being duly sworn, depose and say that on _ J ~-J .4 e -1 ` , J I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) 11 I t& s 9 4I, J II t G 5 S W 1-1(1) 1 B 1• d a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at with postage prepaid thereon. S~W ature (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETEINOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of OFFICIAL SEAL SHERII M S. CASPER NOTARY PUBLIC-0RI=GON COMMISSION NO. 323409 NOTARY PUBLIC OF ORE N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2003 My Commission Expires: (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) I NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: v, I 1 c., a aa+ W Q S h,nC + 0 S u .Jc, r e TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: E n•+ m J 1+-. 4f L m, I Name of Applicant/Owner: C_om a.., n. y Pg, + n r f-cr A r J u h to 1 u v I n , _ Address or General Location of Subject Property: I i t S 5 u n d III 6 s 5, 1-1416 R I, d I Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s):_ 1 s s g C u! -i ° r 4- C c0 --I h:YogintpattyVnasterslo^Rmail.niM AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE 'WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS 01: THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: ' City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I, I I S h e r m G n , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) ► s • 11 ► 6 S S- ►J 1-► u l I g► d , and did on the 2 I ' day of T., 11 2 0 c, personally post notice indicptin%that the site may be proposed for a Cc,m P r < h e ns. P14 r% Anx°nd Z,;nQ ( h"nge , S,~e l)raoplicaYion, and the time, date and place of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at I ' ' S (state location you posted notice on property) Sig a ure (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the -2-&,4-day of .-M?d OFFIGWL SEAL SHERMAN s. CASPER NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON COMMISSION NO. 323409 My Commission Expires: WIY COMMISSION EXPIRFr :,;AY 13, 2003 (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) ------------------------------------i NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: + 1 u 9 r u + a s , f c r+ S c} n r e TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: L' C i. J ► * ► Name of Applicant/Owner: t, a, ✓ u r o r J r tf d u b i e H s, n l Address or General Location of Subject Property: 1, s ti s 5 '$W Hull I I s► S~A `C41cC + LVGco LSubject Property Tax Map(s) and I,ot#(s)- i h:Uopin~pattyG steriG paimst _ . . . w - - _ - ' ~z rr' t _ - _ Py ' ~~~~F JG QQ~~r;Q 0~ G ~ U ~ C Q a ~ w sr Q c ZU~ J = k • C U ACG255 RD• 'fb 5i: JAMES APfS, if c § - ~ ~ U ¢ ~ - m s _ - ~ • l~', ~ HIV ~ _',i $ ~I~~ s~~~\a '~dlildU~ hlAlAla~ _4 Exlsnl.w ' : + 194 g 19~e - .2o"d' IS RI6yT.oF-Y[qy _ - Ka'-6" 24ko" I°S " 3 STORY ILDIN6 NEW 5'SIDEWAIJC ® - - SI~ ~g~ E 6 cvrnP,^E.r iii .x.'.. . e 19T'•o SPP~e~ 147 ~ _ . Ssr FLR. PIE`/. I ~ LL l7 - - _ v C I ® sw Fq ~ I I~ Z O O w"t `i. ~ J CR.: yam... " ..q/,. ~ .;v. i' I 198 (7 I am O - 0 2 ~'sttR7 , aes>rsce I t o ~ ' - 196 20'•0" . 199'•o mecwAUC I ~ . JIl J Iar PLR. Ei6X •I - 199 G~~ 199 ~ ~ LL F- _ < NAt YApp is*' Fuc. F, av. IB=fc" 2g1o" I B'•6 ~ U - ~e` ~ I ~ j - QPF 3 STtP.Y 3P~ ~ I N 197 eftILDW6 ~ srrcas J lL 5 ~ I cY I ~ II V0. 199=0" dJUDIIJb ~•4'~y I VICINITY MAP _ _ ~ o; i'~ x eoM euc wry I ~ 'GhN'.: ~ u+E s - 198 SrnRY ~0 I I :'Q d ~ y~'Yrt' *d I 1DI .Q ~ : ,a ` PRIYAT'L DRIV£ ~ ~e z g a w ~ `a --s ' ~ S9~E ~(L~ i ~ I YR~~+S 1 -ice REMAIN z:Y >s ~ ~ _,i'~ ~ 1 ~ g Iooa1 ` , L ~ aivoo 4 a G ;s ~ - t ,k _ ;.I ~x ~:i mngan e' w ~uu ~:1 ~ A6~nJa no.' 6 lE6®MYSYRIP f( ~I11 IIII I ~ ~llll III I I I ~i i II I I rT II Ill IIII IIII 111 I II ] -V- - - 10 II II ww..• j ~D n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ III 1 ~ ~ ~ ql li ilhl i I ) ~ I • " 10 II 12 13 I~I III I ~ D12p2~q 2~2.~ I ( ~ ~➢h ~]lj ~~pil~.. ~ou~-- - B 2p 20 20 2) 20 ZD 20 i - III I~,~'u~~!.4'.11_~iILI~IIIIU;tiltl'Ij6~~JSdJ~ .kUltttll Ili Ihl I I I~ osi Y • ~ A ~11- - w _v ~ ..1~I>U110,rr,Illi:I~L1~11({.11Ellllv.ll)J~L!p~~l~;lll~l~~!)141~1~1~111~lilill(.~L(.~Il~ldl p". -~~a l :-~:t` _ 3` l " - I w, „fir - , . - ae, . .._r-4- ~ n.,'].'.+n ..,.fir-~., .m~.~rr.-..si -r..-:-~.,-+ .._.~---r-r-,+--.,,.....~..~.....~r..+.r--:..-r,.--,.....:.-rr.,.rn+-....., n..~......r:n-~rnw........~..::w...i~+..~~:,...~e..mtmv-'"*r~_ .,aa~.nvwap..-.~..y~-'rn-•..^- E < v-+..xs.r`~~..T+•~: m~-+x-~nr.....- _ ~_..a= ,w.,~~.~+.+"F'6. _ - "'w.pn'~'-" L „n a .i' .:~tiv. . _.:_r.. .r. r ~ ~ ~ ...q:. - , :,@.,. ~ - ..I.. t' ~ -G.'.,.. I. r-.. ~ - - ~ r . 5+.. • • ~ i ~ . ~ .:ih,. - A ..7 ~ - . ~ , - - r. keikip:, N F.~_.~ ~n -a c.. :....r~ ~ ~r,~a r6r. ~-N,..,.,-..qg~. +Yf--:~,~, . ',takr.~?r~ti, pan. .Ur a :i, r ^r ~ v rn ~ a_ . , ..A,. .~..:7R.- _ ~a _ _ a.:o:.•u_~•~_.':• >=-w 4_. >~'.t cam. -_a.~ ..,.1 ~ - - ~~.'6% ~~Er.,~b uex ~ :a:., : s.o r: .r.~:~.~~.~w--::~ - t'~P'k'-- .n I .r. t ~ ~ : A. Property Location Map B. Comprehensive Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Photos of Site F. Required Submittal Elements G. Neighborhood Meeting, August 10, 2000 H. CPAH Parking Study I. Preliminary Site Development Review (for reference/not decision) I Letter from Mike Houck, Audubon Society K. Excerpt from "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" L. Summary of Metro Regional Affordable Housing Strategy M. Letters From Oregon Department of Transportation N. Letter to Tri-Met 0. Letters from Tigard-Tualatin School District P. Letters of Support for Project Q. Letter from OHCSD Regarding Waiver of Notification edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 43 exhibit ~ O ~ D I 0 C tP Z N ~ ~ X04 ;3. `z~ ~ u• 's, n rn Y rik~' u i i it tt • r'~ ~ ~ 'Ell 6 r L1°` ♦y ~ r } Y r a N 1h O i f JnP'G J d ~ j J - • Exhibit E i SITE OF PROPOSED _ Al :-r Walking distance to grocery t Parcel from Hall ~1 1::.~,. ~.~~~+Jti.~yf,."J,}~ ad`s ~4T, Walking distance to services/banks r lti~~,V!~vJ I Retail and services along Pack Highway within 1 mile of site. I Tri Met Bus at Hall & Locust (Metzger) Exhibit F REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS • Application Forms • Owner's Authorization • Deed • Site Plan • Copy of Pre-Application Notes • Neighborhood Meeting Affidavits • 500' Property Owner List • Neighborhood Meeting Letter • Environmental Review Checklist • Two sets of envelopes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TYPE IV APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hag Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 664-7297 PRE-APP. HELD WITH: 1-4 yr N' c I of S c n GENERAL INFORMATION DATE OF PRE-APP.: -T I g _.0 c_ Property Address/Location(s): I i t s y 4 n d t r• G S S t FOR STAFF USE ONLY I-141t Bl..d Tax Map R Tax Lot #(s): I S 1 3 S O A 4--1 c c. 4 n d Case No.(s): L- 6 c o _ Other Case No.(s): Receipt No.: Site Size(s):_,, I I 4 n Property Owner/Deed Holder'(s): 4 h n Tr %-j s Application Accepted By: Date: Address: S 19 5 S t..l C r G nbe r r r 0• Phone: 6 2/- p I S3 City: ` a e r l'-c, Zip: `l J c c _t -3s;" 1 Date Determined To Be Complete: ApplicanC.Cuf"In-Jn.1y Pc;r Hers ~cr A~~.J4ble Phone: 1 2 S~rlr~InC, Comp Plan/Zone Designation: C Iii c K it 8 2 Wt- Address: 3 t City: T, a n d Zip:y 12 g• I 3 2 0 6 When the owner and the applicant are different people, the CIT Area: applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession Rev. I 26M iAwrplntmastem%cpa.doc with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner with written authorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS PROPOSAL SUMMARY ✓ Application Elements Submitted: The owners of record of the subject property request a ❑ Application Form Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if applicable) from: 1`'1 e 4 ,n N, n S A 1 R eS. jed-,Ito NI e J • m - II .y h DQ n s.+ ~ ❑ Owner's Signature[Written Authorization OR...The applicant requests an amendment to the following sections ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code Site/Plot Plan (please be specific): of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 811 11-) ❑ Applicant's Statement of copies based on pre-app check list) ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes _ ❑ Filing Fee $4,015.00 (neap. Text. or Both) t List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: n1~- C h Q n 9 e l ypo III Aa D I,rcJ u n I2 4 14-U \~/Gir c, n ~e c• f ~4f ~Cjf ) SL~ 6Cc 3S~r~ p G~cv E'z~ 4 r ~ G n 4-~ 5 i d am ' ycirJ Se4-by clrS 3 S ~e,r4 { o l 0 l e e t /G t• , ci n c e 4- I n, m 1- Ih PC -4f 11 , n f e .t creme nt l G Pc c c- S 4-u 3 I S aci t. r_ I S. APPUCAN O. To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true: and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of , 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 ZONE CHANGE TYPE III APPLICATION CITY OF TIOARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-4171 FAX: (503) 634-7297 UArE 14 v: i\I ' r h. i s GENERAL INFORMATIQN PRE-APP r,ELDVI-H- OF PRE-APP =l c , _ Property Addiess/Locatlon(s). _I t r S 5 4 n J I I f G S r ,-r- r-±- , - ~ ;~•~,'~'t'1~OF;<rS~'A~"F; ~r.FuOyN,~+°~' S w e4G 11 1 vJ ~rf „ atJrlbrr N} tu1~~y~" "t~M r atl,~r,...,J,.,:a •U. ;,rl.~ lit, .•y..~,sc1 S' t ~t.~•i;:{,'..'4~'I'~ •'e%~:i'.c'.M~IL'UI~"t•. WF'•^I~ie~+ ~~s'.~,. .T}Y: '-:11•x{(1 ,r..~+ • S t 5 I)A t~ l , ~ :CaS'~~5~,,R:hy~r::.. r:L;,IM~~•:.,f•al;.-:,^r„~'::.....r7i',V~":•_~,H:~;f;;:• TaxMao & Tax lot #(st• ~y~ is .,y.. .mss yG}f{'~'~~li•,. :J~''--~~:Z''d: r`!!Ta~. (4 0 1v...i~ h,, ..1. u•c,jl• 9;i p,,?: •r:c.iu `t . :Jr ~{,.1? ,:''}'`%":aid': Site Size: ) I G 01 W Properly Ovme•/Deed Holders Cahn ~:t'r':.?+. lr`•'s:,3, ' tpJi• I:,;kY~21;f I1 ..i . 1 •:tl n'~fr., Si f'~r`:L ~;t.i:'' r"A ~ t7' ilyd:. ,~„;r;; .j7~• 1tt•N-. Sl.l r'un ~ C r,,Yti. f.F~ j~,.. Iva;) r l Address. S i C 5 bt:rr, ~Phone: 0 I S -:':r.. ;p;. > t';!•a,w;: ' . a.';L"a ~ `r 't" ~ 't 'T u f ~ t{ •C City: B --G - ~ ~~.=~r'~'^"~r s. Vii' ~'»~fot~ ~M ~~t' , ~ Z+~~'=rr..~ t r r, zip: - ...1• ' ,.:..:~:"2' .~,;f::,t.l r,i~ 7 ,.if!.n r r;w,....ti ~ ? 'f ` ;r :G:r 1:. 3i ).tei7:r;T,irF,, r 6 l t:;:i•.~. b IN f t yr r t:. `.~F,tly~°i{)zpr'A''!•'•i pf~tSat?C(syc7Qdt; Applicar,t<umm~_, I~ur~ nor ~~r:r.j• '~r `a2` .r;~z.:.{..'7• n.. n;' 4c.1.' Address:(, 3c x 2 3 c r Phone: 9 G 2 ~1 1 r g~QU13ED SUBMITTA ELEMENTS • %bhen the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant (Note: applications will )yam be accepted mus! be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written without the required submittal elements) authort_ zt:on from tie owne- of an agen: of the owrer with writter autnorization. The owner(s) must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form; or submit a writter authorization with 1 Application Form this application Cj Owner's Signature/Written Authorization PRQFQSALSUfu1MARY Title Transfer instrument or Deed 0 Copy of Pre-Application Conf. Notes The owners of record of the s,rbject property request a Zone Change ~ Site/Plot Plan Annexation from Washington County _ :o Tigard (tr of copies based on pre-app check list) (if applicable) a•10 a Zone Change from Washington ° O Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81X'x 11 Ccunty - to Tigard Q Applicant's Statement 7 c' h;; ~ ~ P 12 i c, P t-j ` of c:opiss based on pre-app chock list) c: n C (p•oviae ant additional rnformabon herei 2 Sets of Pre•Addressed/Pre-Stamped 410 Envelopes « Copy of 500' Prooery Owner List Generated by the City [j Neighborhood Mtg. Affidavits 3 Nctes _y Filing Fee $1,505.00 (Zoning Map Change) 1 APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED 5UBM_1TAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" boy. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained. upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPL(CANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above raauest does not violate env deed restrictions that may be attac ~hed to or imaosed upon. thcr • u c► o e • It the application is granted, the applicant wilt exercise the -rights granted in accordance with the terms ana sut~ect to all the cLxiditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the appl'cents so acunowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and cri'eria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of garh owner of the subject property. DATED this -day of 20 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 Bill VARIANCE TYPE 11 APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX.' (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: _i/Q / c DATE OF PRE-APP.: i~ - Property Address/Location(s): + r' 1 1 I! t S r - - - L .l I- 1 4 1 1 8 1-,1 Tax Map 8 Tax Lot #(s): ! 5 ! ; i t)n ;4L _r , . in d tFOR STAFF USE ONLY `4 G ir, Site Size: r 11 Q o J 1 v c r e Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)''_ C C, It n T ; t ±✓ase o s r., +a~• '.,;51,a~iL1f,. ^1V ?CK-- f .1}x.5...1. _i. r.: •wiT~~r.l'.:.. _ r ,i,'f! W A Address: 7'I S 5I,1 C bt.r, i Phon I - 7c<:'~" threrCase,do;(s , City: R t' a ~ iZi y G~ c ,s rr~, p: + - .3s Receipt No. Applicant*: Cc. #A c., i „r r~ A , J„b l z Address: P R 3 < < c Phone: L `r s4 Application Accepted By: City: T 1, c r 3e t _ Date: ` When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant , ; must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Date Determined To Be Complete: must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Comp Plaii2one'Dl3§ignation: PROPOSAL SUMMARY A- V The owners of record of the subject property request permission fora _ '•i',••I--•• ".t.; c , CIT Area: ,t Variance to the following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): Rev. 7128M i:tcurplnlmasierslvariance.doc - Administrative Variance S 545 - Special Adjustments . Access/Egress Standards Adjustment S 545 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS • Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratio S 545 - Reduction in New Developmentrrransa Improvement S 545 Reduction in Existing DeveloprnenvTransit Improvement S 545 ✓ Application Elements Submitted: - Increase in Kla■imum Parking Ratio S 545 Reduction it, Bicycle Parking S 545 ❑ Application Form Alternative Parking Garage Layout S 545 . Sign Code Adjustment S 545 ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization • Tree Removal Adjustment S 545 ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed • Wireless Communication facddy Adjustmenl - Selba(A tiom Nearby Residence S 545 • Street bnprovemem Adjustmem' $ 545 Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre app chock lost) lease state the reason for the Variance request \'G r I", Site/Plot Plan (reduced 87,-x 11 h S ' d -y U ! L + - _ _ e I bat 3 S e e l f-., Applicant's Statement (9 of copies based on pre.app ciier:k bsl) e e 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped _ Legal Size Envelopes Filing Fee (Ad(runisIralive) $545.00 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Cep. Ic,n amend menl- M,-J, Qm Oengdj ~es~den~-,J +-'c Mej, u,, _ De ns~+y Zone C.f-,ungc- \/clr Ia nCe U r ear yard Se- I•- bucL 3 s fit) eo Lee \/2 r1y0ce i'O e- y g r d S e bc, c~ 3 5 f ec F +0 10 f e r - u p c e- ~ 4--0 par APPLICANTS: 3 I To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imRosed upon the subject properly. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of 19 i i Owner's Signature Owner's Signature I I Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 VARIANCE TYPE 11 APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX. (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: '✓O in E-c,:, DATE OF PRE-APP.: 1 Property Address/Location(s): 5 `I ,1 I ' ' S r 5(,1 1- I c, 11 H 1 ,•.I Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 1 5 3 5 1)^ 4•1- 1 : L ,FQR STAFF USE ONLY . Site Size: r 1 God 7 3 c. e r e Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)' Cc, n T r• t Address: S 1 is' 5 l,f r. « .:.:~r•.,.:ry,.c~.,:~.:~.,•;..:.~r.,.,b-f(►Phone: 6Ls I c 15y Oth& Cas6N&(s):_ City: 8 Q• ct F „ Zip: S _ 3s i Receipt No.:! Applicant':C"n,,.,,f11 hc.: ) te, -T- Af~u~oblr t-Ic.....` )n` Address: P f~ i ; C Phone: 5 C 11 Application Accepted 8y: City:, , Zip: I "1 0 S . 3 Date: ' When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Date Determined To Be Complete: must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Comp Rlan/Zone Designation: _ PROPOSAL SUMMARY ^'r The owners of record of the subject property request permission fora : , a=•;~ s .s zt CIT Area: ~Variance to the following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): Rev. 7/28/99 i.\curpinlmaslerslvariance.doc - Administrative Variance (S Say Special Adjustments • Access/Egress Standards Adjustment 5 545 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS • Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratio $ 545 Reduction in New oevelopmentfTransit Improvement S 545 Reduction in Existing DevelopmenVrransil Improvement S 545 ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Increase in Maximum Parking Ratio 5 545 Reduction in Bicycle Parking S 545 ❑ Application Form { Altemative Parking Garage Layout S 545 a ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization 1 • Sign Code Adjustment S 545 . Tree Removal Adjustment a 545 ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed i • Wireless Communication Facility Adjustment - Setback from Nearby Residence S 545 . Street Improvement Adjustment S 545 ❑ Site/Plot Plan - - - - - - (JS of copies based on pre-app check list) Please state the reason for the Variance request- \ "Ct r Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81/r•'x 11•') i r f ti t b~, r I- 3 g c t + i L; [ _j Applicant's Statement I h - - - - - (It of copes based on pre-app check list) t-. e. 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped _ - . Legal Size Envelopes ] Filing Fee (Administrative)........ ...5545.00 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Comp. PIcon Amend inenl- Med, ,im Denrod-1 eesiden~-Iul +-c MP-J,v,n 1-1 tc)~ Dc--nS1f-y Zone Chu nge ~12 +u R40 ~ yGriGnee 4'0 reGr yard Se4-buc.35 ee4- fo Zo `eel rig(lce r#4,S i r) e. Y ci r s e- 4- back 35 feet' fo 10 fee-V l/Ur.ra n c e 4-0 g) or ir, APPLICANTS: 3 I To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application In the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above reauesrt does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed uporLthe subject property. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. DATED this day of 19 N Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 VARIANCE TYPE 11 APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: i-r, /C3 ^ ~cx DATE OF PRE-APP.: i 1 x _ Property Address/Location(s): 5 ! ' ' S 5 t.1 I- 1, 11 6 1 ~.l Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): ! 1 3 Qn i•1 ' c n ^ - FOR STAFF USE ONLY . Ll G c c Site Size: 1 a a d . 1.3 U (r z Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)•• Cc, h n T r S t ;G~se'N.o.(s): .:..1. ;_•r~~«: n=~. i..:::; .'•\v. ,~y'...t::' :..,c .-ti..ID wC{;,,:wJ,xMq~y~•-. ,:a;,=M4~4G.. a(:u. Address: S i , S S t,1 r r,,,b•-r; 1 (1 Phone: G2 1 - c • 5j OLher,Gase.No,(s): c: r~r? City: R Ct ~ r ~Zip: 5 i - 3s t Receipt No. Applicant:(, f ,rrr ~HlrJ4tJlt' 1-Ic..r..; l,i~ Address: P I_ R Phone: 5 C Q 2 '1 r; 14 Application Accepted By. City: T J Zip: ti t i 3 e c G Date: When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Date Determined To Be Complete: must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Comp`Plan/Zj6n Designation: PROPOSAL SUMMARY The owners of record of the subject property request permission for a CIT Area: Variance to the following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): Rev. 7/28M OcurplnYnasters%variance.doc Administrative Variance S 545 . Special Adjustments • Access/Egress Standards Adjustment S 545 FREQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS • Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratio S 545 Reduction in New DevelopmenVTransit Improvement S 545 Reduction in Existing DevelopmenVTransit Improvement S 545 ✓ Application Elements Submitted: • Incxease in maximum Parking Ratio $ 545 Reduction in Bicycle Parking S 545 ❑ Application Form Alternative Parking Garage Layout S 545 ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization • Sign Code Adjustment S 545 • Tree Removal Adjustment $ 545 ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed • wireless Communication Facility Adjustment - Setback from Nearby Residence S 545 ❑ Site/Plot Plan • Street Improvement Adjustment S 5.15 - - (1$ of copes based on pre-app chock list) e (reduced 8'/,";< 1 1 Please state the reason for the Variance request: -/ct jr a Pc Site/Plot Plan C. 4 r r e=m (f A 1 ❑ Applicant's Statement j C. I— - / (a of copies based on pre-app check list) C j ` - - 3--i -5 9 s-------- - ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes Filing Fee (Administrative)..... .$545.00 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: et; rep. Piet n &rnQrdrn en}- Med, im DenSJj les-uen~ loll j-u M --A -om e n C. I i-y 7 o r,,-- E h cu n q e: 1 2 4- e R 4-0 . A r~ u n c a + o r e a r 'q GAO S e+ b 4c1.W 3S 4-o eJ Vcir rcr r' c e- 4-0 nor 4--k Of-,J t,o 4-h Sr d e_ y U r 5e4-ba c.(_ S 35 fee 4- +o 10 TeJ-. APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revolted if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of each owner of the subject property. l DATED this day of 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 LM VARIANCE TYPE 11 APPLICATION CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX: (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION PRE-APP. HELD WITH: uU + A l"cx DATE OF PRE-APP.: i - r y - Property Address/Location(s): f r t5 5 n J t 1 t G S I S t .l I- 14 if n !J--~ c °ONTax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 1 S 1 3 5 ) FOR STAFFUSELY:.::, Site Size: . r r a n d 7.3 u c r e Property Owner/Deed Holder(s)': C 4 h A T r %.0 > t rr3_ase No,(s):':t: Gdii4:r~~_w :•.a. •t:~>: •~yn tiaa+:. tr~?~`~r:~: Address: S i S 5 t,t w; y (r bc-rrlc►Phone: 62 l c a93 i-Otli'r'Gase cw . City:- Cj t' C, r 4- c n Zip: y 1 L i I- 3s c i ^r+#.tY+>,• ~y ts~ 3kk~~ , Receipt No.: AppIicanY:Corn,,,rn,f~ P"'I Ie177.-,A rJoble t-fc• .r.. Inc s Address: P U 3 .3 e c,- Phone: _4 t4 Application Accepted By. r a. City: T , r, Zip: 9 1 S . 3 1 t. C Date: When the owner and the applicant are different people, the applicant t:: <,.,rAc :;z.5•:,. s,•z ; > i must be the purchaser of record or a lessee in possession with written authorization from the owner or an agent of the owner. The owner(s) Date Determined To Be Complete , must sign this application in the space provided on the back of this form or submit a written authorization with this application. Comp Plan2one Des`gnafiori`?a.;*• : • PROPOSAL SUMMARY rte. The owners of record of the subject property request permission for a j•, ry ~r rw Variance to the following provision(s) of the Community Development Code (please circle one only): Rev. zizr:"niq astersIvariance.doc 'e Administrative Variance' b 545 Special Adjustments • Access/Egress Standards Adjustment S 545 REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS s Parking Adjustments - Reduction in Minimum Parking Ratio S 545 Reduction in New Development'Transit Improvement. $ 545 Reduction in Existing Developmentrrransit Improvement $ 545 ✓ Application Elements Submitted: Increase in Maximum Parking Ratio S 545 Reduction in Bicycle Parking S 545 ❑ Application Form Alternative Parking Garage Layout S 545 ❑ Owner's Signature/Written Authorization • Sign Code Adjustment S 545 i . Tree Removal Adjustment S 545 ❑ Title Transfer Instrument or Deed • Wireless Communication Facility Adjustment - Setback from Nearby Residence o 545 • Street Improvement Adjustment S 545 Q Site/Plot Plan of copies based on pre-app check list) Please state the reason '.or the Variance request: "G r cl nt t- c ❑ Site/Plot Plan (reduced 81/2"x 11 b 4< j 3 5 I f ❑ Applicant's Statement 1 1 _ IN of copies based on pre-app check list) C L i c c~. l ❑ 2 Sets of Pre-Addressed/Pre-Stamped Legal Size Envelopes ❑ Filing Fee (Administrative) ..............$545.00 1 List any VARIANCE OR OTHER LAND USE ACTIONS to be considered as part of this application: Compre hens a Plo n Change Me J.~J M enS e4-1 Re S+c, ML- in I-I ~gh De- nse~j l one C hunae R 12I-v ~ i~~ nor4-h a So .1 \/Qr eUnce: 4- S► ~e vaJS sel-becKS 3S eel 1!-o IO eeL ce r e G rnce. -o m, nimOrn Pori ►n re9Qere4he4- 4 6 +u 3 PQ (,es APPLICANTS: To consider an application complete, you will need to submit ALL of the REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENM as described on the front of this application in the "Required Submittal Elements" box. (Detailed Submittal Requirement Information sheets can be obtained, upon request, for all types of Land Use Applications.) THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL CERTIFY THAT: • The above reque!gt does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject pronerty. • If the application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval. • All of the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith, are true; and the applicants so acknowledge that any permit issued, based on this application, may be revoked if it is found that any such statements are false. • The applicant has read the entire contents of the application, including the policies and criteria, and understands the requirements for approving or denying the application. SIGNATURES of ea owner of the subject property. DATED this day of 19 Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature Owner's Signature 2 Aug-16-00 11:31 MCahn FTHeece Sharon Dev 503-520-5057 p•01 plop Pon A P P O R D A, S b t s o v P i a a. t M t. P.O. !!ox 23206 nQud, OR lne 1 3206 • Tel; sh3 45i•27?e • Fax 503-M-643 August 16, 2000 Dick Bewersdorff,, Planning Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Bewersdorff As you are aware, Community Partners for A.fiordablc Housing. Inc. (CPAH), has agreed to purchase the properties Wated at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard from the Cahn Family Trust. As a part of that agreement, we are requesting the zonint changes required to develop a &mail multifamily apartment complex. This lenet will serve U your "Owner's Authorization" to proceed with this application. Any questions related to title or ownership of the property may be directed to Connie . Dobbins at •f icor Title (242-1210). Thanks in advance for your assistance. Skmerelyr, Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Maro S. Cahn Executive Director, CPAH Cahn Family Trust eoaa M. sal-.salaANrr M» ,,...w.d . V._..1. t.(7i5~~ WAL ANTT Dam KNOW ALLAfENBYTRESS PRESEN7x,That MkRVIN S• CAHN 'S/ NS herohwtter called the antor, for w consideration hereinalter stated, to rantor paid by ~LRUN'L i Tn~ s tlTld MAJORIE P. Gt44 Trustee of the CAHN FAMILY IRS1ST gS1ld_+?SEL@ IS.a horinaftet called " grantee, does hereby trans, bartalnL seB and Conley unto the grant" and grantei • hairs, successors and assfgrs, that certain real property, with the tenements, hereditamants std appurtenances thonnclfa bejoilItW or in any way appertaining, situated in Wa-9ND910171 County, State of Oregon, deecrebed as follows, tv-wtt: , Lot 11. Block •0•. Woozding to the duly filed plat of tgT GERR A= TRX-M, in the City of Tigard, filed March 9, 1908, in Plat Book 2, Page 41, Records of the Coll of Washington and State of Oregon. ® VESTING DEED N SPAa Pavenoul Coll Desmnl N ON laval SIDo To Hare and to Hold the Ill unto the grantee and grantee's heir, sueuleors and ensigns forever. And grantor fil coronanlts to and with grantee end grante+'s heirs, suoce/sor and assigns, that grantor is lawfully seized In fee simple of the above granted promises, trot from aB encuotbranicee Z}0M"OF_~ and that •:ii grantor will warrant and forever delend the premises and eery part and parcel thereof a`airet the lawful claims J' and demands of all persons whomsoever, except those claimung under the above described ancurnbrancta. •r,•t_ The taro and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollar, is j eUNE - (DHowerar, the actual consideration consists of or iruhtdes other property or value riven or promised which in v'a " ppLCA°I' oraideration (indicate which). 0(77 -tem. L.te.,a am esmbet+m, U nun appitrabet, ebeoM be d_%esd. S« ORS "wa.) do conuMrng this dead, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shell be made so that this deed shell apply equally to corporations and to individuals, In Witnese Whereof, the grantor has executed till instrument this day of l9 q7. if a corporate grantor, it has caused its rame to be signed and its al, it asp, aft' ed an ricer or other person duly authorized to do so by order of its board of directors. XX THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE Or THE PROPERTY DE. - - SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTAUM ENT. THE PERSON ACOUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR ~t COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. -TATE OF OREGON, County of WtsshitTC~act n T 'a ingfrur lantt of acknowledged before me an This instrument was acknowledged before me on . OFF 'CIAL SEAL YAANA No~arycp~ lie for Oregon BLIC GR y p _•L(. _.a?-.Z..:..f... NOTAA~ PUBLIC-OREGON M coaunission ez ices - COMM'SSION NO.Oe8=3 LY COLIMISSHN. EMPIRES OCT 21, low Marvin S. Cahn STATE OF OREGON, i K County of I certify flat the wittein instrument 1- •'a As was received for record on the day S. Cahn, lruatex of v 19__, at -or•~~-~-~~ clock ._.M., and recorded in or- ~CAF-F~ R~ Tl'773t r.ca o ta.aRVSe ^.x------• book/reollsviume No on page ~.w•. IV' ~.1 AYE rceew.•. andlor as fee/life/irstru. Awe w~e.e ,.w.. r fry. AA,w,. >al• rvitL bs$t jnriP rnhn. ment/microfilm/rxepl No.___y Y;' i" i••-'~ 57g5 {_r~-,..,L,a.-r~,tt~,.+ Record of Deeds of said County. . , Witness my hand and seal of County affixed. SI "l.E.AS.ILSdYE...___._._.~_ i • By Deputy. t' 5 .l r~ y ~ P_re l atlon l'Mfi g". a aid or.~ ix 6 o h " ~r , RESIDENTIAL PRE-APP. MTG. DATE: 1 STAFF AT PAE-APP-- -14 h Q APPLICANT: Cornrnuni~► P~~tncrs AGENT: `Snell4 (ycrtnlat,u--Tnk Phone: (`b3) 169- ;7A4 Phone: (503) st r-- a7a~{ PROPERTY LOCATION: rxl~ ADDRESS/GEN. LOCATION: ;a 4 l ati d III 4 S 5W uG( . TAX MAP(S)/LOT #(S): 131355 DfS. )45oo 46cc~ NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: ('tam~~rz.i~ P.,fnht ~(a.rn :~~y~cv~ ~;lrt~.e~,,~-fi - TUyic l V Pr~rec(~re 74pe-'ff Slke- k')evelt~rwr,,,ts! Reuieur + ~iv~ca-~-c~~ tL 'ibac PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: aln t rni t- OIUAI+i r'xm it r, et e toprn,--J' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: IZ 4.2 lAer l.tlim Den,~tfi~n R-ecvt0L&'V-+C0,P- Otsr'ricf- R-LlO hiedtom ICP In - Oe.n~,i-t~ I t2c~a~etnfirc~ Otyrici ZONING MAP DESIGNATION: R-la C.I.T. AREA: FACILITATOR PHONE: (503) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average lot width: !Juvu. ft. Maximum building height: GO ft. SetbaCKS: Front o o ft. Side l0 ft. Rear 610 ft. Corner ao ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE: 20 % Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area: .-~D (Refer to Code Section 18. X10.2. 1 'n t LokLjA -,i cU pit r,- rti.d Lt.uvc*, KS i 5-I r,c ADOtTIONAI LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (uUu rea"trt Cfit k LomI h MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet, unless lot is created through the Land Partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% times the average width, unless the parcel is less than 1'/2 times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. (Refer to Code Section 18.810.060) CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page I of 1 I AnidtfilW 4KJ1'"M1nWj Orman loan SPECIAL SETBACKS ➢ Streets: feet from the centerline of ➢ Flag lot: A ten (10)-foot side yard setback applies to all primary structures. ➢ Zero lot line lots: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. ➢ Multi-family residential building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. [Refer to Code Section 18.7301 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. [See applicable zoning districtfor the primary structures'setback requirements.] SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are REQUIRED to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. [County Surveyor's Office: 503-648-88841 FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 1'h STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones; 2% stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Code Section 18.730.010.C.2. are satisfied. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION [See example below] l of 0l O U 'L The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: All sensitive lands areas including ➢ Land within the 100 year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; ➢ Drainageways; and ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. Public right-of-way dedication: Single-family allocate 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ Multi-family allocate 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or ➢ If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USINGA ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENSITIVE LANDS Single-Family Multi-Family 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8,712 sq. ft. (20%) for public right-of-way 6.534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of-wav NET: 34,848 square feet NET: 37,026 square feet - 3,050 (minimum lot area - 3.050 (minimum lot area Units er cre = 12.1 Units Per Acre *The Development Code requires that the net site area existfor the next whole dwelling unit NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. *Minimum Protect Bensity Is 80% of the maximum allowed density. TO DETERMINE THIS STANDARD, MULTIPLYTHE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS BY.8. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 11 Aeedeneij Rpptrcitionl%+nnng D"im Seawn a BLOCKS The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0901 FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EMNSION OF STREET'S A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: D Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. ➢ Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where 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. (Refer to Code Section 18.810.03013 , PARKING AND ACCESS , />lLtlCin~j 5Ant',- ou plci~ ~clict`Py.~`JC ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. ➢ Single-family............ Requires: One (1) off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One (1) space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family Requires: spaces pef unit for 1-beii~oorri; for e"~La-~(Q. 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and atoac a~~~,,,. 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. lis Multi-family dwelling units-Wifth- more 1111)) t spaces s all provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. lS~, ~lSspa,e NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED AS COMPACT SPACES. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: ➢ Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. ➢ Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. (Refer to Code Section 18.705 & 18.7651 BICYCLE RACKS BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. (Refer to Code Section 183651 CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of I I AesidentW a OKatim/Plinnol Dm on knim SIGNS SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard. A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Adjustment application may be filed for Director's review. [Refer to Code Chapter 183801 SENSITIVE IAN S The a provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVEL PMENT DUE TO AREAS WI E .100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, -NATURAL DRAINA EWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, O SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 25%, OR UNSTABLE GROUND:. Staff will attempt to prelimi arily identify ensitive lands areas at a pre-application conference based on available info tion. HO`JVE ER, the responsibili ..o precisely identi sensitive land areas. and their ies. is the re nsibilily of t Areas t i definitions of sensitive lands mu~t e clearl J n plans s6bmitte with the developmen application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, otection, or odiffcation of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT D . (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7751 STEEP SLOPES - i~- -?t7 I• Cc`Lo u- When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnical report must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.0. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Sections 18.775.080.C.2. and 18.775.080.C.3. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY [USA] BUFFER STANDARDS, RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE IR 8t 0196-44 LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: THE VEGETATED CORRIDOR SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 25 FEET WIDE, measured horizontally, from the defined boundaries of the sensitive area, except where approval has been granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the corridor. If approval is granted by the Agency or City to reduce the width of a portion of the vegetated corridor, then the surface water in this area shall be directed to an area of the vegetated corridor that is a minimum of 25 feet wide. The maximum allowable encroachment shall be 15 feet, except as allowed in Section 3.11.4. No more than 25% of the length of the vegetated corridor within the development or project site can be less than 25 feet in width. In any case, the average width of the vegetated corridor shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, EXCEPT AS ALLOWED AS FOLLOWS: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Apoiation Conference Notes Page 6 of I I Rnidtntiil App6ation/P ming [Nihon Section TREE REMOVAL PLAN REQUIREMOM A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any tot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. The TREE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE the following: ➢ Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; ➢ Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D. according to the following standards: ♦ Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.790.060.D. of no net loss of trees; ♦ Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; ♦ Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; o Retainage of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; ➢ Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. Trees removed within the period of one (1) year prior to a development application listed above will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. (Refer to Code Section 18.790.030.CJ MITIGATION REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: ➢ A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. ➢ If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: o The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property; and ➢ The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN-LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. (Refer to Code Section 18.790.06011 CITY Of TIGARD Pre•Apoiation Conference Notes Page S of I A,,,dentid ApplKatim/hating 6imin Section agi, ACCESS WAYS I - ,x,01 ua cLL ;f d aU ee.t,.b kycw h Minimum number of accesses: a - 51), tot &t Minimum access width: i Maximum access width: Minimum pavement width: tr°'c St ` REQUIRED WALKWAY LOCATION Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. [Refer to Code Section 183051 CLEAR VISION AREA The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT AT ROAD/DRIVEWAY, ROAD/RAILROAD, AND ROAD/ROAD INTERSECTIONS. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7951 BUFFERING AND SCREENING In order to increase privacy and to either reduce or eliminate adverse noise or visual impacts between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS ALONG CERTAIN SITE PERIMETERS. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may mly be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Community Development Code. (Refer to Corte Chapter 18.7451 Sccee m1* s Vejt t.u l:%J -~V) pCt,,t<t nS l dt scL 1>s 7~~. USO. J~j The REQUIRED BUFFER AND SCREENING STANDARDS that are applicable to your proposal area are as follows: `e"v (~v~u t k! 7 t~ ~t -Fu ~n~~j yr QN) _ alongc~ the north boundary. at!n the east boundary. L C GtolrPk;he~ Gt[tt~G~+cR Sev~le .ti.. a }tom ttull ~,lV /1~~ a-long the south boun~d~~~a///~l.C y. 1~y-along the west boundary. tf 0-vmAfttt~ atGa~t kv G17tti~{1r..~ V-arL{ -J \Vl[. -'Fa.W~l1„ W'ySr~.'S1 N'1~ 1W t~t~~LC 4Vl. STREET TREES I o 1 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two(2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. These design features may include the use of landscaped berms, decorative walls, and raised planters. For detailed information on design requirements for parking areas and accesses. [Refer to Code Chapters 18.705,18.745 s 18.7651 CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Apoiation Conference Notes Page 4 of I I Aaidentul Apoufian/Pi n iag Dentin Seel on ➢ A GRAVEL WALKWAY OR BIKE PATH, NOT EXCEEDING EIGHT (8) FEET IN WIDTH. If the walkway or bike path is paved, then the vegetated corridor must be widened by the width to the path. A paved or gravel walkway or bike path may not be constructed cioser than ten (10) feet from the boundary of the sensitive area, unless approved by the Agency or City. Walkways and bike paths shall be constructed so as to minimize disturbance to existing vegetation; and ➢ WATER QUALITY FACILITIES may encroach into the vegetated corridor a maximum of ten (10) feet with the approval of the Agency or City. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS OR LOTS intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. [Refer to R & 0 96-04/USA Regulations - Chapter 3, Design for SWMI WATER RESOURCES QVIRtf1Y DISTRICT THE WATER," RESOURCES (WR) OVERLAY DISTRICT ' plements the policies of the Tigard Comprehensive..,Plan and is intended to resolve conflict etween development and conservation of significant wetlands, streams and riparian torrid rs identified in the City of Tigard Local Wetlands Inventory., Specifically, this chapter allow reasonable economic use of property while establishing clear and objective standards to: otect significant wetlands and streams; limit development in designated riparian corridors; m ntain and enhance water quality; maximize flood storage capacity; preserve native plant cover; Inimize streambank erosion; maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats;'-and conserve s nic, recreational and educational values of water resource areas. Safe Harbor: ETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATEWIDE PLANNING THE WR OVERLAY DISTRIC/the GOAL 5 (Natural Resources) fe harbor" provisions of the Goal 5 administrative rule (OAR 660, Division 23). These prquire that "significant" wetlands and riparian corridors be eam," has an average mapped and protected. The iver, which is also a "fish-bearing str annual flow of more than 1,00I/'gr Streams: Streams which are mapped a EARING STREAMS" by the Oregon Department of Forestry and have an average annua 4ow less than 1,000 cubic feet per second {cfs). ➢ MAJOR STREAM- IN TIGARD INCLUDE FX-NNO CREEK, ASH CREEK (EXCEPT THE NORTH FORK AND OTHER TRIBUTARY CREEKS) AND BALL CREEK. Minor Streams: \ Streams which are N T "FISH-BEARING STREAMS" according to Oregon Department of Forestry maps . Minor strea s in Tigard include Summer Creek, Derry D II Creek, Red Rock Creek, North Fork of Ash Creek and certain short tributaries of the Tualatin River. Riparian Setback Area THIS AREA IS :MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM AND PARALLEL~TO MAJOR STREAM OR TUALATIN RIVER TOP-OF-BANKS, OR THE EDGE OF AN ASSOCIATED WETLAND, whichever is greater. The riparian setback is the same as the "riparian corridor boundary" in OAR 660-23- 090(1)(d). ` OTY OF TIGARD Pre•Apoiation (onference Notes Page 1 of I I Aesideeu.J Appliatw/pI ""i"A orm " sect," ➢ The standard Tualatin River riparian setback is 75 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ The major streams riparian setback is 50 feet, unless modified in accordance with this chapter. ➢ Isolated wetlands and minor streams (including adjacent wetlands) have no riparian setback; however, a 25-foot "water quality buffer" is required under Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) standards adopted and administered by the City of Tigard. (Refer to Code Section 183910301 Riparian Setback Reductions The DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE A SITE-SPECIFIC REDUCTION OF THE TUALATIN RIVER OR ANY MAJOR STREAM RIPARIAN SETBACK BY AS MUCH AS 50% to allow the placement of structures or impervious surfaces otherwise prohibited by this chapter, provided that equal or better protection for identified major stream resources is ensured through streambank restoration and/or enhancement of riparian vegetation in preserved portions of the riparian setback area. Eligibility for Riparian Setback in Disturbed Areas. To be ELIGIBLE FOR A RIPARIAN SETBACK REDUCTION, the applicant must demonstrate that the riparian corridor was substantially disturbed at the time this regulation was adopted. This determination must be based on the Vegetation Study required by Section 18.797.050.C that demonstrates all of the following: Native plant species currently cover less than 80% of the on-site riparian corridor area; ➢ The tree canopy currently covers less than 50% of the on-site riparian corridor and healthy trees have not been removed from the on-site riparian setback area for the last five (5) years; ➢ That vegetation was not removed contrary to the provisions of Section 18.797.050 regulating removal of native plant species; That there will be no infringement into the 100-year floodplain; and ➢ The average slope of the riparian area is not greater than 20%. (Refer to Code Section 18.797.1001 NARRATIVE The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings for all applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. Applicant should review code for applicable criteria. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (Canditional use) 18.620 (Lgard Trungk Design Standards) - 18.765 (off-street witingacading Requirements) 18.340 (Dirtctor-s interpretation) _ 18.630 (Washington Square Regional Center).if 18.775 (Sensitise Lands Review) 18.350 (canned Deve"nt) ->5~ 18.705 0mis/Egrtss/Grmlation) 18.780 (Signs) _X 18.360 (Site uerebpnsent Rene.) 18.710 (Accessory Residential units) 18.785 (Temporary use Permits) 18.370 (YarianctuAdimunents) 18.715 (Density Computations) 18.790 (free Renmval) 18.380 (toning map/Text Amendments) 18.720 (Design ("atibiwty Standards) < 18.795 pual ourance Ives) 18.385 (Hiscareous Perm ts) 2` 18.725 (Ennronnsental Perforrnartce Standards) 18.797 (Water Resources (WR) Onday District) 18.390 (Decision Halting Procedumflrnpact study) 18.730 (Exceptions To Dmlopment Standards) 18.798 (wirtkss Cammniation Facilities) 18.410 (Sot Gnt Adjusmsents) 18.740 (Historic onriay) 18.810 (Street & utiw y Improvement Standards) 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18.742 (Home ompation Perm ts) 18.430 (Subdirsions) __:~s 18.745 (landscaping & Screening Standards) x 18.510 (Residential Zoning Districts) 18.750 (Hanufactured/Hoba Nome Regulations) 18.520 (Cornnsercial toning Districts) 18.755 (nixed Solid waste/Ikryding Storage) 18.530 (Industrial toning Districts) 18.760 (Nooconkm ing Sioutions) CITY Of TIGARD Pre•Apoiation Conference Notes Page 8 of I I AesideaU Appkatwn/Ptan.mg Divisim SMwa kill! AMI IMPACT STUDY As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to Include impact study with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, 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 the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. [Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET AND THE APPROPRIATE CIT FACILITATOR of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. • NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. [Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Handout] BUILDING PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to apply those system development credits to the first building permit issued in the development (UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). RECYCLING Applicant should CONTACT FRANCH!SE HAULED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY. Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. P ul 5f/►L2k11~i '~Ul ~(u/J~- Pit/lC(u a Cro ' [Refer to Code Chapter 18.75 fig,-~~~ . o5v • ;x~f ee~1 fmc.u t I+((G CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of I I Anidm W ApoiicetimMiniee Dnim kaica ADDITIONAL C09CERKS OR COMMEKTS: © ~ lS 3~6 090 CP f~iiUas~~ gut` ~cy~ S~xcceJ recu•~-~ ~ g ! 2Lt Vlgtl f ~u uo pCc Rio l Percy -Y 16e ~<< y o? fx'Gfromz~ onif -~X~ i1~i Uhia~- - 3 1'edtun-2 300 /nt Ur~i~ hC Q~ C.ic fdoej-> sacs-Lei r~0 ~ G~ ~G~'or~ r ~2r7` ina~an, CSC ~.>3LCL7~i G ('O /J7 /fit </Y( S~E'iC..e~t ~ '~t2~' ~O~'7/Ylyj-i c7'-/~lls~J" ~I7 ~ yc f{ AGcG>z/ ,,u•~ l S ~(o~. o. /4 3 e-ir~ ;6j-o13 /ea4 r amide a.r 6121 ~~f«! 3Q ~,ethac/ca z,,-)c-,)41d Aa ve be G>nca&y. ~e ,x ob*, l /.LGt L tl~'w. S hoc LfL~ ~/111~1~ Ci j Gr9i9 x CGtl/ E a';'~ e) A I-LILI- / /14,-/- /P-tt 7 ~l C 64 d evil "k-) l/I/1 a-t q (9- 370, 620. Lg j- f ie~ r}i S ~EJ"7 C i«:Ae e~ yIx' u .-c ~v addt Id: 376.d/0C- PROCEDURE a -`,t' f~e~e~'r, c«l'f ar. /?u o ccE a e . Administrative Staff Review. 5~1c DevC(tVn--~~ce ure-J-Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. Public hearing before the Planning Commission. X Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. ~l,T APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submittedby mail or drooped off at the counter without Planning Division acceptance may be returned. Applications will NOT be accepted after 3:00 P.M. on Fridays or 4:30 on other week days. Maps submitted with an application shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8.5 by 11 inches One (11 8Y2" x 11" reduced scale site plan of the proposed project should be submitted for attachment to the staff report or Administrative Decision. Application with unfolded maps shall not be accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. CITY Of TIGARD Pre•ApP icvion Conference Notes Page 10 of I I AwdepoiJ ApF4,uow1%+nnnt Danioe Stnw. The administrative decision or public hearing will ty~ically occur approximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Pp anninq Division. Applications involving difficult or Rretracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. A ten (10) business day, public appeal period follows all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard A basic flow chart which illustrates the review process is available from the Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring. a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. PLEASE NOTE: The conference an notes cannot cover all Code requirements and aspects related to site planning that should apply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide infonnation required by the Code shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective, applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask an questions of City staff relative to Code requirements nor o submitting an application. ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE, (unless deemed unnecessary by the Planning Division). PREPARED BY. C 0,0F TIGARD PLANNING DIVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP. MEETING PHONE: (503) 639-4111 FAX (503) 684-1291 E-MAIL- (stairs rrsturno @ d.tigard.orms TITLE 18 [CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COBB INTERNET ADDRESS: ci.tigard.orms H:\patty\stusters\Pre-App Notes Residential.doc (Engineering section: preapp.eno Updated: 2$-Feb-2000 CITY Of TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page I I of I I taidaW 4*j6ann` winj Ui im Stain SEEMS ra'Sy~a'~L~^~~~rs3~ ~•ti;r'~~Es~i ,,,.'~~S~a"-£..ti"a~'F}~'4".n•°,,~,aY'$ `~~1•"ntk`.,.'~w`^.~~-•~. `.1.~ • i{~29•"y'~~~.'ilzti`i" cct.._!'k ~S77:ri~yr!y;ri!i.~_~+A'I`s' a••-S' c.,• :1. lPREtAPPLICATIONCONFERENCE-,NOTES N t$ `a y. .t Y J tA.r ~ ~ r. C .y~ "S' ~ } i'• Jd, N~Y i. 1 \1 YY , j - ,'Ci iir ~.tS.f ~ r3i, i jy t ~'.•.r.` LX r~'; i',{ Sf~.' ~~i i. Y l.G i5 '"tit' •y~~5 .2.,. s5 fi.: ENGINEERING SETON Q Community Development Shaping A Better communi PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax Maplsl: M 35 DA Tax Leas): 4700, 4600 Use Type: Affordable Houslug The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a projection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code; or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: ® SW Hall Boulevard to feet (Depends upon the final ad ption of the Washington Square Regional Plan). ~,JL„~ ~,~i ' r-♦zor c~.t ❑ SW to feet ❑ SW to feet { ❑ SW to feet a Street improvements: ® 1/2 street improvements will be necessary along SW Hall Boulevard, to include: ® 25-feet of pavement from centerline to curb concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities' ® 8-foot concrete sidewalk ® street trees spaced per TDC. CITY OFTIGARD Pre4loplica va Coedefenee Nitas Pape1 M 6 Engineering rorsnalm uOaeA ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. CfYtl 6F n6.aR~9 Pee-APp11CaUen Confemace KKas Pae 2 @16 Fs®teeettso Oemarlaeet Sestln Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to execute a non-remonstrance agreement which waives the property owner's right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district. The following street improvements may be eligible for such an agreement: (1.) (2.) Overhead Utilily Lines: ❑ Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site. If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 27.50 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW Prior to , the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in- lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) 8 inch line which is located in SW Hall Boulevard. The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to connect the new buildings to public sewer. Water Supply: The Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) (Phone:(503) 642-1511) provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 612-7010] provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm CITY OF TIGADD Pro-APP11catlon Cer tmac® Notes Pa6® 3 of 6 r,flaearles ®aiaruaaatsteals drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-basin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will accommodate runoff from upstream properties when fully developed. Onsite detention is required. ODOT will likely require detention design to meet their standards. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires 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. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on-site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of new impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. • Joint access: ODOT may require an upgrade of the existing driveway to meet their standards. Contact Chi Mai, at 731-8542. • cent GH, Mat @ car aS -To W85Va2 -e WT A Jk0%-WL Ff gjq=uL,,Rr,-V. 1f- o RCS rv3f w~ Q r-C,4~ 'f.IfrJ tJO S7vD-! W~u &G f .sv~Rcp TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES i In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit. Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible oI when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. Pay TIF. CRY Of TIGMO Pro-UP11CMID CerrteFUCS Metes p2904 of 6 molooerle9 0eeertmeIt EeMee PERMITS Engineering Department Permits: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a permit from the Engineering Department. There are two types of permits issued by Engineering, as follows: Street Opening Permit (SOP). This permit covers relatively minor work in a public right-of-way or easement, such as sidewalk and driveway installation or repair, and service connections to main utility lines. This work may involve open trench work within the street. The permittee must submit a plan of the proposed work for review and approval. This type of permit requires a non-refundable $150.00 fee. In certain cases, where City costs may exceed the $150.00 fee, an administrative deposit will be required. In addition, the permittee will be required to post a bond or similar financial security for the work. Compliance Agreement (CAP). This permit covers more extensive work such as main utility line extensions, street improvements, etc. In subdivisions, this type of permit also covers all grading and private utility work. Plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. This type of permit requires a deposit to be submitted with the construction plans. The amount of the deposit depends upon the overall value of the public improvements. The City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. The permittee will also be required to post a performance bond, or other such suitable security, and execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. Prior to City acceptance of any permitted work, and prior to release of work assurance bond(s), the work shall be deemed complete and satisfactory by the City in writing. The permittee is responsible for the work until such time written City acceptance of the work is posted. NOTE: If an Engineering Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-family projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Cm► OF nGARD pre 11110000 WOMMUC® N®t0s page 5 of 6 E®utaoottoa ®o/anmoat fsatloa Building Permit (BUP). This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit. Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas .on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building. PREPARED BY: I G° NGINEERING DE ARTMENT SThff Phone: 15031639.4171 Fax: 15031684-7297 iAengtbrianrUemplatestpreap notes - eng.dot.doc Revised: April 21, 2000 CITY OF TIGUO PM4PPHCSUOQ C4rnereRCe NOW Page 6 of 6 60gta~el(IIO iODAtt6l~el Ssetla~ Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendment:Applicable Review Criteria Tigard Development Code: 18.390.060 (Type IV Procedure); 18.380.030 (Review Criteria for Quasi-Judicial Plan Amendments) Tigard Comprehensive Plan: 1.1.2; 2.1.1; 6.1.1; 7.1.2 (aft); 8.1.1; 8.1.2; 8.2.2; 9.1.3; 12.1.3 Metro Functional Plan: Metro staff will have the opportunity to comment on proposed comprehensive plan amendment in terms of compliance with 2040 Plan. Statewide Planning Goals: Goals 1-19 CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please read this form carefully. in conjunction with the notes provided to you at the pre- application conference. This checklist identifies what is required for submittal of a complete land use application. Once an application is deemed complete by Community Development staff, a decision may be issued within 6-8 weeks. If you have additional questions after reviewing all of the information provided to you, please contact the staff person named below at the City of Tigard Planning Division, (503) 639-4171. Staff: ~~Q))fC 111 17~ Date: by 1. BASIC INFORMATION ALL LAND USE APPLICATIONS REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING: Completed Application Form with property owner's signature or name of agent and letter of authorization Title transfer instrument or grant deed Written summary of proposal Narrative demonstrating compliance with all applicable development standards and approval criteria (as specified in the Pre-Application Conference notes) Two (2) sets of stamped, addressed #10 envelopes for all owners of property within 500 feet of the subject property. Mailing envelopes shall be standard legal-size (#10), addressed with 1" x 4" labels (see envelope submittal requirements). Property owner mailing lists must be prepared by the City for a minimal fee (see request for 500' property owner mailing list form). Documentary evidence of neighborhood meeting (if required) Impact Study per Section 18.390.040.B.2.(e) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference notes Filing Fee 2. PLANS REQUIRED -DFm s0/2 _ In addition to the above basic information, each type of land use application will require one or more of the following maps or plans. PLEASE SUBMIT EACH OF THE PLANS CHECKED BELOW WITH YOUR APPLICATION (Section 5 of this checklist provides details on what information to include on each plan): T{ Vicinity Map 15,, Preliminary. Grading/Erosion Control Plan Existing Conditions Map -A;k Preliminary Utilities Plan ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map --49, Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Site Development Plan >E3:' , Architectural Drawings Landscape Plan Sign Drawings ~t~l~Cc~lo~ Public Improvements/Streets Plan 3. NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED Elm The City requires multiple copies of submittal materials. The number of copies required depends on the type of review process. FOR AN APPLICATION SUCH AS YOU ARE PROPOSING THE CITY REQUIRES COPIES OF ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS. ~-/z,j 7711 f ~512A' 07,~/ ~'~py`P !L•~ KG•1 •l'►~ ~k f1 ~Q ~7 lit 1~1C.l~yL 0 ' < <Dil~~ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 7 of 5 4. SPECIAL STUDIES AND REPORTS Because of the nature of your project and/or the site you propose to develop, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL STUDIES WILL BE REQUIRED. These studies must be prepared by certified professionals with experience in the appropriate field: Traffic Study red1 ~p~ ❑ Local Streets Traffic Stuye ~ ❑ Wetlands/Stream Corridor Delineation and Report ❑ Habitat Area Evaluation Aeetysis C.~~~ 4AS1~~ ~k1,,,.~ t►,,~ VZ~_ Preliminary Sizing Calculations for Proposed Water Quality and/or Detention Facility ❑ Geotechnical Report ❑ Other 5. PREPARING PLANS AND MAPS Plans and maps should be prepared at an engineering scale (1" = 10/20/50/100/200') and include a north arrow, legend and date. The same scale should be used for all your plans. Where possible the City prefers the use of a scale that allows a site plan or subdivision plat to be shown on a single sheet. Architectural drawings may be prepared at an architectural scale. One copy of each plan must be submitted in photo-ready 8% x 11 format. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR EACH TYPE OF PLAN (If the plans you submit do not include all of the information requested because you feel it is not applicable, please indicate this and provide a brief explanation). Vicinity Map Showing the location of the site in relation to: o Adjacent properties 0 Surrounding street system including nearby intersections 0 s Pedestrian ways and bikeways 13 • Transit stops El Utility access El Existing Conditions Map Parcel boundaries, dimensions and gross area _ Contour lines (2' intervals for 0-10% slopes or 5' for slopes >10%) Drainage patterns and courses on the site and on adjacent lands Potential natural hazard areas including: a Floodplain areas El s Areas having a high seasonal water table within 24" of the surface for three or more weeks of the year E] Slopes in excess of 25% EJ • Unstable ground El • Areas with severe soil erosion potential 0 Areas having severely weak foundation soils EJ Locations of resource areas including: Wildlife habitat areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan El S o Wetlands EJ I Other site features: Rock outcroppings Trees with 6" caliper measured 4' from ground level Location and type of noise sources El Locations of existing structures and their uses El Locations of existing utilities and easements El City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 2 of 5 - - N1111111111 I M Locations of existing dedicated right-of-ways ❑ Subdivision Preliminary Plat Map The proposed name of the division ❑ Vicinity map showing property relationship to arterial and collector streets ❑ Names, addresses and telephon umbers of the owner, developer, engineer surveyor nd designer (as applicable) ❑ Scale, north arrow and date ❑ Boundary lines of tract to be subdivide Names of adjacent subdivisions or name f recorded owners of adjoining p els of un-subdivided land ❑ Contour lines related to a City-established b chmark at 2' intervals for 0- % grades and 5' intervals for grades greater than 10% ❑ The purpose, location, type and size of all of the lowing (within an djacent to the proposed subdivision): s Public and private right-of-ways and easements ❑ Public and private sanitary and storm sewer lines ❑ • Domestic water mains including fire hydrants ❑ s Major power telephone transmission lines (50,000 v is or eater) ❑ • Watercourses ❑ • Deed reservations for parks, open spaces, pa ways and other la encumbrances ❑ • The location of all trees with a diameter 6 in es or greater measure 4 feet above ground level ❑ The location of all structures and the pre nt uses of the structures, and tatement of which structures are to remain after platting ❑ Supplemental information including: Proposed deed restrictions (if any) ❑ • A proposed plan for provision of~subdivision improvements Existing natural features includi q"rock outcroppings, wetlands and marsh areas The proposed lot configuration s, lot sizes and dimensions, and lot numbers. Where lots are to be used for purposes other than residenzfal, it shall be indicated upon such lots ❑ If any of the foregoing inf r , cannot practicably be shown on the preliminary plat, it shall be incorporated into a narrative and su fitted with the application materials ❑ Preliminary Partition/Lot Line Adjustment Plan (V-Wi,1 cypkez ,6 L)l The owner of the subject parcel ❑ The owner's authorized agent ❑ The. map scale, north arrow and date ❑ Proposed property lines _ ❑ Description of parcel location and boundaries ❑ Contour lines (2' intervals for slopes 0-10% or 5' for slopes >10%a) ❑ Location, width and names of streets, easements and other public ways within and adjacent to the parcel ❑ Location of all permanent buildings on and within 25' of all property lines ❑ Location and width of all water courses Location of any trees with 6" or greater caliper at 4' above ground level ❑ ' All slopes greater than 25% ❑ Location of existing and proposed utilities and utility easements ❑ Any applicable deed restrictions ❑ Evidence that land partition will not preclude efficient future land division where applicable ❑ Future street extension plan showing existing and potential street connections ❑ City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 3 of 5 Site Development Plan The proposed site and surrounding properties ❑ Contour line intervals ❑ The locations, dimensions and proposed names of the following: Existing and platted streets and other public ways ❑ o Easements on the site and on adjoining properties ❑ Proposed streets or other public ways and easements on the site ❑ • Alternative routes of dead-end or proposed streets that require future extensions ❑ The locations and dimensions of the following: Entrances and exits on the site ❑ • Parking and circulation areas ❑ • Loading and service areas ❑ e Pedestrian and bicycle circulation ❑ o Outdoor common areas ❑ • Above ground utilities ❑ • Trash and recyclable material areas ❑ The locations, dimensions and setback distances of the following: • Existing permanent structures, improvements, utilities and easements which are located on the site and on adjacent property within 25' of the site ❑ • Proposed structures, improvements, utilities and easements on the site ❑ Sanitary sewer facilities ❑ Existing or proposed sewer reimbursement agreements ❑ Storm drainage facilities and analysis of downstream conditions ❑ Locations and type(s) of outdoor lighting considering crime prevention techniques ❑ The locations of the following: • All areas to be landscaped ❑ Mailboxes ❑ Structures and their orientation ❑ Landscape Plan Location of trees to be removed ❑ Location, size and species of existing plant materials _ ❑ General location, size and species of proposed plan materials ❑ Landscape narrative that addresses: e Soil conditions and how plant selections were derived for them ❑ Plans for soil treatment such as stockpiling the top soil ❑ Erosion control measures that will be used ❑ Location and description of the irrigation system where applicable ❑ Location and size of fences, buffer areas and screening ❑ Location of terraces, decks, shelters, play areas, and common open spaces ❑ Public Improvements/Streets Plan Proposed right-of-way locations and widths ❑ A scaled cross-section of all proposed streets plus any reserve strips ❑ Approximate centerline profiles showing the finished grade of all streets including street extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision ❑ City of Tigard Land Uso Application Chocklisl Page 4 of 5 Grading/Erosion Control Plan The locations and extent to which grading will take place ❑ Existing and proposed contour lines ❑ Slope ratios ❑ Utilities Plan Approximate plan and profiles of proposed sanitary and storm sewers with grades and pipe sizes indicated on the plans ❑ Plan of the proposed water distribution system, showing pipe sizes and the locations of valves and fire hydrants ❑ Preliminary Storm Drainage Plan The location of all areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow ❑ Location, width and direction of flow of all water courses and drainageways ❑ Location and estimated size of proposed storm drainage lines ❑ Where applicable, location and estimated size and dimensions of proposed water quality/detention facility ❑ Tree Preservation/Mitigation Plan Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees ❑ Program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal (Section 18.790.030) ❑ A protection program defining standards and methods to be used during and after construction ❑ Architectural Drawings Floor plans indicating the square footage of all structures and their proposed use ❑ Elevation drawings for each elevation of the structure ❑ Sign Drawings Specify proposed location, size and height ❑ is\:curpln\masters\revised\checklist.doc 5-Jun-00 City of Tigard Land Use Application Checklist Page 5 of 5 VIII 5 rt r~ l 4' (POD s FOR AFFORDABLE H O U S I N G , INC. P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 Tel: 503-968-2724 Fax: 503-598.8923 July 7, 2000 Julia Hajduk City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Halt Boulevard Development Proposal Pre-Application Conference Dear Julia: Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is requesting a pre-application conference to discuss a proposed multifamily development located at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard. The proposed development will consist of 26 units. We have enclosed each of the required items on the City of Tigard Pre-Application Conference Checklist. We are requesting a conference the week of July 10. As you may know, we completed a pre-application conference in February with the City of Tigard, but for a slightly different site plan. We have developed a new plan which responds to a variety of issues raised by one of our key fenders, the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Department. We have changed the building orientations to allow for greater sunlight and a central play area which can be seen from all of the units. The welcoming presence on Hall Boulevard remains the same. The design remains preliminary and we look forward to discussing any specific issues you might have. A few areas we'd like to cover in the meeting are: • Zone and map changes from R-12 to R40 • Parking ratios based on our survey data for affordable housing complexes • How our right-of-way improvements will impact adjacent properties I know our architect, Brad Simmons (Carleton Hart Architecture, P.C.), has been in touch with several individuals from the planning department to discuss these and other issues. If you have any questions in advance of our pre-application conference, feel fre, to call him at 243-2252. I can be reached at 968-2724. Thanks in advance for your assistance! Sincerely, &&), Fz-.' Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Executive Director MONO 1 EX15T1NG, ACCESS R~ p fi ~ E~CISTfNC~ L.A,rlDSC.sap(t.IG `L is-~ L9 -o ~a- 3 sr09 5UILD( fs' Fle.HT-OF- WA`( MD,c, ric*r • 7`ww , • e • S v~Y-•r- 7 A O TF~'` ^ ! Q CCAAFAr-r 25TbR1E'j • • Q `,3(L~Rt I WALL tlJ MUNIT^( T 1 sTba~- ' tsJiLDIti~C~ J EWCUO•xJR13 I SCt7RY J Coy WALL ~ . 0 HALL bOULMVARp HOUSING SI°T F PLAW 0.61 2v, So 7/7/00 C ARLETON MART •ARCH17EC7URE CIO cQ cQ my av Zp Z~ jib XP $3~ ~E ~F u ~ (A am ~ J~j - 0 -i <4 C , _N rk m (Pil - 5. W. HALL DLvD TT T T T T T ® b qP 3~ m m ap ~rn ~r u m ZF r W - LEGIBT3~ITY gT~ ..Wet mass or 65 ~r+a°"~~•'"'w..... ,v+~+`"° N PER Rrx x ZSJ6d .3f05• • ?64.39 wos (2) to OASIS Or gARli ? Z59.400 244 EGRESS ING RESS x/ l- f0R PARCEL? off. ~I I sue' r~1 ~ 3 3 ~ o ' RCE~• W J ARM GEL. 1 04 8h1 PAR v fxos, AREA. 4790 S• w N£L0 V- 0r poaqRTY I a $ HELD w£Sr Lug P"R S.N. T3,f60 - 1 73.59' f~ 15. .171 993' HORTx L IA PE. !'70.00' i u 00'£ To U11£ of for t 1 - l _ sou 1~' /Y 10'x• Nr AS SNOw14 j o.00' fND 1/?' LP. i v f out WAN 0.- 7J. I; © UP 0.1 'ROD Scr V PLASTIC CAP 1 Y£110w j~S g ASSOC.'" j 1 ALU"/INU+i CAP CHASE, I Q fN©3 t S" USBr b` 9, PAg 489 uS. _ 1CAsUR£O <AR ptpf 1 ~ ~ QLC I.R• r IRON R ` pL.WIC CAP /,y 53 Y.P.C. r Y£t.LOw REAITOR* SELLER'S PROPERTY DISCLAIMER 74 Seller: '~Al. _X&ST Property: The real property situated in the county of /9zSN~~~~ic~ state of Oregon (legal description): 77PW PX /F/_ OSO &/lj~sl - 1~_7 and commonly known as (street address):11L~s&)"-w1Zo/VZ9 7y/W lw Notice to any buyer or prospective buyer to whom this disclaimer is given: Except as may be provided otherwise in a writing signed by the seller and delivered to the buyer, seller makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the Property or any improvement thereon and that any buyer thereof will be purchasing the Property "as is," that is, with all defects, if any, apparent and not apparent. However, Seller is not exempt from disclosing any known material structural defects. Seller O is O is not aware of any material structural defects. If Seller is aware of any material structural defects, Seller should attach a written explanation to this disclaimer. YOU HAVE SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS FROM SELLER'S DELIVERY OF THIS DISCLAIMER TO REVOKE YOUR OFFER BY DELIVERING YOUR SIGNED WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SELLER TO THAT EFFECT. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PFRp 7 LO RM W E DIUGENCE YOUR OFFER TO PURCHASE IN GOOD FAITH. A Seller's Signature Date 192!; //,~sA.M. P.P -!2 61j, aIler's Signature- Date-<-/.2, 19 . I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Seller's Property Disclaimer on the date and time noted below. I acknowledge that, except as otherwise provided above. I have not relied on any representations by Seller or any real estate licensee involved with the Property regarding the size, condition, utility or any other aspect of the Property. If I acquire the Property I will do so relying solely on my own investigation and information from sources other than Selle any real estate licensee. I O waive Odo not waive my statutory right under 1993 Oregon Laws Chapter 547, to revoke any offer I have made or may make to purchase the Property. I acknowledge that I have been informed of my rights under 1993 Oregon Laws Chapter 547. Date 192; 9 :.O-A.M. P.~ Buy s ignature Print ame A~lvrdac~C¢ t{avs• t,,~ U Date 19 A.M. P.N Buyer's Signature Print Name A copy of the foregoing Seller's Property Disclaimer was delivered to Sfy .2~E~z (Buyer) on 19- M P.M.; O by telefax that date and time to (buyer's telefax number) ( ) - orip (other delivery method) NOTE: DELIVERY TO ANOTHER REAL ESTATE LICENSEE FOR DELIVERY TO BUYER IS NOT SUFFICIENT! REALTOR" firm making delivery: By. Agent Portland Metropolitan Association or REALTORS" (PIEV Mtn) AUX-3 OFAI TnQ* REALTOR'S COPY Sent by: Jet Fax H910 20326; 01104/00 15:14; ]etFi: p.842;Page 8!14 t t se~•~r'[ cats 2400 `O 0 1D Nsral'[ zcc.e T 2401 100 N s 56.10 J\/j r J % CJ` ~ f q° 0 6, AC a 0.9.6655 Slta•4t'[ g iiS.s1 2402 .44 AC. 200 w 10~ .6/,40 :s~.• t+a.so I~ kss'a2'o0'w ~ 4600 E S .7. AC' V 300 G ATE 0 »~e • 61 AC. ~4100 a a q ~ •0 2 $4. cog Q~Mo~1 ~to+tv10 s0 it w r 2202 .01 400 .46AG o 104TIAL volNt rl J- .r oI1ANw Acmes t6o 0 p 12 .e - - . - - vstareo Ts- aN 704 ro 500 1 2200 /S AC. Z6 AC. of ' C 3800 i i - 4s~ ..W.. AC c 3 16o 14 n / 2100 - a .62 AC. B eyd 700 N .65AC. t A M b1 d THIS MAP IS PROVIDED AS A COURTESY OF OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This reap is made solely for the purpose of assisting in !ocating said premises, and the Company assumes no liability for variations, it any, in dimensions, areas, and IocaGons ascertained by actual survey. jj~ Sent Dy: JetFax X1910 20326; 01104100 15:11; jdfi: g642;Paye 2/14 =OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANYPROPERTYPROME = Washington (OR) r OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Reference Parcel h : IS135DA 04700 Parcel Number : 82077396 R7SQ: 01W-01S -35 -SE Owner : Cahn Marvin S & Majorie P Trs CoOwner Site Address : 11165 SW Hall Blvd Tigard 97223 ,Nail Add--ess : 5795 SW Cranberry Ct Beaverton Or 97007 Telephone :OKner: Tenant: 503-598-4598 [ SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Loan Amount Document it Lender Sal? Price Loan Tyler Deed Type Interest Rate Y. Owned Yesting rype l ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land :$53,100 Exempt Amount Stru:.rure : $69,240 Exempt Type Other % Improved 57 Total : S122,340 Levy Code :02381 96-99 Tares :$1.444.92 School Dist FPROPERTY DESCRIPTION Map Grid : 655 F3 Claw Code Cenrur : Tracy: 309.00 Block: I NbrhdCd : WSMZ MiliRate Sub/Plat Land Use : '1014 Res,Irnproved Legal : PARTITION PLAT 1998-038, LOT 2, ACRES A I PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms : 2 Lot Acres : It Year Built : 1959 Bathrooms :2.00 Lot SgF7 -4,791 E, JYearBIt : 1959 ( Heat Method: Forced BemFin SF Floor Cover : Carpet Pool BsmUnfi1 SF : Foundation : Concrete Fig Appliances BsmLowSF Roof Shape Diihwasher BldgSgFt :1,120 Roof Mat! :Comp Shingle Hood Fan lstFlrSgR :1,120 InteriorA:at :DryNvall Decd UpperFISF Paving Mail : Concrete Garage Type: Unitnpruv Porch SgFt Const Type : Wd SnA\Shtg Garage SF :520 Attic SgFt Exi Finish :251 Deck &Fr The Injormctjon Prewded /r tXeowd Rehable, Rest is X21 Owaranteed. Sent by: Jet Fax M510 20328; 01104100 15.12; ktF+: g842;Page 3/13 2401 100 .56 AC. .61 AC. C.S. 6655 sae~a2~F o a) S 2402 L 44 AC. 10 ' o 200 p 244.40 1 ~ ~ 2 N 31111°82' OC"W q 4600 `0 300 73.18 4 4 a ~ED *4700 en .144C r 2 7 ' 2202 I 1 g .67 j 400 .4s. c. o ~ INITIAL POINT' A GRAHAM ACRXS 160 2200 TO' 500 Z6 Ar, d4. 160 2100 . 62 AC i 0a a .F.fAC. i tB`LKgh-091d1 THIS MAP IS PROVIDED AS A COURTESY OF OREGON TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY N This map is made solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises, and the Company assumes no liability for variations, It any, in dimensions, areas, and locations ascertained by actual survey. ~ T Imo- ~f ~ ` - I • ~ d o _ - " SEI/< ZG I'll 5.R Iw wM 4220 Topographic trap ter... Q •t9~ d ~ .t9~. ` ~'9o 4 'i92 9 1 Subject t s' .t9.1.9~/~~ . 1 C t Z :00 - ~OV stusm 4 1 ~ r+ r a.. mow. •b 11165 Hall Blvd Topographic Map AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. City of Tigard ) 1 , J i l l h e. r mq J being duly sworn, depose and say that on J .J I caused to have mailed to each of the persons on the attached list, a notice of a meeting to discuss a proposed development at (or near) S 9 un~ 1 1 1 6 5 Sw 1-1(1) 1 QI a copy of which notice so mailed is attached hereto and made a part of hereof. I further state that said notices were enclosed in envelopes plainly addressed to said persons and were deposited on the date indicated above in the United States Post Office located at C-A S t T • u C, , with postage prepaid thereon. ature (in the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the day of ---a OFFICIAL SEAL SHERMAN S. CASPER NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 323409 NOTARY PUBLIC OF ORE N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2003 My Commission Expires: (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) NAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: y, I u u c n+ W Q S h. ng } C, S S4 J u r e TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: P C n+ m + m I y I Name of Applicant/Owner: Corn m n. 4-!4 Par + n e r f c r A p( J u h le 4-1 .r s. 91!4 Address or General Location of Subject Property: 11 1 S 9 a d i r, s s I_I o B I I -i u G o o - I 1 S 1 Subject Property Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): 350.4 O~+ L----------------------- h:Uoq In1pattyYnasla rstattma I .msl AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE SIGN POSTING, RETURN THIS AFFIDAVIT TO: City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 I, ► I S h e m a n , do affirm that I am (represent) the party initiating interest in a proposed affecting the land located at (state the approximate location(s) if no address(s) and/or tax lot(s) currently registered) I I S4 • I I I C 5 s w I-I g l I 61 d. , and did on the 2 I ` day of Tj I1 2 Q10 c, personally post notice indick?tingthat the site maybe proposed for a Cum p r e n e n s PICA n m ; date and place of a neighborhood Aend, Z una t ho rq e , S,}e DeaoplicWG , and the time meeting to discuss the proposal. The sign was posted at I I ' 5 9 S w ►-I 411 (state location you posted notice on property) Sig a ure (In the presence of a Notary Public) (THIS SECTION FOR A STATE OF OREGON, NOTARY PUBLIC TO COMPLETE/NOTARIZE) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the -2 d-day of T OFFIClNL SEAL swERYaa s. -OREGO NOTARY PUBLIC OF OREGON NOTARY PUBLICON COMMISSION NO. 323409 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRE!' ':1Y 13, 2003 (Applicant, please complete information below for proper placement with proposed project) rNAME OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED NAME: t ca~c e o f J 4 s h, F c n S u r e I ------------------------------------------i TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: 2 G c 1m. Name of Applicant/Owner: C b m✓ H, -1 G r n Q r P c! J u b t e. I-I n Address or General Location of Subject Property: t. s 9 lot 4-9 S w H u l l [3 1 4 I - Tax Map(s) and Lot #(s): t S I 3 5 IDA G L+-7 c G `+G o o Subject Property h:Uog iMpaUyWasterstaffposl.msl 1 S 135DA-05100 e 1 S 135DA-04600 2000-014 PARTITION PLAT CAHN MARVIN S & MAJORIE P TRS OWNERS OF LOTS 2-3 5795 SW CRANBERRY CT 2993 N CANYON RD BEAVERTON. OR 97007 PROVO, UT 84604 1S135DA-02202 1S13 A-047 ALANDER BONNIE R/NORMAN E CAHN IN S & MAJORIE P TRS PO BOX 2619 5795S BERRY CT WHITE CITY, OR 97503 BEA 97007 1 S 135DA-0220 1 S 138C8-01000 ALA E ONNIE R/NORMAN E COWLEY TRUMAN G ESTATE OF PO B 619 4626 VIRO RD W E CI , OR 97503 LACANADA, CA 91011 1 S 136CB-00890 1 S 135DA-00500 BECKHAM PAUL D AND DEBORAH R GRAHAM DON G AND 8485 SW PFAFFLE BROSSIA PAUL F TIGARD, OR 97223 11260 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135DA-00400 40 1 S 136CB-00700 BERGMANN KENNETH & DONNA GRA M D G AND 10726 SW 63RD BROS AUL F PORTLAND, OR 97219 11260 L BLVD TIG D7223 1 S 135DA-00300 1 S 136CB-00900 BERGMANN KENNETH L AND GROSHART JAY ROBERT AND DONNA J BETTY R 10726 SW 63RD PLACE 8465 SW PFAFFLE PORTLAND, OR 97219 TIGARD, OR 97223 1S135DA-00700 1S136CB-04400 BROSSIA PAUL F AND JAPANESE INTERNATIONAL BAPTIST C GRAHAM DON G 8500 SW SPRUCE ST 300 4TH ST TIGARD, OR 97223 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 1S135DA-02100 1S135DA-02402 BROWN MARGARET ANN JOHNSON LYNNE AND R BLAKE 19065 SW JOHNSON AVE TRUSTEES ALOHA, OR 97006 2445-A MAKIKI HEIGHTS DR HONOLULU, HI 96822 1 S 135DA-019 1 S 135DA-02500 BRO ARGARET ANN KAULUWAI CORPORATION 19065 JOHNSON AVE 2445-A MAKIKI HEIGHTS DRIVE AL A, O 97006 HONOLULU, HI 96822 1S135D -0200 1S135AD-01600 BROW CARET ANN KAUL ORPORATION 19065 S OHNSON AVE 2445-A IKI HEIGHTS DRIVE HON ALOH_ , OR ._7nn5 ULU. 96822 ~S 1 S 135AD-01700 1 S 135AD-01706 KAUL CORPORATION MOLBERG RUTH E 2445-A KIKI HEIGHTS DRIVE 8850 SW THORN ST HON UL , 1 96822 TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135DA-03900 1 S 135AD-04600 ' KAU ORPORATION MUNOZ LARRY AVALOS & 2445-A KI HEIGHTS DRIVE BARBARA ANN HON ULU, 96822 8580 SW LUCILLE CT TIGARD, OR 97223 15135 -038 1S135DA-00200 KAULUW ORPORATION PECK CHRISTOPHER D & 2445-A AI HEIGHTS DRIVE PECK RHONDA L HON ULU, 96822 11120 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135DA-02400 1 S 135DA-00100 KRAMER RICHARD D PECK WALTER D & ELIZABETH M 11035 SW HALL PO BOX 23789 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 1 S 135DA-03500 1 S 135AD-03700 L N PROPERTIES LLC REDFORD DELPHIA E 11481 SW HALL BLVD STE 100 HAEFFELE LOWELL E & JAMES F TIGARD, OR 97223 15216 NE 144TH PL WOODINVILLE, WA 98072 1 S 135AD-01703 1 S 135AD-02500 LANG DOLORES MAE SHERWOOD LARRY D & KATHLEEN L T 10980 SW 89TH 10220 SW GREENBURG RD #225 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORTLAND, OR 97223 1 S 135AD-02300 1 S 135AD-02501 LEE VANCE R SHER <OR Y D& KATH LEEN L T 10915 SW HALL BLVD 10220 S URG RD #225 TIGARD, OR 97223 PORT N223 1 S 135DA-02401 1 S 135AD-02502 LEMUS MARIA H SHERWOOD LARRY D/KATHLEEN L TRS 11075 SW HALL BLVD 10432 SW MORATOC DR TIGARD, OR 97223 TUALATIN, OR 97062 1 S135AD-03200 1 S 135DA-04800 MAZZUCA LOUISE STARLING DAVID W & MARINA A 10000 SW 90TH 2993 N CANYON RD TIGARD, OR 97223 PROVO, UT 84604 1 S135DA-02801 1 S 135DA-04900 MCTAGGART BRENT STARL DAVID W & MARINA A PO BOX 231207 2993 N NYON RD TIGARD, OR 97281 PRO , U 604 3 1 S 135DA-05000 ST LING AVID W & MARINA A 2993 NYON RD PROV 84604 1S135AD-04500 SWALL DALE L 8542 SW LUCILLE CT TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135AD-01702 TOZER DAVID A 11 LINDA S 8770 SW THORN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 1 S 135AD-01701 WYATT CHRISTOPHER S & ALLISON A 8820 SW THORN ST TIGARD, OR 97223 Naomi Galluca 11285 SW 18~' Avenue CITY OF TIGARD Tigard, OR 97223 EAST CIT SUBCOMMITTEE Sue Borman 11250 SW 82"d Avenue is\curpin\setup\labeis\CIT East.doc UPDATED: 9-Jun-00 Tigard, OR 97223 John Snyder 11100 SW 82"" Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Jack Biethan 11043 SW Summerfield Drive, Apt. 3 Tigard, OR 97224-3376 Ellen Beilstein 14630 SW 139th Avenue Tigard, OR 97224 Jim Petersen 10815 SW 74 h Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 Dieter Jacobs 7775 SW Spruce Street Tigard, OR 97223 M s 15Tui7 J r bbl J / .gut J 4 Ag m H U 1 ~ M 0E0111A►M10 IM►OAMA110M sY"'M AREA NOTIFIED i (500) PRUCE ST PRUCE w - > FOR Jill Sherman _ RE: IS1351)k 04600 and I S 1351)k 04700 00 a>: ~ >:paaowa - ST VE - Property owner information ~ Is valid or months from - ttwalM _ the date printed on this map _ . , . Ax UM , UUM ir~:eiAaawi n : ~rasrrrnM: 7, xwow7w ST iiaae~nu ausruwe! RMr229r O cr) vwa~arNe W uwalnia 00 aUml - N LIJ FFLE 0 100 200 300 400 Feet . - ,••29.1441 City of Tigard W > lnlomuGon on this INp is bt 9eneN I4ali0n oM/ and shwld be m-ftd with the DwebPn M Services Di ion. 13125 SW Mss Bt d W Tgard, OR 97223 > (503)639-4171 Q http/Mw ,atgard a.us Community Development Plot date: Jul 26, 2000; C:Unagic\MAGIC03.APR F O R A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G , I N c. P.O. Box 23206 'rigard, OR 9%291 -320, rei. 503-1Ihi 27.t4 ',Ir • ' July 26, 2000 RE: Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Review and Variances Dear Interested Party: Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is in the process of purchasing the property located at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Blvd. The proposed development would be a 26 unit multifamily new construction. Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. is a non-profit affordable housing developer serving the Tigard/Tualatin area that currently owns 117 units of housing. In order to develop this property, we are considering proposing a comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site development review and variances. Prior to applying to the City of Tigard for the necessary permits, we would like to discuss the proposal in more detail with the surrounding property owners and residents. You are invited to attend a meeting on: Thursday, August 10, 2000 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm Community Room (on the right side of building) Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue 8935 SW Burnham Street, Tigard Please notice that this will be an informational meeting on preliminary plans. These plans may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. I look forward to more specifically discussing the proposal with you. Please call me at 968-2724 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Executive Director CFC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST The sponsor must complete this environmental review checklist in its entirety and provide to the Regional Field Representative (RFR) prior to the RFR's site visit. The RFR will review the information during the performance of the site review. For HOME applicants, the HOME Housing Development Rep will then complete the Environmental Review Record for the file. Certification: This checklist has been completed accurately to the best of our knowledge, and the RFR has conducted an in-person site review. Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Exec. Dir. Sponsor Name Signs Date . 4 4W -2 1 Oy_ RFR Name Signature Date BASIC INFORMATION Sponsor: Community Partners for Affordable Housing Project Name: Village at Washington Square Project Address: 11159 & 11165 SW Hall Blvd City: Tigard County: Washin on Sponsor Contact Person: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink Phone: 503.968.2724 Lot Size: .73 acre Project Type: (X) New Construction? Rehab? If Rehab, are units vacant? N/A Projected # of Units: 29 Planned HOME-assisted Units: 4 Population to be served: units < 30%.6 units < 45% l,units < 50% Sponsor must provide a sitelarea map with scale included On the map, please indicate the following: (Please be sure that the site location is visible on any copies you send Original colored maps copied in black and white sometimes are difficult to read). N/A Location of airport (if applicable) X Recreational facilities (park, activity centers, etc.) X Railroad (if applicable) X Commercial/retail facilities (grocery, department stores, etc.) X Nearest 44ane highway or arterial X Nearby industrial facilities X Social Service agencies X Location of schools X Hospital, police and fire departments X Rivers, streams, ponds, springs, wetlands X Provide a copy of the most recent FEMA Flood Plain map including a copy of the Panel number and date List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding the following: Wetlands: Duane Roberts Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223 Public Water: Greg Berry Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard OR 97223 Public Sewer: Greg Berry Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 2000 CFC Application ~t Date: zo Storm Sewer: Jackie Humphries Date: 2.8.00 Phone: 503.846.8621 Address: 155 N 1" Ave. Hillsboro. OR 97124 Zoning/UGB: Laurie Nichols Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard OR 97223 INFORMATION SOURCE CODING all The source of all information used must be identified. Record the source here and indicate the appropriate code in the space provided throughout the checklist. FO - Field Observation. (On-site observation or personal knowledge of the preparer) Preparer: _Craig C Kelley Date of field observation: 2/8/00 Address: 2627 NE WK JR Blvd Portland OR 97211 Phone: 503-335-3668 PS - Project Sponsor. PL - Planning Department. (Information supplied by local planning department or local official named on page one) R1 - Report. (Information from consultant reports, databases, licenses, other authorities. Number such sources consecutively and list below) R1 Title of Report: Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Preparer: PBS Environmental Date: May 1999 LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBILITY AND URBAN IMPACT source R1 PS, FO, PL What are the immediately surrounding land uses:' (example: single family to the north, multifamily east, etc) Single family residence to south and east. Single/multi family residences to west. Multi-family residence to north. Is the surrounding area developed to a density of at least 30 units per 40 acres? Yes Does the site have legal access to a dedicated public street? Yes Are there any barriers to emergency vehicle access? If so, describe. No EXISTING S'T'RUCTURES ON SITE source RI FO Are there existing structures on the site not included in CFC-funded construction or rehab? YES U so, do you plan to demolish any or all of them? There is one single family home on the proposed site which will be moved or demolished. SOIL SUITABILITY source RI PS, FO Is the site level or sloped? Sloped If sloped, give the range of degrees of the slope. 0-5 degrees 2000 CFCApp11cati017 Is the site located in a Runway Clear Zone? No Explosive and flammable hazards are aboveground tanks which contain explosive or flammable materials. Common examples are: commercial propane tanks, fuel oil deports, gasoline storage, industrial solvent storage, refineries. Residential fuel oil tanks of 100 gallons or less are excepted. Tanks which are currently empty but have not been decommissioned and can legally be refilled will be considered `live.' Are there any explosive or flammable tanks within line of sight of any part of the proposed site? (aboveground) No. Are there any explosive or flammable tanks within 500 feet of any part of the proposed site shielded from line of sight by buildings but not topography? (buildings may or may not be an effective barrier, topography is an effective barrier). If so, describe. No. Are there any explosive or flammable tanks of more than 5000 gallons capacity more than 500 feet and less than 1 mile from the site that are shielded from line of sigbt by buildings but not topography? If so, describe. No. NOISE EFFECTS OF NOISE source FO, PS FO, PS, PL Is any part of the site within 5 miles of an airport with scheduled service (passenger, cargo or military)? No Is any part of the site within 3000 feet of a railroad? No Is any part of the site within 1000 feet of a highway of 4 or more lanes? Yes. Highway 217 located to SW in deep traffic cut. Noise shielded by topography Are any other noise generators located nearby (such as heavy industrial facilities, rail yards, shipyards, fire stations)? Identify them and give their distance from the site. Comment: Sites immediately adjacent to freeways and heavily traveled rail lines may not be acceptable. Most other sites will either be acceptable or acceptable with design mitigation to achieve the required interior standard. No AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY SCREENING source FO FO, PL Is the site subject to air quality impacts not generally shared with the entire community? (example: close proximity to freeway, gravel pit, pulp mill or other source generator or air pollution). If so, describe. No 2000 CFCApplication HISTORIC AND PRESERVATION VALUES HISTORIC PRESERVATION SCREENING source PL PL, R1 appropriate sources for first 4 questions. County assessor, current owner appropriate for question S. Every site, whether bare land, or scheduled for rehabilitation and/or demolition of existing buildings, must answer the questions below. Identify the source of your information. Possible sources include SHPO, local historical societies, city planners. Is any part of the site in an established or proposed historic or conservation district? No Is the site or any structure on the site listed in a local historic or cultural resources inventory or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)? If so, describe. No Are any immediately adjacent sites or structures listed in a local historic or cultural resource inventory or the NRHP? If so, describe. No Are there any known or suspected archaeological resources on the site, adjacent sites or in the vicinity? If so, describe. No List name, address and phone number of persons or entities contacted for answers to above: Name/title: Duane Roberts, City of Tigard Planning DeRgrtment Date: 2.7.00 Phone: 503.639.4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 List the year(s) built of any structure(s) on the site Single Family home 1968 . If over 50 years old, describe the structure(s) and whether you have yet contacted the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). List name, address and phone number of persons or entities contacted: Name/title: N/A Date: N/A Phone: N/A Address: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES SCHOOLS source PS Provide the following information on the schools which serve the project (not required for projects for the elderly or special needs populations where children will not reside): School type Distance from project Elementary : Metzger Elementary '/2 mile Middle/Jr. High Fowler Middle School 1 '/2 miles High school Tigard High School 1 '/2 miles 2000 CFC Application COMMERCIAL FACILITIES source PS FO, PS Provide the location and distance to the nearest full service grocery store. Provide information on the other commercial facilities located in the neighborhood. V a grocery is not within walking distance, is it accessible by local or mass transit? Metzger Market Hall & Locust 1/4 mile Safeway Pacific Highway and Hall Boulevard %z mile Fred Meyers Pacific Highway and 72nd 1 mile Costcw Pacific Highway and Dartmouth 1 mile SOCIAL SERVICES source PS PS, FO Will social services be provided on-site as part of this project? If so, describe. Yes. We have planned a multipurpose community space, to be utilized in a similar fashion to those at our other two sites. It will include a small on-site lending library, computer learning center, and space for individual and group meetings and events. Are social service agency offices located in the community? If not, where are the nearest social service agency offices? Yes. Neighborhood, county, private and religious agencies all within % mile See map for listing and locations. SOLID WASTE source FO PS, FO. PL Is garbage collection available? Yes Is it by commercial service or local government? Commercial Will curbside residential recycling be available to the proposed project? Yes Is construction waste recycling available in the community? Yes WASTE WATER source R1 PS, FO, PL Is public sewer available at the site? Yes If public sewer is not available, explain waste water disposal arrangements. STORM WATER source PL PS, FO, PL Is public storm sewer available at the site? Yes If so, is this a combined wastelstorm sewer? No u public storm sewer is not available, how will storm water drainage be handled? Public storm sewer available POLICE SERVICES source PS PS, FO The Tigard Police Department operates out of facilities at City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, approximately % of a mile from the proposed project site. We intend to initiate a Neighborhood Watch group at the site, and will likely have officers visiting frequently with keys to the community room for their use as needed. FIRE SERVICES source PS Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue has two stations near the site, one at 8935 SW Burnham, Tigard, and 8480 SW Scholls Ferry Road, Beaverton. 2000 CFC Application 2_6 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES source PS Ps, FO Emergency care is available at three nearby urgent care facilities (OHSU on Pacific Highway, Health First at Oleson and Hall). The closest hospitals with emergency rooms are Meridian Park Hospital in Tualatin (approximately 6 miles) and St. Vincents Hospital in Beaverton (approximately 10 miles). PARKS AND RECREATION source PS PS, FO Metzger Park with play areas, community room and tennis courts is within walking distance of the site. Other nearby parks include: Cook Park (2 miles away on Hall Boulevard near the High School), Commercial Park, and Metzger Elementary. Cook Park is the City's largest park (57 acres) with multiple playing fields, paths, play equipment, picnic facilities, river side access (Tualatin River), and is the site of numerous community events include the Tigard Festival of Balloons in June each year. The Elementary and Middle Schools offer many of the recreational and extra-curricular educational activities in the community. A regional theater company, Broadway Rose, operates out of the Deb Fennel Auditorium at Tigard High. TRANSPORTATION source PS PS, FO Mass transit is readily accessible on Hall Boulevard, and nearby Pacific Highway. Tri-Met bus service runs every 15 minutes on weekdays with a stop within mile of the site. NATURAL FEATURES WATER RESOURCES source PL PS, FO, PL Is public water available at the site? Yes Are there any water resources in the immediate vicinity of the site? (streams, ponds, wetlands, springs, etc.) If so, describe. No FLOOD PLAINS source PL PL Federally supported construction activities are prohibited within the 100 year flood plain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FFJvfA) except under limited circumstances. Is any part of the site located within the 100-year flood plain according to the applicable FEMA map? Will any off-site construction occur within the 100-year flood plain? If so, you must submit a site map showing an overlay of the flood plain on the planned building(s) on your proposed site. No FEMA Map # 410238 0509 B Panel 509 of 575 Effective date September 30. 1982 Comment: Even if your site does not /'all into the 100 year flood plain, you must submit a copy of the applicable map panel with the proposed site sketched in. Please use black or blue ink Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well. If the panel is not printed, the site is not in the flood plain. Local governments are required to have flood plain maps available. 2000 CFCApplicatron p~ / _ WETLANDS source PL PL, FO HUD has defined wetlands as only those designated wetland areas identified or delineated on maps issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior as areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth or reproduction. " The project site may also contain wetland designation areas from state, county or local entities. Has any part of the site (including off-site construction areas) been identified as potentially a jurisdictional wetland by one of the following sources? If jurisdictional wetlands are anywhere on the site or adiacent to the site, you must submit a site map showing an overlay of the wetland area and the planned building(s). Please use black or blue ink. Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well. Source Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers X Oregon Division of State Lands X US Fish and Wildlife X (National Wetlands Inventory Maps) Natural Resource Conservation Service X (Rural areas) Local Planning Department X (Goal S Inventories) Wetlands Delineation consultant X Comment: The local planning department should be cognizant of any identifications made by the above authorities. Submit any documentation available concerning the wetland status of the site. If potential jurisdictional wetlands have not been identified, does the site exhibit any of the following characteristics? Characteristic Yes No Wetland vegetation (such as cattails, rushes, X reeds, sedges, reed canary grass, creeping buttercup). Hydric Soils (Soil Conservation Service Maps) X Seasonally saturated conditions X Water table within IS inches of surface X Wetland wildlife (such as ducks, salamanders, X frogs, nutria, etc.) Comment: For sites which possess no potential wetland characteristics (such as building lots in established urban neighborhoods that are "high and dry, 'desert sites with no water resources in the vicinity, or sites with no water resources in the vicinity that are i unvegelated or artificially planted [irrigation is a water resource], the above investigation may be cursory (an inquiry with the r] planning department and field observation). H If water resources are on site or adjacent, the planning department indicates potential for wetlands in the vicinity, any of the above characteristics are present or the public has raised wetlands as an issue, a more thorough examination is merited. The services of a qualified professional may be necessary. OHCSD will not debate the delineation of any wetland (or the determination that no wetland is present) that has been documented as acceptable to the Oregon Division of State Lands. 2000 CFCApplication ' 2.-7 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE source PL, Rl see below Have any endangered, threatened or candidate species been identified in the quarter section of land surrounding the site? If so, provide details. Use Nature Conservancy's Oregon Natural Heritage Program for communities with identified species within their UGBs No, per PL Have any rare plants or animals been identified on the site? If so, provide details. PL is appropriate source. No Has the locality identified the site or vicinity as wildlife habitat as part of its Goal 5 Inventory process? If so, provide details. PL is appropriate source. No Describe the predominate ground cover and any wildlife observed. FO is appropriate source. Grass, blackberries, small ornamental trees 2000 CFCApplfcatlon % It 159 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD, OR 1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by PBS Environmental for the property located at 11159 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. The project was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1527-97, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 1.2.1 Findings Historical sources indicated that the subject property was in agricultural usage with a small farmhouse and outbuildings, at least as early as 1936, the earliest year for which historical information was available. Construction of Highway 217 to the south coincided with increased inf ll of the area for residential usage. The farmhouse was demolished in 1997; a storage building existed briefly onsite, to house concrete pump hoses. The property is currently vacant of structures. No evidence of storage or distribution of bulk quantities of hazardous substances was observed on the subject property. Adjoining sites were also in agriculture use for field crops, pasture or orchards by 1936. The subject property is currently bounded by single/multi-family housing. No specific concerns for the site as a result of past or present adjoining property uses were identified. Databases maintained by EPA and Oregon DEQ of sites which have suspected or confirmed releases of environmental contaminants were reviewed to identify sites which pose a potential environmental concern to the subject property due to contaminant migration. Based on a review of the identified sites, none appear to pose a significant environmental concern to the subject property. 1.2.2 Conclusions Recognized Environmental Conditions (see Glossary in Appendix A for definition) No recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the subject property. Other Issues of Concern The following issues, although not included as recognized environmental conditions, were identified during this study. Although these issues could potentially result in adverse environmental impacts to the subject property, they are not included as recognized environmental conditions either because the condition(s), in PBS' opinion, is generally considered to pose a low concern, or because insufficient evidence was collected during the course of this study to come to the conclusion that the condition(s) has resulted in the "presence or likely presence" of contamination to soil and/or groundwater on the subject property. I) The use of agricultural chemicals under applicable regulations is considered an acceptable agricultural practice. Due to their widespread use throughout the U.S., accumulation in soils is so common that it is generally not regarded as contamination requiring remedial action. Except in cases where these materials are present at high levels due to spillage, mixing, or handling of RV to PBS Project d 16004.00 pg , 2q (1159 SW HALL BLVD., "TIGARD, OR these materials in bulk quantities, or where agricultural uses have been particularly intense, it is not expected that contamination levels would be found at levels for which the DEQ or EPA would require remedial action. No information was found indicating these conditions exist on the subject property. In summary, while there is a possibility that these materials are present at some level on the subject property, their potential presence does not appear to pose a significant concern at this time. 2) Residential concerns are generally related to possible use of heating oil storage tanks, septic systems, and wells. It is not known if these features were previously used at the property in association with the prior farm buildings or residences. 1.2.3 Opinion Based upon the findings of this study, no additional investigation appears to be warranted at this time. - r t? PBS Project u 16004.00 Exhibit G Village at Washington Square Neighborhood Meeting - August 10, 2000 Community Room, Tualatin Valley Eire and Rescue Substation, 8935 SW Burnham Street, Tigard Attendance List & Minutes of the Meeting NAME ADDRESS Sheila Fmk 9020 SW Burnham Ti and OR 97223 Sydney Sherwood 10305 SW 8 Tigard, OR 97223 Colleen Willis 9020 SW Burnham -n and OR 97223 Paul Brossia 11260 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Don Graham 8585 SW Pfaffle #7 Ti OR 97223 Bob Berg i1155 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Pat Berg 11155 SW Hall Blvd. TI d OR 97223 Elizabeth M. Peck 11070 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 W. Dean Peck 11070 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Rhonda Peck 11120 SVi Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Chris Peck 11120 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dennis Brown 11295 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 David Brown 11295 SW Hall Blvd. and OR 97223 Mamie Edwards 11865 SW 91 Tigard OR 97223 Angel Griffin 11895 SW 9151Ti and OR 97223 Kayla Griffin 11895 SW 91 Tigard, OR 97223 Jill Shennan 9020 SW Burnham Tigard, OR 97223 Vince Chiotti 123 NE 3ra, Suite 470, Portland OR 97232 Margaret Nelson 8134 SW Ashford Tigard, OR 97223 Brad Simmons 322 NW 8h ' Portland OR 97209 Steve Seabold 9965 SW Arctic Dr. Beaverton OR 97005 Rebecca Ambrose SW Greenbur Rd. Tigard, OR 97223 Robin Boyce 2627 NE MLK Blvd. Portland OR 97212 Ed Murphy 9875 SW Murdock St. Tigard, OR 97228 L Welcome and Inivductions Sheila Fink, Executive Director of Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) welcomed everyone and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to describe the proposed development and respond to questions and solicit comments and suggestions from interested neighbors and community members. The entire group did self-introductions. Present at the meeting were: CPAH staff; CPAH Hoard President; members of the development team including the development consultant, architect, land use consultant and contractor; representative from Oregon Housing & Community Services Department; three residents of CPAH properties; nine neighbors including the resident managers of the St. James on Hall Apartments and the co-owners of Gatehouse Apartments; and other community members. II. Deve%pment Sponsor 8 Development Team Sheila gave a brief history of CPAH and CPAH's experience in housing development and property and asset management (117 units acquired in past four years). She described the experience of the development team. Ill. Prroposed Deve%pment Des/gn The project architect, Brad Simmons, gave some information about Carleton Hart Architects and passed around his portfolio which had pictures of other projects, including other affordable housing projects. He explained the proposed project design. Specific points included: how the placement of the buildings around a central courtyard would lend a community feel; that noise from the play yard would be shielded from neighbors because of its location in the center of the buildings; that improvements to Hall Boulevard would be made; and that trees would be saved because the majority of trees are on the south and west boundaries of the property. He explained the proposed variances to required setbacks and required parking. He stated that the proposed decrease in setbacks on the west, south and north sides of the property would not, in his opinion, negatively impact neighbors, as to the south there are trees and a driveway, to the north is the driveway for the St. James Apartments and to the west is the garbage and recycling area of St. James Apartments. He discussed that the proposed development would have 31 parking spaces, less than the required amount and that this would be sufficient for the population of the proposed development and that he didn't want to add any more pavement to the project than absolutely necessary. CPAH staff discussed the results of a parking study done at their other properties which showed an average of less than one car per unit regardless of unit size. CPAH staff discussed proximity of the project to transit (.3-.4 miles) and employment opportunities. III On going Operations and f4alatenance of Development CPAH assistant property manager discussed commitment to quality property management and how any issues are addressed in a timely manner. Discussed Pinnacle Management and its experience in both for profit and non profit property management. CPAH staff explained long term commitment to affordability (60 years) of project. V. Questions and Comments e Traffic This was the issue of most concern to all neighbors present. Neighbors expressed concern about already existing traffic problems and the difficulty of pulling out from driveways to Hall Boulevard and the frequency of accidents in that area, where cars who had slowed to turn into driveways from Hall were rear-ended. Questions were raised as to the future expansion of Hall and whether it was planned to become a three-lane or a five-lane road. There is discrepancy in different planning documents. The increase in traffic on Hall due to cut through traffic was discussed. CPAH staff responded that our development would add significantly less traffic than a similar market rate development as residents are more likely to rely on public transportation, have fewer cars and make fewer trips. CPAH staff said that they had been in touch with Tri-Met regarding the possibility of future service on the part of Hall with the proposed project and would work to promote expanding service on Hall. CPAH also said it would be interested in working with neighbors and ODOT to address the issue of turning onto Hall from access roads and driveways and work to come up with a solution. v Building fitting in with neighborhood A neighbor asked how a three-story building would effect the feel and character of a neighborhood where most buildings are single story. The architect and construction manager responded with an explanation of how the building would look and how the design was meant to fit in with neighborhood. Development team explained that this is one of the reasons to ask for the setback variance-so as not to build something taller in the middle of the property that wouldn't fit in with the neighborhood as well as the proposed development. Im M , IN - mmi Cut through of yards Another big concem for neighbors was residents cutting through their yards to get from their apartments to nearby shopping. There have been problems with this in the past. A suggestion was made to put up a fence on the south side to discourage cutting through. CPAH staff responded they understood the concern and would look into putting a fence in that area. • Property Management A neighbor expressed concern as to whether there would be full-time onsite property management to address any issues and whether CPAH would manage the property long term or try to sell. CPAH staff explained that we expect to have four full time staff on our property management team for our properties and that issues would be addressed in a timely manner and that CPAH is committed to long-term ownership and management of property and that other interested parties like funders and the State are involved in ensuring that property meets all standards. Other Questions and Concerns A neighbor wondered how many people would live at the property. CPAH staff expects a total population of around 75. A neighbor asked for details about playground size and whether it would be ADA approved. CPAH staff responded that it should accommodate child population though it's hard to know what ages children will be and that some parts will accommodate children with limited mobility. A neighbor asked for specifics as to variances and zone change and land use consultant gave details and explained the process. A neighbor asked if CPAH planned to purchase the property to the south for development. CPAH staff responded it had no plans to do so at this time. A neighbor asked if CPAH is a for profit or non profit organization and if non profit, how CPAH was funded. CPAH staff explained nonprofit status and funding base. A neighbor asked about rents and how people qualified for apartments and CPAH staff explained process. A neighbor asked how this development would effect their property taxes and the zoning of their property. CPAH responded that the zoning on their properly would remain the same. A neighbor asked when CPAFI hoped to start construction and CPAH responded that the hope was to start in the spring. On her way out a neighbor commented that she had come to the meeting assuming she would oppose the project, but after learning more about it, this proposal would have her full support. tan square Parking pnawsis dashing 31 Re uiramant Vlliage at Gi Spaces `$t,vo PROj ER OF ppRKitAG SPpOBS' cP 5 d Spa 2 Ratio R a. 5 7.5 PR POSES Nogg CpP~ Stud Ratio +3 6. a7 1. 10.5 spares 0.73 1.75 12,25 Study Ratio 4,3 1.09 6.27 1.75 40,25 # units 0.54 4.1 0.88 8.19 6 8 0.81 3.9 1,17 2475 46 p.65 g.1 6 stns 6 0.87 18.35 31 Bed rooms 7 24 oo. 26 4B f ms tiest o Re4 packing: Tatai ' at 15 !o 40TAi-ark meson $s 3 hedrsx a Bedroort~s room unHs• Aim 'fpree RaBo # cars o.e3 . %0 0ur errt W `od g Unr~ 10 o.3s Yw0 godroor~ Ratio 12 3 0.66 # Gars 0.84 8 13 g Un►ts 48 0.83 20 d y ~ tom Rata 80 10 0.81 ProPsm pa~cin9 Stu y any gad . 42 12 68 CPAO UnKs 8 72 de"elome'ts housing 12 5 0.64 w~ IN 12 13 rrt GPAH o++tsed muw. tgPaz ?A ~nentat0etworu oiled U 12400. by Pinnac`~ ptop~! . grnveY ~ r T?~~r ~T Exhibit I o Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.080 Approval Criteria A. A©oroval criteria. The Director shall make a finding with respect to each of the following criteria when approving, approving with conditions, or denying an application: 1. Compliance with all of the applicable requirements of this tide including Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Standards; The Hall Street Boulevard Housing project is currently in the Schematic Design phase and, therefore, has not undergone detailed design addressing the issues in Chapter 18.810. As the project progresses these criteria will be specifically addressed. 2. Relationship to the natural and physical environment: a. Buildings shall be: (1) Located to preserve existing trees, topography and natural drainage where possible based upon existing site conditions; Although the removal of some trees is unavoidable in order to develop the site, many trees will be preserved. Almost all of the existing trees on the site are located at the perimeters making it easier to preserve them. Several large fir and locust trees along the west part of the site will be preserved, and all of the pear trees, plum trees, and one ash tree on the south portion of the site will be preserved. (2) Located in areas not subject to ground slumping or sliding; Identification of problem areas related to ground slumping and sliding will be provided with a geotechnical report, which will be done at a later phase of the project. No ground slumping has been observed on the site and ground sliding is very unlikely given the gentle slope. (3) Located to provide adequate distance between adjoining buildings for adequate light, air circulation, and fare-fighting; and The project is a relatively dense one, but buildings have been placed to provide a generous courtyard with good light and ample room between buildings. The configuration also allows good access for fire fighting. edmuThy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 1 (4) Oriented with consideration for sun and wind. The project is designed in a "U" configuration with the open end facing south which provides protection from the wind and maximum exposure to the sun. b. Trees shall be preserved to the extent possible. Replacement of trees is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal. See Section 2, a, 1 above and Chapter 18.790; Tree Removal, below for preservation of trees. 3. Exterior elevations: a. Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the following: (1) Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet; (2) Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and (3) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height. The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. 4. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses: a. Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, for example, between single-family and multiple-family residential, and residential and commercial uses, and the following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent of the buffer: (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 required to achieve the purpose in terms of width and height; (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. Buffering to the "C" standard will be provided along the south boundary of the site where the project abuts a single-family residence. The purpose of this buffering and screening is primarily to provide a visual barrier since no excessive noise or pollution is anticipated in the project. Buffering or screening at other site boundaries is not required by this code. However, there is a landscaped berm abutting the north boundary which effectively screens the housing and parking from the access road adjacent to the site on the north. The parking lot is also buffered from Hall Boulevard by street trees. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdri8/16/00 2 b. On site screening from view from adjoining properties of such things as service areas, storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical devices on roof tops, i.e., air cooling and heating systems, shall be provided and the following factors will 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; (3) How dense the screen needs to be; (4)Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile; and (5) Whether the screening needs to be year around. On-site screening for parking is discussed in item 4a above. No other items in the project require screening based on these criteria. S. Privacy and noise: multi-family or group living uses: a. Structures which include residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor unit which is screened from view by adjoining units as provided in Subsection 6.a below; A screened outdoor area has been provided for each ground level unit as shown on the site plan. b. The buildings shall be oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view and noise; The site is organized in such a way that the buildings screen adjacent properties from most activity. Outdoor activity areas associated with the Community Building and the end units in the southwest building have a minimal amount of exposure to the south property, but these activities are buffered by existing trees and a private drive on the adjacent property. c. On-site uses which create noise, light, or glare shall be buffered from adjoining residential uses; and Excessive noise, light, or glare are not anticipated in this project. In any case, the project is arranged in such a way that uses which might create these conditions would be mostly internal. Any lighting which could create glare will be directed away from adjacent properties. d. Buffers shall be placed on the site as necessary to mitigate noise, light or glare from off-site sources. The site is situated in such a way that there is little off-site noise, light or glare. The only source for noise or light is Hall Boulevard, and the buildings are set back a minimum of 120 feet from its centerline and are configured so that the front of units do not face Hall. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 3 l 6. Private outdoor ,area: multi-family use: a. Private open space such as a patio or balcony shaii be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width dimension of four feet; and (1) Balconies used for entrances or exits shall not be considered as open space except where such exits or entrances are for the sole use of the unit; and (2) Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures such as a recreation center or covered picnic area. b. Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and c. Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the users of the space. All units will be designed with private, open space in excess of 48 square feet (this project is also subject to the State requirement for private outdoor space which is 60 square feet minimum). The project has been designed in a "U" configuration with a southern orientation in order to achieve the maximum exposure to the sun. 7. Shared outdoor recreation areas: multi-family use: a. In addition to the requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the following amounts: (1)Studio up to and including two-bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and (2)Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit. b. The required recreation space may be provided as follows: (1) It may be all outdoor space; or (2)It may be part outdoor space and part indoor space; for example, an outdoor tennis court, and indoor recreation room; or (3) It may be all public or common space; or (4)It may be part common space and part private; for example, it could be i an outdoor tennis court:, indoor recreation room and balconies on each unit; and { (5)Where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less than 48 square feet. c. Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable to promote ' crime prevention and safety; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 4 All units will have balconies or patios, there is a shared courtyard which contains a play area, and there is a Community Building. The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. 8. Where landfill and/or development is allowed within and adjacent to the 100- year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway within the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian/ bicycle plan. This item is not applicable since the site is not in a flood plain. 9. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention: a. The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and b. These areas may be defined by, but not limited to: (1)A deck, patio, low wail, hedge, or draping vine; (2) A trellis or arbor; (3) A change in elevation or grade; (4)A change in the texture of the path material; (S)Sign; or (6) Landscaping. The project has been designed in such a way that a person entering the site who does not have a right to be there would be conspicuous given the building arrangement. The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. 10. Crime prevention and safety: a. Windows shall be located so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; b. Interior laundry and service areas shall be located in a way that they can be observed by others; The project is arranged so that all front entries are observable by several other units. Laundry facilities will be in the Community Building which is centrally located in the courtyard. c. Mail boxes shah be located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 5 Mailboxes have not yet been located on the site, however, they will either be accessed from the parking lot or from a central location in the courtyard. Either of these locations would provide adequate vehicular or pedestrian traffic. d. The exterior lighting levels shall be selected and the angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and e. Light fixtures shall be provided in areas having heavy pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in potentially dangerous areas such as parking lots, stairs, ramps and abrupt grade changes. Fixtures shall be placed at a height so that light patterns overlap at a height of seven feet which is sufficient to illuminate a person. The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. 11. Public transit: a. Provisions within the plan shall be included for providing for transit if the development proposal is adjacent to existing or proposed transit route; b. The requirements for transit facilities shall be based on: (1)The location of other transit facilities in the area; and (2)The size and type of the proposal. c. The following facilities may be required after City and Tri-Met review: (1) Bus stop shelters; (2)Turnouts for buses; and (3) Connecting paths to the shelters. This item is not applicable since the site is not adjacent to a transit line, nor is one planned for the near future. 12. Landscaping: a. All landscaping shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18.745; b. In addition to the open space and recreation area requirements of subsections 5 and 6 above, a minimum of 20 percent of the gross area including parking, loading and service areas shall be landscaped; and c. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be landscaped. The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these + requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 6 13. Drainage: All drainage plans shall be designed in accordance with the criteria in the adopted 1981 master drainage plan; We expect that drainage for the site will include on-site water retainage and a water quality facility which will connect to the storm sewer in Hall Boulevard. This requirement will be complied with at the time that the detailed drainage plan is generated for the project. 14. Provision for the disabled: All fadlities for the disabled shall be designed in accordance with the requirements set forth In ORS Chapter 447; and This requirement will be complied with at the time that facilities for the disabled are designed for the project. 15. All of the provisions and regulations of the underlying zone shall apply unless modified by other sections or this title, e.g., Planned Developments, Chapter 18.350; or a variance or adjustment granted under Chapter 18.370. This item has been noted and will be taken under consideration where it applies. Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ❖ List of Zoning Districts The property is currently zoned: F. R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district Is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. The zone change being requested is to: H. R-40: Irledium High-Density Residential District The R-40 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single- family and multi-family housing units with no minimum lot size or maximum density. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. 18.510.030 Uses The use categories RESIDENTIAL; Household Living and HOUSING TYPES; Single Units, Attached are permitted uses in both the R-12 and R-40 Zoning Districts. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 7 MMJ 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities There is no maximum density for the site per 18.510.020 H. It is assumed that the minimum density is 40 units per acre multiplied by 80%. The site is .84 acres which calculates to 33.48 units and multiplied by 80% gives a minimum number of 26.79 units. The current design is for 26 units. 18.510.050 Development Standards Minimum Lot Size: None Average Lot Width: None Minimum Setbacks: -Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district: 35% The site plan shows setbacks of 20 ft. at the rear (west) yard, and 10 ft. at the side (north and south) yards. A variance is requested for the setbacks since the required setbacks are 35 ft. Please see the "VARIANCES" section following this section. Maximum Height: 60 ft. The proposed buildings will be well under 60 ft. in height. Maximum Lot Coverage: 80% The site has a lot coverage of well under 80%. Minimum Landscape Requirement: 20% The site will have landscaping meeting or exceeding this requirement. Chapter 18.705 ACCESS, EGRESS, AND CIRCULATION 18.705.030 General Provisions D. Public street access. All vehicular access and egress as required in sections 18.705.030H and 18.705.0301 shall connect directly with a public or private street approved by the City for public use and shall be maint-a9ned at the required standards on a continuous basis. The project is accessed directly from Hall Boulevard. F. Required walkway location. On-site pedestrian walkways shall comply with the following standards: 2. Within all attached housing (except two-family dwellings) and multi- family developments, each residential dwelling shall be connected by walkway to the vehicular parking area, and common open space and recreation facilities. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/applicatie114thdr/8/16/00 8 The site plan shows walkways connecting all functions on the site including parking and the Community Building. 3. Wherever required walkways cross vehicle access driveways or parking lots, such crossings shall be designed and located for pedestrian safety. Required walkways shall be physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and parking by either a minimum 6-Inch vertical separation (curbed) or a minimum 3-foot horizontal separation, except that pedestrian crossings of traffic aisles are permitted for distances no greater than 36 feet if appropriate landscaping, pavement markings, or contrasting pavement materials are used. Walkways shall be a minimum of four feet in width, exclusive of vehicle overhangs and obstructions such as mailboxes, benches, bicycle racks, and sign posts, and shall be in compliance with ADA standards: The sidewalk accessing the site from Hall Boulevard crosses the parking lot for only 24 feet (the width of the vehicle aisle) and will have either pavement markings or will be of a contrasting material. G. Inadeouate or hazardous access. 2. Direct Individual access to arterial or collector streets from single- family dwellings and duplex lots shall be discouraged. Direct access to major collector or arterial streets shall be considered only if there is no practical alternative way to access the site. This requirement addresses single-family dwellings or duplex lots only, however, access is an important issue relating to this site and will be addressed here. In order eliminate one of the existing driveway approaches onto SW Hall Boulevard, the granting of an access easement to combine or share approaches has been pursued from both the property to the north and to the south with no success. Because of this the next best alternative is to retain the approach onto SW Hall Boulevard as we have designed it. It is near the southeast corner of the site, where it could easily be converted to a shared access point when the property to the south develops. We will continue to pursue a shared approach with the adjacent property owners. If this cannot be accomplished, we will work with the Department of Transportation to make the approach as we have shown it as safe as possible, and designed so it can be converted to a shared access point in the future if that opportunity presents itself. H. Minimum aQ;M requirements for residential use. TABLE 18.705.2 VEHICULAR ACCESS/EGRESS REQUIREMENT'S: MUL77-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE This table requires a minimum of 1 or 2 driveways, a minimum access width of 30 feet, a minimum pavement width of 24 feet, and 5-foot walkway. The project provides one driveway with a 30-foot width, a pavement width of 24 feet, and a 5-foot walk through the parking lot. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. edmurphy&wsociates/clients/cpah/application4thdrl8/16/00 9 now 11 Im 1111111111MIM Chapter 18.720 DESIGN COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS This section does not apply to this site since the adjacent zones are all R-12, a multi-family zone. Chapter 18.725 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Items in this section will be specifically resolved at the appropriate time in the design process. Chapter 18.730 EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 18.730.040 Additional setback Requirements A. Additional setback from r!Redfied roadways. To ensure improved light, air, and sight distance and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, structures in any zoning district which abut certain arterial and collector streets shall be set back a minimum distance from the centerline of the street. Where the street is not improved, the measurement shall be made at right angles from the centerline or general extension of the street right-of way: 1. Arterial Streets. The required setback distance for buildings on arterial streets Is the setback distance required by the zoning district plus the following distances measured from the centerline of the street as contained in Table 18.730.1. SW Hall Boulevard 45 feet This item requires that the setback from the centerline of Hall Boulevard be 65 feet. The setback as shown on the site plan is 120 feet. B. Distance between multi-family residential structure and gtthgr structures on site. 1. To provide privacy, light, air, and access to the multiple and attached residential dwellings within a development, the following separations shall apply: a. Buildings with windowed wails facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25-foot separation: Clearances between window walls of the two south residential buildings and the north building are 21 feet. We may be requesting an adjustment at the time we submit for SDR for the 21-foot dimension from the required 25 feet based on Section 18.370.020, B, 1, b which allows adjustments up to 20 % for interior setbacks. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 10 3. Driveways, parking lots, and common or public walkways shall maintain the following separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: a. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet; and b. Driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated by at least seven feet The project is now in ttie Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. Chapter 18.745 LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING 18.745.040 Street Trees ~0 C. Size and spgdng of street trees. 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height as specified in the requirements stated in Subsection 2 below; Street trees will be provided along Nall Boulevard using one of the options specified in this section (street trees are shown on the site plan spaced at 30 feet). 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening E. Screening: special provisions. 1. Screening and landscaping of parking and loading areas: a. Screening of parking and loading areas is required. The specifications for this screening are as follows: (4) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect (5) The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Five trees are required in the parking lot given the 31 parking spaces. We are providing 8 trees as shown on the site plan. The landscape islands will be 3 feet wide minimum and will be surrounded by a curb. Screening of the parking lot is covered below under Buffering and Screening. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 i li 18.745.050 Buffering and Screening F. Buffer Matrix TABLE 18.745.1 BUFFER MATRIX l5 TABLE 18.745.2 BUFFER COMBINATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING For multi-family of 5+ units table 18.745.1 requires buffering to "C" standard abutting detached single units (south boundary of the site); and no requirement abutting other multi-family of 5+ units (west boundary of the site). For parking lots abutting detached single units (south edge of parking) buffering to "C" standard is required. Site landscaping will meet or exceed these requirements. For parking lots abutting arterial streets (east edge of parking abutting Hall Boulevard) no buffering is required. No requirement is specifically stated for the condition at the north boundary of the site which abuts an access road to a multi-family complex. It is assumed that since this boundary does not actually abut multi-family housing, and since there is a significant berm and landscaping which separates the site from the access road, that no other landscaping is required. A 6-foot wall along the south edge of the parking lot is provided to meet the screening requirement for parking lots. Other requirements will be met for buffering according to the methods prescribed in table 18.745.2. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. Chapter 18.755 MIXED SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE STORAGE 18.755.040 Methods of Demonstrating Compliance 5. Specific requirements: a. Multi-unit residential buildings containing 5-10 units shall provide a minimum storage area of 50 square feet. Buildings containing more than 10 residential units shall provide an additional 5 square feet per unit for each unit above 10. Per this method, 130 square feet of solid waste and recyclable storage is required for this project. This is provided in a screened area to the southwest of the main parking lot. 18.755.050 Location, Design and Access Standards for Storage Areas B. Location standards 4. Exterior storage areas can be located within interior side yard or rear yard areas. Mcalmrior swag-- areas shall not be located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street; 5. Exterior storage areas shall be located in central and visible locations on a site to enhance security for users; edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 12 6. Exterior storage areas can be located in a parking area, if the proposed use provides at least the minimum number of parking spaces required for the use after deducting the area used for storage. Storage areas shall be appropriately screened according to the provisions in 18.755.050 C, design standards; 7. The storage area shall be accessible for collection vehicles and located so that the storage area will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or on public streets adjacent to the site. The storage area is not located within a required front yard setback or in a yard adjacent to a public or private street and is in a central and visible location within a portion of the parking lot. The storage area is well situated for direct access for collection vehicles and will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic movement on the site or adjacent street. C. Desian standards. 1. The dimensions of the storage area shall accommodate containers consistent with current methods of local collection: 3. Exterior storage areas shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or hedge at least six feet in height. Gate openings which allow access to users and haulers shall be provided. Gate openings for haulers shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and shall be capable of being secured in a closed and open position. The storage area is proportioned to accommodate typical container dimensions and will be enclosed by a 6-foot sight-obscuring fence with a gate 10 feet in width. D. Access standards. 3. Storage areas shall be accessible to collection vehicles without requiring backing out of a driveway onto a public street. If only a single access point is available to the storage area, adequate turning radius shall be provided to allow collection vehicles to safely exit the site in a forward motion. The storage area is situated so that a collection vehicle is able to back into the main parking area after the collection process and exit the site in a forward motion. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 13 Chapter 18.765 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS 18.765.030 General Provisions B. Location of vehicle oarkin4. The location of off-street parking will be as follows: 2. Off-street parking lots for uses not listed above shall be located not further than 200 feet from the building or use that they are required to serve, measured In a straight line from the building. The maximum distance from the parking lot to a residential unit is 160 feet. E. Visitor Rgrking in Multi-family residential developments. Multi-dwelling units with more than 10 required parking spaces shall provide an additional 1S% of vehicle parking spaces above the minimum required for the use of guests of residents of the complex. These spaces shall be centrally located or distributed throughout the development. Required bicycle parking facilities shall also be centrally located within or evenly distributed throughout the development. Table 18.765.2 Minimum and Maximum required Off-street Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements Per Table 18.765.2 and the visitors parking requirement, the total required parking for the project is 47 calculated as such: (8) one-bedroom units x 1.25 + (5) two-bedroom units x 1.5 + (13) three and four-bedroom units x 1.75 = 40.25 + 15% = 46.3. Parking provided on the site totals 31 which requires a variance. Please see the Variance section at the end of this narrative G. Disabled-acoessible irking. All parking areas shall be provided with the required number of parking spaces for disabled persons as specified by the State of Oregon Uniform Building Code and federal standards. Such parking spaces shall be sized, signed and marked as required by these regulations. The Oregon Uniform Building Code requires 2 spaces for lots of 26-50 total parking spaces. Two disabled-accessible parking spaces are provided in the parking lot per UBC requirements. At two disabled parking spaces the UBC requirement is met based on the 47 total parking spaces required by the planning code or the 31 spaces which are shown and which a variance is requested for. N. SRace andl aisle dimensions. (Figure 18.765.1) Parking dimensions are in compliance with Figure 18.765.1 as follows: Disabled spaces: (2) at 9'x18.5' Standard spaces: (17) at 8.5'x18.5' Compact spaces: (12) at 7.5'x16.5' Access aisle: 24' wide edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 14 18.765.050 Bicycle Parking Design Standards A. Location and access. With regard to the location and access to bicycle parking: 3. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street. When the bicycle parking area is not visible from the street, directional signs shall be used to locate the parking area; Bicycle parking as shown on the site plan is visible from on-site buildings and the street. C. Design requirements. The following design requirements apply to the installation of bicycle racks: 3. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least 2.5 feet by six feet long, and, when covered, with a vertical clearance of seven feet An access aisle of at least five feet wide shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking; The bicycle parking is shown on the site plan with the required space as indicated above and with a 5-foot access aisle. E. Minimum bicycle RiMrkingMguirements. The total number of required bicycle parking spaces for each use Is specified in Table 18.768.2 in Section 18.765.070H. In no case shall there be less than two bicycle parking spaces. The total number of bicycle parking spaces required is 13 per Table 18.768.2 (1 per every 2 dwelling units = 13). The site plan shows 13 spaces provided. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. Chapter 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS This section is not applicable since the site is not on sensitive lands. Chapter 18.780 SIGNS The regulations for signage as indicated in this section will be complied with when signage is designed for the project. Chapter 18.790 TREE REMOVAL 18.790.030 Tree Plan Requirement edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 15 B. Plan R uirements. The tree plan shall Include the following: 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees Including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060D, in accordance with the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, sbeets and parking lots: b. Retention of from 25% to 50% of existing trees over 12 incises In caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated in accordance with Section 18.790.060D. A Tree Plan as prescribed in this section will be submitted for this project. Preliminary estimates indicate that retention of from 25% to 50% as indicated above is likely, and it is possible that 50% to 75% may be retained. Note: Items in this section which have not been specifically addressed are either not applicable to this project or are items which will be fully resolved at a more appropriate time in the design process. Chapter 18.795 VISUAL CLEARANCE AREAS 18.795.030 Visual Clearance Requirements C. At comers. Except within the CBD zoning district a visual clearance area shall be maintained on the comers of all property adjacent to the intersection of two streets, a street and a railroad, or a driveway providing access to a public or private street. B. Dbsftuctions prohibited. A dear vision area shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, 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. edmurphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdr/8/16/00 16 18.795.40 Computations A. Arterial streets, On all designated arterial streets the visual clearance area shall not be less than 35 feet on each side of the intersection. The visual clearance area as required by this section applies to the access approach from Hall Boulevard to the parking lot. There are no obstructions in this area with the exception of the required street trees shown, and these will have branches below 8 feet removed as required in this section. The visual clearance area required for this access approach is 35 feet which is provided as shown on the site plan. Chapter 18.810 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS The project is now in the Schematic Design phase and has not yet undergone the degree of design required to demonstrate specific compliance with these criteria. We expect to meet these requirements, but they will be addressed in more detail at a later time as the project progresses. i i i i i 3 edmwphy&associates/clients/cpah/application4thdd8/16/00 17 Exhibit J AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND • Inspiring people to love and protect-nature: July 29, 2000 Sheila Greenlaw Firik, Executive Director ' Community Partners for Affordable Housing P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, Oregon 97:'61-2306 Dear Sheila, Thank you for providing me with ~the.opportunty to visit the site of your proposed project at 11159 and 11.165 SW Hall Boulevard in Tigard. As Urban Naturalist for the Audubon Society, I am very interested in preserving available habitat a::d• responsibly addressing other urban environmental issues. As a merr)er of the Coalition For A. Livable Future t am .a.lso committed to wor.;;.ng collaboratively with groups addressing other critical. issues such as the development of affordable housing. Therefore, I . appreciate being able to.provide input on your Hall Boulevard site as you prepare for a zone change request and site plan reView with-the City of Tigard. After walking the Hall Boulevard site with',you, I -have concluded that there. is no significant wild'-fe habitat on'the site at this time. There are a couple grand.old trees tht deserve special consideration and I would hope you would be able to protect, them, both in the short term and long term by project design encl. •~areful construction practices.. There are certainly no- wetland, stream as-. rloodplain issues on that site. However, I would. urge•ydb to-get together with Kendra Smith or Dawn. Uchiyama of USA to.develop on- site "treatment of sloanwater. In addition,. the site is located on a State Highway;" close. to public transportation. Clearly, with the need for affordable housing; the need to maximize use of public transportation, and the"lack of native habitat that would be put at ri:--k, I think the site is a prime site for the type of development you are proposing. Frankly, I am .moss: struck with the opportunities for shared use of the.access to the St. James Acartments. In my opinion it would be a travesty to require yet more impervic'vs paved surfaces than already exist on the site. -I would • 5151 NW Corncll Road; Portland, Oregon 97210 (503) 292-6855 FAX (503)'292-1021 Printed on 100% post-coniwmer.recyckd paper with joy ink. strongly encourage; you to pursue an easement to use the existing driveway to the St. James Apartments, rather than paving an additional driveway. I understand that the owners have thus far turned down your requests, but I believe the single most important design feature you could incorporate in this project is a shared drive. If there is anything further I can do to support their reconsideration of your offer, please let me know. I am glad to lend my full support to this very important affordable housing project. I'd like to see the project again when- it is developed. Sincer y, Mike Houck, Urban Naturalist ;;x wl het df ea5 addressed In the d Beyond Tomorrow community wagon are: vision process Quality of Life Community Character and wth management Growth and Gro Public Safety e Schools and Education 1998 Transportation and Traffic 14 W • Urban and Public Services y Ann + lltlvl,,:, 4 t.. Wit" 41r A& 0.'1 1 Rep to \ O 04YA, t` Citizens 4Q~~t {de~~, P td \.'F a b~ twNpJ I' ~Pi ' ' p ~ ~r+ o A A a ,clpt0%ec,(e,, ' Houstn& rams to maintain Af.__ford_ abSe-•---''- rivate sector programs ~ er' er'ty s apd nd s e tnlc8 p5s,stsofetr •The City encourages and supports p to Goat a3: ' ortance !<d a tE54i oDout the Importance s t! diverse and affordable housing- ' Tigard citizens own ' nt a program to educate d~ti\ol~e(+c s cog too' 1) "Imp" Strategy housing" .a INt btC},a" nt du I5, . 04P PvataC of affordable a s_I., 1• • 1 ~~\c9 `e~y ! p+oG te* o e d '~te dy tomQ ,.,c"•~~ ~ e`.~ ~ i c - ..a:n ,.,nug h. mu u, i 4• uP .,til'le Lan„i, h.ara •\L t~~ \t!r- l ~ ,a,n;ntra b e to t pit+ au., a4 („c ,n sha { n.,.•1 , t QV <r \i\Q S Pt+~n ~~p ^ a pl F' 0 fr ` mss. \ µ.,."s` • a a~ 4+a•+' a ^:.,•C`;' a.. L n„ S . y\'• nets e t ,n,n„uCa „1,,,nn,d .I,a.,, n, ..,tan^,;,:..•., CIOtlat~ .,,,\et~ ,Ses ao^,oo•,. Al te5~ t,,a r•.^ ` ti,o<' ~oi• a ,.n.^ 1,• \4 ,•tna m:i+.u,.ntaa ..t .,:t.ad.,4,i. in•a a. w a,., Cl9y epCy .•a \~"~~1`t`~•,~ .J a•a^av`'araoo`•G h,,.tu,r , n,~`• .,u a ,n l-u,,,„' 1 „ Odd\`F'` G^ C TIM", "lox" i i , . • rn„ ai„ 1'.,ru dpi" \n„ni,,1ti, ..u,u,at' u, t, nun•,.n~n r., ,1,.auea P o,,, ,..r ,n,•na°` ` .abn,4.,V,ya 1,, , c t\, aw` IccC n4 a • , . . .qp, n,µ;t i`'^t t•„ .0th 1:, •u.:o. ,iu te• d, ' ,cRd^ +r»m ,..'a Vad `a'~~p K apw ..t . , , r .,l 1 ,..,\n,a ra, A .a ..1 .,r t.a la'..., 1 :n.:.,,,a ' .,t, 1a l . ` Y r+,.\ r . 1 b,npLf! ~ „ , ~ C° abc ' ' ot~'~tn` \a\'+ a+~,w^ „i os na , .J „Q ` n,., ,i• t ` ` , 1 nr '.1" t '1H..., ~i,h o •,niSIV. l .ra.. rt .r \vx ` ^ d" a.r d, d+" C` \~~.,r^~ r•4 ~:1. IS- +l. T, 6 ct.d - V. $ Oy1 ^1 a<) k- r'o,,c.r 0 a DIRECTION S'TAT NEENT: (vARAT TIGARD VH.L LOOP{ LIKE IN 2017) -igard continues to grove Growth is accommodated while protecting the character and livability in new and established neighborhoods. The City Ind supports private sector programs to maintain diverse and affordable housing. )rban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary. Recipients of services pay their share. .ocal and small businesses are encouraged as an important part of our community and our economy. -he City of Tigard is an active participant in regional issues. Its citizens are educated about issues in our region and take advantage of opportunii iarticipate in decision-making processes. - ' - by City "nicfudirip police service end 'annexaTion - o Expand ability to get annex. waivers for provision of sewers to Bull Mountain 3) Adept a plan to educate Metzger residents 0 With area west of Hall as prioritg create public info program that us about annexation to Tigard CP04 as a partner, reaches out to newcomers, emphasizes benefits joining Tigard and emphasizes the retention of Metzger's identity 41 King CitylUrban Growth Boundary-Annexation y,3) The City encourages and 1) Implement a program to educate Tigard citizens 0 Start community dialogue on issues associated with affordable housil supports private sector about the importance of affordable housing • Define community goals for affordable housing to determine target programs to maintain diverse 0 Prepare written materials that reflect the community's goals and affordable housing 0 Develop outreach program including Cityscape articles, press releasi speaking opp's, outreach to businesses, churches, senior centers an, community based organizations 0 Implement outreach program 2) Make incentive programs available to providers 0 Form study committee of affordable housing units 0 Committee consider waiver or reduction of SOCs, tax abatement for n profits: and/or property tax reductions for affordable housing projects O Committee consider targeting financial incentives to specific areas of the City 0 Study committee report issued to City Council 0 Council consideration of recommendations of study committee v Implement Council direction e Develop outreach program to 'advertise' incentives 3) Review City's zoning code and Comprehensive • Consider minimum densities, inclusionary zoning & density bonuses Plan policies to provide maximum opportunities tools to encourage affordable housing for affordable housing 4) Incorporate affordable housing policies into 0 Identify opportunities to provide affordable housing in mixed use art study of Downtown, Wash Sq, & other mixed ® Include discussions on affordable housing in public wkshopsin mixe use areas use areas ® Write policies and zoning code language to reflect desired affordabl. housing opportunities in mixed use areas ® Implement policies s Consider jobs/housing ratio as an incentive to focus housing 5) Strengthen ties between City, Wash Cnty and ® Hold summit on affordable housing with policy makers, develop other Wash Cnty cities to jointly provide community and technical resources to identify issues affordable housing services • Summit follow-up to consider jointly providing technical assistance developers of affordable housing 0 Consider increase in number of Wash Cnty subsidized units allowed in Tg; 61 HOMELESS • Implement programs aimed at preventing homelessness 7) HOMELESS • Investigate tools to provide emergency housing •t; Local and small businesses are 1) Retain and assist local businesses encouraged as an important part of our community and economy s Exhibit L Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc.' - What is the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy ("RAHS")? In June 2000, Portland's regional governing body, Metro, adopted a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS). A broad-based group of 28 public, private and nonprofit stakeholders worked together for nearly two years to define the region's housing problem, develop production goals by jurisdiction, and develop a set of voluntary recommendation for action. Because housing needs are so great, and subsidies so limited, the RAHS suggests that we establish voluntary goals tied to 10% (rather than 100%) of the projected regional need. This translates into about 9,000 affordable units by 2003 (320 in Tigard, which places it in the top 6-of 24 cities for housing need). Why is Affordable Housing a Regional Issue? While the metropolitan area has grown rapidly over the past decade housing has become increasingly unaffordable-particularly in Washington County. This affordable housing shortage impacts: household stability, employers' ability to attract and retain a quality workforce, employees' productivity, tax base, and school and civic participation and performance. Personal stability translates directly into neighborhood, business, community and regional stability (and conversely, personal instability translates into regional instability). Historically, Portland/Multnomah County has attracted (both through formula allocation and competitive process) the lion's share of state and federal housing subsidies in our region. By 1998, it was estimated that while Portland alone had over 45,000 housing units available for households at <50% of median, Washington County had only about 10,000. While job growth has exploded in Washington County, housing units affordable to new workers has not. The result is gridlock as many lower wage earners must commute into Washington County from Clackamas County and East Portland. The RAHS contains strategies designed to increase housing choices in every jurisdiction in the region. Analysts tend to agree there are more "barriers" to affordable housing development in Washington County than elsewhere in the region (i.e. higher system development charges, higher utility costs, fewer zoning and regulatory incentives, lack of political consensus, etc.). If we do not act quickly, we viii find the Silicon Forest turning into the Silicon Valley-with median home prices of $400,000-and not enough subsidies available to address even 10% of the i benchmark need. { What is "Affordable" Anyway? i With extremely limited public subsidy dollars available for housing, public policy has begun to shift toward subsidizing those most in need (households at 50% of median or below-or $26,850 for a family of four), even though these are the most expensive units to produce (debt service must be low or nonexistent to set rents at these levels). The RAHS shares this targeting strategy. PO Box 73206 . Tigard. OR 97281.2306 - Tel: (SM) 968-2724 . Fax: (S03) 56948923 • Website: www.cpahinc.org How Does the RAHS impact Cities Like Tigard? Most local jurisdictions were concerned about affordable housing before Metro adopted the RAHS. The City of Tigard has included the promotion of affordable housing as one of its key goals for the last several years. Toward this end, a property tax abatement ordinance was adopted in 1997, and a housing code in 1999. For the 5-Year Goal period indicated in the plan (1998- 2003), Tigard has not added any housing units affordable to those at or below 50% of median (Villa La Paz was acquired prior to the plan period, but renovation completed in 1998- depending on methodology it might be counted). Although the benchmarks of housing need indicated in the RAHS are voluntary, they provide a simple report card format which will certainly be used to measure jurisdictions' capacity to "walk their talk" under the State's Goal 10, as well as local Consolidated Plans, the RAHS, and other planning processes. What Strategies Should Tigard Consider Adopting? Each jurisdiction is asked to look at its unique circumstances, and choose those tools which will be most effective in their own setting. While all should be considered, CPAH has selected its own "top ten" for priority consideration: Cost Reduction Land Use & Regulatory Regional Funding -System Deve4ment Charges (reduce, -Long Tenn a Permanent Affordability Maximize Existing Resources: waive or defer -Permit Fees reduce, waive. defer -Density Bonus -Traini / C Pr Tax Exemption -Replacement Housi consistent Consolidated Plans in Region -Local Government & State Coordination -Inclusionary Zoning (voluntary & mandatory) -Allocation of HOME Funds and urban growth boundary considerations -Promote Change in HUD1Ffederal Progs. -Land Cost and Availability, including -Transfer of Developrn" rrt Rights -Entetlzise Foundation Regional donation of tax foreclosed properties and Acquisition Fund land banking or land assembly, and New Funding Source: construction type size, design) arploym-Sponsonad Housing -off-site ernents -Eld & Disabled Housing -Real Estate Transfer Tax -Local Regulatory Constraints, -Regional Housing Reso ircwDatabase 4lses and Administration of a New Discrepancies in Planning and Zoning ~r Regional Housing Fund Codes, and Local Permitting or Approval ✓ Process; -Parking -Building Codes Requirements How Do These Tools ltt>r9p2ct Development? The process of developing affordable housing is complex and costly. Without a skilled development team working together, including a proactive local jurisdiction, it will not get built. Local jurisdictions who are unable to demonstrate their own commitment to such projects will not successfully attract state and federal subsidies into their communities. Subsidies alone are not sufficient to "fill the gap" for affordable projects, but must be paired with a variety of local incentives. In areas like Washington County, where we've developed a "backlog" due to rapid growth in jobs and high-end housing, we must act quickly before development opportunities are lost. We have little buildable land remaining and few existing incentives. The City of Tigard needs over 3,000 units affordable to those at 50% of median or below. CPAH asks that the City adopt a minimal but important target-320 affordable units by 2003. The problem only becomes more intractable the longer we wait to act. Three steps are required to make the current City goal to "support private sector development of affordable housing" meaningful: set a target, reduce barriers-implement new tools. CPAH appreciates the opportunity partner with the City on this goal, and will work diligently to attract the subsidies necessary to make it a reality. L Impact of Metro's Regional Affordable Housing Stfstegy Washington County Affordable Housing Needs Jurlsdlction 2017 Need for Affordable Units Tarpofr Based on 10% Households 1<30% I30.50% IDeffcit of Benchmark Need 38 704 " -4,276 CGfi~EL19~ ~r •a.!'^-v ~'t ~ { {h: 3~1 C~aF~'~ a ih=.~1~ y ? i :x 4. " l uftn si ' ..?a4}id~' js. •'f. J; CCFai~~rview 4,145 -425 ..'09 -77344 73 04 -1, 2 1 TO Gladstone 4,582 •436 -96 532 53 Gresham 45,297 4,555 4,024 -5,579 558 Happy Valley 2,583 -294 -279 573 57 97 515 4,147 FAsboro -3,Q30 1 Johnson City 754 55 159 214 IGng City :417 50 5 Lake Oswego 16,452 -1,850 -1,542 -3,392 339 Maywood Park 122 -9 11 2 Milwraukie 11,709 -1,043 23 -1,020 102 Oregon City 12,896 -1,230 -355 -1,585 159 Portland 280,528 -19.864 1,916 -17,948 1,795 Rivergrove 123 -14 -13 -27 3 Sherwood X6,395 670 561 -1,231 .123 T' -19179 =2,11 i -1007 14 ,208 321... Troutdale 7,096 -751 559 -1,310 131 4•. io r; . Tualatur ~`10,562 -'_1208 4,904 West Linn 8,897 987 -713 -1,700 170 Wilsonville 8,842 -1,000 -797 -1,797 180 Wood Village 1,548 -164 -11 -175 18 Clackamas Co. Uninc. 77,498 -7,309 -3,744 41,053 1,105 Muttnomah Co. Uninc. 7,621 -814 534 -1,348 135 696 13,154 427 681 1N ~o:lkiaic. 016, Totals 722,908 -66,244 24,232 -90,476 9,048 Wash. Co. Jurisdictions 232,215 .41,919 4.192 Notes: These estimates will be recalculated when 2000 census data becomes availathe, and are based on 1990 Census. 1995 American Housing Survey. 1998 Marathon Mgmt. Data and 1999 Metro data. Of the 90,476 unit dera of units serving those at 50% of median or less, ready 112 of these units (41,919) are needed in Washington Co., even though we represent only 113 of the projected 2017 household growth (232,215). In 1998, while Portland alone had an estimated 45.451 units serving those at <50% of median, in all of Washington County, there were only an estimated 10,561 such units. While 6% of Por lands projected growth should accomrnodate units at X50%,17%of Tgard's should. Historically, both state and federal housing subsidies have gone dispmportionatety into Portland/Multnomah County. V91 Ll• Vv 1't. VV iAA L YVY IYL V4vu vVVa IaV L'a a..a.•✓..... Exhibit M ~7?a ; Q ~l Department of Transportation re g Region I Nrt'V Flanders 9 lolu+ A. Kiuluber, MD., 4ovemor '123 Portland, OR 972094037 (503)731.8200 FAX (503) 731-8259 August 11, 2000 FILE. COW- PLAB-1-?A-TIC-141 City of Tigard Proposal Nu-nt:v: 732 Planning Division 13125 S1.V Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Brian Rager Subject- Pre-application for Hall Boulevard Housing Dear Mr. Rager This letter augments our preliminary response letter sent on July 28, 2000. The applicant has worked with ODOT to develop a preliminary site plan (see attached plan). This site plan locates the development's Hall Boulevard approach along the site's southern property line. This approach location allows for a future shared access between the applicant's site and the property directly to the south. This approach location satisfies ODOT's requested condition of approval 3(B) as stated in our July 28 letter. ODOT appreciates the applicant's cooperation in this matter, and looks forward to working with the applicant and the City of Tigard once a formal application for this development has been submitted to the city. If you have any questions regarding the above comments. I can be reached at (503) 731-4610. Sincerely. W ;4 A-4,eAj~ zhzao~ Matthew Larsen Development Review cc' Jill Sherman, Applicant Po rT7+ 77.1050 Sl ivril •b, wed, Department of Transportation -Oregon Region I 123 NW Flanders luhn A. Kitzhaber..M.D..Governor Portland, OR 97209-4037 (503) 731-8200 FAX (503) 731-8259 July 28, 2000 FILECO PLA9-1-2A-TIG-141 Proposal Number. 732 City of Tigard Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Attn: Brian Rager Subject: Preapplication for Hall Boulevard Housing Dear Mr. Rager: This letter represents ODOT's preliminary response to the applicant's pre-application proposal. The proposed land use action is adjacent to state highway 141 (Hall Boulevard). According to the Oregon Highway Plan (1999) Hall Boulevard is classified as a District Urban highway facility. The posted speed limit at this location is 40 miles per hour. Given this speed, the access spacing standard for this facility is 500 feet. The mobility standard - is a volume to capacity ratio of .95. ODOT has permitting authority for access to -Hall Blvd. and an interest in ensuring that this proposed land use does not negatively impact its safe and efficient operation. We have reviewed the applicant's pre-application proposal for an affordable housing complex of 26 units and 31 parking spaces. We understand that the applicant has sought to -acquire an easement to the adjacent property in order to to develop joint access to -the site. but has -been unsuccessful so far.. We understand that the applicant will seek direct access to Hall Boulevard from the site if no easement agreement can be reached. The existing access from the site to Hall Boulevard does not meet ODOT spacing standards. The accident data for this section of Hall Boulevard indicates a safety problem related to driveway turning movements. Any access from the site directly to Hall Boulevard would present similar spacing and safety concerns. Given these existing conditions, ODOT will request that the following requirements be i made conditions of approval: 1. An application for an ODOT approach permit will need to be made at ODOT District 2A. Contact Joel McCarroll, Asst. District Manager at 229-5267 for information on the written application process. a 2. A traffic study will be required to support the approach permit application. Contact Chi Mai, District 2A Traffic Analyst, at 731-8542 for assistance in scoping the study. Furor 7:.I• IX~tl t I /`1S) ~ City of Tigard ODOT Preapplication for Hall Boulevard Housing Page 2 8/02/2000 3. The applicant has the following options: A. Establish a crossover easement for access to Hall Boulevard with one of the adjacent properties, or B. Locate the site's approach road in such a way that when an adjacent property redevelops it can use the applicant's approach as a shared approach. 4. Dedication of right-of-way as stipulated by the City of Tigard for future improvements to Hall Boulevard will be required. 5. Frontage improvements along Hall Boulevard to include curbs, sidewalks, and catch basins to accommodate highway drainage to ODOT/ADA standards will be required. 6. A preliminary drainage plan of the site will be required. A drainage study may be required if: A. Total peak runoff entering ODOT's right-of-way is greater than 0.05 cubic meters per second, or B. The improvements create an increase in impervious surface area by greater than 1,000 square meters. An application for an ODOT drainage permit will need to be made at ODOT District 2A if the site's drainage enters ODOT's right-of-way. Contact Joel McCarroll, Asst. District Manager at 229-5267 for information on the written application process. To ensure timely coordination, we strongly recommend that the applicant work with ODOT to establish the location of the approach road before formal application for design review is filed with the City. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, I can be reached at (503) 731-4610. Thank you for providing notification of this pre-application proposal. Sincerely, ~~-asei~l~l.J Matthew Larsen Development Review cc: Jill Sherman, Community Partners for Affordable Housing Chi Mai, Traffic Analysis, ODOT Region 1 Joel McCarroll, ADM, ODOT District 2A Exhibit N I1 Ifl~ 6Hs ~ ~ s . FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. INC. P.O. BOX 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 Tel: 503-968-2724 Fax- 5(l,i•;v8-K)~ t August 7, 2000 Phil Collumbo, Services Planning Coordinator TRI-MET 4012 SE 17'h Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 Dear W. Collumbo: I appreciate your time and information regarding future TRI-MET service in the Barbur Corridor. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) Inc. is a nonprofit housing developer serving the Tigard-Tualatin area. We currently own 116 units of multifamily affordable housing and one single-family house. CPAH recently received tax credit and funding awards to build a 26 unit new construction development on Hall Boulevard (between Spruce and Pfaflle). We would like to request consideration for service on that part of Hall Boulevard that does not have service at the present time. The development would serve families at or below 30%,40% and 50% of area median income. This low-income segment of the population is more likely to use public transportation. In fact, we know from parking studies conducted at our other sites that many of our residents do not have cars and do rely on public transportation to get around. The development will have 13 one and two bedroom units and 13 three and four bedroom units. We project that the development would open in March 2002. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to call me at 968-2724 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jill Sherman Housing & Resource Development Manager V0~14/UU AIJA 11:10 rd.'. 00.7 OOi 44VU aat. pint/ [4. ztraaa4r oVnvva. Exhibit ~ ~ 10 Sheila Fink, executive director Community Partners for Affordable Housing P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281 Dear Sheila. This letter is to support Community Partner's application to develop a multi-family housing unit in the Metzger Elementary School attendance area. To make room for additional, students, the district has added a 2-classroom portable unit at Metzger this year. Additionally, Metzger's boundaries have been changed so that new students who live on the south side of Pacific Hwy. will no longer attend Metzger, but will be enrolled at Templeton Elementary. Over the next two years, these changes should open classroom space at Metzger, enabling it to easily serve any new students generated by your project. We consider Community Partner's involvement in the site's development as a plus for our school district because of the extra support you provide for the children and the families who live there. We look forward to worldng with you as your project becomes a reality. Sincer Lowder Superintendent O Lr:tar rAA ouODtpo o L a 1fL Exhibit P My OF February 23, 2000 OREGON Sheila Fink, Executive Director Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 Dear Sheila: We are writing on behalf of Cornm;uuty Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAh- to endorse the proposal to construct 29 new housing units in the Washington Square Area. We have worked with CPAH on various projects, and have seen the organization's dedication and commitment serving the lower-income families in the Tigard area. The Tigard Public library is very supportive of community-based efforts which impact the quality of life of library customers. We arc particularly interested in efforts that promote reading, and we have been happy to partner with CPAH in efforts to make reading maceriais available in their low-income housing facilities. Over the past two years we have helped to establish juvenile reading collections at two such facilities, and we look forward to doing similar projects at additional housing sites. The work CPAH does is invaluable to this community, and we are pleased to offer our support and assistance to you in any way that we can. Sincerely, Ps_ ; ( (V-L" Kite Miller Marin Yo •uker Teresa Laubach Adult Se"Vices Librarian Young Adult Services librarian Youth Services Specialist Tigard Public Library Tigard Public Library Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Hall Blvd.. Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 MAX UMLIAMS State Reprewntative commute. DISTPUCr 9 VC4-chair. Judiciary-Cmi Law REPLY TO ADDStl5S3.*MO1CATW. Omten 1rauze of 1tcy'nenun.e4 ''-t9 kit. Reveeue OR 97710 Rules, F,fecaont, dl Public 12103 SW :33tn A.c Affairs ntyd,OR9r-23 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SALEM, OREGON 97310 February 21. 2000 tirl k FACSIMILE Ms. Sheila G-m=law-1~ink- Community Partners of Affordable Housing Post Office Box 23246 Tigard, Oregon 97281-3206 Subject: Support for State and County Funding for New Affordable Housing In Washington Square Area Dear Sheila: I am pleased to offer this letter in support of Commnunity°arrners for Affordable Housing's ("CPAH") efforts to acquire additional property for the construction of 29 new affordable housing units in the Washington Square area. As you know, I support affordable housing projects in Tigard and throughout Washington County, as well as funding for such projects by the Legislature. The lack of affordable housing in Washington County has reached a crisis level. There are too many people who work in the area, but are unable to afford to live in the community. This results in traffic congestion, longer commutes, more time spent away from family, and a higher cost to those least able to afford it. Lack of affordable housing destabilizes otherwise stable far i'lies. No where is this fact made more clear to rue than by my service on the board of the Good Ncighbor Center, East Washington County's Homeless Shelter. CPAH has been an outstanding example of the pamtcrstup between public agencies, non-profits, and private industry working for more affordable housing in Washington County. Your local community support, volunteer base, and successful efforts at projects within the Tigard area make you best suited for this important project in our community. Your work at Villa La Paz stands as a shitting example of CPAH's commitment and capability in successfully taking good ideas and making them a reality. The families that MM has been able to assist and stabilize has made Tigard a better place to live. Office: H•415 Stan C+,i4d. S dem, OR 97310 - Phoae. 15031986.14W District 12M SW 051h Avr. . Tigard. OR 97:23 -Phone: 5031524-4275 -Email- waNams.l-p4swcocus tif_l' c! GjiCQ. o -'3 FEB° i•-a~l7l"•.' 17:3E• hi1Ll.ER FN'aH Ms. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink -2- February 21. 2000 It is my sincere hope that the project request you have madc will receive serious consideration and support. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other affordable housing issues in the futwe. J cerely, x 'illiains te Representative House Disuict 9 0 i T l' k- P. rt February 24, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD Ms. Sheila Greenlaw-Fink OREGON Executive Director Community Partners for Affordable Housing PO Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 Re: Letter of Support Dear Sheila: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 2000, giving me an opportunity to provide a letter of support for your agency's efforts. It is my understanding that you will be including my letter in your application for State of Oregon tax credits and other grants that you will be applying for to facilitate a proposed new affordable housing development in the City of Tigard. The City has been very impressed with the success of Community Partners for Affordable Housing, particularly with the rehabilitation and improvement of the Villa La Paz complex. Tigard has supported your efforts from the inception as evidenced by your property tax abatement, as well as the cooperative effort between your agency and our Police Department to address crime issues. Specifically, we are very proud of the cooperative effort that led to the Enhanced Safety Property designation that was recently awarded to Villa La Paz. Your agency is recognized as the leader locally in addressing the need for more affordable housing in the community. The City Council supports your efforts and encourages you to seek other opportunities to provide affordable housing. Recently, the City Council in its goal-setting session reiterated its commitment to "encourage and support private sector programs to rehabilitate housing that will be offered for rent at affordable rents, resulting in a safer environment for the tenants." The Council recognized your efforts and expressed encouragement to you to bring forth additional projects to benefit the community. Thank you, too, for your continued involvement in City efforts such as the Visioning Program and the creation of the City's community housing goal. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager 1: W D M\ B I L L\00 02 24-1. D O C 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 HUU--lb-. WUU 11;4t V c ...,A.. egon Housing and Community Services Exhibit Q 1 bal>?m, OR 973(11-4246 •yy, lohn V Kitsh -M•r• At V, t.uetrtt it (50) 986r20UD FAX (503) 986-30'0 TTY (503) y86•2101) Ritp: / / www lu:s.%tatc.octrs 1211 EO'JAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY August 16, 2000 Mr. Dick BovversJor`f, Planning Manager Department of Community Development City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Vil1«9e at Washington Square Acar Mr. Bewersdurff: Corrununity Partners for Affordable Housing, lnc.(CPAH) is submitbuF an application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment on their affordable housing project, Village and Washington Square. CPAH was awarded fedcrra Low Income Housing Tax Credits from our department tor the development of this highly nreded family project. At the time of application. CI'AH and Oregon Huusing and Community Services had the understanding that the zoning for this development was in pla;x. The award the CYAH reCeived for this pruIect is worth approximately 52.5 million to the project. If they do not secure proper zoning by early October we are likely to pull the avrard and grant those tax credits to another project. CPAH would have to wait until August of 2001 to re-apply and they would again be applying in an extremely competitive enviruament. Our department his been working with CPAH to help this project move forward. it is my hope that they receive the zone changes they nred by Octohcr in order to insure that this development will be completed. ~inccrely, Vince Chiutti Regional Fuld Representative (503) 963-2284 T07AL P.01 f Jill Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc.'' v ADDITIONAL, txwms ITEM PAGES 1. Roster of CPAH Board and Development Team 1-2 2. Response to Trudy Knowles Letter 3-6 3. Regional Transportation Plan / Map / Summary 7 4. Map Showing Other R-40/Beef Bend Site 8 5. Illustrations Showing Impact of Setbacks 9-11 6. Development Code table 18.510.2 Showing Setback Requirements 12 7. Tri-Met Letter About Future Bus Service 13 8. Letter from CP04/Metzger Supporting 44-Unit Senior Housing Project 14 N a PO 80x 23206 • Tigard. OR 9 728 1-2306. Tel: (503) 965-2724 Fax: (SM) 9998-8423. Website: www_cpat*ic.ory r 1 ' Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. BOARD ROSTER OFFICERS Margaret Nelson, President Relationship Manager, Key Bank Tigard Term Expires: 10/2001 Rebecca Smith, Vice President Homeless Services Manager, Community Portland Action Organization Term Expires: 1012001 Mary Eidson, Secretary Accounts Payable, Kadels Auto Body Tigard Term Expires: 1012001 Doug Plambeck, CPA, Treasurer CPA, Lead Analyst, Market Information Tualatin Systems, Portland General Electric Term Expires: 1012000 BOARD MEMBERS Marianne Potts, Immediate Past President Accountant, Ash & Associates Tualatin Term Expires: 10/2000 Angel Griffin VISTA IDA Program Assistant, Corporation for Portland Enterprise Development Term Expires: 1012000 Stu Miller Controller, Oregon Outreach McCoy Academy Tigard Term Expires. 1012000 Diana Potts Administrative Assistant, Oregon Health i West Linn Sciences University Term Expires: 10/2001 Roxanne Rathmanner Compliance Manager, First Consumers Hillsboro National Bank Term Expires: 10/2001 7 d a Revised 84-00 PO Box 23206 - Tigard. OR 97281-2306 Tel: (503) 968-2724 - Fax: (50(3) 9968973 - Website: www.cpahinc.org 0 MEMAN Community Partners for , Inc. e Housing Affordable Village at Washington Square Development Team General Partner/Sponkor: Accountinq/Audit: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Exec. Dir. Neal Saran or Max Hunt" Blume Jill Sherman, Housing & Res. Dev. Mgr. v ri Colleen Willis, Resident Svcs. Coordinator Deloitte & Touche LLP Terese Cook, Office Administrator 3900 US Bancorp Tower Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. 111 SW Fifth Avenue PO Box 23206 Portland, OR 97204 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 P: 727-5294 F: 228-4979 9020 SW Burnham Street Tigard, OR 97223 Attorney: P: 968-2724 F: 598-8923 S-cell: 502-9397 Doug Blomgren cpahinc@teleport.com Preston Gates & Ellis www.cpahinc.org 222 SW Columbia Str. #1400 Portland, OR 97201-6643 Margaret Nelson, Board Chair P: 226-5715 Main: 228-3200 F: 248-9085 Vice President Dblomgre@PrestonGates.com Key Bank 5330 NE MLK Jr. Blvd. Ed Sullivan (land use) 'P: 226-5727 Portland, OR 97211 esulliva@PrestonGates.com P: 795-6030 F: 2848086 Margaret_a_nelson@keybank.com Contractor: Stephen Seabold Housing Development Consultants: Seabold Construction Robin Boyce 9965 SW Arctic Dr. Rob Prasch Beaverton, OR 97005 Housing Development Center P: 626-8060 F: 626-0331 2627 NE MLK Jr. Blvd. Portland, OR 97212 Land Use Consultant P: 335-3668 F: 335-0475 Ed Murphy e-mail: hdmb(5teleport.com Ed Murphy & Associates hdcrobin@teleport.com 9875 SW Murdock Str. Tigard, OR 97224 P: 6244625 F: 968-1674 Cell: 314-0677 Architect, i Brad Simmons ejmurphy@aol.com a Brian D. Carleton, AIA Carleton Hart Architecture, P.C. a 322 NW 8"' Avenue Portland, OR 97209 P: 243-2252 F: 243-3261 3 e-mail: brrian@chaac.com; bradsim@chapc.com a a FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I N c. P.O. Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3200 Tel. 503-968 2 724 Fax S03-598.8')13 September 15, 2000 City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Response to letter from Trudy Knowles I Members of the Planning Commission: We have reviewed the letters submitted by Trudy Knowles, dated August 28 and September 1, 2000. We share many of her concerns about the livability of the neighborhood, the safety of pedestrians and motorists, the impact of development on the wildlife, and the proper management of storm water runoff. We know she must also be concerned about housing affordability, which is our organization's primary mission. The key is to balance all of those concerns while designing a viable project. Following are our comments in-response to Ms. Knowles letter. Ms. Knowles mentions a CPO 4 (Metzger Citizen Participation Organization) meeting. This meeting was held last summer, at which time we were proposing a four-story, senior housing project on this property with 44-apartment units. The project has since been revised to a low-income family housing project with just 26 units. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) met with the surrounding property owners on August 10, 2000. Notices were sent to the Citizen Involvement Team (CIT) leaders and all property owners within 500 feet of the property. Additionally, a very large and highly visible sign was placed on the property facing Hall Boulevard noticing the time and date . of our neighborhood meeting. We asked to be on both the July and August Metzger CPO meetings, but the July meeting was cancelled, and time did not allow on the August agenda. We are scheduled to participate in their meeting on September 27. Ms. Knowles was not at the August 10th neighborhood meeting, where we discussed many of the concerns she raised. Ms. Knowles letter expresses her concerns about the impact this project may have on existing dwellings. (By "existing dwellings, it is not clear if she means the single-family house on the property adjacent to the south, or perhaps more broadly, the St. James apartments and any existing dwelling in the larger neighborhood). In any case, she notes the following concerns: Village at Washington Squaw Environmental impact. Ms. Knowles asks what will happen to the existing vegetation and wildlife. Fortunately, this property does not contain wetlands, and many of the significantly sized trees arc around the perimeter of the parcel and will not be affected. The interior of the site is mostly clear of significant vegetation. Although some of the 23 trees will need to be removed, many will be protected from the development activities and retained. In addition, approximately 25 new trees will be planted on the site, adding vegetation and habitat for small birds and animals. CPAH asked Mike Houck, Urban Naturalist with the Portland Audubon Society, to review the site and offer suggestions, which he did. Mr. Houck wrote a letter stating "...there are no significant wildlife habitat on the site at this time there are certainly no wetland, stream or floodplain issues on that site... Clearly, with the need for affordable housing, the need to maximize the use of public transportation, and the lack of native habitat that would be put at risk, I think the site is a prime site for the type of development you are proposing". (See Exhibit `J' in our application packet for the full copy of Mr. Houck's letter). ♦ Increased traffic flow. Because of the location of the project, and the financial constraints of the tenants, this project is expected to generate fewer and shorter private vehicular trips, and more trips by alternative modes of transportation such as busses and bicycles, than an equivalent sized market rate apartment complex located further from transit and jobs. The project will add additional vehicular trips per day to the adjacent roadways, but much less than an equivalent number of single-family detached homes, and it will certainly not overburden the capacity of the existing transportation system. Such additional trips are anticipated at the time a plan is adopted and coordinated with transportation and other elements of that same plan. SW Hall Boulevard is planned as a 3 to 5-lane major arterial, with bicycle lanes and sidewalks. (In fact, in the Regional Transportation Plan, Project 6019 calls for constructing sidewalks and bike lanes along Oak Street from Hall Boulevard to 8& Avenue, and an upgrade to the traffic signal, in the 2000-2005 time period; Project 6051 calls for retrofitting Hall Boulevard from Oak Street to 99W to include bike lanes, sidewalks and better street crossings to improve safety, also in the 2000-2005 time period; plus there are three other projects, 6013, 6051 and 3051, which call for improving Hall Boulevard with travel lanes, bike lanes, bus shelters, lighting, curb extensions and benches, all within the 2000-2010 time period). There will not be a parking structure on the site. Parking will be provided in a parking lot. This project will improve SW Hall Boulevard with sidewalks for pedestrians, and there will be direct pedestrian access from SW Hall Boulevard to the units and community building. ♦ Water surface issues. Storm water run-off will be addressed in more detail in the Site Development Review process, but generally, surface water will flow to SW Hall Boulevard. Both water quality and water quantity will be addressed as part of the Site Development Review, with City of Tigard and the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) /aow{es/finaldN9/18/00 ('Mage at Washington Square review and requirements. The USA has indicated that they had no objections to the application now before the City. ♦ Noise. The future residents of the Village at Washington Square will be sheltered from much of the traffic noise because the buildings are set back from SW Hall Boulevard by over 80 feet, with the parking lot separating the units from the arterial street. The plaza and playground will generate the most noise from the project, but being centrally located they will be buffered on all sides by the buildings which will protect the adjacent properties from excess noise. The noise generated by the apartment complex residents will be normal, and should have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. ♦ Animal habitat. This property is not in a floodplain. It does not contain wetlands. The nearest wetlands, as noted on the City's wetlands map, is one-third of a mile away. The Washington Square Regional Plan took the environmental suitability of various locations into consideration, and determined that this site was appropriate for high-density housing. As mentioned above, some of the . existing trees will be removed, but several new ones will be planted, retaining and enhancing the animal habitat. ♦ Impact on emergency services. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and the City Police Department have reviewed the proposal, and did not offer any objections to our proposal. They will also review the more detailed site development plan once it is submitted. CPAH has retained a traffic engineer to review the traffic impact of this project and the affect on traffic safety of SW Hall Boulevard in this location, which will be submitted with the preliminary site plan. ♦ Pedestrian safety. This project will construct sidewalk improvements to SW Hall Boulevard along the frontage of the site, which will improve pedestrian safety. ♦ Let local neighborhoods have a say in what they want. CPAH has met with the neighbors, and has made presentations at several Citizen Involvement Team meetings. We have spoken directly with the immediately adjacent property owners. The design has been received positively, and the suggestions made by the neighbors taken into consideration in the preliminary site design. ♦ The Community already has its share of affordable housing that this Qroup oversees and owns. CPAH oversees and owns two multifamily projects in Tigard, with a total of only 116 units, and one single-family rental home. These are located in the general northeast Tigard area. There is a pronounced shortage of affordable housing in the community. We are responding to that shortage with this proposal. ♦ Move the project somewhere else. Although CPAH is receptive to developing affordable housing projects in other areas in Tigard, there is no other site available where the existing or potential zoning would allow a higher density project like the one proposed. The location chosen is excellent for a variety of reasons outlined in the knowics/rmatar/9n aioo Village at Washington Square application, including proximity to alternative modes of transportation and closeness to major employment areas. ♦ Street trees. The project will include street trees along SW Hall Boulevard, which will enhance the aesthetic and economic value of the project. ♦ Trees destroyed versus planted. Based on the preliminary site plan, it appears that 13 of the existing trees will have to be removed; however, 10 of the existing trees can be saved. Further, at least 25 new trees will be planted on the site. Therefore, there will be a net increase of 10 trees growing on the site after the development. In summary, Ms. Knowles asks, 'if this proposal goes through, what will it do?" The answer is that it will provide 26 dwelling units that are affordable to families making less than 50% of the median income, and it will provide those units in a well designed housing project in a great location with very little adverse impact on the environment, public safety, traffic or the neighbors. That is a significant contribution to Tigard. We hope that this response has adequately addressed the concerns that Ms. Knowles expressed in her letter. We believe that this is a great project in the right area at the right time. CPAH is committed to continuing to work with the neighbors as we move into the Site Development Review, the construction, and finally the on-going operations and maintenance phases. Thank you for considering our response. Sincerely, Sheila eenlaw->~ink Executive Director kaowkvTzn&Idr/9/1 8/00 Priority projects by c ry u'r'i Washington Square Tigard • W V7 l Regional Center Town Center 2000-2005 .aosl 6023'.:'' : 2000-2005 6012 Western Avenue r~yr 6030 Hall Boulevard Improve Corridor Improvements ~L ments Implement transportation system 85 Widen the street to five lanes from management strategies in the Locust Street to Durham Road. T1: corridor between Allen Boulevard 6022 project includes bike lanes and and Canyon Road, and extend sidewalks. Western Avenue north to connect to Canyon Road near Walker Road. 6033 Walnut Street Improve- ments - Phase 1 6014 Greenburg Road rv t Install a traffic signal at 121st Improvements a , Avenue. Widen the street to five lanes from ° Washington Square Road to Shady a : 6040 72nd Avenue Improve- Lane. This project includes aments northbound Highway 217 off-ramp Widen the street to five lanes from improvement and boulevard design GO 3051 99W to Hunziker Road. This treatment of the street, such as O-S project includes a median, bike wider sidewalks, landscaped buffer, lanes and sidewalks with planter safer street crossings and lighting. N71 strips. 6015 Greenburg Road Improvements - Phase 2 Improvements, , North Widen the'street to five lanes from Modifies intersection at Gaarde Hall Boulevard to Washington Street. Square Road. This project includes sidewalks and bike lanes. 6051 Hall Boulevard Bikeway 2005-2010 6010 Highway 217 and Pedestrian improvements 6019 Oak Street Interchange Improvements Retrofit the street from Oak Street Improvements Modify on- and off-ramps at to 99W to include bike lanes, yr Construct sidewalks and bike lanes 6009 Highway 217 Ramp Denney Road to include lights and sidewalks and better street crossings along street from Hall Boulevard to Improvements covered culverts. to improve safety. 80th Avenue. This project also Widen Greenburg Road off-ramps upgrades a traffic signal. and install ramp meters at inter- 6017 Taylors Ferry Road 6054 Highway 99W Access change on-ramps. Extension Management Plan 6024 Washington Square Construct a three-lane extension of Develop an access management plar. Regional Center Plan 6013 Hall Boulevard the street from Washington Drive to for 99W from I-5 to Durham Road. Study to identify long-term Improvements Oleson Road. This project includes transportation needs for motor Widen the street to five lanes from bikeways and sidewalks. 2006-2010 vehicle, truck, bike, pedestrian and` Scholls Ferry Road to Locust Street. transit travel in the regional center. This project includes bike lanes and 6022 Washington Square sidewalks. Regional Center Pedestrian 3051 Hall Boulevard 6025 Scholls Ferry Road Improvements Pedestrian Access to Transit Transportation System 6018 Scholls Ferry Intersection Retrofit streets within the regional j Improvements Management Improvements Improvement center to make them safer and Construct wider sidewalks, better i implement appropriate system Realign the intersection at Allen improve access to transit including crossings, bus shelters and benches management strategies such as Boulevard to improve safety. Scholls Ferry Road, Hall Boulevard, to improve pedestrian access to signal interconnects, signal re- Greenburg Road, Oleson Road, transit from Beaverton to Tigard. Cascade Avenue and intersecting ~ timing and lane channelization to 2011-2020 improve traffic flow from Highway neighborhood streets. This project 6034 Walnut Street 217 to 125th Avenue. includes better sidewalks and Improvements - Phase 3 1195 Oleson Road improve- crossings, lighting, curb extensions, Widen the street to three lanes from 6026 Washington Square ments bus shelters and benches. Gaarde Street to 121st Avenue. This 7 Regional Center Transporta- Construct bicycle lanes and side- project includes bikeways and tion Management Association walks where they do not currently 6023 Scholls Ferry Pedestrian sidewalks. Startup Program exist and provide lighting, better Improvements implement a transportation crossings, bus shelters, beaches and a [`lake the street safer for pedestrians 6036 Bonita Road management association program new traffic signal at 80th Avenue and improve access to transit from Improvements with employers in the regional from Fanno Creek to Hall Boulevard. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway to Widen the street to four lanes from center. Hall Boulevard. This project Hall Boulevard to Bangy Road. This 6008 Washington Square includes better sidewalks and project includes bikeways and Connectivity Improvements crossings, lighting, curb extensions, sidewalks. Implement new local street eonnee- bus shelters and benches. tions based on regional center plan reannntcndations. Q, gx- 0000 11 - V ~4~ t I 1 t 1 1 I I I! i ' I ar1,0 g,) I fAl I ~ 1 Rty t i „ I `..t , 4 i. i ~t.1.111 1t11t ` ` -•r`,:,,.. t - ~ i I 1 ' . 4~ r~~~ c`"o `1 I.- _t-'-t'v coo',/ Tri v ~ f ',i~,~!tJt11 . ' t •..5r'~1,•` tiol _ . i~ WWbb/5t~t++ (Jj :t'L. , 1 .Ax~~~B ! `7, 1{ tt~~~{~~`~~ \~t°t ~I~t 1nt! t~ i ttIcri ; M to ~ f t •i'} t + t. f,{ ~ F'7J; ~ lif i\ ~ ~~jj'~. '`h'r •-.J~ J U. ..}tea \ `C y ~ 1 ~ ~ 1._..~ I N 3 . - o 0 1 240 c .56 AC' C.s• 6655 s6 265.62 ~ G 2402 10 4 4 AC'' r 2-64.8 tom' 244.40 Nse042." 00 t 4600 C o . 73 AC 73.94 ° BACKS 470"Q d c, LDIN~" SET Q~ rM~UM B SED MUR I ZONE . 11A t UNaER PRO4 ~ L ~ 73 59 4~ 0 [Or : cYn 17 90 1 N 2.202 .67 AC. 5C _ r Nt11AL- POCRwS t6O r. 70' r- G R AN AM a 2.20 0 .26 AC. 1.4 1a N 2100 Ito'. 62 AC' 4 O O N r • N W 2401 JM 0 - 56 AC T7( J r 0 C.S. 6655 0 ' S88 42 E 265.62 2402 44 AC , 10 0 264.8 /O ` N68°42.00..w ~ o 4600 ® to coo M `P .73A C. i 1 3 4 0d MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS 73.941 ' E UNDER R-40 ZONE 'O NORMAL" 5ETBACK5 470 O I O . IIAC ® 2 ® 5 r AE AE AAr - 90d.=-= a a 2202 a._..l 4( a . 67 AC. I z ~ INITIAL POINT to GRAHAM ACRFS (60 a re- 55 - ---1 - - - M 50 2200 70 ' ° .26 AC. z 1.4 CD °f 160 a 2100 o .62 AC. 96 70 L) 1.r r- I p 1 2401 1 N 3 . 56 AC. T ~ o . c r~01 U-) 0 J o O C.S. 6655 S86042'E 265.62 2402 44 AC. , LO 2 10 ' .6 264.8 .AF _ 244.40 15N z NE38042'00"W N 1O • w. • ar • ~-1 • •r • w • rr+ o co N M 6 c~ M~ j.73AC. J b oc, 3( I t ~ 'n MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS •6 35-}1 UNDER R-40 ZONE 73.941 'EXTENDED" SETBACKS 4 7 0 0 1 v ® O - 17 : 73 59 5 a 2202 ! 1 .~.,1 4C . 67 AC. 1 r INITIAL POINIr en GRAHAM ACRFS 160 o 50 rg 55 ! + 2200 70 N {A 0 .26 AC. M 1.4 co 160 W g 2100 o .62 AC. - 0 41 7CC~ N BLK eCl ~ , TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-1 R-2 R-3S R4.5 R-7 Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 30,000 sq.ft. 20,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.fL 7,500 sq.ft. 5,000 sq. ft. - Duplexes 10.000 sq.fL 10.000 sq.& - Attached unit [I J 5,000 sq-& Average Minimum Lot Width - Detached unit lots 100 & 100 R 65 R 50 & 50 & - Duplex lots 90 R 90 R 50 R - Attached unit lots 40 R Maximum Lot Coverage - - - - 801/6121 Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 30 R 30 R 20 & 20 & 15 & - Side facing strut on comer & through lots 20 & 20 & 20 & 151(L to & -Side yard 5R 5& 5& 5& 5& - Roar yard 25 & 25 & Is & 15 & 15 & - Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 & - Distance between property line and 6ont of garage 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 & 20 ft. Maximum Height 30 & 30 & 30 R 30 tt. 35 It. Minimum Landscape Requirement - - - - 2(M. (1) Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. [2) Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. TABLE 18.510.2 - (Cont'd.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 R-25 R40 STANDARD _ MF DU* SF DUte MF DU* SF DU** - MF•DU• SF DU** Minimum Lot Size - Detached unit 3,050 sq.&per unit 3,050 sq.fL per unit 1.480 sq.ft. 3,050 sq.& per unit None None - Attached unit 1,480 sq.& None - Duplexes 6,100 sq.& or 3,050 sq.& per unit None - Boarding, lodging, rooming house _ 6,100 sq.& Average Lot Width None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks - Front yard 20 & Is & 20 & Is R 20 & 15 & - Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 & 10 ft. 20 & 10 & 20 & 10 & -Side yard 10 ft. 5&;1] loft. 5&(I) Lott. 5&(1) - Rear yard 20 & IS R 20 R IS ft. 20 & 15 & - Side or tear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. 30 & 30 ft. 30 & 35 ft. 35 R - Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 & 20 ft. 20 R 20 & 20 R 20 & Maximum Height 35 & 35 ft. 45& 45 ft. 60 & 60 Il Maximum Lot Coverage 121 r 80% 80% - 8J% _8O' 80% 80% Mimimum Landscape Requirement 20% 201o 20°!e r~ 20e/a 20% 20% ( I ) Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached. (21 Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. e Multiple-family dwelling unit ee Single-family dwelling unit Residential Zoning Districts 18.510-6 _ 11/16198 C TM -COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON 4012 S.E. 17TH AVENUE TM-MET P ORTLAND. OREGON 97202 T September 12, 2000 Ms. Jill Sherman, Housing & Resource Development Manager Community Partners for Affordable Housing, Inc. PO Box 23206 Tigard, OR 97281-3206 Dear Ms. Sherman: Thank you for your request for new bus service on SW Hall Boulevard between Spruce and Pfaffle to serve the new housing being developed by Community Partners in time for your March 2002 projected opening. We will review this matter and respond further in approximately two weeks. If you have any questions, please call me at 503-962-5839. Si rely, 1 Phill Colombo Service Planning Coordinator I 1 3 a a (5031238-RIDE - TN 238-5811 - http://www.mtnet.«g 1 Pat Whiting, Vice-Chair CPO 4M c/o 8122 SW Spruce Tigard, Oregon 97223 August 16, 1999 City of Tigard Planning Commission Tigard City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Planning Commission: Citizen Participation Organization (CPO) 4-M is in support of the proposed residential living facility for low-income seniors being considered for location at 11159 SW Hall Blvd in Tigard. Community Partners for Affordable Housing made a presentation at our monthly meeting. It would be a 44-unit complex of small apartments for elderly people who would share a common dining room and other facilities. We recognize the need for this project which would be close to Pacifice Highway and Hall'Blvd. where there are some shops, Safeway and bus trans- portation. Therefore, CPO 4-M would like to express our endorsement of the project. We are submitting our letter for the record for your deliberation of this important matter. Respectfully, Pat Whiting, Vice- air Jill Ommrr S CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes September 18, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Anderson, Mores, Olsen, Padgett, and Topp Commissioners Absent: President Wilson, Commissioners Incalcaterra and Scolar Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorlf, Planning Manager; Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The next meeting will be October 2"d 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Olsen moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion to approve the August 21, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-000011VAR 2000-00014 VILLAGE AT WASHINGTON SQUARE The applicant, Community Partners for Affordable Housing, is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change from medium density residential (R-12) to medium-high residential (R-40) and for a variance to the setbacks for the north and south sideyards, the rearyard setback, and a variance to reduce the minimum parking requirement LOCATION: 11159 and 11165 SW Hall ZONE: R-12 APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide planning goals: 1-19, Metro Functional Plan, Tigard Comprehensive Plan 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2 (a&b), 8.1.1, 8.2.2, 9.1.3, 12.1.3 Community Development Code Chapters 18.390.060 (Type IV procedure), 18.380.030 (plan amendments) 18.370.10 (Variances) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page I Commissioner Padgett reported an ex-parte contact with a Community Partners for Affordable Housing board member. The public hearing was mentioned, however he does not believe the discussion would prejudice him on the issue. Commissioner Olsen reported a site visit. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson presented the staff report on behalf of the City. She outlined the request from low density residential to medium high density residential; a rezone from R-12 to R-40; and variances for setback requirements and minimum parking requirements. She noted that the property would be developed as an affordable housing project with 26 units. She then listed the applicable review criteria. Nicholson reported that this area was annexed in 1987 and is located within the Washington Square Regional Center area. She said the Regional Center plan was adopted in February, 2000, however Council voted not to implement the zoning and design standards of the plan currently. She stated that the Washington Square proposed zoning for this site is MUR-1 (Mixed Use Residential - 1), which would permit residential development at a density of 50 units per acre and would also permit some commercial uses. Nicholson noted that under the Washington Square Regional Center plan, they would not have to apply for a variance. She said the idea of setback requirements in the code is to protect single family homes and this site is surrounded by R-12 zoning. With regard to the variance for reduced parking, Nicholson said staff recommends that there be a condition requiring the applicant to provide a copy of a lease that would be given to future tenants which would restrict the tenant to one car. Staff recommends approval of the request with this condition. Nicholson referred to two letters from Trudy Knowles raising concerns about environmental impacts. Nicholson said there are no delineated wetlands on this site and it is not located within the boundary of the 100 year flocdplain. She stated some of the issues mentioned in the letters would be addressed during the site development review. Commissioner Olsen asked how the City could hold the applicant to the condition on restricting tenants to one car. Nicholson answered that it would be made a condition of approval during the site development review. She reported that the applicant provided a traffic study which showed people living in affordable housing projects usually own fewer cars than other multi-family projects. She also noted that Tri-met is available on Hall Blvd. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page 2 ( APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION Ed Sullivan, 222 SW Columbia #1400, Portland 97201, highlighted issues of the project. He noted that this is consistent with the Washington Square Regional Center plan to allow for affordable housing. He stated that the regional plan is in place, but the City plan map and zoning map are not yet in conformity. He said Council decided to delay implementation of the plan because they had issues related to other properties and concurrency of public services. He reported that this site is designated appropriately under the regional plan and Community Partners would like to have this request considered earlier by the City. The reason for this is that they would lose their state and federal funding if the project does not move ahead. He reported that the applicant accepts the staff report and the condition that staff has suggested. Sullivan advised that the floodplain boundary is about 1/3 mile away from this site. Sheila Fink, Executive Director for Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH), 9020 SW Burnham, Tigard 97223, gave an introduction of the organization. She reported on the lack of affordable housing, noting that this is a goal of City Council. She said this 26 unit project would be kept as affordable housing for 60 years and that they have received county and state funding to help with the development. She noted that tenants would have incomes of 50% of the median or below. She said that in Tigard, there was no land zoned R-40, and very little zoned as R-25. She requests that the City consider the project now, rather than lose funds. She said CPAH held a neighborhood meeting and felt that people left the meeting in support of the project. Brian Carleton, 322 NW 8~', Portland, 97209, testified that he is the architect for the project and gave an overview of the design issues. He said it would range from studios to 4 bedroom units in a courtyard configuration. He noted that parking would be along Hall Blvd. and have 31 spaces. He pointed out the community building, the bike parking, and the play area. There is pedestrian access to Hall Blvd. for transit service. Commissioner Topp asked why they were building a three story building instead of going higher. Carleton answered that based on the number of units, it would be too expensive to build a higher building which would require elevators. He said the three story buildings would be a ground floor flat and a second floor townhouse unit. Carleton reported that their first choice for the parking lot was at the back of the site, but they could not get shared driveway access from the St. James apartments. Although the Regional Center plan calls for parking away from the street, they felt that with the tightness of the site and the possibility of losing community space, it would work better to put the parking along Hall Blvd. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page 3 Commissioner Topp asked if there could commercial uses on the site. Robin Boyce, Housing Development Center Project Consultant, responded that this project would have a number of land use restricted covenants which will require that the property remain as affordable housing for 60 years. It would be audited by the State every year. Topp remarked that the Washington Square Regional Center plan encouraged a mix of commercial and residential uses. Boyce said they would have to check with funders to see if it was viable for tenants to have home occupations. Ed Murphy, 9875 SW Murdock, Tigard, OR 97224, addressed the concerns in Trudy Knowles' letter (pages 3-6 in Exhibit A). With regard to the setbacks, he stated that the code language requiring 35' setbacks was intended to protect single family homes -from apartments. In this case, the site is surrounded by apartments, the apartment driveway, and one single family house in an R-12 zone, which could be redeveloped as apartments. He stated this project would provide 26 units of affordable housing to families. It is well designed and has little impact to the environment. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN FAVOR Margaret Nelson, 8134 SW Ashford, Tigard 97224, voiced her support for the project. Angel Griffin, 5609 SE 66th, Portland 97206, testified she has been a CPAH resident with CPAH for 3 years. She had praise for the organization and supports this project. Vince Chiotti, State of Oregon Housing Community Services Department, 123 NE 3rd, Portland 97232, stated that timing is of the essence. He noted that the agency may pull funds and CPAH would have to wait until next August to re-apply. He said there are five applicants to every one that is successful in obtaining funding. PUBLIC TESTIMONY - IN OPPOSITION Paul Brossey, 11260 SW Hall Blvd., stated he lives across the street from the site. He expressed concern on limited parking for the project. He suggested that the egress and ingress be looked at for all redeveloped properties on Hall Blvd. He was advised that the site development review for this project will require a permit from ODOT. He stated he had no objections to the R-40 designation. REBUTTAL Sheila Fink said they were comfortable with the restrictions; they have done a parking study and have confidence that it is sufficient. She noted that ODOT has provided two letters and have no issues. ODOT would like them to share an easement with the property to south if it is redeveloped. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page 4 Commissioner Topp referred to a letter from Pat Whiting, CPO #4. Fink responded that CPAH would be on the CPO agenda next month and would explain the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Olsen commented on the positive turn around for the Villa LaPaz apartments. He believes CPAH has a good record. He has no problem with the zoning and believes this project would be an asset to the City. Commissioner Topp noted that there would be nothing to prohibit them from selling the property to another developer. He expressed disappointment in not being able to implement more standards of the Washington Square plan, e.g., greater height and mixed use, but he agreed that we need more multi-family housing in that area. He suggested changing the wording for the parking restriction to read that each unit should be allocated one space. Commissioner Anderson shared some of Commissioner Topp's concerns about compliance with the Washington Square Regional plan, but believes the need for housing is greater than the parking lot location. Commissioner Olsen noted that this is a chance for the City to increase density. Commissioner Anderson likes the center courtyard and supports the zone change. Commissioner Padgett suggested, in the future, that when we have project-specific affordable housing projects, staff provide a statement as to where we stand on reaching the City's affordable housing goals and how this would affect those. He commented on the Washington Square design standards and noted that in the Tigard Triangle we have held strictly to those standards. He said there may be occasions when overriding factors require an allowable exception. He believes this is true in this case. We do have a citywide desire to increase and meet our affordable housing standards. Commissioner Mores voiced his support for the project. Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend approval of CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-00001NAR 2000-00014 with the change in text on parking restrictions [each unit should be allocated one space]. Commissioner Mores seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page 5 Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Vice-President Mark Padgett PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - September 18, 2000 - Page 6 A Preston IGateslEllis LLP EX.M 7 esulli va@prestongatcs.com (503) 226-5727 September 21, 2000 Mayor James E. Griffith and Members of the City Council City of Tigard Tigard City Hall 13125 SE Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Applications for Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Variances Community Partners for Affordable Housing - Village at Washington Square File Nos. CPA 2000-00002/ZON 2000-0000 1 NAR 2000-00017 to 000019 Dear Mayor Griffith and Council Members: I am writing you to request that the Council approve the above applications in accordance with the recommendations of your staff and Planning Commission. As Council is no doubt aware, these applications were prepared to take advantage of federal and state housing funds that would be lost, and likely not available again, if positive action is not taken by early October of this year. The property in question is located at 11159 and 11165 SW Hall Boulevard and is currently zoned R-12, Multi-Family. We optioned these parcels in May, 1999, after the City had appointed a 25-member task force to develop a Washington Square Regional Center Plan, which contemplated the addition of high density "mixed use residential" on this portion of Hall Boulevard. Upon adoption of the plan, the City decided to delay implementation of the same and has been using outside consultants to assist it in making some of the tough decisions that plan calls for. Because of this delay, we found ourselves in a quandary. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan designated this property as MUR-1 mixed use (high density) residential, which means that high density residential (50 units per acre) is permitted, as well as commercial uses. The proposed plan map designation for the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map amendment to R-40 (high density residential) are consistent with the land use and density designations of the Regional Center Plan. A LAW FIRM I A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING OTHER LIMITED LIABILITY ENTITIES 222 SW COLUMBIA STREET, SUITE 1400 PORTLAND, OR 97201.6632 TEL: 15031 228.3200 FAX: 15031 248.9085 www.prestongates.com Anchorage Coeur d'Alene Hong Kong Los Angeles Orange County Palo Alto Portland San Francisco Seattle Spokane Washington, DC t • Mayor Griffith and Council Members September 21, 2000 Page 2 We are aware that there have been concerns over some properties being designated consistently with the Regional Center Plan before all properties are so designated. As we understand it, the principal reason for delaying implementation of the Regional Center Plan is over the ability of the City to provide adequate infrastructure (transportation, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities for example) concurrent with development. While that concern may apply to other portions of the Regional Center Plan area, it does not apply to our property, where those facilities are present or can be upgraded. In fact as shown at the planning commission, there are improvements to Hall Boulevard that will occur in the short term, so that this parcel does not have the infrastructure issues that other undeveloped properties in the area have. We worked hard with your staff and prepared an application that considered all of the state, regional, and City of Tigard requirements for this project. Because of the configuration of the property, we found that, under existing City development regulations, we would be required to request variances. The variances deal with setbacks and parking requirements. Those variances would not be required under the code proposed by staff to implement the Regional Center Plan, but, as we note, that code has not yet been adopted. We have agreed to the conditions on this approval proposed by the staff and planning commission and hope that the Council will see its way to approving these applications as well. The staff report recommended approval with conditions. At its September 18, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this proposal with conditions. At that meeting, the Commission heard from the applicant and considered correspondence in opposition from Ms. Trudy Knowles, to which we responded. Ms. Knowles dad not appear; however, Mr. Paul Brossia raised questions regarding the enforcement of parking requirements and the level of allowable access on Hall Boulevard. He did not indicate opposition to the project and the Commission and the applicant attempted to deal with Mr. Brossia's concerns by considering the level of parking use on the property and noting that the access issue would be dealt with by ODOT and the City at the site design review level. At the Planning Commission meeting, I introduced the application and those who would speak on the same. I was followed by Sheila Fink, our Executive Director, Brian Carleton, our architect and Ed Murphy, our planner. We also had an appearance by some of our board members and by Vince Chiotti, from the state agency that funds affordable housing, to vouch for the fact that the funds for this project are in danger if we do not have an indication of approval from the City in the very near future. The City of Tigard has been very conscious of meeting the challenge of needed housing under its own plan and ORS 197.295 to .314. Community Partners for Affordable Housing can and will provide 26 units of needed housing if the Council approves these applications. We will be present at the hearing on September 26, 2000 to make a brief presentation (or, if the Council desires, a more extended presentation) and to respond to questions from the public and the Council. We thank the Council for its time and attention to these applications and acknowledge .e x Mayor Griffith and Council Members September 21, 2000 Page 3 the work of the staff in reviewing our applications quickly and bringing them to the planning commission and Council so promptly. We look forward to the Council meeting on September 261h. Very truly yours, PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP By Edward J. ulliv EJS:ejs K-%3W-Z W Z%EJS%EJS L31DE Emm THE NEIGHBORHOOD September 19, 2000 PARTNERSHIP FUND Mayor Jim Griffith City of Tigard RECEIVED C.U.T. 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 SEP 2 0 200 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Adminl$tratlon The Neighborhood Partnership Fund (NPF) currently provides operating support to Community Partners for Affordable Housing to continue with its efforts to address the needs for decent, affordable housing of low-income people in the Tigard community. We understand that Tigard's City Council will be reviewing some additional ways to encourage the development of affordable housing in Tigard. From our experience working with nonprofit community development corporations around the state of Oregon, we find that both the initial production of affordable housing units, as well as the long term operating success of such housing is significantly correlated to the level of local support. In order to achieve rents affordable at below market rates, a variety of subsidies and incentives are required. We applaud your initiative to consider some of the incentive tools to impact the initial costs of any affordable housing project through impact fee waivers, reduction and/or deferral of building and permit fees, tax abatements, etc. With the adoption of a tax abatement ordinance and a property maintenance code over the last few years, Tigard has begun to establish itself as a leader in Washington County. A few other municipalities around the state have also provided direct general-fund operating support to their nonprofit development partners to promote the development of affordable housing in their communities. We hope that you will consider taking additional steps to enable and foster the de : -lopment of much needed housing for low-income people and their families in Tigard. The Neighborhood Partnership Fund will again co-sponsor for a third year Washington County's Affordable Housing Symposium to be held at the Embassy Suite Hotel in January 2001. We hope that many of you will attend and take part in finding solutions to the issues affecting the availability and access to decent, affordable housing in the county. Finally, we commend CPAH for positively impacting community development and for taking on the challenges and hard work of reversing the decay in some of Tigard's neighborhoods. Sincerely Pietro R. Ferrari Program Officer Cc: Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, CPAH 1020 SW TAYLOR. SUITE 680 I ORTIANO, OREGON 97205 503.226.3001 I 503.226.3027 NPF@TNI'I.ORG W W W.TNPr.ORG Mod A , AGENDA ITEM # ""I FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Transportation Bond & Capital Improvement Program Project Update PREPARED BY: A.P. Dueenas DEPT HEAD OK a f~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Informational presentation to increase public awareness of the proposed Transportation Bond which will be on the November 7, 2000 election ballot as Measure 34-20 for voter consideration. Status update of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects which will be implemented during the remainder of FY 2000-01. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Informational briefing only. Staff is prepared to answer any questions that Council may have on the proposed bond issue or the CIP projects. INFORMATION SUMMARY Proposed Transportation Bond On September 26, 2000, City Council was provided with an informational briefing on the proposed bond issue that will be on the November 2000 election ballot. The briefing for this meeting focuses on the need for the projects and provides a more detailed project description for each of the primary projects. As stated in the previous informational briefing, the Transportation Bond Measure will be on the November 7th election ballot as Measure No. 34-20. The recommended projects include transportation system improvements for: ■ Gaarde Street - 99W to 12151 Avenue ■ 1215` Avenue - Walnut Street to North Dakota Street ■ Walnut Street - Tiedeman Avenue to 121" Avenue ■ 1215` Avenue - Gaarde Street to Walnut Street ■ 98th Avenue - Signalization at Durham Road ■ Fonner Street -Walnut Street to 115 th Avenue If, after the above-listed projects have been completed, there are bond funds remaining, the alternative projects listed below will be funded in order of priority shown: ■ Commercial Street - North side, Main Street to Lincoln Street ■ Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Boulevard ■ Tigard Street - South side, Main Street to Tiedeman Avenue ■ Tiedeman Avenue - Greenburg Road to Tigard Street .t , Construction of the primary projects would significantly improve east-west and north south connectivity in that area of Tigard west of Highway 99W. At this time, Walnut and Gaarde Streets are primarily two lane roadways with no sidewalks or bike lanes. The improvements proposed in the bond issue would reconstruct and widen these streets to separate the pedestrians and bicyclists from the motorists. Where needed, a center turn lane would be provided. A center turn lane increases the capacity of the roadway to accommodate the current and future traffic volumes by ensuring that the left-turning vehicles move out of the travel lanes to make their turns. The brief project descriptions are as follows: Gaarde Street - 99W to 121" Avenue: The existing street is a major collector, and is a narrow, two-lane facility with no sidewalks and no defined shoulders. This street requires widening to separate the modes of travel. This project will reconstruct and widen the existing street to provide a three-lane facility (in accordance with the ultimate width standard for a major collector) with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The completion of this projects would result in a much safer facility for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike, and would provide an improved cast-west connector from Highway 99W through the Eagle Pointe and Quail Hollow Subdivisions to Walnut Street. Walnut Street - Tiedeman Avenue to 121st Avenue: This segment of Walnut Street is a major collector with two travel lanes and a narrow paved shoulder on the north side of the street. This project will widen the street to provide a three-lane facility with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Construction of this project would provide an improved street between the Tiedeman Avenue intersection and the 12151 Avenue intersection. The MSTIP 3 project to improve Walnut Street from 12151 Avenue is underway with Phase 1 design (improvement of the approaches and signalization of the 121 "/Walnut intersection) nearing initiation of construction. Completion of this bond project, together with the MSTIP 3 (all three phases) project, would provide an upgraded east-west connection from Highway 99W to Barrows Road. 121" Avenue - Walnut Street to North Dakota Street: The existing street is a major collector with sidewalk on the west side through part of the project limits and a paved shoulder on the east side. This street requires widening to more clearly separate the modes of travel. This segment of 121 st includes a culvert which is inadequate to pass flood waters and requires frequent maintenance to remove debris caught on the upstream end of the culvert. This project will widen the existing street on the east side to provide a three-lane facility (in accordance with the ultimate width standard for a major collector) with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The culvert will be replaced with a new bridge designed to accommodate the flood waters. The bridge approaches will be reconstructed. The completion of this project would result in a much safer facility for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists alike, and would provide an improved connection between the segment of 12151 north of North Dakota Street and the 1215t/Walnut Street intersection now being improved by Washington County through MSTIP 3 funding. 1215 Avenue - Gaarde Street to Walnut Street: This segment of 121St Avenue is a narrow winding street with two travel lanes and no defined shoulders. This project will widen the street to provide a three-lane facility with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. The street would be narrowed to two lanes along those segments that do not require a center turn lane. Construction of this project would provide an improved street between Gaarde Street and the 1215t/Walnut Street intersection now being upgraded by Washington County through MSTIP 3 funding. Completion of this bond project, together with the MSTIP 3 project and the bond project to widen 12151 Avenue between Walnut Street and North Dakota Street, would provide an upgraded north-south connection from Gaarde Street to Scholls Ferry Road. 98th Avenue - Signalization at Durham Road: Durham Road carries over 15,000 average daily traffic (ADT). The ADT for 981h Avenue is slightly over 2,000. At peak travel hours, left turning vehicles on 98th Avenue encounter exceptionally long delays. The signalization of this intersection would provide the traffic on 981h Avenue the opportunity to safely enter Durham Road. The signalized intersection would also provide traffic entering Durham Road from the side streets some gaps in the traffic flow and should enhance that access onto Durham Road. The signal system will be optimized to ensure that the heavier volume of traffic on Durham Road is given priority during peak travel hours. Former Street - Walnut Street to 115`h Avenue: Former Street is a narrow, two-lane road with no defined shoulders throughout most of its length. Included along its length is a sharp 90-degree curve that requires modification to meet current design standards and reduce the potential for run-off-the-road accidents. This project-will widen the street to provide a two-lane facility with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. Although Fonner Street is a minor collector and typically would have a 40-foot paved width from curb to curb, the intent is to construct the street at reduced width to the maximum extent possible such that impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are minimized. Capital Improvement Program Project Update The Capital Improvement Program for FY 2000-01 is well underway with numerous projects initiated or completed. The informational briefing on September 26, 2000 provided a few of the highlights of this program. The following is the status of some of the other projects in the 2000-01 CIP: ■ The Sewer Reimbursement District (No. 18) project for Walnut and 12151 has been included in the MSTIP 3 project for improvement of that intersection and its approaches. The storm drainage project to extend the storm drain line from the project limits to an existing crossing, then outfall to the area north of Walnut Street is likewise included in the project. The County intends to perform the underground utility work this winter with road construction to begin in the spring of 2001. That intersection should be signalized and in operation by the fall of 2001 Two Fanno Creek Trail projects were initiated. The bridge across Fanno Creek on the trail from Main Street to Ash Street has been installed with construction of the boardwalk and paved path expected to be completed by mid-October 2000. The trail from Tigard Street to Tiedeman Avenue is proceeding a little slower with the abutments for the bridge just recently poured. That project is expected to be completed by the end of October 2000. The preventative maintenance projects for the City streets are substantially completed with striping remaining. This work includes the pavement overlay of Bull Mountain Road from 150th Avenue to Roshak Road, which is funded by Washington County through the Urban Services Agreement. The pilot project to install an embedded crosswalk lighting system at 1215` and Katherine was completed during the summer. A ribbon-cutting ceremony was conducted on August 29, 2000 to commemorate the completion of that project. The next two locations for installation of the embedded lights are the Walnut Street/Grant Street intersection and mid-block on Main Street at the south side of the Main Street bridge. The two projects will be advertised for bids in the next few days. Completion of the work is expected by the end of December 2000. QTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Transportation Bond and current CIP projects, when completed, meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES The CIP projects are funded through the approved 2000-01 CIP. 1:\Citywide\Sum\Bond and CIP Update as of 10-10.2000 Proposed Transportation Bond and Capital Improvement Program Status Updates k ri a' + October 10, 2000 Transportation Bond Measure mo-Placed on the November 7, 2000 Ballot JN►Identified as Bond Measure 34-20 lw►$16 Million Bond Issue 1=►Ten Year Term 1m06 Primary Projects )D,4 Alternative Projects 2 1 Recommended Projects 1=0-Gaarde Street (Highway 99W to 121 st Avenue) -►121 st Avenue (Walnut Street to North Dakota) 1-6'Walnut Street (Tiedeman Avenue to 121 st) Imp. 121 st Avenue (Gaarde Street to Walnut) lw*98th Avenue Signalization (At Durham Road) -►Fonner Street (Walnut to 115th Avenue) , Alternative Projects m*-Commercial Street (North Side, Main Street to Lincoln Street) 13*Burnham Street (Main Street to Hall Blvd.) im►Tigard Street (Main Street to Tiedeman - south side) 1=0-Tiedeman Avenue (Greenburg Road to Tigard Street) 4 2 Project Locations 71 1- or A ~1ir T.,.'.ti.~.~►duTil~i v ~ j l . ~ i~ 7 ~ L.... -{-rye .l•1 1 ~1~, /,i~`I:(1.?~ ;il ~ i 'gin y: i~~~1^'' ! P'_X'1y ~/tC/r1~Y11 .rr' Y. y74•J ~~ii. r ':ot'~ ~ ,Y;; ta.IYr . , q s~~ 'r`''te, ~ ~ 1 `'~...:y _ ....~C 1 1 Y Y 1 tai if Y , 1. ✓ i I '.~L j f Y, 1 1J~I h„ t ;4. 33 a~ l i't Y t 11 -TS i; 3 ~_y} r.~{•~(.~ ~'Yk"t,';r•„~~t~Y~d ,tsl,t r~ ' Gaarde street (99W to 121st) Gaarde St. Hwy 99W to 121st Ave w 6 3 Gaarde Street - 99w to 121 st Engineering Design Underway Gaarde Street 99w to 121 st Avenue Gaarde Street - 99w to 121 st Project Details 'Existing Conditions -*Narrow, two-lane facility ).*No defined shoulders )N*Proposed Improvements mo-Three-lane facility )WO.Bike lanes on both sides J-►Sidewalks on both sides )m►Streetlights 8 4 LM 121 st Avenue (Walnut to North Dakota) 121STAVE WALNUT ~T~O~N. DAKOTA I T I~~l M~ 9 121 st Avenue (Walnut to North Dakota) f yG' 10 s 121 st Avenue (Walnut to North Dakota) Project Details 1M►Existing Conditions ,.*Two-lane facility -*Paved shoulder on east side -►Sidewalk on west side (part of the distance) 1-►Proposed Improvements -►Three-lane facility )=*New bridge at Summer Creek (Merestone area) -*Bike lanes on both sides *Sidewalks on both sides l-►Streetlights Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121st) WALNUT ST z TIEDEMAN TO 121ST en en : a• ie r~..i l w 12 6 Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121 st) r Walnut Street (Tiedeman to 121 st) Project Details )-►-Existing Conditions l°►Narrow, two-lane facility .,No defined shoulders 1..►Some half-street improvements in the segment 11%*Proposed Improvements mo-Three-lane facility wo.Bike lanes on both sides -OSidewalks on both sides -►Streetlights 14 7 121 st Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut) 121ST AVE s GA~ARDE TO WALNUT 1 s' wr. S . I S 121 st Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut) ti 16 8 121 st Avenue (Gaarde to Walnut) Project Details l-►Existing Conditions 1-►Narrow, two-lane facility ,-,-No defined shoulders 1-►Proposed Improvements -+Three-lane facility (two lanes in segments where center lane is not needed) ...Bike lanes on both sides 1-►Sidewalks on both sides *Streetlights 17 98th Avenue Signalization (At Durham Road) 98TH AVE sIGNALIZATION @ DURHAM RD Y t ' i 18 9 98th Avenue Signalization (At Durham Road) I III _ ✓ 19 98th Avenue Signalization (At Durham Road) Project Details -*.Existing Conditions 10►Unsignalized intersection I'►Left turns onto Durham difficult in peak hours 10*Proposed Improvements IX*Signalization of intersection In~,Restriping and minor widening at corners -o Completion of sidewalks on 98th to Durham Is►Streetlights 20 10 Fortner Street (Walnut to 115th Avenue) FONNER STREET WALNUT TO S. OF 11 STH AVE Center turn lane only where needed II I !y 21 Fortner Street (Walnut to 115th Avenue) i I~ III i 11 Fonner Street (Walnut to 115th Avenue) Project Details im►Existing Conditions $*Narrow, two-lane facility 1O.•No defined shoulders 1•►Some half-street improvements in the segment )W►Proposed Improvements i•,Two-lane facility (Center lane only where absolutely necessary) )a+Bike lanes on both sides -►Sidewalks on both sides I-►Streetlights 23 Alternative Projects Commercial Street (N. Side, Main to Lincoln) Commercial St. Main St. to Lincoln St. Sidewalk North Side n 24 12 Alternative Projects Commercial Street (N. Side, Main to Lincoln) . L 25 Alternative Projects Burnham Street (Main Street to Hall Blvd) i f i 1 i f a 1 26 13 Alternative Projects Tigard Street (Main to Tiedeman, S. Side) Tigard St. Main St. to Tiedeman ; ti 4 27 Alternative Projects Tigard Street (Main to Tiedeman, S. Side) t. 28 14 Alternative Projects Tiedeman Avenue (Greenburg to Tigard) TIEDEMAN AVE. GREENBURG TO TIGARD ST. 29 Alternative Projects Tiedeman Avenue (Greenburg to Tigard) n3iXt ~Mri+4rri>x Ya`^r7ine... 30 15 Bond Issue Tax Rates Proposed Transportation Bond $16 Million Bond issue 5195 $200 180 $ 5160 ' e $140 r~ , € • : r $120. $96 a $100 565 i• F :n $80 ,.,4 5 .",..'J4' '+r % ~s~.a r'. ii G; ■ 10 Year Bond $40 $20 $0 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Assessed Value of Homo 31 Capital Improvement Program Status Update J-►Gaarde Street Improvements - Phase 1 )W*Two Fanno Creek Trail Projects nearing completion ln*Embedded Crosswalk Lighting System Projects lw►121st and Katherine - Completed i-sWalnut/Grant Intersection - Advertised for bids )MI'Main Street at bridge - Advertised for bids 32 16 Gaarde Street Improvements Phase I - Quail Hollow to Walnut Gaarde Street Extension 01 Construction Well Underway 33 Gaarde Street Improvements Phase 1 - Quail Hollow to Walnut .A. i 17 Movements e Stxeet ImP ~ aln,~t Gaard_ Qall follow to Phase 1 i III ''a. 4!. creek'~,~ail F ann~ . to ~.sh ~I.aln L t tei -4t aw.rr.. 1$ I Fanno Creek Trail Tigard to Tiedernan II ~I' Ili ji II r 37 Embedded Crosswalk Lighting 121st Avenue and Katherine % - Pedestrian Push Button' Controls. -:mow - - Embedded Lights 38 19 Embedded Crosswalk Lighting Ribbon Cutting Ceremony ' 4 August 29, 2000 39 Embedded Crosswalk Lighting Sites for Upcoming Installation On Main Street south of the bridge Walnut/Grant T' Intersection I 20 Summary j-Transportation Bond is Measure 34-20 on the November 7, 2000 Election Ballot )®,Proposed bond is for $16 million over a 10- year period 100-Proposed improvements will enhance east- west and north-south connectivity in Tigard )-►CIP construction projects are either completed or nearing completion. 41 21 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 10-10-00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Presentation from Representative of Oregon Association for Safe Highways PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hear presentation from Colleen Pacheco of the Oregon Association for Safe Highways. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After the presentation from Colleen Pacheco of the Oregon Association for Safe Highways, discuss whether the City of Tigard will support the Association's position by allowing the Association to use the City's name as a supporter. Also determine whether the City Couno~l will consider a resolution indicating support of the Oregon Association for Safe Highways position. INFORMATION SUMMARY During the time that Councilor Moore was assuming the Mayor's duties before Jim Griffith was appointed Interim Mayor, Ms. Colleen Pacheco sent information to Councilor Moore and asked for an appointment to explain the purpose of the Oregon Association for Safe Highways. Ms. Pacheco is seeking support on a stand against raising the weight and size of freight trucks. Councilor Moore said that he thought it would be more appropriate for Ms. Pacheco to make a brief presentation to the Council rather than to meet individually with a Council member. Attached is a packet of information provided by Ms. Pacheco. She plans to give a 10-minute presentation and then respond to City Council questions. The address for this Association is: 6717 Phinney Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Decline participation. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\ADM\CITY COUNCIOCOUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIES\OREGON ASSN FOR SAFE HIGHWAYS.DOC AUG-17-2000 10:39A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:2 ANY& 9lEGOtI assomstnoa feMMn The Oregon Association for Safe Highways A Program of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks Ph: 877-521-8722 Fax: 206-783=7603 email: safehvwaaa.net website: www.cabt.ora August 16, 2000 Councilmember Brian Moore City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97272 Dear Councilmember Moore, I was asked by your assistant Cathy Wheatley last month to send you a brief description regarding our coalition and why I'd like to most with you. I'm sorry it took me so long to send this. I will be in the Portland area again next week and would appreciate 20 minutes of your time to explain more in detail our goals and why and how you and the rest of the City Council can help. The Oregon Association for Safe Highways is one of 34 state affiliates of a national highway safety coalition - the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks. We work with environmental, health and safety groups, city and county officials and independent truck drivers to oppose efforts to raise the weight and size of freight trucks. Various Mayors, County Commissioner's, senior citizen, health and environmental organizations are coalition members. I'm including a list of our young but diverse coalition. Efforts are currently being made in Congress to raise the weight and size of freight trucks. Efforts that will not only raise the weights of single tractor trailer trucks from 80,000lbs to 97,000lbs, but could also lift the federal freeze on the expansion of double and triple tractor trailer combinations. Anotherwards, not only will Oregon see MORE Triple combination trucks, but Turnpike Doubles - which are even longer - could be allowed into the state in a short amount of time. If heavier and longer trucks are allowed, not only would the lives.of the motoring public be endangered, but the environment and state's infrastructure would be in jeopardy. As trucks get heavier and longer, they become harder to handle and more dangerous, and accelerate damage to our infrastructure. They also bum more fuel, creating more emissions and require bigger and better roads, diverting money from alternative modes of transportation. 1 will be in Portland Thursday 8124 and Friday 8125 and would like the opportunity to meet with you for 20 minutes to explain a little more about our coalition, the issue and to -see if you and the rest of Tigard's city council could take a stand on this issue. I know this is not much notice, but I hope you are able to fit me into your schedule. I will cast you tomorrow or you may call me at 877-521-8722 (Toll free). Bes egards, W Colleen Pacheco Oregon Association for Safe Highways AUG-17-2000 10:39A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:3 Oregon Association for safe Highways (7i27i00) Applied Kinematics Corporation Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers- Oregon State Legislative Board City of Beaverton, Oregon Gray Panthers Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Council of Senior Citizens Trauma Nurses Talk Tough United Seniors of Oregon Community Leaders Rob Drake, Mayor - City of Beaverton Mike Swaim, Mayor - City of Salem Linda Modrell, Benton County Commissioner AMk Pete Sorenson, Lane County Commissioner LM SEP-29-2000 11:55A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:1 Oregon Association for Safe Highways A Program of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks Ph: 206-783-7534 (toll free) 877-521-8722 Fax: 206-783-7603 email: safehwysQaa.net website: www.cabt.org TO: Cathy Wheatley, City of Tigard FAX: 503-694-7297 FROM: Colleen Pacheco ICE: Oregon Association for Safe Highways PAGES: 10 Hi Cathy, Here's the information I said I would fax you for inclusion in the packets to be disseminated to the City Council. In addition to the white papers, coalition list, membership form, and sample resolution; I am including a copy of a letter from the City of Portland to the Oregon Congressional delegation. Even though I am not asking the City of Tigard to write any of the Representatives on October 10°i, I thought they would find it of interest. I look forward to seeing you on. the 10th. Thanks, Colleen SEP-29-2000 11:55A FROM: T0:15036647297 P:2 No Bigger Trucks! IF is Oregon Association for Safe Highways 1-877-521-8722 BIGGER TRUCKS MEAN MORE DANGEROUS HIGHWAYS Big trucking companies and their allies among major shipping companies are pushing hard to end the current "freeze" on the expansion of longer combination vehicles-double and triple trailer trucks up to 120 feet long. The same interests also want to increase the weight of current single tractor- trailer trucks from the current 80,000 pounds to as high as 97,000 pounds. Both proposals for bigger trucks create unacceptable new highway safety risks. 0 According to a recent U.S. Department of Transportation study, LCVs are likely to have fatal acci- dent involvement rates at leas 11 % higher than today's single tractor trailers (U.S. DOT Compre- hensive Truck Size and Weight Study, Volume /ll, Scenario Analysis, 1998, p. 6-8). DOT analyzed the accident experience of twin 28' foot combinations that are legal nationwide today. In DOT's words: under conditions of generally unrestricted use similar to that of single- trailer combinations, multitrailer combinations-as they are currently designed and configured-could be expected to experience an 11 percent higher overall fatal crash rate than single-trailer combinations. This finding Is significant in terms of the debate on 'the safety of LCVs.' " NORMALIZED FATAL CRASH RATES SINGLE AND MULTITRAILER COMBINATION TRUCKS 1991-1995 COMPARATIVE FATAL 115 CRASH RATE PER 111 MILES OF TRAVEL 110 (SINGLE TRAILER'S COMBINATION . 105 of 100) ~t 100 100 97 s. 95 a} Y 90 SINGLE TRAILER MULTITRAILER ADJUSTED MULTITRAILER Exhibit 8-4, U. S. Department of Transportation's Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, Volume IN - Scenario Analysis December30, 9998 SEP-29-2000 11:56A FROM. TO:15036847297 P:3 The fatal accident rate for LCVs could be even higher according to the DOT . • LCVs-especially triples-have unusually poor stability performance. On one measure of stability-rearward amplification (the "crack the whip effect") triples show over 200% poorer performance than conventional tractor trailers (U.S. DOT Study, exhibit 8-9). The safety risks of LCVs are compounded by their incompatibility with today's crowded high- ways. Because they're so big and so slow, LCVs have trouble merging or changing lanes in free- way traffic. Similarly, they have problems maintaining speed on upgrades, creating serious safety risks. According to a University of Texas study, a 15 mite per hour speed differential increases accident risk nine times (An Assessment of Changes in Truck Dimensions on Highway Geometric Design Principles and Practices, The University of Texas Center for Transportation Research, 1981). • Because LCVs are heavier than conventional trucks they are also likely to cause more severe accidents (their greater length also means that they have a larger crash "footprint"). Some have argued that truck-car collisions often mean instant death for all light vehicle occupants anyway, so heavier trucks simply mean even quicker death. This simplistic assumption ignores the fact that the vast majority of car-truck collisions do not kill all the auto occupants. Making trucks longer and heavier increases accident severity and the likelihood of serious injury or death . M • And LCVs are likely to cause accidents as other motorists take evasive action to avoid them. LCVs will cause "systems" safety effects. Motorists are likely to try to avoid LCVs because they are perceived-accurately-to be unsafe. By speeding up, slowing down or changing lanes to avoid LCVs motorists will cause conflicts with other traffic that won't even show up on accident reports as a truck-related incident. Heavier singles also pose unacceptable safety risks. ® According to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), there is a strong statistical link between higher weights and a greater risk of fatalities. As weights go from 65,000 to 80,000 pounds the risk of an accident involving a fatality goes up 50% (U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, Phase 1, Working Paper 9 and 2, 1997, p. 37). ® Heavier tractor trailers will tend to have a higher center of gravity. Raising the center of gravity increases the risk of rollovers. ® Heavier singles will have braking problems. Trucks above 80,000 pounds gross weight must add a third axle to the rear of the truck to avoid increased pavement damage. Adding axles makes it harder to keep brakes in proper adjustment. Roadside inspections have found that 25% or more of trucks on the road today have brakes that are dangerously out of adjustment. ® Because of their extra axle heavier singles will be harder to steer. But a third axle decreases the steerability of a truck by requiring sideways skidding of at least one of the rear axles. As a result, there's more pressure on the steering axle, increasing the risk of skidding and making emer- gency maneuvers more difficult. ® And like LCVs, heavier singles are likely to have poorer power to weight ratios-increasing speed differentials with other traffic and increasing the risk of accidents. NNIN~l Ell SEP-29-2000 11:56A FROM: T0:15036847297 P:4 AM __qv~ ~.v®. No Bigger Trucks! i Oregon Association for Safe Highways 1-877-521-8722 B143GER TRUCKS WILL WORSEN INFRASTRUCTURE CRISIS Most concerns about longer, heavier trucks have centered on potential safety impacts. But bigger trucks are also a pocketbook issue: highway costs especially for bridges-will go up if truck size and weight increases. Taxes will go up in turn to cover the higher costs of big trucks. Consider the following facts: O Allowing bigger trucks will worsen an already severe national problem with deteriorating, crowded highways. According to the US DOT's 1997 "Status Report" on the nation's surface trans- portation system, $470 billion will be required over the next twenty years just to maintain the existing condition of our roads, bridges and highways. Changes in truck size and weight policy could have a major impact on pavement quality and performance, accelerating damage to our roads and bridges and driving those costs even higher. The 1997 US DOT highway cost allocation study finds that heavier trucks would actually cost the average taxpayer money for every mile traveled by a bigger truck. O The most common triple trailer combination would pay only 70% of its federal highway costs. Heavy single tractor trailer truck combinations would pay as little as half their share of highway costs. O Bigger trucks also exacerbate the nation's bridge problem. According to the USDOT, about 6% of interstate bridges, and larger percentages of arterial (10.9) and collector (16.1) bridges were structurally deficient in 1994. Improving the nation's bridge system would cost $8.9 billion a year-$3 billion more than current spending. ® Nationwide operation of longer combination vehicles would add $53 billion in new bridge reconstruction costs, according to the December 1998 Federal Truck Size and Weight Study. In addition, there would be $266 billion in lost time and extra fuel burnt by auto drivers stuck in traffic because of bridge work resulting from nationwide operation of LCVs. Total bridge costs would be $319 billion. O Raising the maximum truck weight limit to 97,000 pounds would result in increased pavement damage per mile fo truck traffic. Most seriously, a legal weight limit of 97,000 pounds would en- courage overweight operations of even higher and more damaging levels. The profits from bigger trucks will go to big trucking companies. The extra profits will come at the expense of ordinary drivers and taxpayers. With 90% of Americans opposed to bigger trucks on our highways, why should they be asked to also foot the bill? SEP-29-2000 11:57A FROM: 70:15036847297 P:5 No Bigger Trucks! r ~ Oregon Association for Safe Highways 1-877-521-8722 BIGGER TRUCKS: BAD NEWS FOR U.S. TAXPAYERS Public concerns about longer, heavier trucks have often focused on potential safety Impacts. However, it is clear from the Highway Cost Allocation Study released by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in August 1997 that there is an important tax and infrastructure issue, too. !according to the new USDOT study, longer combination vehicles do not pay their fair share of of highway maintenance costs. The damage their heavier weight does to our roads and Infra- structure is not covered by the taxes that they currently pay. It will cost U.S. taxpayers for every single mile traveled by a bigger truck. Here, s what the USDOT study found: ® Long, heavy double trailer trucks pay as little as 80% of their costs. Long, heavy double trailer trucks cover about 80% of their costs on average and at the 130,000 to 140,000 pound weights allowed in several states, long doubles pay only 60% of their costs. ® A typical triple trailer truck pays only 70% of its federal highway costs. The most common triple trailer combination-registered at 110,000 pounds gross weight- pays only 70% of its federal highway costs. ® Heavier single tractor trailer trucks underpay seriously as well - covering only 50% to 60% of their costs. According to the USDOT, a 90,000 pound six axle single tractor trailer truck covers only 60% of its costs, while a 100,000 pound six axle single tractor trailer truck pays 50%. What Taxpayers Pay: Costs of Longer, Heavier Trucks Longer Doubles - - - - - - - Triples Heavier Singles % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of Taxpayer Cost Burden In general, the USDOT study finds that as registered weight goes up, cost responsibility ratios fall sharply - that is, the big trucking companies making the profits pay less, and average taxpayers pay more. '=.EP-29-2000 11:57A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:6 am c®G RESOLUTION Whereas, trucking inndustry representatives have expressed the desire to end the current federal freeze on the operation of longer combination vehicles; and Whereas, removing the freeze opens the door to an increase truck length and weight to allow triple trailers, longer double trailers and heavier single trailers: and Whereas, increasing the size of tractor-trailers will worsen an already severe national problem of deteriorating, crowded highways and bridges, raising the costs of maintenance and repair, and Whereas, Alabama ranked second nationally to Minnesota in the number of deadly tractor-trailer wrecks per mile of snick travel for the years 1995-1997, according to a Birmingham News analysis, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION does hereby oppose the e, forts of the inicking industry to remove the federab.~'ee,'e.~n the-epaxutieu~lemger-se~ien~~►eJaicles~ - efforts to allow triple-length, longer double, and heavier single trailers on the roads and highways of Alabanna. Signed at the Jefferson County Cotirthouse this E" day of June 2000. Cary White, Preside tt - - Mary kelew, Commissioner a - isir-W c all. -C, Be Fin Collins, Commissioner A T ' e.# e lan) ; COmnfi W4. SEP-29-2000 11:58A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:7 Oftice of Planning & Development Review Regional Arts & Culture Council Transportation Charlie Hales Commissioner, City of Portland TO: Representative Darlene Hooiey Representative David Wu Representative Greg Walden FR: Commissioner Charlie Hales, City of Portlan Re: H. Can. Res, 306 - Safe H,1ghways The City of Portland is opposed to the Americans for Safe Efficient Transportation's campaign to encourage Congress to allow heavier, longer and more dangerous trucks on our ,highways. We urge you to join Rep. Blutmenauer as a cosponsor of It Con- Res. 306, the Safe Highways Resolution. The Resolution is designed to protect the integrity of the federal Longer Combination Vehicle freeze and prevent any expansion, of triples and long double trucks or our highways and in our clues. The Resolution maintains the legislative status quo, supporting current weight limits (80,000 lbs) on sign tractor-trailer trucks. As you know, the City is traversed by a number of freeways, including I -S and I-405, which carry vast amounts of passengers and freight daily. We are concerned with the safety, fiscal and environmental implications attendant to increasing the weight and length of tucks on the nation's highways. Longer and heavier trucks present serious safety problems to the motoring publlc and the statistics are grim - each year 5,000 people are killed in truck relate crashes and over 100,000 are injured. Larger trucks will only increase the safety risks to our citizens as they shave the highways with trucks to our city. We ose worried that lifting the LCV freeze will worsen an already severe national problem with deteriorating and crumbling highways and bridges. It has been estimated that most common triple trawler combination& pay only about 70% of theist shave of highway costa, and the remainder of the costs falls on the average taxpayer. With a !sage baddog of unmet highway and transit needs nationwide, it seems unwise and unfair to exacerbate the worsening infrastructure situation. 1221 SW Fourth Ave„ 0210. Portland, Or ?72U,9-1977 823-4682(phone) 823-4040(fc x) chale3®cl.poffland.or us Inn •d bt0££Z8£Q5 `19y SIdO1JY'1311,L(v~WN83A0J OZ 11 (3N) 00.6Z -'DAY SEP-29-2000 11:58A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:8 Finally, the enormous enviromnentai costs - consumption of fossil fuels and ton renewable resources and increased C02 and greenhouse gas emissions - to moving freight by truck need to be taken into account_ large trucks contribute disproportionately to traffic conrestion, which results in more emissions (and lost productivity.) It is bad public policy to encourage more ft eight movement by track when the more envirumentally efficient railroads can and should pick up part of the burden The City of Portland is ore of the nation's leaders in sustainable tranaporistion. We are working hard to ensure for our residents a good quality of lift accesaible public transportation and safe and efficient roads. The risks to human life and the environment of allowing trucks to get bigger and heavier is just too great We urge you to cosponsor the Safe Highw►aya Resolution and maintain the current laws governing the size and weight of tracks. cnn a brorszssnc:~a.t. sN01.~,V'13x.~.N~4tlN}I~no~ nz:~l (9nJ,100 ,6Z-'9(1~ SEP-29-2000 11:58A FROM: T0:15036847297 P:9 Oregon Association for Safe Highwan Applied Kinematics Corporation Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers - Oregon State Legislative Board City of Beaverton Gray Panthers Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Council of Senior Citizens Trauma Nurses Talk Tough United Seniors of Oregon Warm Springs Fire and Safety Community Leaders Rob Drake, Mayor - City of Beaverton Mike Swaim, Mayor City of Salem James Cole Jr, Mayor- City of Bay City Linda Modrell, Benton County Commissioner Pete Sorenson, .Lane County Commissioner Dan Martinez, Fire & Safety Chief, Confederated Tribes of Warne Springs Indian Reservation SEP-29-2000 11:59A FROM: TO:15036847297 P:10 OREGON ASSOCIATION FOR SAME EUG .•AYS 6717 PWnwy Ave. N. SSdit WA 98103 Ph=&- 206-783-7S34. CroU five) 1-877-521-8722, a nZil: safehwvAdUJIM wabsit~ WWW Fwc 206-783-7603 no Ongon Association for Safe Highways is mnco up of health and safety organization. law w&roemcat, humness and =vvoIl groups. senior citizRm groups, unions sad other concerned dtiizeas. The common timead that thm V=qm sham is opposition to "any tacleaset in trails time and weight". ~~##~kk~M:~lptk~lk~lb~9k~tt~lk# 'D'ES! You can count on me (us) to help keep longer. and heavier trucks off our Highways. Thtrefore I will: Make telephone calls to a Member of Congress or a State Legislator asking him/her to oppose any increases m truck rases and weights. Write a letter to a Member of Congress or State Legislator asking him/her to oppose any increase in truck sizes and weights. Visit with a Member of Congress or a State Legislator in their district office asking them to oppose any increases in truck size and weight. My organization will: Join tho Oregon Association for Safe Highways (list my organization as a member of the coalition). Write letters to our Member of Congress or State Legislator when needed Place phone calls to our Member of Congress or State Legislator. Marne Organization 0 Address Phone Number Fax E-mail Signature Mill AGENDA ITEM # "I FOR AGENDA OF 10- I0. nn CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washin zton Count Job Access Service r PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DEPT HEAD OK 'l "CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE OUNCIL Should the City work with Tri-Met, Ride Connection, and the Oregon Department of Human Services to utilize a $50,000 grant from Tri-Met to provide job access service to low income residents of Tigard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City proceed with establishing additional transit service and cooperate with Tri-Met and Ride Connection in setting up the job access service. INFORMATION SUMMARY The attached memo describes a program that is being proposed by Tri-Met and Ride Connection that has the intent of providing transportation service for low-income residents of Tigard. The purpose of the program is to increase the ability of eligible passengers to use public transportation to commute to work, to training and educational opportunities, to access support services, and child care. The eighth Council Goal for the year 2000 is to "Develop a demonstration bus program for Tigard intra-city services to be submitted to Tri-Met for consideration in 2000". This program will be the first step in working with Tri-Met to achieve this goal. We will be discussing further expansion of service for Tigard with Tri-Met as the next step. Judy Edwards of the Westside Transportation Alliance is assisting us with negotiations with Tri-Met. Service will be targeted to reach neighborhoods and low-income housing areas where individuals with low- income are clustered. The attached map shows areas where clients of the Cascade Employment Assistance Center and the State Vocational Rehabilitation are located in Tigard. The service available will be through a contract with transportation providers operating in Tigard using passenger cars and accessible minivans. This service is currently being provided very successfully in rural Washington County. The service will be provided on a one-year trial basis utilizing a $50,000 grant provided by Tri-Met. After that time, we will reassess the program and determine whether we want to reapply for continued funding. We consider it to be the first step in expanding the service provided to the citizens of Tigard. We will work with Tri-Met on further programs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could not agree to accept the job access program. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal 2) Improve traffic flow, Strategy 5) Encourage development of alternate modes, Action Plan bullet Coordinate with other jurisdictions for continuity of various modes. FISCAL NOTES The program would be accomplished utilizing a $50,000 grant from Tri-Met. i:\citywidc\sum.dot DRAFT PROPOSAL for Expanded Washington County Job Access Service Prepared by Carrie Leavitt Program Development Manager Ride Connection 2145 NW Overton Portland, OR 97210 Carrie Lnrideconnection.org (503) 413-8930 Tri-Met contracted with Ride Connection in May 2000 to provide Job Access Commute and Non-Commute service in rural Washington County. The Phase I Commute service is provided to residents of rural Washington County earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level. Transportation is provided for eligible passengers connecting with public transportation options, employment training sites and local destinations. Non-Commute service is provided to low-income residents in all areas of Washington County for trips that are not for jobs or job related activities. In addition to the Job Access service, Ride Connection secured additional grants to provide service for the elderly and people with disabilities (ODOT Development Grant) and the general public (ODOT 5311 grant) residing in the rural Washington County service area. The rural Washington County service was designed to serve the transportation needs of the different populations in a way that maximizes the resources and avoids duplication. Ride Connection's Rural Washington County service started May 11, 2000. The program is now averaging more than 100 rides daily. Rides for Job Access are approximately 30% of the total daily rides. Residents of rural Washington County call one central dispatch number to schedule rides. Service hours are Monday through Friday, 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Saturday, 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Dispatch Center hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Tri-Met has identified $50,000 for additional Phase I Job Access service. These funds have been targeted for Washington County. Ride Connection is interested in submitting a proposal to provide additional services in Washington County with these dollars that will maximize the resources and compliment the existing rural Washington County Job Access service. In addition, Tri-Met applied in partnership with Ride Connection for Phase II Job Access federal funds to target the Tigard community. Phase II funds will sustain the proposed expanded Job Access service. The following is a draft of the services that Ride Connection proposes for the additional dollars targeted for Washington County in Phase 1. Project Objective: Provide transportation service for low-income residents of Tigard who earn less than 150% of FPL. Transportation: options will facilitate public transit connections for access to employment and job training. Project Duration: 12 months from the beginning of service Project Cost: $50,000 Project Match Requirements: None Ride Goals: 3571 rides in 12 months Eligibility Criteria: 1. Residents of Tigard residing in areas where individuals with low-income are clustered 2. Low-income individuals earning less than 150% of FPL and transportation needs are related to obtaining or retaining employment Trip Aplaroval Criteria: 1. Passenger is eligible based on residence and income guidelines 2. Passenger needs transportation for jobs and job related activities a. Commute b. Training/Education c. Supportive Services d. Employment Interview e. Child care Program Description: Eligible passengers can request rides through Ride Connection's Dispatch Center for jobs and jobs related activities that support the individual's ability to obtain or retain employment. Passengers will be encouraged to request rides with at least 24 hours advance notice. When urgent rides do not permit advance notice, every effort will be made to accommodate the transportation needs. Services will be targeted to reach neighborhoods and low-income housing areas where individuals with low-income are clustered. The clusters of low-income residents have been identified by geo-coding Department of Human Service clients residing in southern Washington County. Rides to and from public transit connections and to and from the Cascade Center will be provided for eligible passengers. Rides will not be provided outside of the Tigard service area, although Ride Connection will offer trip planning services for passengers that need to travel to a destination outside of Tigard using public transit. The need for shuttles to the Beaverton Transit Center will be considered based on the demand for this service. Social service providers who serve low-income populations in the Tigard service area will be familiar with the availability of Ride Connection's services for their clients. Referrals can be made to Ride Connection's Dispatch Center for clients in need of Ride Connection Job Access service. The service area is the city of Tigard bounded by Tigard city limits. Ride goals were developed based on Ride Connection's rural Washington County service. Ride Connection expects cost efficiencies due to increased population density and reduced travel distance in the Tigard service area. Ride goals will go up based on these anticipated cost efficiencies. Service Design: Ride Connection will contract with transportation providers operating in the Tigard service area. Transportation will be provided using passenger cars and accessible mini- vans. Rides will be grouped whenever possible to reduce ride costs. Planned stops in neighborhoods will be made based on demand. Providers will travel on routes that are less congested to reduce the amount of congestion on highly traveled roads. Ride Connection's services in Tigard will not duplicate services provided by Tri-Met or other service providers operating in the area, but will compliment existing public transportation service and will allow access to existing transportation options. Transportation for children of eligible passengers will be provided for purposes that support the individual's ability to obtain and retain employment. Because of the complicated transportation needs of parents traveling with small children, trips may be made to the childcare provider. This will help to avoid parents making transit connections with small children. Parents or designated adult must provide an approved safety securement device when legally required and must properly secure their children in the vehicle. In the event that a child or eligible passenger becomes ill or circumstances require urgent transportation home, Ride Connection's Dispatch Center will arrange for transportation home for the eligible passenger and children. A portion of the grant funds will be used to hire a half-time dispatcher who will have bilingual skills in Spanish and English. The dispatcher will work evening hours to allow passengers the opportunity to access a dispatcher to schedule rides in the evening for the following day. The expanded dispatch hours will be 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Ride Connection is exploring the options of partnering with Department of Human Services' Jobs Plus program to identify a qualified dispatcher who is bilingual to fill the half-time dispatcher position. This will result in cost savings that will allow Ride Connection to provide more rides with the Job Access funding. Program Review: The transportation needs of the community that fall outside the scope of service for this project will be carefully recorded and tracked. This will provide valuable information about additional transportation needs that are not currently being met by existing public and private transportation providers in the service area. Representatives from the City of Tigard, Department of Human Services, Ride Connection, Tri-Met, Westside Transportation Alliance, and other interested parties will meet regularly to review service provisions, service levels and make service adjustments that reflect client demand for jobs and jobs related transportation needs. s O • • • • ~ M s r r lJs 41 qn 3rak[s • • • o M1 1.~ ` e ' • a • A• 0 78 F - . 45 . • f-" e• a 76.78 ! e. TEA,, ' - a~i • T g a. r a - 1lGlakC 0 e• ~a a~ • e • • • • • -r dTG • • • to F • 45 JAUF' • ~ SF~ u!fAka n a y • 38 - !E1t e~ is i.. e ~e;ALG cot° 95 e • •D~•i • • T, Legend City FN,5lF : . m (>`fiL.c Wnsh5r91ooCountY Owlis Eirp . . • e • 'a r 96 44 ; j • a „a i Arter'tn • • ~ •~EtsT r' ~4 freeur°ys Mapr Streets • k ' P aianuk • KettY AY tB62 7520 ~k planner • a 's W.i VN p2 °s ° AGENDA ITEM # y FOR AGENDA OF ( D, i D, 00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Memorandum of Understanding - Clacka~maass River Water Supply Option PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK Z~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City of Tigard on behalf of it's partners, the Intergovernmental Water Board authorize the Mayor to sign an Memorandum of Understanding with South Fork Water Board, North Clackamas County Water Commission and City of Lake Oswego to continue working on a long term water source. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Memorandum of Understanding and finalize Phase II of the Engineering Scope of Services and continue working with the Joint Water Commission and the Portland Wholesale Contract. INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to confirm each party's interest in further exploration of the formation of an Intergovernmental entity for water supply on the Clackamas River, as well as outlining the principles and policies the entity would operate under. (See additional report) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City of Tigard should continue investigating and working with the Joint Water Commission as well as continuing to negotiate a wholesale contract with the City of Portland. It is hopeful that these alternatives along with South Fork will keep on the same timetable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Securing a long-term water supply is both a Council and Vision Task Force Goal FISCAL NOTES In addition to the legal fees necessary to review the IGA drafts, we would be proceeding with. Phase II of the Water Supply System Plan. The total cost of this phase is $147,000, which is to be shared equally by the participants. Tigard's share would be $36,750 and would be funded from revenue in the water supply capital account i:\ci tyw•i de\sum.dot P DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) South Fork Water Board City of Tigard City of Lake Oswego North Clackamas County Water Commission September 1, 2000 PARTICIPANTS: The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are as follows: • South Fork Water Board (SFWB), which is the jointly owned water supply agency for the Cities of Oregon City and West Linn • City of Tigard, also representing the Citi~of King City and Durham and adjacent unincorporated areas of Washington County • North Clackamas County Water Commission (NCCWC), which is the jointly owned water supply agency for the Oak Lodge Water District (OLWD), the Mt. Scott Water District (MSWD), and the Damascus Water District (DWD) • City of Lake Oswego PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to confirm each party's interest in further exploring the formation of an intergovernmental entity for water supply, and to outline the principles and policies under which such an entity would operate if it is formed. WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS: 1. The Participants and the City of Gladstone commissioned a study entitled "Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for Water Supply Options" which was completed and dated February 17, 2000. 2. That study concluded that collective actions by the Participants and others could achieve many benefits including improved economy of water supply, improved water supply reliability, and more effective joint response to regulatory challenges. 3. The Participants concur with the findings of that study and agree that it is to their individual and mutual benefit to undertake joint water supply system planning. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Pagel of 5 9/ 1 /2000 4. The Participants agreed to continue with cooperative water supply planning and commissioned a multi-phased joint water supply system planning effort in May 2000. 5. Under Phase 1 of this joint planning effort the Participants have authorized the preparation of this MOU with the goal of forming a partnership for accomplishing their individual and common goals. 6. All of the Participants except the City of Tigard have water rights on the Clackamas River. The City of Tigard desires to obtain a permanent water supply from the Clackamas River. 7. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is presently evaluating and considering changes to the historical consideration of municipal water rights as perpetual and is developing new municipal water right permit extension rules. These permit extension rules, when developed, have the potential to limit or reduce the ultimate ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that protecting and managing their existing water rights is best achieved through a joint and cooperative approach. The OWRD strongly desires cooperation and collaboration regarding municipal water rights and for existing and future municipal water supply systems on the Clackamas River. 8. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed a number of salmon and steelhead species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With the listing of these endangered species on the Clackamas River, and the potential for additional listings, the Participants agree that a coordinated approach to water supply operations and facility improvements on the Clackamas River will provide greater opportunities for the successful implementation of improvements. Actions currently under consideration by NMFS may result in the need for additional regulatory compliance efforts to support existing operations and may require the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and implementation agreement (IA). Any expansion of water supply withdrawals on the Clackamas River will trigger a consultation process with NMFS with the anticipated issuance of a biological opinion (BO) by that Agency. An HCP will be required to be completed as part of that consultation process. The HCP is best accomplished cooperatively by all of the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. 9. The protection of fish species on the Clackamas River has the potential to adversely impact the ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that cooperative efforts have the potential to reduce the impact of potential limitations or reductions in withdrawals. 10. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently establishing total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards for Oregon rivers under the Clean Water Act. The development and implementation of these standards may impact existing and future water supply development activities on the Clackamas River. The Participants agree that Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 NJ r coordinated participation with DEQ in the development of the TMDL standards will benefit the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. The Participants, either individually or collectively, agree to consider the inclusion of all of the Participants' water service areas under their current water rights or otherwise assign and commit sufficient water rights to all of the Participants' use. 2. The Participants agree that development of an intergovernmental agreement will consider existing intergovernmental agreements. 3. The Participants agree that if an entity is created, it should be in the form of an ORS Chapter 190 Intergovernmental Entity, and that it should operate under the following: • Capability For Central Financing - The agreement should provide for centrally issued debt even though initially capital improvements may be funded directly by participants. • Cost Allocation Principles - Capital costs of new facilities should be allocated in proportion to capacity. Cost allocation in accordance with incremental capacity increases should not be considered. • Purchase Of Existing Facilities - Purchase of existing facilities should be on an equitable basis that recognizes the owning agency's investment and value and is also fair to the purchasing agency. • Operation and Maintenance Costs - The agreement should provide for equitable recovery of system O&M costs. The system should be operated on an "at cost" basis and no participant should be advantaged or be allowed to profit from participation in the system. • Authority to Impose Rates - The agency should have the authority to impose rates and charges in order to recover its costs. The costs to be recovered include capital costs, O&M costs, administrative costs, debt service, and "must lease" capacity payments. • Definition of Ownership and Capacity Interests - The ownership rights to participant agencies should facilitate local debt issuance in support of proposed projects. Participant agencies should be provided explicit capacity rights that define a supply resource that they may rely on for their own water system planning. • Provisions for Additional Participants - A mechanism should be provided for adding new participants in the future. These provisions could include buy-in provisions to existing facilities as well as provisions that consider the risks taken by the original participants in the system. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 o Provisions for Withdrawal - A mechanism should be provided for the withdrawal of a Participant from the agreement. o Participation in System Expansions - A process should be provided for expanding the system. The process would identify rational expansion projects and the procedures for subscribing to the projects by the participants. o "Must Lease" Provisions - With the understanding that the participants in the joint agency would want to promote efficient use of available capacity, the agreement should include provisions that the joint agency would act as the broker for unused capacity in the system under a defined pricing structure. Participants with excess capacity must make it available and the participant requiring capacity must lease that capacity through the joint agency. e Sale of Wholesale Water or System Capacity - The joint agency should have the ability to sell capacity or water unused by the participants. Wholesale System Development Charges (SDC's) - Where central financing is utilized, a wholesale SDC should be established for the joint agency. With local funding, each participant can impose their own SDC under their own methodology. Decision-Making - A decision-making structure must be established which provides for equitable representation and efficient execution of the joint agency's duties. Many models can be considered that provide a balance between proportional representation and the interests of each participant, regardless of size. Alternatives that could be considered include one agency/one vote, voting or representation weighted by capacity, voting or representation weighted by financial commitment, and a dual majority system. 3. The Participants agree to develop no later than January 31, 2001, a draft agreement for formation of the ORS 190 Intergovernmental Entity, and to agree upon the policies under which it will operate. Those Participants who choose to join in the formation of the entity shall proceed to finalize all matters so that an agreement can be executed in a timely fashion, with a target date of March 31, 2001. i i i { f Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 AGREEMENT: This Memorandum of Understanding is accepted by all Participants. SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD CITY OF TIGARD By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: CITY OF OREGON CITY NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY WATER COMMISSION By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: CITY OF WEST LINN OAK LODGE WATER DISTRICT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO MT. SCOTT WATER DISTRICT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: DAMASCUS WATER DISTRICT By: Title: Date: Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: South Fork/Clackamas River Water Supply Option DATE: September 25, 2000 In February 2000, Murray Smith and Associates presented a Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for water supply options. The conclusions and recommendations are attached. Since February we have been involved in continuing the recommendations. A "fatal flaws" review with regulatory agencies was completed and a Memorandum of Understanding was developed by the participatory agencies. On September 21, 2000, the elected officials representing the participatory agencies (Paul Hunt attended for Tigard) agreed to submit to each agency's elected body, the Memorandum of Understanding for adoption. The Memorandum of Understanding before you outlines various principles that should be included in an ORS Chapter 190 Intergovernmental entity. The timetable for ORS 190 IGA would be a draft agreement be developed no later than January 31, 2001 and participants who choose to join in the formation of the entity agree to do so by March 31, 2001. By signing this agreement does not obligate agencies to sign the IGA. The intent of the agreement is to proceed forward and work out the details in good faith. Kathy\coundAMOU CRW/SF ❖ South Fork Water Board . City of Oregon City • City of West Linn ❖ North Clackamas County Water Commis_Yon . Oak Lodge Water District o Mt. Scott Water District o Damascus Water District ❖ City of Gladstone ❖ City of Tigard • Cities of Tigard, King City and Durham -o Adjacent Unincorporated Areas of Washington County CONCEPT OVERVIEW AND DECISION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS February 17, 2000 FINAL DRAFT Marrq Smith &Associiw, Inc. Enoeersl borers = 121S~s~lmoo,SaBelOtO P6ooe12S9010 - - - - - - Pads Ortgoa 97144 RX 22M Conclusions The following conclusions have been reached resulting from this study: 1. The peak day water demands of the participants in this study are forecasted to increase from 50.8 mgd today to 105.5 mgd in the year 2050. The peak day water demands of the participants of this study plus the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas River Water are projected to increase from 82.8 mgd today to 161.4 mgd in the year 2050. 2. Municipal water rights on the Clackamas River total 168.8 mgd. An instream right exists on the river to provide flows for fish. Municipal rights senior to the instream right total 112.4 mgd. Municipal rights junior to the instream right total 56.4 mgd. (City of Estacada excluded in all cases.) 3. Considering the forecasted peak day water demands of the current Clackamas River municipal water right holders, there are sufficient water rights to meet year 2050 demands. 4. Considering the forecasted peak day water demands of the current Clackamas River municipal water right holders plus Tigard without any participants' water rights on the Willamette River, there are sufficient water rights to meet year 2050 demands. 5. Considering the forecasted peak day water demands of the current Clackamas River municipal water right holders plus Tigard and including Gladstone's and Tigard's water rights on the Willamette River, there are sufficient water rights to meet year 2050 demands. 6. A water availability analysis performed as part of the Regional Water Supply Plan, Phase 2, concluded that, when all municipal water rights are fully utilized on the Clackamas River, water is available 100% of the time for the senior rights, 98% of the time for the instream right, and 97% of the time for junior rights. 7. The Regional Water Supply Plan, Phase 2, concluded that water available for new rights after meeting instream and existing rights is insufficient to provide reasonably reliable water supply during peak demand periods. 8. The National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists two threatened and endangered fish species in the Clackamas River. 9. The ESA permits the Federal government to create "de facto" regulatory water rights. NMFS could potentially impose restrictions on water withdrawals from the Clackamas River in order to protect listed fish species. 10. NMFS could become involved in water rights and impose restrictions through a Federal j nexus such as Federal permitting (for example, through the Corps of Engineers), Federal grant and loan programs, or other Federal agency involvement. 11. OWRD permit extension rules may have an adverse impact upon the ability to fully utilize existing water rights on the Clackamas River. 12. All of the participants in the study have driving interests that could be satisfied by a joint approach to water supply development. 13. An interlocal partnership in the form of an ORS 190 organization is the preferred forth of organization. 14. Institutional, governance and financial principles have been outlined in this study that could serve as the basis for intergovernmental agreements between the participants and others. 00-0447.101 Page 14 South Fork Water Board, Final Draft Concept Overview and Decision North Clackamas County Water February 17, 2000 Guidance Document for Commission, City of Gladstone, Water Supply Options City of Tigard 15. There are significant regulatory hurdles that may impact the ability of the participants to proceed with some joint water supply options. The water use permit extension rules of the Oregon Water Resources Department and the Endangered Species Act are the two most significant regulatory challenges. 16. Joint water supply options appear to be technically feasible and there are no apparent technical "fatal flaws" in pursuing joint projects. 17. It can be anticipated by the participants that significant economies can be achieved by development of joint water supply projects. 18. Collective action by study participants and others could achieve many benefits including improved economy of water supply, improved reliability of systems, and joint response to regulatory challenges. Recommendations Based upon the results and conclusions of this study, it is recommended that: 1. Participant Actions - The participants consider this study as the basis for future discussions regarding regional decisions. 2. SFWB Action - The South Fork Water Board consider this study and take action to adopt a policy of its intent with respect to expansion of the Board to include other water providers. This policy should address the institutional, governance, financial and other fundamental principles of agreement as outlined in this study. 3. Next Steps - After determining that there are not "fatal flaws," a joint planning effort by the participants and others should be accomplished to define water supply options that could be undertaken by the parties and develop the concepts, costs, and agency allocations. This work would be an integrated engineering plan that would include engineering, regulatory, institutional, financial and project strategy elements. 4. Further Evaluate Potential Regulatory Constraints - Based upon an affirmative policy of intent by the South Fork Water Board, a joint regulatory review effort should be undertaken by the participants focusing on the potential impacts of the Oregon Water Resources Department permit extension rules and the Endangered Species Act on the water rights of the participants and others. This effort may include preliminary consultations with both agencies and result in an assessment of the ability of the participants and others to fully utilize their water rights on the Clackamas River. This effort would identify any "fatal flaws" to proceeding with joint water supply options as a result of potential water rights restrictions. This effort could lead to development of interagency memorandums of understanding (MOU's) regarding these regulatory issues. 00-0447.101 Page 15 South Fork Water Board, Final Draft Concept Overview and Decision North Clackamas County Water February 17, 2000 Guidance Document for Commission, City of Gladstone, Water Supply Options City of Tigard MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) South Fork Water Board City of Tigard City of Lake Oswego North Clackamas County Water Commission September 1, 2000 PARTICIPANTS: The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are as follows: • South Fork Water Board (SFWB), which is the jointly owned water supply agency for the Cities of Oregon City and West Linn • City of Tigard, also representing the Cities of King City and Durham and adjacent unincorporated areas of Washington County • North Clackamas County Water Commission (NCCWC), which is the jointly owned water supply agency for the Oak Lodge Water District (OLWD), the Mt. Scott Water District (MSWD), and the Damascus Water District (DWD) • City of Lake Oswego PURPOSE: The purpose of this agreement is to confirm each party's interest in further exploring the formation of an intergovernmental entity for water supply, and to outline the principles and policies under which such an entity would operate if it is formed. WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS: 1. The Participants and the City of Gladstone commissioned a study entitled "Concept Overview and Decision Guidance Document for Water Supply Options" which was completed and dated February 17, 2000. 2. That study concluded that collective actions by the Participants and others could achieve many benefits including improved economy of water supply, improved water supply reliability, and more effective joint response to regulatory challenges. 3. The Participants concur with the findings of that study and agree that it is to their individual and mutual benefit to undertake joint water supply system planning. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 4. The Participants agreed to continue with cooperative water supply planning and commissioned a multi-phased joint water supply system planning effort in May 2000. 5. Under Phase 1 of this joint planning effort the Participants have authorized the preparation of this MOU with the goal of forming a partnership for accomplishing their individual and common goals. 6. All of the Participants except the City of Tigard have water rights on the Clackamas River. The City of Tigard desires to obtain a permanent water supply from the Clackamas River. 7. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) is presently evaluating and considering changes to the historical consideration of municipal water rights as perpetual and is developing new municipal water right permit extension rules. These permit extension rules, when developed, have the potential to limit or reduce the ultimate ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that protecting and managing their existing water rights is best achieved through a joint and cooperative approach. The OWRD strongly desires cooperation and collaboration regarding municipal water rights and for existing and future municipal water supply systems on the Clackamas River. 8. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed a number of salmon and steelhead species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With the listing of these endangered species on the Clackamas River, and the potential for additional listings, the Participants agree that a coordinated approach to water supply operations and facility improvements on the Clackamas River will provide greater opportunities for the successful implementation of improvements. Actions currently under consideration by NMFS may result in the need for additional regulatory compliance efforts to support existing operations and may require the development of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and implementation agreement (IA). Any expansion of water supply withdrawals on the Clackamas River will trigger a consultation process with NMFS with the anticipated issuance of a biological opinion (BO) by that Agency. An HCP will be required to be completed as part of that consultation process. The HCP is best accomplished cooperatively by all of the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. 9. The protection of fish species on the Clackamas River has the potential to adversely impact the ability to withdraw water from the Clackamas River as authorized in the Participants' permits. The Participants agree that cooperative efforts have the potential to reduce the impact of potential limitations or reductions in withdrawals. 10. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently establishing total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards for Oregon rivers under the Clean Water Act. The development and implementation of these standards may impact existing and future water supply development activities on the Clackamas River. The Participants agree that Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 --0 coordinated participation with DEQ in the development of the TMDL standards will benefit the Participants and other water supply agencies on the Lower Clackamas River. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. The Participants, either individua!ly or collectively, agree to consider the inclusion of all of the Participants' water service areas under their current water rights or otherwise assign and commit sufficient water rights to all of the Participants' use. 2. The Participants agree that development of an intergovernmental agreement will consider existing intergovernmental agreements. 3. The Participants agree that if an entity is created, it should be in the form of an ORS Chapter 190 Intergovernmental Entity, and that it should operate under the following: • Capability For Central Financing - The agreement should provide for centrally issued debt even though initially capital improvements may be funded directly by participants. • Cost Allocation Principles - Capital costs of new facilities should be allocated in proportion to capacity. Cost allocation in accordance with incremental capacity increases should not be considered. • Purchase Of Existing Facilities - Purchase of existing facilities should be on an equitable basis that recognizes the owning agency's investment and value and is also fair to the purchasing agency. • Operation and Maintenance Costs - The agreement should provide for equitable recovery of system O&M costs. The system should be operated on an "at cost" basis and no participant should be advantaged or be allowed to profit from participation in the system. • Authority to Impose Rates - The agency should have the authority to impose rates and charges in order to recover its costs. The costs to be recovered include capital costs, O&M costs, administrative costs, debt service, and "must lease" capacity payments. • Definition of Ownership and Capacity Interests - The ownership rights to participant agencies should facilitate local debt issuance in support of proposed projects. Participant agencies should be provided explicit capacity rights that define a supply resource that they may rely on for their own water system planning. • Provisions for Additional Participants - A mechanism should be provided for adding new participants in the future. These provisions could include buy-in provisions to existing facilities as well as provisions that consider the risks taken by the original participants in the system. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 5 9/1/2000 • Provisions for Withdrawal - A mechanism should be provided for the withdrawal of a Participant from the agreement. • Participation in System Expansions - A process should be provided for expanding the system. The process would identify rational expansion projects and the procedures for subscribing to the projects by the participants. • "Must Lease" Provisions - With the understanding that the participants in the joint agency would want to promote efficient use of available capacity, the agreement should include provisions that the joint agency would act as the broker for unused capacity in the system under a defined pricing structure. Participants with excess capacity must make it available and the participant requiring capacity must lease that capacity through the joint agency. • Sale of Wholesale Water or System Capacity - The joint agency should have the ability to sell capacity or water unused by the participants. • Wholesale System Development Charges (SDC's) - Where central financing is utilized, a wholesale SDC should be established for the joint agency. With local funding, each participant can impose their own SDC under their own methodology. • Decision-Making - A decision-making structure must be established which provides for equitable representation and efficient execution of the joint agency's duties. Many models can be considered that provide a balance between proportional representation and the interests of each participant, regardless of size. Alternatives that could be considered include one agency/one vote, voting or representation weighted by capacity, voting or representation weighted by financial commitment, and a dual majority system. 3. The Participants agree to develop no later than January 31, 2001, a draft agreement for formation of the ORS 190 Intergovernmental Entity, and to agree upon the policies under which it will operate. Those Participants who choose to join in the formation of the entity shall proceed to finalize all matters so that an agreement can be executed in a timely fashion, with a target date of March 31, 2001. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 5 9/1/2000 AGREEMENT: This Memorandum of Understanding is accepted by all Participants. SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD CITY OF TIGARD By: By: ~ - Title: Title: Mayor Date: Date: October 10, 2000 CITY OF OREGON CITY NORTH CLACKAMAS COUNTY WATER COMMISSION By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: CITY OF WEST LINN OAK LODGE WATER DISTRICT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO MT. SCOTT WATER DISTRICT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: DAMASCUS WATER DISTRICT By: Title: Date: Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of 5 9/ 1 /2000 f 10 l~ Of N3 oils I TS- Ql~ C RE ANT CL NC Ed w egner, pw Director presented by ~,n Cutsfo~h~ entation created b Tech Ares Pw com-pulcl esentation - 4~tober l0, 2000 city Co~cil P,kB,TlclpATISG AGENCIES S out,, Fork Water Board 6~ City of Oregon city ,,:~City of W est Linn Coulltywater Commission ONorth clackamas ater District ~ Oak Lodge ~'mt- Scott Water District 6>Damascus Water District ,,RTICIPArVING XG-ENCAESa CONTINUED oCity of Lake Oswego city of Tigard and Durham oe~ Cities of Tigazd, King City, Adjacent Unincorporated Areas of W ashington County NNW lam- t3 nd elected officials Staff a ~rje~t~ngs of ~ 2poo early water Sulk o fcooverative late "O"Cept ~ ted and presented - ~~nlt com~le Supply enti~' F ebr~~l2o0~ f, U-Tther d with o~~e cept ~ladstone~ ~ X11 agreed to PT discussions t ORANDUM of M~DERSTAND~G of Staff development of Aemolandum Understanding -MoU) tembex 21 ~,EinalDxaftMOU compietedSep an- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Declares intent of part, es to proceedto negotiate an IGA oDeclafes intent of parties to form SRS 190 ter supp~Y tity f or a n~l En Intergo,venune MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - CONTINUED 00utlines principles that should be considered in developing an IGA OSets forth schedule to complete IGA KEY ISSUES OF IGA 0 uovernsznce -how will governing body be structured? OPurchase of existing facilities -how to value? On what basis? Appraisal? PDei'mition of ownership and capacity .rr STEPS to consider Y . i proceeindividuanderartlC palits dum of U and adopt Mem°ran with development of draft staff proceeds 2o0~i IGXby January 3.1 ~ GX bY Mich 31, 2001 ~ All P arties adopt a CoAjT INiJED ~ ~~r NEX jJ~~ yv 1 ental entity is formed ~'Intergavernnl 4, Ulldert"ke joint PrO3ects ineering planning work e II of U,,derstandillg is ~ Commence phas work after MemoTanduin executed wwwwwwwo allow MMMMw- AT~S D ON SryAF-F RECmm-ENO ~ Au thorize May or to sign Memorandum Of understanding staff to finalize phase II ° oAuthorlze of services. our shape Engilleerin scope g X36,750 n Joint Water le C ontinue workiPortland o wh Commission & Contract coul*4CIt ~MA~s t Paul AUnt Coaaci I 0 8 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 10/10/00 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Briefing on Solid Waste Franchise Challenges PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive information about recent solid waste case law & its affect on Tigard's interim ability to franchise solid waste. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information and at a Council Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, 11/14/00 7:30 PM, consider interim changes to current solid waste franchise system. INFORMATION SUMMARY On May 9, 2000, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered a Permanent Injunction in the case of AGG v. Washington County and the City of Beaverton that prevented either jurisdiction from regulating the price, route or service in the transportation of mixed solid waste or recyclables taken from a single commercial source to manufacturers, recycling facilities or material recovery facilities (MRFs). The judge in this case found that Washington County and City of Beaverton regulations were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) of 1994, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), because they were regulating service performed by a motor carrier with respect to the transportation of property. Although the Court's decision and permanent injunction cite just one transporter and two jurisdictions, the staff & legal counsel believe it is prudent to refrain from enforcing this aspect of our franchise agreement with franchised haulers until the appeal of this decision is rendered. However, the City's obligation under ORS 459A and OAR Chapter 340, Division 90 to achieve specified recycling levels is unchanged. Also, a recent 9c" Circuit Court opinion, Toucher v. City of Santa Ana, is believed to have eliminated the City's ability to regulate safety of motor carriers who are operating within the scope of the Federal FAAAA statute. This opinion leaves the responsibility of safety regulations with the State. For this reason, the City's authority to impose minimum safety standards and insurance requirements on motor carriers using City streets is affected. Therefore, during this interim time, staff recommends the City no longer impose regulation on the price, route or service on those loads considered exempt' by the injunction. That portion of the franchise ordinance establishing a uniform rate for drop box collection of "exempt loads" must be temporarily preempted under the terms of the injunction and this applies to all collectors of solid waste within the City of Tigard. It is important to note that the City Council's current policy for solid waste management (TMC 11.04) should still be enforced as the City still has the authority to regulate all other portions of the solid waste ordinance other than exempt loads. Exempt load means mixed loads for single generator, non-residential accounts in the City of Tigard transported to manufacturers, recycling facilities or material recovery facilities, but not to a transfer station or landfill. The AGG decision also found that the current franchise system has been a "barrier to entry" into the business of solid waste transportation. In part, this is due to the varying rules by different jurisdictions throughout the region. For this reason, staff has been working with other Metro-area jurisdictions and interested parties to develop an ordinance and process to address the Court's injunction and preserve the City's ability to carry out its responsibility associated with meeting the State's requirement of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Tigard's franchised haulers, Miller's Sanitary Service and Pride Disposal have been at the table during the development of the region-wide process and can speak to their support of the proposed system. The City Council will consider a new "registration" process at its public hearing on 11/14/00. This proposed interim process would seek to balance the City's franchise obligations and State's requirements for recycling with the Court's preemption by establishing a registration system for the transportation of exempt loads in the City. The interim registration process would require motor carriers submit an application to do business in the City. This would be submitted with a $100 fee and require payment of a fee necessary to carry out administrative and enforcement activity of the system. This fee would be calculated on a per-ton basis. The fee would only be paid on the "residual" tons delivered to the landfill by the MRF used by a permittee. Current franchise holders would also be required to become a registrant under this system for the exempt loads. In order to keep the registration system streamlined and most cost effective, City staff will be recommending that the registering, collection and enforcement of the ordinance be done regionally by Washington County. This will also address the Court's concern that separate rules and registration systems could be viewed as a barrier to entry to the solid waste transportation system. Attached is a copy of Bill Monahan's letter to the City's franchised haulers notifying them of the uncertainty of the City's ability to franchise "exempt loads" under current caselaw. He enacted his authority (under TMC 11.04.090F) to set an emergency or interim rate for altered service for a period not to exceed six months. This allowed the franchised haulers to work towards maintaining their customer base without going outside the franchise agreement with the Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This is not addressed in the City's vision process. FISCAL NOTES By removing exempt loads (those subject to the AGG injunction) from the franchise system, the City will no longer collect a franchise fee for the transport of such loads. Based on calendar year 1999 information, this would be $65,000 - $85,000. Also, removing this service from the franchise may erode the overall profitability of franchised haulers' operations in Tigard and put upward pressure on residential rates. While our franchised haulers have historically been profitable in the City, this has been due to profits from multi-family, commercial and industrial hauling offsetting losses on residential collection services. With industrial hauling essentially removed from the franchise revenue mix, it is likely that rate increases in residential service will eventually be required to maintain the franchise's profitability in Tigard and to meet Council's policy of an 8% - 12% profit on gross revenues for haulers. Agenda Item No._( Meeting of (D - I MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Loreen Mills, Sr. Management Analy t RE: Packet Material for Solid Waste Brie ng DATE: September 28, 2000 The attached packet is submitted for the 10/10/00 Council meeting for the Solid Waste Briefing agenda item. Since the purpose of this second briefing is to allow time for a briefing on cable N for citizens, I have attached the same information Council saw on 9/26 except for changing the public hearing date to 11/14/00. Staff will be prepared to verbally present any new information about the regional process on the 10tH AGENDA ITEM # I a FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON SW NORTH DAKOTA AND/OR ON HAWKS BEARD AT 130TH. PREPARED BY: LIZ NEWTON 1/1 DEPT HEAD OK l/10Y- CITY MGR OK UVy*`~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Does the Council want to review the traffic calming devices on SW North Dakota and/or on Hawks Beard at 130ch.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the information provided and determine whether Council wants to review the traffic calming devices on SW North Dakota and/or on Hawks Beard at 130tH INFORMATION SUMMARY At the September 26, 2000, City Council meeting Councilor Hunt requested consideration of a review of the traffic calming devices on SW North Dakota and Hawks Beard and 130th. A memo detailing the history and background of the installation of traffic calming devices on SW North Dakota was mailed as part of the September 29, 2000, City Council newsletter. A memo prepared by Gus Duenas on options for traffic calming on SW North Dakota is attached. Also attached is a memo on the background and history of the installation of the traffic diverter on Hawks Beard at SW 130th. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Transportation and Traffic Goal #1: "Improve traffic safety;" and Goal #2: "Improve traffic flow." FISCAL NOTES Costs will depend on what, if anything, Council decides to review. LIADWCITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIESTRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES.DDC CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department p~ p ~p Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: City Council Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas~ City Engineer DATE: October 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Possible Re-evaluation of Traffic Calming Devices on SW North Dakota Street The traffic calming devices placed on SW North Dakota Street were intended to address the high volumes and speeds on that street. The diverter on SW North Dakota at Springwood Drive was placed specifically to force the regional traffic coming from the Scholls Ferry Road and 125`h Avenue towards 121St Avenue instead of this street. Speed humps typically reduce speeds 4-6 mph, but do not significantly affect traffic volumes. The speed humps and islands installed along SW North Dakota were intended to lower speeds while forcing traffic away from the sidewalks towards the middle of the street. The islands and the diverter have been recently permanized by excavating within the islands, placing topsoil and landscaping. The islands have been adopted by residents within that subdivision for future maintenance. The permanization of the islands began in mid-August 2000 and was completed in the third week of September. The traffic studies performed in mid-1998 indicate that the traffic revisions have had the intended effect. Traffic volumes were significantly reduced throughout the entire length of SW North Dakota between 121' Avenue and Springwood Drive. The vehicle speeds on the east-west segment were at or below the posted speed limit. The speed north of Tony Court was higher, but was still within 5 mph of the posted speed limit. An additional speed hump just south of Anton Drive was placed on that segment to reduce the speeds closer to the posted speed limit. The diverter was part of the traffic calming devices installed on the recommendation of the SW North Dakota Task Force and approval of the City Council. However, placement of the diverter was controversial and was not unanimously supported by Council. One Council member suggested that Council discuss the possibility of re-evaluating the existing devices and asked what changes would be feasible given the existing measures already implemented. Potential changes to the existing traffic calming devices on the street include the following: ■ Removal of the diverter, leaving a 3-way stop at the Springwood Drive intersection. The other devices placed within the subdivision may help deter volumes from substantially increasing to the prior level. However, volumes of 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles per day can probably be expected on the southbound leg if the diverter is removed. The traffic on Scholls Ferry is gradually increasing. As motorists discover the removal of the diverter, some of them may resume the traffic patterns of the past. The speeds will probably remain at the current level, but with greatly increased traffic volumes. Approximate cost for this option is $5,000. ■ Another option is to remove the diverter, maintain a 3-way stop at the Springwood Drive intersection, and establish alternate yield points between Springwood Drive and Anton Drive on SW North Dakota. This could discourage cut-through traffic since it would mean possibly stopping to yield to oncoming vehicles during that segment, in conjunction with the other traffic devices already installed on that street. The approximate cost for this option is $10,000. It will involve installation of two new islands, pavement markings, removal of the diverter and possibly the two islands north of Anton Drive. No other options seem worthwhile exploring at this point. The speed humps and islands installed south of Anton Drive are placed at the proper spacing. No other devices are needed in that segment. c: Liz Newton Vannie Nguyen Michael Mills Possible Re-evaluation of SW North Dakota Street Traffic Calming Devices Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager LAV DATE: October 4, 2000 SUBJECT: Traffic Diverter at SW 130th on Hawks Beard The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map was adopted on June 11, 1991. The map shows SW 130th as a minor collector connecting Scholls Ferry and Winterlake. e On June 13, 1995, City Council held a public hearing to consider the 1995-1996 Capital Improvement Project List. The Planning Commission had also held a public hearing and had voted 6:1 to recommend the CIP list. The Commissioner voting against the priority list was opposed to the 130t'NVinterlake Bridge. During the June 13, 1995, Council hearing on the Capital Improvement Project list, several people offered testimony. Four people spoke in favor of the 130t'/Winterlake Bridge. Five people spoke in opposition to the130th/Winterlake Bridge project. After some Council discussion, the Council voted 3:2 to accept the Capital Improvement Priority list with two changes, but leaving in the 130u'/Winterlake Bridge. A copy of the June 30, 1995, meeting minutes is attached. On June 20, 1995, the City Council voted 3:2 to approve the formation of a task force to look at all issues surrounding the bridge construction, and hold off on the engineering work for approximately five weeks (until August 1, 1995). At the June 27, 1995, City Council meeting Council discussed the membership of the 130th Street Task Force. Copies of the minutes of both meetings are attached. The 130th Street Task Force met weekly over a five week period and presented a recommendation to the City Council on August 15, 1995. There was general acceptance by the Task Force members that the bridge would be built, but that its construction would bring undesirable impacts to the neighborhoods to the north and west. There was strong consensus that the expected impacts should be mitigated so the Task Force recommended a list of improvements to be implemented including the diverter on Hawks Beard at 130th Street. After lengthy discussion, it was determined that City Engineer Randy Wooley would review the Task Force recommendations. Copies of the Task Force report dated August 8, 1995, and the August 15, 1995, City Council minutes are attached. Traffic Diverter at SW 130th on Hawks Beard October 3, 2000 Page 2 of'3 On October 2, 1995, the Engineering staff met with the Task Force to discuss the recommendations presented to City Council on August 15. Based on the discussion, the Task Force revised some of its recommendations. The primary features of the recommendations were as follows: • Use of a revised design that narrows the bridge approaches to save an existing large fir tree while allowing construction of sidewalks on both sides of the street. The narrowed approaches will be the same width as the bridge. • Improvement of 130th between Scholls Ferry Road and Hawks Beard Street at the same time that the 130t'/Winterlake connection is constructed. Installation of traffic islands to prevent eastbound traffic from entering Hawks Beard Street east of 130th and to prevent southbound traffic from entering Eschman Way south of Hawks Beard, with details of the islands to be coordinated with the neighborhoods during final design. • Installation of islands or landscaping on 130th south of Hawks Beard to encourage lower speeds and to give visual impression of entry into a residential neighborhood, with details to be worked out with the neighborhood during final design. • Various landscaping and screening issues to be coordinated with residents during final design. A copy of the notes from the October 2, 1995, Task Force meeting is attached. On October 18, 1995, a neighborhood meeting was held to present the Task Force recommendations. Citizens at the meeting added four recommendations as follows: • Include the area west of 130th and north of the new bridge in the areas to be considered for landscaping and screening. • Verify that the design provides adequate sight distance for the existing driveways along Winterlake immediately south of the new bridge. • Hold a separate meeting with property owners on 130th to decide the design of islands and landscaping on 130th. • Consider a 4-way stop and crosswalks at the 130th/Hawks Beard intersection. On November 14, 1995, staff presented six recommendations to the City Council, including a traffic island on Hawks Beard at SW 130th. The recommendations were Traffic Diverter at SW 130th on Hawks Beard October 4, 2000 Page 3 of 3 approved by unanimous vote of the Council. A copy of the staff recommendations and the November 14, 1995, minutes are attached. Construction of the SW 130th bridge project including the diverter at 130th on Hawks Beard was completed in August 1997. The Police Department reports that between September 1, 1999, and August 30, 2000, 78 traffic citations were issued at Hawks Beard and 130th, 64 for failing to obey a traffic control device. Primarily, motorists who are cited have ignored the diverter and made an eastbound turn from SW 130th onto Hawks Beard. The Police Chief advised that at other intersections 3-4 citations a year might be issued for failure to obey a traffic control device, a stop sign for example. The Chief attributes the high number at this location to the design of the intersection. PROCESS TO RECONSIDER SW HAWKS BEARD DIVERTER Staff recommends a similar process be followed to that recommended for SW North Dakota. That is, since Council appointed a Task Force to initially review the issue and propose recommendations to Council that the Task Force members be included if the Council decides to review the Hawks Beard diverter. In addition, it would be appropriate to give Tigard drivers an opportunity to comment. Suggestions to provide opportunities for drivers to comment include post card surveys, web page survey, a task force meeting, a neighborhood meeting, post signs on SW Hawks Beard and SW 130th inviting written comments, and a notice in the Cityscape. Should Council decide to review the Hawks Beard diverter and include an opportunity for public comment, the same schedule as suggested for SW North Dakota would. allow an opportunity for public input. October 10 City Council decision on review October 17 Cityscape to printer with article asking for public comment Week of October 23 Task Force/neighborhood meeting on options I November 2 CIT meeting - General discussion on possible options November 15 City Council packet material due November 28 City Council consideration of options alts 1:1ADMLLIASW 130 8 HAWKS BEARD DIVERTER.DOC 6. (NOTE: THIS AGENDA ITEM WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER AS EXPLAINED IN THESE MINUTES AT THE END OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 5) PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRIORITY LIST a. City Engineer Wooley presented the Staff Report. He referred to the information presented to the Council from the Citizen Involvement Teams (CITs). He commented on the various funds available for the projects. Council asked questions for clarification with regard to prioritization of the projects. Also, Mr. Wooley clarified the CIT process for this issue. There was discussion of individual projects such as the 79th/Durham traffic signal and the 130th/Winterlake project. Mr. Wooley reported, in response to a question, that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the CIP list. The Commissioner who voted against the list, was opposed to the 130th/Winterlake because he disagreed with the plan for street connectivity. b. Public Comment Proponents: • Gene McAdams, 13420 S.W. Brittany Drive, Tigard, Oregon referred to his earlier testimony during the Budget public hearing. Mr. McAdams advised that the 130th/Winterlake street is a collector street and has been planned as a collector street for a long time. He compared this street connection to Brittany Drive which has been designated as a neighborhood street in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the Comprehensive Plan has been "verified and reverifiedu as developments were approved over the years. Mr. McAdams also referred to the Parks Plan where the street connection was also shown. He referenced the Planning I Commission vote which was 6-1 in favor of the Capital Improvement Program with this connection listed. Mr. McAdams commented on emergency access (Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue); such access would be enhanced, because of reduced response time, with this connection. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 13 Mr. McAdams supported the proposed capital improvement program priority list. • Gerald Welch, 12405 S.W. Winterlake Drive, Tigard, Oregon, testified in support of the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection referring to the parks bond measure approved by voters. He advised the voters had paid for the connection; he would like to see the connection go in. He said he was tired of coming to meetings and would like to see the issue be resolved. • Dan Gott, 13230 S.W. Hill Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified in favor of the capital improvements program. He supported connectivity (referring specifically to the Main Street area and near City Hall) of pathways for easier accessibility in the City. • Bob Pavlukovich, 12345 S.W. 128th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon testified with regard to the 130th/Winterlake connection. He supported the connection noting he desired to see the controversy on this issue end. He said the road should have already been built. He said they have waited a long time for the connection to be constructed. He referred to the benefits of emergency vehicle access. Mr. Pavlukovich referred to a petition signed by 225+ people. This petition was given to the Council and Planning Commission. He noted those people who signed the petition will be impacted by the Council's decision because those people live in the area. Mr. Pavlukovich also commented on safety and interconnectivity within neighborhoods. • Ron Wridge, 12399 S.W. Winterlake Drive, Tigard, Oregon, testified on the following points regarding the 130th/Winterlake connection: 1) Impacts to wetlands appear to be almost non-existent. 2) Safety issues including improved emergency vehicle response time. 3) Cut-through traffic would not be a problem. Mr. Wridge advised that major issues, with regard to the connection have been addressed and resolved. He asked the Council to vote in favor of the Capital Improvement Program. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 14 • Carolyn DeFrang, 11650 S.W. Terrace Trails, Tigard, Oregon, testified with regard to the Terrace Trails pathway. Ms. DeFrang advised she was currently on the Planning Commission and had served five years on the Park Board. Ms. DeFrang summarized the history of the development of the pathway. She referred to a map noting the length of the pathway and said that an additional pedestrian access was needed for the pathway; otherwise, people may be cutting through yards to gain access to the pathway. Council members discussed this issue with Ms. DeFrang and City Engineer Wooley. • Sally Christensen, 15685 S.W. 76th Avenue, Tigard, Oregon signed in as an "opponent" on the testimony list. Ms. Christensen's concerns were with regard to the traffic signal at 79th/Durham. (See testimony during the Budget public hearing.) Ms. Christensen submitted a petition sign by "194" people stating that they support the use of City monies to construct a traffic signal at 79th Avenue andeDurham Road. Opponents: • Michael Gerking, 11149 S.W. Eschman Way, Tigard, Oregon advised testified with regard to the 130th/Winterlake connection. Mr. Gerking advised that he was angry and frustrated with the process. He noted concerns with connection and the impacts to the neighborhood comparing it to what has occurred on S.W. North Dakota Street. Mr. Gerking also disputed the impartiality of the traffic study. He noted concerns with the Planning Commission decision advising that the Planning Commission had wrong information. Mr. Gerking said the entire area has changed and referred to the development of single family homes where the plans were for multi- family. He advised that the bridge would have terrible consequences and would be of no benefit. • Carl Gioia,11201 S.W. Winterlake Drive, Tigard, Oregon, read a letter into the record. (This letter is on file with the Council packet information.) Mr. Gioia outlined the West CIT recommendation on the project and requested that the City Council remove the S.W. 130th/Winteriake connection down the priority list or remove it altogether. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 15 • Don Nelson, 13800 S.W. 118th Court, Tigard, Oregon testified with regard to bank erosion and channel down cutting of the stream behind his property. Mr. Nelson request that stream stabilization work be included in the Capital Improvement Project list. City Engineer Wooley noted that this items was not in the proposed CIP list; it may be possible (in conjunction with another project) this issue could be resolved udliizing maintenance funds. Mr. Nelson said the erosion appeared to be occurring because of new development along Gaarde and the Arlington Ridge development. • Gary Love, 12930 S.W. Glacier Lily, testified that he concluded, after, reviewing the traffic study, the Winterlake connection would shift the traffic problems in the area. There will be a high potential of cut- through traffic from S.W. 130th Avenue to S.W. North Dakota. Time saved by emergency vehicles, because of the access, would be minimal. Current response times are within standards required for fire and ambulance. Mr. Love was concerned that the connection would result in damage to the wetlands and the park. He recommended the funds allocated for the connection be used where "it is really needed." Mr. Love referred to the Comprehensive Plan, saying that it was 12 years old the Plan should be used as a guideline. Judgments should be made on how things are today. Mr. Love disagreed with the statement by Mr. McAdams that the park is for the privileged few. • Michael Karls, 11081 S.W. Eschman Way, Tigard, Oregon referred to the May 4 West CIT meeting, advising that the recommendation that went to the Planning Commission was that the West CIT selected the Fowler/Tiedeman intersection safety improvements be put in place of the 130th/Winterlake connection. There was a statement within the document from the West CIT about an opinion from people who were not present at the meeting. Mr. Karls objected to the representation made in the document for persons who did attend the CIT meeting. Mr. Karls advised that the process has been frustrating. He requested the Council take everything into consideration. He noted the opposition of the neighborhood to the bridge connection. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 16 • Jerry Swank, 13805 S.W. 118th Court, Tigard, Oregon, testified that he lives 150 feet from the Terrace Trails project. He referred to a stream along the proposed trail and problems with stream channel system which needed to be corrected. He advised that two major things affected the stream channel: the rupture of a water main in the Arlington Ridge subdivision and the accelerated building on Bull Mountain. He noted there is a rapid degradation of the stream system. He cited concerns with dealing with future situations such as this and requested the City review practices. • Kathleen McDonald, 12930 S.W. Glacier Lily Circle, Tigard, Oregon testified in opposition to the Capital improvement project listing, specifically objecting to the 130th/Winteriake connection. She noted that over 133 Comprehensive Plan amendment applications had been submitted since the Plan was adopted. During this 12-year period, there have been 84 Comprehensive Plan changes approved. With regard to emergency access, she advised she contacted Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue. TVF&R said that the subject is in compliance with access requirements. Ms McDonald disputed the notion that people opposed to the connection were trying to preserve an elitist, private back-yard park. Ms. McDonald cited the growth which has occurred on Bull Mountain and said that traffic studies had not been done to take into consideration the accelerated growth. Ms. McDonald noted safety issues for the park and advised that more fencing is needed. She referred to the Planning Commission deliberations. She said that two members of the Planning Commission, who voted for the CIP priority list, were not familiar with the area. She advised the Planning Commission chair voted against the extension. Ms. McDonald reported she had learned that Mr. McAdams had submitted inquiries questioning whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of two Council members. She cited concerns with money spent to have the City Attorney investigate this matter. Ms. McDonald advised that taxpayer dollars expended so far were under $30,000. If the City continues, an additional $970,000 would be spent. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 17 Ms. McDonald said that she hoped to see "democracy in action" and to "keep promises made..." In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Ms. McDonald responded that she would want to see a Comprehensive Plan amendment the "85th" amendment. C. Council discussion followed (highlights follow): • It appears that the only controversial item on CIP list was the 130th/Winterlake Street connection. • Council discussed the Terrace Trails situation - the pathway appeared to be extremely long without between points without any pedestrian access. • Council discussed stabilization of the stream near Terrace Trails. • Council discussed whether to separate streets from the rest of the CIP. Council decided to consider the entire CIP list. • Council discussed issues surrounding the 130th/Winteriake connection. > Councilor Rohlf expressed concerns that some of the conditions experienced on S.W. North Dakota Street would occur in this neighborhood. > Council discussed the option of placing the Walnut/Tiedeman intersection improvements on the priority listing in place of the 130th/Winterfake connection. This intersection may be eligible for TIF funds. There was discussion on additional complexities (i.e., annexation of the area to the City. > Councilor Hawley referred to concerns that there had not be any proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this connection over the past year. > Councilor Hunt noted he favored the connection and would not favor inserting the Tiedeman/Walnut improvements in place of the 130th/Winterlake project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -.JUNE 13,19-05 - PAGE 18 > Councilor Scheckla referred to past decisions where traffic issues had been of concern (i.e., 110th Avenue). He noted that developers leave with problems remaining which needed to be resolved. He noted Police Department access and said he would go along with the recommendation on the CIP list made by the Planning Commission and City Staff. He noted Summerlake Park was a City park representing an investment for all people in the City. > Councilor Rohlf referred to the low voter turnout number when the park bond measure was approved. He also referred to the NF&R official position that the emergency access was adequate. He noted this was a neighborhood connectivity would encourage traffic from Beaverton. He said that it might be easier to fix the problems on Brittany Street rather than to open up the connection. He also proposed redesign to inhibit cut-through traffic. > Mr. Wooley clarified some issues with regard to the listing of the CIP projects and the manner in which the projects are funded. > Mayor Nicoli noted concerns with construction of the project from Hawksbeard to Scholls Ferry Road. He also noted it may be possible to improve the Walnut/Tiedeman intersection even though it is not currently within the City limits. He referred to the Boundary Commission position on circumstances similar to this which appear to be favorable if the City would want to improve the intersection. There was discussion on postponing the construction of the Hawksbeard to Scholls Ferry Road connection until development occurs. There was discussion about installing speed humps in the area to slow down traffic. d. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to accept the Capital Improvement Priority listing with the following changes: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 19 > $367,021 allocated for the construction of 130th Avenue from Hawksbeard to Scholls Ferry Road be removed from the list and to remain unallocated. > Add $5,000 for the development of a second access to the Terrace Trails pathway, suggesting that funding come from the SDC contingency. Motion was adopted by a 3-2 vote. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "yes"; Councilors Hawley and Rohlf voted "no.") e. There was notation that stream stabilization issues would be addressed by staff; funding source to be identified. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS • Councilor Hunted requested that Items 3.2a and b. be reviewed by Council separately from the Consent Agenda. These two items were the Council Calendar and the Tentative Agenda list. After discussion, Council agreed that a special Council meeting would be scheduled on July 6, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss Council groundrules. • Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohff, to cast the City of Tiigard's vote for Mayor Nicoli to serve as the Washington County cities' representative to the Metro Policy Advisory Committee. (MPAC) The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Board and Committee appointments: After review by City Administrator Monahan of the upcoming board-and-committee vacancies, Council consensus was to: • Reappoint George Burgess and Joyce Patton to the Budget Committee (Note: Councilor Hunt will join Mayor Nicoli to conduct interviews of candidates for board/committee appointments) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1995 - PAGE 20 After discussion, Council consensus was to allow a 3% cost of living adjustment for non-represented personnel, effective July 1, 1995. • Washington County Public Officials' Caucus Washington County Public Officials Caucus will be held Thursday, July 13 from 7 to 9 p.m. The topic is Metro 2040. • FOCUS FOCUS met Wednesday night, June 14. The results of the Total Water Resources Management workshops were presented. During the coming year, FOCUS will present findings to the City Council to consider implementing the recommendations. • Durham Road (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Council discussed the possibility of the State letting Tigard have jurisdiction over Durham Road from Boones Ferry to Hall Blvd. There is a need to determine costs, issues, and whether this is something ODOT will even consider. Also of concern is installing a traffic signal on 79th/Durham. • 130th/Winterlake Councilor Rohlf noted that most of the activity surrounding the 130th/Winterlake connection has inovled only staff; Council has not been involved. The success of the Tree Task Force Committee was referred to as a method to bring differing viewpoints together to form consensus. Councilor Rohlf proposed bringing together people who had been in favor of the bridge connection and those who were opposed, to review options to relieve traffic concerns on Brittany and address safety and traffic impact in the entire neighborhood. Discussion followed. Councilor Rohlf proposed that engineering and work on the bridge connection be stopped for approximately five weeks in order to allow time for the Task Force to look at all issues. Councilor Rohlf advised he had contacted some of the concerned parties on both sides of the issue. Mr. Gene McAdams and Ms. Kathleen McDonald advised they would be willing to serve on this Task Force. City Administrator Monahan advised City staff had received a telephone message from Air. McAdams, stating that he would not want the engineering and design work to stop. Councilor Rohlf noted he would not want to give the appearance of stalling the project. However, he would like to have the engineering work suspended while the Task Force was meeting over the next several weeks. Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hawley noted they would be in favor of the Task Force to "heal wounds." CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 9 Council Agenda Item 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 • Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m, by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Pam Beery, Frank Hammond, and Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; David Scott, Building Official; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer (arrived at 7:15 p.m.). STUDY SESSION Agenda Review City Administrator Monahan discussed Agenda Item No. 3.4 - Authorize Reimbursement of $57,614,69 from the Parks Systems Development Charge Fund to Gramor Development for Design and Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street. City Administrator Monahan clarified that on Page 2 of the staff report, it was stated that the bridge was constructed by Gramor and examined by the City's Engineering Department. He advised that such examination of the bridge was not the responsibility of the City, and the bridge was the responsibility of the developer. The Engineering Department reviewed documents to check for accuracy of costs. ® 130th Task Force - Council discussed membership of the 130th Task Force as proposed in a memorandum from Liz Newton to William A. Monahan. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) The memorandum listed the individuals who were suggested to be appointed to the Task Force. Mr. Gene McAdams, also a proposed member of the Task Force, was present and questioned whether the membership representation would be equal; i.e., with reference to those who had advocated the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection and those who did not. Lengthy discussion followed. Councilors Hunt and Scheckla noted their concerns with the Task Force formation, citing the need to go forward and make the bridge connection. There were concerns that this would be seen as a delaying tactic on the bridge project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 1 CORRECTION THE PRECEEDING RECORD OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RE-PHOTOGRAPHED TO ASSURE LEGIBILITY OR SEQUENCE AND THEIR IMAGE OR IMAGES APPEAR IMMEDIATLEY HFREA=. Councilors Scheckla and Hunt expressed concerns that stopping the, bridge connection should not be considered as one of the options. Councilor Hunt advised that a vote on this issue had been taken by Council, with the connection receiving the majority vote. In addition, the people in the area have had their opportunity to follow the process and also have a legal option still available to them. Council voted on the recommendation by Councilor Rohlf to move forward with the formation of the Task Force and to hold off on the engineering work for approximately five weeks (until August 1, 1995), and that Community Involvement Coordinator Liz Newton act as facilitator to the group. Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf voted "yes" on Councilor RohlfIs proposal; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no." Council went into Executive Session at 11:00 p.m. Adjournment: 11:35 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, City of Tigard Date: ccm0620.95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 10 . ~ ~J( d I (J, t-- i Yom. Council Agenda Item TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 e Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Wendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Pam Beery, Frank Hammond, and Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; David Scott, Building Official; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer (arrived at 7:15 p.m.). S'T'UDY SESSION • Agenda Review City Administrator Monahan discussed Agenda Item No. 3.4 - Authorize Reimbursement of $57,614.69 from the Parks Systems Development Charge Fund to Gramor Development for Design and Construction of a Pedestrian Bridge over Fanno Creek at Ash Street. City Administrator Monahan clarified that on Page 2 of the staff report, it was stated that the bridge was constructed by Gramor and examined by the City's Engineering Department. He advised that such examination of the bridge was not the responsibility of the City, and the bridge was the responsibility of the developer. The Engineering Department reviewed documents to check for accuracy of costs. • 130th Task Force - Council discussed membership of the 130th Task Force as proposed in a memorandum from Liz Newton to William A. Monahan. (Memorandum is on file with the Council packet material.) The memorandum listed the individuals who were suggested to be appointed to the Task Force. Mr. Gene McAdams, also a proposed member of the Task Force, was present and questioned whether the membership representation would be equal; i.e., -*vith reference to those who had advocated the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection and those who did not. Lengthy discussion followed. Councilors Hunt and Scheckla noted their concerns with the Task Force formation, citing the need to go forward and make the bridge connection. There were concerns that this would be seen as a delaying tactic on the bridge project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING M[ MUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 1 Councilor Rohlf explained the Task Force would begin with the understanding that the bridge would be constructed. Their purpose would be to identify options to mitigate traffic impacts in the neighborhood. Councilor Rohlf advised he had spoken to all of the members on the proposed Task Force and he believed that membership consisted of three people who advocated the bridge connection and three people who were opposed. After discussion, it was determined that Councilors Hunt and Scheckla remained concerned with formation of this Task Force; Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf supported the Task Force. There was discussion between Council and Mr. McAdams with regard to Mr. Ed Halberg. Mr. Halberg is the President of the Summerlake Neighborhood Association. There were some concerns by Mr. McAdams that Mr. Halberg had been on record as being against the 130th/Winteriake connection; however, Councilor Rohlf advised it was his understanding, from his conversation with Mr. Halberg, that Mr. Halberg was neutral on the bridge connection. • City Administrator Monahan and Mayor Nicoli advised Council of a communication from Jeannine L. Murrell, MPAC representative, asking for the City Council to review and send to her its vote on whether to endorse the North/South Light Rail Resolution. After discussion, Council consensus was to endorse the resolution as long as the funding would not come from dollars allocated for Oregon Department of Transportation projects already listed for this area. • Agenda Item No. 4 - Council reviewed the agenda with regard to the public hearing on the Electrical Inspection Program. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, City Administrator Monahan advised this would be considered to be a permanent action by the City. The City would be taking over the electrical program and the County, expecting that the City would be doing this, is scaling down their electrical inspection program. Councilor Scheckla said he had understood, based on an earlier proposal by staff, that the electrical program would be temporary. Councilor Hunt added that he understood that when the construction activity slowed down, this program would not be needed any longer. City Administrator Monahan advised that the changes occurring at the County would mean that if there was a slow down, Tigard could take over more electrical inspection responsibilities by assisting in the nearby unincorporated areas and smaller cities to "weather a downturn in the economy." There was discussion on fees. The fee structure is set up to build a reserve that is capped at a maximum amount. The purpose of the reserve would be to survive a fluctuation in construction activity. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 27, 1995 - PAGE 2 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of Council FROM: 130th Task Force Members DATE: August 8, 1995 SUBJECT: Recommendations to the City Council INTRODUCTION: The 130th Task Force was formed to see if representative members of the opposing groups could reach consensus on any of the issues surrounding the bridge to be built at 130th. Our objective was to convert, as much as possible, a "lose-win" situation to a "win-win" situation. The Task Force met weekly over a five week period. We lost one member to a job transfer; the remainder of our members stuck together through the entire process. (It is important to note that the word "consensus" as used herein means unanimous agreement.) Discussion began with the premise that the City Council had made a final decision to build the bridge in fiscal 195-96, and that this decision would stand unless the group developed a strong justification and consensus for a viable alternative. It was agreed that the neighborhoods southerly of Summerlake Park needed improved emergency vehicle access and shorter, more direct driving routes for area residents. It was further agreed that proposed developments north of Hawks Beard would undoubtedly impact traffic flow negatively. A consensus of an alternative other than bridge construction did not develop. In fact, most members agreed that no viable alternatives exist. Likewise, a consensus was not achieved supporting bridge construction. However, there is a general acceptance that the bridge will be built during the current fiscal year. Accompanying this acceptance is a conviction that its construction will bring many undesirable impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods north and westerly of Summerlake park. There was a strong consensus that these expected impacts should be mitigated. Accordingly, when the bridge is built, the group recommends the improvements listed below be implemented as soon as practicable. The task force process included listing concerns which identified expected negative impacts of the connection. The group was remarkably consistent in identifying anticipated problems. These concerns are presented below to broaden Councils' understanding of the task force deliberations process. CONCERNS: • Safety - traffic, speeding children - sidewalks, crosswalks bicycles o Increased traffic 0 Park atmosphere • Cars parked on street (not room for on both sides) • Let's not spread the problem e Short driveways • Small lots • Winding and curvy street s Traffic from Bull Mtn. o Emergency vehicle response time • Wetlands • Liveability Potential solutions of identified concerns and possible alternatives to deal with the impacts of bridge construction were then evaluated. Many of the solutions were unanimously approved and are listed below. Finally, the task force compared its list of recommendations to the list of concerns to determine the progress of the deliberations. It is believed that the recommendations listed below will mitigate identified impacts northerly of the bridge. Completion of 130th to Scholls Ferry Road this fiscal year to coincide with the bridge construction will protect the Summer Lake Drive neighborhood from excessive traffic. RECOMMENDATIONS: Hawks Beard at the east intersection of 130th be closed or right (north) turn only be allowed. • Eschman be closed on the south side of Hawks Beard with planted median or mound. ® A stop sign be placed on 128th at the intersection with 129th and the path. • Speed humps be installed on 128th if the residents consent. • Traffic lanes be delineated on the curve on•128th. • The entire length of 130th should be posted for 25 mph. • 130th north of Hawks Beard be constructed to Scholls Ferry to handle minor collector traffic when the bridge is constructed. • Hawks Beard be constructed from 130th to 135th to handle minor collector traffic with new development. • Sign directing traffic to Summerlake Park be moved from 135th and Brittany to 135th and Morning Hill Drive. Sign directing traffic to Summerlake Park be added at the intersection of Morning Hill Drive and Shore. • 130th south of Hawks Beard retain a residential character; narrow by adding tree lawns; post "slow children" signs; post "no trucks" sign. Plant vegetation to delineate between the residential and commercial; install decorative islands to restrict cars turning into driveways and provide for a safe U-turn. • Use planted earth berms on the east side of 130th north of Hawks Beard to screen the residences. • The Bridge: - narrower than 301. - headlight screening, lighting at road level, minimal lighting (hooding). - check alignment to protect woodlands. - landscape to frame bridge (include boulders) - plant trees larger than 10' tall, as large as practical. - move sidewalk on the east side of the bridge to foot bridge. Construct an 8' sidewalk on the west side of the bridge. Council meeting recessed at 9:06 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m. 6. REPORT FROM THE 130TH STREET TASK FORCE Task Force members included Gene McAdams, Bob Pavlukovich, Kathleen McDonald, Ed Halberg, Councilor Bob Rohlf, and Facilitator to the Task Force Group Liz Newton. Councilor Rohlf overviewed the process taken by the Task Force. He thanked Council for allowing the Task Force to be formed, noting that the objective was to convert, as much as possible, a "lose-win" situation to a "win-win" situation. The recommendations presented on the list represented a consensus; that is, 100% agreement. Councilor Rohlf reviewed the recommendations as presented in the memorandum distributed to City Council and on file with the Council packet material. Lengthy discussion followed, as the Council and Task Force reviewed the recommendations. After conclusion of the discussion, it was determined that City Engineer Wooley will review the Task Force's recommendations, work with them to resolve any issues, hold one or two neighborhood meetings (in early October), and then return to City Council with the results of this process before proceeding further with the bridge. Mayor Nicoli indicated he could support the Task Force's findings. Although he was not in agreement with all of the recommendations he said he would defer to the consensus agreements reached by the Task Force. 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION - REQUEST FOR FEE WAIVERS Council approved the following fee waiver requests: e Sensitive lands permit for Washington County on a MSTIP project for expansion of Durham Road. o Building permit fee associated with the stage and backdrop at Cook Park (Music in the Park - volunteers, Tualatin Valley Community Band). CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995 - PAGE 6 NOTES FROM 10-2-95 TASK FORCE .MEETING 130th TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS • Hawks Beard at the east intersection of 130th be closed or right (north) turn only be allowed. After discussion with the Engineering department, the Task Force recommends partial closure: a landscaped island on the south side of Hawks Beard, east of 130th. Concerns about the design of the island will be addressed with the neighborhood during the design phase of the project. The island will be maintained by the Summerlake Homeowners Association. A "No Right Turn" sign will be posted on SW 130th; other signs will be reviewed with the neighborhood during design. The island will be built in conjunction with the construction of SW 130th north of Hawks Beard. w Eschman be closed on the south side of Hawks Beard with planted median or mound. After discussion with the Engineering department, the Task Force recommends an island on the south side of Hawks Beard at Eschman. The Task Force prefers the island be landscaped to provide neighborhood continuity. The island will be designed to discourage turning south on to Eschman. ~ • A stop sign be placed on 128th at the intersection with 129th and the path. e Traffic lanes be delineated on the curve on 128th. After discussion with the Engineering department, the Task Force recommends a neighborhood meeting be held to discuss these issues along with other safety measures such as no parking. • Speed humps be installed on 128th if the residents consent. The Task Force proposes that this recommendation be incorporated into the 1995 city's CIP funding cycle. • The entire length of 130th should be posted for 25 mph. The Engineering department agreed to post the speed south of Hawks Beard and will apply to the Department of Transportation to have the speed posted at 25 mph north of Hawks Beard before the road is built. • 130th north of Hawks Beard be constructed to Scholls Ferry to handle mir.or collector traffic with new development. The Engineering.'department concurs with this recommendation. ® Hawks Beard be constructed from 30th to 135th with new development. _ The Engineering department concurs. ® Sign directing traffic to Summerlake Park be moved from 135th and Brittany to 135th and Morning Hill Drive. Sign directing traffic to Summerlake Park be added at the intersection of Morning Hill Drive and Shore. After discussion with the Engineering department, the Task Force recommends that the sign at 135th and Brittany be removed, and a sign be placed at 135th and Hawks Beard when the street is built. X AGENDA ITEM # 5 For Agenda of November 14, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 130th/Winterlake Street Connection Recommendations from task force and neighborhood meetings. PREPARED BY: R. Wooley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review of recommendations from the 130th/Winterlake Task Force and the October neighborhood meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Direct the Engineering Department to proceed with final design of the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection in accordance with the revised plan approved by the Task Force. . Amend the FY 1995-96 Streets Capital'Improvement Program by deleting the _xisting $367,021 TIF reserve and allocating the $367,021 to improvement of SW 130th Avenue between Scholls Ferry Road and Hawks Beard Street, and direct the Engineering Department to proceed with design of the 130th improvements. 3. Direct that the plans for 130th Avenue include a traffic island and signing to prevent auto traffic from entering Hawks Beard Street eastbound on the east side of 130th Avenue, with landscaping plan to be coordinated with the Summerlake Homeowners Association and with the understanding that maintenance of the landscaping will become the responsibility of the Summerlake Homeowners Association. 4. Direct staff to work with the residents of Eschman Way to determine the configuration of a traffic barrier as recommended by the Task Force. 5. Direct staff to meet with the residents of 130th Avenue between Hawks Beard Street and Summer Creek to review alternatives for traffic islands and landscaping as recommended by the Task Force. 6. Authorize the Engineering Department to advertise for construction bids on the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection and the improvements to `130th Avenue between Scholls Ferry Road and Hawks Beard Street; provided, advertisement for bids shall not occur until an opportunity has been provided for the public to review and comment on the final construction plans. l 4. CONSIDER PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL STREET City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report, which is on file with the Council packet material. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-25. ORDINANCE NO. 95-25 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T.M.C. 10.28.130 BY ADDING A PORTION OF SW COMMERCIAL STREET WHERE PARKING IS PROHIBITED. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 130TH/WINTERLAKE BRIDGE CONNECTION City Engineer Wooley reviewed the staff report which is on file with the Council packet material. Also contained in the Council packet material was a memorandum to the Mayor and Council from the 130th Task Force members. Mr. Wooley referred to drawings which incorporated recommendations for the appearance of the bridge connection. There was discussion on the fact that the improvement of SW 130th Avenue between Scholls Ferry Road and Hawks Beard Street is classified as a minor collector street. Mr. Wooley also reviewed the six points contained in the staff report, which consisted of the staff request for approvals from City Council. There was discussion on the mitigation of traffic concerns for the neighborhood. Mr. Wooley advised he met with the neighborhood last week and they are prepared to try to get speed bumps for their neighborhood during the Capital Improvement Project priority process next Spring. Mr. Bob Pavlukovich noted the neighborhood's involvement and their suggestion to close access to a pathway at 129th. In addition, the neighbors were also requesting that lighting be added to the pathway. In response to the concern by Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Pavlukovich advised the neighborhood would not let issues drop, and realized they would need to present their requests for speed bumps through the CIT process. Mr. Pavlukovich noted appreciation for the work done by the Assistant to the City Administrator Newton, and advised that Councilor Rohlf was instrumental CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - PAGE 5 J in working through the recommendation process with the task force. He advised the task force was a positive process. Councilor Hunt commended Councilor Rohlf and the task force for mending the hard feelings on this matter. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Hawley, to accept staff's recommendation. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. BOARD AND COMMITTEE RULE AMENDMENTS: 6.1 Establish Term Limits (Ordinance & Resolution) Assistant to the City Administrator Newton reviewed the staff report. She also reviewed the interpretation of Charter Section 20 regarding how appointments are made. (This information is contained in the Council packet material.) RESOLUTION NO. 95-59 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution No. 95-59. Motion was adopted by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") ORDINANCE NO. 95-26 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 2.08.020 AND ESTABLISHING TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 95-26. Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors. Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6.2 Formalize the application and review process for appointment to Boards and Committees CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1995 - PAGE 6 AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF 1 D, 1 D I O b CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ COUNCIL MEETING ONIONS PREPARED BY:_ WILLIAM A. MONAHAN DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE TH CO TN IL Councilor Paul Hunt asked staff to clarify Council meeting protocol regarding Study Sessions, Council Communications and Council Liaison Reports. Discussion of the staff interpretation is before Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council review the City Manager's memo dated October 3, 2000, and determine if changes are needed in the Council Groundrules to clarify Council's intent. INFORMATION SUMMARY Council Groundrules provide direction on appropriate topics for Council Business Meetings, Study Sessions, and Workshops. On occasion, Council members seek clarification of which topics are appropriate for these different meeting settings. In addition, regularly individual agenda topics which provide the opportunity for Council members to report to Council at times seem to overlap. Staff has prepared a memo stating the staff understanding of the current Groundrules and practice. Council will review the staff interpretation and determine if it agrees. If further clarification is needed, revisions to the Groundrules could be prepared for later Council consideration. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action, continue to follow the established meeting format. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I:NDM%CITY COUNCUCOUNCIL AGENDA REM SUMMARIESCOUNCIL MEETING GUESTIONS.DDC MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan ej~ pk~ DATE: October 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Council Meeting Questions At the end of the September 26 Council meeting, Councilor Paul Hunt raised two questions requesting clarification. They are: 1. What discussions are appro'oriate for the Study Session portion of the Council meeting, and what discussion topics should only take place in the regular Council meeting? 2. Distinguish between the agenda items commonly on the Council Agenda which are: • Council Communications • Council Liaison Reports DISCUSSION 1. Stucky Session Council Groundrules define Study Sessions on page 3 of the rules. The section reads as follows: "Study Sessions precede or follow a Business Meeting or Workshop Meeting. As stated above, they are conducted in a Workshop-type setting to provide an opportunity for Council to review the Business Meeting Agenda and to ask questions for clarification on issues or on i process. Information is also shared on items that are time sensitive. During Study Sessions, any Council member may call for a Point of Order whenever he or she wishes to stop the "discussion" because he or she feels that it is more appropriate for the City Council to discuss the matter during the Council meeting. If a Point of Order is raised, the City Council 3 will discuss the Point of Order and determine whether the "discussion" should continue on to be held during the Council meeting. The decision on whether to continue the "discussion" or not shall be determined by the majority vote of the Council members present. If Council discusses a Council Agenda Topic in a Study Session prior to a Council meeting, either the Presiding Officer or City Manager will briefly state at the LM introduction of the Agenda Topic, the fact that Council discussed the topic in the Study Session and mention the key points of the discussion." The definition states these sessions are: a. "Conducted in a workshop-type setting;" b. To "review the Business Meeting Agenda;" c. To "ask questions for clarification on issues or on process;" d. To share information "on items that are time sensitive." Thus, the Study Session is for discussion without reaching decision. The "workshop-type setting" allows Council to use a portion of the Study Session to hear one or more topics which could otherwise be scheduled for a Workshop Meeting. Oftentimes, one item of a workshop nature (such as a briefing, update, meeting with a board or committee) will be scheduled before a Business Meeting to spread the workshop items out or because an issue is developing thus requiring the Council to be brief. The description of "appropriate topics for a Workshop Meeting" is also found on page 3 of the Groundrules. It reads: "Appropriate topics for Workshop meetings include: • Introduce a Topic: Staff will bring up new items to determine whether Council wants to entertain further discussion and whether to schedule the topic as an item on a future agenda. • Educational Meetings: Council will review research information presented by staff, Consultants, or task forces - usually as a process check; i.e. is the issue on the right "track"? • Meet with individuals from City boards and committees or other jurisdictions to discuss items of common interest (examples: other Councils, the School District, and other officials). • Administrative Updates: Items such as calendar information, scheduling preferences, process checks." Staff has operated under the assumption that topics appropriate for a Workshop are appropriate for a Study Session. , ' Study Sessions are not intended to take the place of presentations to Council in Business Meetings. Oftentimes, staff will present preliminary information to Council in a Study Session, respond to questions, and solicit questions from Council requiring more information. Then, staff can present the item along with additional information at a future Workshop or Business Meeting. Without the opportunity to "preview" an issue or topic or seek Council direction early, staff is unable to brief the full Council and get a feel for likely Council direction when the complete package is presented. Please note that any Council member may raise a point of order to stop a discussion if he or she feels the discussion is more appropriate for Council to discuss during the Business Meeting. The definition of Study Sessions describes this process. 2. Agenda Items Councilor Hunt asked that I clarify the difference between Council Communications and Council Liaison Reports. On June 2, 1998, Council discussed the need for allowing sufficient time for a Council member to make a complete report on the activities of a board, committee, or regional group to which the Council member is liaison. Prior to June 1998, the only opportunity for discussion was at the beginning of the meeting during the agenda topic entitled "Council Communications/Liaison Reports." Historically, that agenda item provided the opportunity for Council members to report to Council on activities or scheduled meetings for committees or boards for which Council was liaison. In addition, Council members could report on letters or calls which they had received since the last Council meeting which they considered to be of interest to the full Council. For example, if a citizen wrote to raise an issue or commend a Council action, this would be considered a communication. Or, if an invitation was extended to attend a function, the Councilor could report it to the full Council and indicate whether or not he or she was planning to attend the function. Or, the Council member could ask if another Council member would like to attend representing the City. Following the June 2, 1998, discussion, staff split the Council Communications/ Liaison Reports into two separate categories. My recollection of the discussion, supplemented by the minutes of the meeting, are that the Council Communications section was not to preclude any mention of liaison activities, only to allow for more complete and longer reports during the Council Liaison Report portion of the meeting. Since adoption of the separate agenda items, Council members have on occasion found it necessary to deviate from merely reporting on liaison activities during the Council Liaison Report agenda item. This has occurred when a Council member remembered something he or she intended to report on earlier or determined it was necessary to comment on something that arose during the Council meeting. If Council wishes to strictly utilize the Council Liaison Report agenda item for reports only, staff can assist by drafting up language for consideration during the next review of the Groundrules. 1WDMIBILL\MEM0S=Ul MEETING OUESTI0NSA00 Liaison to present the issues and controversies of a particular committee. He said that he would rather have the Council Liaison hear the details from staff regarding his committee because those ' details might trigger a red flag for the Councilor that they would not necessarily do for staff, who looked at things from a different point of view. Councilor Moore commented that he also depended on the Council Liaison to keep him informed on specific committee issues, and to return to Council if a decision or controversy arose that required a decision by the Council as a whole. The Council discussed adding an agenda item that allowed more in-depth Council Liaison reports than the brief opportunity at the beginning of the meeting. They agreed that sometimes deciding when to bring something back to Council was a matter of judgment in the individual situation. The Council discussed how to handle the formation and dispersion of a committee. They agreed that Council should set a goal for each committee. Once the committee's task was done, then the committee either be disbanded or the Council sets a new goal for the committee. Mr. Monahan commented on the value of the Councilor's perspective as a member of the committee on the staff work done after the committee completed has its charge. The Council discussed what the role of a Councilor was in relation to the staff work done on the committee's project, speaking to the Cook Park Committee's task in particular. They agreed to reconvene a committee on an occasional basis, after its task was completed, in order to inform the committee members on the progress of the project and to explain the reasons behind any changes made by staff. Mr. Monahan commented that the Councilor became the City spokesperson whom the committee members could call with questions regarding the staff work. Councilor Hunt commented that a Councilor could tell a committee that he would recommend the Committee's action to the Council but he could not make a commitment without talking to the Council as a whole. Mr. Monahan asked if the Council Liaison should also be the contact person with the media. The Council discussed referring media people who wanted the City position on an issue to the department manager or Councilor who knew the most about the issue. Mayor Nicoli said that he felt comfortable referring the media to the person whom the Council put in charge of an issue/committee. The Council discussed the importance of being very clear on when a Councilor was expressing his personal opinion and when he was giving the City Council's position. Councilor Rohlf pointed out that the Mayor was the figurehead for the City and would be contacted most frequently regarding the City's position on issues. The Council returned to the discussion of a separate agenda item for the longer Council liaison ' reports. They agreed to retain the agenda item for Council Communications/LiaisonReporls at 1 a the beginning of the meeting and to add a new agenda item just before Non-Agenda items for the longer Council Liaison reports. Mr. Monahan said that staff could include a list of the known committee assignments with that agenda item. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 2, 1998 - PAGF, 2 t AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF October 10, 2000 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council Goal Update PREPARED BY: G. Gaston & C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK LAe' FTY MGR OK IGC-4 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discusion of the progress of the Council goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the attached summary report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are brief summaries of the efforts to date on the stated Council goals for this year. Also attached are the tasks identified during the last Council goal-setting session with regard to specific activities considered to be part of departmental responsibilities and individual work programs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council. FISCAL NOTES N/A HADM\CITY COUNCIL\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARIES\COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE - 9-00.00C a':r Council Goal Update - 2000 Goals 1. Complete the City's transportation improvement program development. Staff Responsible: City Engineer Gus ®uenas April 2000: The Transportation System Update Plan (TSP) development process continued during the past few months. The draft Transportation System Plan has been completed, and is currently being reviewed by Tigard staff and government agencies. The last Tigard Transportation Task Force (Planning Commission and citizens) mL!Peting was held in March. The draft plan will be made available on the City's web site during the coming months. Future activities include: two public open houses, joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop, and public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. The updated TSP is expected to be adopted by late summer or early fall this year. The Transportation Bond Task Force conducted a series of meetings during the month of February 2000 to obtain comments from a broad cross-section of the community. The first meeting was a presentation to the Citizen Involvement Teams on February 3, 2000 at the Tigard Senior Center. The other meetings were open house format conducted as follows: February 9, 2000 at Fowler Middle School, February 16, 2000 at Conklin Hall, Metzger United Methodist Church, and February 24, 2000 at Tigard High School. Following the public involvement meetings, the Task Force met on March 8 to discuss the citizen input and to incorporate that input into the criteria for final selection of projects. At a subsequent meeting on March 15, 2000, the Task Force selected a list of projects that primarily focused on improvements to major collectors, and one minor collector. The Task Force also Goals Update Page 1 September 2000 recommended a list of alternative projects that could be implemented if favorable bids are received, or if other funding sources are identified through partnerships or some other means. At this point, the bond package is approximately $16 million. The Task Force recommgndation is for a ten-year bond term. The Task Force emphasized the need to minimize adverse impacts to existing neighborhoods during the design and construction of these projects. The list of projects has been provided to City Council. The package of projects and other Task Force recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000, and to City Council on May 9, 2000. Assuming Council approval of the bond package, the bond measure will be submitted for voter approval in the November 2000 general election. The Task Force cannot promote the bond package once it becomes a measure on the ballot. However, the members indicated their intention to support the bond issue individually or through formation of some other citizen group for that purpose. June 2000: The draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) was completed, and is being reviewed by Tigard staff and government agencies. Comments have been received from Metro, Washington County, and the Cities of Beaverton and Tualatin. Comments are expected from ODOT during the last week of June. Future activities will be scheduled after receipt of all comments. These activities include: two public open houses, joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The updated TSP is expected to be adopted prior to the end of the calendar year. The Transportation Bond Task Force presented the package of projects and specific recommendations to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2000. The Planning Goals Update Page 2 September 2000 Commission endorsed the Task Force recommendations and approved the projects for further submittal to City Council. The City Council approved the Task Force recommendations during the Council meeting on May 9, 2000, and directed the preparation of a resolution and ballot title to place the bond measure on the November 7, 2000 election ballot. The Transportation Bond Resolution, Ballot Title, and Explanatory Statement have been prepared and will be considered by City Council during the June 27, 2000 Council meeting. The recommended projects include transportation system improvements for: • Gaarde Street - 99W to 121St Avenue • 121St Avenue - Walnut Street to North Dakota Street Walnut Street - Tiedeman Avenue to 121St Avenue • 121St Avenue - Gaarde Street to Walnut Street • 98th Avenue - Signalization at Durham Road If, after the above-listed projects have been completed, there are bond funds remaining, the alternative projects listed below will be funded in order of priority shown: • Commercial Street - North side, Main Street to Lincoln Street • Burnham Street - Main Street to Hail Boulevard • Tigard Street - South side, Main Street to Tiedeman Avenue • Tiedeman Avenue - Greenburg Road to Tigard Street The total estimated cost for the recommended projects is $16 million. The proposed bond issue is for a period of 10 years in the amount of $16 million. The Task Force cannot promote-the bond package once it becomes a measure on the ballot. However, the members indicated their intention to support the bond issue individually and through formation of a citizen group for that purpose. Goals Update Page 3 September 2000 September 2000 The draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) has been reviewed by Tigard staff and government agencies. Comments have been received from Metro, Washington County,.ODOT, and the Cities of Beaverton and Tualatin. The public process for eventual adoption of the updated TSP include: two public open houses, joint Planning Commission/City Council workshop, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The updated TSP is expected to be adopted in December 2000. The proposed Transportation Bond Issue has been placed on the November 7, 2000 election ballot and is identified as Measure 34-20. The recommended projects in this proposed bond issue include transportation system improvements for: o Gaarde Street - 99W to 121st Avenue 0 121st Avenue - Walnut Street to North Dakota Street o Walnut Street - Tiedeman Avenue to 121st Avenue 0 121st Avenue - Gaarde Street to Walnut Street 0 98th Avenue - Signalization at Durham Road o Fonner Street - Walnut Street to 115th Avenue If, after the above-listed projects have been completed, there are bond funds remaining, the alternative projects listed below will be funded in order of priority shown: o Commercial Street - North side, Main Street to Lincoln Street o Burnham Street - Main Street to Hall Boulevard o Tigard Street - South side, Main Street to Tiedeman Avenue o Tiedeman Avenue - Greenburg Road to Tigard Street The proposed bond issue is for a period of 10 years in the amount of $16 million. The Transportation Bond Task Goals Update ' Page 4 September 2000 Force has been deactivated through Council Resolution No. 00-57, thereby allowing Task Force members the opportunity to support the bond issue individually and through formation of a citizen group for that purpose. Resolution No. 00-57 commends the Task Force members for a job exceptionally well done. 2. Review the results of the Atfalati Recreation District Feasibility Study and determine if the City should support formation of the district by endorsing forwarding the results of the study to the Washington County Board of Commissioners asking that a measure be placed on the November 2000 ballot to form the District. Staff Responsible: Public Works Director Ed Wegner April 2000: At the March 28, 2000, City Council Meeting, the City Council passed on a 3 - 2 vote a Resolution consenting to the formation of a new County Service District. The City Manager was authorized to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for an amount not to exceed the stated tax rates of $.48/1,000 operating and $.35/1,000 bond cost. The cities of Durham and Tualatin are yet to act on support of the resolution, but are scheduled to do so within the next few weeks, as is the Tigard-Tualatin School District. The details of the MOU are beina worked out by all parties. When all resolutions are approved and a MOU is completed, they will be forwarded to the County Board of Commissioners. Goals Update Page 5 September 2000 June 2000: The Washington County Board of Commissioners has adopted an order declaring its intent to form the Atfalati Recreation Partnership District, an ORS Chapter 451 County Service District. Two public hearings are scheduled. The proposal is to seek voter- approval in November 2000, for a permanent rate levy of approximately $0.83 per 1,000 assessed valuation for operation and capital projects. September 2000 Washington County Board of Commissioners has placed the decision to establish a recreation special service district on the November ballot. The ballot measure number is 34-23. The task force has completed its work and has disbanded. Cogan Owens Cogan has submitted its final report for phases 1 and 2 and executive summaries were distributed. Staff is awaiting the election results to begin implementation or to decide flow the City of Tigard will need to address recreational needs of the citizens of the community. Coals Update Page 6 September 2000 3. Assist the Tigard Central Business District Association to develop a plan for the downtown. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx April 2000: TCBDA contracted with the Oregon Downtown Development Association to complete a Resource Team report on downtown Tigard. A series of recommendations resulted from this effort and will serve as a plan to shape the downtown. The Resource Team believes that it is important to strengthen the downtown as the "heart" of the community. It can be achieved, in part, through elements of design, appropriate mixed use redevelopment, and capitalizing on the downtown's image, history, and culture. Creating a strong and positive image that promotes the specialness of the downtown and marketing it to the community will define and highlight its unique role. The results of the report will be presented to Council on April 18, 2000. June 2000: Sim TCBDA and representatives from the Oregon Downtown Development Association presented the report on downtown Tigard to City Council on April 18, 2000. The Association is currently evaluating conducting the Tigard Daze event in the downtown. The final outcome of those discussions will be presented to Council in July. The Association has also investigated the feasibility of i replacing light pole banners along Main Street. A formal Goals Update Page 7 September 2000 request for funding will occur in July. In conjunction with the Balloon Festival, TCBDA initiated a treasure hunt with several downtown businesses participating in the event and offering prizes. The Association is evaluating the need to hire a part-time manager to assist in implementing the Resource Team Report and Action Plan. This will be presented at the July 18 meeting. September 2000 Council recommended to support funding for a part-time manager to assist the TCBDA in carrying out the recommendations of the Resource Team. Furthermore, funding was approved to hire the Oregon Downtown Development Association (ODDA) to assist the development of a funding source for the TCBDA. Council also approved providing funds for the purchase of new pole banners in the downtown area. TCBDA is currently reviewing applications for the part-time manager position and finalizing a contract with ODDA for funding. The new banners have been ordered. TCBDA has developed promotional efforts for the downtown, including a business social (9/13/00), a sidewalk sale (9/30/00), and holiday lighting (Thanksgiving weekend). i Goals Update Page 8 September 2000 4. Complete the City Master Plan for Parks. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx and Public Works Director Ed Wegner. In addition, City Engineer Gus Duenas is involved in the Summerlake management plan and implementation. April 2000: Most of the current year projects included in the implementation portion of the Park System Master Plan are being carried out. Funding shortfalls have delayed the implementation of two projects (upgrade playgrounds and fenced dog park) on the 99/00 list. Staff will update Council on April 11 on the status of park projects,, potential land purchases, and available grant funding. June 2000: The City lacks an adequate budget to fully implement the Parks System Master Plan's recommendations for 2000- 2001. The expansion of Cook Park is underway and several land acquisitions are pending. Several other ambitious projects, such as the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge and the development of two new neighborhood parks, recommended in the Master Plan for current year implementation have had to be postponed due to funding shortfalls. Goals Update Page 9 September 2000 September 2000 The Main Street and Fowler School segments of the Fanno Creek Regional Trail are nearing completion. Both segments included the installation of pedestrian bridges. Two properties, the 0.6 acre Lund and the 11.3 acre Brown properties have been added to the City's parkland inventory. ODOT currently is implementing the wetland creation and enhancement portion of the Woodard Park Expansion Plan. This work will be completed in November. A citizen's focus group has been formed to search for suitable temporary and permanent fenced dog park sites. The Park Master Plan identified the need for three such sites. The Cook Park wetland mitigation project is underway with the completion of the plantings by October 12, 2000. All plans and specifications for future construction projects at Cook Park should be completed by November 15, 2000. At Jack Park the new playground equipment and ground cover have been installed. The City is working with the neighbors and PGE on a lighting project. The City is also getting quotes to fence the area by the apartments to keep residents from driving into the park. Goals Update Page 10 September 2000 5. Determine the City's long-term water supply. Staff Responsible: Public Works Director Ed Wegner April 2000: The City along with its Intergovernmental Water Board members is presently looking at the following three long- term water supply options: o Portland Water Bureau The wholesale water group has hired Paul Matthews of Integrated Utility Group to negotiate with the Portland Water Bureau on the wholesale water contract. Tigard's proportionate share of the contract is $23,101. There is no target date at this time for a report from the consultant. e Joint Water Commission The Joint Water Commission has hired Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) to work on their facility plan and cost allocation study. After JWC reviews this information they will forward it to Tigard for review. South Fork Water Commission The South Fork Water Commission has voted on continuing to study the idea of equity ownership and is preparing an RFP to move forward with this study. Once the RFP has been approved, and a contract issued, Tigard will know what their proportionate share of the project will be. At this time, there are no target dates for these matters. Goals Update Page 11 September 2000 June 2000: ■ South Fork Water Commission a. A consultant has been hired to review permitting and other regulatory rules to make sure the plant expansion could be a reality. b. The consultants are preparing for a staff workshop in mid-July to hear issues and criteria for each agency. c. In mid-September an elected officials workshop will be held to discuss these needs and begin developing a memorandum of understanding to continue. if feasible, with this source. Portland Water Bureau a. Integrated Utility Group has reviewed reports on • water rates, demands forecast, and developed a model to use in assessing the Portland proposal as it pertains to economic impacts. b. We are still awaiting a first draft outlining contract concepts from the Portland Water Bureau. We were told the document would be available by the end of June. As of June 28, 2000, we have not received the document. ■ Joint Water Commission a. Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. reviewed the Joint Water Commission Facility Plan with the Intergovernmental Water Board. The cost of the allocation portion of the study is ongoing. b. Joint Water Commission partnering meetings have been held with staff and I anticipate that at the July 14, 2000, meeting the Joint Water Commission will be making a preliminary decision on the feasibility of allowing Tigard into the Joint Water Commission for both short- and long-term water supply. c. Long-term water is still a concern with this proposal, however, an Integrated Water Resources Group is actively exploring various options and we have been included. Goals Update Page 12 September 2000 September 2000 Portland Wholesale Contract ♦ Portland met with the wholesale contractors on 7/26/00 to present a "straw man" contract ♦ Wholesale contractors are meeting regularly to prepare our thoughts and concerns ♦ Wholesale contractors will be presenting our suggestions and contract objective to Portland staff on October 5, 2000 Joint Water Commission ♦ At the July 14, 2000, Joint Water Commission the following recommendations were approved: - Authorize the Joint Water Commission General Manager to provide a water sales agreement for the remainder of the 2000 calendar year. - Direct staff to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for Tigard to become a participant with a built-in termination if additional source water can not be developed. - Direct staff to move forward on researching and planning for the development of additional raw water source. South Fork/Clackamas River Water Supply ♦ Staff from participating agencies reviewed "fatal flaw" findings from regulatory agencies. No fatal flaws were discovered. o A draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) is being circulated between participating agencies for adoption. o The MOU states that signatories are interested in developing an IGA with timetables explained and some engineering. By approving the MOU, the City is not bound to sign the IGA. Goals Update Page 13 September 2000 6. Establish an annexation policy for the City. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx April 2000: Island areas of Walnut Island have been approved for annexation and will come into the City on May 17, 2000. Staff is in the process of developing a strategy to address Bull Mountain and "non-island" areas of Walnut Island to present to Council. Council is scheduled to discuss the annexation policy on April 25, 2000. June 2000: Staff presented annexation options on May 23, 2000. Council directed staff to further research annexation options, especially in terms of staff resources and public outreach. Staff is following up on getting more detailed information on what this approach entails. September 2000 Staff is following up on Council's direction to do further research on resource and public outreach needs for a Bull Mountain annexation process. Goals Update Page 14 September 2000 7. Encourage and support private sector programs to rehabilitate housing which will be offered for rent at affordable rents, resulting in a safer environment for the tenants (public safety, fire, life, sanitary). Staff Responsible: City Manager- Bill Monahan April 2000: On March 28, 2000, the City Council approved the request of Community Partners for Affordable Housing to grant a tax exemption. This is the third annual exemption granted by the City for the Villa La Paz property. Sheila Greenlaw- Fink of CPAH also reported that they have submitted an application for funding for the construction of new housing at a site in the northeast section of Tigard. That application is now pending review. CPAH is also interested in obtaining additional existing housing to manage for lower income residents. The agency hopes to balance their property ownership with a mix of existing and new housing before undertaking another bcquisition and rehabilitation project such as that undertaken at Villa La Paz. June 2000: Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has received preliminary funding approval from the State of Oregon for new construction of affordable housing at a site on Greenburg Road, in the Washington Square Regional Plan area. Community Development staff is working with CPAH to determine the appropriate way to process a request for land approval to develop the units. Among the options are a comprehensive plan change, an Goals Update rage 15 September 2000 interpretation, or completion of the implementation elements of the Washington Square Regional Plan. September 2000 a ommunity Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has pplied for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone to allow the construction of a 26 unit housing development. The Planning Commission will consider the application on September 18, 2000, with final motion scheduled before the City Council on September 26. CPAH's funding could be at risk if a decision is not final in early October. On September 19, the City Council discussed strategies to promote the development of affordable housing. The Council directed staff to return with specific recommendations and prioritization of strategies. Goals Update Page 16 September 2000 8. Develop a demonstration bus program for Tigard intra-city services to be submitted to Tri-Met for consideration in 2000. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Hendryx April 2000: Community Development staff has met with Tri-Met staff as well as the Westside Transportation Alliance and others to discuss the possibility of providing bus service throughout Tigard, to serve those areas that have populations which would benefit from service. A meeting was held on January 20, 2000, where the Oregon Office of Energy provided information on programs that could be of benefit to Tigard residents. At the close of the January 20 meeting, Tri-Met staff offered to help City staff to develop a transit needs survey which will be placed in the June, 2000 Cityscape to assess the need and interest of the community for developing demonstration bus service. Staff will, be presenting a draft Community Transit Needs survey for City Council review and approval at the April 18 City Council workshop meeting. The revised survey will then be included in the June Cityscape for City residents to fill out and return to the City Planning staff. June 2000: Staff presented the transit needs survey and made changes to the survey as per Council direction. The transit needs survey appeared in the June issue of Cityscape. The results of the survey are now being tabulated. Goals Update Page 17 September 2000 September 2000 The results are tabulated. City staff is working with Tri- Met staff to survey Tigard's Hispanic community. Tigard staff will be returning to Council and briefing them on the survey results. Staff has also been meeting with Tri-Met and the Westside Transportation Alliance and actively pursuing funding for Welfare-to-Work, which enables low income Tigard residents the opportunity to get to their jobs. i 1 i 3 Goals Update Page 18 September 2000 Task URdate The 2000 Goal Setting also resulted in creation of tasks to be completed in 2000. The status of these tasks is as follows: 1. Support' development of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan -a task force developed a plan that is now before Council for action in February. Further work on the need to coordinate the improvement of infrastructure at the time of development will be completed. Staff Responsible: Community Development Director Jim Flendryx April 2000: Council approved the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments with delayed implementation until issues of storm water, open space, and funding of infrastructure are addressed. Staff is currently working on developing a scope of work to address these issues. June 2000: Staff completed scope of work for the implementation grant funded by both the State and City. The City has recently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP). Staff is in the process of selecting a team of consultants and finalizing the contract. Goals Update ' Page 19 September 2000 =MEMO J September 2000 The consultant team of Spencer and Kupper, Kittelson & Associates, and Cogan/Owens/Cogan was the only respondent to the RFP. City staff is working with the consultants and ODOT staff in finalizing the work contract. Goals Update Page 20 September 2000 2. Expand the use of the City's web page - the City made significant strides in 1999 and will place even greater emphasis on using the web page as a communication tool in 2000. Staff Responsible: Finance Director Craig Prosser April 2000: Nancy Lof, Information Processing Technician, has attended additional training on web site technology. New software was purchased to optimize photographs, which allows faster user load times when accessing our site. For an example, the City Council page was redesigned with this new software. An internal Web Steering Committee has had an initial meeting. One representative from each department attends meetings on a quarterly basis and works with Nancy and their departments to continuously review, update, and expand use of this communication tool. Examples of changes and uses of the web site include: e Updates of the progress (and meeting announcements) of the Transportation Bond Task Force. e New links added; i.e., to ODOT. ® New maps available for public view. o A welcome message to the newly annexed Walnut Island residents. o News releases. Local, county, and regional governments are working to assist one another to develop links and explore new developments in this technology. Metro is coordinating a schedule of meeting topics; staff will monitor this schedule to determine whether a representative should attend. Goals Update Page 21 September 2000 June 2000: The Web Steering Committee has been meeting monthly to provide direction for the growth of the web site. A draft philosophy statement has been completed and is being readied to forward to Executive Staff for review. The Committee has also developed a list of needs for the City. The Committee will be prioritizing the list, however it appears the need for a web site search engine and interactive forms are top priorities for all departments. Office Services staff did a presentation on the web site for Council. Council suggested adding a search engine, council e-mail links and a consistent header on each page to enhance the web site. Following up on the suggestions, Council e-mail links and web page headers have been completed. Nancy Lof is researching different options for search engines and we anticipate the search engine beirrg added this year. Areas of the web site that have been added or updated: • The Balloon Festival information was posted on the web site. Hits for the first two Saturdays of the month were pretty typical (28 - 30 hits.) The Saturday of the balloon festival there were 114 hits. ■ Current park projects along with pictures are being posted. • Agendas for Planning Commission and Hearings Officer meetings are being posted. ■ Department' have also updated their web site and more forms are available on-line. ■ Staff is reviewing the options for on-line lien searching. Goals Update Page 22 September 2000 September 2000 The Web Committee has continued to meet to discuss how to manage the growth of the City's web site. After prioritizing the departmental needs and interests, Paul deBruyn was brought into the discussion to help us determine the best way to meet the Committee's goals. A major area of discussion has been whether we can get the needed expertise through contracting with a vendor or if an in-house position is needed to monitor and direct the site's growth. Mr. deBruyn recommended an in-house position. Web Committee members have been working on the position justification and a job description. The information will be forwarded to management this next quarter for consideration. The Web Committee's proposed policy on posting information on the City's web site for non-profit organizations went before Executive Staff. It was decided that for the present time only events that are City- sponsored will be posted. o New additions to the web site include: o Working in conjunction with PGE - one-stop utility shopping ® Posting of bid advertisements o Complete Tigard Municipal Code in on-line o Opinion poll for Visioning ♦ New look for the Library's calendar Goals Update Page 23 September 2000 3. (New) Strive for implementing a paperless Council meeting in 2000. Staff will investigate the steps involved to convert to Council use of notebook computers, receiving Council packet information via the internet, rather than the present Council packet materials. Staff Responsible: Network Services Director Paul deBruyn and Cathy Wheatley April 2000: Paul deBruyn and Cathy Wheatley met to review ideas for transitioning to a "paperless City Council meeting packet." Paul is in the process of identifying equipment needed (for example, should we purchase laptops for each City Council member) and the best way to transmit the City Council packet to the City Council members. Paul and Cathy are also reviewing what other cities are doing in this area. June 2000: At the May 16, 2000, Council meeting, it was decided that the first step towards automating the routing of information to the Council be the addition of e-mail links on the City web site. As a result of that meeting, we have added an e-mail link for each Council member. Mail from citizens to Council members via these links are routed to Cathy Wheatley with the individual Council members name specified. Cathy Wheatley receives the mail and reroutes or takes action as needed. Goals Update Page 24 September 2000 September 2000 Paul deBruyn has installed a document scanner for primary use by the Finance department, but with an automatic document feeder attached. This will enable the operator to insert up to fifty sheets of documents to be scanned and the feeder will scan each sheet automatically. This will vastly decrease the labor and time required to scan in the various documents that are included in the Council packet. The City's Computer Services staff has prepared a laptop for use by a Council member who will participate in our trial period. We are working with a web vendor for assistance in the modifications to the web page to execute a download procedure. Cathy Wheatley attended the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders Conference in September 2000. One of the sessions was devoted to "Technology in the Recorder's Office" and a portion of this session dealt with the "'paperless Council packet." The City Recorders from Bend and Redmond shared their experiences. Both of these cities publish packets electronically, which are available on the Internet. Here are some highlights of that presentation: o It appears that it is best if the packet can be published in a "text based" format. The City of Redmond uses Adobe Acrobat for the download reader. During a "transition period" a hard copy of the Council packet is still needed for some users. 0 Because the packet material is available on the Internet, other interested parties (including citizens, attorneys, City staff) can download those portions of the packet that are of interest to them. e A hard copy still serves as the "record copy." Goals Update Page 25 September 2000 s No cost savings are realized. Once the system is online, staff time and costs for packet preparation are about the same because of initial input of data (i.e., scanning and formatting), support, and maintenance needs. However, the advantage is that the information would be available to anyone with computer access. ♦ Laptops will need to be purchased for each of the Councilors along with two power adapters; one for home use and one available at City Hail. ♦ Councilors can have the ability to write notes for agenda items and then "bookmark" them for quick accessibility. Open meeting law requirements and public record requirements must be followed. For that reason, Redmond did not install e-mail access for their Councilors. Also, there are a number of other questions and issues that can and will be resolved. For example, how would staff members access Council packet information? Would it be necessary to have a number of laptops at the Council meeting for staff members as well, or will hard copies of the packet still be necessary? The City Recorder will continue to work on this goal during the last quarter of 2000 with City staff and seek assistance from the experience of other cities that use a paperless council system. The target for implementation is during the second quarter of 2001. \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\CATHY\COUNCIL\GOAL UPDATE - 2000.DOC Goals Update Page 26 September 2000