Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 04/27/2010
t " City of Tigard • Tigard Business Meet - Agenda • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 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. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign -in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 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 by calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE A'1`l'ACHED AGENDA CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6 :00 a.m. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- April 27, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 1 of 4 i ii; ; - City of Tigard � = Tigard Business 'Meeting - Agenda TIics,AIZD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA) MEETING DATE /TIME: April 27, 2010 — 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION • Discuss Upcoming Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Methodology and Local Government Input o Community Development Department • Administrative Items • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation ORS 192.660(2)(h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. PROCLAMATIONS — Mayor Dirksen 1.1 Stand Against Racism Day — April 30, 2010 1.2 Be Kind to Animals Week — May 2 -8, 2010 3. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Debi Mollahan • Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication • Citizen Communications Sign Up Sheet TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- April 27, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503- 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 2 of4 4. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council) These items are considered 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 Meeting Minutes a. January 26, 2010 4.2 Receive and File: a. Lake Oswego and Tigard City Councils Joint Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2010 4.3 Approve Application to the Department of Justice for a Strategic Enhancement Monitoring Program Grant • 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/Local Contract Review Board/City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 5. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING — FINALIZATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DIS 1'RICT NO. 45 (SW HOODVIEW) a. Open Public Hearing b. Review Hearing Procedures — City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony f. Staff Recommendation g. Council Discussion h. Close Public Hearing i. City Council Consideration: Resolution No. 10- 6. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING — FINALIZATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 (SW BAYLOR — 72ND) a. Open Public Hearing b. Review Hearing Procedures — City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges d. Staff Report: Community Development Department e. Public Testimony f. Staff Recommendation g. Council Discussion h. Close Public Hearing i. City Council Consideration: Resolution No. 10- TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- April 27, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov I Page 3 of 4 7. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 13, 2010) — CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT TO EXTEND LAND USE APPROVALS (DCA2010- 00001) a. Continue Public Hearing b. Review Hearing Procedures: City Attorney c. Declarations or Challenges d. Summation by Community Development Department e. Public Testiinony f. Staff Recommendation g. Council Discussion h. Close Public Hearing i. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 10 -. 8. COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE • Administration Department 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADM \CATHY \CCA\2010\100427 p.doc • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL- A. ri127, 2010 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 4 of4 City of Tigard IN Study Session - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL & LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) MEETING DATE /TIME: April 27, 2010/6:30 p.m. Study Session and 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard — Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION o Discuss Upcoming Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Methodology and Local Government Input ✓ Community Development Department o Administrative Items ✓ Review procedures for legislative public hearing continued from April 13, 2010: Agenda Item No. 7 — Consider a Code Amendment to Extend Land Use Approvals (DCA2010- 00001) ® EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation ORS 192.660(2)(h). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Council Calendar: May 3 Monday Budget Committee Meeting— 6:30 pm, Public Works Auditorium 10 Monday Budget Committee. Meeting— 6:30 pm, Public Works Auditorium 11* Tuesday Council Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 17 Monday Budget Committee Meeting— 6:30 pm, Public Works Auditorium 18* Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 27* Tuesday Council. Business Meeting — 6:30 pm, Town Hall 31 Monday Memorial Day Holiday — City Offices Closed TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA — April 27, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 , I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I . Executive Session — The Public. Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records — to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192 -660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations — involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel — for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or.litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment - related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) (j) - Public investments — to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. I: \ADM \CATHY \CCA SS - PINK SHEET\2010 \100126.doc TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA - April 27, 2010 City of Tigard 13125 'SW Hall Blvd:, Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard - or.gov � Agenda Item # 4 SeSSap Meeting Date April 272010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Tide Discuss Upcoming UGB Expansion Methodology and Local Government Input 0 Prepared By: John Floyd Dept Head Approval: - 12A- City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Metro staff has requested input from local jurisdictions on the sequence and timing of prospective UGB expansions as follow -up to the Urban and Rural Reserves Process. Their request includes an indication of local willingness to provide services and information about ways infrastructure would be funding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive information from staff and provide direction. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Metro Council desires to make a complete decision on how and where to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) by the end of 2010. To achieve this, Metro has begun to analyze the recently adopted urban reserve areas for possible near -term inclusion in the UGB, consistent with criteria set forth in Statewide Planning Goal 14 and Metro Code Section 3.01. Metro legal counsel has indicated that all of the 28,165 acres identified as urban reserve areas need to be examined for appropriateness as part of this year's growth management decision. To fulfill that requirement, Metro staff is proceeding with a two -step process to help narrow the list of potential expansion areas to those that could be reasonably urbanized over the next 20- years. 1. Step one would include the use of MetroScope (Metro's land -use and transportation forecasting tool) to analyze the readiness of each Urban Reserve area for development, and narrow the scope of analysis from 28,165 acres to approximately 10- 12,000 acres for further study. 2. Step two would utilize an alternatives analysis to further refine the study area and address Statewide Planning Goal 14 criteria. This analysis would use existing GIS data as well as preliminary cost estimates for the delivery of urban services to the reserve areas. As part of step one, Metro staff has asked local governments for guidance on the sequence and timing of designating prospective UGB expansion areas for the next 20 years (in five year increments). This assumption is expected to reflect local willingness to provide services to these areas, as well as what existing infrastructure funding mechanisms are in place. Metro staff has requested that this information be provided by the end of April, 2010, and is leaving the format of how the information is presented up to each local government to decide. As Council is aware, Tigard is in a unique situation as a result of unincorporated urban development between it and existing UGB Areas 63/64 and recently designated Urban Reserves. Council has previously expressed the position that future UGB areas should urbanized under municipal governance, a position recently formalized in Section A.7 of the IntergovernmentalAgreement :Between Metro and Washington County to Adopt Urban and Rural Reserves. Further, Council has expressed its willingness to work with Washington County to make annexation of Areas 63 and 64 possible. Throughout the'Urban and Rural Reserves Process, it remained the City's position that Tigard expects to service Areas 63, 64, 'and, designated urban reserves. Based on this, Council may wish to direct staff to prepare the necessary materials that summarize the city's ability to' provide municipal services to Areas 63, 64, and the adjacent urban reserve lands 'provided that they can be made part of Tigard. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not express interest in providing governance or other municipal services outside of the UGB. CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2010 \d -27 -IO AIS UGB Expansion Methodology.docx AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 27, 2010 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: 6 Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: /:/ 44 "beA- ,21.9/0- NA Address / (fS S f i✓ G y ' City State Zip r Phone No. 6 2 d,y `1 /c J' cv a Name \1/C\SAN Y (\ c Q Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address 5C CCROPU.O0Od City -- 0 a State Off- Zip C M- Z- Phone No.S – 3- 6 9 a (CI Name: Yv\ C " Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address C04 r\o I- (1/4- City State Z / i� Phone No. `, cf� L 9 'IZEN COMMUNICATION • AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 27, 2010 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: •C0TY 1. PAC& L Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address I/ 3S St,/ ,op (.44, City T State Chi Zip X 11 72_ Phone No. 52) 3 7 i O(D7 S Name: r1.7/ ).4/:W //17 Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address //22 5r/ %' 6 .. City 17k State 1X Zip 772Z Phone No. 5 -5 -- Name: 1V%k o dud Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address i / /ZS ll S�t/ jxw C* City Ti - State p Zip a ) 323 Phone No. So3 S90 - 727o CITIZEN COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM NO.3 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: April 27, 2010 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: ' - :. =07ZO Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will � y � help the presiding officer pronounce: Address Y C 3 3S c arCt cJQ City State Zip Phone No. c'©3 q 1 r Name: EY (.' /i) I NCB Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: f�vAo ✓tO'J C o C 0 f\J Address 1 I I 6S S Ld 50e lAIn<) Io c City � T t G t2� State f)6Z Zip q 72-7 Phone No. 93 - 0 ( Name:: i Mrvt1 W lL i`YacU —+5 C � . Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: /0 w 3ca 1 54 - do City ,.` `�" State 1, ' ? - 135 Phone No. 503 – 4/ Zi - 2 3 is \adm \cathy \ccs sign up \citizen communication.doc CITIZEN COMMUNICATION -- LI 1 n COM m l- a ID PETITION TO HELP US KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE!! I � Petition As n long-term residents of this neighborhood we want to keep it g et g t p Summary and safe and clean for our children and vulnerable people. Background. Action ,1 Choosing a different site for the proposed " Oxford House" at 11215 SW Petitioned for; Cottonwood LN. Tigard 97223 Let's keep our neighborhood clear of dangerous, illegal substances! Printed Name Si ' nature Address Comment Date 2 v. m e , EZIPIIMIMIUM111111117MSLWINIMINFIETERMIEN2' - ..s 1 a Yei'I'My ''i 4- r 7- l a ��. R�i.� - �i Sv3 9917 ri , tt orrif f i t b sw iii :.� r J -11- C 697 - It -f'i ?) c ( sz3 - I ' 7 law /i LS So) // .d/ i 7 - >7_,v i'9v -ra %• .,y ...,.. .)(s (v -‘52'.0 -4 ( f ffl efI fiZE! S INIL HAM 51/4 3 - 5 i y i .. �T! _ �� = C� f f , ,,a! �' - " w u � 20 ra 50 54 sV'Y7 0.,(N% ,( �" c o,-,-; , .. f sir /.�: ,, , S L S - 6�ly - 3/c/7 /d. ,i.i , /// . 1 Ii ,:..MIIIIPIMMII a3 59a 212S r _ i�� M, �G �c ,� - 03 '24 -0 &7� ri iv, erz. . ' . //Ps J /L4//Q ‘- f"-7 .F 1 Y ±?1`fAAn ' •, '464. tw du .. .• 1; 14.77• (d 5b3 ToQ t ` S - r 1-S. •.. u. 1 . A _ # .. . a et14 I-22-44 - 24 971 -4 Vs -.8857 iiIM 0 k. cotii...) -- ,A ' 92 - -. -io 6- 11' 3 y y fill\ C ar Q t 1... ! ., �. \oS5 •DI - I A • . - lip,. re( i 0 L • 1 w) 3 5 2`7 -SZSI 1 PETITION TO HELP US KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE!! Petition As long -term residents of this neighborhood we want to keep it Summary and safe and clean for our children and vulnerable people. Background. Action Choosing a different site for the proposed " Oxford House" at 11215 SW Petitioned for; Cottonwood LN. Tigard 97223 Let's keep our neighborhood clear of dangerous, illegal substances! �'. , X12.' 722 'rinted Name dr• s Comment Date W I. , MII MNIIMII . 7:! SJ' . • ....,. • - . o 40 3 • Kof Effri �' •nri... 151iy1� - sz.1 -ra67S M ,�.I, TNIM1! r , .7'1!1! „ . IMUN7/'AIM 4425 VICENIMPIONIKAWitf � � 8 I '�' z o'° • ?a -Z8 u ; T1111 c �Lr.�..3,� %.COCA INE WME f if lLyJ i ' • - ffilleillialVAFF /SAM las . ,=NriMingEREMII -s4 717e) 11 . P .REIMIN 6 �o .1 _ . 7 :. • b 563 - Say - 407 a I, =! l7. �7 , v'!.���irl�' 7!��'. 1Pnwar �:� y_. ,.. - . :�M - S7 Sao S ‘ � .1 ( (No Sw'Co .( J , 744,a �z� Le 10 5 S79 -y't1-5-7 Agenda Item No. L / o� •tt Meeting of 2 e D/ O wi JOINT MEETING LAKE OSWEGO AND TIGARD CITY COUNCILS January 11, 2010 MINUTES Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special joint City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 11, 2010, in the West End Building, Willamette Room, 4101 Kruse Way. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Hennagin was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director 2. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Hoffman welcomed Mayor Craig Dirksen, Councilors Gretchen Buehner and Nick Wilson, and City Manager Craig Prosser from Tigard. He encouraged attendance at Rail-volution 201.0, the 15 -year old regional conference started by Congressman Earl Blumenauer that has gone international (October 19 - 21, 2010, Portland). He introduced GB Arrington, an international expert on transit- oriented development (TOD) and a former employee of TriMet, now working for PB Placemaking Group. He mentioned that both he and Mayor Dirksen heard Mr. Arrington's presentation at last year's Rail - volution., 3. GB Arrington presentation on Transit Oriented Development Mr. Arrington gave a PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that he has worked on transit oriented developments (TODs) in the Portland region since the 1970s. He reviewed the services offered by his company (p.1, Slide 3). He defined placemaking as the process that linked transportation, land use planning, and development to create livable communities of lasting value (p.1, Slide 2). He indicated that he would discuss transit - oriented development (TOD), pedestrian oriented development (POD), and development- oriented transit (DOT) (p.1, Slide 4). He discussed the challenges facing TOD in the U.S (p.1, Slide 6). He cited the Sysco Systems headquarters in Silicon Valley, CA, as an example of TAD (transit adjacent development), the more common type of transit development in the U.S. He noted the complete disconnect between the land use pattern oriented to cars and the presence of the transit station. He indicated that TOD was still illegal in the majority of transit stops in the U.S. because communities left in place suburban auto- oriented zoning codes that require low density setbacks and high parking ratios. He discussed the characteristics of developments shaped by transit (p.2, Slide 1). He commented that because cars would still make the majority of trips in the Portland region, they needed to design developments to work for both the car and transit. He reviewed the fundamentals of a good TOD in creating a great place centered around transit (p.2, Slide 3), citing Orenco as a good example. He discussed the need to plan TODs as districts (p.2, Slide 5) using a more complex and broader strategy in linking places together. He discussed why Orenco Station worked as a TOD and the Round did not (p.2, Slide 6). He noted that Orenco had a broad strategy covering 190 acres with a variety of uses. The Round was surrounded by discontinuous parking lots and auto- oriented development in downtown Beaverton. He commented that the challenge was how to create a district around the Round. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13 January 11, 2010 He mentioned the importance of the market in TOD (p.3, Slide 2). He indicated that TOD was the top investment prospect in the U.S. because it held it&value well irrespective of the economic times. He described the TOD market as empty nesters and young urban professionals at higher income levels'. He' observed that the challenge was to create housing with a variety of price points in order to build TODs for everybody. He discussed the decline in U.S. household sizes since 1950 (p.2, Slide 3). He observed that a 30% market demand in the U.S. for walkable communities and a housing market of less than 2% walkable communities indicated a disconnect in terms of whom the market was supplying. He contended that, given the amount of single family home housing stock already built, a community could meet the market demand without building any new sirigle family homes. He reviewed the results of a survey of TOD residents on why they moved into a TOD (p.3, Slide 4). He noted that developers sold TODs to residents on the convenience of being able to walk to buy a pint of milk, as opposed to selling individual residences. He mentioned the Orenco developer's claim that one could walk from Orenco to Hawaii by taking MAX to the airport. He presented the six principles of successful TODs (p.3, Slide 6). He discussed the specifics underlying the first principle of medium to high density (p.4, Slide 1). He mentioned that people often asked him how many dwelling units per acre a TOD should have in meeting this first principle. He explained that he refused to answer that question because the amount of density depended on the place. He noted that Hillsboro, Gresham, and Portland have all adopted the effective minimum density strategy. He discussed the best example of a TOD: the Rosslyn- Ballston corridor with its five transit stations just outside, of Washington, D.C. (p.4, Slide 2) He explained that one reason for its success was the compactthat the cities made with the neighborhoods to concentrate density and economic development, around the stations and thus preserve the neighborhoods. He noted that changing land use on this scale also changed transportation behavior, which was one of the real payoffs of TOD. He indicated that in Arlington County, which built TODs, 73% of the people walked to transit in contrast to Fairfax County, which put the rail line in the middle of the freeway where 15% walked to transit (p.4 Slide 2). He mentioned the New York Times statement thatthe Rosslyn- Ballston corridor continued to remain resilient in the worst recession in decades (p.4, Slide 3). He discussed specifics underlying the second TOD principle of a mix of uses, which was different from mixed uses' (p.4, Slide 4). He indicated that prohibiting auto - oriented uses in the areas closest to transit meant eliminating drive - throughs at banks or fast food restaurants, but not the businesses themselves. He gave the example of Market Common at the Clarendon Station in the Rosslyn- Ballston corridor, which was a mixed -use development located in an old Sears store (p.4, Slide 5). He mentioned that a key element had been the developerworking closely with the neighborhoods to get their support, as this part of suburban Washington, D.C., housed people with lots of power. He discussed the specifics underlying the third TOD principle of compact pedestrian- oriented (p.4, Slide 6). He indicated the importance of blocks sized so that pedestrians could walk around them in five minutes, which challenged the development community that always wanted as big a block as possible. He mentioned that downtown Portland's blocks of 200' by 200' were actually too tight to work in today's market, which liked a block length of 320' to 400'. He observed that building buildings out to the edge presented a challenge to planners who wanted all edges activated by'ground floor retail. However, there was only so much market for active ground floor retail, and the challenge was to figure out how much was enough. He mentioned a rule of thumb that active main streets were usually about 600 feet long, as were malls, because it was difficult to get continuous pedestrian activity for more than 600 feet. He presented a graphic illustrating intensity of uses on a pedestrian scale from the core through the center to the edge (p. 5, Slide 1). He reviewed the Distance and Mode Share chart (p.5, Slide City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13 January 11, 2010 • 2). He noted that every 100 feet away from the transit station, the mode share of office dropped by 1 %, which was why TODs should locate office as close to the station as possible and put the residential units further away. He explained that people would walk further to their residences than they would, to their jobs. He discussed the specifics underlying the fourth TOD principle of an active defined center (p.5, Slide 3). He explained that the number of hours of activity depended on the personality of the community, which was different for every community. He described the Bloomington Central TOD in Minnesota, which was an adaptive reuse of a suburban office park at the stop between the airport and the Mall of America (p.5, Slide 4). He discussed the specifics underlying the fifth TOD principle of limited, managed parking (p.5, Slide 5). He commented that parking was the hardest thing to manage in a TOD. He indicated that getting rid of maximum and minimum parking ratios was an effective strategy. He suggested doing parking utilization studies to reduce the amount of parking when managing parking by district, as opposed to by building. He reviewed the data back ing up the known fact that TODs created less traffic (p.5, Slide 6). He indicated that the challenge was to create building codes and assess impact fees that treated everyone the same. He presented the numbers illustrating the inequity of charging traffic impact fees for TODs based on the ITE manual trip generation numbers for multi- family units because TOD residents behaved differently (p.6, Slide 1). He observed that cities also sized their streets twice as wide as they needed to be for TODs. He discussed the specifics underlying the sixth TOD principle of public leadership (p.6, Slide 2). He emphasized the, need to focus on implementing the plan, rather than simply having a plan. He presented the example of Arlington Heights, a community outside of Chicago with a revitalized downtown and Unirail for its transit (p.6, Slide 3). He indicated that this community was a very affluent community of around 100,000 in population. He discussed the principles behind 'development oriented transit (p.6, Slide 5). He commented that Tigard should be fighting over where to locate the stations because the stations defined the most important places. He indicated that he wanted TriMet to do a better job with the stations because civic architecture placemaking should be a part of the process and add value to the community. He discussed auto - oriented transit. He compared Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C. (a good example of transit) with Branch Avenue, an auto - oriented transit station built in 2000 in Washington, D.C. (p.7, Slide 1). He presented a plan map showing the differences between an auto - oriented station with parking next to the station and a development- oriented station with development next to the station (p.7, Slide 2). He mentioned that both station types had the same amount of parking. He observed that commuters were creatures of habit, tending to park in the same place, whether it was adjacent to the platform or not. He presented a graphic illustrating the equation of three steps: making a place, connecting to the community, and making transit work (p.7, Slide 3). He indicated that the order did not matter as long as a community did all three. He emphasized the need for people to own the responsibility for each of the three steps. He showed a graphic illustrating how TOD could work in creating a sense of arrival and creating a connection back to the community (p.7, Slide 4). He discussed the preferred hierarchy in the US for the more progressive transit agencies (p.7, Slide 5), which reversed the earlier hierarchy in putting pedestrians on top and park and rides at the bottom. He mentioned that some transit agencies still emphasized storing cars as a way to get to transit, citing the 119 new miles of transit RTD in Denver was building and the 22,000 new parking spaces. He observed that the Portland region had less than 4,000 parking spaces for transit. He spoke ofthe importance of deciding who had the responsibility for what part of a TOD (the transit, the local agencies, and the private developer) in looking for a seamless integration between City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13 January 11, 2010 the three spheres (p.7, Slide 6). He discussed how to make transit behave, starting with design (p.8, Slide 1). He commented that it was more important to have a great destination than to get there quickly. He described the characteristics for a good transit station (p.8, Slide 3). He discussed looking at a station from an engineer's point of view versus the DOT's point of view (p.8, Slide 4). He indicated that the design process needed both those points of view because the transit agency would stay within the right -of -way but the community wanted the station to fit into the community. He,discussed considerations for station, locations (p.8, Slide 5). He presented four different strategies for station identities in placemaking (p.8, Slide 6). He cited Pioneer Square in Portland as the best station in Portland in terms of a station as a place in and of itself. He recalled that, as the TriMet staff person in charge of designing Pioneer Square, he simply turned the design over to the Friends of Pioneer Square who designed an invisible station. He discussed designing for development. He indicated that the Fruitvale Transit Village in the San Francisco BART system had an efficient transit station on one side and a revitalized low income community on the other side (p.9, Slides 2 -5). Unfortunately, the design let the people get to their cars without going through the retail development. He commented that sometimes transportation could be too efficient. He reviewed the ten principles of development- oriented transit that his firm used in Baltimore (p.9, Slide 6). He discussed an example from New Zealand (p.10, Slide 3) in which they seamlessly integrated the underground commuter rail station with the above ground development as one pedestrian environment. He noted that it cost $100 billion to bury the station, but they got a 10 to 1 return on their investment in this redevelopment of a brown field. He described how Waitakere in suburban Auckland addressed the challenge facing most commuter rail systems of getting riders from one side of the tracks to the other side (p.10, Slides 1- 2). He described their solution as more about making a community connection than about TOD but noted that it was a good example of creative problem solving. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Buehner observed that Tigard had large senior citizen communities whose residents could not walk very far. She asked if Mr. Arrington has seen a situation of transit in large concentrated areas of seniors who needed the transit but had trouble getting to the station. Mr. Arrington concurred that America was aging but noted that there were a lot more active seniors as well. He mentioned that his firm has done a lot of work in south Florida with its high senior population, and that AARP was a strong advocate for TODs as active mixed use places that did not require a car. John Surrett commented that it did not make sense to him that TODs worked if the population was aging and leaving the employment base, and yet TODs put employment closest to the stations. He questioned the application of Mr. Arrington's TOD examples from the Washington, D.C. area to Lake Oswego, given that those areas had high population growth and federal government employment. He indicated that he saw a disconnect between those examples and what would make a TOD successful in Lake Oswego, given Mr. Arrington's assumptions. Mr. Arrington concurred that the City would need to scale a TOD to what was appropriate in Lake Oswego. He reiterated that each community needed to answer the right amount of density question for itself. He referenced Silverton, OR, the town where he grew up, as an example of a very walkable downtown. He stated that these principles worked in walkable compact spaces and for all ends of the demographic groups. He encouraged citizens to keep an open mind about the opportunity in front of the community and to work with the Council on future developments. Councilor Jordan commented that she has wondered about the planners' insistence of retail always on the bottom and other uses on top because of the question of how much retail could any one community take. She asked if a 200 to 400 foot stretch of retail mixed with office or apartment City Council Special M eeting Minutes Page 4 of 13 January 11, 2010 . vestibules types of uses, followed by another stretch of retail would work. She asked if there was a way to make sure that a retail establishment was viable because it was surrounded by other retail, yet not strung out so far that it was not where active people went. Mr. Arrington reiterated that the mixed use was the most difficult part to do. He spoke of the importance of working with experienced developers with a good track record, such as Lake Oswego working with Gramor on Lakeview Village. He explained that retail required lots of cars and lots of rooftops; therefore, the City needed to determine what its market could support. He observed that planners fell into the trap of ground floor retail as the way to create active walkable places when there were other ways to energize the street edge or to be more strategic about the placement of retail. He mentioned that they knew from studies that, as density and mix of uses increased, people would walk further. Therefore; retail could be an effective strategy to pull people into other areas, yet one still had to have the market fundamentals to support the retail. He said that a problem with a lot of planning is that it did not return to the market fundamentals in locating retail. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the real estate listings in Denver now listed a walkability score for the homes for sale. Mr. Arrington indicated that there was a national website that provided walkability scores for neighborhoods. Councilor Wilson observed that, even though Tigard was probably five years out from the actual design on a potential light rail project, the City actively promoted downtown and corridor development. He asked to what degree they could make assumptions about where stations would stand. Mr. Arrington said that he believed it was the job of the cities to tell the transit agencies where the stations ought to be, as land use came before transportation. He indicated that the way to do that was to make the right supportive land use decisions, as well as be willing to help pay for an extra station if the City wanted stations closer together than the transit agencies did. Mr. Arrington discussed the Rosslyn- Ballston TOD as an example of a jurisdiction (Arlington County) putting up money ($100 million) to move the planned alignment of the rail line from a surface alignment down the middle of the freeway to an underground alignment under Wilson Blvd in order to create its vision of dense walkable TODs. He indicated that, whether or not Tigard put up money, the City needed to do the planning and indicate to Metro and its regional partners that it knew what made sense and that it was taking steps today to reinforce the success of the future project. He explained that 40% of project justification was land use and economic development. He said that when he was at TriMet he wrote the original land use framework that the federal government now used as the largest single measure in its evaluations. He encouraged the Council to plan and implement its plan in the hope that people would put the stations in the right places. Carolyne Jones asked what experience Mr. Arrington had with developments in sloped areas, given that his examples were all in level places. Mr. Arrington commented that most TODs did happen on flat places. He mentioned Arvana, an old gold town that was now a Denver suburb, which put the parking for its TOD on the side of a hill. Councilor Buehner asked whether the significant slope issues faced by both Lake Oswego and Tigard argued for an underground project. Mr. Arrington pointed out that going underground became very expensive very quickly. He cautioned the Councils to be careful in doing any undergrounding, and to make sure that they would get a good return on that investment. He spoke of making what flat or compact areas they had special places and locating uses on hills that people would walk further for, such as residential. He referenced. Tysons Corner as an example of a successful TOD with a number of hills (p.10, Slides 4 -6). He said that part of the challenge was how to organize the land uses so that they were transit - friendly and still within walking distance. He mentioned that they supplemented the TOD in Tysons Corner with streetcars and buses to meet that challenge. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 January 11, 2010 Mayor. Hoffman recessed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 4. Water Project Update Mr. Komarek gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the location and nature of the facilities involved in the Lake Oswego- Tigard Water Partnership Project (p.1, Slide 1). He indicated that the intake facility on the Clackamas River in Gladstone pumped water through a 27 -inch diameter pipeline to the water treatment plant in West Linn. Following treatment to drinking water standards, the system pumped the water over 35,000 feet of pipeline to Lake Oswego's Waluga Reservoir for transmittal to Tigard's distribution system via the Bonita Road pump station. He reviewed the drivers behind the cities entering into this partnership as individual entities, (p.2, Slide 3), as partners, and as regional entities (p.2, Slide 4). He presented an organizational chart of the partnership (p.3, Slide 5) He indicated that Councilors Tierney and Johnson represented Lake Oswego on the Oversight Committee with Councilors Buehner and Webb representing Tigard'. He said that he and 'Kari Duncan (Lake Oswego Water Plant Manager) represented Lake Oswego on the Technical Committee with Dennis Koellermeier (Tigard Public Works Director) and Rob Murchison representing Tigard. He explained that the charge of the Technical Committee was to work with the Program Team, to meet periodically with the Oversight Committee, and to meet with a proposed Citizen Sounding Board. He introduced Jon Holland of Brown & Caldwell, the firm retained by the City to act as the program manager. He indicated that the Brown & Caldwell team would work as an extension of the Lake Oswego Water Team, which was comprised of himself (Project Director), David Prock (Deputy Director), Jane Heisler (Communications Director), Eric Day (Associate Planner), and Laura Barrie (Administrative Assistant). Mr. Holland explained that they called their team a 'program management team' as opposed to a `project management team' because the partnership involved six interrelated projects that comprised the overall program. He indicated their intent to capitalize on efficiency opportunities by rolling together some of the repetitive tasks common to all six projects up to the program level. He reviewed the five basic functional areas: public outreach, program information, permits, project definition, and construction management. With respect to Project Definition, he noted that the team would work collaboratively with the Councils and their staffs to define the projects' vision in order to start the permitting process and to make the decisions necessary to inform the design engineers doing the actual design work what they would be designing, the costs, and the schedule. He mentioned that, in taking a holistic view of Construction Management, the team intended to leverage resources in order to save costs and accelerate the schedule. He noted that, while the design engineers and contractors comprised the extended program team, the City of Lake Oswego as the managing agency, and not the Brown & Caldwell program team, would contract with those firms. He reviewed the action steps anticipated for the program team over the next six months (p.3,, Slide 6). H. said that Terry Buckholz from Integrated Water Solutions would present on the permit process, Clark Worth from Barney & Worth would discuss the public communications strategy, and Jack Warburton from Brown & Caldwell would discuss selecting the water treatment process. He commented that their need to determine the pipeline routes through surveying and geotechnical exploration dovetailed with getting out front with their communications strategy. He noted that Lake Oswego had the lead on the water rights process. Ms. Buckholz presented a graphic illustrating the 42 different types of permits required for the six project components (p.4, Slide 7). She mentioned water rights, environmental permits, land use permits from six jurisdictions, easements and encroachments, and design approvals. She City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 January '11, 2010 • reviewed the traditional permit acquisition process (p.4, Slide 8), or 'hub and spoke' process that was neither collaborative, nor integrated, nor predictable. She mentioned the collaborative and integrated permit acquisition process they developed originally for obtaining environmental permits. She emphasized its predictability in that the agencies would agree on time frames within which they would review documentation and provide comments and concurrence. Also, agencies could not change their actions later on just because they wanted to; the Partnership program itself would have to change for the concurring agencies to impose additional conditions. She discussed the specific factors that the Partnership would include in developing this collaborative permit process (p.5, Slides 9 -10). She said that the team would start on it right away in order to get through the process before the cities made large investments in the program design. She indicated that the process' focus on scientifically based and unbiased information was key in getting buy -in from the permitting agencies. She emphasized that, while the process obtained broad advisory input from those agencies, it also limited their concurrence at the different steps in the process to their legal authority. She mentioned that, while she has been leading these types of collaborative processes around the state for 12 years, this process included a new factor: an agreement signed by all the agencies agreeing to their review time frame, their input timeframes, and their points of concurrence. She cited the successful implementation of this kind of process for the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. She indicated that the permit acquisition process would take three and a half years (p.6, Slide 11), at the end of which the cities would know the program mitigation requirements before investing money in design. She mentioned that most contentious part of the environmental permitting process would be how much water the cities could withdraw from the Clackamas River during the critical flow periods. At this, point the program team would have a good idea of the overall impacts of the program and probable mitigation requirements. She said that another key point would be the biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which would set the required mitigation measures and withdrawal restrictions for the water intake. 9 COUNCIL. QUESTIONS Ms. Buckholtz confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this process did not allow one agency to trump another agency by making a change on any given issue after the program team got approvals on the issue. She indicated that agencies also could not make changes once the cities were into the design process, unless the cities changed their program. She said that the program team would use ecological functions and values in evaluating the impact information so that the agencies could not require unnecessary mitigation by the cities. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that mitigation would be required because the program would impact the water withdrawal from the Clackamas River. She clarified that neither the upcoming court case nor the Oregon Water Resource Department would handle the mitigation issue because the program required obtaining federal permits (Endangered Species Act regulation by NMFS) in addition to. State water permits. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that there was a template for the collaborative environmental process agreement, which the program team was in the process of redoing right now. She said that the precedents for the agreement were the Columbia River Crossing and the Tualatin Basin Water Supply projects. Councilor Buehner " asked whether Tigard's aquifer storage could help expedite the environmental program by reducing the amount of water taken out of the Clackamas River during the summer. Ms. Buckholz indicated that it had potential, and was something that the program team would look at during Program Definition. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 January 11, 2010 Ms. Buckholz indicated to Councilor Wilson that the impact on endangered species would be the most contentious item in terms of impact, as the rest of the impacts were straightforward. She indicated to Mayor Dirksen that, she did not have a pictorial representation of the new collaborative system. • 'COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Heisler mentioned that she would handle the communications for the project from the City side. She reviewed the foundational elements of a communications strategy (p.6, Slide 12). She commented that this program had all the ingredients to demand a comprehensive, clear, and ongoing communications strategy throughout the process. She cited several reasons for public outreach, including a long project spanning several years, a huge geographic area with many stakeholders, an expensive project, and Council decisions needing public support. She spoke of public input helping to balance the extreme technical nature of the program with other considerations. Mr. Worth concurred with Ms. Heisler's summary of the program challenges requiring public outreach. He commented that the most important challenges were the partnership nature of this project, involving two jurisdictions cooperating with each other, and the fact that key facilities, such as the water intake facility and the water treatment plant, were located in other jurisdictions. He observed that the many phases of this lengthy and technically complex program would engage a different set of people interested in each phase. In addition, the city councils would change over the next six years. Therefore, the educational process would have to continue. He reviewed the six -month goals for the communications strategy (January — June 2010) (p.7, Slides 13 -14). He spoke of developing materials flexible enough to use throughout the process. He mentioned uncomplicating the project so that the average citizen could understand the key issues. He noted' the complex technical decisions faced by the policy makers. He commented that they would depend on the news media to communicate information to the vast public, and therefore, the news media needed to go through the community education process as well. He referenced the purple handout listing the guidelines developed during the last phase of this project's planning, which the program team would revisit and update to reflect the current values of the communities. He reviewed the schedule for the first six months (p.8, Slide 15), noting that many actions started immediately, such as the citizen sounding board and public opinion research. He indicated that, while there has been outreach to key stakeholders and policy makers, the program team members did not know what the ratepayers thought about the project. He me ntioned using focus groups and telephone surveys to survey public opinion and to verify the values and principles. He discussed the proposed citizen sounding board (p.8, Slide 16). He described it as a group of citizens who could provide advice to the program director and technical people based on their community expertise. It was a way for the team to test ideas ahead of time. He reviewed the purposes of the sounding board (p.9, Slide 17). He mentioned the program website coming online this month (p.9, Slide 18), and encouraged the Council members to visit it for more information and to direct citizens to it. • WATER TREATMENT DECISION PROCESS Mr. Warburton reviewed, the goals for this decision (p.10, Slide 19). He noted that this process had a broader scope than found in the traditional engineering evaluation processes. He observed that monetizing the environmental and community factors was often a challenge. He referenced their successful work in Victoria, B.C., in which they helped 26 jurisdictions adopt a wastewater management plan by taking the triple bottom line and monetizing the elements in that program. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 January 11 2010 He reviewed the steps of the overall process (p.10, Slide 20). He clarified that `experts' did not mean technical experts but rather people with community and city knowledge. He noted the three workshops scheduled in the next six months. He described the process they would use to incorporate community values into their evaluation (p.11, Slide 21). He noted that they had the same four quadrants identified in the communications: strategy :technical, community, environmental, and economic. He indicated that they would develop specific measures for each quadrant and begin to identify the project scope as they received public input regarding community values on items such as whether the project should be • carbon neutral or just provide information on carbon emissions for all alternatives. He stated that the first big decision, was on which technology was appropriate for the water treatment process: He mentioned the various alternatives available (p.11, Slide 22), noting that the cost increased with the complexity of the technology. Mayor Hoffman commented that, despite Lake Oswego taking water from the Clackamas River for years, no one has ever talked to the Council about a need for the advanced filtration processes. Mr. Komarek confirmed that the direct filtration process used currently by the City met current regulations. Mr. Warburton clarified that they knew that legislators were looking at regulating more pollutants in the environment than covered by the current regulations. This process was to provide the Councils with the information they needed to make their decision. Councilor Buehner recalled Tigard's consideration in 1999 to 2000 of joining in on the Wilsonville Willamette River treatment plant, which used the same four -step process. She asked if there was newer technology for the Councils to consider. Mr. Warburton explained that most of the advanced oxidation processes were developed for industrial situations. He commented that the degree of treatment chosen by the Councils would depend on various factors, such as the water quality, future investment, and potential future regulations. Mr. Warburton indicated that the expert team, which would serve as the foundation of the process, would be comprised of City staff, process experts from other firms, and a public health and records expert. He noted the Oversight Committee and the Citizen Sounding Board, which would bring the public perspective to the process (p.12, Slide 23). He mentioned the specifics proposed to engage the experts and the benefit to the Councils of receiving a recommendation that was both supportable and sustainable through potential criticisms. ® COUNCIL QUESTIONS Councilor Jordan asked how involved Clackamas County would be in helping shape what went in above the City's water intake facility on the Clackamas River. She observed that a water treatment plant located above the City's intake point would change their water treatment process. She asked if there was a way to design the plant with sufficient flexibility to switch to the newer and more affordable technologies that might become available later on. Mr. Warburton speculated that, with the emergent issues now coming under regulatory scrutiny, the people in the Clackamas River watershed would focus more on not creating problems downstream. He indicated that it was a matter of good engineering and good design to build flexibility into the plant to accommodate new technologies. Mr. Komarek mentioned Lake Oswego's long- standing membership in the Clackamas River Water Providers, which funded a variety of projects in the watershed. He noted Lake Oswego's partnership with Water Environmental Services for Clackamas County and with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He referenced the USGS's recent multi -year study assessment of pollutant sources in the watershed, particularly pesticides and herbicides. He indicated that they have found those pollutants in the Clackamas River but at levels well below the thresholds requiring treatment for removal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 January 11, 2010 He commented that one of the first and best barriers to pollutants in the water supply system was to eliminate the use of those pollutants in the watershed. He mentioned the ongoing work to develop a holistic water supply management plan to address these concerns through education and a joint process with the Clackamas River Water Basin Council. He indicated that one benefit of the expert panel would be their input into the discussion of these contaminants of concern, and how far the cities should go in removing them and in providing the flexibility to respond to future changes. He stated that this panel would help inform the Councils' decision, as well as the community. • CONCLUSION Mr. Komarek reviewed the action items for the Councils (p.12, Slide 24). He mentioned Mr. Day's suggestion that they explore solar power at the treatment plant as part of sustainability. He commented that having community residents, such as Duke Castle, on the expert panel could help staff and the Councils better understand these decisions: He asked the Councils for their input regarding the proposed action items. Ms. Heisler noted that Councilor Jordan mentioned keeping the plant flexible to accommodate future changes. Councilor Buehner advocated for the expert panel, citing how helpful she had found them when going through the Willamette process. Councilor Tierney agreed with endorsing the communication strategy. He described the expert panel as a prudent way of approaching a complicated subject. He indicated that he did not see a reason for the citizen sounding board, as there was nothing in the literature about what its responsibilities would be. He recalled hearing comments at the Saturday Round Table stating that the City's Boards and Commissions were disconnected. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not been clear on the sounding board's responsibilities but their intent was for the board to report to the program team, to help the team identify issues early on, and to provide feedback on alternatives. She emphasized that the board would not make recommendations. Mr. Komarek clarified that the sounding board was a staff proposal, for which they hoped to gain the support of the Councils. If staff did get that support, then they would create a clear charter statement for the group with a specific set of objectives and guidelines for interaction with the program team and take it to the Oversight Committee for review. Councilor Buehner asked if staff considered the time needed to get a citizen sounding board up to speed on the process, the need for continuity, and for a long -term membership. Mr. Komarek said that they did consider that. He cited that as a reason to keep the board's focus narrow, and aimed at specific issues. Councilor Wilson recalled that water quality had been a controversial issue during the Willamette River process. He observed that water quality has not surfaced as an issue with respect to the Clackamas River. He quoted an old adage: "The dose makes the poison." He expressed his concern that their technical ability to detect these compounds in the water far below any danger threshold might influence citizen committee members to ask for the most expensive treatment, as opposed to the necessary treatment. He spoke to carefully considering the expert and citizen members in order to avoid unnecessarily driving up the costs. Ms. Heisler noted that this process added a scientific review method to the usual process for arriving at a decision supported by the community. Mr. Komarek concurred that this was an emotional issue. He explained that staff wanted a public health expert on the team in order to explain to the citizens exactly what detecting contaminants at extremely low levels meant. Councilor Jordan observed that the LOIS project has gone well so far precisely because the City kept the communication lines open to the community as a whole and to individuals affected by the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 January 11, 2010 work. She commented that she saw a citizen group as a way to measure the importance of the technical team's findings by those who would pay the bill She spoke of taking the results of that process' to larger focus groups in order to verify that the test case resonated with the whole community of Lake Oswego and Tigard. Mayor Dirksen held that the value of a citizen sounding ,board would be its ability to act as a microcosm of all the residents in the water service area. 'The cities could dialog with this smaller, representative group, which could help the cities gauge the issues and identify which issues the cities should bring to the attention of the entire community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the PowerPoint slide indicated that these eight community members would be like a jury ,of specialists, as opposed to typical citizens. He asked where this board fit in with respect to the Councils. Ms. Heisler stated the Councils were the decision makers. She reiterated that the idea behind this proposal was to give the Councils a sustainable decision using a filter of community interest. Mr. Komarek clarified that staff did not mean to suggest another expert panel by listing fields of expertise for the sounding board (Slide 16). He explained that they were looking for citizens with those sorts of backgrounds who had their pulse of their neighborhood and could provide feedback to the program director from the ,grassroots level. Councilor Moncrieff stated that she shared the concerns about setting up yet another group, given that the Lake O Council has learned that its existing, boards and commissions were frustrated in feeling that they did not have sufficient opportunity for input and a meaningful contribution. She indicated that knowing that this board would have a definite understanding of their mission made her feel more comfortable, but she was still concerned that they not duplicate an effort that they could accomplish with their existing citizen boards. Councilor Olson commented that generally, she was not in favor of more layers of government, yet in this case, given the magnitude and impact of this project, she-thought that some citizen input was a good idea. She indicated that she would defer to the staff recommendation on this in light of staffs experience with the LOIS project. Councilor Jordan spoke to the citizen sounding board having a broader range of representation than professionals who mimicked the technical group, such as parents of school age children and senior citizens. She encouraged bringing in comments from those actually footing the bill and drinking the water. Ms. Heisler commented that staff had not intended a stakeholders group. Councilor Jordan asked what was the point of the group if it was not a stakeholders group in some form. Councilor Buehner indicated that she would feel more comfortable with a more sophisticated citizen group. She observed that people with professional backgrounds also had children or were neighborhood activists. She commented that it was important to have citizens who were able to grasp this very complicated issue. Councilor Jordan acknowledged the point, but contended that having a degree did not necessarily guarantee interest in or comprehension of the project's complexities. She emphasized that another important characteristic, in addition to being able to understand the project, was to have some knowledge Of the whole community and how the choices made by the decision makers would impact that community. Mayor Dirksen observed that the need for this board might be different in the two cities. He mentioned that Tigard already had a representative citizen group acting as an advisory board to the Tigard City Council in its capacity as a water provider, the Intergovernmental Water Board. He said that this board has been advising the Tigard Council from the beginning on all its actions respecting this partnership. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he thought that a citizen sounding board would be helpful through the entire process. He said that the Intergovernmental Water Board would continue acting City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 January 11, 2010 in that capacity for the Tigard Council but he was not certain how to integrate that with Lake Oswego. He suggested creating a board out of representatives from Lake Oswego's different boards and commissions. Councilor Olson suggested trying the staff suggestion and disbanding it if it did not work. She indicated that she liked Mayor Dirksen's idea of using Tigard's board as half the membership and Lake Oswego deciding how to add its own member's to that group. Ms. Heisler commented that using members from existing boards and commissions might get the depth of community knowledge Councilor Jordan mentioned. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was okay with a citizen sounding board. Mayor Dirksen suggested to the Tigard Councilors that they consider the Intergovernmental Water Board as a partial citizen sounding board. Mr. Komarek asked if the Councils were comfortable with the program team developing a charter statement and charge to determine on what basis to select these Lake Oswego community members. He noted that Tigard appeared to have a group already that might fit for their community. Mayor Hoffman commented that the Councilors were talking about taking people from existing boards and commissions. Mr. Powell indicated to Mr. Komarek that a citizen sounding board formed to give feedback to the project director would not constitute a public body under the public meetings law. However, if Tigard took an existing public body and combined it with a Lake Oswego group, he thought that Tigard's City Attorney would advise the Council to consider a meeting of the sounding board the same as a quorum meeting of the public body, and thus subject to the public meeting law. Councilor Jordan pointed out that a citizen sounding board comprised of a few representatives from the Tigard board and a few Lake Oswego representatives would be an unofficial group that represented the broader picture of each of the service areas. The representatives would then report to their own Council. Ms. Heisler suggested that staff take the feedback they have received tonight, take another try at the citizen sounding board, and run it through the Oversight Committee to see if staff was on the right track. Mr. Komarek indicated that he heard Council support for the staff approach to the communication strategy and for an expert panel regarding the water treatment plant process. He said that staff could discuss how to select representatives from standing committees for a sounding board. He noted that one of the challenges was how to make decisions quickly in order to move the process forward. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff was thinking of 8 to 12 members on the citizen board. He indicated to Councilor Olson that staff estimated a $5,000 stipend for the experts on the panel, which would meet over the next six to eight months and generate a report. He said that the intent was to cover the participants' costs. He mentioned a four to five member panel for a possible total expenditure of $25,000. Bill, an audience member, asked for clarification of the recommendation to allow the firms of members of the expert panel to bid on the planning project. He suggested that it would be helpful to know whether the person advocating for a particular treatment technique worked for a firm that sold the materials behind that treatment. Mr. Komarek explained that the expert panel was part of the evaluation process. He commented that generally engineering firms and manufacturing firms were not the same, and therefore he was not concerned that there would be a potential conflict. Mr. Komarek stated that staff would be clear in the charge statement on where and why the program team wanted the expert panel's input. 5. ADJOURNMENT City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 Januay 11, 2010 1 Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie /s/ Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON April 6, 2010 Kristin Johnson /s/ Kristin Johnson, Council President City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13 January 11, 2010 4 j • Agenda Item # 1 4' 3 Meeting Date April 27, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Approve Application to the Department of Justice for a Strategic Enhancement Mentoring Program Grant Prepared By: Chief Alan Orr Dept Head Approv . City Mgr Approval: eg. ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City submit an application to the Department of Justice for strategic enhancement mentoring grant and receive up to $500,000 over a three year period? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the grant application. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Department of Justice is soliciting grant applications that are proposing a research and evidence -based enhancement to mentoring programs based on specific strategies. The City's Police Department has prepared an application that is based on a strategy that would deliver enhanced activities and programs to the Department's existing youth mentoring program. To be eligible, applicants must: • Demonstrate a pre - existing youth mentoring program that will be enhanced and /or expanded. • Identify, as the target population, youth (younger than 18) who already have come or are at risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. • Identify its primary program strategy to enhance the mentoring services as one of the following; 1. Involving the parents and families of mentoring participants in mentoring activities and providing or coordinating services for them. 2. Adding or enhancing the structured activities or opportunities for the mentor and mentoring participants. 3. Adding or enhancing the training and support available to mentors. • Identify and demonstrate partnerships with organizations that will collaborate to provide enhanced mentoring services (family service coordination, structured activities, and /or mentor training) to their target population, as set forth in memoranda of understanding, letters of support, statements of work, etc. • Develop a strategic plan for the entire project period or enhance an existing plan to provide the additional services to mentoring participants. The Tigard Police Department has identified the primary program strategy would be the "adding or enhancing the structured activities or opportunities for the mentor and mentoring participants." The objective of the strategy would be to improve the ratio of mentors to students and recruit and keep mentors who can establish a more lasting relationship with each of the students. There would also be enhanced training of the mentors. Although this would be the primary emphasis for use of these grant funds, the overall youth program offered by the Tigard Police includes components that involve parents and families and the training of mentors. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED NONE CITY COUNCIL GOALS N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES Receive up to $500,000 in federal funds over a three year period with no City matching fund required. Agenda Item No. 5 Date: April 27, 2010 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FINALIZING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO.45 - HOODVIEW Due to Time Constraints City Council has Imposed a Five - minute Time Limit on Testimony • Agenda Item No. 5 Date: April 27, 2010 PLEASE PRINT Proponent (Speaking In Favor) Opponent .- (Speaking Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone one No C /� Utz S6 id't�' v i e&- >J .Name, Address Se Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. `Name, Address & Phone No Name, Addiess`'& Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. "Name, Address & Phone No: `Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. • • Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 27, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Finalization of Sanitary Sewer Reimburse nt District No. 45 (SW Hoodview Drive) Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Finalize Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45, established to construct sanitary sewers in SW Hoodview Drive and Kable Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve, by motion, the proposed resolution finalizing Reimbursement District No. 45 as modified by the Final City Engineer's Report. KEY FACTS ANDINFORMATION SUMMARY • At its August 11, 2009 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 09 -56 approving the formation of Reimbursement District No. 45. • The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $647,904. Due to lower than anticipated bids, the contract award was $298,490. • Construction is complete. The final actual cost of construction is $429,478. o This is $130,988 higher than the $298,490 awarded to the contractor. • • $4,340.58 of the increase was for extra work approved by the LCRB on December 14, 2009, to modify two manholes. • $92,547.29 was approved by the LCRB on April 13, 2010, for field changes to meet a property owner's request to serve an additional portion of the owner's property by deepening the sewer main. • $34,100.13 was additional work done at the unit price for rock excavation and replacement of unsuitable trench material. ® Engineering and inspection fees, 13.5% as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1) of $57,980. • This results in the total project cost of $487,458. • The final project cost of $487,458 is 25% less than the $647,904 estimated when the District was formed. • Steep side slopes resulted in unusually deep service connections for houses on the lower side of the street. The usual method is that once the district is finalized, the owner's contractor excavates the end of the service line at the property line in front of the house and extends it to the house and connects it to the house plumbing. To avoid the cost of the deep excavation at the end of the service line, five owners have been permitted to connect to the end of the service line before it was covered by the City's contractor and extend it to a more convenient point for future extension and connection to the house plumbing once the district is finalized. These owners have deposited the proposed fees required for connection and have agreed to comply with any fee modifications imposed by City Council. • On April 9, 2010, notices of the hearing to finalise the district were mailed to owners within the district. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the Final City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed :resolution. No responses to the notices were received. • This Reimbursement District installed sewer service to 25 lots on SW Hoodview Drive and SW Kable Street. The property owners must reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each property owner must pay a connection fee, currently $3,635, and is responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. The connection fee is expected to increase to $4,135 on July 1, 2010. The sewer connections are available should property owners need to connect. Owners will not be required to pay any fee until they connect to the sewer. • If Council approves this request to finalize the Reimbursement District, owners within the district will be notified that the sewer is available for connection. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS The proposed Reimbursement District meets Goal No. 1, "Implement Comprehensive Plan ", by providing the area currently on septic systems with sewer service as required by the Plan. • ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1- Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, Final City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map Attachment 2- Resolution No. 09 -56 with Exhibits A, B (9 pages) Attachment 3- Vicinity Map Attachment 4- Notice to Owners Attachment 5- Mailing List Attachment 6- Resolution No. 01 -46 Attachment 7- Resolution No. 03 -55 FISCAL NOTES The final actual cost of the project is $487,458. This amount includes the final cost of construction, $429,478, plus $57,980 for administration and engineering as defined in TM C 13.09.040(1). Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. • Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION FINALIZING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 45 (SW HOOD VIEW DRIVE) AND AMENDING THE PRELIMINARY CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT • CONTAINED IN RESOLUTION NO. 09-56. WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution No. 09 -56 to form Sanitary Sewer District No. 45 to construct sewers in SW Hood View Drive and Kable Street in accordance with TMC • Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 09 -56 included the City Engineer's Report that included an estimated construction and total project cost; and WHEREAS, construction of the sewer improvements has been completed, final costs have been determined, and the City Engineer's Report has been revised to include the final costs as required by TMC 13.09.105 (1); • and • WHEREAS, the property owners within the district have been notified of an informational hearing in accordance with TMC13.09.060 and an informational hear was conducted in accordance with TMC 13.09.105; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed revisions to the City Engineer's Report, as recommended by the City Engineer, are appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Final City Engineer's Report titled "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45 ", attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 2: The City Engineer's Report as presented in Resolution No. 09 -56 is hereby amended by the attached Final City Engineer's Report (Exhibit A). . SECTION 3: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the County Recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address. SECTION 4: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2010. Mayor - City of Tigard A FIEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard ilengt2009 -2010 fy cipToodview san sew dist 45 - file # 0635. itas 930451councilVnal ¢ atian 4- 27.1011inal hoodview reim dist 45 res.doc RESOLUTION NO. 10 - Page 1 • • Exhibit A Final City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45 (SW Hoodview Drive) Background This project was constructed and funded under the City of Tigard Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (NSEP). Under the program, the City of Tigard installed public sewers to each lot within the project area. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would pay a connection fee, currently $3,635 and reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic systems according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. Project Area - Zone of Benefit Serving the 25 lots in the following table will require extending an existing sewer in SW Kable Street north and west in SW Hoodview Drive. No further extension of this line will be required. The surrounding area is completely served with sewer. The project makes available sewer service to a total of 25 lots within the reimbursement district as shown on Exhibit Map B. Cost The final cost for the sanitary sewer construction to provide service to the 25 lots is $429,478. Engineering and inspection fees amount to $57,980 (13.5 %) as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The final total project cost is $487,458. This is the amount that should be reimbursed to the sanitary sewer fund as properties connect to the sewer and pay their fair share of the total amount. However, the actual amount that each property owner pays is subject to the City's incentive program for early connections. In addition to sharing the cost of the public sewer -line, each property owner will be required to pay a connection and inspection fee, currently $3,635, upon connection to the public line. This fee is expected to increase to $4,135 on July 1, 2010. All owners will be responsible for all plumbing costs required for work done on private property. Reimbursement Rate All but two of the southernmost properties in the proposed district are zoned Residential 3.5 requiring a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Consequently, the same method of assigning costs to all lots within the district was used. Lot size varies from about 15,000 to Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 18,000 square feet as can be seen in the following list of lots. Therefore, the total cost of the project was divided among the properties proportional to the square footage of each property. This method is reasonable because sewer service is more beneficial to larger lots that may be more extensively developed. Other reimbursement methods include dividing the cost equally among the owners or by the length of frontage of each property. These methods are not recommended because there is no correlation between these methods and the cost of providing service to each lot or the benefit to each lot. Each property owner's final fair share of the public sewer line is $1.22837672 per square foot of lot served. Each owner's fair share will be limited to $6,000, to the extent that it does not exceed $15,000, for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction in accordance with Resolution No. 01 -46 (attached). In addition to paying for the first $6,000, owners will remain responsible for paying all actual costs that exceed $15,000. Upon request, payment of costs that exceed $15,000 may be deferred until the lot is developed, as provided by Resolution No. 03 -55 (attached). Annual Fee Adjustment TMC 13.09.115 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each property owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director has set the annual interest rate at 6.05% as stated in City of Tigard Resolution No. 98 -22. Recommendation It is recommended that the reimbursement district be finalized with an annual fee increase as indicated above and that the reimbursement district continue for fifteen years as provided in Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110(5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. Submitted April 12, 2010 Aiii■.. Theodore Kyle, P.E. City Engineer is \eng\2000 -2010 fy cipUroodview san sew dist 45 - file 5 0035 - ifan 83045\ council\finalization 4-27 -10 \final hoodview reim diet 45 report ex a.doc Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 HOODVIEW DRIVE Sewer Reimbursement District #45 Final Cost to Property Owners Summary Tuesday, April13, 2010 • Final Construction Costs $429,478.38 Final construction subtotal $429,478.38 13.50% Administration & Engineering $57,979.58 total project costs $487,457.96 total area to be served (S.F.) 396831 total cost per S.F. to property owner $1.22837672 " I 3of4 • • HOODVIEW DRIVE Sewer Reimbursement District #45 Final Cost to Property Owners Tuesday, April13, 2010 Final Amount that Owner Site Address Tax Lot ID Area (S.F.) Area Reimbursement Amount to he Amount to be can be (AC) Pee Paid by Owner Paid by City Deferred by Owner 1 CIRO"ISKI; LAWRENCE L AND LAURA L 10305 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111C1301706 17860 0.41 $21,938.81 $12,938.81 $9,000.00 $6,938.81 2 TA ENNLER, ALFRED 10290 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01707 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 3 SKACI -1, JOSEPH R & 10260 SW I IOODVIEW DR 2S111CI301708 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 4 GUDEKUNST, NANCY & PETER 10200 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01709 15682 0.36 $19,263.40 $10,263.40 $9,000.00 $4,263.40 5 MCKEE, TERRY & PRISCILLA ANN EMPTY LOT 2S111CB01710 17860 0.41 $21,938.81 $12,938.81 $9,000.00 $6,938.81 6 SESNON, KAREN C a) ROBERT 1 -I 10125 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01711 17424 0.4 $21,403.24' $12,403.24 $9,000.00 $6,403.24 7 CARVER, WILLIAM A SUSAN M 10155 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01712 15682 0.36 $19,263.40 $10,263.40 $9,000.00 $4,263.40 8 l3OELLING, KAREN & 10185 SW HOODVIEW DR 2511 1CB01713 16553 0.38 $20,333.32 $11,333.32 $9,000.00 $5,333.32 9 FRIEDRICH, JOHN H AND 10080 SW KABLE ST 2S1(10301717 16117 (1.37 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 $9,000.00 $4,797.75 10 ANDERSON, ROGER F AND 10120 SW KABLE ST 2S1I1CB01718 16117 0.37 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 S9,000.00 $4,797.75 11 GIRAUD, GEORGE & PATRICIA L 10170 SW KABLE ST 2S111CB01719 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 12 FRASER, MICHAEL) 10210 SW (GABLE ST 2S111CB01720 14810 0.34 $18,192.26 $9,192.26 $9,000.00 $3,192.26 13 MCKEE, TERRY D PRISCILLA 10198 SW (GABLE ST 2S111C801734 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 14 SWITZER, KRISTEN C & CARL. R 10310 SW HOODVIEW DR 2511 ICB01735 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 15 DUNNE, KEVIN B AND SANDRA L 10340 SW HOODVIEW DR 2SI I ICB01736 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 16 TAKAI HASHI, & AKEMI 10370 SWI- IOODVIEWDR 2S1I(CB01737 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 17 CI - IWIRK A,SI'EVEN A 10400 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S1I1CB01738 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 18 S'l'EV L-:NS, LINDA SUE 10430 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S1I1CB01739 15246 11.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 $3,727.83 19 BOWEN, MARK A 10460 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S(1ICB01 740 15246 0.35 $18,727.83 $9,727.83 $9,000.00 • $3,727.83 20 NELSON, JAMES R & LINDA 5 10455 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111C1301741 16117 1).37 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 $9,000.00 $4,797.75 21 SMITH, SI'EI'I R & CARLA J 10425 SW HOODVIEW DR 2SI I(CB01742 16117 0.37 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 $9,000.00 $4,797.75 22 I LIDUAN 10395 SW I IOODVIEW DR 2SI11C801743 16117 037 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 $9,000.00 $4,797.75 23 ALFARO, CHARLIE N & 10365 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01744 16553 0.38 $20,333.32 $11,333.32 $9,000.00 $5;333.32 24 WONG, M MOOYUN • 10335 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S(11CB01748 16117 0.37 $19,797.75 $10,797.75 $9,000.00 $4,797.75 25 WES 1'BY, RICHARD S & DENISE M (0275 SW HOODVIEW DR 2S1(1C1301705 15245 0.35 $18,726.60 $9,726.60 $9,000.00 $3,726.60 • Totals 396831 9.11 $487,457.96 $262,457.96 $225,000.00 $112,457.96 The "FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FEE" column shows the estimated reimbursement fee for each lot. '('here are no requirements to connect to the sewer or pay any fees until the owner decides to connect tb the sewer. The final reimbursement fee will be determined once construction is complete and final costs are determined. In accordance with Resolution No. 01 -46, each property owner will be required to pay the first $6,000 of the final reimbursetitent fee for connections completed within the first three years of City Council's approval of the final City Engineer's Report following const®etion. The "AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY CITY" column shows that portion of the reimbursement fee that the owners will not be required to pay if they connect to the server during this three year period. This resolution also requires owners to pay any fair share amount that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus that amount of the fair share that exceeds $15,000. Under Resolution No. 03 -55, payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 may be deferred until the owner's lot is developed. This amount is shown in the "AMOUNT TI-UAT CAN BE DEFERRED BY OWNER" column. In addition to the reimbursement fee, the owners will also be required to pay a connection fee, currently $4,135 at the time of connection to the sewer. The connection fee is expected to increase to $4,135 on July 1, 2010, In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. 4 of 4 • HOODVIEW DRIVE — REIMBURSEMENT DIST NO. 45 FY 2009 -10 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 SECTION 11 T2S R1W W.M. • ) • P \i'llMi".M.W. �� � JP� � F � Nj O J <1 0• Q k0 � N p 000 P� QP \ � G P ic �C� p � 43 r \ G 0 � � O G 0 N HOODVIEW DR . • z x �o W �1P��'tO � � 69,�� 0 •Q � ' - e co <C y� P� c A O � W � p 0 ON NpO � p 0s 1 �� �(�, A D �� .. o O* CPO �� c 0 O� ^O c)0 N o •e , c , ,* . �, c,O 4z '2 °� P �O� O J �p G 0 ' 0 0 ( O �� 2 p C 0 P C 0 , 0 4 ,,. �� � 0 �� C� 0 P� ^�G „, 0 � �. �� O ^G Plc � op ��` � � N ` SO D rl 69 O�ti \ 0 ` y ,tP \ O �. O43 `k, �� �� O � 1 � O�� 0 e V MCKEE, 1 r.ncr NOTE: All properties in the reimbursement EXHIBIT B (p1) district are zoned R3.5 NTS HOODVIEW DRIVE— REIMBURSEMENT BOELLING, KAREN DIST NO. 45 & ROBERT JOHNSON FY 2009 -10 SANITARY 10185 HOODVIEW DR + SEWER EXTENSION se O ` R 2S111CB01713 PROGRAM � O ��c O q � G A PORTION OF THE NW .1 ,Z. O ° ° ' Q � �`' o � 1/4 SECTION 11 T2S � P `Z O � � JO - 000 CARVER, WILLIAM R 1 W W.M. c �� O ��' �G o & SUSAN ec °0 N `ti �Q- 00c,N 3 10155 HOODVIEW DR S �O` ( A/ W 2 S 111 C B 01712 = o w O O_ ti MCKEE, TERRY MCKEE, TERRY & PRISCILLA & PRISCILLA SENSON, KAREN 0195 KABLE ST VACANT LOT & ROBERT 2S111 C801734 25111 CB01710 10125 HOODVIEW DR 25111 CB01711 KABLE ST NOTE: P O O c � �` All properties in the �,� ` O Q O c-) O reimbursement district ����<v�0, C,�`'OC,N �, G'o� �c �`�' G ,Z ' �' N �'\ are zoned R3.5 x �NO�N �-PJ QPAP(O °�� o E ��° 0 N N `ti �O' c- ' Q 0, N 0, EXHIBIT B (p2) NTS Attachment 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09 -.5 (p A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 45 (SW HOODVIEW DRIVE) • WHEREAS the City has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers and recover costs through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, the property owners of proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45 (SW Hoodview Drive) have been notified of a public hearing in accordance with TNIC 13.09.060 and a public hearing was conducted in accordance with TMC 13.09.050; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report describing the improvements, the area. to be included in the Reimbursement District, the estimated costs, a method for spreading the cost among the parcels within the District, and a recommendation for an annual fee adjustment; and • WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the formation of a Reimbursement District as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The City Engineer's report titled "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45;" attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 2: A Reimbu.rseinent District is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09. The District shall be the area shown and described in Exhibit B. The District shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45." SECTION 3: Payment of the reimbursement fee, as shown in Exhibit A, is a precondition of receiving City • permits applicable to development of each parcel •within the Reimbursement District as provided for in TNIC 13.09.110. SECTION 4: An annual fee adjustment, at a rate recommended by the Finance Director, shall be applied to the Reimbursement Fee. SECTION 5:. The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the County Recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last • known address, in accordance with TMC 13.09.090. SECTION 6: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. RESOLUTION NO.09 Page 1 PASSED: This ) day of. - 4 I 2009. 4 • Mayor - City of Tigard A 1'1:EST: ) 19 GC. 1.-c! City Recorder - City of Tigard • • • • RESOLUTION NO. 09 - Page 2 • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45 • (SW Hoodview Drive) Background This project will be constructed and funded under the City of Tigard Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program (NSEP). Under the program, the City of Tigard would install public sewers to each lot within the project area. At the time the property owner connects to the sewer, the owner would pay a connection fee, currently $3,635, and reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic systems according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. Project Area - Zone of Benefit Serving•the 25 lots in the following table will require extending an existing sewer in SW Kable Street north and west in SW Hoodview Drive. No further extension of this line will be required. The surrounding area is completely served with sewer. The proposed project would provide sewer service to a total of 25 lots within the proposed reimbursement district as shown on Exhibit Map B. Cost The estimated cost for the sanitary sewer construction to provide service to the 25 lots is $570,840. Engineering and inspection fees amount to $77,063 (13.5 %) as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The estimated' total project cost is $647,904. This is the estimated amount that • should be reimbursed to the sanitary sewer fund as properties connect to the sewer and pay their fair share of the total amount. However, the actual amount that each property owner pays is subject to the. City's incentive program for early connections. In addition to sharing the cost of the public sewer line, each property owner will be required to pay a connection and inspection fee, currently $3,635, upon connection to the public line. All owners will be responsible for all plrunbing costs required for work done on private property. Reimbursement Rate All properties in the proposed district are zoned R -3.5 but vary in lot size from about 15,000 to 18,000 square feet as can be seen in the following list of lots. Therefore, it is recommended that the total cost of the project be divided among the properties proportional to the square footage of each property. • Exhibit A Page I of 5 • • • • Other reimbursement methods include dividing the cost equally among the owners or by the length of frontage of each property. These methods are not recommended because there is no correlation between these methods and the cost of providing service to each lot or the benefit to each lot. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is $1.6327 per square foot of lot served. Each owner's fair share would be limited to $6,000, to the extent that it does not exceed $15,000, for connections completed within three years • of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction in accordance with Resolution No. 01 -46 (attached). In addition to paying for the first • $6,000, owners will remain responsible for paying all actual costs that exceed $15,000. Upon request, payment of costs that exceed $15,000 may be deferred until the Iot is developed, as provided by Resolution No. 03 -55 (attached). Annual Fee Adjustment INC 13.09.115 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each property owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director has set the annual interest rate at 6.05% as stated in City • of Tigard Resolution No. 98 -22. Recommendation • It is recommended that .a reimbursement district be formed with an annual fee increase as indicated above and that the reimbursement district continue for fifteen years as provided in Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110(5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. Submitted July 28, 2009 • Q, r P --- • sittin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer tlenpbrnJ0elmburscmenl dLS1nUS45 hood view0-1 1.OD hoodNew mim dGt 4S rcrwrl ex o.doc Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 HO ODVIEW DRIVE Sewer Reimbursement District #45 Estimated Cost to Property Owners Summary July 23, 2009 Estimated Construction Costs $496,383 15.00% contingency (construction) $74,457 Estimated construction subtotal $570,840 13.50% contingency (Admin & Eng) $77,063 • total project costs $647,904 total area to be served (S.F.) 396831 • total cost per S.F. to property owner (Rounded) $1.633 • „ , .• \ ENG \ 2009-21110 FY CIP \ San Sew Dist 45 - File # (535 - 95160 IiIngincur Estimate \ I-loodview Sari Sew Dist 45 - Estimate By Tits Lot (Area).sIss 3 iif 5 • • • HOODVIEW DRIVE Sewer Reimbursement District #45 Esrim:ried Cost to Property Owners ,Jul 23, 2009 Amount • mount that • Owner Site Address Tax Lot ID Area (S.F.) Area Reimbursement Amount to be Amount to be can be - (AC) Fee Paid by Owner Paid by City Deferred by Owner 1 CIRO'PSIU, LAWRENCE L AND LAURA I. 10305 SW 1- IOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01706 17859.60 0.41 $ 29,159 5 20,159 5 9;000 9 14,159 2 TAI•:NN1..IIR, ALFRED 10290 SW 1-100DVI13W DR 251110301707 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 S 15,892 9 9,000 $ 9,892 3 SKAC••, JOSEPH R & 10260 SW 1-IOODVIE \V DR 251110301708 15246.00 0.35 9 24,892 $ 15,892 5 9,000 $ 9,892 4 GUDEKUNST, NANCY & PI_ l ER 10200 SW 1 \V DR 2S111CB01709 15681.60 0.36 5 25,603 S 16,603 $ 9,000 5 10,603 5 NfCK.EE,TERRY & PRISCILLA ANN 13NIPTY LOT 25111CI301710 17859.60 0.41 $ 29,159 $ 20,159 $ 9,000 5 14,159 6 SLSNON, KAREN E & ROBERT I-I 10125 SW 1- 100DVIEW DR 251110301711 17424.00 0.4 $ 28,448 5 19,448 5 9,000 5 13,448 7 CARVER, WILLIAM A SUSAN NI 10155 SW I DR 2S111CB017•2 15681.60 0.36 $ 25,603 $ 16,603 5 9,000 5 10,603 8 BO1iLLING, KAREN & 10185 SW HOOD DR 2S1 I I CB01713 16552.80 0.38 $ 27,02G $ 18,026 5 9,000 $ 12,026 9 FRIE•DRICH, OPIN I-I AND 26,314 5 17,314 S 9,000 $ 11,314 J 10080 }v \J31:1S1' ?57'I1CB0'1717 16117.20 0.37 $ 2 10 ANDERSON, ROGER AND 10120 SW KABLE ST 25111CB01718 161:17.20 0.37 $ 26,314 $ 17,314 5 9,000 5 11,314 11 GIRAUD, GEORGE & PATRICIA I.. 10170 S\V KABLE ST 25•111CB01719 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 $ 15,892 $ 9,000 $ 9,592 12 1>R \SER, NIICI-L \EL J 10210 SW Kr \131.E ST 251 11CB01720 14810.40 0.34 5 24,181 5 15,181 $ 9,000 5 9 13 MCKEE, TERRY - D PRISCILLA 10198 S \V KABLE ST 2S111CB01734 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 $ 15,892 5 9,000 $ 9,892 .14 SWITZER, KRISTEN C & CARL R 10310 SW HOODVIEW DR 25111CB01735. 15316.00 0.35 $ 24,892 5 15,892 5 9,000 5 9,892 15 DUNNE, KEVIN B AND SANDRA L 103405 \VI IOODVIEWDR 2S111CB01736 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 $ 15,892 $ 9,000 5 9,892 16 HARBOUR, KELLY 10370 SW IIOODVIEW DR 2S111CB01737 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 $ 15,892 S 9,000 5 9,892 17 CI1WIR,- \, STEVEN A 10400 SW1 DR 25111CB01738- 15246.00 0.35 $ 24,892 $ 15,892 $ 9,000 5 9,892 18 STEVENS, LINDA SUE 10 -430 SW I- IOODVII: ?\V DR 25111CB01739 15246.00 0.35 9 24,892 $ 15,892 5 9,000 $ 9,592 19 BOWEN, MARK A 10 -460 SW f IOODVIE \V DR 2511 ICB01740 15 0.35 5 24,892 5 15,892 9 9,000 5 • 9,892 20 NLLSON,J' \HIES R.& LINDA S 10455 S \V 1- IO0DVIEW DR 2S111CB01741 1611720 0.37 5' 26,314 5 17,3 $ 9,000 $ 11,314 21 SMITH; STEPHEN R & CARLA J 10.425 S \V 1 DR 251'11CB017 -12 16117 20 0.37 $ 26,314 $ 17,314 5 9;000 5 11,314 22 1-IUGEL, L1DU:\N 10395 SW I \V DR 23111C/301743 16117.20 0.37 $ 26,314 S 17,314 $ 9,000 $ 11,314 23- ALFARO, CI•IARL.IE N & 10365 SW 1- 100DVIEW DR 2S111CB01744 16552.80 0.38 $ 27,026 5 18,026 $ 9,000 $ 12,026 24 \VONG, 11 SIOOYUN 10335 SW HOODVIE \v DR 2S111CB01748 '16117.20 0.37 $ 26,314 $ 17,314 $ 9,000 5 11,314 25 \VESfBY, RIC1-LARD S & DENISE M 10275 SW I- IOODVIEW DR 25111CB01705 ' 15245.06 0.35 $ 24,891 $ 15,891 $ 9,000 S 9,891 Totals 396830.66 9.11 $ 647,904 $ 4 $ 225,000 5 272,904 4 of 5 HOODVIEW DRIVE Sewer Reimbursement District #45 Estimated Cost to Property Owners • July 23, 2009 The "ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT FEE" column shows the estimated reimbursement fee for each lot. 'there arc no requirements to connect to the sewer or pay any fees until the owner decides to connect to the sewer. The final reimbursement fee will -be determined once construction is complete and final costs are determined. • In accordance with Resolution No. 01 -46, each property owner will be required to pay the first S6,000 of the final reimbursement fee for connections completed within the fast three years of City Council's approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction. The "AMOUNT TO I3E.: PAID BY CITY" column shows that portion of the reimbursement fee that the owners will not be required to pay if they, connect. to the sewer during this three year period. This resolution also requires. owners to pay any fair share amount that exceed 515,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds 515,000, the owner would be required to pay S6,000 plus that amount of the fair share that exceeds S15,000. Under Resolution No. 03 -55, payment of die amount in excess of 515,000 may be deferred until the owner's lot is developed. This amount is shown in the "AMOUNT THAT CAN Bb. DEFERRED BY OWNI::R" column. • In addition to the reimbursement fee, the owners will also be required to pay a connection fee, currently S3635 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners arc responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other'mt difications necessary to connect to the public sewer. 4 • • 5 of 5 • • -1 - . ' r , 1 • . + a CI m CD m iV (D 1 ° F 60� 0 O1 > I art s-s ley 2 S S t/../ -p -T1 : CA m , , ce ° .5 IP S> ce O, IV F� ( , N I in _ VO 4P' � Q 0, �Lp —1 O Q q O OO 2 , = S� Z c CT ,, F, Q , / T < m ? S � c �p �'O p ? / o c,' , O 0 . • 6 ° � j /, S O < ri 0 , 01 SF CD S 9 p /p ° 7' 0 p = D 77 -, cy r1 z— ,..,00 y o 9 s 'os9 Z, D r I P 1 � c 0 p L � T F L � S F( XI �7 . X Bo FFti ` 6'0(.0' ,,, Z —1 7 Ar •,: , A`? OR M C • vi 0 54,6, '94. m 7) W 25 7, °o a ir ' ° ss � n in e °, 3 2s s y ° o �' -9, O x m c o � F q �F Z • °4 AR ° 'P Z °3 yo � S 4 ,,„ _, (/) D c °yFq ,Doss s�� y N z • , op o cn z s T� s6 0,9 ce g� � a ti 7) O 4' ._.., O °3 ,0�FQ O • 1, 70 e ° 0, ST F ` , Y ° S QO T S� / '3s 04) c., l'& C K i f q 0 F, B °� �i cF / • ')s p ° s °,p , , cs o /�� ' , IP O s r K ' 6' 1 1 7 7 C7y 7 7 i 3 m °� O� ,l c � p L F 4f ° S J > • 2 S� � , y o o s � ° > • ` O 1 SEE EXHIIT B (p2) • HOODVIEW INIIIIMININEMOO••• BOELLING, KAREN DRIVE — REIMBURSEMENT DIST NO. 45 & ROBERT JOHNSON FY 2009 -10 SANITARY 10185 HOODVIEW DR SEWER EXTENSION o� 2S111CB01713 PROGRAM Q . �0 - . 0 � �;�`� A PORTION OF THE NW O o 0 N � J Q �``" o 1/ 4 SECTION 11 T 2 S 11 � N-- -e , - ,§) 0 ° e.)9 CARVER, WILLIAM ` R 1 W W.M. X _ N v o & SUSAN ct m Np `tiG �P ' 10155 HOODVIEW DR F 0 cV w 2S111 CB01712 a W 0 0 w = w N MCKEE, TERRY MCKEE, TERRY & PRISCILLA & PRISCILLA SENSON, KAREN 0195 KABLE ST VACANT LOT & ROBERT 2S111 CB01734 2S111 CB01710 10125 HOODVIEW DR 25111 CB01711 KABLE ST NOTE: (,` c ��' All properties in the O�P�O � O 0��� reimbursement district � N Co C o ) o �F ` � �,4' � . P ��o ^ '� ^ are zoned R 3.5 � � � G c ��' �- G.) J P ' R's :- � cs b e A-- N. ti EXHIBIT B (p2) NTS ...._......._......_____ .... . . . • HOODVIEW DRIVE-REIMBURSEMENT DIST NO 45 FY 2009-10 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 SECTION 11 T2S R1W W.M. 7 Illl Fil i I J , iii L Lii_, 404* s. _m I mop -i---- __ 1 i,J - _ LADY MARION D ---\---- _ ---....,, ,-.....-- (f)/ N / . 1 ...... j scli i.% HOODVIEW DR „-- I 1— 1-.. )-- III SATTLER ST O N A — WI s._ KABLE ST IIIIIIIIIII _ _ KABLE ST KABLE ST ---j-- — . j1111111-11 KAB I L 111 El:1r aill - N _ P , - All z MIN/ in ii i_. c)ii All la ne( I II I A 1--- NA EVE ST 7 . HIGHLAND DR ---- •.--1 • \ \-_____ I / - )--10 > -----, r AN DR HIGHLos tfl Z 0 41 i ■.___ ‘t1111111b. P> - - - - - - - - ---- _ _ VICINITY MAP ,..0 N T S Attachment 4 • April 12, 2010 NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:30 PM Tigard Civic Center • Town Hall • The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on April 27, 2010, at 7:30 pm at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.105 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Further information may be obtained from the Public Works Department at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, or by calling 503 - 718 -2468. • INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: { FINALIZATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 45 (SW Hoodview). The Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to hear testimony on the finalization of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45, which has been formed to install sewers in SW Hoodview Drive. Each property owner's recommended fair share of the public sewer line is $1.277 per square foot of the lot served as shown on the enclosed list. For owners with a fair share amount of less than $15,000, the owner's fair share would be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report as in accordance with Resolution No. 01- 46. In addition to paying for the first $6,000, owners will remain responsible for paying actual costs that exceed $15,000. Upon request, payment of costs that exceed $15,000 may be deferred until the lot is developed as provided by Resolution No. 03 -55. i:\eng12009 -2010 ly cip\hoodview san sew dist 45 - file 4 0635 - files 930455council\fmalicetion 4- 27.10 \final hoodview teim dist 45 notice 3.tloc • April 12, 2010 • «TAX_LOT «OWNER» « SITE _ADDRESS» «MAILING_ADDRESS» «CITY» «STATE»«ZIP» «CITY2» «STATE2» «ZIP2» • Subject: Notice of Hearing to Finalize Hoodview Dr., Kable St. Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 45 The construction of a new public sanitary sewer that will serve your property has been completed. With the competitive bidding market the project was constructed for 25% less than originally estimated. This means that your share of the project costs will be lower. City Council will hold a public hearing on April 27, 2010 to finalize Reimbursement District No. 45, see enclosed notice. You are encouraged to attend and offer oral or written testimony. Enclosed with the hearing notice is the proposed final cost of the project along with a list of each property owner's proposed reimbursement fee. The reimbursement fee is your share of the cost of constructing the public sewer and is shown in the column with the "Final Reimbursement Fee" heading. Your fee is calculated as follows: Tax Lot ID: «TAX_LOTID» Lot size «AREA» Square Feet x $1.27745243 = $ «FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FEE» The actual fee required to connect is subject to the City's Incentive Program. We will send you the results of the hearing, which will include the approved amount your final reimbursement fee. The fees discussed above are not due until you decide to connect to the sewer. Please call me if have questions. I may be reached at 503- 718 -2468 or at greg(atigard- or.gov. Sincerely, Greg N. Berry, P.E. Project Engineer i:leng`zjreglreimhursement dislridsb5 hood viewdinalization Jraflsbetter to property owners hoodview <Mid 45 4- 12- 10.tlao • Attachment 5 2S111CB01744 • 2S111CB01717 • ALFARO, CHARLIE N & FRIEDRICH, JOHN H AND PAMELA T JANET M 10365 SW HOODVIEW DR 10080 SW KABLE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01745 2S111CB01719 ALFARO, CHARLIE N & PAMELA T GIRAUD, GEORGE & PATRICIA L 10365 SW HOODVIEW DR 10170 SW KABLE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S111CB01718 2S111CB01709 • ANDERSON, ROGER F AND GUDEKUNST, NANCY & PETER ESTHER LEE 10200 SW HOODVIEW DR 10120 SW KABLE ST TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01713 2S111CB01743 BOELLING, KAREN & HUGEL, LIDUAN JOHNSON, ROBERT 10395 SW HOODVIEW DR '10185 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01740 2S111C801710 BOWEN, MARK A MCKEE, TERRY & PRISCILLA ANN 10510 SW HOODVIEW DR 10195 SW KABLE TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01712 2S111CB01734 CARVER, WILLIAM A SUSAN M MCKEE, TERRY D PRISCILLA 10155 SW HOODVIEW DRIVE 10195 SW KABLE ST TIGARD, OR 97223 TIGARD, OR 97223 2S111CB01738 2S111CB01741 CHWIRKA, STEVEN A NELSON, JAMES R & LINDA S 10400 SW HOODVIEW DR 10455 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD; OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01706 2S111CB01711 CIROTSKI, LAWRENCE L AND LAURA L SESNON, KAREN E & ROBERT H 10305 SW HOODVIEW DR 10125 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111C801736 2S111CB01708 DUNNE, KEVIN B AND SANDRA L SKACH, JOSEPH R & 10340 SW HOODVIEW DR SKACH, MARY ANN TIGARD, OR 97224 10260 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01720 . 2S111CB01742 FRASER, MICHAEL J SMITH, STEPHEN R & CARLA J 10210 SW KABLE ST 10425 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 TIGARD, OR 97224 • 2S111C801739 STEVENS, LINDA SUE 10430 SW HOODVIEW DR .• TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01735 SWITZER, KRISTEN C & CARL R 10310 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01707 TAENNLER, ALFRED 10290 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111C801737 TAKAHASHI, TETSURO & TAKAHASHI,AKEMI 10370 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01705 WESTBY, RICHARD S & DENISE M 10275 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 2S111CB01748 WONG, M MOOYUN 10335 SW HOODVIEW DR TIGARD, OR 97224 • • ! r I , Attachment 6 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01- Y AP A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98 -51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two -year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that remain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program should receive • the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98 - 51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. This incentive program shall apply to sewer connections provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two years from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot • zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15,000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for 1 k RESOLUTION NO. 01-4 Page 1 sewer connection. . SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled to reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to . any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs • over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 1 PASSED: This / (I day of • 2001. • ayor Ci ofa • j.ard • ATTEST: 6...AA '1 ' ! G �: _.t. J i Recorder - City of • • and . • I: \Citywide\Res\Resolution Revising the Neighborhood Sewer Incentive Program RESOLUTION NO. 01- (.1 1 Page 2 • _ . . • • TABLE Reimbursement Districts with Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVEPERIOD ENDS 'TIGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No reimbursement available FAIRHAVEN ST/WYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available HILLVIEW ST No.11 8,000 ,2003 106 & JOHNSON No.12 5,598 No reimbursement available 100 & INEZ No.13 8,000 ,2003 WALNUT & TIEDEMAN No.14 8,000 ,2003 BEVELAND&HERMOSA No.15 5,036 No reimbursement available DELMONTE No.16 8,000 ,2003 O'MARA No.17 8,000 ,2003 2 WALNUT & 121 No.18 Amount to be reimbursed will be Three years from service availability ROSE VISTA No.20 determined once final costs are determined. * Currently being constructed • • • • • Attachment 7 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- 5S • A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO. 01– 46). WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2001, the City Council established the Revised and Enhanced Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 01 -46 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer within three -years following construction of sewers; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners of large lots to promptly connect to sewers once service is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In addition to the incentives provided by Resolution No. 01 -46, any person whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and wishes to connect a single family home or duplex to a sewer constructed through a reimbursement district may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000, as required by Section 3 of • Resolution No. 01 -46, until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed in accordance with a land use permit. The land use permit shall not be issued until payment of the deferred amount is made. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payment of this deferred amount. SECTION 2: Lots that qualify under Section 1, within reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three -year period for connection, and have not connected to sewer can connect the existing structure, pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 if connection to the sewer is completed within one year after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 3: Vacant lots improved with a single family home or duplex during the term of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01 -46, pay $6,000 if the fee exceeds that amount, and may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 as provided by Section 1. SECTION 4: Vacant lots that are partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed during the life of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01 -46, shall pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and shall pay any amount due over $15,000 at the time of development. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payments made under this section. SECTION 5: The owner of any lot for which deferred payment is requested must enter into an agreement with the City, on a form prepared by the City Engineer, acknowledging the RESOLUTION NO. 03- 56 Page 1 owner's and owner's successors obligation to pay the deferred amount as described in Section 1. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement to be filed in the office of the County Recorder to provide notice to potential purchasers of the lot. The recording will not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the obligation to pay the deferred amount. SECTION 6: Any person who qualifies under Section 1 and has paid a reimbursement fee for the portion of the reimbursement fee in excess of $15,000 is entitled to reimbursement for that amount from the City upon request. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. Any person requesting a refund must sign an agreement similar to that described in Section 5 acknowledging the obligation to pay the refunded amount upon partitioning or developing the lot. SECTION 7: The Sanitary Sewer Fund continues to remain the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program and shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection and for any deferred payment permitted by this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. - ` (- 4 t PASSED: This /` si day of CC.+Db 2003. Craig E. Dirksen, Council President ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard i:lenplpreyveenburse nest distrfdstrevfsbns res 01-40 out; 26 03toc1 14 03 coun0A10. 1403 addition to res 1 -48 res.doc • RESOLUTION NO. 03- 55 Page 2 • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: File DCA2010 -00001 FROM: Cheryl Gaines, Associate Planner RE: Revised Ordinance and Code Language Code Amendment to Extend Land Use Approvals (DCA2010- 00001) DATE: 4/27/10 As requested by City Council, Staff presented options at the April 20, 2010 workshop for the proposed code amendment to extend approvals for previously approved Site Development Reviews, Land Partitions, and Subdivisions until December 31, 2012. Four options were presented: Option 1: As recommended by Planning Commission, extend Partitions (MLP), and Subdivisions (SUB), and Site Development Reviews (SDR) until December 31, 2012. Option 2: Extend MLPs and SUBs only until December 31, 2011 and SDRs until December 31, 2012. Option 3: Extend SDRs until December 31, 2012 and not extend SUBs or MLPs. Option 4: Do not extend any land use approvals. The City Council discussed the options presented and favored Option 2 with one revision— to only shorten the extension time for Subdivision approvals. Councilor Buehner suggested Land Partitions be grouped with Site Development Reviews instead of Subdivisions since Partitions are typically "Mom & Pop" developers who may be hit harder by the recession than larger development companies. Attached please find a revised ordinance and code language that reflects the City Council's recommendations. Subdivisions are extended through December 31, 2011 and Land Partitions and Site Development Reviews are extended through December 31, 2012. i Agenda Item No. 6 Date: April 27, 2010 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FINALIZING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 - BAYLOR & 72ND Due to Time Constraints City Council has Imposed a Five - minute Time Limit on Testimony Agenda Item No. 6 Date: April 27, 2010 PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 7o y5 Gt a S r 993-- 6.361-314'0 t Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. • • Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 27, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Finalization of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46 (SW Baylor Street, 72 ❑ Avenue) Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: DC._ City Mgr Approval: el ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Finalize Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46, established to construct sanitary sewers in SW Baylor, Clinton Streets and 72'' Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve, by motion, the proposed resolution finalizing Reimbursement District No. 46 as modified by the Final City Engineer's Report. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY • At its August 11, 2009 meeting, City Council adopted Resolution No. 09 -57 approving the formation of Reimbursement District No. 46. • The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $492,381. Due to lower than anticipated bids, the contract award was $349,944. • Construction of the improvements has been completed. The final actual cost of construction is $381,242. o This is $31,297 higher than the $349,944 awarded to the contractor. • Service was reconstructed to a house so that the basement could be served at a cost of $5,075. • Extra work was required to cross an existing 36 -inch water transmission main and provide additional depth of trench patch pavement to match the surrounding pavement at a cost of $13,159. • An additional $13,063 of unit pricing work was completed for additional manholes, trench, and backfill quantities. • Engineering and inspection fees, 13.5% as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1), of $51,468. • This amount combined with an amount allocated for engineering and administration results in the total project cost of $432,709. • The final project cost of $432,709 is 12% less than the $492,381 estimated when the District was formed. • On April 12, 2010, notices of the hearing to finalize the district were mailed to owners within the district. No responses to the notices were received. • This Reimbursement District installed sewer service to 38 lots on SW Baylor, Clinton Streets and SW 72n Avenue. The property owners must reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each property owner must pay a connection fee, currently $3,635 per E.D.U., and is responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. The connection fee is expected to increase to $4,135 on July 1, 2010. Owners will not be required to pay any fee until they connect to the sewer. • Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the Final City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. • If Council approves this request to finalize the Reimbursement District, owners within the district will be notified that the sewer is available for connection. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None CITY COUNCIL GOALS The proposed Reimbursement District meets Goal No. 1, "Implement the Comprehensive Plan ", by providing the area currently on septic systems with sewer service as required by the Plan. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1- Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, Final City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map . Attachment 2- Resolution No. 09 -57 with Exhibits A, B (8 pages) Attachment 3- Vicinity Map Attachment 4- Notice to Owners Attachment 5- Mailing List FISCAL NOTES The final actual cost of the . project is $432,709. This amount includes the final cost of construction, $381,242 plus $51,468 for administration and engineering as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The portion of the final,costs assigned to each owner is tabulated in Exhibit A of the attached proposed resolution. Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. • • Attachment 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09- ) 7 • A RESOLUTION ESTAB ,ISWING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 • (SW BAYLOR STREET AND 72ND AVENUE) WHEREAS, the City has established the Commercial Area Sewer,Extension Program to extend public sewers to commercial and industrial areas and recover costs through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 1109; and WHEREAS, the property owners of proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46 (SW Baylor Street, 72nd Avenue) have been notified of a public hearing in accordance with TMC 13.09.060 and a public hearing was conducted in accordance with TMC 13.09.050; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has ,submitted a report describing the improvements, the area to be included in the Reimbursement District, the estimated costs, a method for spreading the cost among the parcels within the District; and a recommendation for an annual fee adjustment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the formation of a Reimbursement District as recommended by the City Engineer is appropriate: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that SECTION 1: The City Engineer's report titled "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46," attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. • SECTION 2: A Reimbursement District is hereby established in accordance with TMC Chapter. 13.09. The District shall be the area shown and described in Exhibit B. The District shall be known as "Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46." SECTION 3: Payment of the reimbursement fee, as shown in Exhibit. A, is a precondition of receiving City. permits applicable to development of each parcel within the Reimbursement District as provided for in TMC 13.09.110. • SECTION 4: An annual fee adjustment, at a rate recommended by the Finance Director, shall be applied to the Reimbursement Fee. SECTION 5: The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this resolution to be filed in the office of the County Recorder and shall mail a copy of this resolution to all affected property owners at their last known address, in accordance with TMC 13.09.090. • SECTION 6: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. • RESOLUTION NO.09 Page 1 PASSED: This I) day of ti (H 2009. Mayor - ity of Tiga.rd ATTEST: .• . r/i City - City of Tigard \ S) \ ens \ 2009-2010 fy cip lOor 72-nd nve sari snr minthursernent disifilc 065B \ formiiim \ 8-11-09 baylor 72nd disc 46 res..ikm • • • RESOLUTION NO 09 - Page 2 • • • Exhibit A City Engineer's Report Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46 (SW Baylor Street, 72 Avenue) • Background This project will be constructed and funded under the City of Tigard Commercial Area Sewer Extension Program. Under the program, the City of Tigard would install public • sewers to each lot Within the project area. At the time the property owner connects to the • sewer, the owner would pay a connection fee, currently $3,635, and reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer. There is no requirement to connect to the sewer • or pay any fee until connection is made. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic systems according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. • Project Area - Zone of Benefit Serving the 38 lots in the following table will require extending an existing sewer north along SW 72nd Avenue. Only lots on the east side of SW 72 Avenue are included in the district since lots on the west side are currently served by a line along Red Rock Creek. The proposed district will provide service to the lots adjacent to the proposed Tigard Triangle Local Improvement District No 1. The proposed project would provide sewer service to a total of 38 lots within the proposed • reimbursement district as shown on Exhibit Map B. Cost The estimated cost for the sanitary sewer construction to provide service to the 38 lots is $433,816. Engineering and inspection fees amount to $58,565 (13.5 %) as defined in TMC 13.09.040(1). The estimated total project cost is $492,381. This is the estimated amount that • should be reimbursed to the sanitary sewer fund as properties connect to the sewer and pay their fair share of the total amount Unlike the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the actual amount that each property owner pays is not subject to the City's incentive program for early connections. In addition to sharing:the cost of the public sewer line, each-property owner will be required to pay a connection and inspection fee, currently $3,635, upon connection to the public line. All owners -will be responsible for all plumbing costs required for work done on private property. • ,Reimbursement Rate All but two of the southernmost properties in the proposed district are zoned IvlUE. The remaining two properties are zoned C -G but are currently proposed to be part of a development which will include three other properties within the proposed district: Exhibit A Page 1 of 4 • Consequently, applying the same method of assigning costs to all lots within the district is proposed. Lot size varies from about 6,200 to 41,000 square feet as can be seen in the following list of Iots. Therefore, it is recommended that the total cost of the project be divided among the properties proportional to the square footage of each property. Other reimbursement methods include dividing the cost equally among the owners or by the length of frontage of each property. These methods are not recommended because there is no correlation between these methods and the cost of providing service to each lot or the benefit to each lot. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is $0.720 per square foot of lot served. Annual Fee Adjustment TMC 13.09.115 states that an annual percentage rate shall be applied to each property owner's fair share of the sewer line costs on the anniversary date of the reimbursement agreement. The Finance Director has set the annual interest rate at 6.05% as stated in City of Tigard Resolution No. 98 -22. • Recommendation It is recommended that a reimbursement district be formed with an annual fee increase as indicated above and that the reimbursement district continue for 'fifteen years as provided in Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 13.09.110(5). Fifteen years after the formation of the reimbursement district, properties connecting to the sewer would no longer be required to pay the reimbursement fee. Submitted July 28, 2009 • stir P. 1 Duenas, P.E. City Engineer tlen012000-20t0 y eip nylor 72nd aw e.an new ,,Imbnteamenl aist ale oGsaVom,,llan1b11•o0 hay1.72th av mlm ahl e0 span ex a.doe • • • Exhibit A Page 2 of 4 • • • BAYLOR STREET 172ND AVENUE • • Reimbursement District No. 46 • Estimated Cost to Prooertv Owners May 22,-2009 OWNER SITE ADDRESS CITY ZIP MAILING ADDRESS. CITY ZIP TAX LOT ID" AREA (S.F.) AREA (AC) ESTIMATED REIMBURSEMENT 1 BEACH DAYLE 0 EVELYN 0 11530 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 11530 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 15136DA02100 39645.44 0.910 $26,661 2 GORGER,RICHARDAIMOLLY.1 11515SW70TH'AVE TIGARD OR 97223 PO.BOX230725 TIGARD OR 97291 1 913613A0220 24784,07 0,569 $17",855 3 HARRIS FRED L HARRIS 11540 SW 70TH AVE TIGARD OR 97223 11540.5W 70TH TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DD01600 13523.50 0.310 $9,743 4 ALCORN FAMILY TRUST ' 11550 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 19325 SW ROSA RD ALOHA OR 97007 151360000300 21804.79 0.501 $15,709 ' 5 GENTEMANN•PHILIP•M REV LIV•TRUST 7105 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 2137 MARYLWOOD.CT WEST LINN OR 97068 151360000101 41157.16 0.945 829,650 6 LEISER •ANNE TRUSTEE 7021 •SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 6009 SW PENDLETON CT PORTLAND OR 97221 161360000100 31228.34 0,717 522,498 • 7 CARL H JOHNSON FAMILY L_P II VACANT TIGARD OR 97223 8965 SW BURNHAM TIGARD OR 97223 191360001702 8691.13 0.200 $6561 8 ALCORN FAMILY TRUST 11580 SW . 72N10 AVE. TIGARD OR 97223 19325 SW ROSA•RD ALOHA. OR 97007 151360000400 11320.00 0.250 $8,155 9 ROTH J T'JR &THERESA A 7135 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 1 S1360008200; 24362,23 0.559 S17,551 10: LAW JOHN C 6945 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 6945 SW BAYLOR•ST TIGARD OR 97223 1513613001701 16420.56. 0.377 $11,630. 11 BUEHLER JAMES D 8 MELISSA S 7175 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 31325.5E VldoryRd Trouldale OR 97060 151360000301 1499454 0.344 $10,802 12 AMACHER JUANITA AND 11680SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223' 12060 SW ROSE VISTA DR TIGARD OR 97223. 181366003100; 14202:97 0.326 $10,232 13 HORNE ROBBIE L TRUST 7160 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD DR '97223 7160 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD' OR 97223 151360003000 14219.92 0,326 • $10,244 14 KOCH'ROBERT J 7130 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 7130 SW BAYLORST TIGARD OR 97223 191350002900 1872294 0,430 $13,498 W 15 SALIMENA JOHN A ET AL 7100 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 7100 SW BAYLOR TIGARD OR 97223 151366002600 24673.21 0.556 $17,775 16 COE KENNETH A 7070 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 7070 SW BAYLOR ST PORTLAND OR 97223' 151360002700 18723510 0.430 513,488 17 CATAUNA DEVELOPMENT LLC TAHA AL -M 7040 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 14630 SW CATALINA DR TIGARD OR 97223 151360002701 18960.04 0.435 513.659 18 SCHULTZ MARK"EDWARD 7010 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 7010 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 151360002600 19196.87 0.441 $13,830 19 72ND AVENUE PROPERTY LLC 11728 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 11720SW 72NDAVE TIGARD OR 97223 1S13600O3200 14276.21 0.328 $10,285 20 CASSINELLI'RICHARD E 11750 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 11720 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 151360003300. 14292.54 0,328 510,297 21 WINKLER'ROBERT G 11745 SW 70TH TIGARD OR 97223 11745 SW 70TH TIGARD OR 97223 1513600O3500 14274.81 0,328 $10,284 22 PETERS AROEN & SHIRLEY TRUST 7135 SW CLINTON:ST TIGARD OR 97223 7135 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 15136DCO3508 14999.90 0.344 510,805 23 MONFARED FARSHAD 8 7105 SW CLNTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 16879 SW KOLDING LN BEAVERTON OR 97007 151360003507 14999.91 0.344 $10,606 24 DORTON CHARLIE - R AND 7075 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 7075 SW CLINTON'STREET TIGARD OR ' 97223 151360003509 14999,89 0.344 $10,806 25 JACKSONFAMILY LIVING TRUST 7045 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 7045 SW DUNTON •ST TIGARD OR 97223 1513600O3510 14999.90 0.344 510,806 26 ZIEBART DOUGLAS•G 8 MARY 11780 5W 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 12521 SW 61ST PL PORTLAND OR 97219 1 S136DCO3400 14308.87 0.326 $10,306 27 YOON,SUNG 8 HAS 7015 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD. OR, 97223 7015 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DCO3506 ' 13692.64 0,314 59,864 28 CONNETCHRISTOPHER JOHN 11810 SW 72ND AVE - TIGARO OR 97223 11810 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 19136100O3501 14334.84 0.929 $70;327 29 MYERS FAMILY LLC 7020 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD' OR 07223 S CENTERPOINTEDR. #280 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97 035 151360003600 21617.42 0.501 $15,71 B 30 TLB LLG 11860 SW 72ND. AVE TIGARD OR 97223. PO BOX• 25716 PORTLAND OR 97298 .1$13600041011 14539,55 0.334 $10,475 31 MARY MALETIS 2 LLC & JIM LAMPUS 7140SWCLINTON ST TIGARD' OR 97223 PO.Box'25716 PORTLAND OR 97298 151360004000° 15330.95 0,3$1:1`,045 ._.._ • 52 32' FARZA JAVAD 7110SW CLINTON ST TIGARD. OR • 97223 7110 SW CLINTON•ST TIGARD OR 97223 191360003900 15351.93 0.352 511,060 33 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L CF 7080 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 PO Box 1861 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 1S1360053800 15372.90 0,353 511 -,075 34 MYERS FAMILY LLC 7050 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 FIVE CENTE PPOINTE DR #280 LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 191360003700 15393.88 0.353 511590 35 TLB LLC' VACANT TIGARD OR 972.23 PO BOX 25716' PORTLAND OR 97298 151360004200 14435.97 0,331 $10,400 36 TLB LLC 11930 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND OR 97298 151360004300 20032,09 0.460 $14,432 37 TLB LLC 11990SW72NDAVE TIGARD OR 97223 PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND OR 97298 151360004402 .23134.92 0.531 $16,667 38 WAGAR CREDIT SHELTER TRUST 6980 SW BAYLOR TIGARD OR 97223 14845 NW RIDGETOP CT BEAVERTON OR 97006 1 S136D002000 624350 0.143 $4,496 Totals 663463 15.69 5492,381 The "estimated reimbursement fee" column shows the estimated cost each owner is required to pay to :connect to the sewer. There are no requirements to conned to the sewer or pay any fees until the owner decides to connect to the sewer. The final reimbursement fee will be determined once construction is complete and final costs are determined. PAGE 3 OF 4 BAYLOR STREET / 72ND AVEVENU.E Reimbursement District No 46 Estimated Cost to Property Owners Summary Ma 22, 2009 . = Estimated Construction Cost $377,231 • contingency (construction) $56,585 Estimated construction subtotal $433,816 13.5% contingency (Admin & Eng) $58,565 total project costs $492,381 • total area to be served.(S.F.) 683,463 total cost' per S.F. to property owner $0.72042057 • • • • PAGE 4 OF 4 BAYLOR ST /72ND AVE SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 FY 2009 -10 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 1 T2S R 1 W W.M. 72ND AVE w w w ¢ w w ww o AMACHER, JUANiTA & ¢ o ¢ ° o c c.>z� o ¢ o ao a < o w Q BRIEN, KENNETH o 0 UZ ` t VZ J� JN V) D } Z- UZ IM Z 11680 SW 72ND AVE{ J ^� J -J CsI ^ CD m, CS =r o <N8 E -,- hc°� I ¢ -N 1S136DCO3100 , ' eel PO CO C, _ O � ~ N ") (-) (0 i.-.F7,3 i.-.F7,3 7 c 17 n o HORNE, ROBBIE i i If M I- M N c� M El LOP, Z o o5 N to woin oN oN. N�o� L TRUST rn - rn MUE ( MUE z co w ° v l n a ^ 7160 SW BAYLOR ST o 7 RI Q ;-- 1S136DCO3000 ( 3 C) MUE MUE � ( - 3 `MUE MITE MUE C -G HUE MARY MALETIS 2 LLC H PETERS, ARDEN i ^ 7140 SW CLINTON ST KOCH, ROBERT J 1S136DC04000 & SHIRLEY TRUST 7130 SW BAYLOR ST 1— p Q # MUE I 7135 SW CLINTON ST 1S136DCO2900 1S136DCO3508 MUE V § FARZA, JAVAD HUE m 7110 SW CLINTON ST I Z MONF & FAR gq SHAD SALIMENA, JOHN H 15136DCO3900 0 7105 SW CLINTON ST A ET AL m MUE 1S136DCO3507 7100 SW BAYLOR ST = IMPERIAL INVESTMENT Z HUE 1S136DCO2800 MUE )- X PROPERTIES L I DORTON, CHARLIE R Q Lai 7080 SW CLINTON ST V CO COE, KENNETH A 1S136DCO3800 7075 SW CLINTON ST 7070 SW BAYLOR ST i W �:-a- Z HUE _ 1S136DCO3509 MUE I 1S136DCO2700 I!) MYERS FAMILY LLC JACKSON FAMILY MUE NO SCALE 7050 SW CLINTON ST LIVING TRUST 0 CATALINA DEVELOPMENT LLC 1S1,36DCO3700 7045 SW CLINTON ST = 0 7040 SW BAYLOR ST HUE 1 S136DCO3510 0 480 HUE ill °.us 1S136DCO2701 o 8 MUE y MYERS FAMILY LLC \ YOON, SUNG & HAE u) o 7020 SW CLINTON ST F4 cn SCHULTZ, MARK EDWARD 7015 SW CLINTON ST w 1S136DCO3600 J 7010 SW BAYLOR ST 1S136DCO3506 Y .... v) 1S136DCO2600 Z MUE HUE HUE 3 I MUE 70 TH AVE NOTE: m �, All properties in the reimbursement WAGAR CREDIT I- district are zoned C —G OR MUE SHELTER TRUST r m 6980 SW BAYLOR ST _ 1S136DD02000 x w 72ND AVE BAYLOR ST /72ND AVE SANITARY SEWER Q 1,- N REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 46 ` ' ' � °M it ° � FY 2008 -09 SANITARY SEWER X4 ' Z ° , ��QO � JmQ 0 EXTENSION PROGRAM 4 � I- W �N^ 1" o A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 NE 1/4 D , � a� } SECTION 1 T2S R1W W.M. T ° ' s MUE Rr MUE��°� >4 WM ONQ CC O N W r U ^ ROTH, J T JR O 5 CL & THERESA A < o tnA ..i 7135 SW BAYLOR ST NOTE 1S135DC00200 • v En Q^ All properties in the reimbursement MUE MUE m 1,-,- district are zoned C —G OR MUE _ w w - O GENTEMANN, PHILIP M iW Q REV UV TRUST MUE Uy m 7105 SW BAYLOR ST 1S1360000101 ct a 0 MUE i "� N (.) }�N s-0 r _ LOSER, ANNE TRUSTEE m c - 7021 :SW BAYLOR ST o �. 1 S136D0001 O0 a ` N MUE MUE 70TH AVE wQ, 0 .IFS V} co z zan - I"■ O f I o SO n U _J O O 4= ¢ Q Vln up oo�o c�° - ,� av) a MUE MUE .J Cr) (7-) CO 1---- . 2 MUE s f EXHIBIT B (p2) NTS • Attachment 3 BAYLOR ST /72ND AVE SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT N - 0. 46 FY 2009 -10 SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROGRAM A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 1 T2S R1W W.M. / /1 II / i \ �� \ ,,,,), i______ i, 1 i \,, ,.5,,_\ 72ND AVE 72ND AVE 72ND AVE y9 1 j 1 _ _ z- �- - L — � N z • I o Z ! ( ! o ,y -/ IQ I 0 1 B OTH AVE j I 1 170TH AVE lin I ! ( i I o zi ct 1� J, 1 l IQ1 69TH AVE Z I I 1 I- 1 1 I I { I 1 I, \ I I z ; j �_ i ' i 6 PKWY — ( 68TH PKWY 68TH PKWY \ 1 1 I lb. ,,____ 1 \ \I . Iil 1 1 , \ • VICINITY MAP NTS • • Attachment 4 • March 29, 2010 NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, April 13, 2010 . 7:30 PM Tigard Civic Center Town Hall The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on April 13, 2010, at 7:30 pm at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted as required by Section 13.09.105 of the Tigard Municipal Code. Further information may be obtained from the Public Works Department at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223, or by calling 503- 718 -2468. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING: FINALIZATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO.46 (SW Baylor Street, 72nd Avenue). The Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to hear • testimony on the finalization of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46, which has been • formed to install sewers in SW Baylor, Clinton Streets and 72nd Avenue. Each property owner's recommended fair share of the public sewer line is $0.63311 per square foot of the lot served as shown on the enclosed list. • i:leng12000.2010 ty ciptbaylor 72nd aye son sew relmhursement dist Has key 030461counciMnaiizetion 6inal Baylor 72nd rein, dist 46 notice 3.doc • I � April 9, 2010 «TAX_LOT «OWNER» «SITE_ ADDRESS>x<MAILING_ADDRES S» «CLTY >x <STAl'E» «ZIP>x <CITY2» «ST'ATE2» «ZIP2» Subject: Notice of Hearing to Finalize Baylor St & 72 " Ave • Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 46 The construction of a new-public sanitary sewer that will serve your property has been completed. With the competitive bidding market the project was constructed for 12% less than originally • estimated. This means that your share of the project costs will be lower. City Council will hold a public hearing on April 27, 2010 to finalize Reimbursement District No. 46, see enclosed notice. You are encouraged to attend and offer oral or written testimony. Enclosed with the hearing notice is the proposed final cost of the project along with a list of each property • owner's proposed reimbursement fee. The reimbursement fee is your share of the cost of constructing the public sewer and is shown in the column with the `Final Reimbursement Fee" heading. Your fee is calculated as follows: • Tax Lot ID: «TAX_LOT Lot size «AREA» Square Feet x $0.6331109 = $ «FINAL REIMBURSEMENT FEE» We will send you the results of the hearing, which will include the approved amount your final reimbursement fee. The fees discussed above are not due until you decide to connect to the sewer. Please call me if have questions. I may be reached at 503 - 718 -2468 or at greg(a4tigard- or.gov. Sincerely, • • ;$.111 a • Greg N. Berry, P.E. Project Engineer i;leng12009 -2070 y c p\baylor72nd ave son sew reimbursement dist Iles key 930401nOficesUOtter to property owners baylor 72nd 4.9.10.eoc • • • Attachment 5 1S136DCO3200 1S136DC00300 72ND AVENUE PROPERTY LLC ALCORN FAMILY TRUST 11720 SW 72ND AVE 19325 SW ROSA RD TIGARD OR 97223 ALOHA OR 97007 15136DCO3100 1S136DA02100 AMACHER JUANITA AND BEACH DAYLE D EVELYN 0 12060 SW ROSE VISTA DR 11530 SW 72ND AVE TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DC00301 15136D D01702 BUEHLER JAMES D & MELISSA S CARL H JOHNSON FAMILY L P II 31325 SE Victory Rd 8965 SW BURNHAM Troutdale OR 97060 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DCO3300 1S136DCO2701 CASSINELLI RICHARD E CATALINA DEVELOPMENT LLC TAHA AL- MADANI • 11720 SW 72ND AVE 14630 SW CATALINA DR • • TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DCO2700 15136DCO3501 COE KENNETH A CONNET CHRISTOPHER JOHN 7070 SW BAYLOR ST 11810 SW 72ND AVE PORTLAND OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DCO3509 15136DCO3900 DORTON CHARLIE R AND FARZAJAVAD 7075 SW CLINTON STREET 7110 SW CLINTON ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 15136DC00101 15136DA02200 GENTEMANN PHILIP M REV LIV TRUST GORGER RICHARD A /MOLLY J 2137 MARYLWOOD CT ' PO BOX 230725 WEST LINN OR 97068 TIGARD OR 97281 15136DD01600 1S136DCO3000 • HARRIS FRED L HARRIS . HORNE ROBBIE L TRUST 11540 SW 70TH 7160 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 15136DCO3800 1S136DCO3510 IMPERIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES L CHARLES TAYLOR JACKSON FAMILY LIVING TRUST PO Box 1861 7045 SW CLINTON ST LAKE OSWEGO OR 97035 TIGARD OR 97223 • 1S136DCO2900 15136DD01701 • KOCH ROBERTJ LAW JOHN C 7130 SW BAYLOR ST 6945 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 • • 1S136DC00100 1S136DC04000 LEISER ANNE TRUSTEE MARY MALETIS 2 LLC & JIM LAMPUS 6009 SW PENDLETON CT PO Box 25716 . PORTLAND OR 97221 PORTLAND OR 97298 15136DCO3507 1S136DCO3700 MONFARED FARSHAD & MYERS FAMILY LLC 16879 SW KOLDING LN 7050 SW CLINTON ST BEAVERTON OR 97007 TIGARD OR 97223 15136DCO3508 1S136DC00200 PETERS ARDEN & SHIRLEY TRUST ROTH J TJR & THERESA A 7135 SW CLINTON ST 12600 SW 72ND AVE STE 200 TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 15136DCO2800 15136DCO2600 SALIMENA JOHN A ET AL SCHULTZ MARK EDWARD 7100 SW BAYLOR 7010 SW BAYLOR ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DC04100 1S136DC04200 TLB LLC TLB LLC PO BOX 25716 PO BOX 25716 PORTLAND OR 97298 PORTLAND OR 97298 1S136DD02000 15136DCO3500 V AGAR CREDIT SHELTER TRUST WINKLER ROBERT G 14845 NW RIDGETOP CT 11745 SW 70TH • BEAVERTON OR 97006 TIGARD OR 97223 1S136DCO3506 15136DCO3400 MOON SUNG & HAE ZIEBART DOUGLAS G & MARY 7015 SW CLINTON ST 12521 SW 61ST PL TIGARD OR 97223 PORTLAND OR 97219 • • • • • • • • • • • a AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Date: April 27, 2010 TESTIMONY SIGN -UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from April 13 2010): DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) 2010 -00001 LAND USE APPROVAL EXTENSIONS REQUEST: The Community Development Director requests a development code amendment to amend the text of the Site Development Review (18.360), Land Partitions (18.420), and Subdivision (18.430) Chapters of the Tigard Community Development Code (TDC) extending land use decisions with approval periods lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. The approval period will be extended through December 31, 2012. In addition, a new chapter is proposed (List of Terms — 18.115) that lists all defined terms within the TDC. LOCATION: Citywide. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Not applicable. ZONE: Not applicable. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.360, 18.380, 18.390, 18.420, and 18.430; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, Public Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 9, Economic Development; Goal 10, Housing; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9 and 10. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Due to Time Constraints City Council has Imposed a Five - minute Time Limit on Testimony �r + AGENDA ITEM No. 7 April 27, 2010 PLEASE PRINT This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. Proponent — (Speaking In Favor) Opponent — (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone o. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. N 13Atri I 55 Su> 1 =;03 Co 8 v �� v3S Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Si c noJ iY1 on c nlent41.24ca.k311 sk-- — Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 27, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title Development Code Amendment (DCA2010- 00001) to Ext- d Land Use Approvals M r Approval: By: Cheryl Gaines Dept Head Approval: /j/ i ' n Mg pp roval: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Depending on the outcome of the April 20, 2010 Workshop, City Council may approve, modify, or reject an amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code (TDC) that automatically extends land use approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012 and creates a new code chapter (18.115) that will list all defined terms found in the TDC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff forwarded the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the requested Development Code Amendment at a public hearing on April 13, 2010. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY o The City is considering a code amendment to extend land use approvals for Site Development Reviews, Subdivisions, and Minor Land Partitions (DCA2010- 00001). This amendment is proposed as a means to respond to the economy. o Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2010 to discuss the amendment. No one testified in favor or opposition of the amendment. The Commission voted 9 -0 to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. o Staff briefed Council on March 30, 2010 about possible effects upcoming legislation may have upon development and subdivision regulations that were not anticipated when the Planning Commission heard this matter in early March. o At the workshop City Council determined that more time was needed to review the topic and that another workshop was needed to discuss alternative approaches after hearing staff's presentation and public testimony at the scheduled April 13` public hearing. o At the April 13 t h hearing Council asked staff for information on approaches used within other jurisdictions, if the proposed code could be easily modified to only include certain types of approvals, and whether there was a way to review these approvals considering new code standards through a lesser review process. o Four proponents testified (Ernie Platt of the Home Builders Association, Jeff Smith of J. T. Smith Companies, John Wyland of J. T. Smith Companies, and Jim Lampus of TLB, LLC). All are applicants or represent applicants who will be affected by the proposed code amendment. The testimony was generally supportive of the amendment as proposed. One applicant also noted that requiring a review for extensions opens up the applicant to more appeals, and lenders and appraisers no longer consider the original approval valid for financing purposes. • The hearing was held open and continued to April 27 to get further public testimony on any alternative approaches. o Prior to the April 27 continuance, a Council workshop was held (April 20 to receive the information requested of staff and to discuss the alternative approaches. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None, but more information may be provided in the Friday Council newsletter. CITY COUNCIL GOALS Not directly applicable to current or long -term Council goals. ATTACHMENT LIST None at this time. Attachments may be provided in the Friday Council newsletter based upon discussion at the April 20, 2010 hearing. FISCAL NOTES By extending existing approvals, there is the potential for loss of fees from new application submittals. 4.1-7 �$ k e:P k 4ta *1 o ® MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET TO: File DCA2010 -00001 FOR 7 Jo FROM: Cheryl Caines, Associate Planner (DATE OF MEETING) RE: Revised Ordinance and Code Language Code Amendment to Extend Land Use Approvals (DCA2010- 00001) DATE: 4/27/10 As requested by City Council, Staff presented options at the April 20, 2010 workshop for the proposed code amendment to extend approvals for previously approved Site Development Reviews, Land Partitions, and Subdivisions until December 31, 2012. Four options were presented: Option 1: As recommended by Planning Commission, extend Partitions (MLP), and Subdivisions (SUB), and Site Development Reviews (SDR) until December 31, 2012. Option 2: Extend MLPs and SUBs only until December 31, 2011 and SDRs until December 31, 2012. Option 3: Extend SDRs until December 31, 2012 and not extend SUBS or MLPs. Option 4: Do not extend any land use approvals. The City Council discussed the options presented and favored Option 2 with one revision— to only shorten the extension time for Subdivision. approvals. Councilor Buehner suggested Land Partitions be grouped with Site Development Reviews instead of Subdivisions since Partitions are typically "Mom & Pop" developers who may be hit harder by the recession than larger development companies. Attached please find a revised ordinance and code language that reflects the City Council's recommendations. Subdivisions are extended through December 31, 2011 and Land Partitions and Site Development Reviews are extended through December 31, 2012. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (DCA2010- 00001) CHAPTERS 18.360 — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 18.420 — LAND PARTITIONS, AND 18.430 — SUBDIVISIONS TO EXTEND LAND USE APPROVALS AND ADD A NEW CHAPTER (18.115 — LIST OF TERMS) THAT LISTS ALL DEFINED TERMS FOUND IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, in response to public request, initiated the Development Code Amendment to extend land use approvals for Subdivisions with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 and Site Development Reviews and Land Partitions with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 as a response to the economic downturn; and WHEREAS, these Subdivision approvals will be extended through December 31, 2011 and these Site Development Review and Land Partition approvals will be extended through December 31, 2012 to allow more time to construct developments once the economy improves; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2010, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment with a 9 -0 vote; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was published in the Tigard Times Newspaper at least 10 business days prior to the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon. Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Public Involvement, 2, Land Use Planning, 9.1, Economic Development, and 10.1, Housing; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9 and 10; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010 to consider the proposed amendments; and ORDINANCE No. 10- Page 1 WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendment is consistent with the applicable review criteria, and that approving the request would be in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The specific text amendments attached as "EXHIBIT A" to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 2: The findings in the February 19, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the Minutes of the. March 1, 2010 Planning Commission hearing are herby adopted as support for the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council. SECTION 3: City Council amended the Planning Commission's recommendation through the public hearing process. The Minutes of the March 30, 2010 and April 20, 2010 Council Workshop meetings and the Minutes of the April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010 public hearings are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 4: 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 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2010. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2010. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 10- Page 2 EXHIBIT A � �4 ,, M. a � I � ,y, ' .�' `.a 3 ",�� .L " 2 �. b� � � �, `lY ®�9a� p" vk , ttozN t ze 01 � i1 ' s a' `?" z � ,a'}i ie t err r ' C� '^ w '� � rr e ti s. u D 1 T S .: �� :. 'a'EI�Ts ®S'A� x4.,, n} ° r� �` .f •Rd # '" t � � k �' � - -. i� �.�- _:'; �/� at.!;�:�a2+.. �t✓ `�F "y�m ��''�E"�i �F2�$.. T �� e t M f :. aYm ,� b '} r i qty % r `} ,a-o a� +,� 2 o ��'' ,�+x ��r yF� � __ '��e'�p,� rya � R R� �.�'; `.aa'J�aS'� �k Av � N$ ' '3cf �'�.+ � �il . �'.s W "€. i * �� � �`,°,`�i ' ����"r�d,ii��.� � .f 'Introduction The proposed development 'code amendment (DCA2010- 00001) is to create a new chapter that lists all defined terms found in the Tigard Community Development Code (TDC). In addition an amendment is proposed to extend land use decisions (Site Development Reviews, Land Partitions, and Subdivisions) with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012. Following please find the proposed code amendments, broken into two categories: I. New code. sections — (18.115) II. Amendments to existing sections — (18.360, 18.420, & 18.430) Deletions to existing chapters indicated by sbikethr-eugh. Additions to existing chapters indicated by bold and underlined. No formatting differences for new chapters. 'Of F7 vfv 3 4 ! � * ' ",r z r" r$ � � .,.,.. .��;�� iktitMtg...s,�s.'tre Chapter (18.115) List. of Terms The following terms are defined in Chapter 18.120, Definitions, unless indicated otherwise. Abandoned Sign See Chapter Adult Bookstore See Adult Amendment 18.780, Signs Entertainment - Related Amenity Abut Definitions Americans with Disabilities Abutting Lots Adult Entertainment- Act Accept Related Definitions Annexation Access • Adult Bookstore Antenna See also Chapter Accessory Building • Adult Motion Picture 18.798, Wireless Accessory Dwelling Unit See Theater Communication Facilities Dwelling-Related Definitions . Specified Anatomical Areas Apartment See Dwelling - Accessory Structure Related Definitions o Specified Sexual Activities Acre Appeal Active Use Facilities See Adult Motion Pictur Applicant Open Space Facility- Related Theater See Adult Application Definitions Entertainment Related Approval Authority Addition Definitions Approved Plan Adjacent Lots See Abutting `A' -Frame Sign See Chapter Arcade See Design- Related Lots 18.780, Signs Definitions Adjoining Lots See Abutting Aisle Archaeological Site Its Alley Area See Chapter 18.780, Administrative. Action Alteration, Structural Signs Alternative Access Argument See Section City Dedication, Fee In Lieu Of 18390.080, General City Engineer Deed Provisions City of Tigard Demolish Assessed Valuation City Recorder Density Attached Dwelling See Collocation See Chapter Density Bonus Dwelling - Related Definitions 18.798, Wireless Density Transfer Awning See Design- Related Communication Facilities Design Related Definitions Definitions Column See Design - Related • Arcade Awning Sign See Chapter Definitions 18.780, Signs Commercial Forestry See • Awning Balloon See Chapter 18.780, Chapter 18.790, Tree • Band Signs Removal • Bay Band See Design- Related Commission • Belt Course Definitions Common Wall • Canopy Banner See Chapter 18.780, Complete and Entire • Chamfer Signs Complex Base Flood See Flood - Related Comprehensive See ®Column Definitions Comprehensive Plan - Related • Cornice Basement Definitions • Eaves Bay See Design- Related Comprehensive Plan- • Entry Definitions Related Definitions • Frieze Belt Course See Design- • Comprehensive • Marquee Related Definitions Generalized • Medallion Bench Sign See Chapter • Land 18.780, Signs • Parapet • Plan Coordination Berm • Pilaster Conditional Use Bike Lane • String Course ' Bikeway Construct See Chapter e Transom Billboard See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs Sins Contiguous • Turret g Buildable Area Contiguous Lots See • Visible Transmittance Building Abutting Lots Detached Dwelling See Building. Envelope Corner Lot See Lot - Related Dwelling Related Definitions Building, Primary Definitions Development Building Height Corner Side See Yard - Related Development Adjustment See Building Official; See. also Definitions Section 18.370.020, Chapter 18.780, Signs Cornice See Design Related Adjustments Building Permit Definitions Development Review See Business See Chapter 18.780, Council Chapter 18.780, Signs Signs Covered Soil Area See Development Site Caliper Landscaping- Related Definitions Directional Sign See Chapter Canopy See Design Related Cul - de - sac 18.780, Signs Definitions Cultural Institution Auxiliary Director Canopy Cover See Chapter Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Display Surface See Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal Cutout See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs Chamfer See Design- Related Signs Drainage Way Definitions g Dedication Drive Through Facility Change of Use Driveway Final Decision See Final Action Guyed Tower See Chapter Duplex See Dwelling - Related Final For Purposes Of Appeal 18.798, Wireless Definitions See Section 18.390.080, Communication Facilities Dwelling See Dwelling - Related General Provisions Habitable Floor Area Definitions Final Order See Final Action Hazardous Tree See Chapter Dwelling- Related Definitions Findings 18.790, Tree Removal Flag Lot S ee Lot- Related • Accessory Dwelling Unit g Home Occupation Homeowners Association • Apartment Definitions Flashing Sign See Chapter Household • Attached Dwelling 18.780, Signs Housing Complex See Chapter • Detached Dwelling Floodplain See Flood - Related 18.780, Signs • Duplex Immediate or Serious Danger Definitions • Dwelling Flood Related Definitions See Chapter 18.780, Signs • Manufactured Home • Base Flood Impact Analysis • Multiple- Family Dwelling • Floodplain Impervious Surface • Single-Family Dwelling Implementing Ordinance g y g • Floodway Improved Lot See Lot- Related Easement • Floodwa Fringe Eaves See Design - Related y g e Definitions Floodway See Flood- Related Improvement Definitions Definitions Industrial Park See Chapter Effective Date See Section Floodway Fringe See Flood y g 18.780, Signs 18.390.080, General Provisions Related Definitions Ingress Egress Floor Area Electrical Sign See Chapter Interior Lot See Lot- Related Floor Area Ratio Definitions 18.780, Signs Flush Pitched Roof Sign See Electronic Information Sign Land See Comprehensive Plan Chapter 18.780, Signs Related Definitions See Chapter 18.780, Signs Freestanding Si See Chapter Enlargement g a p Land Form Alteration 18.780, Signs Landscaping Entry See Design - Related Freeway Interchange See Definitions y g Landscaping- Related Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions Entryway Sign See Chapter Freeway - Oriented Sign See ® Covered Soil Area 18.780, Signs Chapter 18.780, Signs Evidence See Section o Open Soil Frieze See Design - Related 18.390.080, General Provisions o Root Paths Definitions Exception Front See Yard Related • Soil Volume Calculations FAA See Chapter 18.798, Definitions Lattice Tower See Chapter Wireless Communication Frontage See also Chapter 18.798, Wireless Facilities Communication Facilities 18.780, Signs Face Lawn Sign See Chapter 18.780, Face of a Building See Chapter Front Lot Line See Lot Related Signs Definitions g 18.780, Signs Legal Entity See Chapter Garage FCC See Chapter 18.798, 18.780, Signs, `Business" Wireless Communication Generalized See Comprehensive Legislative • Facilities Plan - Related Definitions Glare Lighting Methods See Chapter Fence, Sight - Obscuring 18.780, Signs Final Action Loading Area See Loading Space Loading Space Marquee See Design- Related • Passive Use Facilities Lot See Lot - Related: Definitions Definitions Oregon Administrative Rules ' Lot. Area See Lot - Related Medallion See Design- Related Oregon Revised Statutes Definitions Definitions Outdoor Storage Lot Averaging See Lot - Related Minimal Use Facilities See Open Owner Definitions Space Facili - Related Painted Wall Decorations See Lot Coverage See Lot- Related Definitions Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions Mitigation Painted Wall Highlights See Lot Depth See Lot - Related Mixed Solid Waste See Chapter Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste Painted Wall Sign See Chapter Lot Line See Lot- Related And Recyclable Storage 18.780, Signs Definitions Mixed -Use Development Parapet See Design- Related Lot Line Adjustment See Lot- Mobile Home Definitions Related Definitions Mobile Home Park Park Lot of Record See Lot- Related Mobile Home Subdivision Parking Space Definitions Monopole See Chapter Partition Lot - Related Definitions 18.798, Wireless Party • Corner Lot Communication Facilities Passive Use Facilities See Open • .Flag Lot Moving Sign See Chapter Space Facili Related 18.780, Signs Definitions • Front Lot Line Multiple - Family Dwelling See Perimeter • Improved Lot Dwelling-Related Definitions g Permitted Use • Interior Lot Multi -Unit Residential Person See also Chapter 18.780, • Lot Building See Chapter 18.755, Signs • Lot Area Mixed Solid Waste And Pilaster See Design - Related es Lot Averaging Recyclable Storage Definitions • • Lot Coverage Neighborhood Activity Center Plan Coordination See • Lot Depth Noise Comprehensive Plan - Related • Lot Line Nonconforming Sign See Definitions Chapter 18.780, Signs Plat • Lot Line Adjustment Nonconforming Situation Premises See Chapter 18.780, • Lot of Record Non - Residential Building See Sins • Lot Width g Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Projecting Sign See Chapter • Rear Lot Line baste And Recyclable Storage 18.780, Signs • Side. Lot Line Non - Structural Trim See Projection See also Chapter • Substandard. Lot Chapter 18.780, Signs 18.780, Signs • Tax Lot Occupancy Permit Provider See Chapter 18.798, • Through Lot Off -Site Impact Wireless Communication • Zero Lot Line Off Site Improvement Facilities Lot Width See Lot Related Open Soil See Landscaping- Pruning See Chapter 18.790, Definitions Related Definitions Tree Removal Maintenance See Chapter Open Space Facility- Related Public Business Day 18.780, Signs Definitions Public Support Facilities Manufactured Home See • Active Use Facilities Quasi Judicial Dwelling- Related Definitions • Minimal Use Facilities Reader -Board Sign See Chapter Soil Volume Calculations See Traffic Flow Plan 18.780, Signs Landscaping - Related Definitions Transom See Design - Related Rear See Yard - Related Definitions Source- Separated Recyclable Definitions Rear Lot Line See Lot - Related See Chapter 18.755, Mixed Tree See also Chapter 18.790, Definitions Solid Waste And Recyclable Tree Removal Receipt Storage Turret See Design - Related Recreational Vehicles Special Adjustments, See Section Definitions Remodel 18.370.020, Adjustments Uniform Building Code See Removal See Chapter 18.790, Specified Anatomical Areas See Chapter 18.780, Signs Tree Removal Adult Entertainment- Related Use Reserve Strip Definitions Vehicle Parking Space Residence Specified Sexual Activities See Visible Transmittance See Residential Trailer Adult Entertainment - Related Design - Related Definitions Responsible Party, See Section Definitions Vision Clearance Area 18.230.030, Penalty Storage Area See Chapter Visual Obstruction Revolving. Sign See Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste Wall Sign See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs And Recyclable Storage Signs Right -of -Way Story Wetlands Road Story, First Will Roof Story, Half Window Roof Line See Chapter 18.780, Street Wireless Communication Signs Street, Private Facility See Chapter 18.798, Roof Sign See Chapter 18.780, Street, Public Wireless Communication Signs String Course See Design- Related Facilities Root Paths See Landscaping- Definitions Wireless Communication Related Definitions Structural Alteration See Facility, Attached See Rotating Sign See Chapter Chapter 18:780, Signs Chapter 18.798, Wireless 18.780, Signs Structure Communication Facilities Sensitive Lands See Chapter Subdivision Wireless Communication Transmissions Towers See 18.790, Tree Removal Substandard Lot See Lot- Related Chapter 18.798, Wireless Setback Definitions Communication Facilities Shopping Center See Chapter Substantial Improvement Yard See Yard - Related Definitions 18.780, Signs Surface Street See Chapter Yard- Related Definitions Shopping Plaza See Chapter 18.780, Signs • Corner Side 18.780, Signs Tax Lot See Lot-Related Side See Yard- Related Definitions °Front .fi D finitions Side Lot Line See Lot- Related • Rear Temporary Sign See Chapter Definitions • Side 18.780, Signs Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Temporary Use ° Yard Sign Structure See Chapter Tenant Sign See Chapter 18.780, Zero Lot Line See Lot- Related 18.780, Signs Signs Definitions Single - Family Dwelling See Through Lot See Lot- Related Zoning District Dwelling- Related Definitions Definitions Site Tigard -Based Nonprofit Slope Organization �° ,,!,. w � , . - _.: a C • Chapter 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.030 Approval Process A. New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.360.020.A, shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.090. B. Minor modifications. Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060. C. Approval period. Site development review approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1 -1/2 years from the date of approval. The site development review approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one - and - one -half years period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. D. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: 4, a. No changes are made on the original site development review plan as approved by the Director; 2 b. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one -year extension period; and 3: c. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. 2. Approval periods for Site Development Review lapsing between. July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2012. No further extensions will be granted. E. Phased development. 1. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without reapplying for site development review. 2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that all of the following are satisfied: a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.390.040.G. No notice need be given of the Director's decision. 3. The Director may waive or modify the approval period for projects within the Washington Square Regional Center in accordance with Section 18.630.020.C. (Ord. 09 -13) 18.420 LAND PARTITIONS 18.420.030 Approval Process A. Decision - making process. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application partition, which shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.420.050. B. Time limit on approval. The partition approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. C. Lapsing of approval. The partition or approval by the Director shall lapse if 1. The partition has not been recorded or has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. D. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: 4, a. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the Director; 2: b. The applicant can show intent of recording the approved partition or lot line adjustment within the one -year extension period; and 3: c. There have been no changes in the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. 2. Approval periods for Land Partitions lapsing. between July 1, 2008 and December 31. 2011 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2012. No further extensions will be granted. 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS. 18.436.030 Approval Process A. Review of preliminary plat. Review of a preliminary plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.040. An application for subdivision may also be reviewed concurrently with an application for a planned development, as governed by Chapter 18.350. B. Review of final plat. Review of a final plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.070. C. Approval period. Preliminary plat approval by the Approval Authority shall be effective for a period of 1 -1/2 years from the date of approval. The preliminary plat shall lapse if: 1. A final plat has not been submitted within a 1-1/2 year period; or 2. The final plat does not conform to the preliminary plat as approved or approved with conditions. C. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: a. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat plan as approved; 2: b. The.applicant has expressed written intent of submitting a final plat within the one -year extension period; 3: e. There have been no changes to the applicable ordinance provisions on which the approval was based; and 4. d. An extension of time will not preclude the development of abutting properties. 2. Approval periods for Subdivisions lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2011. No further extensions will be granted. E. Phased development. 1. The Approval Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a preliminary plat; 2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a. The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities: (1) For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and (2) The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. 3. The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat. (Ord. 09 -13) Che', 1 Caines From: jfrewing [jfrewing @teleport.com] / Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:29 AM To: Cheryl Caines; Ron Bunch Subject: Extension of Approved Developments Cheryl, I watched last evening's start of hearings on the proposed extension of approved developments. It certainly seems a reasonable thing to do under most circumstances. I do think that before a development begins, having obtained a case -by -case extension of its approval period, there should be some kind of examination to see that the prior conditions.have not changed. Obviously if some zoning has changed, maybe the extended approval should not be allowed. The examation.should not only be a Type 1 consideration (city staff) but should be the same level as the earlier approval, ie notice and opportunity for public hearing. As an example, I mention the Gertz development Edgewood 2, where 1 was a party to the proceeding. You were staff reviewer, I believe. In the approval process, I asked for a thru street or bike /ped passageway from Edgewood to MacDonald St. Gertz said this was not possible, because he didn't want to build a short bridge over Pinebrook Creek and didn't control the adjacent appropriate land for such a thru accessway. I noticed yesterday that Gertz now has the necessary lots for sale on what was an adjoining development that must have gone bankrupt or into foreclosure and which he now controls. This is a case where one of the conditions "preventing" a thru accessway has now changed and any approval on extension to build at Edgewood 2 should include a condition that the thru accessway be provided on property controlled by Gertz. If you have questions or comments on my evaluation, please do let me know as soon as possible, and do please include this evaluation in the record of the consideration of a code change to extend the start date of approved developments. Thanks, John Frewing SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR a7 ID (DATE OF MEETING) 1 r Agenda Item # Meeting Date April 27, 2010 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY City Of Tigard, Oregon Issue /Agenda Title First Quarter Council Goal Update Prepared By: Joanne Bengtso 4 / Dept Head Approval: J City Mgr Approval: ISSUE BEFORE THE CO CIL First quarter informational update on 2010 City Council Goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Information only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a first quarter progress report on 2010 City Council goals. • OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS • N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1. First Quarter Goal Report FISCAL NOTES N/A 1 . : \ ADM \ City Council \Council Agenda ltcm Summaries \2010 \1st quarter goal AIS 100427.doc • 2010 1st Quarter Goal Update On December 22, 2009, the City Council met to set its goals for the comingyear. These goals represent those items that the Council feels deserve special attention in the months ahead. The City will accomplish T I G A R D much more than what is listed here, but we identify these to be of particular importance to our residents. 2010 Council Goals 1. Implement Comprehensive Plan a. Complete the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and begin area plans (Tigard Triangle, 99W Corridor, etc.) The final adoption draft of the updated Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) has been completed & delivered to the city by the consultant team. The Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant contract ended March 31, 2010, setting the stage for the legislative process to adopt the updated TSP. The city, in partnership with Metro, received a TGM grant to complete a High Capacity Transit Corridor Land Use Plan for the Pacific Highway /99W corridor. After developing a statement of work, staff began the consultant team selection process. Four consultant teams were interviewed in February. Before the consultant selection is finalized, materials are being reviewed by ODOT staff in Salem. It is anticipated the contract scoping and negotiations will get underway in April. b. Update Tree Code In February, Council directed staff to pursue a comprehensive update of the city's urban forestry code provisions. This comprehensive update includes revisions to tree preservation and planting provisions in the Development Code, revision of Municipal Code provisions, including street trees and hazard trees, the creation of an incentive -based tree grove preservation program, and enhanced public outreach. c. Continue to promote plan for 99W Light Rail The Metro /TGM funded land use planning work described above is probably the most significant effort currently underway to plan for light rail. Additional activities are focused on increasing visibility of Tigard in regional planning, developing relationships, and educating ourselves. The following activities are underway: • The Mayor and city staff are working to bring Rail—Volution conference attendees to Tigard with a design charrette focused on Tigard. • Staff is serving on the Mobile Tours subcommittee and have developed a proposed tour of WES with a stop in Downtown Tigard. • The Mayor, Council President Wilson and staff will attend a course on Light Rail Facility Design at PSU. This will not only help to establish relationships with other interested parties, but will help us to present a well - informed position to represent Tigard's interests in future planning and alignment decisions. • We continue to maintain a strong presence in regional planning activities, including regular regional planning meetings and related planning and research activities. This will Council Goal Update 1 likely be the source of funding commitments, including Metro allocations for additional planning and analysis on the SW Corridor. 2. Implement Downtown Urban Renewal a. Initiate developer outreach /recruitment Feasibility studies for redevelopment of two sites in Downtown are underway. The city has retained Shiels I Obletz I Johnsen (a Portland /Seattle -based firm that .specializes in the management of complex urban development projects) to perform a study while Metro's Transit Oriented Development (TOD) program is funding the other study. If the results of these studies indicate near -term development feasibility, the reports will be shared with prospective developers. Staff, with the assistance of the Metro TOD program, will organize a developers' roundtable in fall 2010 to highlight development opportunities in downtown Tigard. b. Adopt Downtown Circulation Plan The draft Downtown Circulation Plan has been developed by consultants and staff in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee and the City Center Advisory Commission. It is consistent with the Transportation System Plan update. Staff has recommended that the Circulation Plan be adopted in a separate public hearing process from the TSP. It is anticipated that the public hearing process will start in the fall, 2010. In January and February, briefings on the draft plan were provided to Council and the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee. The City Center Advisory Commission will spend their next five meetings providing additional evaluation and recommendations on how to implement the plan. Concurrently, there will be additional outreach to property owners who could be • impacted by the plan. 3. Strategize with Park and Recreation Advisory Board on a 2010 Parks Bond a. Decide whether to return to ballot and, if so, when? b. Develop land acquisition strategies (potential options to purchase, etc.) The Park and Recreation Board (PRAB) set a goal of "Supporting a 2010 Bond Measure." A speaker from The Trust for Public Lands attended the last meeting to help set priorities and develop more recommendations for a possible bond measure. They will help develop a successful bond measure. The PRAB plans to use the Park System Master Plan projects as a guide to develop a map of possible park and open space acquisitions. 4. Advance Methods of Communication a. External: Develop communication strategy and methods in support of city goals. The Urban Forestry Code Revisions (UFCR) team is assembling a communication plan for review and approval by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). The communication plan will describe why the urban forestry code is being revised, outline the phases and timeline of code update process, and identify the public involvement tools that will be utilized and ways the community can get involved. The UFCR team is also in the process of forming a Technical Advisory Committee that will cross Council Goal Update 2 • division and departmental lines. This will allow impacted divisions and departments an opportunity to review and shape the revised code prior to implementation. • Other communication activities include: ✓ Collaborate with City Admin and Public Works to create a Pacific Hwy "hub" web page. ✓ Arbor Day outreach and education in Cityscape, online, school newsletter, press release, etc. ✓ 2010 Census outreach, including work plan approved by the CCI, support for Questionnaire Assistance Center, targeted mailings, Tigard web page, and Cityscape articles. ✓ Coordinating Farmers Market outreach for summer 2010. b. Internal: Support staff efforts to change the organizational culture to create a proactive environment of exceptional people and service, promoting the values of "respect and care," "get it done," and do the "right thing" (Strategic Clarity). Teams from Public Works, Community Development, Library and Police staff completed the development of a program to recognize and reward those employees exhibiting the city's Core Values. Two representatives from each department are serving on a citywide Values Team. . 5. Support 2010 Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) and Washington County Public Safety Levies The Washington County Board of Commissioners will be considering ballot titles for these measures in late May. • • • Council Goal Update 3 /aD I ' n . n 7M . -. NO. 10 /, -C) —. F MEMORANDUM • F TO: City Council Craig Prosser, City Manager cc: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director FROM: Mike McCarthy P.E., Senior Project Engineer RE: Property Acquisition for the Pacific Hwy / Hall / Greenburg / Main Project DA'Z'E: April 27, 2010 The check request for $662,100 is for acquisition of the property owned by Tigard Auto Stop Partners at the northwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Hwy with Greenburg Road, commonly referred to as the 'Brake Team' property. Acquisition of this property is necessary for the construction of road improvements at the intersection of Pacific Hwy with Greenburg Road and Main Street. An offer for the established fair market value of the property, damages (removal of a portion of the building), cost -to -cure, and associated costs, was presented to the owner, via their attorney, in March. This dollar amount is based on the value established by a professional appraisal of the property. The window of time for acceptance of the offer has passed and, while it is still our desire to reach a settlement, it appears that condemnation will be necessary. These funds will be deposited with the court in order to take possession of the property to allow the construction of this project. This properly is included in the area for which Council passed Resolution of Necessity 09 -72. While most project costs are paid directly by Washington County and reimbursed by the City under an Intergovernmental Agreement, acquisition of right -of -way is covered by a separate Intergovernmental Agreement that specifies the City will pay directly the costs of acquisition, such as this. If you have comments, concerns, or objections about this, please feel free to contact me at 503-718-2462 or by e -mail at mikem @tigard - or.gov. City of Tigard, Oregon '' • Affidavit of Posting T I GARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) 1 0 .� ° STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, DOA 0 (" f . t , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted-in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) ^) �/� () 7 , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of j Ji4(.1 2 ) " ( with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of Alf , 201 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who Performed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of Ape; t ,2010 . tiie 4 J Signature of Notary Public fo / egon OFFICIAL SEAL C\adm\cathWm o,S\post ordinance 2006.doc ,.; BRANDEN T TAGGART NOTARY PUBLIC - O REGO N COMMISSION M 4 165 N MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 25, 2012 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 10- (7 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (DCA2010- 00001) CHAPTERS 18.360 — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, 18.420 — LAND PARTITIONS, AND 18.430 — SUBDIVISIONS TO EXTEND LAND USE APPROVALS AND ADD A NEW CHAPTER (18.115 — LIST OF 'TERMS) THAT LISTS ALL DEFINED 'TERMS FOUND IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, in response to public request, initiated the Development Code Amendment to extend land use approvals for Subdivisions with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 and Site Development Reviews and Land Partitions with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 as a response to the economic downturn; and WHEREAS, these Subdivision approvals will be extended through December 31, 2011 and these Site Development Review and Land Partition approvals will be extended through December 31, 2012 to allow more time to construct developments once the economy improves; and WHEREAS, notice was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 1, 2010, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment with a 9 -0 vote; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearings was published in the Tigard Times Newspaper at least 10 business days prior to the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has considered applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the following to be the applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Public Involvement, 2, Land Use Planning, 9.1, Economic Development, and 10.1, Housing; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9 and 10; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010 to consider the proposed amendments; and ORDINANCE No. 10- tY7 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has determined that the proposed development code amendment is consistent with the applicable review criteria, and that approving the request would be in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The specific text amendments attached as "EXHIBIT A" to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. SECTION 2: The findings in the February 19, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the Minutes of the March 1, 2010 Planning Commission hearing are herby adopted as support for the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council. SECTION 3: City Council amended the Planning Commission's recommendation through the public hearing process. The Minutes of the March 30, 2010 and April 20, 2010 Council Workshop meetings and the Minutes of the April 13, 2010 and April 27, 2010 public hearings are hereby adopted in explanation of the Council's decision. SECTION 4: 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 U DUIS vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this c�`1 rh day of 4 Q -i..i , 2010. C a e lac) lta erine Wheatley, City Recorder] APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of4 1 , 2010. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: Attorney 4 . . )_'7. 2 - O . ' Date ORDINANCE No. 10- Di Page 2 • EXHIBIT A h VDCA 41.-4/%4A". 0Ut LAND USEEAPPROVAI EXTENSIONS _ ` SCODE' N ENDMENT Introduction The proposed development code amendment (DCA2010- 00001) is to create a new chapter that lists all defined terms found in the Tigard Community Development Code (I'DC). In addition an amendment is proposed to extend land use decisions (Site Development Reviews, Land Partitions, and Subdivisions) with approvals lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012. Following please find the proposed code amendments, broken into two categories: I. New code sections — (18.115) II. Amendments to existing sections — (18.360, 18.420, & 18.430) Deletions to existing chapters indicated by. Additions to existing chapters indicated by bold and underlined. No formatting differences for new chapters. Chapter (18.115) List of Terrns The following terms are defined in Chapter 18.120, Definitions, unless indicated otherwise. Abandoned Sign See Chapter Adult Bookstore See Adult Amendment 18.780, Signs Entertainment - Related Amenity Abut Definitions Americans with Disabilities Abutting Lots Adult Entertainment- Act Accept Related Definitions Annexation Access • Adult Bookstore Antenna See also Chapter Accessory Building • Adult Motion Picture 18.798, Wireless Accessory Dwelling Unit See Theater Communication Facilities Dwelling- Related Definitions .Specified Anatomical Areas Apartment See Dwelling - Accessory Structure Related Definitions • Specified Sexual Activities Acre Appeal Active Use Facilities See Adult Motion Picture Applicant Open Space Facili - Related Theater See Adult Application Definitions Entertainment - Related Approval Authority Addition Definitions Approved Plan Adjacent Lots See Abutting `A' -Frame Sign See Chapter Arcade See Design - Related its 18.780, Signs Definitions Adjoining Lots See Abutting Aisle Archaeological Site Lots Alley Area See Chapter 18.780, Administrative Action Alteration, Structural Signs Alternative Access • Argument See Section City Dedication, Fee In Lieu Of 18.390.080, General City Engineer Deed _ Provisions City of Tigard Demolish Assessed Valuation City Recorder Density Attached Dwelling See Collocation See Chapter Density Bonus Dwelling- Related Definitions 18.798, Wireless Density Transfer Awning See Design - Related Communication Facilities Design Related Definitions Definitions Column See Design - Related •Arcade Awning Sign See Chapter Definitions 18.780, Signs Commercial Forestry See • Awning Balloon See Chapter 18.780, Chapter 18.790, Tree • Band Signs Removal • Bay Band See Design - Related Commission • Belt Course Definitions Common Wall • Canopy Banner See Chapter 18.780, Complete and Entire • Chamfer Signs Complex Base Flood See Flood - Related Comprehensive See •Column Definitions Comprehensive Plan - Related • Cornice Basement Definitions • Eaves Bay See Design - Related Comprehensive Plan- • Entry Definitions Related Definitions • Frieze Belt Course See Design • Comprehensive • • Marquee Related Definitions Generalised • Medallion Bench Sign See Chapter • Land 18.780, Signs • Parapet • Plan Coordination Berm • Pilaster Conditional Use Bike Lane • String Course Bikeway Construct See Chapter • Transom Billboard See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs Sig ns Contiguous • Turret Buildable Area Contiguous Lots See • Visible Transmittance Building Abutting Lots Detached Dwelling See Building Envelope Corner Lot See Lot Related Dwelling - Related Definitions Building, Primary Definitions Development Building Height Corner Side See Yard - Related Development Adjustment See Building Official; See also Definitions Section 18.370.020, Chapter 18.780, Signs Cornice See Design- Related Adjustments Building Permit Definitions Development Review See Business See Chapter 18.780, Council Chapter 18.780, Signs Signs Covered Soil Area See Development Site Caliper Landscaping Related Definitions Directional Sign See Chapter Canopy See Design - Related Cul -de -sac 18.780, Signs Definitions Cultural Institution Auxiliary Director Canopy Cover See Chapter Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Display Surface See Chapter 18.790, Tree Removal Cutout See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs Chamfer See Design - Related Signs Drainage Way Definitions Dedication Drive - Through Facility Change of Use Driveway Final Decision See Final Action Guyed Tower See Chapter Duplex See Dwelling - Related Final For Purposes Of Appeal 18.798, Wireless Definitions See Section 18.390.080, Communication Facilities Dwelling See Dwelling - Belated General Provisions Habitable Floor Area Definitions Final Order See Final Action Hazardous Tree See Chapter Dwelling- Related Definitions Findings 18.790, The Removal • Accessory Dwelling Unit Flag Lot See Lot- Related Home Occupation D Homeowners Association • Apartment Household • Attached Dwelling Flashing Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Housing Complex See Chapter • Detached Dwelling Floodplain See Flood - Related 18.780, Signs • Duplex Immediate or Serious Danger Definitions • Dwelling Flood Related Definitions See Chapter 18.780, Signs • Manufactured Home • Base Flood Impact Analysis • Multiple - Family Dwelling • Floodplain Impervious Surface Implementing Ordinance • Single Family Dwelling • Floodway Improved Lot See Lot Related Easement • Floodway Fringe Eaves See Design - Related y g Definitions Floodway See Flood - Related Improvement Definitions Definitions Effective Date See Section Industrial Park See Chapter Floodway Fringe See Flood- 18.780, Signs 18.390.080, General Provisions Belated Definitions Ingress Egress Floor Area Interior Lot See Lot- Related Electrical Sign See Chapter Floor Area Ratio 18.780, Signs Definitions Flush Pitched Roof Sign See Land See Comprehensive Plan-. Electronic Information Sign Chapter 18.780, Signs See Chapter 18.780, Signs Related Definitions Freestanding Sign See Chapter Land Form Alteration Enlargement 18.780, Signs n Landsca i Entry See Design - Related Landscaping Freeway Interchange See Landscaping- Related Definitions Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions Entryway Sign See Chapter Freeway- Oriented Sign See 18.780, Signs • Covered Soil Area Chapter 18.780, Signs • Open Soil Evidence See Section Frieze See Design- Related p 18.390.080, General Provisions • Root Paths Definitions Exception Front See Yard Belated • Soil Volume Calculations FAA See Chapter 18.798, Definitions Lattice Tower See Chapter Wireless Communication Frontage See also Chapter 18.798, Wireless Facilities 18.780, Signs Communication Facilities Face Lawn Sign See Chapter 18.780, Face of a Building See Chapter Front Lot Line See Lot Related Signs 18.780, Signs Definitions Legal Entity See Chapter FCC See Chapter 18.798, Garage p Generalized See Comprehensive 18.780, Signs, `Business" Wireless Communication Legislative Facilities Plan - Related Definitions Glare Lighting Methods See Chapter Fence, Sight - Obscuring 18.780, Signs Final Action Loading Area See Loading Space Loading Space Marquee See Design - Related • Passive Use Facilities Lot See Lot- Related Definitions Definitions Oregon Administrative Rules Lot Area See Lot- Related Medallion See Design - Related Oregon Revised Statutes Definitions Definitions Outdoor Storage Lot Averaging See Lot - Related Minimal Use Facilities See Open Owner Definitions Space Faciliy- Belated Painted Wall Decorations See Lot Coverage See Lot- Related Definitions Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions Mitigation Painted Wall Highlights See Lot Depth See Lot - Related Mixed Solid Waste See Chapter Chapter 18.780, Signs Definitions 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste Painted Wall Sign See Chapter Lot Line See Lot- Related And Recyclable Storage 18.780, Signs Definitions Mixed -Use Development Parapet See Design - Related Lot Line Adjustment See Lot- Mobile Home Definitions Related Definitions Mobile Home Park Park Lot of Record See Lot- Related Mobile Home Subdivision Parking Space Definitions Monopole See Chapter Partition Lot - Related Definitions 18.798, Fireless P • Corner Lot Communication Facilities Passive Use Facilities See Open • Flag Lot Moving Sign See Chapter Space Facility- Related g 18.780, Signs Definitions • Front Lot Line Multiple - Family Dwelling See Perimeter • Improved Lot Dwelling-Related Definitions g Permitted Use • Interior Lot Multi -Unit Residential Person See also Chapter 18.780, • Lot Building See Chapter 18.755, Signs • Lot Area Mixed Solid Waste And Pilaster See Design - Related • Lot Averaging Recyclable Storage Definitions • Lot Coverage Neighborhood Activity Center Plan Coordination See • Lot Depth Noise Comprehensive Plan - Related • Lot Line Nonconforming Sign See Definitions Chapter 18.780, Signs Plat • Lot Line Adjustment Nonconforming Situation g Premises See Chapter 18.780, • Lot of Record Non - Residential Building See Signs • Lot Width Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Projecting Sign See Chapter • Rear Lot Line Waste And Recyclable Storage 18.780, Signs • Side Lot Line Non - Structural Trim See Projection See also Chapter • Substandard Lot Chapter 18.780, Signs 18.780, Signs • Tax Lot Occupancy Permit Provider See Chapter 18.798, • Through Lot Off -Site Impact Fireless Communication • Zero Lot Line Off Site Improvement Facilities Lot Width See Lot Belated Open Soil See Landscaping- Pruning See Chapter 18.790, Definitions Related Definitions Tree Removal Maintenance See Chapter Open Space Facility- Related Public Business Day 18.780, Signs Definitions Public Support Facilities Manufactured Home See • Active Use Facilities Quasi Judicial Dwelling- Related Definitions • Minimal Use Facilities Reader -Board Sign See Chapter Soil Volume Calculations See Traffic Flow Plan 18.780, Signs Landscaping - Related Definitions Transom See Design - Related Rear See Yard - Related Definitions Source- Separated Recyclable Definitions Rear Lot Line See Lot- Related See Chapter 18.755, Mixed Tree See also Chapter 18.790, Definitions Solid Waste And Recyclable Tree Removal Receipt Storage Turret See Design - Related Recreational Vehicles Special Adjustments, See Section Definitions Remodel 18.370.020, Adjustments Uniform Building Code See Removal See Chapter 18.790, Specified Anatomical Areas See Chapter 18.780, Signs Tree Removal Adult Entertainment- Related Use Reserve Strip Definitions Vehicle Parking Space Residence Specified Sexual Activities See Visible Transmittance See Residential Trailer Adult Entertainment- Related Design - Related Definitions Responsible Party, See Section Definitions Vision Clearance Area 18.230.030, Penalty Storage Area See Chapter Visual Obstruction Revolving Sign See Chapter 18.755, Mixed Solid Waste Wall Sign See Chapter 18.780, 18.780, Signs And Recyclable Storage Signs Right -of -Way Story Wetlands Road Story, First Will Roof Story, Half Window Roof Line See Chapter 18.780, Street Wireless Communication Signs Street, Private Facility See Chapter 18.798, Roof Sign See Chapter 18.780, Street, Public Wireless Communication Signs String Course See Design - Related Facilities Root Paths See Landscaping- Definitions Wireless Communication Related Definitions Structural Alteration See Facility, Attached See Rotating Sign See Chapter Chapter 18.780, Signs Chapter 18.798, Wireless 18.780, Signs Structure Communication Facilities Wireless Communication Sensitive Lands See Chapter Subdivision Transmissions Towers See 18.790, Tree Removal Substandard Lot See Lot - Related Chapter 18.798, Wireless Setback Definitions Communication Facilities Shopping Center See Chapter Substantial Improvement Yard See Yard - Related Definitions 18.780, Signs Surface Street See Chapter Yard - Related Definitions Shopping Plaza See Chapter 18.780, Signs • Corner Side 18.780, Signs Tax Lot See Lot- Related Definitions • Front Side See Yard - Related D .� Definitions Side Lot Line See Lot- Related • Rear Temporary Sign S Chapter Definitions • Side .f 18.780, Signs Sign See Chapter 18.780, Signs Temporary Use • Yard Sign Structure See Chapter Tenant Sign See Chapter 18.780, Zero Lot Line See Lot - Related 18.780, Signs Signs Definitions Single - Family Dwelling See Through Lot See Lot- Related Zoning District Dwelling - Related Definitions Definitions Site Tigard -Based Nonprofit Slope Organization v� T '�C Lf ,�"°�'a �.:�P r3 '�" � � � 73. � �'S'`�d ' �''t''"X> �'�' ia'�:��aU°'�"'�i � t ���aY'' � rr� r� � 71§ ti r ��G °v`�?�#.s � :ASS: g F7['shn ai Sections ; = m:,� Y ��r s .� �a W � - ua .em�'.. ,w.Fs� .x. g�,- ,,...n ,E`�.., .•�UO�. .. v- n ..,re` .tom ,.��r;,...:_!�.,.�:x__ +nk F . , . aW � � , ..... , .Y.i�.�.�.a.:�.�t�Z Chapter 18.360 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 18.360.030 Approval Process A. New developments and major modifications. Site development review for a new development or major modification of an approved plan or existing development, as defined in Section 18.360.020.A, shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.090. B. Minor modifications. Minor modifications of an approved plan or existing developments, as defined in Section 18.360.060, shall be processed as a Type I procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.360.060. C. Approval period. Site development review approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1 -1/2 years from the date of approval. The site development review approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. Substantial construction of the approved plan has not begun within a one - and - one -half years period; or 2. Construction on the site is a departure from the approved plan. D. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: 4, a. No changes are made on the original site development review plan as approved by the Director; 2 b. The applicant can show intent of initiating construction on the site within the one -year extension period; and c. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. 2. Approval periods for Site Development Review lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31. 2011 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2012. No further extensions will be granted. E. Phased development. 1. The Director shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases over a period of time of one year, but in no case shall the total time period for all phases be greater than three years without reapplying for site development review. 2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal is that all of the following are satisfied: a. The public facilities are constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; b. The development and occupancy of any phase is not dependent on the use of temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; c. The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as part of the approved development proposal; and d. The Director's decision may be appealed as provided by Section 18.390.040.G. No notice need be given of the Director's decision. 3. The Director may waive or modify the approval period for projects within the Washington Square Regional Center in accordance with Section 18.630.020.C. (Ord. 09 -13) 18.420 LAND PARTITIONS 18.420.030 Approval Process A. Decision - making process. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application partition, which shall be reviewed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.420.050. B. Time limit on approval. The partition approval by the Director shall be effective for a period of 1-1/2 years from the date of approval. C. Lapsing of approval. The partition or approval by the Director shall lapse if: 1. The partition has not been recorded or has been improperly recorded with Washington County without the satisfactory completion of all conditions attached to the approval; 2. The final recording is a departure from the approved plan. D. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that: 4, a. No changes are made on the original plan as approved by the Director; 2, b. The applicant can show intent of recording the approved partition or lot line adjustment within the one -year extension period; and 3: c. There have been no changes in the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance provisions on which the approval was based. 2. Approval periods for Land Partitions lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31 2011 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2012. No further extensions will be granted. 18.430 SUBDIVISIONS 18.430.030 Approval Process A. Review of preliminary plat. Review of a preliminary plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type II procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.040. An application for subdivision may also be reviewed concurrently with an application for a planned development, as governed by Chapter 18.350. B. Review of final plat. Review of a final plat for subdivision shall be processed by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.430.070. C. Approval period. Preliminary plat approval by the Approval Authority shall be effective for a period of 1 -1/2 years from the date of approval. The preliminary plat shall lapse if: 1. A final plat has not been submitted within a 1 -1/2 year period; or 2. The final plat does not conform to the preliminary plat as approved or approved with conditions. C. Extension. 1. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee, grant one extension of the approval period not to exceed one year; provided that: a. No changes are made on the original preliminary plat plan as approved; 2, b. The applicant has expressed written intent of submitting a final plat within the one -year extension period; 37 c. There have been no changes to the applicable ordinance provisions on which the approval was based; and 4 d. An extension of time will not preclude the development of abutting properties. 2. Approval periods for Subdivisions lapsing between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 shall be automatically extended through December 31, 2011. No further extensions will be granted. E. Phased development. 1. The Approval Authority may approve a time schedule for developing a subdivision in phases, but in no case shall the actual construction time period for any phase be greater than two years without reapplying for a preliminary plat; 2. The criteria for approving a phased site development review proposal are: a. The public facilities shall be scheduled to be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase to ensure provision of public facilities prior to building occupancy; b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary public facilities: (1) For purposes of this subsection, a temporary public facility is an interim facility not constructed to the applicable City or district standard; and (2) The phased development shall not result in requiring the City or other property owners to construct public facilities that were required as a part of the approval of the preliminary plat. 3. The application for phased development approval shall be reviewed concurrently with the preliminary plat application and the decision may be appealed in the same manner as the preliminary plat. (Ord. 09 -13)