City Council Packet - 10/08/1991
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
AGENDA
PUBLIC NOTICE. Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for
a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
• STUDY SESSION (6:30 PM)
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM))
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. OATH OF OFFICE: INTERIM COUNCILOR FOR POSITION NO. 3
• Mayor Edwards
3. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presentation to Carolyn Eadon in Recognition of Council Service
3.2 Presentation to Tigard Prornotions, Inc. in Appreciation of their Assistance with the 30th
Birthday Parade
3.3 Proclamation: October as Disability Employment Awareness Month
4. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
5. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
5.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 10, 1991
5.2 Declare as Surplus: House and Garage on the Former Tigard Electric Property
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 1
c
f
r
Ell
6. CONSIDERATION OF NO PARKING ORDINANCE ON A PORTION OF HIGHLAND STREET
(This item was set over from the September 10, 1991, Council meeting and then Continued from
the cancelled September 24, 1991 meeting.)
7. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
• Public Hearing Continued from the Cancelled September 24, 1991 Meeting
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report: Administrative Services Manager
• Public Testimony:
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
SWAC Ex-Officio Members' Representative
Proponents (Speaking For Amended Ordinance)
Opponents (Speaking Against Amended Ordinance)
Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 91-_; Resolution No. 917--
8. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0001 A proposal to amend and repeal various
provisions of the Community Development Code pertaning to the Central Business District (CBD)
including: Repealing Section 18.86 (Action Areas) and amending Sections 18.42.02090.6.h
(Automotive and Equipment: Sales/Rentals Light Equipment); 18.66.030 (Permitted Uses;
18.66.040A. (Conditional Uses); 18.66.060 A.I. (Additional Requirements); 18.66.070 (interim
Requirements); and 18.130.150 C.23.a & 29.a. (Applicable Zone)
• Open Public Hearing
• Declarations or Challenges
• Staff Report - Community Development Department
• Public Testimony:
Proponents (Speaking for Amendments)
Opponents (Speaking Against Amendments)
Additional Testimony
• Staff: Response to Testimony and Recommendation to Council
• Council Questions or Comments
• Close Public Hearing
• Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 91--
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
11. ADJOURNMENT
cca1008.91
I
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 2
Council Agenda Item J
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991
• Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Valerie
Johnson, Joe Kasten Jack Schwab and John Schwartz. Staff
Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Dick
Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel;
Loreen Edin, Administrative Services/Risk Manager; Catherine
Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
• Appeals to 109th/Naeve Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City Engineer apprised Council of status of 109th/Naeve
Comprehensive Plan Amendment appeals. This Council decision
was appealed by two separate parties to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA).
Among the concerns about development in this area, is the
timeliness of the completion of the road connection from Naeve
to Royalty Parkway. City Engineer reported this road
connection appears to meet the criteria for Traffic Impact Fee
(TIF) funding through dollars collected from Tigard
development by Washington County. Council consensus was that
City Engineer should proceed with preparation of a resolution
recommending this road be designated as a "TIF-eligible"
project.
• Traffic Capital Improvement Projects
The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee will be meeting
this week to begin prioritizing the Capital Improvement
Projects for the next year.
• Improvements to Durham Road - East of Hall Boulevard
City Engineer advised that the County, as one of their MSTIP
2 projects, will be improving Durham Road next summer (east of
Hall Boulevard). The improvements will be to a similar
standard as those completed west of Hall by the City. The
county, however, does not have funding for undergrounding the
utilities. After discussion, Council consensus was to direct
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 1
City staff to contact County staff and urge them to add funds
( to the project so the utilities can be moved underground.
Council did not favor adding the undergrounding of utilities
to the Tigard Transportation CIP list.
• Truck Limitation on Durham Road
Council discussed a letter from Larry Schmidt asking the City
to make an exception for his business in the limitation of
trucks traveling Durham Road. Council discussed the ordinance
and the merits of the request; consensus was to direct staff
to decline the request for the exception and review of the
ordinance.
BUSINESS MEETING
2. OATH OF OFFICE
Mayor Edwards administered the Oath of Office to Jack Schwab
as interim councilor for Council Position No. 3. Councilor
Schwab was selected on October 7 to serve until a Councilor is
elected in March.
3. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Edwards presided over the following:
- Presentation to Carolyn Eadon in Recognition of Council
Service (See council packet: Councilor Eadon presented
with a plaque proclaiming a "Resolution of Award of
Merit."
- Presentation to Tigard Promotions, Inc. in Appreciation
of their Assistance with the 30th Birthday Parade
- Proclamation: October as Disability Employment Awareness
Month (See Council packet for a' copy of the
proclamation.)
4. VISITORIFS AGENDA
- King City Councilor Gerry McReynolds requested that the
Triad Development, recently approved by the Planning
Commission, be "placed on hold." He further requested
that the development become a Tigard Council agenda item
to discuss concerns over traffic issues associated with
the development.
After discussion, council consensus was to defer a
decision on a "call-up to review" until receipt of the
Planning Commission Final Order.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 2
t
s'.
i
Herm Porter, Chair of NPO 3, requested a fee waiver for
an appeal the NPO is pursuing regarding a recent Planning
commission decision on the Mountain Highlands development
proposal.
Motion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Johnson
to approve the fee waiver request.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of council
Present.
Mr. Robert Ball noted the Summerfield Civic Association
agrees with the staff proposal on the Highland Drive
parking restriction. (Agenda Item No. 6)
Mr. Charles Colling noted concerns with the noxious
vegetation ordinance and enforcement procedures. He
submitted pictures for review by Council of areas where
he thinks violations are occurring. Mr. Colling advised
the ordinance should be rewritten to address public
hazards and not aesthetics. Mayor advised Council would
review the photos. Mayor also advised Mr. Colling that
because of limited staffing, the ordinance is enforced on
a complaint basis.
5. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by
( Councilor Kasten to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
5.1 Approve Council Minutes: September 10, 1991
5.2 Declare as Surplus: House and Garage on the Former
Tigard Electric Property
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
6. CONSIDERATION OF NO PARKING ORDINANCE ON A PORTION OF HIGHLAND
STREET
(This item was set over from the September 10, 1991, Council
meeting and then continued from the cancelled September 24,
1991 meeting.)
a. City Engineer summarized the staff report submitted to
the Council in their meeting packet. There was brief
Council discussion and questions concerning the Chief's
review of Council's concerns noted at the August 13 and
September 10 meetings. Questions were raised as to
whether this situation was sufficiently unique from other
areas within the City or if the safety problem warranted
a "No Parking" designation.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 91-29; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10. 28.130
PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW HIGHLAND DRIVE.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 3
i
t
t
C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-29.
The motion was approved by a majority vote of Council
present; Mayor Edwards and Councilor Schwartz voted "No."
7. PUBLIC BARING - SOLID WASTE ORDINANCE AJWND
MENTS
a. Public Hearing was continued from the cancelled
September 24, 1991, meeting.
b. Administrative Services Manager Edin summarized the staff
report which was forwarded to the City Council in their
meeting packet.
C. Public Testimony:
- Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
Gerry McReynolds, Chair of SWAC advised that the
Committee has worked many months on the rewriting
of this ordinance. Some issues still remain
unresolved. Problem areas have included the
compactor regulatory provisions, the requirement
that property owners be held responsible for
payment of fees (Measure 5 concerns), and
construction waste removal.
Mr. McReynolds noted rising costs for garbage
disposal along with the mandate to comply with
State regulations on recycling will be continuing
issues. He noted with consistently increasing
rates from Metro, it is conceivable that pick-up
charges for one can could cost as much as $70 per
month by the year 2000.
Mr. McReynolds highlighted issues reviewed by the
committee during their work on this ordinance.
Issues include:
• The rate payers the overall structure of
the system (to be reviewed by Council
separately.)
• People would not be prevented from hauling
their own garbage. (Arbitrary 10,000 lb.
limit on trucks which can be used to haul
one's own garbage.)
• Compactor inspection provisions.
• Construction waste removal.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 4
f
SWAC Ex-Officio Members' Representative
• A representative was present; however, he
declined to testify noting he was available to
answer questions if necessary.
Additional Testimony
• Raymond A. Ross, 1049 S.W. Baseline,
Hillsboro, Oregon, advised of his concern with
the 10,000 weight limit for trucks which haul
a property owners own garbage. Mr. Ross is
the general manager for a family theater
business in the area. Currently, they are
able to save 50 percent of the costs for
removing refuse from their five businesses in
their 25,000 lb. truck. They haul away their
garbage once a week it takes a half day.
The company also recycles the cardboard. Mr.
Ross asked that if the 10,000 weight limit is
not removed, then they be allowed to continue
under grandfathered rights. He cited their
investment in their truck as one of the
reasons why they should be allowed to
continue.
• Charles Hales, representing the Homebuilders'
Association, noted they strongly objected to
the provisions pertaining to construction-site
hauling. Suggested wording was submitted to
the Council for Section 11.04.040 (D) (7).
Mr. Hales outlined his concerns that presently
the ordinance would allow a cost advantage to
the large corporation over the smaller
homebuilders.
Discussion followed on this section of the
ordinance. The recommendation from staff and
the SWAG is that the exemption for contractors
be deleted and allow them to haul their own
waste in vehicles under 10,000 GVW. Source
separated materials for recycling could be
hauled by third-party haulers which is in
keeping with state law.
d. Council Questions/Comments
Council asked several questions to clarify their
understanding of the amount of investment franchisees
have in their equipment, depreciation of equipment, and
how often equipment must be replaced. Also questions
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 5
E
E
were asked on the subject of the permitting process for
compactors to ascertain why the City would want to be
responsible for this. Chair McReynolds noted safety
concerns as well as compatibility of haulers' equipment
was among the primary considerations for the provisions
in this section of the ordinance. The haulers are
responsible to report violations to the City.
There was discussion of Senate Bill 66 and the mandate to
recycle a percentage of the waste stream within a given
period of time. This requirement sets up regulatory
challenges and has implications when considering whether
to allow third party haulers (including charity groups
such as the Lions Club) to offer services in removing
recyclable refuse.
There was discussion on the haulers' ability to bill the
owner. The provisions of the proposed ordinance does not
preclude the hauler from billing the property owner.
City legal counsel advises against putting such a
provision in the ordinance because of Ballot Measure 5
interpretation uncertainty.
There was brief discussion on the franchise process in
general. Council members noted concern whether this was
best for the community overall. Councilor Kasten noted
he was averse to a monopoly situation. Councilor Johnson
advised she would like to pursue this issue more and ask
questions to obtain clarity on whether the current
process is indeed the best process.
Chair McReynolds responded that solid waste collection is
considered to be a utility service and historically
utilities operate under what is the current practice in
Tigard. He referred to the City of Portland which has
operated under a free enterprise system and are changing
to a franchise system. Areas of Portland experienced
service delivery consistencies and some areas were paying
twice that of another. If the solid waste service is
treated as a utility, then these problems can be avoided.
Mayor Edwards called for a recess in the meeting.
Council Meeting Recessed: 9:31 p.m.
Council Meeting Reconvened: 9:44 p.m.
C. Mayor referred to the Policy Issues contained in the
staff report. He said he would like to continue the
hearing to give the Council more time to review and make
a decision on each of the policy issues point by point.
Consensus of Council was to close the hearing;
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 6
i
deliberation of the proposed ordinance was scheduled for
4 November 19, 1991.
d. Public Hearing was closed. Council action on this item
was set for November 19, 1991. '
8. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 91-0001 A proposal to amend
and repeal various provisions of the Community Development
Code pertaining to the Central Business District (CBD)
including: Repealing Section 18.86 (Action Areas) and
amending Sections 18.42.0209C.6.h (Automotive and Equipment:
Sales/Rentals Light Equipment); 18.66.030 (Permitted Uses;
18.66.040A. (Conditional Uses); 18.66.060 A.1. (Additional
Requirements); 18.66.070 (Interim Requirements); and
18.130.150 C.23.a & 29.a. (Applicable Zone)
a. Public hearing was continued from the September 10, 1991
meeting.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report
submitted to the Council in their meeting packet.
d. Public Testimony:
Reino Tarkiainen, 20895 S.W. Lebeau Road in
Sherwood testified that he owns property next to
the Tigard Water District. Mr. Tarkiainen noted
problems in selling this property because it
appeared to be improperly zoned. Mr. Bewersdorff
advised Council that the staff's proposal does not
address zoning at this property address. Council
advised Mr Tarkiainen that this request should be
brought forward for consideration when the Council
reviews the land use designations for the entire
Central Business District (CBD).
• Gary Gilbert, 1205 S.W. 18th, Portland, Oregon
advised he was considering the purchase of the
property at 8900 S.W. Commercial. Presently, the
building is unusable for his purpose (micro-
brewery) because of the zoning. Senior Planner
Bewersdorff affirmed that the staff's proposal
would address and remedy Mr. Gilbert's concerns.
e. Council Questions or Comments: There was discussion on
the Central Business District in general. City
Administrator noted the need for a review of the CBD with
regard to permitted uses and land use pattern.
f. Public hearing was closed.
C_
OCTOBER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - 8, 1991 - PAGE 7
4
` g. ORDINANCE NO. 91-30; AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REPEAL
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD)
INCLUDING: REPEALING SECTION 18.86 (ACTION AREAS) AND
AMENDING SECTIONS 18.42.020 C.6.h. (AUTOMOTIVE AND
EQUIPMENT: SALES/RENTALS LIGHT EQUIPMENT); 18.66.030
(PERMITTED USES); 18.66.040 A. (CONDITIONAL USES);
18.66.060 A.1. (ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS); 18.66.070
(INTERIM REQUIREMENTS); AND 18.130.150 C.23.a. & 29.a.
(APPLICABLE ZONE) (ZOA 2-91)
h. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Kasten, to adopt Ordinance No. 91-30.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City council went into
Executive Session at 10:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
Call for Special Executive Session: Council, by consensus,
called for a special Executive Session on Monday, October 14,
1991, at 7 a.m., in the City Hall Town Hall Conference Room,
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon to discuss a
potential real property transaction.
11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:19 p.m.
ti
Ares Catherine Wheatley, City Recor er
~ I
ayor, City of Tigard
' Date: OW-[ 1
can1008.91
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1991 - PAGE 8
P,
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice IT 7061
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
The following meeting tughlight§ are Published fo~your information Full'
Legal Notice Advertising agendas, may tie obtained from the city Reca3rder, 13125 S Pl Hall.
B~yJ~eYstir.~~'ig~~ Oz1~gVp X7223. Roby S~l~ '41 1 ~,r,,~ ;mac ~ .
• City of Tigard ❑ Tearsheet Not! y
CITY COUNCIf BUSMS y G
PO Box 23397 OC'ltiOBER 8,1991 ,
• ' TIGARD ary. HALL ? TOWN:H T.Ls° ? .
Tigard OR 97223 13 Duplicate Affid `
13125 HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Study McEpng (Town HallConference Room) (G ~0 P.M
r 4 r~ ~
Y) (750 PAb Y,
Business bleetang (Town , )n
` + rj a ire " ,4;,s m3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Proclamations'&1Presenthops e a
STATE OF OREGON, ) '•a Presentation of Plagtie to Conn ilor Cant . om iiiReaogn<mo ,of
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' (rotuicilSen►icex:rn~ ,r at
Pfesen ' ig Cergficate n
I, Judith Koehler f,
for ther~Asaistancewath e 3 s-~ y
being first duly sworn, depose and saVhat !(pl the Advertising , p ) axon: Octoberas p oy~ai waren~ssIvlonth _s
Director, or his principal clerk, of the gar imes , ssir"~,
a newspaper of general circ4Iation as defined in ORS 193.010 Oath of p~jcosunellorw SeQve Uli_ ~'(h1992)~
and 193.020; published at lYQ in the ; r
r # yfif fi,: a + b
afo said cou nd sta e; hat the
~otice oyCaounci~ business Meetin H
g R N kirdntance fw a Forf! of Highl> iid S t , ,~~V
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the a A4~~ =
One Public Henngs ST' x .
entire issue of said newspaper for successive and ; dmcipal $ond, ante 5
consecutive in the following issues: ~v
i f ntractRevielM+ f 4
October 3, 1991
• 1'le Tiger > . _ f iti `Ex ttives~~u`itder the
`yo +isLOnsof OR lY )r3~ . 4~~~~ .
0 1;,
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October, 1991. rN
CFF1C141 cRL
Notary Public for Oregon 6€°Vf_~;..Y lrc
NOTARY -OREGON
My Commission Expires: /ffi iq9~ C0M, S !GPI ,,0.C,6G152
AFFIDAVIT MY COM vIISSION _%:PfRES JULY 15.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss
City of Tigard )
I, begin first duly
sworn, on oath depose and say:
That I posted in the following public and cons icuous
places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) Ott a.O► ~cft Ntt•- 3
which were adopted at the Council
Meeting dated QT_ copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being
hereto attac ed n by reference made a part hereof, on the
date of 0 , 1991.
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Washington Federal Saving Bank, 12260 SW Main St.,
Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard,
Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Corner of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99)
and SW Durham Road, Tigard, Oregon
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ISA date of 6cX k__ ,
1991
OFFICIAL SEAL Nota ublic for O egon
M.JOANN HAYES
NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON My Commission Expires: jnnaeA s 995
COMMISSION NO.006E13
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 9, 1996
h:\login\jo\cwpost
t
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 91- f
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW
HIGHLAND DRIVE.
I
WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130 prohibits parking at any time on portions of certain
public streets in Tigard; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a request for prohibition of parking on a
portion of Highland Drive; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the Council that the requested parking prohibition
will enhance traffic safety.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130, designating the streets or portions thereof
where parking is prohibited at all times, is hereby amended by
adding the following:
'(77) Along SW Highland Drive beginning at a point 50 feet
east of the extended west line of Lot 165 in Summerfield No.
4 subdivision, then extending eastward and northward for a
distance of 125 feet along the north curbline and for a
distance of 225 feet along the south curbline."
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By 1~1Cc a-Z~ vote of all Council members present after
Pin read b number and title only, this day.of
G CAD 1991.
atherine Wheatley, City Rec der
an ~
APPROVED: This Y- day of ~G 1991.
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Cit A torney
/%/g
Date
ORDINANCE No. 91- acl
Page 1
1
s
°270
2 TO x
f 260 'X
260 2 50
o X
o Mx
2 $ 0 X M.H. _
240
~fl~}75
S.W. X236.4 HIGHLAND
AREA OF ~RoPo9ED
PAR100Ce ~ESTRIGTIDN
(per Council dtsw's~ 04
9- io 10
H M.H
X 10525 2
K L G L A N D OR. o_
r
GREEN
p
:SAND
220 _ , ; T.
i
ZZO t
' X
0
X
M.H.
X208.1 M.H.
o y~
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 91-30
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REPEAL VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) INCLUDING:
REPEALING SECTION 18.86 (ACTION AREAS) AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.42.020 C.6.h.
(AUTOMOTIVE AND EQUIPMENT: SALES/RENTALS LIGHT EQUIPMENT) ; 18. (PERMITTED
USES); 18.66.040 A. (CONDITIONAL USES); 18.66.060 A.1. (ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS) ; 18.66.070 (INTERIM REQUIREMENTS) ; AND 18.130.150 C. 23 . a. & 29.a.
(APPLICABLE ZONE) (ZOA 2-91)
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its Community
Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of
the Code; and
WHEREAS, certain provisions of the Code concerning the Central Business
District conflict with existing conditions, existing businesses and buildings
in the CBD; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on August 19, 1991 and voted to recommend
approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 10, 1991 to
consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit
"A". Language to be added is UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted
is shown in (BRACKETS].
Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the
Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By U nCt n i rrnoccs vote of all Council members present after
being read by number and title only, this day of
1991.
Catherine Wheatley, City F9--corder
APPROVED: This P1 day of G7~~ 1991.
r
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Ci torn/ey
Date
t ORDINANCE No. 91- 3 n
j Page 1
r
EXHIBIT "A"
CHAPTER 18.86 is hereby deleted
118.42.020 C. 6.
h. Automotive and Equipment: Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment:
Sale, retail or wholesale and/or rental from the premises
of autos, noncommercial trucks, motorcycles, motorhomes,
boats, and trailers with less than 10,000 pounds gross
cargo weight together with incidental maintenance.
Typical uses include automobile dealers, care rental
agencies, boat dealers, or recreational vehicle sales and
rental agencies;
18.66.030 3. Residential Use Types (See R-40 and R-12 for
development standards):
f. Children's day care;
[f.] h. Family day care;
i. Residential care facility
18.66.030 7. Outdoor storage if screened on all sides;
18.66.040 Conditional Uses (See Chapter 18.130)
3. [Children's day care;] Drive-uR windows.
(See standards contained in Chapter 18.130);
8. [Residential care facility;]
[9.] 8. Vehicle fuel sales; and
[10.]9. Wholesale, storage, and distribution. (Ord.90-41;
Ord 89-06; Ord 93-52);
18.66.060 Additional Requirements
A. 1. Overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned
Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84
Sensitive Lands [and Action Areas];
18.66.070 Interim Requirements
A. In the absence of an adopted design plan, the following
issues under Subsection 18.86.040.A.1.c must be
e
E.
f
r
addressed for new developments as necessary to serve the
use and provide for projected public facility needs of
the area, pursuant to Chapter 18.164 as determined by the
Director.
.j
1.. The City may attach conditions to any development
within an action area prior to adoption of the a
design plan to achieve the following objectives:
a. The development shall address transit usage by
residents, employees, and customers if the
site is within 1/4 mile of a public transit
line or transit stop. Specific items to be
addressed are as follows:
Orientation of buildings and facilities
towards transit services to provide for
direct pedestrian access into the
building(s) from transit lines or stops;
ii Minimizing transit/auto conflicts by
providins. direct pedestrian access into
the buildings with limited crossings in
automobile circulation/ parking areas.
If pedestrian access crosses automobile
circulation/parking areas, paths shall be
marked for pedestrians:
iii Encouraging transit-supportive users
by limiting automobile support
services to collector and arterial
streets; and
iv Avoiding the creation of small scattered
parking areas by allowing adjacent
developments to use shared surface
parking, parking structures, or under-
structure parking;
b. The development shall facilitate
pedestrian/bicycle circulation if the site is
located on a street with designated bikepaths
or adjacent to a designated areenway/open
space/park. Specific items to be addressed
are as follows:
" Provision ~of efficient, convenient and
continuous pedestrian and bicycle transit
circulation systems, linking developments
by requiring dedication and construction
of pedestrian and bikepaths identified in
the comprehensive plan. If direct
connections cannot be made, require that
funds in the amount of the constriction
cost be deposited into an account for the
purpose of constructing paths;
r
ii Separation of auto and truck circulation
activities from pedestrian areas;
iii Encouraging pedestrian-oriented
design by requiring pedestrian
walkways and street level windows
along all sides with public access
into the building;
iv Provision of bicycle parking as required
under Subsection 18.106.020.P; and
kyj Ensure adequate outdoor lighting by
lighting pedestrian walkways and auto
circulation areas.
C. Coordination of development within the action
area. Specific items to be addressed are as
follows:
. Continuity and/or compatibility of
landscaping, circulation, access, public
facilities, and other improvements.
Allow required landscaping areas to be
grouped together. Regulate shared access
where appropriate. Prohibit lighting
which shines on adjacent property;
ii Siting and orientation of land use which
considers surrounding land use, or an
adopted plan. Screen loading areas and
refuse dumpsters from view. Screen
commercial and industrial use from
single-family residential through
landscaping; and
iii Provision of frontage roads or
shared access where feasible. (Ord.
89-06; Ord. 87-56)
B. Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the
following locations may continue to be utilized for I-P
Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six
months: Map 2S 1 2AA Tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC tax lot
100 and 202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 2S 1 2DB tax
lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300.
18.130.150 C.
23. Children's day care:
a. Applicable Zone: single family and multi-family
residential, [CBD];
29. Drive-Up Windows:
a. Applicable Zones: [any commercial or industrial
zone with an action area overlay] CBD;
18.66.060 Additional Requirements
A. Additional requirements in the CBD district are as
follows:
1. overlay Districts, Chapters 18.80 Planned
Development, 18.82 Historic Overlay District, 18.84
Sensitive Lands [and Action Areas];
t
c
t
u:
F.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE: 10A/91
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The
Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda,
but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the
meeting. Thank you.
NAME & ADDRESS 1I TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED
7Q0PEa-1-1 S
2 0' `vt a,vi ?o r'l'r c~ vim- ~t1 E'0 ~'~Kf (~C c ~s A -~e
7 7,
;F
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE : 10/8/91
Public Hearing - Solid Waste Ordinance Amendments
PLEASE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
Proponents (For Amendments) Opponents (Against Amendments)
/J /L,q Yrj o _j 0 . /,z-SS
c;E ES o mss, ~d~) ame.-s.d~n~7)
I- v
P
Y
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 DATE: 10/8/91
Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA
91-001
PLEASE PRINT
NAME & ADDRESS NAME & ADDRESS
Proponents (For Amendments) Opponents (Against Amendments)
t
`r
1
Z
i
OATH OF OFFICE
State of Oregon )
City of Tigard )
I, John E. Schwab, do solemnly swear that I will uphold
and support the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America and the State of Oregon and the Charter
and ordinances of the City of Tigard. I will faithfully,
honestly, and impartially discharge the duties of office
of Councilor for Council Position No. 3 during my
continuance therein to the best of my ability, so help me
( God.
I further affirm that I am not now, nor have I ever been
at any time, a member of any organization advocating the
overthrow of the United States Government.
John Schwab, Councilor
Coun it Position No. 3
ATTEST:
City Recorder
C Date
f
Sk
4A Vx '^w
a aa'=- D a .
' f
r
• 1t
i • •
f
i
4 y
N
• f
f •
} • a •
t
•
40
t!" h*r " t • ~ Y
J •
1( lw
1 s
_ Y
•
•
•
w
•
3.3
5
PROCLAMATION
i
I
WHEREAS, The President of the United States of America, George bush,
j during the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, declared,
I "The shameful wall of exclusion for people with disabilities is finally tumbling
down"; and
WHEREAS, People with disabilities can now aspire to live a life of quality
with tolerance and freedom from barriers of discrimination, and
WHEREAS, We, the citizens of Tigard take great pride in the heritage of
f our diversity fused with the oneness of our future as affirmed in our state
i motto, "She Flies with Her Own Wings"; and
WHEREAS, We celebrate Tigard's employers and others who recognize the
abilities of our workers and not their disabilities.
NOW, THEREFORE 1, GERALD R. EDWARDS, MAYOR OF TIGARD,
HEREBY PROCLAIM October 1991 as
DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH
in Tigard and encourage all citizens to join in this observance.
i
I '
Dated this day of 11991.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
Seal of the City to be affixed.
`I
I
` Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
City of Tigard
i
. Attest:
i
I .
t
City Recorder
I ,
i
~a
i
i O
f -
f
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 8, 1991
AGENDA ITEM 4 - VISITORPS AGENDA
DATE: October 8, 1991
TO: Mayor Edwards &
Tigard City Councilors
FROM: Gerry McReynolds,
King City Resident,
King City Councilor,
Tigard Businessman.
SUBJECT: Triad Development
The Tigard Planning Commission approved the development plans
for the Triad properties at their October 7th meeting. I believe
these plans are not in the best interest for Tigard, King City and
the surrounding residents.
As a citizen and because of the time limitations of the visitors
agenda, I request the Triad development plans be placed on hold
until an agenda item can be placed on Tigardis agenda, to discuss
fully the concerns pertaining the effect of the proposed traffic
patterns, traffic impact, road improvements and other concerns
surrounding the Triad development.
The City of King City, who has participated in previous meetings
and discussions on this issue, did not receive proper notice that
the plan was again coming before the planning commission. Therefore,
the City of King City did not have the opportunity or adequate time
to review the final development plans or prepare testimony on the
changes.
As a King City Councilor, I will ask the City of King City to
join in on the discussions and will urge them to take whatever steps
necessary to be heard.
CC: King City Councilors
Ck-y
TIGARD, OREGON
OCTOBER E4, 1991
TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL_
RF: H070RD VFCFT.ATTON OPDINANCC
FROM: CHARLL`; (-OLi_Ti',lG
!01t:,~ `''.ni.1THWF°T VTF!-1 TFRPnCE
TIGARD, OREGON 97224
PHONI-
1 . ^ARTS O OP-DTF•oNC E i ~i lr!_ ,lrt AND CONFUSING
NEARLY ALL. PROPERTY FN r\i( COf1F'[..TANCE
3. INTERPRETATION AND ENFOf",f'r7M',-vT
0. INTEf<~'R[:TAT iOPI f'tN[? 1'",If r)F:r F"If::t l r By CIT`( IS INCONSI:-.TENT
Ac SEEM BY SURVEY O". SMALL. AREA OF TIGARD
B. 5F ' RL PENALTIES ($250.00 PER DAY)
C. NO RECORDS OF COMPLAINT"
'i . _*'UG ,LS • ONt
A. ORDINANCF- REWP,'CTTFN AND C':. ARIFIED BASED ON PUBLIC HAZARDS .
B. UNIFORM [-NF-ORCF=M[=NT C?n'•, ON CITIZEN COMPLAINTS OF HAZARDS.
C. CITIZEN COMPLAINTC. MADE IN WRITING AND RECORDS KEPT
D Pn[_rr-Y PROVIDING THE CITY THE RIGHT TO BRING THE PROPERTY
INTO COMPLIANCE, AT T'FiF OWNERS EXPENSE, SHOULD THE PROPERTY
OWtNFIR FAIL TO DO 5O.
C
i
ARTICLE III. NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY
7.40.050 Noxious vegetation. (a) The term "noxious
vegetation" does not include vegetation that constitutes an
agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard,
a fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation
within the meaning of subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The term noxious vegetation" includes:
(1) Weeds more than ten inches high;
(2) Grass more than ten inches high and not within
the exception stated in subsection (a) of this section;
(3) Poison oak, poison,.ivy,, or similar vegetation;
(4) Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps and any other
thing likely to cause fire;
(5) Blackberry bushes that extend into a public
thoroughfare or across a property line;
(6) Vegetation that is a health hazard;
(7) Vegetation that is a health hazard because it
impairs the view of a public thoroughfare or otherwise makes
use of the thoroughfare hazardous.
(b) No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious
vegetation to be on the property or in the right-of-way of a
public thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or
responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery,
brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious vegetation as often as
needed to prevent them from becoming unsightly or, in the
case of weeds or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or
from going to seed. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit C(5)(1)), 1986).
7.40.060 Trees. (a) No owner or responsible party
shall permit tree branches or bushes on the property to ex-
tend into a public street or public sidewalk in a manner
which interferes with street or sidewalk traffic. It shall
be the duty of an owner or responsible party to keep all
tree branches or bushes on the premises which adjoin the
public street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining
parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less than eight
feet above the sidewalk and not less than ten feet above the
street.
(b) No owner or responsible party shall allow to stand
any dead or decaying tree that is in danger of falling or
otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public or to persons
or property on or near the property. (Ord. 86-20 §4(Exhibit
C(5) (2) (a) and (b)) ; 1986) .
i
86-1 (Tigard 11/15/86)
4.
~ho~O S
for
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Jr
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: October 8. 1991 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Removal of House PREVIOUS ACTION:
at Former Tigard Electric Pro ert
A ill PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Cliff Scott
ISSUr, BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The house and garage on the former Tigard Electric property are not useful to
the City, requiring a sizeable expenditure to convert into offices. The
house is a nonconforming use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Declare as surplus the house and garage located on the former Tigard Electric
property.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Removal of the house and garage will allow additional landscaping as required
by City code and proper drainage of the parking area. The City has no
further need or interest in retaining this house.
The house will be advertised as free for removal. The recipient will be
responsible for all moving and clean-up costs. The house must be moved prior
to January 1, 1992. If no one bids on moving the house and garage, staff
will solicit bids to demolish the structures.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Demolish the garage and house, either through contract or in-house.
2. Remodel for use.
FISCAL NOTES -
Estimated cost to remove through demolition: $4,500.
h:\login\cathy\teihouse
}
i 'ti
i
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
OvE. Q COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY j
AGENDA OF : aej • ewbeT-2-4, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED :
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Highland Drive PREVIOUS ACTION:
parking restrictions
PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK MO'CITY ADMIN OK/ REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFOR THE COUNCIL
r!
Shall parking be prohibited on a portion of Highland Drive?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Summerfield Civic Association has requested that parking be prohibited on
a portion of Highland Drive in order to improve safety. The area in question
contains two sharp curves, as shown on the attached map.
Staff agrees that the prohibition of parking would improve traffic safety.
While the prohibition would include a portion of the frontage of three homes,
ample on-street parking for visitors appears to be available nearby on
Highland Drive and the intersecting cul-de-sac.
At the August 13 and September 10 meetings, Council heard testimony related
to the proposed parking prohibition. On September 10, the Council
tentatively approved the prohibition limits shown on the attached ordinance.
Adoption of the ordinance will formalize that Council decision.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached ordinance approving the parking prohibition as
previously discussed by the Council.
2. Amend the ordinance.
3. Deny the request.
FISCAL NOTES
Approximately $300 for signing.
rw/highland
e.
i
F,
A NO-PARKING ORDER IS NEEDED
FORA SHORT SECTION OF 5.W. HIGHLAND DRIVE
TO ELIMINATE A TRAFFIC HAZARD
A traffic hazard exists in the Summerfield community when one or
more vehicles are parked on the "S" curve between 10480 and 10525 S.W.
Highland Drive, Tigard, Oregon. A no-parking order covering this section
of the street would eliminate this hazard. The problem is illustrated by
the following described photographs.
Photograph No. 1 shows the "S" curve as may be seen from an
automobile approaching the curve from the west. Note that the driver
could not see traffic approaching the curve from the other direction. Nor
could the driver see any vehicles that may be parked on the curve. At the
time of this picture, two vehicles were parked on the east end of the
curve.
Photograph No. 2 shows the "S" curve as may be seen from an
automobile approaching the curve from the east. Note that the driver
could not see traffic approaching the curve from the other direction. The
problem is accentuated by the two vehicles that are parked on the curve.
Photograph No. 3 looking north toward the blind corner. Shows the
potential traffic problem either entering or leaving this cul-de-sac if a
vehicle is parked on the curve and there is oncoming traffic.
Presented to Tigard City Council on September 24, 1,991, by nearby
resident Robert Ball, 10465 S.W. Highland Drive, Tigard, Oregon
f
PHOTOGRAPH No. 1. The "S" curve on S.W. Highland Drive as may be
seen from an autobobile approaching the curve from the west.
The view through the curve and beyond is obscured.
~a
PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2. The "S" curve on S.W. Highland Drive as may be
seen from an automobile approaching the curve from the east.
The view through the curve and beyond is obscured.
t~
4
Aim
s.T..x....w" ~3itr'4Y ~ [wrn..., v.r -d+.--,..--.-.~..:.._........._....=..t.~. o .
}
4
Shows the
h tow ard the blind corner cu1_de_s3c
leaving this i
~04king n0rt traf f ic•
APH 3" blem either I nd here is oncoming
PH~,rpG~ traffic Pro on the curve a
potential arKed
if a vehicle is P :Y
K-
- ~ t
:i
w
i
1
's
iolel9i
Ar~en~a Flo ~
Solid ~]as~e rj~n~nce
L~PdQ~~
~ulled ~~ll II-Iq-gl
V
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
October 8, 1991 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
--Continudd from COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: September 10, 1991 DATE SUBMITTED: AucTust 27, 1991
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: CBD Amendments PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning Commission
recommendation from August 19, 1991 Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff
DEPT HEAD OR . I'rF CITY ADMIN OX_ QUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
ISSUE B ORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City make various change to the CBD zone regulations including adding
boat sales as a conditional use and repeal the Action Area Overlay provisions to
help promote development activity?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Development Code be amended as follows: repeal
the Action Area Overlay; amend the CBD section of the code to include the
existing interim requirements of the Action Area Overlay; amend the use
classification for Automotive Equipment: Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment
to include boat dealers; add Children's Day Care, Residential Care facilities
and outdoor storage if screened on all sides as outright uses in the CBD;
add drive up windows as a conditional use in the CBD; and allow the non-
conforming use of existing industrial structures in the CBD.
-
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Representatives of Stevens Marine contacted the City regarding how to proceed
with expansion of their boats sales and repair facility. The facility is a
non-conforming use and would not be allowed to expand according to existing code
provisions. The request initiated staff consideration of a number of issues
relative to the CBD. As a result, staff proposed a number of amendments
related to improving the flexibility of development in the CBD and to promote
increased development activity. NPO's 1 & 2 reviewed the proposals and indi-
cated support. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposals at a public
hearing on August 19, 1991. The Commission recommended that the Council
adopt the amendments with one modification of the original staff recommendation.
That modification entailed keeping Automotive Equipment: Sales/Rentals, Light
Equipment (including the addition of boat dealers) as a conditional use
rather than making it an outright use. The modification provides more control
than would the listing of the classification as an outright use. The proposed
changes are not seen as an end-all solution to development of the CBD. They
proposed as a means assist in generating development activity and flexibility.
Attachment include: 1) an ordinance adopting the proposed changes as Exhibit
"A" and 2) the staff memorandum reviewed by the Planning Commission.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission by adopting
the attached ordinance.
2. Modify the proposed changes.
3. Reject the proposed changes.
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: City Council
FROM: Ed Murphy
DATE: September 30, 1991
SUBJECT: CBD Nonconforming Industrial Structures Screening
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES
The Central Business District (CBD) does not allow industrial uses.
The present zone has a number of buildings designed and constructed
for industrial uses. These buildings would be difficult to convert
to CBD uses. The properties in question involve Precision
Graphics, GTE, Stash Tea, Famillian NW, Pacific Red Lion and Magno
Humphries, Inc. While not all of these properties are entirely
utilized for industrial uses today, future uses would be difficult
to find the structures usable for CBD type uses.
Provision 18.66.070 is an attempt to recognize that the investment
in the existing buildings and the cost of conversion is
substantial. It allows existing nonconforming industrial
structures in the CBD to continue to be utilized for industrial
purposes beyond the standard six months limit for nonconforming
uses. It would add flexibility to the code to help avoid long
vacancies of buildings such as the Pacific Red Lion warehouse and
a limited number of other industrial structures if they were to be
vacated.
It is suggested that 18.66.070 be changed to list specific
industrial properties to be included so that where there are
industrial uses of non-industrial buildings, compliance would be
required. It is also suggested that the uses be limited to I-P
industrial uses (manufacturing of finished products; packing and
processing; wholesale, storage and distribution) to preclude heavy
industrial uses that may not be compatible.
New wording for 18.66.070 is proposed as follows:
B. Existing nonconforming industrial structures at the
following locations may continue to be utilized for I-P
Industrial uses after the nonconforming use limit of six
months: Man 2S 1 2AA tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC tax lot
100 and 202, May 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Man 2S 1 2DB tax
lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300
t
OUTDOOR STORAGE SCREENING
Section 18.66.030.7 proposes to make outdoor storage an allowed use
if screened on all sides. New screening standards were adopted
March 26, 1991. These standards are proposed to be used to
determine compliance for screening for outdoor storage. They
appear to be adequate and eliminate the need for a second set of
standards for the CBD. A copy of the current screening provisions
is attached.
:i
i
.a
% / r'
J f
~ ~ \ / the City of
i t
\ ~f
\ \
R ~y
\ ~ ~
\
~ \ :FAA-c~~~
` i ~ ~ \ F
~ ~,v,. ~ n
~ ••1
,s~;: \ ~!~sr Tee
I \ 1
* ~l
\ ~ .<< ~ pan ~ W
\
~~y ~ ~v~ ~ .vy:. v ~ ~ 2 S 1 01 A D - 01 0 ~
~ \ !A a n a -Hum p r i e s
,t: .fi.. \ 9 P
~ ~ 2S102DA-00300
, ~
P r e e (s i o n
; \
i;A ~ G ~ a h ( ~ $
~
J 2Sl02D6-00100
P S~,
G.T.E.
ti>:;,.
030
I
f Dlgllal tole 1 Hop rnpruu-
lation wnpllol IT Ito Cill
= of Tigard olllitlnq Cnnp n-
plto InlnrnUloe 9Prlu
D 6tS) eotlwre. Inlor-
j' r notion DerlraPod Irro
ncT 1/ Iotoodod to In
used Hill adlitionel
tneholeal and/or
1 - N O R f H interpntotlre dato
~ t ~ ~ ~ u dele rmi ned YP
~ Ito Ci tT of figord,
h (YPLDD)
D 100 (10/01/91
10-13-91 AGENDA #B j
• ~ x,.. 1 OF 1 ~
• _
r..
v
P- ter: ~ , i q{ E a+s~~.,~ ;V„Y
~ 1
- - - -
YIWI 11
)
r ~
iN
~ ,
~ ~ ~
.
~
•
,
_
r ~ r. . x,,
__..r._ _ ~ ~ ,
l
~y~~,,~~
,1
w,
I
,a s' _
~ .
,.r-'----~r-,.-~-.,..
.w i
, , ,
.n,
~,.G
w~
v.~
n. ~:..,h .
_
%.,4;U
~
t -
r~
~ ~ ~ L
j
'r
~v elements which are located in any yard is subject to the
conditions and requirements of Section 18.100.80.
[D. It is the intent that these requirements shall provide
for privacy and protection and reduce or eliminate the
adverse impacts of visual or noise pollution at a
development site, without unduly interfering with the
view from neighboring properties or jeopardizing the
safety of pedestrians and vehicles. (Ord. 89-06; Ord.
83-52).]
[18.100.080 Buffering/Screening Requirements]
D. The minimum improvements within .a buffer area shall
consist of the following:
[A]l. At least one row of trees [with a combination
of deciduous and evergreen trees] shall be
planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet
high for deciduous trees and five feet high
for evergreen trees at the time of planting
[and spaced as follows by size of tree.]
Spacing for trees shall be as follows:
Small or narrow stature trees, under 25
feet tall [and] or less than 16 feet wide
[branching] at maturity shall be spaced
no further than 15 feet apart.[; and)
[2.]ii. Medium sized trees between 25 feet to 40
feet tall and with 16 feet to 35 feet
wide branching at maturity shall be
spaced no greater than 30 feet apart.
[3].iii. Large trees, over 40 feet tall and with
more than. 35 feet wide branching at
maturity, shall be spaced no greater than
30 feet apart.
2. In addition, at least 10 five gallon shrubs or
20 one gallon shrubs shall be planted for each
1000 square feet of required buffer area-
3. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn
groundcover, or spread with bark mulch.
E. Where screening is required the following standards shall
apply in addition to those required for buffering:
F 1. A hedge of narrow or broadleaf evergreen
shrubs shall be planted which will form a four
foot continuous screen within two years of
planting, or;
T
Ord ,
2. An earthen berm planted with evergreen plant
materials shall be provided which will form a
continuous screen six feet in height within
two years. The unplanted portion of the berm
shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark
mulched, or;
3. A five foot or taller fence or wall shall be
constructed to provide a continuous sight
obscuring screen.
F. Buffering and Screening provisions shall be superseded by
the vision clearance requirements as set forth in Chapter
18.102.
G. When the use to be screened is downhill from the
adjoining zone or use, the prescribed heights of required
fences, walls, or landscape screening shall be measured
.from the actual grade of the adjoining property. In this
case, fences and walls may exceed the permitted six foot
height at the discretion of the director as a condition
of approval. When the grades are so steep so as to make
the installation of walls, fences or landscaping to the
required height impractical a detailed
landscape/screening plan shall be submitted for approval
[B].H.Fences, and Walls.
1. Fences and walls shall be constructed of any
materials commonly used in the construction of
fences and walls such as wood or brick, or
otherwise acceptable by the Director;
2. Such _-~nce or wall construction shall be in
compliance with other City regulations;-and
3. Chain link fences with [-or without] slats shall
qualify for screening. [only in conjunction with
evergreen plant materials at the same height or
taller than the fence.] However, chainlink fences
without slats shall require the planting of a
continuous evergreen hedge to be considered
screening.
[C.]I.Hedges.
1. An evergreen hedge or other dense evergreen
landscaping may satisfy a requirement for a sight
obscuring fence where required subject to the
height requirement in Subsections 18.100.090.B.1
and 2;
2. Such hedge or other dense landscaping shall be
properly maintained and shall be replaced with
Dra
A
r.
another hedge, other dense evergreen landscaping,
or a fence or wall when it ceases to serve the
purpose of obscuring view; and
3. No hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height
greater than that permitted by these regulations
for a fence or wall in a vision clearance area as
set forth in Chapter 18.102. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 84-
71; Ord. 83-52)
8.100.100 Screening of Refuse Container's Required.
Except for one and two family dwellings, any refuse container
or refuse collection area which would be visible from a public
street, parking lot, residential or commercial area, or any
public facility such as a school or park shall be screened or
enclosed from view by placement of a solid wood fence, masonry
wall or evergreen hedge. All refuse shall be contained within
the screened area.
rb/lsbuffsc.rb7
Win. . .
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
DATE: July 17, 1991
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Development Code relating to the
Central Business District (CBD)
OVERVIEW
Summary: Representatives of Stevens Marine contacted the City
regarding how to proceed with expansion of their boat sales and
repair facility. The facility is a non-conforming use and would
not be allowed to expand according to existing code provisions.
Outdoor storage is also prohibited by the Action Area Overlay
provisions. The request caused staff to give consideration to a
number of issues relative to the CBD. As a result, staff is
proposing a number of amendments related to the improving the
flexibility of development in the CBD and to promote increased
development activity.
Policy Implications: Should the City allow boat sales and
automotive sales as outright uses in the CBD and make other changes
to promote development activity.
Financial Impact: There would be negligible impact on the budget.
More flexible development code provisions in the CBD could foster
increased investment and higher assessed valuation.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Development Code be
amended as follows: repeal the Action Area Overlay; amend the CBD
section of the code to include the existing interim requirements of
the Action Area Overlay; amend the use classification for
Automotive Equipment: Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment to include
boats; add Automotive Equipment: Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment,
Children's Day Care, Residential Care facilities and outdoor
storage if screened on all sides as outright uses in the CBD; add
drive up windows as a conditional use in the CBD; and allow the
non-conforming use of existing structures in the CBD.
ANALYSIS
Background
Representatives of Stevens Marine met with city staff to request
1
information on how to proceed with expansion of the boat sales
facility on SW Burnham Street. The Stevens Marine sales and repair
facility is a nonconforming use in the CBD district. Outdoor
storage of materials, products or supplies is prohibited by Action
Area overlay provisions.
The request caused staff to give consideration to a number of
issues relative to the CBD. These included the heavy commercial
and industrial nature of many existing uses along Burnham and
Commercial Street; the effectiveness and need for the Action Area
designation; the need for continued business activity in the CBD;
the difficulty in finding tenants for structures in the CBD that
were designed for industrial purposes; and the general nature of
uses now allowed in the CBD.
As a result of staff review, it was determined that staff was
better equipped to pull together all the requirements of the
potential code changes necessary to respond to the needs of Stevens
Marine and the long standing issues of the CBD.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Action Area Overlay. The Action Area overlay provisions were
developed in 1987 for the purpose of protecting the CBD from
activities that were considered inappropriate to pedestrian
orientation of the CBD and the concept of protecting Main Street.
The provisions were also developed as a precursor to approval of an
urban renewal district. Because of a broad range of uses allowed
and accommodated in the CBD as well as the inability to proceed
with redevelopment efforts and lower property values, the
provisions have largely been ineffective. They have also inhibited
the growth of some of the existing uses in the CBD.
While the prohibition of outdoor storage creates ordinance
violation conditions at some existing businesses, the interim
requirements of the Action Area relative to transit, pedestrian
paths and circulation still have a certain degree of applicability.
This is especially true in regard to the design and parkway
acquisition needs. The interim requirements are therefore
suggested to be added specifically to the CBD provisions.
Use Classification Definition. Presently, marine boat dealers are
listed under the use classification: Automotive and Equipment
Sales/Rentals, Heavy Equipment. This classification is not allowed
either as an outright or conditional use in the CBD.
Automotive and Equipment Sales/Rentals, Light Equipment is now
listed as a conditional use in the CBD. This classification
includes auto dealers, car rentals, recreation vehicle sales, motor
home sales etc. Boat dealers such as Stevens Marine appear to have
similar characteristics to the above uses. The classification Auto
repairs, light equipment is allowed outright. In many cities,
automotive dealers were once a prominent CBD use prior to the
desire to keep large inventories on site. The proposed change will
2
make these type of dealerships an outright use in the CBD to help
encourage activity in the CBD. While the proposal is to make these
uses outright in the CBD, the conditional use process is a
reasonable alternative. The need for and the consistency of this -
use classification in the CBD should be carefully considered.
Additions to Outright Uses._ It appears that children's day care
and residential day care facilities would also have the effect of
increasing activity in the CBD with little reason for additional
review requirements.
Outdoor storage is appropriate because of the variety of existing
and allowed uses now in the CBD. Requiring screening on all-sides
should alleviate most aesthetic issues while allowing businesses to
expand and foster activity in the CBD.
Drive-up windows. Drive-up windows are now a conditional use in
the Action Area. To continue to allow them in the CBD under the
CBD provisions will allow drive-up windows while providing adequate
protection against adverse impacts.
Nonconforming Use of Existing Industrial Structures. The continued
use of existing buildings that once housed industrial uses such as
Pacific Red Lion has been a concern. Only businesses of an
industrial or heavy commercial nature are apt to utilize these
buildings. As a result, when the buildings are vacated there is a
tendency for them to remain vacant for long periods of time. It is
difficult to find uses which conform to the use requirements of the
CBD within the six months required by nonconforming regulations.
Redevelopment costs create another practical problem.
The proposed code changes will limit the extension of the time
period for the nonconforming use of structures to industrial
buildings only.
Applicable Planning Goals
Statewide planning goals, federal and state statutes and Metro
goals are not impacted by the proposed changes. The Comprehensive
Plan indicates the Central Business District is:
"The area deemed appropriate for high intensity mixed use
development allowing commercial, office, as well as
higher density residential uses of a minimum of 40 units
per acre. The applicable zoning districts are, the
Central Business District (CBD) and the Special District
which limits residential uses to 12 units per acre."
Under Special Areas of Concern, the Plan findings indicate that the
downtown area contains a broad mix of land uses and that a major
concern is to maintain existing businesses in the downtown area and
expand the economic potential of the downtown area. The policy
under this section states:
9
"The redevelopment of downtown shall be accomplished in
order to make it complementary to newer shopping areas.
Convenience, appearance and the needs of the shopping
public should be primary considerations."
Complementary implementation strategies under the above policy call
for emphasis of the revitalization of the CBD within the economic
program and that the CBD is an area of special concern for economic
development activity. The strategies also call for coordination
and cooperation with the private sector to promote their
participation in the revitalization of the CBD.
None of the policies applicable to the CBD directly conflict with
the proposed changes. The findings quoted above indicate a major
concern in maintaining existing businesses and revitalization. The
list of the broad range in uses allowed in the CBD exemplifies this
direction. All the proposed ordinance changes will aid in
increasing activity by helping business expansion and are,
therefore, compatible with the comprehensive plan.
NPO's 1 and 2 have reviewed the proposal and have indicated that
the proposed changes appear to be beneficial.
Alternatives:
o Change the Development Code as proposed
o Add changes or modify the proposed changes
o Retain the existing code provisions
Conclusion: The proposed changes will aid in promoting development
activity in the CBD by adding flexibility. None of the changes
conflict directly with Comprehensive Plan policies.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached.
~I
i