The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 05/21/1996f 4 Y 2 r h • to MD _ _ _I rvo. z i ! PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are es*rmated: it Is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:1 S p.m. to sign In on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7.30 o m r Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and f , should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the C Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunicati D i f h D f ons ev or t ces ea e i 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 f • Qualified bilingual interpreters. j j Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone f numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) _or , 684-2772 TDD = I f Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA v_ a ! p COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 1 s. i t ~ 1 a - C I AGENDA TIGARD C!TY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 21, 1996 6:30 P.M. 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council eX 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 6:35 P.M. 2. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: APPROVE OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES r UNION (OPEU) CONTRACT ^ • City Administrator w y - 6:45 P.M. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT • CIT Facilitators/Members 6:55 P.M. - 4. DISCUSSION: SPEED HUMP POLICY • Consultant - Gary Alison t3 x ' is 7:25 P.M. 5. UPDATE: TIGARD FEED AND SEED STORE PROPERTY • Chamber of Commerce Representatives 8:25 P.M. - 6. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ' (ZOA); 96-0003- DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development E Code Sections 18.32.050 B.S, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication , requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. i ZONE: N/A. -APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning ' Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. - a. Council Discussion (hearing continued from May 14, 1996) b. Continue hearing to a date certain. x. - ~ ess v.m. 7. UPDATE: METRO 2040 Community Development Staff 9:25 p.m - 8. DISCUSSION: ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN - •1uvoLVEMENT TEAMS Community Devdap-ment Staff s 9-.SS P.M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - EMPLOYEE 9. UPDATE: COMMUTE OPTION PROGRAM Community Development Staff - y 10:10 P.M. 10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS III I - 10:20 P.M. Execut Executive EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into 11 - 8 . Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ( discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. This Executive Session is being held under the provisions e of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (h). As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting 1 may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. + - 10:30 P.M. _ 12. ADJOURNMENT ry , + - cca0521.96 r I 1 I j I i - .iAV AA A~AC -DA~G-~ ! GUUNUL AtOC1VU1A - 1v1/1 z G 1 1.7.~V K t i T I Y C = k Agenda Item N0. 3, TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meetingof (All)qltJ WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 10 I 1. WORKSHOP 'NIEET-Ml- 1.1 Call to Order City Council & Local Contract Review Board Meeting was called to order at 6:42 p.m, by Mayor Jim Nicoli 2 Roll Call 1 n r; . Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, Paul , Hunt, and Brian Moore. ; 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports - None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3 a City Administrator Monahan advised that he had an update on discussions with the owners of the Amber Food property. > Jack Polaris, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, asked what the status was on the contract between the Chamber of Commerce and the City on the Tigard Feed and Seed Store. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had not wanted to take any responsibility for G the building and left it to the Chamber to deal with. t Mr. Monahan explained that the City was involved solely in purchasing the back two-thirds of the property; the Chamber was purchasing the front one-third and discussing with the Johnson acquisition of the building. He reviewed the contract provisions stating that the t Chamber had the responsibility to remove or renovate the building, and that if the Chamber t chose not to build on the property, the City had the right of first refusal to acquire the Chamber's land. He said that they could provide a copy of the contract to Mr. Polaris. r j Mr. Polans asked for clarification on the document reporting the discussion at Council regarding Planning Commission and CIT responsibilities. Mayor Nicoli explained that the t r document was the staff report requested by Council stating the areas where the Council, the Planning Commission, the C1Ts, and staff agreed. Mr. Polans asked for clarification on the agenda item regarding $30 million dollars that h at King City and Durham have elected not to participate in. Mayor Nicoli explained t 1 rTTV rnrTNC7T. MF_F.TTNC MINiITFS -MAY 21, 1996 - PACT t I a >:i F (3 40 was the proposed County levy to remodel or add on to all the libraries in the County. Mr. Monahan explained that the document in the agenda packet was simply a draft because the Cooperative Library group has not made a decision yet on whether or not to propose a capital levy; that would be discussed at the meeting next week. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City had any obligation to pay for moving the Feed & Seed i building. Mr. Monahan said no, that the City had no obligation on the building. 2. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: APPROVE OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION (OPEU) CONTRACT Mr. Monahan reported that the Union has advised staff that the membership has ratified the agreement which Council accepted last week. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to authorize the City Manager to sign the OPEU contract. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes.") 3. COMMUNICATIONS: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Dan Gott, South CIT Facilitator, reported that, following the staff presentation on Metro 2040, many citizens expressed interest in followup discussions on exactly what it meant. I He said that some were asking if some of the 2040 goals were really pertinent to what the i 1 City wanted for the community. He noted questions regarding whether the plan was really planning or simply giving names to things that already existed (i.e., Barbur Blvd was s already a main corridor). Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that staff would follow up with the four CITs at their June meetings. Councilor Moore stated that hearing the CITs' concerns gave him a better sense of what the community felt about Metro 2040 in general. He noted that the results of the Metro open house showed him that citizens either strongly agreed or disagreed on the issues; there was no middle of the road. Mayor Nicoli noted that one of the problems with the 2040 documents was the lack of defined statements; no one knew what the terms meant. Mr. Gott reported that another area of interest in the South CIT was continuing the CIP financing to connect the trail at the end of Ash Street to the Fanno Creek trail Mr. Hendryx reported that staff would tabulate the results for the CIT questionnaire and bring a report to Council. y 4. DISCUSSION: SPEED HUMP POLICY Gary Alfson, Engineering Consultant, reviewed the speed hump program irnp!eme .t,w last year on three streets. He said that staff now had 45 requests for speed humps throughout v CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 2 i L~ 4 the city. He reviewed the methods used by staff to determine the effectiveness of the 4 program, including speed checks before and after and feedback from the adjacent property owners (74 % of whom supported the speed humps). He emphasized that while speed humps did reduce speed, they had no documented effect on traffic volumes. - Councilor Scheckla asked if they could track a reduction in accidents. Mr. Alfson stated that these streets didn't have many accidents. He noted that the City of Portland didn't even look at accident data when deciding where to install speed humps because they were not an ' accident prevention device; they were intended to reduce speeds on long straight of ways. Mayor Nicoli asked by how much were the speeds reduced. Mr, Alfson said that speed - - humps reduced speeds down to the effective speed limit which was 25 mph. Mr. Alfson pointed out the primarily positive comments received from the neighborhood survey asking for feedback on the speed humps (Appendix B, first page). He reviewed the comments received from the police chief and fire marshal]; though the police chief was strongly supportive, he did want the City to make sure not to install speed humps before the 4 neighborhood has gone through the police process first (neighborhood radar program). The fire marshall noted that speed humps did slow down response times and recommended limiting them to minor collectors and local streets, which was staffs policy anyway. Mr. Alfson reviewed Randy Wooley's memo listing the eligibility criteria for determining where to put speed humps and recommended staying with them. He noted that they have + changed the signing from one sign per hump to one sign at the beginning and end of a series of humps. Mr. Alfson stated that staff would take traffic counts on each of the 45 locations requested r r for a speed hump. He noted that some streets wouldn't qualify because of low traffic volumes, even if they had high speeds. He said that they would rank the streets in priority order after gathering the data. h ld i M Alf id h i li h i h t t ey wou r. son sa at t cont nue to so c t neighbor ood opin on on whet er or not to install a speed hump, citing the Summerfield neighborhood's preference not to have a speed hump as the reason why staff didn't install the proposed one last year. Mayor_Nicoli commented that the City had agreed to install speed humps as part of the negotiated settlement with the Summerlake neighborhood. He asked if they could use funds from parks & recreation to fund speed humps on roads that ran through parks. Mr. Alfson noted that he compiled the list to indicate traffic counts; it was not a `i prioritization of projects. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that speeds be measured at the most appropriate point on the street. He suggested that staff solicit' neighborhood input on where cars were speeding.' He cited the location of a measurement device in front of one of the islands on North Dakota as an example of an inappropriate location to take speeding data because one ! could not speed at that location. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 3 , - `1 Councilor Rohlf suggested that the evaluation criteria include weighting for volumes that were higher than what the street was designed for and for the percentage of non- neighborhood traffic using the road. Mr. Aifson commented that soliciting neighborhood input would add a lot of staff time. Councilor Rohlf said that when making a decision on a capital expenditure, it was worth more time to get it done right and to find out why the neighborhood was requesting speed humps in the first place. _ Mr. Alfson stated that he wasn't aware of any streets with overloaded traffic volumes. Councilor Rohif said that he was more interested in a weighting factor for non-neighborhood traffic. He noted that if the problem was neighborhood traffic, the neighborhood could deal - with it but they wouldn't be able to do anything about non-neighborhood traffic. Mr. Alfson reiterated that speed humps simply reduced speed, they did not divert traffic. G Councilor Rohif commented that he did not think that North Dakota would qualify under i this program. He contended that it should because it was supposed to be a neighborhood j street but the commercial area on one end precluded that. Mr. Monahan suggested adding a fifth priority rating for streets used for cut-through purposes, rather than making it a weighting factor. Councilor Rohlf reiterated that streets should be used for what they were designed for; if J it was being used as something else, then that should be taken into consideration. He said f that he was surprised that speed humps did not divert traffic because most people used cut- throughs to save time and speed humps slowed them down. Councilor Moore suggested having Mr. Alfson research this question. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that the situation on North Dakota might exist on other streets. Mayor Nicoll noted that North Dakota was a relatively unique street configuration in the city. Mr. Monahan commented that North Dakota traversed a short distance between two major roads; perhaps they needed a definition based on length. Councilor Moore suggested defining North Dakota as a short cut. Mr. Alfson asked how much weight should be given to the factor of a minor collector that served as a connection between two major roads. He briefly explained the rating system as currently set up.` Mr. Monahan suggested that Mr. Alfson review the rating system in detail and make a recommendation for a fifth category. Mr. Polaris asked if the City could be sued if an ambulance was delayed due to speed humps. Mayor Nicoll said that they have received input from the fire marshall. Mr. Alfson reviewed the budget for the program, noting that the funding source was the gas tax. He said that staff proposed a two phase project. The highest ranked projects would receive 100% City funding while the lower ranked projects would receive 50% City funding with the neighborhoods making up the lack He said that based on the preliminary numbers he received from the F_„-„c„ Director, t....y co,,,,, provide .rr5,vw for uie i007o projects E (15-22 locations a year) and $15,000 for the 50% projects` (12-15 locations a year). He noted that the revised numbers he received from Mr. Lowry were quite a bit lower. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 4 t. i f E y 4W 4WO Mr. Alfson noted that neighborhoods with such a low ranking that it would take years to get a speed hump, and who met the eligibility requirements, could volunteer to provide 100% of the funding themselves. He said that the City would oversee installation of any speed humps in order to maintain the standards for an improvement to a public right of way. Mr. Alfson said that the average cost for a single speed hump and signage was $2500, though they could get it reduced to $2000 if they did more of them. He said that the City would contract with a company rather than using city crews to construct the speed humps. Councilor Rohlf asked what the average cost was to do a street. Mr. Alfson said that they spent $30,000 on three streets last year for an average of $10,000 per street. However, the cost varied tremendously based on the length of the street and the topograohv. Mr. Alfson said that one criteria for 50150 funding was interest by the neighborhood. Staff would ask the neighborhood to put up half of their share of the funding prior to the bid and to pay the rest prior to construction. An audience member asked if the speed hump policy was designed for residential areas only. Mr. Alfson said that it was specifically designed for residential minor-collector streets with a 25 mph speed limit. He reviewed the additional criteria for speed humps. The gentleman asked about Main Street as a possible location. Mr. Alfson stated that Main Street was a primary response fire route and not eligible; he noted problems with the street width also. Councilor Moore asked how the list of 45 streets was developed. Mr. Alfson said that they went through the CITs who nominated streets. He said that staff would expand any specific requests if they determined that was necessary. Councilor Moore asked if the citizens would be required to use a city approved contractor or hire a licensed and bonded contractor themselves. Mr. Alfson stated that the City would hire the contractor in order to keep control of the project and to make sure that the project met the eligibility requirements. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Alfson would bring back a revised draft next week with possible Council action on June 11. I 5. UPDATE: TIGARD FEED AND SEED STORE PROPERTY John L. Cook, Chamber of Commerce, presented the update to Council on this matter. He reviewed the agreement between the City and the Chamber. The City will to purchase the back two-thirds of the property to turn it into a parking lot, and the Chamber will purchase the front one-third for a Chamber Office building. He reported that the Tigard Area Historic Preservation Association (TAHPA) (to whom the Johnson were going to j donate the building in order to get a tax break) backed out of the agreement on October 30, 4 1995. - - Mr. Conk reviewers the chanoec the Chamber wanted aaaan,-a._ W t L_ _-1GG__lll_eAt 11 _.UW li1._. ~ _ ,111C bb'dL i - # TAHPA has backed out. He said that the Chamber felt that it had a verbal contract with !t 07 the City and the citizens to create a building on the property that looked like a feed store, 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 5 i II ~J even though it probably would no longer be the original building. He asked that the clause speaking to the Chamber "renovating" the building be modified to read "renovate or remove the building." He asked that all references to TAHPA be removed from the agreement. Mr. Cook said that the Chamber intended to stand by all the agreements, including the City not taking any financial responsibility for removing the building from the site. The Chamber would still like to allow TAHPA the opportunity to remove the building and bear the removal costs for $1. He referred to the letters received from three contractors recommending that the building be removed and a new one built, now that the severe winter damage to the vacant and unmaintained building made it more expensive to renovate than to build a new building. Mr. Cook noted the Chamber's concern that neither of the parties that owned the land - owned the building. He said that today the Chamber received a letter from the Johnson giving the Chamber the right to do whatever they wanted to do with the building; the Johnson realized that they would not get the tax break they would have gotten with donating the building to TAHPA but were willing to settle for saving themselves between j $14,000 to $21,000 (the cost of removing the building). He noted that the Johnons were unhappy with having spent over $2000 to get the appraisal required to receive a tax break that they were not going to get now. He said that they had some hard feelings about how they were informed and brought into the agreement in the first place. T Mr. Cook explained that the appraiser set a value of $14,000 to $18,000 on the building z because the Chamber had intended originally to renovate the building; he doubted that it would be valued at that price now they were going to tear it down. Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not see any reason why the Chamber had to make the new office building look like a feed store. Mr. Cook said that the reason the Chamber was considering doing so was because of the expressed citizen interest in keeping a feed store building at that location. Councilor Rohlf stated that he did not think that Council should restrict the Chamber to any particular architectural design. Councilor Scheckla asked if they could document whether or not this building had any C _ historical value 4 on the last page), Mr. Cook said that the building was listed on the E _ City's historic register but not on the state or national registers. Mr. Monahan reviewed - the land use application process needed to alter or destroy an historic property, ~i Councilor Scheckla asked if another interested party could volunteer to move the building f I f elsewhere. Mr. Cook said that was desirable, noting that it would cost the Chamber [ 4 { between $8000 to $10,000 to tear it down. Councilor Scheckla noted that the property was located in an area not populated at night and asked if the Chamber had given any consideration to security. Mr. Cook stated that one of the contractors had noted that the location by a railroad and under a viaduct could pose a € security problem. The contractor suggested making the building as vandal proof as ; possible. Councilor Scheckla pointed out previous discussion on widening Tigard Street and asked t - L-j if that posed any problem. Mr. Cook said that it could but that he understood that the idea 777--- " of widening Tigard Street was a dead issue now. 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 6 III ~ ti F it J ilm Mr. Monahan commented that me only reverence to innrrr ui utc ag-........ way TAHPA had the right of first refusal to the building if the City chose to buy out the Chamber and dispose of the building. He said that leaving TAHPA in the document was not a major problem but that TAHPA had no standing and could be deleted. Mr. Cook reviewed the timeline of events. The Chamber planned to move the structure within six months and to put up a fence at the edge of the railroad right of way. He said that they would go into a fundraising effort in the next 18 months. Mr. Cook noted the considerations of working with the City on the timing of the half street improvements. - In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan stated that the deeds were received by the City Attorney's office iast Friday; now 'f`iat tie ;oh sons have determined who owns the building, the City could proceed with closing the sale and activate the agreement clause allowing 180 days to remove the building. Mr. Cook stated that it was the desire of the Chamber to proceed with closing the sale as long as their requested changes to the agreement were made. Mr. Monahan confirmed for Councilor Rohlf that there was nothing in the agreement that forced the Chamber to a particular design standard. He said that staff would closely examine the language of the agreement to insure that it was consistent throughout the document. He said that staff preferred to have the contract signed prior to closing the sale. 1 Don Meyers, New Shoes, stated that he had an interest in purchasing the property for his i J Main Street business. He asked that the Chamber make a commitment to move in a timely fashion to develop the property, pointing out that Mr. Cook said they needed to raise funds to build a building. Mr. Cook said that they had funds available to purchase the property and remove the building but not money to build a new building. Mr. Monahan asked Council if they wanted to include a time limit on how long the Chamber had to build a new building on the property prior to the City exercising its option to purchase, since Council's intent was to have a building on the front portion of the property. Councilor Hunt stated that he saw nothing wrong with putting a time limit of three to five years for completion of the building. He said he had understood that the sale needed to be completed just as fast as possible because the Chamber wanted to move onto the property as quickly as possible. Mr. Cook clarified that the reason for moving so quickly was Burlington Northern's desire to dispose of the property prior to merger discussions. Mr. Monahan confirmed that was the reason for the fast track on this purchase. He reviewed the time constraints on the purchase. Mr. Meyers asked if the vacant space could be utilized as a paved parking lot during the rh- m £ve vea_r nrri nd: Cnnncilnr Rnhlf asked who would nav for the paving. Mr. Monahan noted that the City would not own that land and that if the Chamber wanted to improve it, they would have to meet the City standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996'- PAGE 7 Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to take the position that the Council was not requiring any particular design standards to be met by the Chamber. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicol;, - Councilors Rohlf. Scheckla and 11unt voicd "yes.") Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct the City Administrator to rewrite the agreement with the Chamber and to move into closing the sale, without coming back to Council. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes. The Council discussed including a cap of five years at which time the City could exercise its right of first refusal. > At this time the Council listened to the report from Dan Gott, South CIT facilitator. (See Item No. 3) > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 8:30 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 6. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003- DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A.' and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. r a. Council Discussion (hearing continued from May 14, 1996) I' Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, reviewed the options available to Council in making this policy decision. They included to affirm the City's existing approach, to use the C regulations to take a more aggressive approach, or to back off even further. He said that it was a philosophical question on how aggressive to be with the regulations. i He said that the specific context of the ;decision was using regulations to protect areas that the City might use in the future for utilities, pathways, greenspaces, etc. Mr. Ramis reviewed the "automatic mandatory dedication" still used by some cities. - - - This was the most, aggressive approach and the most subject to constitutional scrutiny i - in light of the Dolan case. He noted the least aggressive approach in which a city CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 8 ~ y i~ identified where it wanted easements but did not require developers to dedicate land or implement setbacks to protect the City's right to use the land. Mr. Ramis reviewed the proposed amendments to 18.96.010 and 18.96.0100 presented in the packet. He explained that they were based on the City of Ashland's M aggressive policy to protect these areas without running the risk of constitutional violation by requiring dedication; this policy used setbacks imposed on a case by case basis. He noted that Section 18.32.250 authorized both what kind of conditions the City could impose and larger setbacks. He said that he was not advocath- - a any I particular approach but that the Council could adopt only page 1 if they did not want a~ to use the Ashland approach. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that the language placed the burden of funding the findings on the applicant. He contended that the Supreme Court made it the responsibility of the City to pay for the determination of rough proportionality. Mr. Ramis stated that though the City did the finding, the applicant was responsible for providing the raw data (the impact analysis) on which the City based its finding. The City did not have to prove for an applicant whether or not the applicant met the , City's discretional criteria. Mayor Nicoli said that the cost of an impact study was prohibitive for most small property owners along Fanno Creek. He said that asking an applicant to pay $10,000 to $20,000 to counter the City's finding was in effect "a taking" because z the applicant would simply dedicate the land to avoid the expense. Mr. Ramis stated that he did not disagree that there was a financial burden but that the source of the burden was not this amendment. He said that this amendment simply clarified the existing practice in the City. He said that the source of the burden was the abandonment of the "outright permitted use approach" in land use planning in Oregon and the adoption of discretionary criteria; property owners had t to prove that they met the criteria in order to use their land, and that placed an ° expensive burden on the property owner. , Councilor Rohlf commented that the amendments protected their way of life in the city, citing the lack of planning in small towns in Washington state as an example. He said that to relieve this burden for small property owners would also relieve it for large developers who were having `a significant impact on the infrastructure, citing potential development in the Triangle as an example. He stated that while he had no problems with the first page, he did have problems with the second page. Mayor Nicoli commented that his concern centered not around the "traditional utilities" but around bikeways and the wetland area along Fanno Creek. He noted ` that more residential property owners owned land along the Creek than industrial owners. He said that addressing the question of what type of property owners triggered the requirement might dilute some of his concern. Councilor Hunt commented that the Ashland proposal treated everyone the same, stating that the Dolan case claimed that the City had not been consistent in its treatment of applicants. He said that he did not think that they should treat this issue on a case-by-case basis but have a set of requirements applicable to everyone. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 9 1 - that Mr. Ramis did not make a recommendation on which course expressed concern l 1 caused the least amount of legal problems and was the most defensible. Councilor Rohlf noted that Mr. Ramis had made a recommendation at the previous _ meeting but that the discussion made it clear that Council was uncomfortable with the staff recommendation. He noted that the language in the amendments pushed the eft- constitutional limits, something that he wasn't comfortable with. He said t„ at he did not hint: it ;vas right to force the landowner to restrict building on his property to accommodate City speculation that one day it might want to use the land. Mr. Ramis addressed the Mayor's concern about the adequacy of public facilities. ' He stated that this was already a policy in the Comprehensive Plan and Code; it was driven by the state requirement that a jurisdiction insure that development be accompanied by an adequate level of facilities. The language simply made explicit what was already implicit in Tigard's Code. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he understood from the Dolan decision by the Supreme Court that it was the City' responsibility to show rough proportionality. He said that the property owners should be able to look at the City's findings first and say whether or not they agreed with it; if they did not, then they would do the impact study to counter the City's findings. Councilor Rohlf disagreed. He said that the applicant would end up doing studies on their own anyway. He stated that he did not see this as that big of a change to the current procedures. Mr. Hendryx noted that the language did broaden the requirement to include items YM1 defined but not specifically required currently. He said that the language was much more specific as a result of the Dolan case. Mr. Ramis commented that the Supreme Court said that the government had the burden of proof if requiring dedication, not that the government had the financial responsibility to develop the evidence. He reviewed the three ways to pay for the p evidence: the government paid for it out of general fund revenues; the government paid for it out of fees generated; or the government asked the applicants to submit p the evidence. He reiterated that this language said that the staff would continue the practice used in the past in which the applicant supplied the fundamental data with which the staff worked. Mayor Nicoli asked if this requirement was applied to all applications received. € E Dick "Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, stated that it applied to all applications received by the City. Councilor Moore asked how this differed from the current process. Mr. Hendryx said that it was more specific about the kind of response the City wanted from the applicant. j Mayor Nicoli noted that the language allowed the staff to add more requirements FF 3 than the minimum specified. Mr. Ramis reiterated that the staff could do that now F based upon the Code. i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, iyyo - PACE iu - r e , L 'm L.Z~, Mayor Nicoli spoke for the City taking responsibility to develop a trade off for the properties along Fanno Creek or other creeks. He said that he thought it was appropriate for the community to pay for bikeways along a creek if that was what the community wanted. He said that he separated the traditional utilities from the pathways. He said that he thought people got nervous when they perceived the City as taking land for parks. Mr. Monahan commented that the Mayor saw a philosophical distinction between public facilities as a way of conserving the commercial/industrial development and their use by residential citizens. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not feel that parks, bikeways or footpaths were for the commercial/industrial user. He said that residential developers tended not to have a problem with bike paths running through their developments. He contended that taking property for a path or easement on commercial/industrial land was "crossing the line." Councilor Moore stated that he felt that pathways were as important to industrial areas as they were to residential areas. He conunented that he could not get from I one side of Tigard to the other on his bike because the bike paths didn't run all the way through the city. Councilor Rohlf noted that the bike path on the Dolan property had been a negotiated tradeoff to other things that they hadn't wanted to do. He said that he j didn't think that the public was well informed on the Dolan case. Mayor Nicoli asked how much an impact study would cost the property owner. Mr. Bewersdorf` said that it depended on the applicant's plan. He said that if the City's th ff d l ' en sta s property, icant on the app pathway plan showed a proposed path locate would expect the applicant to provide an analysis of the dollar value of the pathway area versus the impact on the development. He pointed out that staff usually put a time limit on the City's option to purchase land that they wanted for a pathway; if the City didn't move on it within a year, then the City lost the easement. Councilor Scheckla stated that he had no problem with Exhibit A, page 1. Councilors Moore, Hunt and Rohlf concurred. Mr. Ramis stated that the second page was a departure and pushed the regulatory process beyond the current limits. Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought it was unfair and that he would pull the whole 4 page. Councilor Moore stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission in having a philosophical problem with page 2. Councilor Scheckla asked if page 2 could be modified. Mr. Ramis stated that the fall back position was not to adopt page 2, and to rely on existing Code language for j more setbacks. { Councilor Moore asked if that was a bad position or simply a softer position. Mr. Ramis stated that he thought it ran the risk of inconsistency, though if they were careful they would be consistent. He said that it was fair to look at the issues on a case by case basis. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 11 i Councilor Hunt asked which language created the most work for staff. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the new language would give staff another tool to require wider setbacks. He noted that the Planning Commission had been concerned about . the less of the ivscr- vod lauu iu the developers. Mr. Hendryx commented that using setbacks as reservation lines was not an uncommon practice in the Metro area, though it did have an impact on the buildable portion of the land. Councilor Moore said that he had a philosophical problem with tying up buildable land that the City might or might not use. Councilor Hunt said that if they were trying to build a system of paths through the area, then they should protect the available land to avoid having to buy the land back at a higher price later on. He said that he would favor the new language. Mayor Nicoli said that he would oppose the new language. Councilor Rohlf said that if the City knew that they wanted the land in the future, then they should give the owner something for the land now; the City ought to be buying the property in these cases. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Rohlfs comments. s Councilor Moore noted the sentence about the City reserving the right to negotiate a strip of land along the flood plain for city use. He questioned whether the word "negotiate" left it too wide open to interpretation. f . The Council discussed ways to notify the property owner prior to application that the g City was interested in putting a pathway through their property. Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not intend that the City would have to buy F ` - the land every time; if they could work a deal with the property owner to dedicate the land as part of a trade off, that was fine. Mr. Ramis commented that a property owner who offered to dedicate land at the T time of his application received a tax break for that donated land; he lost the tax break if he had to dedicate as the result of an imposed condition. It was helpful for property owners to know in advance of their application if the City wanted some of the land for parks or paths. . ` Mayor Nicoli suggested identifying the areas of interest around the city. He said that he would modify, his opposition if a plan map showed where the areas of interest to the City were located so that property owners could know in advance if their t property was affected. Mr. Bewersdorff said that a consultant was finishing up a map of the overall transportation system showing all the proposed parks and pathways as part of the transportation system update. . . rvrTv rrnfI CI MEETING MINUTES *.IAV 21 7906 - PAGE. ii - - - - ~ 1 1 1 i The Council discussed language for page 2 that would clarify the Council's intent. Mr. Hendryx suggested pulling this out and treating it as a separate document when - the map was completed. It would be a softer position. Councilor Rohlf commented that a position either to buy the land or trade with the developer was completely different than a position of holding the developer up on using his land. The Council agreed by consensus to pull page 2 and modify the language. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to June 11. 7. UPDATE: METRO 2040 Mr. Monahan announced that Mike Burton and John Fregonese of Metro were coming to - next week's meeting to discuss the framework plan. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff was in the process of reviewing the "frozen" draft of the 2040 Urban and Growth Management Functional Plan, the implementing arm of Metro 2040. He reviewed the Metro timeline of an MPAC public hearing on the draft on May 29 with action scheduled for June 12 and adoption by the Metro Council in September. Mr. Hendryx reviewed Nadine Smith's memo listing issues for the Council to consider. He distributed to the Council the questionnaire given to the CITs last month. He said that it was a good exercise that generated a lot of dialogue. He noted the comments made by the Council and community, listed in the letter. r Mr. Hendryx asked for Council direction to staff to prepare a letter based on those ext week ti MPAC h . mee ng n e comments to present at t Mr. Hendryx noted the issues of concern in the memo: governance and local control, r Metro setting the population and employment numbers that local jurisdictions had to use to revise their codes to Metro's standards, only one representative on MPAC for all the small cities in the area, lifestyle densities, and housing types. Mayor Nicoli commented that the densities in the older neighborhoods in Portland would not change much; the rural areas were proposed to take the big density changes. Mr. F' ! t 1 Hendryx concurred. He noted that currently Tigard bad a maximum density requirement but no minimum density requirement which meant that developers could build as few houses as they chose to on land zoned for a much higher density. Mayor Nicoli asked how the densities Metro was asking Tigard to take compared with t. neighborhoods in Portland. ' Mr. Hendryx said that the densities were probably similar t " because they were talking about 5000 square foot lots. I Mayor Nicoli commented that Metro defined "quality of life" solely on the basis of ( delivering utility services to people (including a connected road system). He questioned that as the definition of "quality of life" for Tigard. He noted the greater security in the Tigard t, from violent crime as opposed to the situation in Portland where people were not safe. He contended that what Portland had was not better than what Tigard had and that Tigard did not want the problems that came with the higher densities. CITY COTTNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21. 1996 - PAGE 13 C . _ s r e - x f Mr. Hendryx said that he would not defend the plan. He stated that Metro was trying to balance a variety of issues, including meeting RUGGOs standards, maintaining the UGB, making transit work, and stopping suburb sprawl. Mayor Nicoli commented that people moved to the outlying communities for something that Portland could not offer them. He asked if they were not missing the point by not addressing the issues that quantified their quality of life. Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought that cities addressed maintaining quality of life while complying with Metro's plan at the implementation phase of 2040. Mayor Nicoli asked what happened if Metro's plan came into direct conflict with the items citizens felt they needed to maintain their quality of life. Councilor Rohlf commented that they had better be ready to go to court. Councilor Scheckla asked how they knew if Metro's way was the right way. Councilor Rohlf stated that it didn't matter; Metro's way would be the legal way. He said that he was interested in the Visioning project as a way to react to 2040. He disagreed with Councilor Scheckla that by the time they got through the visioning process, Metro 2040 would be a done deal. Mayor Nicoli commented that it could be a done deal but that the visioning would help them ask for exceptions to the rule. Councilor Rohlf commented that Metro put together their goals and plans for the future based on input from a public that had been no better informed than Tigard citizens were today. He said that only now that they were heading into the implementation phase was the public getting informed on what was really going on. Mr. Ramis reviewed the process used by Metro to determine the density targets. He said that local jurisdictions would have two years to meet those targets. He said that he viewed the exception as a very narrow process that was not designed to create flexibility. He advised adjusting densities now rather than later. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on requiring a minimum density. Mr. Hendryx stated that Tigard was 650 units short of the target, a nominal amount. He said that they had to build to within 80% of the allowed density for a development. Mayor Nicoli commented that a lot of their future growth would come from Bull Mountain where unfortunately the county has allowed sprawl to occur. He noted that there was a lot of land there that would qualify as sensitive,_ unbuildable lands. He postulated a development of 40 acres, of which 10 acres were unbuildable and asked if they had to meet the density requirements for the 40 acres or for the 30 acres of buildable land? Mr. Hendryx stated that he would have to check with Nels who had done the work on this; he could report back next week. III}' Mr. Hendryx noted the discussion on page 2 under "lifestyle opportunities. He explained that the Growth committee was reexamining the assumptions that went into the population CITY COUNCIL MEETING M1NU'-YhS - MAY 21 1996 - PAGE i4 ~ ~ v y t and employment numbers and tweaking the rtambers; consequently the numbers a jurisdictions were responsible for could change. Mr. Ramis pointed out that there was no process for another round of examination by the jurisdictions of these numbers that changed because the assumptions changed. He cited the struggle over whether to expand the UGB by some 12,000 to 15,000 acres to accommodate C"9 projected densities or to maintain the UGB (adding only 4000 acres) because the cities said - they could accommodate the densities. He stated that there has been no recomputation by the cities of what they thought they could do based upon the new assumptions. He said that the City could ask that no use be made of the numbers until staff has reviewed the assumptions. Mr. Hendryx said that because they haven't seen the numbers or the assumptions, they couldn't interpret it for the Council. Councilor Rohlf commented that a practical impact on the planning process of meeting the currently zoned densities was a narrower granting of variances to the zoning requirements in the future. In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr..Hendryx stated that the unfunded mandates issue was starting to be addressed in this plan but that it was still unclear as to what it meant. t Mayor Nicoli commented that he had projected a cost of $200,000 a year during an earlier b xr discussion. He said that he has since learned that Beaverton projected $1.5 to $2 million `t dollars a year for the next two years. Mr. Hendryx commented that Beaverton was undergoing periodic review and might not be able to separate out those costs from Metro. Mayor Nicoli commented that the amount of staff work generated by the Metro mandates i sx had to be paid for out of the general fund; the cost would not be offset by developer fees. He said that he thought Metro should be asked the question of where they would find the x money to pay the cities to implement their regulations. Mr. Hendryx noted that the transportation issues and standards were in flux. Metro relied heavily on transit and the suburbs didn't have much transit. He noted a conflict between - ODOT and Metro designs, citing ODOT's identification of 99W as a six lane facility and Metro's designation of the same road as a four lane facility. He noted the lack of a funding mechanism for the final design. Mr. Hendryx said that he would have Ms. Smith revise the memo based on Council's comments this evening, specifically noting that new assumptions needed to be calculated in and the need for an estimate of the amount of money for unfunded mandates, "Y I ' Mr. Ramis commented that the process was so far along that making generalized comments about issues would not have much impact. He suggested focusing concerns on a specific k request and requesting an amendment through a letter and then recruiting support from other jurisdictions. 1 Mr. Monahan noted that the new draft Metro sent out (which would be based on the comments received on the frozen draft) would have undefined terms filling in a lot of the w - f nil 7TATl~TT. L.TTST: TTM WATMTTTRQ _ T1iTAV 911 1109[. _ PAC;V 1S COUNCIL MEETING F { ~t I ~ plans. He suggested getting a commitment from Metro that jurisdictions would have time to respond to the changes. Mayor Nicoli concurred, noting that he did not think Metro has worked any reworking of the draft based on public comment into their schedule. I Mr. Ramis reiterated that Council needed to ask for specific requests: Mayor Nicoli m commented that there were many undefined terns and statements in the document that they could make specific requests on. „ Mayor Nicoli noted that another issue was the "big box problem." Metro did not want - retailers with more than 50,000 square feet; most of the grocery stores built in Tigard over the past five years would be designated as "non-conforming uses." Mr. Hendryx clarified that the big box only applied to mixed use employment areas such as existed along I-5 and in the Triangle. Councilor Rohlf asked if the argument was over the size of building Metro was specifying or over Metro regulating the type of building the City could allow. Mayor Nicoli commented that in the suburbs they put a lot of different uses under one roof er 4 rather than following the urban pattern of smaller buildings with fewer uses. He said that suddenly designating so many stores as "non-conforming" rubbed him the wrong -way } because that designation would create problems for the owners when they wanted to make changes. s Mr. Ramis commented that they had found it odd that the documents claimed to provide for flexibility but in reality specified exactly how to design a retail building. Mr. Hendryx stated that it was difficult to understand what the specific standards actually meant. Councilor Rohlf said that he thought that local jurisdictions should have the right to tell people what they could or could not build. Councilor Hunt concurred. ! t Mr. Hendryx said that staff would come up with specific amendments to address the concerns Council expressed and present them next week. 8. DISCUSSION: ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS f This item was continued to the next meeting. 9. UPDATE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - EMPLOYEE COMMUTE OPTION PROGRAM This item was continued to the next meeting. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS t > Amber Foods property - - CTTY rnL1Nnn MAF 1 iNC. MINUTE C 21 100 °AvF iv MAY - - 1 _ F i F f 1 A Mr. Monahan reported on his discussions with the buyer of the Amber Foods property and Greg Harrold, the real estate broker. He stated that the buyer was very interested in d f h l ' or an ase s situation in needing to purc working with the City. He reviewed the buyer tax reasons. He stated that the buyer had included in his lease agreement with a potential tenant a buyout clause for $20,000 if the City wanted to buy or lease the property. He reviewed options available to the City to use the land or the building. He stated that the City did want to move fast on this and give an answer to the buyer within a month. Mr. Monahan informed the Council that staff would brainstorm ideas on the options available to the City. He said that after the WCCLS discussion next week, staff would have Uu i - I a better sense on a cooperative county bond versus an independent city uo„u LV. 'm .=,,,u=y. The Council discussed options in this situation, including an option to buy and fill the wetlands in order to gain another five acres of valuable buildable land and offering to pay ' the mitigation costs for USA and Metro on the park land they have set aside for mitigation. ' Mr. Monahan noted that the staff needed to develop options because of risks from some of the ballot initiatives that could affect their ability to do this. > In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan said that he and Kathy Davis, City Librarian, have discussed the WCCLS bond situation and different ways they might be able to compromise with Beaverton. > In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Monahan reported that the County has indicated an interest in paying half the cost of acquiring the land at Walnut, Tiedeman and Former. i > Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the letter regarding the hot air balloon festival. Mayor Nicoli explained that he had written a letter of concern at the request of the Festival because next year the Portland Rose Festival Association was considering moving the Airshow to a different weekend. If they did that, then Tigard would likely lose the balloon festival because they would have to move it to a different weekend to avoid holding two major Rose Festival events on the same weekend; the balloons were on a circuit and could only come to Tigard on the scheduled weekend. i > Mr. Hendryx reported that the RFP for the Cook Park Master Plan has gone out. Staff would hold a meeting on Thursday where consultants could get an update on what the Task Force members expected in the Plan. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder M , City o Tigard' Date: ~~c c f:\recorder\ccm\ccm05 . -6 r i i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PA F. 17 t - ~ r s f - ~ `i " { a z r -z c§ t 1 MEMORANDUM C ~ - ~ ARCJ ~ _ ~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON OREGON - r Tne Candy Zodrow fray FROM: Mike Mills/ i DATE: May 21,1996 , SUBJECT: Tentative Agreement Ratification Vote i 3 _ % OPEU Local 199 union members have voted and their ballots have been counted. The revised Tentative Agreement as recommended by the union bargaining team has been approved. trr rNwT r.. S" yk Please proceed with ratification by the Tigard City Council. I " sA f , r ~ 4 S ~ i _ L L - 3 {~~asv-. F a'., ..C'S 'T ~vzc } r 'F` 4l~wa P~ l 41, f f W~ - - A t ~ ~ { L T 7 4 f I x Z 1 A i. q`°.. _ ^ 7-`• ~ ~ t X31 `f t j ! 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 yFE In, d ^ T ~ Y. -~fit t _ f - -Ir 3 i - _ A .^-a- s..,.~....,..-.-.~-... a'~ "---°',~"~_~-rT~-•~~'-s -s-fir--'• '~~..~.,~--Ef'C3"~•-s^~`~--~~- - _ 1) ED DATE: May 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Speed Hump Program With the installation of speed humps on three streets last year there has been an increase in the desire by citizens to have speed humps installed on their street. Through the CIT process, the Tigard Traffic Calming Task Force, and individual requests we have generated a list of 45 locations for speed hump instillations. The list is enclosed in appendix A. Feedback To determine the effectiveness and popularity of the speed humps installed we compared the speed and volume of vehicles before and after. We also solicited feedback from the adjacent property owners, the Police Chief, and Fire Marshal. The results of this survey is enclosed in appendix B. In general the speeds have been reduced in almost all locations but volumes have not been affected. The neighborhood feedback indicated that an average of 74% of the adjacent property owners still approve of the installation. A majority of the comments received thought that the humps should be more severe. The Police Chief indicated that the number of speeding complaints has decreased substantially and the speed humps have not hampered response times. He stated that all other [ measures to reduce speed should be tried before the speed humps are installed. The Fire Marshal {f states that any impediment in the roadway slows their response time however, they understand the need to calm traffic and suggested restricting the locations to minor collector and local streets.' Based on this feedback I believe that the speed bumps were effective in reducing speeds and that we should continue with additional installations. In January the proposed standards and the criteria for eligibility and ranking for speed humps was presented to the Council. No objection was raised. The standards are similar to those ut;l; e+ throughout the Metro area and I do not recommend modifying these. The signing of each speed bump in a series of speed humps can be reduced provided that the street is straight and uniformly graded and the speed humps are uniformly spaced. Public awareness of speed humps has increased SPEED HUMP PROGRA;Nt - XIEMO PAGE t such that signing of the beginning of a series of speed bumps is all that is required. The height and striping should not be modified. The eligibility and ranking criteria are relevant and fair and I endix C l d S . app ose ee enc recommend staying with these. It is our intention to measure speed and volume counts on each of the streets requested for speed humps in order to compile a complete ranking. However, based on the number of streets, we could _ not physically complete this work in time for this report. We have divided the list into three groups depending on the estimated ranking of high, medium, or low and we have begun the speed and volume counts on the high group and will proceed through the medium and low groups. Due to the number of streets and the time required to rank all the streets it will take at least four weeks to complete the data gathering. Therefore, we do not have a specific list of streets that qualify for _ speed humps at this time. We should be able to complete this work in time to put a project out to i bid this year. The process for determining eligibility is outlined in the January memo to Council. The neighborhood should show enough interest to participate in the citizen radar program to become eligible. The streets should also meet the criteria outlined in attachment # I of the January memo. Of the streets nominated only a few have utilized the radar program. Recommended BudEeL In order to determine how much should be budgeted one must consider the impacts to other projects and priorities within the CIP while being responsive to the desires of the general public to j calm traffic. The list of streets requested would require an estimated 175 speed humps. This total 4 backlog to install speed humps on every street on the list is approximately $430,000. I The speed humps are funded from the Gas Tae fund. This fund has many more project demands than it has a supply of funds for. The budget for speed humps has been proposed as a two phase system, one for the highest ranked projects which would receive 100% City funding and one for projects with high neighborhood interest but a lower ranking. The lower ranking projects are proposed for 50% funding by the City. I recommend we budget $45,000 for 100% City funded projects. This amount will provide for 18 to 22 speed humps to be installed. 1, also, recommend that we budget $15,000 for streets in which the neighborhood agrees to pay for 50% of the cost. This would provide for 12 to 15 speed humps to be installed. This would enable more than twice as many speed humps to be installed this year than last year. Based on this budgeting, all the current requests could be completed in four to five years. I believe this is a good balance between being responsive to the public and considering the needs of other projects in the CIP Gas Tax Fund. The streets to be funded 100%o by the City would be the highest ranked streets. The ranking would ' f nominated and if traffic patterns change on an existing be updated every year as new streets are streets. E i The remaining streets which meet the eligibility requirements can apply for the 50%o grant. The j neighborhood shall be required to have a petition signed by over 500,10 of the residents in the t I SPEED HUMP PROGRAM - MEMO PAGE 2 , c . A immediate vicinity of the street to receive speed humps and must provide 50% of their share of the funding to become eligible. Once the project is approved, the neighborhood must provide the remaining share of their funding prior to construction. If more projects are approved for the 50% grant than the budget allows, the ranking shall determine which projects will be constructed. Neighborhoods that have nominated a street which is eligible for speed humps but is not approved for 100% or 50% funding by the City may provide 100% of the funding. The street must meet the same eligibility requirements as all other approved projects and must be constructed by the City. 1:ENG\GaryA1CIP-?dMD0C 1 31 i t=; ~J i SPEED HUMP PROGRAM -!MEMO PAGE ; r ~ i~ l +I p _LOCATIONS WPE F SPvFi1 HiTAipS H lVV u~FN n.-n~TFS~ i (In alphabetical order; no priorities assigned) - (Some locations may not qualify for speed humps) _ 79th Ave. at Ashford St. 87th Ave. between Oak and Locust St. 88th Ave. between Durham Rd and Hamlet St. ~s 88th Ave_ north off Sattler St. c 90th Ave. between Greenburg Rd and North Dakota St. 92nd Ave. between Durham Rd. and Cook Park 98th Ave. between Sattler St. and Summerfreld Dr. 104th Ave. south of Durham Rd. 106th Ave. between North Dakota St. and Black Diamond Way 115th Ave. between Gaarde St. and Former St. 116th Ave. between Walnut St. and Katherine St. 128th Ave. between Walnut St. and Winterlake Dr. 132nd Ave. between Walnut St. and Benchview Terr. 135th Ave. between Walnut. and Lauren Ln. i Alderbrook Dr. between Durham Rd. and Sattler St. r Alderbrook Pl. between Alderbrook Dr. and Alderbrook Dr. k f Ann St. between 121st Ave. and 116th Ave. f F; -J F Ash Ave. between Frewing Ct. and Fanno Creek Baylor SL between 69th Ave. and 72nd Ave. Benchview Terr. between 132nd Ave. and Bull Mountain Rd. ; Cherry . n Ave _ ova iu u . Commercial St./98th Ave. between Main and Greenburg j APPENDIX A jl n G ! f i t ii i -i Essex Dr. between Lauren Ln. and Boxelder St. Fanno Creek Dr. between Bonita Rd. and Hall Blvd. Grant Ave. between Johnson St. and Walnut Ln. Hillshire Dr. between estri W dge Ters. and Mistletoe Dr. a f Katherine St. between 121st Ave. and 115th Ave. - Lincoln Ave. between Greenburg Rd and Commercial St. Locust St. between Greenburg Rd and Hall Blvd. Millen Dr.between 92nd Ave and Copper Creek Dr. Mistletoe Dr. between Hillshire Dr. and Benchview Tea. North Dakota St. between 115th Ave. and 121st Ave. North Dakota St. between 121st Ave, and Springwood Dr. S Oak St. between Hall Blvd. and Greenburg Rd k t Serena Way between Durham Rd. and Grimson Ct. i Springwood Dr. between North Dakota St. and Summerlake Dr. Spruce St. between 71st Ave. and 78th Ave. , Summercrest Dr. between North Dakota St. and 121st Ave. f = ;a Summerfield Dr. between 98th Ave. and Durham Rd. [ l Summerlake Dr. south of Scholls Ferry Rd. Tiedeman Ave. between Walnut St. and Tigard St. Ventura Dr. Ct. between 72nd Ave. and Alfred St. Walnut St. between 135th Ave. and 139th Ave. i Winterlake Dr. west of 128th Ave. W 1'E~G G{FYA S2"BII(FS DOC APPENDIX A L s t ~ I - z - =a f t 1' a gt~ z, ttl ~x x~ --a'' -i l „3'S' av` rae`z 4~ a ` z - t -a r rr ''vim`' y3,. A.*~?4tT` . d % AV, _WU ~-Igir "M ~k 51 U T _ Arlllil~ Neighborhood Survey - Request For Feedback Fx 4 s` a " i 3s The City is considering installing additional speed humps on other streets u a r%pga "4yr: in Tigard. As part of our evaluation we would appreciate your feedback 2 OWN on the speed humps installed on Springwood Drive. g Were they effective in reducing speed Yes O No O xd. ;„pU# F 1t 5.... were the- effective in reducinn volume Yes 17 No E3 pa ~i`~, 'z ' "W -i Based on your past experience with the existing speed humps, if your street did not have speed humps, would you want them q . installed. Yes 0 No O " i RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS: x R ' ZWK w U '4 ac a s a' INE Ilk PLEASE RESPOND BY MAY 10, 1996 y - A } } F'Ea ~ 4 S "rfy~ ~q fz," g~xa 22 r APPENDIX B :.a 3af k~ i -w-77 ,=777 ffil€ s g'%,es 4-rz ~rh z>x' f u - rte. 1 a '4 fz+" i ~L'`r5a-~"~ Aa.a ~e~'`- y, t - t 'a, - -->F.s,s"t''" -j% QYIN nT~~-' -:1r7 'E`' y X ya s5 7. x _ x a {F*„ - s"Ys j F - y!t+33('...~F ~I y" f T~-- r ,c is _ , F ` }i r k, z"',c„~- d`~r ;d3,G a G1• ry - ZT;i-la t-. t - t _ y. ',4S~.rs fl 1 ~c? = w F ? .`'_-~'tR.-+t- rv,.-'• r-="~sr--~`-'y-._ ~ y i "-'Y'^.m ~,^g n"~r z ~ r +[*s~-~-~- ~ ~ j 0 M . c. Z as ~ a Q W IR on N v u u v ~ N > O .u > C.. GO W y' OD G C ~ c> 0° C. GO W C. W G U GO W _NC F GOE S I q~ N F ~ t i k _ O Z 1 r 1 f i ill t i i 1 COMMENTS FROM 78TH AVENUE Install Requests Responses Reduced Speed? Reduced Volume? Install Again? again? Sent Received YES NO YES NO YES NO 30 14 ]Q 4 'IQ 4 10 4 YES More intermittent police patrol of the street for speeders who continue to exceed the posted speed limit. Particularly between 3:30pm and 4:30pm week days and randomly erk- ^d^ befi-re neon and mid aftemnnn, YES Place Humps closer. YES About 4 - 6 inches taller would be the ticket. YES Should have been closer together. Drivers speed between humps. _ better. ~ five would work bettI YES We have 3 "humps" on our 3 block long street. Many of us feet fi e , Also the design of the hump is such that once you go over 30+ MPH, the bumps gets less not more. I've been over others in Washington that get worse and worse as you go faster and faster. I believe that much of the traffic goes slower and the flow is somewhat reduced. However, the people who love to speed continue to do so, and if they have good suspension on their cars they seem to "fly "over the speed humps at speeds estimated from 30 - 50 MPH. In the morning and late afternoon when people Pot drive through our street to and from work, l feel about half the drivers are going slower. At other times of the day & most noticeably over the weekend, about 80 - 90% of the cars now go slower. YES Use yellow paint, not white. Use larger speed limit signs as was requested on 78th at north end near Spruce St.) YES We could still use occasional policing for speeders. f ' k NO Put a sign up saying "Neighborhood Traffic Only" i =I ~ NO Remove the bumps. They were a waste of taxpayer's monev. The traffic speed hasn't F , changed. The bumps were not put where we were told they were going to be put. Cars k t have "turfed my lawn to get around them. You wasted my tax money and it sounds 1 like you will continue to do so by installing more. a i NO The speed bumps should have been bigger. The bumps installed are too soft. f f 1 r . i f z i ffff t APPENDIX B PAGE F r 1$ r k r a µ s -QAbI,PWW -map, i COMMENTS FROM SPRINGWOOD DRIVE Install Requests Response Reduced Speed? Reduced Volume? YES NO Install Again? YES NO t>~ { again? Sent Received YES NO - f 37 22 17 5 17 5 14 3 YES instead of putting up Bump Signs - Write it on Road-Signs in Residential Area don't seem to fit. YES Raise the height a little more so the speeders really feel it and won't speed over it again! I've noticed that over time the speed is increasing. Perhaps a patrol officer once in a while would keep the speeds down. Overall , the speed and volume of cars has been reduced. Thank You! YES They were not constructed to full height or they should be about an inch higher. Some rt vehicles still go over them at 35 mph+. -1- YES There are 10% of cars that will not obey any restrictions; however the other 90% of - cars have slowed their speed greatly. It has provided a greater sense of comfort because our children are safe ! Thank you so much for asking for our response! YES Make them higher. 5 YES Post police cars to monitor speeder. k YES Bring them all the way to the curb. Some people go over them with two tires between # the bump and the curb. - YES Make the bumps sharper, not so wide. Many people just fly over the existing bumps. The money could have been used more effectively. YES I think there are great. tp NO We had more accidents on our street. Due to people slowing down for bumps and k some don't therefore rearending the person in front. Car Insurance are I think our CC money should expense repair street. NO j Steeper gradient, too small a slope. i APPENDIX 'B PAGE3 - t-' l M _ COMMENTS FROM WATKINS AVENUE Install again? Request s Responses Received Reduced Speed? YES NO Reduced Volume? YES Install Again? -y-ES NO 60 40 :-30 10 '18 22 26 14 YES Need speed bumps at 12900 or at 12905 Watkins Ave. Plus center line or divider line made white or yellow on Watkins Avenue. Existing bumps should be higher. They are not high enough. YES Need bumps smaller for bigger jolt - yellow line also would help. YES The effectiveness of the bumps would increase if you made them sharper, they decrease nothing the way they are now! YES Bigger bumps maybe. YES Only make them larger like Portland's speed humps. YES The speed and volume are only slightly reduced, but could have been more if the humps were just a little bigger. YES Would like two more as the curves don't slow people down E YES Berg Watches at 99W, stop cut-through traffic. YES Watkin's speed traffic is from 7:00 to 8;30am. starts again at 4:30pm through 6:00pm. Know the bumps are helping. Thanks! Saw a police in pursuit of a speeder turning onto Park St. today, YES No problem, except I have to mow around the speed bump sign now. It's good!! Thanks!! You guys give me goose bumps!! YES Need the rubber kind so won't have to redo every year. Watkins street needs to be redone - almost flat now. YES Watkins needs one more speed hump to slow traffic going up/down the hill and around the curve between Watkins Place and Derry Dell Ct YES Make speed bumps not so wide and a little higher. People still race over them. I think if they were thinner and higher, people would have to slow down more! NO They are very noisy and dangerous when speeders fly over them. They could lose control. Recommendation - more police coverage. ~ NO J 66 The speed bumps have only increased the noise level on the street. They have encouraged more reckless driving as drivers "speed up" for the bumps. i NO ' SCTIT C ENFORCE, I APPENDIX B PAGE 4 1 COMMENTS FROM WATKINS AVENUE !^=wl! R-^ses Reduced SN:.ed"- Acuucni Voiume? Install Again? again? s Received YES NO YES NO YES NO Sent 6-0 40 30, T 10 is 22 2b. 14 NO They speed up - slow down for the bumps - then speed up again - noisier. ( NO They're a pain to have to drive over all the time. NO I think they need to be more and closer together. Cars are still speeding and the bumps just make the street noisy. They don't slow many people down. NO Watkins has several pickups, campers and vans that park overnight on or partly on the street - a definite hazard! NO Enforce the speed law, as was done on Tiedeman. NO Longer wheel base cars like a cadilac's have to slow to 10 mph. I NO Some enjoy the ride over the bumps. Some go too fast. It is hard to say what improvements would be better. ' NO Remove bumps so it also doesn t disturb us in our homes each time someone goes over the bump with a bang. Find a new way to get traffic from Beaverton area to 99 South. Maybe Murray Blvd could go straight to 99S. I: } I i f is r - 1' ENGGAAY.MSPED.alP DOC APPENDIX B PAGE 5 L- F .s"!'~ a •n M - ' FROM: Gary Alfson DATE: May 17, 1996 SUBJECT: Speed Hump Installations ' As part of Tigard s traffic calming program, speed humps were installed on 78th Avenue, Springwood Drive, and Watkins Avenue in the fall of 1995. There is a strong public interest to install more speed humps on several streets in Tigard. \Ve are requesting feedback from each neighborhood and from emergency responders to formulate r guidelines for future installations. I would appreciate a written response expressing your opinion r on the pros and cons of the speed humps. • Should speed humps be installed on several more streets? • Do they reduce speeds or create a road hazard? , • Do they substantially impede emergency response? ` • Do you have any recommendations on how they could be improved? I • Is the signing and striping adequate, or excessive? ' Also, attached are the proposed eligibility criteria for streets to receive speed bumps. Any f comments you may have would be appreciated. t , If you could respond by May 8th I would appreciate it. I need to make a Council presentation on the 14th and your input would be valuable. ' } I ~ - 1'FGGwA'SOm9lie DOC . I. . , J APPENDIX B r ~ r ! rr t n r . i From: "RON GOODPASTER" < FINANCE/00859 > To: Bill Date sent: vVed, 8 May 1996 08:48:24 +0000 Subject: Response - Speed Bump Issue This information is in response to your request for input...... We have talked with all our shifts and there does not seem to be an issue if speed bumps work, they do slow traffic. The only concern is that the criteria for placement be strictly followed and that a . before BUMPS go in all the other measures are taken.. ie.. tri-star count, neighborhood meeting, accident and traffic complaint review and neighborhood speed watch done and that the streets that get bumped remain to be secondary, residential, 25 MPH zones. There is no appreciable'delay in police response because of "bumps". Patrol further suggested the islands be removed on N.Dakota, West of 121st, and be replaced with bumps, they are seen as less hazardous than the wa"' existing islands and will do a much better job of slowing the traffic. y The best feature of the bumps is that they have eliminate speeding ' complaints in the areas they have been installed. r Ron Ron ` ~ P 4 t k . APPENDIX B ~ f , } 3 4 ~j OS/13/98 11:28 '&503 528 538 TV FIRE KJLRSHdL Q002/002 If I i MEMORANDUM Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and Beaverton Fire Department j TO: DIANE JELDERxs CITY OF TIGARD j FROM: JEFF GRUNEWALD FIRE MARSHAL 1 SUBJ: SPEED BUMP INSTALLATION DATE: MAY 13, 1996 j i First I would like to thank you for your consideration of emergency response requirements as they relate to speed bumps. I Your eligibility criteria for speed bump installation poses no immediate concerns for us. The fact that speed bumps will be limited to minor collectors or local streets will limit the impact on response times. I would, however, like to point out that any impediment in the roadway slows our response times. The fire district prefers clear and unrestricted access. We also recognize increasing demand to calm traffic. As far as speed bumps go, the longer and flatter speed tables have a less dramatic effect on fire apparatus. Again, thank you for your consideration and please call if you have any questions. 44 6 MEMORANDUM r CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer - - - DATA: January 9, 1996 - SUBJECT: Speed Bump Program ~ s In 1995 we completed the speed bump trial program on three streets. Neighborhood reaction has i _ been quite positive and the bumps appear to be reducing the speeding problems on the three streets. y - It appears that the trial program was a success. However, the bumps are not the solution for all - - traffic problems. They were quite expensive to install and they are a concern for fire response vehicles. They need to be used with care as one tool to address traffic concerns. A number of residents have indicated an interest in having speed bumps installed in their ty Y neighborhoods. This will surely be an issue for discussion as part of the capital improvement , program update this spring. In preparation for the discussion, I urge the Council to adopt some guidelines for speed bumps and to review the process used to select the streets where the bumps will be installed. r1 1 Concerns- k It seems that every neighborhood has concerns about speeding. However, actual speed studies by Engineering and Police often reveal that drivers are not going as fast as the residents think they are. Most of our streets do not need additional speed controls. On the other hand, a few of our residential streets do have a significant speeding problem and these are where the speed bump program should be considered. Experience in other cities shows that the speed' bumps are of no value on streets where drivers are already traveling close to the speed limit. Speed bumps are always a concern to emergency response agencies, especially fire marshals. So I far, our fire marshall has not objected to speed bumps because we have used them only in a few locations and on streets that are not primary fire response routes. However, in Portland, where they - have had a speed bump program for several years, the fire bureau is becoming quite concerned about the number of speed bumps and other traffic-slowing devices that also impede fire response vehicles. Portland is now restricting the number of locations where speed bumps will be used. They require that all less restrictive measures (citizen radar program, police enforcement, signing, f etc.) be tried first before speed bumps will even be considered. i , ~ r. APPENDIX C ~ f> I t7 tti_ r ~i - The speed bumps are expensive to install. They divert funding that is also needed for other programs such as pavement major maintenance and construction of sidewalks. Finally, I have some concerns about the process that was used last year to select the priority streets. F After watching the process last year, it appeared that the speed bumps went to the neighborhood ® with the most residents in attendance at the critical CIT meeting. While the streets selected last year were appropriate streets for speed bumps, I am not comfortable that the process would always lead to such a good conclusion. Recommendations: 1. Adopt some eligibility criteria. To help citizens to focus speed bump requests on appropriate streets, some eligibility criteria are needed. All the other cities I have talked to have such criteria. In addition, I am recommending that citizens show enough interest to participate in the citizen radar program before applying for speed bumps. The citizen radar program may be effective in itself and it helps to collect the data needed for evaluation of the eligibility criteria. It is also an excellent way for residents to learn the true extent of speeding problems on their street. j Attachment #1 shows my recommended criteria, modified slightly from last year. I am not recommending that speed bumps be prohibited on steep hills. However, I caution that most cities 1 do not use the bumps on steeper streets. I would try a limited number of bumps on a steeper street v and monitor the results through a winter season before funding any extensive speed bump program s on steep streets. 2. Adopt some criteria for prioritizing projects on a citywide basis. { I think that project nominations should still come from neighborhoods and CITs. However, there needs to be a more objective method to select the top priority projects and to allocate the limited - funding available. l { Attachment #2 shows my recommended criteria Fundm2• The capital improvement program currently does not show funding for the speed bump program after the current fiscal year. If the program is to continue, funding must be identified in the capital improvement program update this spring. . . F - I I ' rne/bumpprog APPENDIX C j z - w ATTACHMENT #1 PROPOSED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SPEED BUMP PROGRAM To be considered for the speed bump program in Tigard, a street must meet all of the following criteria: Speed: The posted speed shall be 25 mph or less. The measured actual speed of vehicles using the street shall show an 85th percentile - speed at least 5 mph over the posted speed. Classification: Only minor collector or local streets will be considered. The abutting land uses shall be primarily residential. The street shall not be a primary fire response route. The street shall have no more than one lane in each direction for through traffic. Alignment: Bumps shall not be installed in locations with horizontal curves of radius less than 300 ` feet. I k' Bumps shall not be installed in locations with restricted sight distance. Diversion: Bumps shall not be used if they are likely to cause a significant increase in the traffic volume on another street. Exceptions will be made if it can be shown that the diversion is a desirable. impact (for example, diverting through traffic from a local street to an arterial). Neighborhood participation: A street will be considered for the program only if other less restrictive speed control ' methods have been tried and shown to be ineffective. As a minimum, citizens should work with the Police and Fnvineering Dprnrtmrntc rhrnuoh thr r,r,7Pn rnAar nrna . m _ - r-- - - ----o° - -.t---- - - i _ similar program before consideration will be given for speed bumps. t . -bumpaai t M i APPENDIX C m , . Ri- I ATTACHMENT #2 ' PROPOSED PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR SPEED RUMP PRO AM Eligible projects will be assigned a priority rating as described below. The location with the highest priority rating number shall be given the highest priority for funding. The priority rating number shall be the sum of the following four factors: 1. Speed: Enter the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the posted speed. m 2. Traffic volume: Enter the average weekday traffic volume divided by 1000. w ~ t . - rs . __cciu"cnu ts. Enter ci the - average mui •-'uwu_-._uauL w°_ of re^" ...yu....~ ,,,,,,.,.ed accid',,..O over the pact five u^', over the past ) - - . years. f 4. Sidewalks: Enter one point if the street has no sidewalk nor paved shoulder nor t pathway for pedestrians. If pedestrian facilities are in existence, enter zero. nvibumpsatL r I f h ' r' N I k " k - a 1. ' APPENDIX C s {CF t ; t 4. ' -;ire 'w. .urv xW , sw•~ .i$"G':~-+ i _i i i i SPEED BUMP OPTIONAL (TYPICAL) 100' DESIRABLE 5 12 COLD PLASTIC W260 CENTER OF TRAVEL L4NV- COLE) PLASTIC 50' r ~L P rY ~ AI_ ICAL JA ~S'-~ CENTER STREET- r 1- 50' B CENTER OF TP.AVEL LANE W260 _ 2 100' DESIRABLE B OPTIONAL i Section A-A o 6 co a o to co r, N fV N !V O 1' 1' 1' i' r r PARABOLIC CROWN Section B-B (WIDTH V RTES) TAPER CITY OF PORTLAND STANDARD CLASS D MIX OR CLASS C MIX CURB FACE ` ~TAOKCOAT C I URB DETA L CITY OF CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON PORTLAND STANDARD TITLE OF STANDARD PLAN CLASS TAPER'r D X OR CLASS C Mlx 14' LOCAL SPEED BUMP - SHOULDER APPROVED TE TACK COAT STANDARD SHOULDER DETAIL FOR STREETS CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER PLAN NO, WrrHOUT CURBS APP DATE 3,181 CITY ENGINEER SIG WORKNTM-PEEDBUMRSMANDAROSPECS="4 d - jx--c i S AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of et CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Feed and Seed Store Update PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OKLt4V;V1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce has been weighing the options and costs associated with acquiring and renovating the Feed and Seed Store for office space. The Chamber Feed and Seed Store Committee will report to the Council on the results of iL3cir sta.,a-~• and 'he s ..ta_r..,~c of the oroiect. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council hear the report of the Committee's representatives, John E. Cook and John L. Cook. F The City and Chamber have entered into an agreement to purchase the pro perry from Burlington Northern Railroad y which is the site of the Tigard Feed and Seed Store. The Chamber assumed responsibility for acquiring the = existing building from Mr. Johnson with the intent of reducing the size of the building, moving it to the Chamber w portion of the land, and renovating the reduced building into Chamber office space. Lease conditions applicable to the store require that the building be removed upon discontinuance of the feed store operations. Thus, the Chamber plans to assume Mr. Johnson's obligation of moving the building away from the railroad tracks and to L - allow reuse of the property. kV The Chamber has solicited quotes from companies qualified to move the building, evaluated the condition of the structure, considered structural needs of the building, and evaluated storm damage that has ' occurred since the building was vacated by Mr. Johnson last fall. Chamber representatives will report to Council on the results of the ' ; analysis and present a planned course of action. The anticipated closing on the underlying property (from Burlington Northern) has not been concluded. [ OTHER ALTERNATIVES ON ID .RED T _ None. _ FISCAL, NOTES None. f u } \c tynvidcNSUM%Fedscd.doc 1. V7777 t _ ...S~ _ _ r - a TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMAERCE C~X~IC ^ u~1Y1 L . .J CITY OFTIGARD (Y' MAY 21, 1996 J ~1JVt.t J - John L Cook, Tigard Chamber Representative s i • UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS OF FEED STORE PROPERTY " t - • CHANGE AGREEMENT WITH CITY • TIMELINE OF EVENTS (APPROXIMATES) T , 1. Give option for someone else to move building - 30 days t s 2. Move and/or remove structure off of City property - 180 days 3. Put up fence for railroad right-of-way - 180 days 1 4. Fundraising effort - 18 months °*~r M 5. Completion of project - 30 months j r • COMMITMENT TO 1/2 STREET IMPROVEMENT AND FENCE WITH CITY 1 i I y^ 1. Cost savings 2. Timing of projects - utilities k P K - 3. Will have our engineers talk ~ a vv t _ , j 1 - 71. T~ { ![i M K AGREEMENT REGARDING PURCHASE AND USE OF FORMER BURLINGTON NORTHERN PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made the2Aday of September 1995 by and between the Cit , , y of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation (the "City") and the Tigard Area Chamber of h Commerce ("TACC"). This Agreement is made with reference to that certain joint offer (the " " ' Offer ) made by the City and TACC, dated August 31, 1995, by which the City and TACC 3 r offered to purchase certain real property (the "Property") from Burlington Northern Railroad. In order to give full effect to such offer, and in order to describe with certainty the relative duties and responsibilities of the City and, TACC with regard to the Offer, and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, and other good and valuable i cons ukradon M.Cipt of wiucii is aciviowieagm, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: rr7 1. TACC agrees to purchase the front approximately 1/3 of the Property which is the subject of the Offer located on the comer of SW Main and Tigard Streets in Tigard, Oregon _ for the sum of $25,000, as recited in the Offer. In conjunction with delivery of the Offer to Burlington Northern, TACC agrees to pay a purchase price of $25,000, of which $5 000 shall , be deposited with Burlington Northern as earnest money in accordance with the terms of the Offer. The balance of TACC's purchase price shall be paid to Burlington Northern at closing, 2. TACC agrees that it will move a building presently located on the Property, subject to Burlington Northern Lease OE 1238 d cu l d an rrent y use as a feed store (the "Building"), onto that portion of the Property to be purchased by TACC. This move shall take l ithi 8 ' p ace w n 1 0 days of the closing of the purchase of the Property. After completion of the move, renovation of the Building, and the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy forahe Building will be the responsibility of TACC, at its sole cost and expense. Such renovation and the grant of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Building may take place after completion of the P • - m ove. The Building does not constitute part of the Property, but is owned by the current tenant of the land lease described in this Section 2 . F 3. In the event TACC does not perform its obligation to move said building in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to purchase the portion of the Property purchased by TACC for the sum of $25,000, j 4. In the event the City of Tigard shall exercise its right to purchase the portion of the Property from TACC, the City may retain ownership of the entire Property, or dispose of one or both portions thereof, as the City in its sole discretion shall determine. i 5. If, and onlv if. both nortions of the Reoperrv are sold b the C r --fte pp r y j 1 - AGREEMENT REGARDING PURCHASE AND USE OF FORMER BURLINGTON f s NORTHERN PROPERTY i ' t p t*_ I t y~ a buted first to r of its right described above, the proceeds of the sale of the Property will be distri the City of Tigard in full reimbursement of its land purchase price and improvements and to TACC for reimbursement of actual interest paid by TACC in relation to obtaining funds for the transaction described herein and represented to be at the rate of 12% per year; the next $5,000 of the proceeds shall be paid to Downtown Merchants Association in compensation for the contributions of said association; and the remainder thereof shall be distributed to TALC, up to the amount paid by TACC for the original purchase of the land plus the actual cost of improvements made on the Property by TACC. After the distributions described above, the remainder of any proceeds from the sale of both portions of the Property shall be divided equally between the City and TACC. In the event the Property shall be sold at a loss, the City and TACC shall bear such loss in proportion to the amount paid by each toward the purchase price and cost of moving the Building. 6. In the eveni the City . e. s -:gh*,to purchase a of the prof = ft cm TACC, TACC agrees that it shall, at ~TACC's own expense, remove the above-described Building from the Property if the City shall so direct. However, the City and TACC agree that, in tbe.. event the City shall exercise its right to purchase said portion of the Property, both the City and TACC shall grant to the Tigard Area Historic Preservation Association ("TAHPA") the right to purchase the subject Building for the sum of One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00) or the full amount paid by TAHPA to TACC to purchase and/or remove the Building, whichever sum is greater. As a condition of such purchase, TAHPA shall be obligated to move the Building to another site not located on the Property at its sole cost and expense and TACC shall be fully relieved of such obligation. 7. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto to assist in giving full effect to the Offer and to comply with all conditions placed on acceptance of the Offer by Burlington Northern Railroad. 8. Time is of the essence of each provision of this Agreement. i 9. TAHPA is expressly made a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement, but solely to the extent that TAHPA shall have a right to purchase the Building from TACC pursuant to i Number 6 above, and move it to another site, with such right to purchase and being at the price described in this Agreement and on terms acceptable to TACC and the City, and with such purchase and move to be completed within 180 days of the City's acquisition of the portion of the Property previously owned by TACC. 10. This Agreement and the Offer constitute the complete agreement between the parties with regard to the acquisition of the Property,' movement of the Building and the 3 respective rights of the parties with regard thereto. This Agreement may only be modified or c 2 - AGREEMENT REGARDING PURCHASE AND USE OF FORMER BURLINGTON NORTHERN PROPERTY i amended only by subsequent written agreement, executed by authorized representatives of both parties hereto, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and date first above written. nNy f City of Tigard Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce / j t - . - AK V40 E By: C1oraWomVijW4~mberaj4 j I I ? rgard Area Historfca1 & hvservation Association l- October 30, 1995 Mr. Fc Mrs. Hal Johnson F 10615 S. W. 42nd Ave. - Portland; OR 97219 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Johnson; u For the past year, our organization has endeavored to find someone who was interested in preserving the Tigard Feed Store building, either in its present location, or at a different site. Unfortunately, we have been unable to accomplish this, due in part to the actions of parties l h sl. r, t e beyond our control. The Chamber of Commerce has slated that they want to remode building for their new office space, but have yet to put forth plans to that effect. Their actions to date, indicate that they do not plan to maintain the historic integrity of the building. -ate ~ z After discussing this matter with legal council, we have come to the conclusion that since we do - - revent tl destruction of the building, or the action to ke an ki t t h h b d x p y ng a ac o s or t e e fun not have t h e the loss of it's historic integrity, we regretfully have no choice but to decline your donation of t Feed Store building. y I cannot speak for the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, but since they are actively involved in purchasing the land, and since they have expressed an interest in using part of the Feed Store l building in their plan for a new office, you may be able to deal with them directly. t We hope that you understand our position in this matter, and we deeply regret any inconvenience E. this may cause you. Sincerely, . ~ ~ss. ll;ary President, TAIIPA cc. Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce ' City of Tigard Administrator ' t = -n - e Moog IrYganl Area Historical & htservatio» Association October 30, 1995 S. Carlovn Lonu Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Dear S. Carolyn; Enclosed, is a letter addressed to Mr. & Mrs. Johnson, owners of the Tigard Feed Store, with which, we are declining the donation of the Feed Store building. The Johnsons are anxious to conclude their ownership of the building, and were hoping to do so by the end of October. Unfortunately, the progress of the land deal with the railroad is such that it may not be concluded until early next year. Since our organization has not been kept apprised of any ongoing development in the Chamber's j plans, we had to rely on information at hand to decide whether to accept the donation at this time, or release the Johnsons from our agreement so they might seek other interested parties at their ' discretion. j Since your plans, as we understand them, will alter the historic nature of the structure, and since taking possession of the building at this time might expose the Historical Association to financial liabilities should the City of Tigard and Chamber's land deal with Burlington Northern Railroad not conclude satisfactorily, it was decided that TAHPA should decline the Feed Store donation, and concentrate our resources on projects which meet our objectives. I We realize that this action also releases the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce from any agreement made with the Historical Association, concerning the Tigard Feed Store building. We sincerely hope that the Chamber will, in good faith to the citizens of Tigard, complete their publicly stated goal to preserve at least a portion of this building for posterity. Sincerely, try President, TAHPA cc; City of Tigard Administrator s f I TI ,i i C I Ham, P.O. Box 2301 30 i TIGARD. OR 9723 1 _ (503) 639.6237 J. I i May 1, 1996 S. Carolyn Long Executive.Dircctor Tigard Chamber of Commerce 12420 S.W. Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Tigard Feed Store n { Dear S. Carolyn: At the request of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce we have again reviewed the Tigard Feed Store located ited the Feed Store the Johnson's were still i i me we v s at 12355 S.W. Main Street, Tigard. The last t the space. Lots has changed since then. It was a good opportunity to seethe rest of the building in ccu Th g o py e since it is nearly empty now. Unfortunately what we saw (and smelled) was not very appealing. The day we were there I couldn't tell if it ti x ng. building over the last few months has been taking a real bea utside or if the drops were just bigger. The roof has some serious leaks th id y e an o was raining harder ins t have not helped the interior wood. Much of the unprotected wood inside the building has swelled th a begun to decay due to the moisture problem. In some areas the floor is so full of moisture the floor has the humidity inside the building is doing as much i d ays ng warped and buckled. I suspect that even on dry the leaks on rainy days. Other than fire not many things damage a building as fast or as bad as ' damage as t Without tearing the building apart it is difficult to tell how much of the structure that we can water can. Much of the building that we might have been able to save during our previous ed as well a d i j . g am see s visit is no longer salvageable. t Though the idea of saving the Feed Store is a noble idea, it is our opinion that about the only thing left to save are photos and memories. Sincerely, f j lac Rae 4 t J President r - ~ 1 l 1 1- i I { arland enderson onstruction 3 ' t2°.^,.Q S. '"uc hwy. X29 - Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639119 I ~ May 10, 1996 i S. Carolyn Long Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 ' RE: Demolition of Tigard Feed Store in Tigard, Oregon 'i j Dear S. Carolyn: In support of constructing a new office facility for the Tigard Chamber, I offer the following sound u z objectives in support of the demolition and removal of the Tigard Feed Store. This building has no true merit. In my opinion, there are no advantages to retrofit it for an _ office facility. As a feed store, it was neglected and has needed serious repair for several years. The lack of a heating and ventilation system has added greatly to its degeneration. By not having a real i l ti heating system to dehumidify and circulate the air, the building has become laden with dust and sat with airborne chemicals from the storage of hazardous herbicides and pesticides. To I Y r convert the use to office from agricultural, much of the existing surfaces will need to be either covered, sealed or completely encapsulated, making many, if not all surfaces, unusable. p` Even though the building was built with reinforced frame members, the overall condition is = poor, weathered and worn. Due to the time lapse, from business closure to present date, the { structure has deteriorated even further due to the extreme weather conditions as of late coupled Y _ i with the lack of proper heating and ventilation to dry it out. The exterior drop-lap siding is not water I- tight, especially on the southwest faces; the windows are beyond repair, the roof needs to be tot 1 < replaced. ! { The building was set on individual posts, on top of the ground, that were above frost line and have been heaving ever since it was built. Today's building codes require foundations to be a minimum of 18 inches below grade to prevent the movement of ground heaving problems. r i I .F f I ~R Unfortunately, this building will need to be moved from its original foundation on the railroad easement. This will further weaken the main structure. There exists no seismic bracing which would leave the building more out of plumb, square and level. i This building was never plumbed, wired or fire protected properly. No advantage of existing utilities exists. i Ms. S. Carolyn Long Executive Director Tigard Chamber of Commerce 1242 S.W. Main Tigard, Oregon 97223 1 i Dear Ms. Long: This letter. is to report the findings of my inspection of the "Tigard Feed Store" building on May 10th, 1996. At your request, I inspected the building to consider the feasibility of relocating ' the building and restoring it to be used as the new Chamber of Commerce office building. Please review the following brief report and conclusions regarding this project. 1 Building Description - Wood frame construction. Poorly braced for seismic and/or wind j conditions, { - Concrete pier footings without a perimeter foundation. No apparent seismic restraint. - Raised wooden floor. Uneven with water damage. Appears to be I{ subject to fertilizer, chemical and/or oil spills. - Floor beams may be undersized for the spans as built. Will need 1 structural review. ! Wood siding with blistered paint. Some siding is damaged and it is very brittle. This will require new matching siding which may be a custom mill product. j - The metal roofing is corroded with loose fasteners. It is very loose in places and it could present a threat to surrounding i property or persons under wind conditions. Roofing will need to be replaced. It is 'leaking badly and is causing damage to the i roof structure and floors. - The roof structure is a combination of wood rafters and trusses constructed on site. The rafter spans may exceed, the maximum spans for the size and, grade of the lumber. (This will need ! inspection by the structural engineer to determine the grade and 4 stress rating since it appears to have not been graded at the mill.) The roof structure and spaced board sheathing does not have shear bracing. f ~ t 7235 SW Bonita Road • Tigard, OR 97224 • PO Box 231026 • Portland, OR 97281 • Phone 503/639-5151 • Fax 503/620-6005 r I Page 2 I'D - The building needs gutters, downspouts and connection to the - storm sewer. J - The windows are not insulated and they are poorly sealed. 1 Several are broken. New custom windows or inside storm windows will be required. mot; - The doors will require .^.;ajnr reworking or replacement. If reworked, they will not be energy efficient and they will need - - - - f considerable routine maintenance. - The building is not insulated and it will require ceiling, wall and floor insulation. Some of the exterior walls have interior j sheathing which will have to be removed. - The building will need to be completely rewired. 1 - The building will need to be completely plumbed. The existing sink drains through the floor onto the ground under the building. (You should investigate under the building to determine if f chemicals or pesticides exist where the sink drained. - There isn't any existing heating or cooling system currently and this will be required along with ventilation. Work required to relocate and upgrade to the current code requirements. - The building must be jacked up and moved. _ - Requires new foundation and floor structure modifications. Requires public water, sewer, storm sewer, electrical service along with telephone and natural gas service. , - Entrances and doorways must be modified to meet the ADA F I t: requirements. The entry may require a ramp. - Requires new restrooms designed to current ADA standards. ¢t n - Require seismic upgrades, siding, insulation, interior sheathing u along with interior partitions and modifications . - The south and west sides will require siding and structural work . i after the sheds are removed. - New electrical outlets and lighting will be required to meet the current codes and/or to make useable as an office i . - The wood floors will need to be leveled, sealed or replaced. The chemical odors must be removed. Floor coverings, base mouldings will be needed to provide a`workable envir t onmen . - The existing roofing will need replacement. 'Seismic and shear b ac r r ing o , plywood maybe required. Damaged or rotten framing will need to be replaced. :Additional rafters along with framin g` clips may be required. , - Cleaning, scraping/pressure washing and priming will be required - " prior to painting. Extreme care will be required to blend the ne m i t l wi h w a er a s t the existing materials. i other finishes such as millwork, cabinetrY, dropped ceilings. fixtures and related items will be re uired to l t " q comp e e the interior. = The site will require parking, sidewalks, landscaping and half the, street improvements. ~ , - a J t J , + 1 r Page 3 j Conclusion - This is a very interesting project and a noble cause, but I question the feasibility. While it may be possible to preserve a portion of the building at a great expense, it is doubtful that it will be possible to fully 1 meet the requirements for a functional office or Chamber of Commerce Center. If the existing building is utilized, it will need to be substantially changed to meet the current codes and requirements for use as a public office building, I am. --!so very concerned about the possibility of chemical odors remaining in the building after it is remodeled. If you want to look into this project in greater detail I recommend that you assemble a team consisting of an Architect, Structural Engineer and Environmental Engineer /Analyst to thoroughly inspect, and analyze the building. If you decide to relocate and renovate the building, I expect the costs to be 200% to 300% of the cost of new construction. My conclusions are based upon my 17 years of general construction and renovation experience. Please contact me if you have any specific questions regarding this report. Sincerely, SABRE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY John Boutinen ' Building Consultant JB/krw E r } i F:\JOHN\CITYTIGD.REP t i 1 AGREEMENT -A This Agreement is made as of this e o -day of May, 1996 by and between Harold A. j I Johnson ("Owner") and the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce ("Chamber"). I RECITALS: Whereas, Harold A. Johnson is the current owner of the Tigard Feed and Garden Store located at 12355 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 ("Building"). Whereas, The Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce is in the process of attempting to purchase a portion of the land upon which the Building is Icxdieu. - Whereas, Owner was lessee under that certain lease dated December 18, 1959 between Oregon Electric Railway Company ("Railroad") and Owner, which lease provided that upon the termination of the lease, it is Owner's responsibility to remove any improvements to the land at Owner's expense. i M Whereas, Owner and Chamber desire to address how to move or remove the building in the event Chamber becomes one of the owners of the real property upon which the Building is located. - NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: f k j 4 1 Owner grants to Chamber any and all rights to move, remove, alter, or otherwise dispose f of the Building, if Chamber becomes one of the legal owners of a portion of the real property upon which the Building is located. i Owner agrees to cooperate with Chamber, if the Chamber needs any further written f assurance by any political or governmental subdivision in the moving, removal, alteration, or disposition of the property. Owner hereby represent- A arrants. 1) Owner holds good and marketable title to the Building, free and clear of restrictions on or conditions to transfer or assignment, and free and clear of liens, , pledges, charges, or encumbrances. 2) Owner has taken no actions that would give rise to the creation or imposition of any valid lien, charge, or encumbrance on the Building. 3) There will be no material leases, employment contracts, contracts for services or maintenance, or other similar contracts existing or relating to or connected with the operation of the Ru-ildinaa. j 4) To the best of Owner's knowledge, the Building is not listed on any historic _ register of any federal, state, county or local governmental or quasi-governmental agency, such that the moving, removal, alteration, or disposal of the Building would be prohibited. 5) To the best of Owner's knowledge, (1) there are no Hazardous Materials ; remaining in the Building, (2) there were no spills of Hazardous Materials in the Building, and (3) that any Hazardous Materials removed and/or disposed of by Owner were done in accordance with all laws and regulations. "Hazardous Materials" as used herein means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR §172.101), or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 CFR pt 302) and amendments thereto, petroleum products, or other such substances, materials, and wastes that are regulated under any applicable local, state, or federal law. The parties agree that this Agreement has no force and/or effect if the Chamber does not acquire any of the real property upon which the Building is located. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties sign this Agreement as of the date above written. OWNER CHAMBER Tigard Area Chamber.of Commerce By: Name Title: i t - k - rF-77 f[ , x ~r Olt- r AGENDA ITE v[ For Agenda of ` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUNIMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Ordinance Amendment (7OA 96-0003) Dedication Reservation and impact Study Requirements PREPARED BY: Dick B DEPT HEAD OK AI I, CITY ADNIIN OK ISSI IF BEFORE THE COUNCIL eho-Wid the rite Council approve amendments to the Development Code pertaining to dedication, reservation and impact study requirements to address "rough proportionality" and to protect the ability to construct trails and manage drainage and open spaces without difficulties related to structures? i 1 STAFF RECONTNIENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments shown as Exhibit ":A" to the attached ordinance. I INFORMATION SUMMARY To address the results of the United States Supreme Court case Dolan v. City of Tigard, the City Attorney's office drafted development code amendments. The proposed amendments require that an impact study quantify the 'ect of each development on public facilities and services. The impact study would be required as part of the submittal requirements of each development application. In cases where the code requires dedication of real property interests. the applicant would be required to concur with those requirements or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the dedication requirement is not roughly proportional. j I The proposed amendments also include language to permit reservation of land for park, utility, green-way and storm management and to measure setbacks from greenway/floodplain reservation areas in order to protect the ability to construct trails and manage drainage and open space %wthout difficulty related to structures. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the code amendments on April S. 1996. The Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend that the Cirv Council adopt die portions of the proposed amendments requiring the impact study and adoption of findings of rough proportionality. The majority of the Commission in attendance { was philosophically opposed to the proposed new language (18.96.0 10 and 18.96. 100) permitting reservation of. land projected for fitrure acquisition of parks or utility systems. This majority felt that the reservation and increased setback requirements could be an unfair restriction of a property owner's development rights. Attached is the staff reporr to the Plannino,Commission and the proposed ordinance including Exhibit `.A" the proposed amendments as drafted by the CityAaomey*s office. i 1. Adopt the recommendation of the Plarnur._ Commission to adopt only the provisions related to the impact studies and rough proportionalin- findings_. f t s ~ `J I CITY OETIGARD, OREGON r" I ORDINANCE NO 96 - _ " AN ORDINANCE TO ~ AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMbi UJM TY DEVELOPMENT CODE. BY?.DOPTING.REVISED SECTIONS 1832 050 53;18 32250 E.2,1896 010 A= AND 1896100-A f '&c.B. TO:ADD DEDICATION; RESERVATION-AND IlVIPACT STUDY REQUIREiVIENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES:' WIIEI2F1S,ythe'City of-Tigard:finds,it_necessary,to revue ahe Commun,rv`-nP Pt t C d r penomcaiiy to improve the operanogand unplementahon of the Code and ' y y~ _ WHEREASi , he`U S Supreme Courtrendered a June 24 1994 decision concerning uncompensated _ talattgs and the need tolushfy detl~cation conditions by showing a rough proportionality to the impact of j F+ d ve a cpmeng and x k ti~ i EvILRF4~ the d' of r,g-nt Piammpe Commission reviewed proposals for rev Sinn thP'hove Code , Sections atapubhcheanng on Apni 8~'~1996 and r', , , ~VI REAS, the CityofTig"aid Planning Conunission voted tb recommend the revised Code Sect ions as shown in Exhibit"A and - i ' WIIEREAS the City Council held' a public` hearing _on May J4 1996 to consider the proposed amendments NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAIN1 S AS FOLLOWS I -SECTION 1 The` proposal is consistent with all relevant^criteria as noted below. i The relevant criteria in`this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of Tigard. Comprehensive Plan Policies I.1.I.a. and c_, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 . and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findines: 1. Goat 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its ado ted j p citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance cu~c & < 11=1 gs was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions J and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven davs prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. ORDINANCE No. 96-- Page 1 i 2. Goal 2. Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development f, Code requirements in review of this proposal. I 3. Goal 11. Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12 Transportation, are met because the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of public facilities and services, and transportation facilities in a more timely, orderly and efficient manner to provide defined levels of service improvements determined to be necessary by studies showing specific facts and findings for each development to be consistent and "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: - 1. Policies l.l.l.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are r consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help n to keep the development code current with local needs and recent case law. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. { 3. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these i policies call for development control of tloodplains and greenway areas and these , provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and m need for improvements. reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. _ d. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 3, Transportation which ;call for ensunne that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City' standards. The proposed a changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are `roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. Communiry Development Code Section 13.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code chanties is satisfied accordins to the above findings. - - f - - t SECTION 2: Communityv Development Code Chapter 13.32 and 13.96 shall be revised as shown in c , - i Fxitibit a;:: 1 may:.'. SECTION This ordinance shall be efTzc:ice 30 days after its passage b} the Council. signature by the i / Mayor. and posting by the Cin' Recorder. { i ORDINANCE No. 96-_ Pale r _ " I. R ~ PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Qb APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 1996. CM James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: ~ K City Attorney T Date c ORD[\A-NCE NO. 96-- _e P ~f r i EXHIBIT A DEDICATION, RESERVATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CONINIUMTY DEVELOPMENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underlined. 18.11M Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal ofan.Application A ~..5 Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services The study shall address at a minimum the tr~mpQrtation system including bikeways the drrainaee system. he parks sy em. the water system. the sewer system and the not impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of s impact. the study shall propose improvements neressa_rv to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at ^1 large.public facilities systems. and affected private property users. In ~l situations where the Commu ily Development Code requires the dedication of real propea interests- the applicant shall zither specifically concur with the dedication requirement or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real prope;3v dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. E.? Conditions may include, but are not limited to; T a. Minimum lot sizes;CC b. Lareer setbacks: l ( C. Preservation of si--mficant natural features: and d. Dedication of easements M hen a condition of approval requires the tramfer to the public of an interest in real pro? eny the approval authonty shall adoptfndings which supgon the conclusion that the interest in real propem to he transfer-red is rou~_LL_otaaorionaLro the E - r impact The proposed development,.viil have on the:2uhlic ~ n:ii-tIBIT A -PAGE 1 - DEDICATION. RESERV aTION AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDNIENTS TO THE DEVELOPMEVT.CODE (ZOA 96-0003) a DEDICATION, RESERVATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 13 OF THE COINLMUTNITY DEVELOPNIENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underimed. 14 96.OI0 Pumose A. The purpose of this chapter is to permit or afford better light, air and vision i clearance on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to make the location of structures compatible with the need for the eventual widening of streets by providing for additional yard setback distances, to ensure there is adequate distance between buildings on the site and to provide standards for projections into yard areas and to permit the reservation-of land _p1an~ ned for acquisition for park utility, gteenwav and/or storm drainage management o =otes 14 96 100 Zoning District Setbacks from Floodplain/rrePnways and Reservation Areas j y:. ) o district sgtba L shall h measured from the bound= of the 100 year - areas 3. 7sein~ tloodplain/-reenwav area rather tho from the property line The land within the / z 100 ve, floodplai areemvav area shall he reserved and may be used only 15 r allowed v he Comm mite Development Code Chapter 18.84. Sensitive Lands Land projected for future acquisition by the City for addition to the City parks 1 system or wiLtty system shall be reserved free of structures for future acquisition by the City. The zoning district setback area shall be measured form the edge of the I i resen•ation area. i I I i i crpfnuxdoicr.:xn 1196-117 PM EaHIcIT A -?AGE'_ DEDICATION. RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDS' A>1END>IENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (ZOA 96-0003) I~I 1. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: FILE NA,NIF- 0F-)lQA71 N RESERVATt N AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS : Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 96-0003 4, PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard orcocses amendments to the Communir/ r Development Code Sections 18.1-2.050 5.6, 13.32.230 E 2 . 13.56.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study. reserfation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. APPLICANT: ` Citycf T.car OWNER: N/A f- 13125 S'JV hall Sculevard Tgard.Oreccn 97223 a ZONING CESIGNATION: N/A Y LCCATION: C ; Yfide AF L ICASL°_ c_`/I= N CR17 cRlA: S _._.Lc arni 13..ais _ 1" and 2. 1. r and and 4 ECC,LINIEV''ATiON i 77 = c r it rc _r c _c r_.^d ! f - In 1094 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Dolan v. City of Tigard. At issue in that case was whether the City had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by requiring a developer to dedicate land to the City for bikepath and _ storm drainage easement purposes. The Supreme Court developed a new test by which the City's action would be judged and sent the case back to the City to apply this new test to the facts of the case. The condition which the City originally imposed upon the approval of a reconstruction and expansion of an existing retail commercial store required the owner to dedicate a portion I of their property adjacent to the Fanno Creek drainage way for bikepath purposes and to also dedicate that portion of their property within the Fanno Creek drainage for storm { drainage and recreation purposes. The Supreme Court told the City that when it seeks to obtain a transfer of a real property interest as a condition of a development approval, it must determine that the interest it h' seeks advances some legitimate public policy interest of the City and that the impact of I the transfer on the developer is roughly proportional to the impact the development will have upon the public. - The City Council reconsidered the development application during the summer of 1995. It modified the original condition challenged by the developer to make clear that the easement being taken over the Fanno Creek drainage way would be limited only to stormwater system management purposes and would not allow the general public access to that drainage way. The condition requiring the fifteen foot pedestrian bikeway along tie i the edge of the Fanno Creek drainage was not materially changed. The Council 1 analyzed the impact of the conditions on the developer and the impact of the development on the public. The Council did this b ~ y quantifying the impacts the development would have on the stormwater and transportation system, and then r attaching a dollar value to those impacts. The Council then determined the dollar value of the property interests being taken for the pedestrian bikeway easement and the s ormwate. management easement. Tne COuncii s conclusion was that the interests C nc taken by the conditions were roughly prccerticnal to the impact other deve!opment jwould have on the public. The City Council's decision was not challenged by the developer. i ^e !,.clan case requires the Cir/ to go. through this analyt;Cal prccess each time it seeks L_ e require a ceye.cper to transfer an interest in real prcpe. Ly to the City as a result or the impacts the development will have on the public. the Court has required this analysis to [ be "_n indiv,duaiiZed determinatlCR'.. That requirc:Tient means that each s:tuation must { e iudced can IIS own mE.^,tS and t!ncre is ROI blanket CCnC!USicn that caR be reached aCcut whether the CCIan. Case allows or prevents the City from ;mccsin0 a condition. i ne :r-.e t_:Ure, CO thrcuch this analyt!calfCrccess vihen it requires a Ceve!OCer t0 make public ir.Proyements which are ccnsidered necessary to rnit Cate. the m. Pacts of a t • i c`:e!CGmeni.. This abCea(:i i0 be u,E.bVa!! the CCUnS.a2 headln(3_ „ Saco C.b of T;cara,Ce_.cs,;en, .._Ser/aticn arc cc_: S t.c/ RaCUr=rrents =aca 2 ' f The the 'Exhibit A" language has been drafted by the city Attomey's it respond to the "Dolan" issues. Included is language that requires an impact study, a provision that requires adoption of findings to support real property transfers; added language to permit reservation of land for park, utility, greenway, and storm management, and provisions to measure setbacks from greenway/floedplain reservation areas in order to protect the ability to construct trails, and manage drainage and open spaces without difficulty related to structure. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ec-Use Me CCce n as: asses n, •r^Clc -r;nc he crcv{sicn C ..ui iic - c,irtes and cc /IC-S and ,r rsccratcn -.ac;iities in a more timely, crdery and _nic:anz -Banner ; oroACc ce.:ned levels Cf se. iic2 ;mcroverner_s determined `.ne necessary by c s c C t c 5 eC C ac.5 r• I cc fcr e-=c" cev rccrent c-e _s; _..c _ cr .,cr,.c-ai ,r-__..-s c-1 t"cs- alccr s. . 7-e i Ccs:ci s „cnsi-zzant ..I,tt '--.:,/'s -ck ,cv/IedCed Ccm ehie .swe Plan ..ased on ."Icwinc- ,cir.Cs. Ti:e relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of J Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3. 3, 7 and 8; and Cec:munity Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement prcgram which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times _ which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Cede Procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, C;y Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code re=quirements in review of this prcoosal. Goal 11. Pubic ractlides and SerAces and Gcal 12 Transocrtaticn. are met ~ r EC.es 1.1. i ^d Sa.is-Ied tecause ' e crCCCsed- -a c~lar'Ccs arc. . Cry Sieni: LY J--.a-viice '!Frnir.C: Gcc;s as indica7ad abcveV - rtes - <c C ..w _ Icc_ e-cs arc -ece.m case a j.. c S c r cos ' aS c_C ~ - }[t c_ :ryS o rig _ N..iv_ ens rcc. ss. _I f i _ I} 3. The proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these policies call for development control of floodplains and greenway areas and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and need for improvements, reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 4. The proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 8, Transportation which call for ensuring that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City standards. The proposed changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. 5. Community Development Code Section 13.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Department, Police Department, and Building Division have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS I GTE, NW Natural Gas Co., Cablevision, PGE, Metro Area Communications, US West Communications, Tri-Met Transit Development, Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation, Metro Area Boundary Commission, Oregon DLCD, ODOT and members of the Citizen Involvement Teams have all had the'epperiunity to review the proposal and have offered no ccmrnents or object* dons. No otter comments have been r, cs;ved. PREPARED S -rt DATE Senicr Panrer Y \J j a = c'Cr -Ccr C:Gi~ '7 -<2rve I arC :rt ~ _C..w __~.~_mc.^•IS - I i Tigard is Preparing j fort the Future Help Shape the Future of Tigard The City of Tigard is evaluating - Metro 2040 a 40-year plan for E the Metro region to address 15i - A issues of growth and livability. The plan may do the following. N Involve citizens in planning for \ their neighborhoods; daq o N Update the City's Comprehensive ]l ~ DQ p~ ['Ian; 1 r y Change current zoning J Guide development of homes. apartments, offices, and stores: {yg and ' METRO /iw- ~I\i{ • /0 - y Make decisions about streets, parks and open spaces. L~ a Pieces Of the P1448/490 Metro Metro was created after voters in me mgluc. dected a regional j Sam government for addressing issues of regional significance In the - - Metropolitan area. It is enabled by state law and was adopted by the - Oregon Legislature In 1977. The voters also adopted a Metro Charter In @ - 1992, which describes responsibilities for the Agency including development of a regional plan for the area. Metro is also responsible for nsarno the regional aspects of transportation, land use, the Metro Urban Growth f - Boundary, and regional parks and open space. S 1 Regions/Growth ~ We will have as many as 451.000 more people living In the Metro region by the year 2015. Tigard is projected to accommodate over 15.000 of mT-A s a these people raising the City's population to over 50.000. Approximately ggpp~~ two-thirds of the growth will result from people moving Into the region. - The 2040 Concept map is one way of dealing with growth. We need to R Z4 J decide how this plan could fit with the ideas and concerns of Tig rd's r _ 1] ] cltluns. ' yi ~ Tronsportstion ' J Traveling in the region, as well as in Tigard. Is difficult because of x inadequate facilities. major highways which restrict movement. and t ` inadequate street connectivity. It is getting more difficult because of the j Increased use of the car. Motor vehicle use is causing increases In air and 7Er = j water pollution. In many places people do not feel safe walking, waiting f for transit or riding bicycles. t _ j We need to decide if getting people closer to services is important. Do we I want to make available more travel choices for walking: biking and taking i 6 the bus to stores schools, jabs, and recreation? ConnectlWY G Topography. highways, and existing development makes construction of r new transportation connections expensive. i _ The 2040 Concept calls for better connectivity between neighborhoods. ®4p fl and better accessibility, to services. We need to decide how importantp p~ connectivity and accessibility are to Tigard. Understanding 2040 in Tigsrr/ 1 ~t d Your 1 r Y. Na we =a. o j , Regional Crowth C Metro I. Should preparing for growth be a priority for the City of Tigard? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Z. Should TIgard's Growth be directed to: ' The Main Street Town Center and Washington Square Regional ❑ ❑ O ❑ t Center? I ` e The Corridors? (99W. Hail Blvd....) ❑ C3 C3 (3 ' e Existing neighborhoods? c3 ❑ ❑ 13 , - I ' 3. Shoed Tigard encourage resldentlal growth In Its Employment ❑ ❑ ❑ Areas? (Tigard Triangle. 72nd Corridor...) ' 3. Should Tigard support expansion of the Urban Growth O O O ❑ 0 - Boundary(UGB)? 1 L t ❑ k-i 4A. If not. would you accept more dense development in Tigard (3 ❑ El , U~;;~=; to accommodate growth within the existing UGB? , ' S. Should Tigard limit the growth of "Big Box" retail ❑ O O 7 P (Cosec.. Cub Foods...) by limiting the size and , location of these stores? o Transportation 6 ConnectAWY e , passenger demand to justify improved 5. Td-Mee relies on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 - { transit xrvice. Should development of housing and businesses be directed to major streets that can easily - 1 be served by Tri-Metz ' - 7.. Are more street connections needed in Tigard? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ j o - 8. Should connections for pedestrians and bicyclists be a priority over ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ improved automobile routes? Neighborhoods y 9. ~viany Tigard neighborhoods do not have a place where you can ❑ ❑ ❑ walk to shop. 7^e or meet your nelghb.rs Wonnally. Should 0 ,e try to addre-s ways to create these places? g 10. Do you think it Is Important to offer a choice of housing types. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 - F designs and costs? This could involve changes In the location and types of housing that the dry allows. 11. Does the architecture or design of commercial areas such as ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Y r.......... 50-Ak Instead of the turkinq , ot, matter to you? - I ~ 1 B Understanding 2040 in Tigard 1 j *um ■7 .Y L® ® Ot•Y er ®-O~Y ® ® ~t0 O m L r _I ~11 - ~ r r w w r a w r r w r r w w w a- w r a- r r e w r ®r r ®w 9 1 1 1 e 1 1 ~ A Reg,/ono/ Growth G Metro j 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 , e 1 ~ 1 1 e A j Ticos ONW/on ConneCtibit~+ 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 f 1 ` ~ 1 - 1 A + 1 B [ C=. 1 ' ~ e Neighborhoods:' 1 i A 1 1 1 i ~ 1 1 E 1 e ~ i_ v ~ 1 m ~J A 1 A 1 x; r