City Council Packet - 08/20/1996
a
Revised - 8/20/96
1 CITY OF TIGARD
\Ar\'id3.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that Persons
interested in testi ying be present by 7:1 S p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments, and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters. i. -
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - 4
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
i SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 1
{
• i '
AGENDA !
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 20, 1996
6:30 P.M.
I 1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council ax Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into ExeOutNp
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ax (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential, therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this
session, but must not disclose any Information discussed during this session.
j
7:30 p.m.
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS
• Citizen Involvement Team Representatives , i
7:40 p.m.
4. CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - STATUS OF DECISION
8:00 P.M.
5. REPORT: SPEED HUMP ELIGIBILITY LIST !
• Consultant Gary Alfson
8:30 P.M.
6. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN AREA
f Community Development Director
9:00 P.M.
7. REPORT: BALLOT MEASURE 47 - "PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION ACT"
• Finance Director
j
9:30 P.M.
8. DISCUSSION: RECREATION POLICY
• Library Director
9:50 P.M.
i
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 2
C
9:50 p.m
9. STATUS REPORT: TRIANGLE REZONING AND TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENTS
• Community Development Director
10 20 p.m.
10. REPORT: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION OPTIONS (Brief update.
This issue is scheduled for a more discussion on the September 17, 1996
Council Agenda)
• Community Development Director
10 25 p.m.
11. UPDATE: METRO 2040/REPORT 8s REQUEST FOR COUNCIL
DIRECTION - WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE
(WCCC) RECOMMENDATIONS ON FUNCTIONAL PLAN
• Community Development Director e,
i.. _
10:55 P.M.
12. REPORT - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROJECT PROPOSALS
• Community Development Director
11:16 p.m.
13. UPDATE: CITY FA ITIES SPACE PLANING
• Assistant to the i Addtministrato rt
f`.
11:30 P.M.
4
14. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
11:35 P.M.
IS. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go *ato Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8Z (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this
session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
11:40 p.m.
16. ADJOURNMENT
_ i
=960020rv.doc
J
COUNCIL AGENDA - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 3
i,
t
.J
Agenda Item No. 3.1
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 1 a y 1 G c~ !
WORKSHOP MEETING
{ MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council and Local Contract Review Board
> Meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
i
1.2 Roll Call
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob
Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla.
7- 7`7-7
> Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Consultant Gary Alfson;
Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; City Attorney Chuck Corrigan; City
Librarian Kathy Davis; Deputy City Recorder Jo Hayes; Asst. to the City
Administrator Liz Newton; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx;
Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Assistant Planner Duane Roberts; and Senior
Planner Nadine Smith.
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports _
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. under the provisions
of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
is-
current and pending litigation issues. E
Executive Session adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Regular Session reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS
4. CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS - STATUS OF DECISION
r.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, informed the Council that while they -
1 could call up for review any matter that has gone before a lower body, in the case of an
{ appeal they could only consider the specific issue that was appealed.
Dick Bewersdorff, Planner, reviewed the history of the Carriage House Apartment
development, pointing out that in 1995 the zoning was changed from R-4.5 Commercial
Professional to R-25. Andrews Management applied for a site development review, lot
line adjustments, and a variance to the access standard to reduce the number of driveways !
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 1
.
required. He stated that staff granted administrative approval because the applicant met
the variance criteria. He noted that in the future there would be a second driveway
installed. He cited as an example the Triad development in which meeting the driveway
standards had not been necessarily beneficial to the development.
Mr. Bewersdorff stated that notice of the decision was mailed to all property owners
within 250 feet; Mr. McGuire and Mrs. Morgan talked with staff and Mr. McGuire filed
an appeal over the fencing issue. Notice of the appeal was again sent out but it might
have been unclear to the citizens that the only issue under appeal was the fencing issue.
Per the Code, the Planning Commission limited testimony at the hearing to the matter
under appeal. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff normally sent notice of an appeal to all
property owners within 250 feet but that technically they only had to send notice to the
applicants and the parties in the original decision.
Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the original 1995 traffic study done for the zone change
included 1996 projections and was done after Costco and Cub Foods occupied their F
Vulluing's. fie salu LllaL while Llle real issue iile neighbors had was with (lie Lrafllc, this
development did not generate all the traffic on Pfaffle Street. He pointed out that
changing the zone to R-25 actually reduced the amount of potential traffic in the area.
Mr. Bewersdorff reiterated that should the Council call this matter up for review, they
were limited to considering the fence issue. He said that Oregon land use law was very
specific and that staff didn't have much discretion; if an application met the standards,
they had to approve it. ff
Councilor Hunt expressed his uneasiness with the process, noting he had asked at the last I
' meeting whether or not this was another situation in which the Council couldn't do
anything about the issues of concern to the neighbors because the final decision was
restricted. He said that he had left the last meeting with the understanding from staff and
legal counsel that Council could consider the driveway issue, but now discovered that they
couldn't consider that issue.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern about the impression left with the public because Mrs.
Morgan understood that Council would call this up for review. He asked staff to hold a
work session for Council to educate them concerning the development code and
procedures used by the City_
Mr. Hendryx stated that staff could provide training to Council, commenting that doing so
now was good timing because of the upcoming code rewrite. He apologized for giving
the wrong impression last week regarding Council's options, noting that he should have
emphasized more clearly that only one matter could be called up for Council
consideration.
Councilor Scheckla asked how aware the public at the Planning Commission hearing were
of the appeal procedures. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff mailed notices of appeals to all
participants at a hearing; the notice contained the appeal rights. Also the Planning
Commission Chair read a prepared statement informing those present of their rights and
I the need to address the specific issues under review.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 2
c
1
j
Council discussed the confusion about the appeals process that appeared to occur in this
situation. Mr. Hendryx stated that Mr. Bewersdorff would look at the notice provision
process to make it clearer as to what items were under review.
Councilor Rohlf suggested reviewing the 250 foot notice range and looking at notifying all
the people affected by a decision (within reason) rather than sticking to the letter of the
law. He expressed concern about the public's lack of understanding of the process.
Councilor Moore concurred and suggested developing a method of teaching the general
population about the land use process.
Mr. Monahan said that staff has tried a variety of avenues to educate the public but would
continue to look at other alternatives, such as a video or information on the Internet. He
said that another opportunity for educating the public was the process of rewriting the
Code.
Mayor Nicoli pointed out that one of the key neighborhood people met with staff during
the appeal period; staff explained the process to her. He said that for the neighborhood to
come in now and say they knew nothing about this meant that the system broke down
somewhere.
Council discussed the traffic situation on Pfaffle. Mayor Nicoli said research hasn't been k
done to determine whether or not there would be a serious traffic problem on Pfaffle; j
however the neighbors who called him about this issue indicated they were using the
traffic issue as an excuse to prevent a project they did not want in their neighborhood.
Councilor Rohlf suggested that the City conduct a traffic study to find out if there was a
problem.
Council discussed various means of educating the public about the appeals process,
including newsletters and informational handouts.
a Councilor Hunt stated that despite his concern over this particular situation, he supported
the planning staff 100% and their intent to rewrite a confusing code.
Mr. Monahan said that staff would prepare an outline of training needs for presentation at
the September 17 meeting. He asked the Council if they had any other planning or code
issues of concern. Mayor Nicoli suggested shortening the Code, commenting that its very
length contributed to the confusion.
In response to a question from the audience, Mayor Nicoli stated that Council would not i
! call up this matter for review unless there was an appeal. Mr. Monahan explained that
citizens could appeal to LUBA on the fencing issue and procedural irregularities. He
reviewed the procedure for filing an appeal to LUBA, pointing out that at LUBA it was no
longer a planning process but a legal process.
j Councilor Rohlf asked if staff could do a traffic count on Pfaffle. Mr. Monahan said they
would look into it but noted that it was not a street identified as a problem during the CIT
process for speed humps.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 3
1
5. REPORT: SPEED HUMP ELIGIBILITY LIST I
Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer, presented the staff report on the list of streets
j eligible for speed humps. He reviewed the list of the 47 streets identified as possibly
needing speed humps and the criteria staff used to reduce the list to 10 streets. These
criteria included traffic moving faster than 5 miles per hour above the speed limit and
neighborhood participation in a police traffic program.
Mr. Alfson reviewed the streets staff proposed to install speed humps on this year: 128th
from Walnut to Winterlake, North Dakota from 115th to 121st and from Springwood to
Scholls, and the segment of Locust Street closest to the school.
Mr. Alfson reviewed the remaining process. Following Council approval, staff would get
neighborhood approval and then bid the project. He recommended holding off on the bid }
until February because of the poor bidding climate right now and to allow neighborhoods i "
that wanted to participate in the 50150 funding program an opportunity to get organized;
the more projects in the bid, the better deal the City would ge• from the contractors.
i
Councilor Hunt noted the comment made at the last meeting that people avoided the speed
hump on Watkins by going up on the pedestrian walkway because there was no curb to
~
stop them. He suggested including that consideration in the design of the speed humps.
Mr. Alfson said that while they considered safety in the design, they also had to consider
street drainage and not put speed humps all the way to a curb which would dam the water
into the street.
Councilor Scheckla asked if staff had received any feedback from the fire department.
Mr. Alfson said they had not received any response from the first list they sent to the fire
department. Mr. Monahan stated that staff would ask the fire department if they had any
particular concerns with the designated streets, but pointed out that the fire department did
not like speed humps because they slowed down response time. Mr. Alfson noted that the
fire department did understand the safety concerns in the neighborhoods and would put up
with speed humps.
Councilor Hunt asked if anything has been done on the 50150 funding program. Mr.
Alfson said no, that the neighborhoods were waiting to see which streets made the 100%a
funding list before doing anything.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the program had been widely advertised. Liz Newton, Assistant
to the City Administrator, said that the program appeared in Cityscape once and
recommended publishing the project list and the 50150 program in the newsletter again.
Mr. Monahan raised the issue of how to handle the applications for streets in the 50150
program. Mr. Alfson explained that any street had to meet the eligibility requirements.
j Right now the only streets eligible for speed humps, whether funded 100% by the City or
j+ 50150 with the neighborhood, were those on the list of 10. Those on the original larger
list could become eligible if they met the criteria; streets would be reviewed on an annual
basis for speed hump eligibility; for example, a street that was not eligible because the
neighborhood has not participated in a police traffic program could become eligible if the
neighborhood participated.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 4
1 -
- I
Councilor Rohlf expressed his disappointment that construction would not occur this year,
noting that it meant two projects next year.
Mr. Monahan noted that another issue was whether or not staff should keep the present
list as accurate information and build out from it to get a running start on next year. Ms.
Newton pointed out that the CITs were now aware of this process and could ask the City
to consider a street at any time. Mr. Alfson commented that staff should look at not doing
speed volume counts on every street each year but rather depend on public input to
identify which streets should be re-measured.
Councilor Rohlf noted that all these streets had a traffic problem of some sort, either real
or perceived, and suggested looking at other traffic calming alternatives, should a street
not meet the speed hump criteria.
6. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION: DOWNTOWN AREA f
Mr. Hendryx noted the staff report presenting their research into the history of downtown 1
j development.
Councilor Rohlf ac:.ad if there was anything in the code that would prevent adult oriented
businesses from moving into the downtown. Mr. Monahan said that any jurisdiction was
subject to the potential of adult oriented businesses; staff worked with attorneys and
planners on language to keep Tigard from being an easy target, but there were no
guarantees. Councilor Rohlf noted that high rents were the best way to keep them out.
Councilor Hunt noted that the Council passed an ordinance that required any facility with
booths to have those booths open to the street where anyone could see who was in them.
He said that he did not know if that would serve as a deterrent or if the ordinance would
hold up in court.
Councilor Rohlf said that the Tigard downtown could either have good shops and a
healthy economy or continue to deteriorate. He spoke for the City taking an aggressive
role in helping the downtown merchants in recruiting desirable businesses and building a
vision for the downtown.
Mayor Nicoli concurred. He reported that a gentleman at the Triangle Task Force
meeting who was involved in a lot of redevelopment stated that the first part of `
redevelopment was having the infrastructure in place; if it wasn't in place, nothing would 1
happen. He suggested identifying the areas in the downtown that needed infrastructure
and developing a plan to provide that infrastructure over time. He said that if the owners
of the older buildings saw new infrastructure, it might motivate them to redevelop their
properties.
Council discussed the possibilities of redevelopment in the downtown. Councilor Rohlf
j spoke for including the downtown in the visioning process. Mayor Nicoli suggested
' having staff investigate potential funding sources other than tax increment financing, such
as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Mr. Monahan mentioned other
methods of funding, such as cooperation between private property owners and the City,
local merchants forming an LID (Hillsboro), and economic development districts. He
commented that they could use the visioning process. i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 5 df
j
Ll
4
E
Mayor Nicoli noted he has heard comments from citizens who wanted a better downtown
identity, and expressed the hope that the visioning process would draw that out. He
reiterated his interest in investigating CDBG grants or other revenue sources to fund
E downtown infrastructure improvements, stating that he wanted to keep the momentum I
going (after the Main and Commercial Street projects) and to reassure the downtown that f
the City was still interested in the downtown. Mr. Monahan explained that though urban
renewal projects were once eligible for CDBG, the philosophy changed over the years and
they were now almost exclusively granted to benefit low income residents. There might
be some limited projects in the downtown area.
Councilor Rohlf spoke for having an objective of what they wanted to do; having an
objective made it easier to sell revitalization of an area to potential funding sources. He
asked how many of the downtown buildings had absentee landlords, commenting that out-
of-state landlords wouldn't care about improving the downtown. Councilor Hunt said that
four years ago he had difficulty finding a resident landlord in the downtown. f.
Councilor Moore suggested a demonstration project, citing the section of A Avenue in
Lake Oswego that the City of Lake Oswego redid as a demonstration of what they could
do in downtown redevelopment.
Mayor Nicoli commented he has not heard anyone say they wanted the downtown to
continue to deteriorate. Councilor Hunt noted there was a group that wasn't very vocal
but who did not want to use their tax money to help the downtown businesses, but rather
to fund road and other improvements in their area.
Mayor Nicoli noted that Tigard has been growing with a lot of new development and that
the citizens weren't accustomed to thinking in terms of redevelopment, even though the
downtown has needed redevelopment for 10-15 years. He said that the City was not
equipped to handle redevelopment, citing Portland's Redevelopment Agency with its
specialists in redevelopment. He suggested developing a list of 15-20 projects that would
help the downtown area, commenting that once a list was available, often opportunities for
funding arose.
Councilor Hunt spoke in support of Councilor Rohlf's suggestion of determining a long-
range vision for the downtown area.
i Ms. Newton said they could include questions about the downtown in the survey portion
of the visioning process; that way they could determine if it was an issue for the citizens.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that the citizens of Tigard were not oriented towards
redevelopment because all they saw was the new development. He spoke for the City
taking the lead in insisting on doing some redevelopment, even if their constituency didn't
understand, citing the Tualatin Commons as an example.
t
Mike Marr, Downtown Merchants Association, handed out a document to the Council.
He stated he did not think they needed to "reinvent the wheel" and spoke for using the
vision set forth in the 1987-89 study, which many felt was still valid. He spoke against
1 spending more money to develop a vision for the downtown. He noted that some of the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 6
projects proposed in 1987-89 were not in sync with what people wanted today; today
people wanted a pedestrian friendly downtown.
On behalf of the Merchants Association, Mr. Marr invited the Council and staff to go on a
Saturday tour of the redeveloped areas in the Portland Metro area, such as Sellwood, East
Hawthorne, Gresham, Troutdale, Multnomah, Tualatin, and NW 23rd. He said that after
viewing these areas and making notes on what worked and what did not work, they could
sit down and develop ideas for their downtown. He concurred with the Mayor that good
infrastructure was the first step in successful redevelopment.
Mr. Marr noted the state and national organizations focusing on redevelopment and
revitalization of downtown areas. He said that while he didn't feel they needed to look at
spending $20 to $30 million dollars, there were a lot of different options available, such j
as mentioned earlier by Mr. Monahan. He said that the downtown area had tremendous
potential and that there were a few who were willing to make an effort to make it happen.
He agreed the absentee landlord issue was unfortunate. y
Mr. Marr said he thought that visioning could be easily accomplished through a tour of
i the redeveloped areas. He agreed they had to have a long-term plan.
Council agreed to go on the tour. Mayor Nicoli directed staff to find an agreeable date
sometime beyond September.
Mr. Marr presented the information developed by Chuck regarding the readerboard. With
the readerboard in operation 24 hours a day, 30% of the time would go to commercial
advertising with 70% going to non-profit and city announcements. He reviewed the
example of a business spending $12.50 a month ($150 per year) for 200 10 seconds spots.
Chuck projected 100-350 businesses participating; this translated to $15,000 generated a
year with $10,000 going to the Chamber, $3000 to the City and $2000 to the Merchant's
Association. He pointed out that the City would recoup its $21,000 investment in seven f
years under these figures. However the maximum amount that could be generated in a
year was $58,000 ($35,000 to the Chamber, $15,000 to the City, $8500 to the Merchants f
Association).
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Marr said the board would be located
in the City park where the tree came down at the south end of Main Street.
Mr. Marr noted the discussion on who should be allowed to advertise - the downtown
merchants or all merchants. He said that in his opinion, since tax dollars were paying for
the sign, all merchants within the City of Tigard should be allowed to advertise.
Mr. Marr said they were still waiting for information on the cost of operations. Mr.
Monahan noted that the cost of operations included power, maintenance, warranty and
insurance.
Mayor Nicoli stated that his opinion of the readerboard has changed since the last time
they met. He has seen the readerboard at the Portland Airport and thought that it was an
unobtrusive sign that did not flash messages at motorists. He said he was not concerned
so much about recouping the cost of the board. He said he liked the idea because the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 7
majority of the time the board would be available to community and non profit groups to I
advertise their activities.
Mr. Marr mentioned the board would be mounted so that it would be aesthetically
pleasing.
Council discussed the financial issues involved, including funding for the initial costs,
maintenance costs, and replacement costs. Mr. Marr suggested they might negotiate a
reserve fund for maintenance, etc., out of the revenue generated by the sign.
Councilor :aunt said that before he could support this, he would have to see more written
documentation on the City's involvement, especially who would operate it. Councilor
Moore said he thought the City should have nothing to do with the board once it was E
installed.
Mayor Nicoli suggested stating their concerns so that Mr. Marr could address their
cone-rns.
Councilor Rohlf stated he was opposed to the project.
Councilor Scheckla commented that he found the projected revenue figures optimistic. He
I said he would like to see more commitment from those who might take advantage of this
in order to see if this was something worthwhile to pursue.
Councilor Rohlf commented that the Mayor thought the community service portion of the
readerboard was enough to go on without the advertising. He said he was more interested r
in the cost and liability, and a commitment from the Chamber that it would maintain the
readerboard.
Councilor Hunt agreed with Mr. Monahan on building a reserve fund for replacement up
front. f
Councilor Moore said he supported the board as long as a lot of the use was for public
and non-profit activities.
Mayor Nicoli commented that non-profit organizations might be willing to pay a fee for
advertising their fund raising activities or youth leagues to advertise their signups; it 4
would be less than the commercial rate. f
Councilor Hunt noted the issue of who determined what went on the readerboard.
Mayor Nicoli noted that Council wanted Mr. Marr to move forward with the readerboard.
i ~
7. REPORT: BALLOT MEASURE 47 - "PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION ACT"
Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reviewed his staff report on Ballot Measure 47, noting
nine items in particular.
j
1
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 8
r,
r.
Mr. Lowry explained that Measure 47, sponsored by Bill Sizemore, limited the tax bills '
for 1997/98 on individual properties but didn't limit the City's ability to levy. This meant
/-1 that although the City still had the authority to levy its tax base, the amount of tax an
individual property owner had to pay in 1997/98 was limited to the amount paid in
1994/95 or in 1995/96, whichever was less, minus 10%. He said that the limit for most
taxpayers would be the final phase of Measure 5 (1995/96), less 10%.
The second item limited future increases to 3% per year as opposed to the present
statutory increase in the tax base of 6% per year. This meant that an individual's property
tax could only increase by 3% a year regardless of assessed value. There was an
exception for currently existing debt levies.
The fourth item allowed future increases in taxes on individual properties above the 3%
limit only by a majority vote of general levies or by a 50% turnout. Mr. Lowry explained
that this meant they could only get an increase above the 3% at a general election (as they
could do now) or at an off cycle election in which 50% of the registered voters turned out
to vote. This made it more dif .chit to pass tax micasures during non-general eiections.
The exception was a more than 3% increase allowed for improvements, such as zone '
changes, subdivisions, etc. He pointed out that the language was unclear as to whether
this applied to debt service property tax only or to the property tax.
Mr. Lowry said that the next item, annexation increases to require a majority vote at
general elections, meant that a City had to get voter approval to increase its tax base by
the taxes on new properties annexed into the City; the City tax would mean a greater than
3% tax increase on the annexed properties. This "gummed up" the benefit of annexing
property.
Mr. Lowry said that he found item #7 contradictory. It mandated that the allocation of
cuts among the jurisdictions for the properties within those jurisdictions be done to
prioritize education and public safety, while at the same time minimizing the loss of local
control for cities and counties. He stated that since the measure did not say who would
make the decision on the allocations, it would fall to the state; how could cities and
counties maintain local control with the state telling them how to allocate their taxing k
f services? I
Mr. Lowry reviewed Item #8 which stated that the City had to get voter approval to
increase fees and charges that would replace lost tax revenue. He pointed out that the
provision was retroactive to June 30, 1995. If a City has increased its fees and charges
since June 30, 1995 without a vote by the people, then they had to reduce the tax bill of
anyone charged those unapproved increased fees by the amount of the fee increase until
the increases were approved by the voters.
In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry said that one of the
unanswered questions on Item #8 was what to do if those charged the increased fees
weren't residents of the county.
Mayor Nicoli asked if there was any discussion of court challenges to the wording. Mr.
I Lowry said that no one looked seriously at the legal aspects until the measure was
enacted, though the Attorney General did usually issue an opinion on such things.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 9
1
Mr. Lowry noted that Item N9 allowed voluntary tax contributions for those who did not
wish to participate in the cut.
Mr. Lowry reviewed a chart showing what a tax bill would look like based on his
projections, and a chart showing the estimated reduction in Tigard property tax revenue.
He pointed out that projections were tricky because no one knew how to implement this
measure. He reviewed several of the issues, including how the reduction was run back
through the individual jurisdiction, since public safety and education had priority. He
noted that the Washington County Assessor has not finalized their numbers, nor has the
State Department of Revenue finalized its state wide projections by jurisdiction.
i Looking at two possible scenarios, Mr. Lowry said they could lose either $2.8 million
(40% of the tax base) or $1.7 million (25% of the tax base). He said that the lesser
amount was more consistent with the projections of other jurisdictions. He pointed out
that Tigard could lose even more since they did not have a tax base in 1994/95 or
1995/96, the two base years used to pick the lowest amount; they could lose their tax
- t t
base.
Mr. Lowry reviewed a chart showing the potential effect of Measure 47 on City services.
He said that if they looked at all the things charged to the general fund after looking at the
revenue those things produced, they ended up with the Police Department being 57% of
what was left over. He noted that the other revenues that were left (those not allocated to
any specific purpose in the general fund) totalled $6 million.
Mr. Lowry said the City would be faced with cutting $2.3 million or $1.7 million from its
services; this was a discussion that needed to take place, possibly before the November -
election in order to have some reasonable specifics about the potential impacts of the
measure.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the unanswered questions:
How would the County assessors enforce these property tax adjustments between
the various jurisdictions?
How would they apportion the cuts between jurisdictions?
Would the measure change the $5/$10 limits of Measure 5?
Did Section 3A, the vote to exceed the 3% limit, apply just to debt service, bond f
or did it include the tax base?
> Mr. Sizemore stated he meant only bonds but he didn't write that into the
measure;
> If it didn't apply to the tax base, cities could never increase their tax base
j or effectively get additional revenue from existing property;
How did they prioritize public safety and education while minimizing the loss of
local control?
> Who would tell the local jurisdictions how to spend their tax dollars?
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 10
f
- What was the process for determining who paid fees and charges increased without i
a vote since the effective date?
- How would the resulting reduction in property taxes be implemented?
Mr. Lowry said this measure would reduce tax revenue unless the state stepped in and 1
took the whole decrease from the school side and made it up in income taxes, thus leaving
cities and counties untouched to protect public safety. He said that was what Mr.
Sizemore had in mind when he wrote the measure, because that was the only logical
conclusion he could see to the situation created by the measure.
Mr. Lowry noted they never really lost anything from Measure 5 because they were in
such a growth area, but Measure 47 would result in the loss of significant tax revenue.
How much they lost and how much planning and services was reduced was a future
discussion. E
In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry said that after the first week i
of September when the state and the county came out with their projections, staff could C _
start to figure out what the minimum and maximum effects would be.
Councilor Rohlf noted that it was the policy of the City to take a neutral position on this !
type of thing. Mr. Monahan said that the City had to be neutral per state election law, but
that Councilors could take a position.
Mr. Lowry commented that staff could provide information the same way they did for
Measure 5.
Mr. Lowry reported that staff researched the state statutes on the tax abatement requested
by Community Partners for Affordable Housing for their projects at Tiffany Court and
Villa La Paz. He said it was important for their lending process to get a commitment
from the City on tax abatement.
Mr. Lowry reviewed the two ways a jurisdiction could provide tax abatement. The first
statute was written for non-profits and private enterprise; the jurisdiction set standards and
abated the taxes for 20 years; if the organization broke the standards, then the abatement
was terminated. The other statute was for non-profits; the jurisdiction adopted the criteria
listed in the statute and abated the taxes for one year at a time.
Mr. Lowry said that Ms. Greenlaw-Fink preferred the year-to-year abatement, despite the
assertion of the grant writer at the last meeting that the bigger block of time for tax
abatement the better. He said she stated that they might not always need the exemption.
He pointed out that the year-to-year was a simpler process and recommended it to the
Council
In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Lowry explained they could lengthen
the timeframe by including a clause that stated that the intent was for ten years, but
Council would review the abatement annually. Mr. Monahan pointed out that Council
could determine how thorough a review it wanted for any given year.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 11
1
I
Councilor Hunt noted the discussion on waiving fees for renovations. He asked if the
City meant to waive fees and provide a tax abatement or simply provide the tax
• abatement.
j The Council discussed the issue but decided to look at the permit issue when it arose.
Mayor Nicoli noted that much of the renovations might not require a permit.
8. DISCUSSION: RECREATION POLICY
Kathy Davis, City Librarian, reported that Recreation Round-up, the private contractor
who provided the recreation program for the City, has chosen not to renew the contract.
She explained the contract stipulated what kinds of classes the contractor had to offer, and
that registration was so poor last year, the contractor operated at a loss. j
Ms. Davis stated that the library has offered the only City-sponsored recreation program
for the last ten years, both free and fee based. They contracted out the fee-based program r
two years ago and that has now come to an end. Though there were organizations that
_ provided a portion of the program offered by the City, there was no one to offer the
complete spectrum.
Ms. Davis proposed allowing the recreation program to lapse for a while in order to learn
from the visioning process what the expectations and desires of the citizens were. She
noted that out of the largest 11 cities in Oregon, only Tigard did not participate in a
Recreation District or have its own Parks & Recreation Department. She suggested that
perhaps now was the time to look at formalized recreation in the City. If
Ms. Davis noted that a problem with the library program was that it has never been large
enough to take out because of lack of staff and facilities; the competition for space in the
City was tough. She said they were at a point where they needed to reevaluate and decide
what direction the City wanted to go in.
Mr. Monahan noted they had devoted a large portion of Cityscape to publishing the
Recreation Round-Up schedule; last year for the first time they began to get comments
about the appropriateness of doing so. He said that the issue to consider was whether or
not the City wanted to fund recreational programs or if they wanted to leave it in the
private sector, a question the City has grappled with in the past.
i
Ms. Davis said that the response to the program has been positive and supportive over the
past two years.
Councilor Rohlf asked if Recreation Round-Up would be interested in continuing if they
were allowed free reign in designing the menu of classes. Ms. Davis said that right now
the public was not interested in organized classes but rather in one shot deals; however the
City contract had not included the one shot deals. She allowed that modifying the contract
was a possibility but questioned why have a contract at all if the City had no control over
j the classes offered. Recreation Round-Up would be a market provider the same as any
other organization in the City and treated in the same way. She noted that the "contract"
was really more of a "cooperative agreement", as the City had never paid Recreation
Round-Up for the program; instead they let them use City facilities.
j
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 12
f
Mayor Nicoli asked about the use of the Metzger building. Ms. Davis said that they
started a pilot program there last year but ran into difficulties because they didn't get an
okay from the Parks Board until it was too late to schedule anything.
l 9. STATUS REPORT: TRIANGLE REZONING AND TRANSPORTATION
ELEMENTS
Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, reported that staff was working with consultants to refine
the proposal to look at land use and transportation concepts. She that the Task Force met
regularly and that they have scheduled a second open house for September 19.
Councilor Hunt commented on the frustration he sensed in the public at the last general
public meeting held on the Triangle. He asked if they still felt the same way. Ms. Smith
said that while people came in angry at the workshop, the discussion and activities seemed
to alleviate some of the frustration; people left feeling they had been listened to more than f
they had been in the past. She and Mr. Hendryx noted the composition and dynamics of a
the Task Force which they saw as leading to a consensus, even with the variety of
viewpoints represented. `
Councilor Moore expressed his hope that this time the process would result in a completed [
project.
s .
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Hendryx said they intended to bring
this to the Council in November, following the public hearings process.
10. REPORT: WALNUT ISLAND ANNEXATION OPTIONS {
71
® Mr. Hendryx reported that staff would not have the necessary information about Council's
three options until the September work session. He said that Mrs. Tibbetts told him that
her group was still interested in annexing; their goal was to have sewer by next summer.
Mayor Nicoli noted the issue of the sewer trunk line - how many people :vould hook up
and how much could be recovered. f
11. UPDATE: METRO 2040/REPORT AND REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION -
WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE (WCCC)
RECOMMENDATIONS ON FUNCTIONAL PLAN
Mr. Hendryx reported that MPAC had taken into account some of the Council's concerns
in the functional plan that would go to Metro Council next month. He said the Council
needed to decide whether or not to continue advocating their original points or look at
other options.
Mayor Nicoli reported that WCCC felt there were certain concerns that the Metro staff i,
did not want to consider. Therefore, WCCC drafted up the concerns that they felt were
uniform to all the cities in the county. They have sent it to all the cities in the county and
to the County Board of Commissioners to ask for their support for the entire document.
WCCC felt that if all the cities in Washington County came before the Metro Council as a
block, rather than as individuals, Metro would be more likely to listen seriously to their
concerns.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 13
jo.
Mr. Hendryx said the WCCC document carried forward the general philosophy of the
City and most of the Council's comments.
j Councilor Rohlf said he did not have a problem with the WCCC document, but asked
what would be done with the original Tigard Council document.
Council discussed what to do with the document. Staff pointed out the good working
relationship they have maintained with Metro throughout this process, noting that losing it
would not be in the best interests of the City. Mayor Nicoli commented that the document
has gone only to the committee and staff levels; it has not been actually seen by the Metro
Council as a whole. He suggested meeting with Mr. Kvistad, their Metro representative,
or inviting him to a Council meeting for a presentation. Mr. Monahan commented there
were other groups with whom they could work to get their points across.
Councilor Rohlf said that in presenting their concerns to Metro they were simply saying
that these were their concerns in their community, and that if Metro enacted the plan, it
could have this result in their community; it was a dialogue, not a threat. f
E ;
Mayor Nicoli directed staff to meet with Mr. Kvistad to acquaint him with Tigard's f
concerns, and then invite him to a Council meeting, preferably a televised meeting, to
hear a presentation. Mr. Monahan said they would aim for September 10.
12. REPORT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECT
PROPOSALS
Duane Roberts, Assistant Planner, commented that Washington County was now
accepting applications for the block grant funds for the 1997-2000 funding cycle. He
recommended submitting the list of potentially eligible projects which staff has identified
with input from CITs and non profit agencies. He said that the grants were intended to
benefit low income people.
Mayor Nicoli asked if they could include projects for the downtown. Mr. Roberts said
no, that they have already passed the deadline for identifying potential projects. He said
that they might be able to apply for limited projects in future years.
Councilor Hunt asked for a report on the CDBG for the Senior Center. Mr. Roberts said
the project was facing a 100% shortfall over the funding amount they were eligible for
because of three and a half year old cost estimates. The project manager at the county has
recommended helping them meet the shortfall with the same percentage amount they were
contributing to the present project ($18,000 with the City putting in another $2,000 to
$3,000). He said that the engineers estimated they were $20,000 short but if they bid now
in this poor climate, it could be worse.
r
Mayor Nicoli asked about the possibility of reducing the scope of work. Mr. Roberts said
that Mr. Alfson had recommended against doing that because the project scale was so
small that reducing it did not save much money.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 14
f
! I~
13. UPDATE: CITY FACILITIES SPACE PLANNING i '
Mr. Monahan reported they were continuing discussions with the owner of the Precision
Graphics property. Ms. Newton noted that Mr. Lowry was developing options on how
f the City might pay for the site. I
1
14. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
> Mr. Monahan asked for a Councilor volunteer to serve on the committee reviewing the
RFPs for the code rewrite. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the procedure for selecting the
consultant. Councilor Moore volunteered to serve. e
> Councilor Hunt asked about the land under consideration for the homeless shelter.
Councilor Scheckla reported on the meeting held today, noting they would prefer a
different site in the area because of problems with the proposed site; he commented they
were running out of time in meeting their deadline. Mayor Nicoli reported that the
consultant told him they could get all the approvals they needed in time. He said he °
would talk to the consultant and Roy Rogers. k
Councilor Hunt asked that Council be kept informed on what happened. Mr. Monahan !
reported that he and Mr. Hendryx met with Kim Brown and the planning consultant. Ms.
Brown and the consultant would provide the City with plans, timelines, and a complete
application. Mr. Hendryx noted the importance of their submitting a complete application
in meeting their timeline. He pointed out that once this entered the public hearings
process, staff could not control how long it might take because of the probability of
appeals.
Mr. Monahan said that the project was likely to be appealed in whatever neighborhood
they went into. He said that Ms. Brown was aware of that. He said that Ms. Brown
would report to the Council next week, including her thoughts on the severe weather
shelter.
16. ADJOURNMENT: 11:07 p.m.
1
Attu Jo Ha e , Deput City Recorder
r, City of Tigard
(~O Um li Pit PS S dE.+'
i
Date: 9C) ~(4G
I:\ADM\CATHY\CCM\960520.D0C
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 1996 - PAGE 15
1
1 ~ -
Lam- .
A__
7-]
c
e
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legs,
Notice TT 8598
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 r l: i ✓ ;
Legal Notice Advertising
• • ❑ Tearsheet Notice [
City of Tigard ,)k TIGAk[i I
•13125 SW Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit I
Tigard,Oregon 97223-8109 ; G
'Accounts Payable `
I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and sa , that I am the Advertisingg
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTyigard-Tualatin Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 t
and 193.020; published at Ti-aerd in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
City Council Workshop P_1Pi
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
J
August 15,1996
dlY~.~-C p~
Subscribed and sworn t efore me thi st,
I 4a ; OFFICIAL SEAL
All
ROBIN A. BURGESS
Notary lic for Oregon] NOTAR 3LI -OREGON
COMA1 NO. 024552
{ My Commission Expires: _ f•1~ ( ~ is Slo I E41'I11S MAY16,1997
i AFFIDAVIT -
,
r
tom: A;1
Ah-
-
b .
I
f
CITY OF TIGARD,
OREGON
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas max be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
August 20,1996 - 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD C17f HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Workshop Meeting Topics:
• Update: Citizen Involvement Teams (CM Communications
• Update: Metro 2040
• Review: Status Report on Triangle Rezoning and Transportation
Elements
• . Discuss: Recreation Policy
• Review: Speed Hump Eligibility List/Status of Staff Analysis
• Review: City Facilities (Short -and long-terns space plans) i
• Discuss Downtown'Area '
• . Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go inrn Execu-
tive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), &
(h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current ;
and pending litigation issues.
M598-Publish August 15, 1996.
i
' k
0
-
a
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
i TO: Jim H.
FROM: Will D.
r
DATE: August 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Carriage House Apts Hearing
The following is a summation of the process of this application:
1. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change was granted to change the
zone from R-4.5 and C-P to R-25 in 1995. The applicants conducted a neighborhood
meeting and went through Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
2. Andrews Management applied for a Site Development Review / Variance / Lot Line;
Adjustment for the apartment complex. A variance to the number of driveways was l
included. A neighborhood meeting was held prior to applying.
3. A notice of decision was mailed for the SDRNAR/MIS to property owners within 250
feet. Mr. McGuire and Mrs. Pfaffle talked to me during the appeal period. Mr. McGuire
filed an appeal. He challenged condition 9c regarding a wood fence, he felt a masonry
wall should be constructed.
i.
4. Notice of the public hearing for the appeal was mailed to property owners within 250
feet. A public hearing was conducted to discuss the appealed condition related to
concerns of lights, noise, and property value and the request to change the condition to
require a masonry wall. The hearing was limited to the issues appealed. This follows
the requirements of 18.32.370.A.
The following is a response to the concerns raised in the Morgan letter:
1. Impression that the meeting was to discuss the variance. The notice stated it was
an appeal with a bolded statement regarding the issue related to buffering. It did not
specifically state that testimony would be limited to the appealed condition only, but it
also did not state that the Planning Commission would discuss the variance.
Impressions are open to interpretation and not arguable. Section 18.32.370.A states
I
r;
11 ~ 1
dd.i
that the approval authority shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision which is the
subject of the appeal; however, the decision shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of section 18.32.250. Based on this, the only thing under consideration at
the meeting was the appealed condition. Therefore, the only item that the Council
could review on call up is the issue related to the appealed condition (fence versus
masonry wall), not traffic or land use.
2. Second class citizens. I thought the Planning Commission was diplomatic and
j explained the nature of the meeting while sympathizing with the citizen's position. The
process was explained by staff and staff addressed areas of concern raised, though I
those issues were not under review. The people raised issue that they did not receive
proper notice. Evidence in the record shows that property owners within 250 feet were
notified for all applications and neighborhood meetings concerning this property.
3. Censor. The Planning Commission, while being diplomatic, followed the code
provisions and the legal requirements. In the future, an effort to clarify the relevant !'l
issues in the notice would be appropriate. Code section 18.32.130.A.1.f specifies that
notice of appeal shall be sent to the appellant and all parties to an appeal or petition for i
review. Staff may, in fact, have been too liberal in noticing all property owners within
250 feet. It could also be interpreted to just those of record in the original review.
4. Petition. The approval relative to the variance and the traffic study has passed the
appeal date. It would have had to have been included within the appeal period of the
original decision. The traffic study was done with 1996 projected figures. This study
® was after the occupancy of Cub Foods and Costco. Cub Foods received a C.of.O
4/4/94 and Costco received a C.of.O. on 10/24/94. The real issue in the Pfaffie Street
area is the amount of traffic created by a number of uses not just this apartment
complex. While traffic is certainly heavy it still falls within the street carrying capacity.
The traffic study indicated that the traffic created by the apartments would be less than
that of the prior C-P and R-4.5 zoning. Traffic in the Pfaffie Street area should be
monitored as in other areas where there is neighborhood concern.
Recommendation i
Because the Council is limited to the issues considered in the McGuire appeal (fence
versus wall) by the City's code as well as legal due process, the only area that can be
reviewed by Council is that which was under appeal. Traffic, access and land use were
not appealed within appropriate appeal periods and those decisions are now final.
17-7 - -
- U
{ A U 6 0 7 1996
August 6, 1996 -
Mayor !
Mayor Nicoli
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Or. 97223 Re: Public Hearing 8/5
File: Carriage House Apts
Dear Mayor Nicoli:
I represent several residents of the Pfaffle Street area, the
location of proposed subject site development. We wish to enter a f
If
complaint regarding the public meeting of which we were notified by
E
the attached flyer.
In response to that flyer many of us appeared at the Aug. 5th
r
meeting of the Planning Commission, under the impression that we
were meeting to discuss a variance requested by the developer for a
provision of only one access for this 84 unit apartment complex in-
r.
Ostead of the two access drives r-quired by code. I think if you ...ad
the Public Hearing Notice attached you will come to that conclusion
also. When we appeared and tried to testify, we were told that the
matter of access was already decided and the permit had been granted
and that we were "in the wrong place' to discuss our concerns pertain-
ing to it.
We feel we were listened to only in a defferential manner and 4
thoughout were treated as second class citizens with no forum to ex-
press our opinions regarding the matter. In other words, it was in-
timated that we were wasting the commission's time. We know we wasted r
_ I
our time.
\ Therefore, we request you censor the commission either for errone-•
-ously wording the hearing notice or not allowing the residents of the
area to fully express their objections.
~ Very truly yours,
Phone: 684 0913 Mr. & Mrs. J. E. Morgan
•
CITY OF TIGARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION, AT A MEETING ON
I MONDAY AUGUST 5. 1996 AT Z= PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125
SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO: APPEAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007
VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005
FILE TITLE: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS
{ APPELLANT: James E. McGuire et. Al.
APPLICANT: Andrews Management, Ltd. OWNER: Same
4000 SW Kruse Way, Suite n270
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
REQUEST > The original request is for the following development applications: 1.) Site _
Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit
multi-family apartment complex; and 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of
one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for this development. The
appeal specifically concerns alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of
property value.
LOCATION: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific
Highway (WCTM 1 S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200).
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106,
18.108, 18.114, 18.116, 18.120 and 18.164.
?ONE: R-25 (Residential, 25 Units Per Acre). The R-25 zone allows single-family attached,
single-family detached, duplex residential units, multiple-family residential units,
residential care facilities, mobile home parks and subdivision, public support services,
family day care, home occupation, temporary use, and accessory structures.
'E PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF
~APTER 18.32 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE
3ARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL, OR RULES OF PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN CHAPTER j
30.",
SIS4E LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL
SO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED
X OF SCR 960007NAR 960005 CARRIAGE MOUSE MTS. NOTICE OF &SM P.C. .CPPUBBJUC MEARING j
44
Lei'
i
{
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD
Washington County, Oregon .
NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER NO. 96-07PC G BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Case Number(s): APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVAL FOR A i
$ITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SIDE) 96-0007. VARIANCE (MAR) 96-
0005 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012
Appellant: James E. McGuire et. al.
Case Name(s): CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS
Address of Property: South side of SW Pfaffle Street. east of SW Hall Blvd., and WAat of Rw Pacific Nurv
City: Tigard State: Oregon Zip:97223
Tax Map & Lot No(s).: WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200.
Request: > The appeal had specifically concerned alleged nuisances of lights, noise and reduction of
property value. The appellant requested that a condition requiring a solid wood fence be
changed to require a masonry wall. The original request is for the following development
applications:
1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven building, 84 unit
multi-family apartment complex;
{ 2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, the code requires two
access drives for this development: and
3.) A Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55
acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and 3.23 acres.
Action: > ❑ Approval as requested ❑ Approval with conditions 0 Denial
j Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper, posted at City Hall and mailed to:
0 Owners of record within the required distance 0 Affected govemmontal agencies
0 The affected Citizen Involvement Team Facilitator 0 The applicant and owner(s)
Final Decision:%
THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON AUGUST 22, 1996 UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of
Tigard Planning Department, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures.
~ .THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 22, 1996.
i
Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City Recorder at (503) 639-4171.
APPEAI. CF SCR 960007NAR 960WS CARRIAGE HOUSE APTS. NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER
I (COVER SHMJ-
;:.rte-__...~_. r. ,
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER NO.96-07PC CrrYoFn9ARD
A FINAL ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S
DECISION APPROVAL FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, VARIANCE & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.
1. APPEAL SUMMARY
CASE: APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S DECISION APPROVAL FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007, VARIANCE
(VAR) 96-0005 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012
1
i
REQUEST: The appeal had specifically concerned alleged nuisances of lights,
noise and reduction of property value. The appellant requested
that a condition requiring a solid wood fence be changed to
require a masonry wall. The original request is for the following
development applications:
1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a
seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex;
2.) A Variance request to allow the provision of one access,
whereas, the code requires two access drives for this
development; and
3.) A Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of
approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of
approximately .57 and 3.23 acres.
APPELLANT: James E. McGuire et. Al.
LOCATION: South side of SW Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of
SW Pacific Highway (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2200).
II DECISION
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission has DENIED the appeal. A public i
hearing was held on August 5, 1996. Based upon the findings contained in the Notice of
Decision and appeal memo, the Planning Commission finds that the condition under appeal
is adequate and satisfies code standards. The original condition is hereby upheld. ! - .
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER PAGE 1
- SDR 96-M7NAR 96-0005IMIS 96-0012 - CARRIAGE HOUSE APTSJANDREWS MANAGEMENT -
J
r
-71
Y. ` I It is further ordered that the applicant and the parties to these proceedings be -
-J notified of the entry of this order.
PASSED: This c~ ~h day of August, 1996 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tigard, Oregon. I'.
~ F
{Signature box below}
Nick Wilson, President l
City/of Tigard Planning Commission
t
r:
_ i
J '
1
r
J
I
I
E
` NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER PAGE 2
SDR 96.=7/VAR 964005IMIS 96-0012 - CARRIAGE HOUSE AFTSJANDP.EM MANAGEMENT
i ~
! ~}1 ~ •~~U ~ N `~i%,G!'~~ - .D iii
I•:I I _ 1 T
,,,,r
!f•~~.71L_ t.rL it " ~ - ~ -
p ~ ~ it
-gyp .I ~ - U
L11.
~f y; if - u . s e p I C f' }
~u
1 ~ ~ opt ~ . i \ 1 ~ Q
~r Ill..]
IP
LL~
i
III
UH
i i
v v
V
fi
C
City of Tig4dPl"'annin Departmnt
g _®~leY - wA~ A
ur-,A- ncuutjT. FLE-ASE CALL (503) 63S-- 171, EXT. 320 (VOICE) OR (503) 684
I; ?772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE 6
.-TEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SET-UP.
ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN i
WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC
j -TEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT
PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY PLANNER; OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING; AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND
WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER 1
I MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON
THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER JULY 15.
1996. ANY PARTY IS ENTITLED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING. IF THERE IS NO
I CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE
RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.
'NCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE
-IGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR
i )ISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE BASED UPON THESE CRITERIA AND THESE
CRITERIA ONLY. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST r
=ERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA LISTED.
-AILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE
SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND, PRECLUDES AN
t {PPEAL AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR
:OMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE
30ARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE.
LL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION
I X NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT I. .
.ATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE
~EARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY
I AN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (25C) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR
OPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. f
{ OR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER WILLIAM D'ANDREA AT
-03) 639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223.
L 1 1~" 1 it C _
I
I a
s : I I I~
' ~I II i
f
EAR CF SDR 96A007NAR 96-0005 CARRIAGE MOUSE APTS. NOTICE OF at.-J96 P.C- PUBUC HEARING - j
• I
c. ,
i AUG 0 7 199"0
_ e
Aug. 6, 1996
City Council
City of Tigard
r
13125 S. W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Dr. 97223
'a.
' To Whom It May Concern:
Be informed, it is the intention of the residents adjacent to the
proposed site development under the title of Carriage House Apartments
on S. W. Pfaffle, to submit a petition at the next council meeting ar,:...
requesting the revocation of approval given to Andrews Management Ltd.
for variance of one access instead of two access at this site, until
I
there is an updated traffic study of Pfaffle made.
It is our understanding that the traffic study upon which this
approval was made was done in 1995 prior to the density of traffic
i
on Pfaffle resulting from the opening of Cubs Food and Costco in the
Triangle. j.
We also intend to request that, based upon the new study, an update
of the traffic system in that area be undertaken, if warranted. k
We will have our petitions at the next council meeting on August 13th
at 6:30 P.M. for your perusal and reply.
j Mery JZlyyyours`/~Mrs. J E. Morgan
. W. 7 h
Phone: 6840913 Tigard 97223 " r
~ a
{
- a
August 6, 1996
1 City Council
City of Tigard
13125 S. W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Or. 97223
1 To Whom It May Concern:
We, the undersigned, request hereby that the council enter on their
i
agenda for public discussion, the concerns of residents surrounding
i _
the proposed site for an 54 unit apartment complex known as Carriage
i
House Apartments at the soonest possible date.
This, we hope, would give us an open forum for the expression of
our varied concerns regarding this project, before the construction
has begun.
Name Address
E
kwe x• PS 5-1d. ,~J Sr. 7764,(0 9 ~a
~ C
9 5
IZI
f Z7ZZ
FAD ~
C
D 574;-
LL)
=~3
t1 w Y~ue Tt °C1
11CU / t'sa p X22
73
AGENP
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I TO: Tigard Planning Commission
FROM: William D'Andrea
i
DATE: July 24, 1996
SUBJECT: Appeal of Decision by James McGuire for the Following Land Use Application: F
Site Development Review (SDR) 96-0007
Lot Line Adjustment (MIS) 96-0012
Variance (VAR) 96-0005
On June 20, 1996 the Director of Community Development approved an application for a Site
Development ReviewNadance/Lot Line Adjustment (SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012/VAR 96-
0005). (See "Exhibit A")
James McGuire has appealed the decision stating that "factual nuisances and lifestyle
adjustments demanded by this new construction are not appropriately addressed or adequate",
as the City has conditioned in the decision. (See "Exhibit B") The appeal requests that a new
condition, requiring a cinder block masonry wall not less than 6 feet high and 8-inches thick
along the entire east property line of tax lot 400, be imposed in place of the staff recommended
Condition #9C. This condition requires a six-foot fence. The appeal states that there are three
"factual realities" as a result of the proposed apartment complex. These items consist of the
following:
1.) Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting the complex will shine headlights directly into
windows of the appellant's home and the conditioned fence cannot be an
adequate light screen. E
2.) Noise: There will be additional traffic noise directly outside the home as cars slam
doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking and exiting the property. When
the proposed second access is installed, there will be even additional noise and
safety problems.
3.) Value: As a result of the above stated problems, the proposed apartments will result in '
lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable features k
for prospective buyers. !
8/5196 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 1 OF 3
APPEAL OF SDR 96.00071MIS 96.0012NAR 96-0005
I ~ .
DISCUSSION
i Issue #1 - Lights:
Vehicles exiting the site will do so by a driveway approximately 300 feet to the east and on the `
same side of the street of the existing residence. There is an intervening single-family
residence between the appellant's residence and the main driveway entrance. In the future,
when the existing residence on tax lot 300 is removed and development of the proposed
additional building, parking area, and access drive is requested; screening shall be provided
along tax lot 400 in accordance with buffering and screening standards in effect at that time.
Section 18.100.080.E currently allows the construction of a five-foot or taller fence or wall to
' provide a continuous sight obscuring screen as one of three alternative screening measures.
Requiring Andrew's Management to construct a wall (or other type of screen) the entire length
of the property line at this time would be unjustified, as the northern 160 feet of tax lot 300 will I
remain as a single-family residential use. Headlights within the parking area, adjacent to i
building C3, will be screened by a six-foot, solid wood fence. This fence will completely screen
I the appellant's property from shining headlights, as well as screen the residence that is to
9 remain on tax lot 300.
j Issue #2 - Noise:
The appellant's residence is approximately 80 feet from the parking lot adjacent to building C3.
Andrew's Management will be constructing a solid wood fence and a row of trees to help
attenuate potential noise due to the development. The code does not require the elimination of I"
` all off-site impacts, but rather, measures which minimize those impacts. As previously stated,
development of the future access will be buffered in accordance with standards in effect at that 4
time. In either case, the property shall comply with Department of Environmental Qualities YY
(DEQ) noise standards related to the level of off-site noise. DEQ standards require no greater I.
than 55dba. Failure to comply with these standards would result in a citation and action
directed by the Municipal Judge if necessary. The appeal mentions additional safety problems
with the development of the future access. There is no evidence to suggest a safety problem
will result, nor how the construction of a masonry wall would contribute to reducing this safety
problem.
Issue #3 - Loss in Value of Pro eedy:
Property value is not a standard for development review. The Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-0001/ZON 95-0002) established the proposed use as
a permitted use in the newly designated R-25 zone. While it may be a permitted use, the code
provides standards to review and limit, the impacts a proposal may have on adjoining property.
Buffering and screening shall be provided in accordance with the standards established by the
code. Condition #9C addresses those standards.
Section 18.56.050.A.3.e. states that where the side yard or rear yard of multiple-family
dwellings abut a more restrictive zoning district, such setbacks shall not be less than 30 feet.
- The appellant's could have received a greater buffer, and presumably greater protection of
property value had they not been a co-applicant along with Andrew's Management, to change
the zone on tax lot 400 to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). I
8/5/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 2 OF 3
APPEAL OF SDR 96-00071MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005 t
i
j ,
Appellant's Proposed Condition:
To impose a condition of development approval, the condition must be related to the impact b
created by the proposed development. A masonry wall the entire length of the property line is
not proportional to the impact created by this proposed project. The northern 160 feet of the
property line of tax lot 400 will remain a single-family residential use. Constniction of a
masonry wall along this section is not needed to mitigate impacts from this existing single-
family residential use. A solid wood fence and landscaping will be provided along the southern
half of the property line, in accordance with buffering and screening standards. While Section
18.100.080.E allows the construction of a five-foot or taller, fence or wall to provide a
I continuous sight obscuring screen, this measure is only one of three screening alternatives
allowed by this section. More substantial buffering methods were not required because it was r
determined that potential noises were not found to be beyond that normally expected from a
property zoned for multi-family development, nor is it incompatible as would a drive-thru
window abutting a single-family residence. Given the distance between the existing residence
and the parking area, along with the provision of a solid wood fence around the parking area
adjacent to lot 400, it was determined that more substantial screening measures were not
necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Change Condition #9C to require a masonry wall.
2. Modify Condition #9C to provide alternative buffering and screening.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this appellant's request for a modified condition be denied.
i 4
Attachments:
Exhibit A > Notice of Decision-(SDR 96-0007/MIS 96-0012NAR 96-0005)
Exhibit B > Appeal Form
Exhibit C > Preliminary Site and Landscape Plan
1 Exhibit D > Applicant's Response to the Appeal
i j
I ~i9curplnWwnIMdr9"7.mem
Jury 24, 1996
815/96 PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. MEMO RE: PAGE 3 OF 3
APPEAL OF SDR 96-00071MIS %--0012/VAR 96.0005
jy
° - -
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF DECISION
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0007
VARIANCE (VAR) 96-0005
' LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (MIS) 96-0012
± ANDREWS MANAGEMENT/CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS
SECTION I: SUMMARY OF THE R Q IFST
j'
CASES: FILE NAME: CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS
+ Site Development Review SDR 96-0007
Variance VAR 96-0005
Lot Line Adjustment MIS 96-0012 I' .
PROPOSAL: A request for the following development applications: j
1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a
seven building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; IiI
2.) Variance request to allow the provision of one access, whereas, f
the code requires two access drives for developments providing
84 dwelling units; !
3.) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust two parcels of
approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of
approximately .57 and 3.23 acres.
APPLICANT: Andrews Management Ltd. OWNER: Same
4000 SW Kruse Way #270
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
COMPREHENSIVE
PL .N
DESIGNATION: High Density.
ZONING
DESIGNATION: R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre). f
LOCATION: (WCTM 1S1 36CC, Tax Lots 200, 300 and 2000). South side of SW
Pfaffle Street, east of SW Hall Boulevard, and west of SW Pacific
Highway.
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.56, 18.92, 18.96, 18.100,
18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120, 18.150, 18.162, and 18.164.
4
Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96.MO51MIS 96 0012 - Carriage House Apts./Andrews Management Page I
E:
SECTION II: DECISION:
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tigard Community Development Director's designee
has APPROVED the above request subject to the following conditions. The findings and -
conclusions on which the decision is based are noted in Section IV. 1
11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
(Unless otherwise noted, the staff contact shall be
$rian Raaer of the Engineering Department)
a
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a public improvement permit and compliance
agreement is required for this project to cover the street improvements in SW Pfaffle
Street and all other work in the public rights-of-way. Five (5) sets of detailed public
improvement plans and profile construction drawings shall be submitted for
preliminary review to the Engineering Department. Once redline comments are
addressed and the plans are revised, the design engineer shall then submit eight (8)
sets of revised drawings and one (1) itemized construction cost estimate for final
review and approval (NOTE: these plans are in addition to any drawings required by
the Building Division and should only include sheets relevant to public improvements.
Public improvement plans shall conform to City of Tigard Public Improvement Design
Standards, which are available at City Hall.
2. Building permits will not be issued and construction of proposed public improvements
shall not commence until after the Engineering Department has reviewed and
approved the public improvement plans and a construction compliance agreement
has been executed. A 100 percent performance assurance or letter of commitment,
a developer-engineer agreement, the payment of a permit fee, and a sign
installation/streetlight fee are required.
I f
3. The applicant shall provide a construction vehicle access and parking plan for
approval by the City Engineer. All construction vehicle parking shall be provided on-
site or within the right-of-way. No construction vehicles or equipment will be
permitted to park on the adjoining residential public streets. Construction vehicles
include the vehicles of any contractor or subcontractor involved in the construction of
site improvements or buildings proposed by this application, and shall include the
vehicles of all suppliers and employees associated with the project.
4. Prior to issuance of building-type permits, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to
the Public along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street to increase the right-of-way to X
feet from the centerline. The description shall be tied to the existing right-of-way
centerline. The dedication document shall be on City forms. Instructions are
available from the Engineering Department.
Notice of Decision SOR 96-0007NAR 96-M51MIS 96-=2 - Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 2 i
L<
5. The applicant's public improvement plans shall indicate that he will construct standard
! half-street improvements along the frontage of SW Pfaffle Street. The improvements
! adjacent to this site shall include:
A. City standard pavement section from curb to centerline equal to 20 feet. Any
use of existing pavement section shall be approved by the City Engineer. The
applicant has the burden of proof to show whether or not the existing
pavement section will meet current City standards.
B. Pavement tapers needed to be the new improvement back into the existing
edge of pavement shall be built beyond the site frontage.
j C. Curb and gutter.
D. Storm drainage, including any off -site storm drainage necessary to convey
f subsurface runoff. j
E. Five-foot concrete sidewalk.
F. Street striping. 4.
G. Streetlights as determined by the City Engineer.
H. Underground utilities (NOTE: the applicant may be eligible to pay a fee in-lieu
of undergrounding existing overhead utilities).
1. Street signs (if applicable).
J. Driveway apron (if applicable).
K. Adjustments in vertical and/or horizontal alignment to construct SW Pfaffle
Street in a safe manner, as approved by the Engineering Department.
6. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that storm
drainage runoff can be discharged into the existing drainage system in SW 83rd
I Avenue without significantly impacting properties downstream. Calculations shall be
` submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and approval. If
I the storm water from this site will cause downstream impacts, the applicant shall
either upsize the system or provide on-site detention.
7. The applicant shall provide an on-site water quality facility as required by Unified i
Sewerage Agency Resolution and Order No. 91-47. Final plans and calculations
shall be submitted to the Engineering Department (Brian Rager) for review and
approval prior -to issuance of the building permit. In addition, a proposed
maintenance plan shall be submitted along with the plans and calculations for review ; .
and approval.
8. An erosion control plan shall be provided as part of the public improvement drawings.
The plan shall conform to "Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plans -
Technical Guidance Handbook, February 1994.
9. Revised site and landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning
i Division, Staff Contact Will D'Andrea, Planning Department (639-4171). The revised
plans shall include the following:
f
i A. Calculation for shared outdoor recreation area. This development requires
11,508 square feet of shared outdoor recreation area. {
Notice of Derision SDR 96-M7NAR 96.000WIS 96.0012 - Camfage House Apts./Andrews Management Page 3
B. Swimming pools shalt be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard
Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a
minimum height of 4-feet with a self-latching door or gate.
C. Buffering and screening along the west side of the western parking area. The
proposed 5-6 wooden fence shall be continued along the west property line. A
row of trees shall also be planted in accordance with 18.100.080.
j D. Provision of 11 bicycle parking spaces.
E. Tree inventory, prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper
size of all trees greater than six-inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan
shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree preservation plan, as submitted in
the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also identify the number
and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be
removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025
and 18.150.070.D. for these trees.
F. Parking lot trees, spaced one tree for each seven parking spaces, to provide
the required canopy effect.
G. A plan that shows compliance with Community Development Code Chapter
18.116, Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage. The applicant shall
choose one of the following four methods to demonstrate compliance:
Minimum Standard, Waste Assessment, Comprehensive Recycling Plan, or
Franchised Hauler Review and Sign-off. Regardless of which method chosen,
the applicant shall submit a letter from the franchise disposal company related
jj to facility design and compatibility.
1 10. A letter from the consulting arborist that verifies that tree protection measures have
111 been installed according to the tree protection specifications submitted with the
application.
11. A plan approved by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. TVF&R concerns and
comments are noted in the Agency comment section at the end of this report.
12. A kiosk and security fence plan shall be submitted to the Police Department for
review and approval. Staff Contact: Kelly Jennings, Police Department (639-4171).
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL'BE SATISFIED.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY. PERMITS:..
13. All site improvements shall be installed as approved per the revised site plan.
THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR EIGHTEEN 18 MONTHS
i FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
Notice of Decision SDR 96 00071VAR 96 00&MIS 960012 - carriage House A;WAndnws Management Page 4
1
SECTION III: SITE AND VICINITY INFORMATION
Site History:
Tax lot 200 was annexed into the City in 1969. Tax lot 300 was annexed to the City and
zoned R-4.5 in 1987 as part of the south Metzger annexation. Tax lot 2200 is within the
original area of incorporation of the City. These parcels received a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change (CPA 95-000120N 95-0002) to High Density residential,
R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre) in 1995. No other development applications have been
reviewed by the City relating to these properties.
Vicinity Information: i "
Properties to the north are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre), R-7 (Residential, 7
units per acre) and R-12 (Residential, 12 units per acre). Property to east is zoned C-P e
(Professional Commercial). Property to the west is zoned R-25 (Residential, 25 units per l
acre) and C-P (Professional Commercial). The area is predominantly developed with single-
family residential to the north and west. The General Motors Training Center and vacant
property is located to the east. Highway 217 is located to the south. "
: Site Information and Proposal Descritp ion:
r The site is zoned R-25, (Residential, 25 units per acre). The approximately 4.12 acre site is
currently vacant and is covered with assorted vegetation and trees. The site slopes from an
` elevation of approximately 246 feet along the southeast comer of the property to an
elevation of approximately 222 feet along the northwest comer. The applicant has made a
j request for the following development applications: 1) Lot Line Adjustment request to adjust
two parcels of approximately 1.25 and 2.55 acres into two parcels of approximately .57 and
3.23 acres; 2) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a seven
building, 84 unit multi-family apartment complex; 3) Variance request to allow the provision
of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for developments providing 84
dwelling units. A second access is proposed to be provided with proposed future phase of
development.
SECTION IV: APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS:
Use Classification: The applicant is proposing to build a 7 building, 84 unit apartment
complex. This proposal is classified in Code Section 18.42 (Use Classifications) as Multiple-
Family Residential Units. Code Section 18.56.030 allows Multiple-Family dwellings as a
permitted use in the R-25 zoning district.
i
Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005A11{S 96-0012 - carnage House ApWAndrews Management Page 5
e
r_
1
Area: Minimum L!2t Section 18.56.050 states that the minimum lot area for each multi-
family unit in the R-25 zoning district is 1,480 square feet There is no minimum lot
width requirement in the R-25 zone. As discussed in the density section, adequate area is
provided. Developments within the R-25 zone are required to provide a minimum of
20% landscaping. The plan indicates that approximately 87,565 square feet (50%) of the
site has been provided as landscaping, thereby, satisfying this criteria.
Setbacks: Section 18.56.050 states that for multi-family dwellings the setbacks are as
follows: front yard - 20 feet; side yard - 10 feet; side yard which abuts a more
restrictive zone - 30 feet; rear yard - 20 feet As indicated on the site plan, the proposal
meets the setback requirements. The maximum building height is 45 feet As shown on
the exterior elevation plans (A3 - A6, R1), the proposed buildings are approximately 15 - 31
feet in height, well under the maximum allowed.
Section 18.120.180(A)(1) (Site Development Review - Approval Standards) requires
that a development proposal be found to be consistent with the various standards of
other Community Development Code Chapters. The applicable criteria in this case
are Chapters 18.92, 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.114, 18.120, 18.134,
18.150, and 18.164. The proposal's consistency with these Code Chapters is
reviewed in the following sections. The proposal contains no elements related to the
provisions of Code Chapters 18.94 (Manufactured/ Mobile Home Regulations), 18.98
(Building Height Limitations: Exceptions), or 18.144 (Accessory Use and Structures) j _ .
which are also listed under section 18.120.180-A.1. These Chapters are, therefore,
found to be inapplicable as approval standards. Code Section 18.120.180-A.2
provides other Site Development Review approval standards not necessarily covered
by the provisions of the previously listed sections. These other standards are
addressed immediately below.
Relationship to the Natural and Physical Environment: Section 18.120.180.2 states
that buildings shall be located to preserve existing trees and that trees having a six-
inch caliper or greater shall be preserved or replaced by new plantings of equal
character. Given the location of the buildings, parking areas, and accessway, as well as the
grading required to accommodate this proposal, a number of existing trees will be removed.
The arborist has recommended preserving approximately six (6) trees into the site plan.
The arborist has recommended the removal of some trees which may have potential for
y being retained due to the type of tree, their root structure and system, and potential for
blowdown due to loss of group protection. In order to mitigate the removal of trees greater
j than 12 inch caliper, the applicant is being required to provide a tree mitigation plan in
j accordance with the tree removal ordinance.
Exterior Elevations: Section 18.120.108.3 states that along the vertical face of
multiple-family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by
providing any two of the following: a) Recesses (decks, patios, etc.); b) Extensions
(decks, patios, etc.); or c) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations. As indicated on the
preliminary building elevations plans (sheets A3 - A6, R1) the design shows both recesses
and roof elevation offsets, in accordance with this section.
I _
Notice of Decision SOR 96.0007NAR 96-00051MIS 960012 - carriage House AptslAndrews Management Page 6
I
9
i
Buffering. Screening and Compatibility between adjoining uses: Section ii
18.120.108.4(A) states that buffering shall be provided between different types of land
uses. This criteria shall be satisfied as addressed in the Buffer Matrix (18.100.130) section
below. Section 18.120.108.4(B) states that on-site screening from view of adjoining
properties of such things as service and storage areas, parking lots, and mechanical
devices on roof tops shall be provided. This criteria is satisfied as the landscape plan 1
indicates screening within the required buffer area and around the perimeter of the property.
Privacy and Noise: Section 18.120.108.5 requires that structures which include I
residential dwelling units shall provide private outdoor areas for each ground floor e
unit which is screened from view by adjoining units, that the buildings shall be
oriented in a manner which protects private spaces on adjoining properties from view
and noise, and on-site uses which create noise, lights, or glare shall be buffered from
adjoining residential uses. Only two residences directly adjoin the proposed development
site. These are on the west property line. Building C1 is screened from an existing „
residence by an existing cedar hedge. The second residential structure, located on tax lot
400, is located near SW Pfaffle Street. Fencing and landscaping are provided to help buffer
the development from the residence on this .82 acre parcel. Building C3 is oriented such
that only a portion of the building is in proximity to the rear of tax lot 400. The landscape plan
indicates that landscaping shall be provided to further buffer and screen the rear portion of
the adjoining property. On-site private space has been satisfied as there is building
separation between each ground floor patio. The building design also provides for an off-
setting of the patios so that a direct line of site of other patios is not provided. Landscaping j
has also been provided to further screen the private outdoor areas.
Private Outdoor Areas: Section 18.120.108.6. requires that private open space such as
a patio or balcony shall be provided and shall be designed for the exclusive use of
individual units and shall be at least 48 square feet in size with a minimum width
dimension of 4 feet Required open space may include roofed or enclosed structures !
such as a recreation center. This criteria is satisfied as the applicant is proposing both
balconies (63 square feet per unit) and a recreation center.
Shared Outdoor Recreation Areas: Section 18.120.108.7 states that in addition to
subsections 5 and 6 above, usable outdoor recreation space shall be provided in
residential developments for the shared or common use of all the residents in the
amount of 200 square feet per unit for studio up to and including two-bedreom units
and 300 square feet per unit for three or more bedroom units. The required recreation
space may be provided as follows: 1) all outdoor space; 2) part outdoor and part
indoor space; 3) all public or common space; 4) part common and part private, for
example, it could be an outdoor tennis court, indoor recreation room and balconies
on each unit; 5) where balconies are added to units, the balconies shall not be less
i than 48 square feet Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable for
reasons of crime prevention and safety. This development requires 11,508 square feet
! of shared outdoor recreation area (84 units @ 137 s.f.). A swimming pool and community
1 building are provided on-site for shared recreation purposes, as well as open space area. k
U The applicant has not provided information regarding the square footage of shared outdoor
recreation area provided on-site. The applicant shall provide calculations of the shared
outdoor recreation area which demonstrates compliance with this section.
I f
f
Notice of Decisgn SOR 96-M7NAR 964005/MIS 96-0012 - Carriage House AptslAndrews Management Page 7 1
i
4
Demarcation of Spaces- Crime Prevention: Section 18.120.108.9 states that
structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas, semipublic
areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined in order to establish persons
-having a right to be in the space, in order to provide fo: crime prevention and to d
establish maintenance responsibility. The Tigard Police Department has requested, in
similar developments, that appropriate signage be placed at entrances to apartment
complexes and that adequate addressing be placed on unit entrances so that emergency
service providers can locate units quickly. The developer should, Zerefore, be required to - ■
contact the Police Department prior to obtaining building permits for the complex for review
and approval of the address signage of this development.
Crime Prevention and-Safety: Section 18.120.108.10 requires that windows be located
so that areas vulnerable to crime can be surveyed by the occupants; interior laundry
and service areas shall be located in a way that can be observed by others; mail
boxes located in lighted areas having vehicular or pedestrian traffic; exterior lighting
levels selected and angles shall be oriented towards areas vulnerable to crime; and
light fixtures shall be provided in areas having pedestrian or vehicular traffic and in
potentially dangerous areas. The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed and
approved the proposed lighting plan.
Densi Computation: Section 18.92 establishes the criteria for determining the _
number of dwelling units permitted. In determining the net acreage, the following are ;
subtracted from the gross acreage: sensitive land area; park dedication; dedicated
public right-of-way and private streets. To calculate the net units per acre, it is
necessary to divide the net acreage by the minimum number of square feet required 4
for each lot by the applicable zoning district The subject site contains approximately 4.1
acres or approximately 178,950 square feet Section 18.92.020(3)(b) requires the
subtraction of 15% of the gross area for public facilities, or 26,842 square feet. The resulting
net acreage is 152,108 square feet. Dividing the net acreage by 1,480 square feet per unit
results in 102 net units. The applicant is proposing 84 units, thereby, satisfying this criteria.
i
Additional Yard Setback Requirements: Section 18.96.020 requires that the building
setback on SW Pfaffle Street (a collector street) shall be the setback distance required
by the zoning district plus 30 feet measured from the centerline of the street As
indicated on the site plan, these setback standards are satisfied.
Distance Between Multipie-Family Structures: Section 18.96.030 states that buildings
with windowed walls facing buildings with windowed walls shall have a 25 foot
separation, buildings with windowed walls facing buildings with a blank wall shall
have a 15 foot separation, buildings with opposing blank walls shall have a 10 foot
separation. Where buildings exceed a horizontal dimension of 60 feet or exceed 30
feet in height, the minimum wall separation shall be one foot for each 15 feet of
building length over 50 feet and two feet for each 10 feet of building height over 30
feet This section is applicable to buildings A6, B4, and C5. The proposed building lengths.
are approximately 145, 150, and 115 feet. The building elevation plans (sheets A3 - A6)
show that the proposed buildings have windowed walls facing windowed walls. The
required separations, therefore, are 25 feet. There is an additional separation ranging from
Notice of Derision SDR 96-00071VAR 9640051MIS 96-0012 - Caniage House AptsJMdmws Management Page 8 f
I J
L.~
1
4-6feet required because the building lengths are greater than 60-feet long. The total
building separation required for building, therefore, ranges from 29-31 feet. The proposed
plan is designed such that all buildings are in compliance with the required distances,
thereby, satisfying this criteria.
In addition, driveways, parking lots and walkways shall maintain the following
separation for dwelling units within eight feet of the ground level: 1) driveways and
parking lots shall be separated from windowed walls by at least eight feet; walkways
running parallel to the face of the structures shall be separated by at least five feet;
and 2) driveways and parking lots shall be separated from living room windows by at
least 10 feet; walkways running parallel to the face of the structure shall be separated
by at least 7 feet. As indicated on the site plan, all buildings satisfy the parking lot and
i walkway separation requirements.
Landscaping Plan: Section 18.100.015 requires that .the;A-applicant submit a
landscaping plan. This requirement has been satisfied as the applicant has submitted a
plan indicating the type and location of trees and shrubs.
Street Trees: Section 18.100.033 states that all development projects fronting on a
public street shall be required to plant street trees In accordance with section
18.100.035. Section 18.100.035 requires that street trees be spaced between 20 and
40 feet apart depending on the size classification of the tree at maturity (small,
4 medium or large). The landscape plan shows the provision of two October Glory maple i - .
and two Northern Red Oak trees along SW Pfaffle Road, in accordance with the provisions
? of this section.
Screening: Special Provisions: Section 18.100.110(A) states that.trees shall be
planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas and shall be equally distributed and
on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy i
effect The minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the 4 .
landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard
or curb. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which
effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. The applicant has partially provided
shade trees that would provide the required canopy effect. Trees in some cases are -
separated from parking stalls by a sidewalk providing less effective shading than envisioned
by this section. Therefore, a revised plan shall be submitted that provides for the required
canopy effect and spacing on the basis of one tree for each parking space.
Screening of Swimming Pools: Section 18.100.110(C) states that all swimming pools
shall be enclosed as required by Chapter 14.20 of the Tigard Municipal Code. The
enclosure shall be provided by a fence or wall with a minimum height of 4 feet with a
j self-latching door or gate. A revised plan shat! be submitted that provides the
j specifications showing compliance with this section.
Notice of Deasion SDR 96-OW/VAR 9640051MIS 96-0012 - Carrfage House HptsJAndrews Management Page 9 !
i
I
L~
L.~
-----era -
S
i
Screening of Refuse Containers: Section 18.100.110(D) states that any refuse
I container or disposal area shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood
l fence, masonry wall or evergreen hedge between five and eight feet in height All
refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The plans show the
provision of a 5-foot high, solid wood fence to provide screening of the trash enclosures,
i thereby, satisfying this criteria.
Buffer Matrix: Section 18.100.130 contains the buffer matrix to be used in calculating
widths of buffering and screening to be installed between proposed uses. The Matrix
indicates that where a multi-family development abuts a residential zone with a
single-family use, the required buffer and screening width shall be 10 feet Section
18.100.080.13 contains the minimum improvement standards for the buffering area.
The minimum improvements within a buffer area shall consist of the following: 1) At
least one row of trees shall be planted. They shall be not less than 10 feet high for
deciduous trees and 5 feet high for evergreen trees at the time of planting. Spacing of
the trees depends on the size of the tree at maturity; 2) In addition, at least 10 five
gallon shrubs or 20 one gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1000 square feet of
required buffer area; 3) The remaining area shall be planted in lawn, greundcover or
spread with bark mulch. The west buffer area contains approximately 4,400 square feet.
Therefore, this buffer shall contain 40, five-gallon or 80, one-gallon shrubs, in addition to the
one row of trees. The landscape plan shows the provision of an existing, mature cedar
hedge buffering building C1 from the existing residence. The plan also shows the provision _
of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western parking area, in addition to a
row of trees. The plan shows that low lying screening has been provided in accordance with
these standards. Neither a fence or row of trees has been provided along the west side of
the western parking area. A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering and
screening in accordance with these standards. 1
r
Section 18.100.080.E states that where screening is required the following standards
shall apply in addition to those required for buffering; 1) a hedge of narrow or
broadleaf evergreen shrubs which will form a 4 foot continuous screen within 2 years
of planting, or; 2) an earthen berm planted with evergreen plant materials which will
form a continuous screen 6 feet in height within 2 years. The unplanted portion of the
berm shall be planted in lawn, ground cover or bark mulch, or; 3) a 5 foot or taller
fence or wall shall be constructed to provide a continuous sight obscuring screen.
3 The plan shows the provision of a 5-6 foot wood fence along the north side of the western
parking area. Screening has not been provided along the west side of the western parking
i area (adjacent to tax lot 400). A revised plan shall be submitted that provides for buffering
and screening in accordance with these standards. It is recommended that the applicant
continue the proposed 5-6 foot wood fence along this west side of the parking area.
9
Visual Clearance Areas: Section 18.102 requires that a clear vision area shall be
f maintained on the corners of all property adjacent to intersecting right-of-ways or the
intersection of a public street and a private driveway. A clear vision area shall
j contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure, or temporary or permanent
+ obstruction exceeding three feet in height The code provides that obstructions
3 which may be located in this area shall be visually clear between three and eight feet
j in height (trees may be placed within this area provided all branches below eight feet
i
Notice of Decision SDR 96-MMAR 96-00051MIS 96.0012 - Caniage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 10
1
! a
are removed). A visual clearance area is the triangular area formed by measuring a
30 foot distance along the street right-of-way and the driveway and then connecting
these two 30 foot distance points with a straight line. As indicated on the site plan, this
section is satisfied.
Minimum Off-Street Parkins: Section 18.106.030(A)(3) requires a minimum of 1.5
parking spaces for 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for units with more than 1 bedroom.
In addition, section 18.106.020(G) states that multi-dwelling units with more than 10
required parking spaces shall provide shared parking for the use of all of the guests
of all of the residents of the complex. The shared parking shall consist of 15 percent
of the total required parking spaces and be centrally located within the development.
The applicant is proposing 36, one-bedroom units and 48, one-plus bedroom units; thereby,
requiring 150 parking spaces. The required number of shared parking spaces is 22. The
total number of required parking spaces is, therefore, 172. This requirement is satisfied as
the proposed site plan shows the provision of 173 parking spaces.
The Americans with Disabilities Act_(ADAI requires 6 disabled parking spaces if 151
to 200 parking spaces are provided. The proposed site plan shows the provision of six
disabled person parking spaces distributed throughout the site, thereby, satisfying this
criteria. l
Bicycle Parking: Section 18.106.020(0) requires one bicycle parking rack space for
each 15 required vehicular parking spaces in any development. Bicycle parking _
S areas shall not be located within parking aisles, landscape areas, or pedestrian. ways.
Based on the requirement of 172 parking spaces, 11 bicycle parking spaces will be required
for this development. The site plan does not show the provision of bicycle racks. A revised
plan shall be submitted which shows the location of the required 11 bicycle parking spaces.
Access: Section 18.108.070(F) requires that multiple-family residential uses provide a j
minimum of two driveways when 50 - 100 units are provided. The minimum access f
width shall be 30 feet, with 24 feet of pavement, curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk. The site
plan indicates the provision of 84 units, therefore, two accesses are required for this
development. A 24-foot paved driveway shall be provided within a 30-foot-wide access
width. Curbs and a five-foot sidewalk are required. This section is partially satisfied as the
site plan shows the provision of one access drive with a pavement width of 24 feet, and a
sidewalk that leads into the development. The applicant is developing on a portion of tax lot
300. The applicant has provided the owner of this tax lot a lifetime lease to reside in the
existing residence. When the applicant acquires title to the property, additional apartment
units, parking and an access to SW Pfaffie will be constructed. This future phase is shown
on the proposed plan. The applicant is requesting an access variance to allow the provision
of one access, whereas, the code requires two access drives for a development with 84
units. An access variance will be granted for this development. The findings for this access
variance are discussed in the following section.
1 ~
1 _
Notice of Decision SDR 960007NAR 9640051MIS 96-0012 - Carriage House Apts.lAndrews Management Page 11
e.
i
l~
J
f)
I
gccess Variance: Section 18.108.150 states that a variance may be approved for an
access variance based on findings that
1. It is not possible to share access. Shared access is not possible as the adjoining
property to the east is undeveloped and zoned for commercial use and property to the west
is currently developed with a single-family residence with the owner granted a life estate
allowing the owner to live on the property.
2. There are no other alternative access points on the street in question or from
another street The one proposed access is located to align with SW 83rd Avenue across
SW Pfaffle Street. This alignment is made at the request of the City to minimize traffic
turning conflicts at the intersection. The property does not have frontage on another street,
nor does it adjoin an existing developed residential property that has access to another
street.
3. The access separation requirements cannot be met This section is not applicable as
there are no access separation requirements applicable to this project. While no specified
requirements are applicable, the City is requiring the alignment of the accessway to align
with SW 83rd Avenue to minimize traffic turning conflicts at the intersection. Given the
applicants frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, the proposed future access is at a more
acceptable distance from the intersection and is preferred over a location closer to the
proposed access and intersection.
_ .
4. The request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access. This
request is the minimum variance required to provide adequate access as a second access
will be provided in the future.. When the applicant acquires title to the remaining tax lot 300, -
a second access will be provided to SW Pfaffle Street. In the interim, requiring the applicant j
to provide a second access within the existing frontage would not add to the efficiency of the
1 design of the project. It also is preferable to locate a second access further away from the
j intersection of SW Pfafte Street and SW 83rd Avenue than to require a second access
within the available 217 feet of frontage currently available. The applicant shall be required
to construct the second access within 12 months of acquiring the property. This construction
shall take place regardless of the applicant receiving site development approval for the
proposed additional units. The -applicant shall be required to provide buffering and
screening along the west property line in accordance with the standards in effect at the time
of construction. Given the City Council's interpretation of driveways, with the Arbor Heights
(Triad) apartment development, the applicant would technically meet code requirements with
a wider driveway separated by an island. In this case, an island would serve no practical
purpose.
5. The approved access or access approved with conditions will result in a safe
access. Delaying the provisiorl of a second access will still result in a safe access. The
access provided meets the access standards as related to width. The one access and site
design will provide for safe access as related to emergency vehicle access as the applicant
shall provide an approved plan from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue.
6. The vision clearance requirements of chapter 18.102 will be met As indicated on
the site plan, vision clearance requirements shall be satisfied on the one access provided.
Nobas of Decision SDR 960D07/VAR %MOS/MIS 960012 - Caniage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 12 i -
• J
I "
f .
W-..I -a Section 98.108.050(B) requires that within multi-family developments each
s: Sa
residential dwelling shall be connected to the vehicular parking area, and common '
open space and recreation facilities shall be connected by a walkway system having
a minimum width of four feet and constructed of an all weather material. As indicated
on the site plan, walkways are satisfactorily provided.
Signs: Section 18.114.130 (B) lists the type of allowable signs and sign area
permitted in the R-25 zone. All signs shall be approved through the Sign Permit process
as administered by the Planning Division.
Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclables Storage: Section 18.116 requires that new
construction incorporates functional and adequate space for on-site storage and
efficient collection of mixed solid waste and source separated recyclables prior to
pick-up and removal by haulers. The applicant shall choose one of the following four
' methods to demonstrate compliance: Minimum standard, Waste assessment,
Comprehensive recycling plan, or Franchised hauler review and sign-off. The i .
I applicant will need to submit evidence or a plan that indicates compliance with this section.
The applicant shall also obtain from the disposal hauler, a written sign-off on the location of
and the compatibility of facilities.
Tree Removal: Section 18.150.025 requires that a tree plan for the planting, removal
and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided with a site }
development review application. The tree plan shall Include identification of all
existing trees, identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree }
removal over 12 inches in caliper, which trees are to be removed, protection program
defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees
during and after construction. The proposed plan shows the location of some trees on
the site. However, this plan does not identify the size of these trees, nor does it include all
the trees on the site as discussed in the arborist report. A revised plan shall be submitted,
prepared by the arborist, that identifies the location and caliper size of all trees greater than
6 inch caliper on the site. The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the arborists tree
preservation plan, as submitted in the arborist report as Appendix 1. The arborist shall also
identify the number and total caliper size of trees greater than 12 inch caliper that are to be
removed. A mitigation plan shall be submitted in accordance with 18.150.025 and
18.150.070.D. for these trees.
Lot Line Adjustment - Approval Standards: Section 18.162.060 contains the following
standards for approval of a lot line adjustment request:
1. An additional parcel is not created by the Lot Line Adjustment, and the existing
parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot
1 size established by the zoning district;
2. By reducing the tot size, the lot or structure(s) on the lot will not be in violation
i of the site development or zoning district regulations for that district; and
3. The resulting parcels are in conformity with the dimensional standards of the j
zoning district
t i1
Notice of Decision SDR 96-=71VAR 960005MIS 96-0012 - Carriage House AptsJAndnrws Management Page 13 j
The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with these standards. The proposed
adjustment will reconfigure the lot lines, however, an additional parcel will not be created by
the adjustment. Both lots will exceed the 3,050 square foot minimum lot size requirement of
the R-25 zone. All site development improvements applicable to tax lot 300 will remain s`
consistent with Code requirements. Development improvements on tax lot 200 shall be t
satisfied as addressed in this report and review process.
Special Provisions for Lots Created Through Partition Process: Section 18.162.060
states that in addition to meeting the above standards, a Lot Line Adjustment must
also meet the following criteria applicable to lots created through the Minor Land
Partition process::
1. Lot Width: The minimum width of the building envelope area shall meet the lot E>
requirement of the applicable zoning district.
2. Lot Area: The lot area shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. In F
the case of a flag lot, the accessway may not be included in the lot area
calculation.
3. Lot Frontage: Each lot created through the partition process shall front a
public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, or have a legally recorded minimum 15
j foot wide access easement
4. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district ~
5. Front Yard Determination for Flag Lot: When the partitioned lot is a flag lot, the
developer may determine the location of the front yard, provided that no side
yard is less than 10 feet Structures shall generally be located so as to
maximize separation from existing structures. I
6. Screening on Flag Lots: A screen shall be provided along the property line of a
lot of record where the paved drive in an accessway is located within ten feet of
an abutting lot in accordance with Sections 18.100.080 and 18.100.090.
Screening may also be required to maintain privacy for abutting lots and to
provide usable outdoor recreation areas for proposed development
7. Fire Protection: The fire district may require the installation of a fire hydrant
where the length of an accessway would have a detrimental effect on fire
fighting capabilities.
8. Reciprocal Easements: Where a common drive is to be provided to serve more
than one (1) lot, a reciprocal easement which will ensure access and
maintenance rights shall be recorded with the approved partition map.
r•
9. Accessway: Any accessway shall comply with the standards set forth in LJ
Chapter 18.108; Access, Egress, and Circulation.
Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 9640051MIS 96-0012 - Caniage House Apts Andrews Management Page 14 1
J
I
10. Flood lg ain: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to
the one-hundred-year floodplain, the City shall require the dedication of
sufficient open land area for greenway adjoining and within the floodplain.
This area shall include portions at a suitable elevation for the construction of a
pedestrianibicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted
pedestrianibicycle pathway plan.
Criteria 1 is satisfied as there is no minimum lot width required in the R-25 zone. Criteria 2 is
satisfied as the lot areas are approximately..57 and 3.23 acres, exceeding the minimum
3,050 minimum lot size requirement. Criteria 3 is satisfied as the lots contain approximately
160 and 217 feet of frontage on SW Pfaffle Street, satisfying the minimum 15-foot, minimum
width requirement. As indicated on the site plan, setbacks are satisfied on lot 300, thereby,
satisfying Criteria 4. As discussed previously, setbacks are satisfied for the proposed }
t!` apartment project on lot 200.
1 4 .
Criteria 5 is not applicable as neither lot is a flag lot. Criteria 6 is not applicable as neither lot
is a flag lot. Fire hydrants shall be consistent with Uniform Fire Code standards, thereby,
satisfying Criteria 7. Criteria 8 is satisfied as a shared driveway is not proposed with this
adjustment. Criteria 9 is satisfied on lot 300 as the residence will continue to utilize the
existing driveway. As discussed previously, access shall be satisfied for the proposed
apartment project. Criteria 10 is not applicable as neither parcel is within the floodplain.
PUBLIC FACILITY CONCERNS:
Sections 18.164.030(E)(JIW (Streets), 18.164.090 (Sanitary Sewer), and 18.164.100
(Storm Drains) shall be satisfied as specified below:
Streets:
This site lies adjacent to SW Pfaffle Street at the intersection with SW 83rd Avenue. SW ; .
Pfaffle Street is classified as a minor collector street to be built to the following standard:
6C-foot right-of-way (ROW), two 14-foot travel lanes, one 12-foot center turn lane and 5-
foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. At present, there is 25 feet of ROW on the
south side of the centerline. The applicant's plans indicate that they will dedicate
additional ROW to provide 30 feet from centerline in order to meet current standards.
A traffic analysis was prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., dated January 1995, to
address the proposed zone change from commercial-professional (C-P) and residential
(R-4.5) to multi-family (R-25). The zone change was approved by the City and became
effective on June 30, 1995. The analysis assumed a maximum of 137 multi-family units
would be developed on the site. Based on that assumption, and considering existing
traffic conditions, Kittelson determined that the proposed apartment development could be
built without causing significant impacts to the existing street system and nearby
I U intersections.
K
Notice cr.:ecision SOR 96.0007AIAR 96.OOOSIMIS 960012- Gniage Home ApftAndreva Management Page 15
.r,.
Will
There were two existing traffic conditions that were mentioned in the analysis: 1) the
intersection of SW 78th Avenue at Pfaffle Street currently operates with a forced flow _
condition during weekday PM peak periods, and 2) there is a sight distance problem at the
intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Pfaffle Street. The forced flow condition, at
78th Avenue is an existing condition resulting from the signalized intersection of SW
j Dartmouth Street and Pacific Highway. Kittelson stated that the apartment complex will
11 have minimal impacts on the operation and safety of the 78th Avenue/Pfaffle Street
intersection. The sight distance problem at Hall Boulevard is due to the presence of the
overpass crossing of Highway 217. Accident data from this location does not reflect an
unusually high incidence of accidents, and the development of this site is not expected to
worsen the already existing condition, according to the analysis.
The applicant's plans indicate that a half-street improvement will be constructed in SW
Pfaffle Street along the site frontage. This improvement will help mitigate the traffic impact
from this development. In addition, the proposed site access will align with the centerline
of SW 83rd Avenue to avoid turning movement conflicts. The plan contains a street
section detail that suggests the applicant will simply tie onto the edge of existing pavement
and widen the street. However, this assumes the existing pavement section meets current
City standards (4 inches of asphalt pavement over 15 inches of rock base). Staff does not
know if the existing pavement section meets City standards. Therefore, the applicant is
required to build the half-street to centerline, unless he can show that the existing
pavement section is adequate. The City Engineer will make the determination as to
whether or not the City standard is met.
'i -
Based on the findings of the traffic study, and based on the applicant's intention to
construct half-street improvements in Pfaffle Street to meet City standards, Staff finds the
project will meet City transportation requirements.
i I
SanitaEy Sewer: f
There is an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in SW Pfaffle Street that is available to serve
this site. The plans indicate that a service line will be extended to serve the development.
Storm Drainagg:
There is an existing public storm drainage line in SW 83rd Avenue that presently
terminates 300 feet north of Pfaffle Street. The applicant proposes to extend this line
further south to reach Pfaffle Street to provide for street and site drainage. This concept
will be approved if the applicant can show that the existing line will have enough cover and
j capacity to accommodate the extension. A downstream analysis will be required to
1 determine if there will be any adverse impacts. If there will be adverse impacts related to
the discharge of the storm water from this site, the applicant will be required to either
upsize the downstream system or make provisions on the subject site for on-site
detention. This analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of
building permits.
Notice of Decision SDR 96-=7/VAR 96-M&MIS 96-0012 - Carriage House AptsJAndrews Management Page 16 l ,
Storm Water Qua ft
i
The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations
established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 91-47, as
amended by R&O 91-75) which require the construction of on-site water quality facilities.
The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 i
percent of the storm water runoff generated from newly created impervious surfaces. In
addition, a maintenance plan is required to be submitted indicating the frequency and
method to be used in keeping the facility maintained through the year. Prior to issuance of
a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans and calculations for a water quality ■
facility that will meet the intent of R&O 91-47. In addition, the applicant shall submit a
maintenance plan for the facility that must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
j issuance of the building permit. j
i
1 The applicant's plans indicate that a series of water quality swales is proposed. There
F
were no calculations submitted with the application for Staff to review to determine if the
swales will be adequately sized. USA provided comments related to the design and
suggest that the applicant consider sizing the water quality facilities to account for the
future development of Phase 2.
Erosion Control: f{
f
USA R&O 91-47 also regulates erosion control to reduce the amount of sediment and
other pollutants reaching the public storm and surface water system resulting from
development, construction, grading, excavating, clearing, and any other activity which 1
accelerates erosion. Per R&O 91-47, the applicant is required to submit an erosion j
control plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of City permits. f
i=
r I
SECTION VII: STAFF AGENCY & CIT COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Police Department has reviewed this proposal and has offered the
following comments: The applicant needs a kiosk sign at the entrance and a security
fence along the Highway 217 property line.
I
j Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has reviewed this proposal and has offered the
{ following comments: Plans cannot be approved at this time. More than 20 dwelling units
i requires not less than two accesses or buildings need to be protected with automatic
j sprinklers. Fire flov.a shall not exceed 3000 gpm. Submit calculations for review and
approval. Inadequate turning radius has been provided. Access distances around buildings
are too great Hydrant locations are not shown. Plans shall be submitted for review and
approval. Contact: Gene Birchill (526-2502).
I? Tualatin Valley Water District has reviewed this proposal and has offered the
following comments: Water will be served from a six-inch existing water line in SW Pfaffle
Street A master water meter and double check detector assembly (on fire line) will be y
required at the property line. Contact: Stewart Davis (642-1511).
Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007/VAR 98-00OS/MIS 96-0012 • Carthage House AptsJAndrnws Management Page 17
'a
I
L~
J
The Unified Sewerage Agency has reviewed this proposal and has offered the E
following comments: A water quality facility is necessary and should be large enough to r ,
include phase 2. A copy of the approved erosion control plan should be provided to USA's
inspection division.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and has offered
the following comments: Due to its proximity to Highway 217, it is recommended that the
City require the applicant to construct a soundwall (or other noise mitigation measure
acceptable to ODOT) along its highway frontage. In addition to reviewing plans for sound
mitigation, we will need to review drainage plans for possible impacts to state facilities. If
connection to the ODOT's storm drain system is planned, a permit will be required. Please
contact: Bob Schmidt, Engineering Coordinator, ODOT District 2A at 229-5002 for further
information.
GTE has reviewed this proposal and has offered the following comments: Developer
to place conduit/trench to GTE's specifications.
The City of Tigard Building Division, City of Tigard Public Works Department, and
PGE have reviewed this application and have offered no comments or objections.
No other comments have been received.
SECTION Vill: PROCEDURE AND APPEAL INFORMATION
Notice•
Notice was posted at City Hall and mailed to:
_X_ The applicant and owners
X Owner of record within the required distance
j _X_ Affected government agencies
_ F
Final Decision:
THE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL ON JULY 1, 1996
UNLESS AN APPEAL IS FILED.
Appeal:
Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Section
18.32.290(A) and Section 18.32.370 of the Community Development Code which provides
that a written appeal must be filed with the City Recorder within 10 days after notice is
given and sent. The appeal fee schedule and forms are available from the Planning
Division of Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223.
I
Notice of Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-0005/MIS 96.0012 - Caniage House AptsJAndmws Management Page 18
.d
THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OF AN APPEAL IS 3:30 P.M. ON JULY 1, 1996.
Questions:
If you have questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Department, Tigard Citv Hall,
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon at (503)639-4171.
June 20. 1996
PREPARED BY: Will D'Andrea DATE
Assistant Planner
~~iG~' (J June 20. 1996 APOqkOVEDA OV Y: Ric d Be rsdo DATE
Seplor Planner
i
i
t
I
i
i
j
;i
•l
Nctce at Decision SDR 96-0007NAR 96-OOO MIS 96-0012 - Grtiage House ApWMtlrews N!"enfent Page 19
j ECC.
%
r J uurzw auutr a6LLe
al PCl. R.x• H- Wrzw au' rrr auul!
~ RlG Rl1 .
f'••'~~CM.=I L' I to ~ .
1 ro+caxo.o~.s- "ti+a~,•n•T ~J7,~• ='f
c..w.a! u
\=k g
-1• e Z
u
. r ~ t as
-.l i
' `tJ7 , ?ALL
6=0 a
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
. AREA 0I ILL~ O~ .two ~SCUI .•P! • cJ X 1• -
-.R. s1WYT1W . VaT x :CO . J re
. At - K J ~ P.CLfi,T'PLCM K_'R
CAffit-CW I -
lKRT aMR lTµL -
MCtNrlKie . 30LMt K.D ~ L-S C.
X • x STEEL I Ts "
{ SYMBOLS J r7 -V
X ICaJ9J• ✓
- sY.TLwT ~ROw W. UQ QCLpaNQ \
777 ~uTx wtCtCL.0
1 h _
66 \ =a~ 1e
" - - tiT[wYTY uL uOCIC~ lTrEf7 O
it - ~ [zsc at.•.1rc PPLOT PLAN CASE NO.
I BA1181ACEHOOSEAPTS,
EXHIBIT MAP ~ S0119"007
vu 96-0005 i !
MIS 96-0012 ~
7777
f v V
AVt
i
fNH 19 co i7dH
• V v
f
V
. ' `
d
lp
t~
A
City of Tigard Planning Departmnt
a~Ak AV _
EXHIBIT B;
X135.. i?SV A of 1u~y ~
LAND USE DECISION APPEAL FILING FOM
The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to
participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use
Code therefore sets out specific requirements for
®
filing appeals on certain land use decisions.
CITY OF TI%7j6UK
The following form has been developed to assist you in is ii ff
filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper GREG ON
form. To determine what filing fees will be required
or to answer any questions you have regarding the
" appeal process, please contact the Planning Division
i or the City Recorder at 639-4171n WiLL6Ya~N1l7Qgh-ASS15rAa}T' EA&WER
1. APPLICATION BEING APPEALED: C "Ail"/~/lP 1T07I cr ~/l/Irf/JJr/J74
S-g 9/ -0007 VAR 4io e o f Zn s -9 -29,9/oZ
2. HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AS A PARTY:
x/ J"/ro s v ~a~X!e~ Ti9aia. a2 ~fcv~Jlrr,Cneuv! as 7,2zx ,tef yov, ~dircvs
i ~lrs~ e e ~~Z~esr ~e~a~~t~e~"ton s ~
sr~a~cmc~~
3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:
~s~ r~ ✓e rse i'o/n i '
j
1
4. SCHEDULED DATE DECISION IS TO BE FINAL:
5. DATE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION WAS GIVEN:
6. SIGNATURE(S): RAP 561~T'~J1Cs At_` Cwvlc .1-: ~e>
84~p S-0 105rAV-; LE e i
x MR Hit 1AP
ixx~cxxxxiHtx /
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Received By: k&14{ Y %ate: 070/9f, Time: / -
Approved As To Form By: Date: Time:
Denied As To Form By: Date: Time:
J Receipt No. Amount:
3vU.G~:
13125 SW Hap Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171
F 1
~ 3. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW:
The McGuire family has resided at its present address for over forty years. It is our strong
opinion that factual nuisances and lifestyle adjustments demanded by this new construction are
not appropriately addressed or adequate, as set by the code recommendations given by the
City of Tigard for buffering and screening methods (see condition 9C for approval of site
development review). 1
1
There are three factual realities as a result of the proposed apartment complex
A. Lights: Vehicles parking and exiting at proposed apartment complex will travel directly
1 -
toward our home. At night, this will result in headlights shining directly into windows of
our home. The 5 - 6 8. wooden fence and row of trees (see condition 9C of site
development review) recommended by the City cannot and will not completely be an
adequate light screen.
B. Oise: The proposed apartment complex will result in additional traffic noise directly
outside our home as motor vehicles slam doors, accelerate, start and stop while parking
and exiting the premises. When the proposed second access (see access variance:
sub mt 4 of S.D.R. 96-800 ;
Po 'n is installed, there wr71 be even additional noise and safety
problems.
C. Value: As a result of the above stated problems, (points A and B) the proposed apartment
complex will result in lowering the value of our home, as these nuisances are not desirable
features for prospective home buyers.
Proposed Conditions
If the new apartment complex is approved, we propose that the review authority impose the I
following conditions of approval: f
We, the owners of Tax Lot 400, strongly recommend that the City of Tigard manifest a condition
as part of the
permit conditions, requiring the applicant (Andrews Management) to purchase all
materials, conduct all excavation, construct a sound barrier and light screen as proposed below, as
welt as clean up all construction debris.
We propose a cinder block masonry fence, not less than 6 feet high and 8 inches thick, along the
entire east property line of Tax Lot 400. The total cost of this fence and construction is to be the
responsibility of the applicant (Andrews Management).
We believe this proposed condition is compensatory to the intrusions, nuisances, and safety issues
of our long established residence and investment- Thank you for your consideration of our
objections and proposed conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas P. McGuire
Robert J. McGuire
Sarah A. Dowell (McGuire)
William A. McGuire j
James E. McGuire
(Owners)
~ / • n Q"il rq
/ Y k / ~I I 3_ YYY U0. m t 1
CO)
oP ~
L3
C; au
H~ ~
~
f g 1 _ J__ I
~ iJ 1 AJ
I i t III III le 1 . I I y
~I
SPENCER VAIL -PLANNING CONSULTANT
- e
its
July 21, 1996
i
j Planning Department
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall
Tigard, Oregon 97223 j
Attn: Mark Roberts
Re: SDR 96-007
i Dear Mark '
have had an opportunity to review the appeal filed by Thomas McGuire et al on the
above referenced case file. I believe the appeal should be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The McGuire's property is zoned r.25, the same as that of the subject
i property.
I
2. The McGuire's, and others, participated with Andrews Management in a
i Plan Amendment and Zone Change that changed the zone C-P and R4.5
to current R-25 (CPA 95-000120N 95-0002).
3. The McGuire's property is not significantly different that other properties
within R-25 zones where one property precedes the other in developing
to the density allowed by the zone. There is no compelling reason why the
appellants' parcel should be treated differently than other similarly zoned
E parcels
.J
4. The Zoning Code does not require 6 foot tall 8" thick masonry block sound
walls to separate developments within the same zone. The screening and
buffering proposed by the developer and approved by staff more than
satisfies the intent and purpose of the applicable Code sections.
i 5. The McGuire's raised the issue of the "sound" wall at the neighborhood
I meeting conducted prior to the submittal of development plans. The
applicant did consider the costs and benefits constructing a 6 foot tall 8"
thick masonry block wall 275 feet in length prior to submitting for site
i development review. The plan submitted, as modified by staff conditions i
II is deemed to be appropriate for this development. ;
05 N.E. 24TH AVENUE • PORTLAND. OREGON 97211 • 503/281-8245 • FAX 503/284-5506
L4
V
,.1
j Mark Roberts
July 22, 1996
page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal. We will be present at the
scheduled public hearing to present testimony and answer questions the Commission
may have.
Very truly yours
i
h
i
encer H. Vail
1 -
cc: James McGuire
file
k
I
, i
_ r
1
AGENDA ITEM #
' For Agenda of August 20, 1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Speed Hump Program Street Selection
PREPARED BY: G Alfson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OKIir
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Approve the recommended streets for installation of Speed Humps and authorize the Engineering
+ Department to solicit the neighborhoods for response.
} k
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the selected street list.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
We have been working on the Speed Hump Program since it's approval by Council the end of May
wand their approval of the Capital Improvement Program the end of June. The following page 1
spreadsheet is the list of streets where speed humps have been requested with the ranking criteria
applied to each street on the list. The 96/97 Capital Improvement Program includes $30,000 for
speed humps funded 100% with City funds, and $15,000 for speed humps funded 50% with City
funds and 50% with neighborhood funding.
All of the streets requested for speed humps were measured for speed and volume during typical
weekday traffic conditions at the location listed in the 'Location' column. According to the ranking
criteria, the 85%4ile speed is required to be 5 mph over the speed limit in order to be considered for
speed humps.
The accident, pedestrian and cut-through criteria was applied to each road and the total points I
accumulated for each. The 'Other Interest' column indicates if the neighborhood has participated in
the Neighborhood Speed Watch Radar Program, the SMART Trailer, has a Strictly Enforced area or j
other similar methods in cooperation with the Police Department to reduce speeds. The approved
speed hump program stated that this was one of the criteria required to be eligible for speed humps.
Kelly Jennings of the Police Department provided the information regarding which streets have
participated and shown an interest in reducing speeds other than just requesting speed humps. The
'Notes' column includes additional information on particular streets regarding eligibility such as
grades, insufficient speed, etc.
The page 2 spreadsheet is a list of only those streets which meet the eligibility criteria. They are
-The
according to the ranking criteria and are the streets which have shown interest by
5
r--
a
~~--gqarticipating with the Police Department. Approximately 12 to 15 speed humps can be installed with
+ he approved funding according to the unit cost of a single speed hump obtained from last years
project. The top priority streets have been evaluated to determine approximately how many streets
can be accommodated with 15 speed humps. Based on this information and the available budget I
recommend that speed humps be proposed for the following streets:
128th Avenue Walnut to Winterlake 6 Speed Humps
North Dakota St 115th to 121st 3 Speed Humps
North Dakota St Springwood to Scholls 2 Speed Humps
Locust Street Lincoln to Jefferson' 4 Speed Humps
"The limits of this street have been reduced from Greenburg to Hall to the area of the elementary
school to decrease the number of speed humps required. The total number of speed humps may i
require adjustment depending upon the contract unit bid price. i
With your approval I will work with the Engineering Department to initiate the response from the E
individual neighborhoods to determine if the majority of the residents are in favor of the speed hump
installations. I expect this to take at least 3 weeks to send out and assemble the responses. With
the typical time required to put the contract documents together, advertise the project for construction i.
bids and award the contract, the earliest the work could begin would be the first of November. I
Typically, November is not a good time to place asphalt pavement. Therefore, I recommend that we I
not rush the process but continue the selection of the streets for 100% funding and wait a couple
months before advertising the project for construction bids. This will allow time to see if any
/-neighborhoods are interested in splitting the cost of installation with the budgeted $15,000 for the
`--50% cost sharing. We could then advertise the project for bids in January, incorporating any
neighborhood cost sharing streets, with installation in the Spring as soon as the weather permiis. I
f
i
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
f
I~
? FISCAL NOTES
Funding for this project is designated in the 1996/97 Capital Improvement Program from Gas Tax
i Fees. i .
fI
I
tY8I9G
EP,. STRFFTS
VOLUME 85% CUT OTHER i
0 ~ EET LOCATION LIMITS GTH 21000 SPEED ACC PEDS THRU TOTAL INTEREST • , TES
1 79th Ave Ashford St At Ashford 300 1.1 5.6 0 1 4 11.7
2 87th Ave N of Oak St Oak to Locust 700 0.3 4.9 0 1 1 7.2 1
3 88th Ave N of Durham Rd Durham to Hamlet 1100 0.3 1.8 0 0 0 2.1 1
4 88th Ave N of Sattler Sattler to Reili 3D0 0.3 2 0 0 0 2.3 1
5 90th Ave N of Greenbu Greentwr to No. Dakota 1500 0.5 10.2 0 1 1 12.7
8 92nd Ave N of Millen Durham to Cook Park 2600 2.3 0.3 0.2 0 0 2.8 1
7 98th Ave N of Summerfreld Sauter to Summerfiwk! 1 DDO 3.2 10.4 0.6 0 2 16.2 6
8 104th Ave S of Durham Rd Durham to Kent 1200 0.5 3.5 0 0 0 4 1
9 106th Ave N of North Dakota No. Dakota to Black Diamond 600 0.5 6.9 0.3 0 0 7.7
10 115th Ave N of Gaarde St Gaarde to Former 25W 2.0 8.8 0.8 0 2 13.6
11 116th Ave N of Walnut St Walnut to Katherine 1400 0.4 0 0 1 3 4.4 1
12 128th Ave N of Walnut St Walnut to Winterlake 3000 0.8 6.6 0.3 0 2 9.7 2
13 132nd Ave N of Benchview Walnut to Benchview 2000 2.4 8.2 0 0 2 12.6 3
14 135th Ave S of Fern St Walnut to Lauren 2000 2.0 16.4 0.2 0 2 20.6 3
15 Alderbrook Dr N of Summerfield Or Durham to Sattler 2400 0.4 2.1 0 0 2 4.5 1
16 Alderbrook Circle S of Alderbrock Or Alderbrook to Alderbrook 1500 0.3 4.9 0 0 1 6.2 1
17 Ann St E of 121 st Ave 121 st to 116th 900 0.2 7.6 0 1 3 11.8
18 Ash Ave S of Village Glen Or Frewing to Fans Crk 1400 0.5 5.2 0.2 1 0 6.9
19 Baylor St E of 72nd Ave 69th to 72nd 900 1.0 8.5 0 1 2 12.5
20 Benchview Terrace S of Alpine View 132nd to Bull Mountain 3600 2.4 4.9 0 0 3 10.3 1.3
21 Cherry DrNams St W of 72nd Ave 72nd to 72nd 3000 0.5 5.1 0.2 1 3 9.8
22 Commercial St W of 95th Ave Main to Greenbur 3200 0.3 7.4 0 1 3 11.7
23 Essex Dr N ofJenna Ct Lauren to Boxelder 1300 0.4 4.7 0 0 0 5.1 1
24 Fanno Creek Dr N of Weaver W Bonita to Hall 2700 1.0 5.2 0.4 0 4 10.6
25 Grant Ave N of Walnut St Johnson to Walnut 1000 1.9 7.1 0 0 2 11
26 Hillshire Or S of Westdd a Tem Westrid a to Mistletoe 2000 0.8 8.6 020 2 11.6 3
27 Katherine St E of 121st Ave 116th to 121st 1000 0.2 0.1 0 1 3 4.3 1
28 Lincoln Ave N of Center St 91 st to Commercial 800 0.6 4.1 0.6 1 1 7.3 1
29 Locust St W of 9Dth Ave Greenbu to Hall 2500 3.4 7.8 0 0 4 15.2
30 Lynn St E of 119th Ave 116th to 121st 9D0 0.4 0 0 1 3 4.4 1
31 Millen Dr E of Copper Creek Or 92nd to Upper Creek 1100 0.4 1.4 0 0 0 1.8 1
32 Mistletoe Dr W of Benchview Terr Hillshire to Benchview 300 1.4 1.9 0 0 1 4.3 1
33 North Dakota St E of 121 st Ave 115th to 121 st 1200 5.1 9.5 0.6 1 3 19.2
34 North Dakota St E of 123rd Place 121st to Sprinawood 1800 4.1 3.8 0 D 4 11.9 1.4
35 North Dakota St N of S n oW Springwood to Scholls 800 5.0 9.8 0 0 4 18.8
36 Oak St W of 90th Ave Hall and Greenbur 2700 23 10 0.6 1 4 17.9
37 Serena W S of Durham Rd Durham to Grimson 1300 1.2 0 0 0 1 2.2 1
38_ Sprlnwood Or W of North Dakota No. Dakota to Summerlake 700 1.8 2 0.2 0 1 5 1
39 Spruce St 72nd Ave 71 st to 76th 1800 1.2 5.3 0.2 0 0 6.7
40 Summercrest Dr W of 121 st Ave No. Dakota to 121 st 1600 0.3 4.4 0 0 2 6.7 1
41 Summerfield Dr Club House 98th to Durham 48W 1.6 8 0.3 0 3 12.9
42 Summedake Dr N of Springwood Dr Schotls Ferry to Hawks Beard 900 0.7 3 0 0 1 4.7 1
43 Tiedeman Ave N of 106th Ave Walnut to Ticard 2100 6.1 5.2 0.6 1 2 14.9 5,6
44 Ventura Or E of 72nd Ave 72nd to Alfred 3700 0.9 8.2 0.5 0 1 10.6
45 Walnut Lane W of 135th Ave 135th to 139th 700 1.1 7.4 0 0 0 8.5
46 Winlertake Dr W of 128th Ave 128th to Britian 1800 0.7 5 0 0 0 5.7
NOTES
1 85% SPEED LESS THAN SMPH OVER SPEED LIMIT
2 SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY
3 ROAD GRADE GREATER THAN 6%
4 TRAFFIC CIRCLESIMEDIANS INSTALLED
5 ROAD TO BE REALIGNED WHEN BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTED IN 1997-98
8 MAJOR COLLECTOR STREET
i
♦
r
{ ELIGIBLE SPEED HUMP STREETS
VOLUME OTHER APPROX # OF
# ISTREET LIMITS LENGTH x1000 TOTAL INTEREST NOTES SPEED HUMPS
1 North Dakota St 115th to 121st 1200 5.1 19.2 3
2 North Dakota St Springwood to Scholls 800 5.0 18.8 2
3 Locust St Greenburg to Hall 2500 3.4 15.2 6 r
4 115th Ave Gaarde to Fonner 2500 2.0 13.6 6
5 Summerfield Dr 98th to Durham 4800 1.6 12.9 12
6 79th Ave At Ashford 300 1.1 11.7 1
7 Commercial St Main to Greenburg 3200 0.3 11.7 9
8 Ventura Dr 72nd to Alfred 3700 0.9 10.6 10
9 128th Ave Walnut to Winteriake 3000 0.8 9.7 2 8
10 Ash Ave Frewin to Fanno 1400 0.5 6.9 4
NOTE 2. SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION AGREED TO PREVIOUSLY
C
i I
I
l
i
PAGE2
i
1
1
G
j O N f0 N N Q C1 ~ N 1
I
I' ww
Hdmm
rq , d wI wNO11001AtON O1 m ^1~ 0) f0 t0 N OIA NA1h N W A ANA AN Q Ivn 17 Q 0) 1+1N 5C D A f p I n Q t N C I ^ N
mNN RQOQ NCI Ci f:5
1 17- 1
N(7Q Q NQ NNCI eNNQ {~1 Q l7 H- l1N 005-00 N -00.-~-N 000 00
i 050.
a Op.p0505G
- 5ppppp50pp5 SCOOpG 000-1-H-10 -1-ol- 1
lld I
U
j U N O N O 1D N O O O O O O O N O Q N O N N O fD O N"O O O O N O O O lo O O O N O O O O f:
¢ CO OO coo o OO GO OO OO C O
{ O
UKw dNm p Q0)Nt0 NNN01 f0 N Q O) 5N N O150Q °15O NN Q W A O1 N{7 w Q, .
W d fD °i of orA NNtOOw wmo of W fro m d NO) 1~ fO701fIN Y V N.1 N1oN 00 ~-p~-Pl O NO
N
M w "
W O O50 f7 NQ 7ONNQ O5 N 5 W m 010 W Q NIQ .-N10 C1 NNq nA Q 0)AQ Q Q(yQ NC1 n N nQ .
W ; % NNI<)CIMMNN~ON.-QO BOO ~~OIV OOrGOCO-GGOC~-CC CGO-GCIO-GO -
F W
°
i .
c ~ 4 Qq1
W u g F
LL._ Y m
a ~ v d ~ c E& a _ {
W m~3 Ex 10 zyyp cU~~ O~_ o Yn o $~o o m52d Si ec~yyy - c m MQa I.
W J N N« 0 0 3 p C N O 3 S` E O O Y m y r N N N Y Vii U~ S a F W W(~
ss gs~r d~ Pam °a°s5~c~8.~r ~d°° sssxss$ o C3 ° J°
O O C O J A Y S 0 3 LL" 0 5 3 0= W J-
{ q~ Qc15.0d9 5 0""` 0.y pp a aC o5 o c o ry C a 3 ~Cyi yo
W a' is 'C N q N S C b A S L C N C ° Y 'F O{ d-, ~c L C O N z
j J Al 3~Nx~r,3G3~~as3tz°°'1b"LLS:z°ds~$3z°d3.~sdd~4dds z=
QQ~ °
= J w 2 N
m a ur. ° Y u... a vo z(7J i
4g~'m~~ yam m~~N g eN~3¢ o¢ waw0w~
z
O ina a Eaaa~~€¢v¢ ¢55 uo5c in v ai.S m5aa E E E xmo i
i E~ t E ° a ~v) y c o c R~ E fa w~~V U .
F d N O C•- O- C X N C E A Y ~Y a O (7 LL~ K
aL51° N c~xc~`C C 7 9$ 0 U r'~.'~~ o333naf13 zcb'S¢^" ~ZNN3~~dNdd Nwp °O .
f `No `wo z° 3° `zo o `zoz`o i `o o ° `o o `o `o o `o g ° `o ° `o ° `o `o o `o o ° `o `o `o o ` `o K a QO O
3zz w ww2 wzzwN3z3zzzu) w z3zzzww3mzzmzo w ;d%x m2
~y y
a Y •z g W ~~Z C ~1 ~U~ fq~ F-5Nl'1QNN -
a
S«~'yE¢dming..~v_a°~sga.-ac3~4q~~ ~t~ aga-~5a~~3~d z
W t N¢ L E a g 6 N a E c u c' t ¢ 6 y+ E{ o E c c o$ a° ¢ ~C a
~S rd 'Y `~9' u1 {~j n o c 85 E ~ ~ q i m ~ vLq c E a ,'c_ c E $~ry1 ~ (cy y° .
N SZZS;JF ~N W ~mz ~A3=~ LL> mu 3'J oQ N N a 3(~ N~ JY.- WN -
' - k ~-NlrlQ NtOA mOl O~-N PIQNdA OOI Oe-NI~1QNfOAmfV 17^NI7 Cf t717~1~1~ V'Ny QQQ i
fV N fV N N N NIN N t7 t7 .Q Q i
I
f
1
Y
AGENDA ITEM #
!1 FOR AGENDA OF gnat 20-1996
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Future of the Downtown
PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
t._
What should the City's direction be for the downtown area? a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Continue discussion with representatives of the Downtown Merchant's Association.
1
INFORMATION SUMMARY
On July 16, Council met with Downtown Merchants Association representatives to discuss the use of City
,mounds for the purchase of a reader board. Further information was requested before Council can decide whether
not to fund the reader board.
Council should also discuss what role the City should play in the revitalization of the Downtown. To facilitate
discussion, pages from the city's 1989 study, Metro analysis, and other documents have been compiled. A copy j
of the minutes of the July 15 discussion are also attached. I
ff
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1 s
1. Take no action.
r:
FISCAL NOS
E
i iAci"idc\snmWentwn.doc
i
%
ILL
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
MEETING MINUTES -JULY 16, 1996
• Meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
• Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf,
and Ken Scheckla.
• Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Planning Planner Dick Bewersdorff;
Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan (Executive Session only); Community Development
Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Associate Planner
Mark Roberts; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at
6:35 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
• Mayor Nicoli convened the open session at 7:45 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None i
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items f
City Administrator Monahan stated that he had several updates to present to
" the Council.
i
Mayor Nicoli said that he had four informational items for the Council. !
3. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: None
4. DISCUSSION: FUTURE OF THE DOWNTOWN
Mr. Monahan presented the staff report reviewing the Council goal of deciding on a
direction for the downtown. (See staff report). He stated that of the $50,000 that
the Council allocated in 1994 for use in the downtown, $32,000 remained.
Mike Marr, Downtown Merchants' Association, presented suggestions to use the
remaining funds to install a reader board at the south end of Main Street, to install a
drip irrigation system for the island on Main Street, to install a flagpole on the center
island, and to allocate any remaining funds to the proposed parking lot on Main
Street. He noted the lengthy time required to water the hanging baskets and the
island every day. He reviewed the history of the downtown plants, pointing out that
the island did not exist when the Association agreed to maintain the plants without
incurring City expense, and that it should not be too difficult to work with the City
Public Works Department to arrange an offshoot water pipe to water the island.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1996 - PAGE 1
i
i
C
Chuck Woodard, Downtown Merchants' Association, commented that they
decided to get public input on possible projects for the $50,000 rather than spend
all of it on one project. Suggestions included clean up, benches, trees and flowers
have already been implemented. The last two suggestions were a reader board
and a traffic light at Burnham and Main. He reviewed the structural and
i construction details of the reader board and presented a rendering of the board. j
! He said that it would be used primarily for announcing community events with some
advertising of businesses in the Central Business District. The cost would be
approximately $21,500. Approximately $5,000 would remain for the parking lot.
In response to Councilor Hunt's concern for safety, Mr. Woodard cited the reader
board on Airport Way at the Portland International Airport as an example of a
reader board that did not create a safety hazard. He noted the exact placement
and orientation of the board: facing southbound traffic at the upper end of Main
Street. He said that he has spoken with the police chief about it.
In response a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Woodard said that the board j
would be on 24 hours a day and emphasized the subtle nature of the sign.
Councilor Hunt raised the issue of who would decide what messages went on the
j board and who would be responsible for maintaining and changing it. Mr. Woodard
1 said that the downtown merchants would contribute a fee for maintenance and
utility costs but all others in the community could use the board for free. -
Councilor Scheckla asked if "downtown businesses" meant only those on Main
i Street, commenting that the $50,000 came from taxpayers' money citywide. Mr.
Woodard said that they would have to define more exactly which businesses could
use the board and how much the fee would be.
Councilor Hunt stated that he could only support a reader board if the City were
divorced completely from any responsibility for it.
Councilor Moore asked who made the final determination on where the initial
I $50,000 was spent: the Council or the Merchants' Association?
Mr. Monahan explained that previously the Merchants' Association had submitted
their requests for expending the $50,000 for Council approval. He reviewed several
issues surrounding the board, including ownership, maintenance.
f..
Mr. Marr stated that he saw the $50,000 as City taxpayers money, and the
Merchants' Association as a volunteer advisory group sought out by the City for
suggestions on how best to spend that money in the downtown. The Association
was recommending purchase and installation of a reader board. He agreed that
they could not be restrictive on the use of the board but stated that he thought it
would be solely for the use of the Central Business District businesses. He said
that the board would be owned by the City (since it was their money) and that the
Council would have the final say its use.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - jTJLY 1G, 1990' - PAGE 2 i - -
Mr. Marr said that they were willing to discuss the project with Council. He
" explained that Chamber of Commerce staff would handle programming the board.
Councilor Rohlf stated that he could not support a reader board, pointing out that it
was not approved as an expenditure when presented once before at Council. He
said that it sounded like this might pose problems for the City and cost a significant
amount of money. He suggested looking at beautifying Fanno Creek or installing
the flag pole.
Mr. Woodard commented that his suggestion of a water wheel on Fanno Creek had
gone over well with the Fans of Fanno Creek but that the Water Master said it
would take 5 to 10 years for a decision on that to be made. He spoke for the reader
board as a way to announce newsworthy events in the community, commenting !
that advertising would probably take less than 10% of the board time.
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern over damage, vandalism and graffiti. Mr.
Woodard stated that sign companies had maintenance programs for purchase, and
that the plexiglass material used was almost unbreakable. He said that vandalism
was unavoidable, noting that five plants were stolen last year.
Mayor Nicoli suggested voting on accepting the idea of a reader board and asking
the Association to return with more information responding to Council's concerns.
Councilor Hunt said that he did not feel comfortable voting but that he supported
asking for a firmer proposal. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not have a problem with
the reader board.
Councilor Moore stated that while he liked the idea of a reader board, he was not
comfortable with it as presented, noting the questions of liability, maintenance, and L
ownership. He suggested asking businesses if they wanted to help finance it. He
asked if the other items mentioned by Mr. Marr would also come out of the
I remaining $32,000.
Mr. Woodard said that there was enough money only for the reader board and one
other project.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the Association has considered using the money to
participate in the visioning study. Mr. Woodard stated that a great deal of money
has already been spent on downtown.
Mr. Marr said that although a downtown revitalization program was developed in
prior visioning studies, the voters voted down the tax increment financing necessary
to implement the vision. He said that many still wanted that vision (which was
j comparable to NW 23rd, Sellwood, etc. in Portland). He pointed out that the little
bit of history left in Tigard was on Main Street and spoke to preserving that history,
expressing his fear that an adult video store would move in on Main Street and
destroy the downtown.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1996 - PAGE 3
- - - - -
a
Mr. Marr said that those actively working on the vision had limited financial and time
resources and needed City help to accomplish a good long-term plan. He noted
" that other communities in the area were years ahead of Tigard in focusing on what
they wanted for their communities. He said that he hoped that investing in Main
Street or the Central Business District did not get put on the back burner until it was
too late to reverse infiltration by negative businesses.
Councilor Rohlf concurred.
Mr. Marr said that the merchants were willing not only to volunteer time and effort in
practical efforts but also to engage in meetings and dialog to preserve a long-term
identity for Tigard for the benefit of the citizens.
Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Marr to bring back a report responding to Council's
III concerns after consulting with staff. Mr. Monahan asked to see cost estimates and
proposals on the City's role in owning and operating the board.
I -
Mr. Monahan noted that the role of the City in revitalization of the downtown was a
Council goal, and asked if Council would like to discuss that the next time the
Merchants' Association came before the Council. He said that they would schedule
the Association for August 20.
5. UPDATE: METRO 2040
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that Metro Exec Mike I
Burton finalized MPAC's recommendation into a new document; staff has not yet
reviewed that document to determine if Tigard's comments were responded to. He
said that the Growth Committee of the Metro Council has begun receiving public
testimony on MPAC's recommendation. Though staff has not obtained a revised
schedule, he anticipated that the MPAC hearings would continue through August
with the final hearings before the Metro Council in September and October and
adoption in mid-October.
Mr. Hendryx said that staff could get copies of the latest draft to the Council. Staff
would return with an analysis and evaluation at a later date.
6. DISCUSSION: WATER OPTIONS
Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented the staff update. He reviewed the
specific actions staff has taken to deal with the water situation, buying as much .
water as they could from whoever would sell it to them and storing 17 million
gallons from Portland over the weekend. He reported the two times that Lake
Oswego shut Tigard's water supply from them off completely. He said that
Portland has agreed to sell Tigard additional water.
Mr. Monahan stated that staff wanted to investigate the Portland option. He said
that Lake Oswego has determined that it will not be able to expand its treatment j
plant in West Linn.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 16, 1996 - PAGE 4
j~
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Bill Monahan
FROM: Duane Roberts
DATE: August 7, 1996
SUBJECT: Downtown Planning Overview
As requested, this memo and its attachments pull together relevant background information on
past downtown area planning efforts. Included are a chronology and exhibits showing the end
products of the 1988-89 City Center Task Force study, an overview of the existing plan and
code provisions that apply to the CBD and how these relate to the City Center Plan, information
rte, on the downtown charrette conducted by Calthorpe and Associates, and, lastly, an overview of
the 2040 designation of the CBD as a "Town Center" and what this means in terms of
redevelopment opportunities.
City Center Plan Chronology
The City Center Development Plan and Report were adopted in September 1989. A list of the
projects and activities included in the report is attached along with a map showing the proposed
location of key projects. Also attached is a copy of the task force vision statement that guided
j the development of the plan.
Because of the urban renewal election setback, most of the projects and activities have not
been carried out. However, some have been or are in the process of being implemented using
transportation bond, park levy, general funds, and various other non-tax increment funding. For
example, the Main Street bridge has been replaced, Main Street has been reconstructed, the
existing Burnham/Hall intersection has been improved, and the widening of Hall Boulevard from
Pacific Highway to Burnham is in progress.
In addition, funding for other street improvements identified in the plan is included in the city's
I adopted six-year capital improvement plan. These include additional Main Street pavement
reconstruction (1996-97), Commercial Street reconstruction (1996-97), and a Burnham/Main
signal (1997-98).
t
ry
I
- lI
A few park improvements have been carried out as well. Park levy funds were used to extend
i the existing greenway path behind Burnham Business Park to connect with the east end of Ash
Street. A path segment on the west side of Fanno Creek was installed by the developers of the
Main Street apartments who also built a pedestrian bridge crossing the creek.
Exi i g Plan and Code Provisions
j The existing plan and code establish a separate zone for the central business district. The
zoning district permits commercial retail and office uses, high density residential, and mixed
- uses. Development standards are intended to encourage the redevelopment of the area. For
nonresidential uses, there are no minimum lot area, width, or setback requirements, except for
properties abutting residential districts.
In July 1989, Council released a City Center Land Use Policy Statement that set forth the land i `
use objectives for the City Center (attached). Three main provisions included in the current
f code were adopted to carry out these objectives. These include the designation of drive-
through windows and wholesale storage and distribution as conditional uses, the requirement
for the screening of outdoor storage and the prohibition of fleet storage, and the requirement
that new developments address transit usage by residents, employees, and customers. A copy
of 18.66.070, Interim Requirements, the main CBD code section that grew out of the task force
study, is attached. The code revisions adopted by council were not as restrictive as those
recommended by the task force, which had called for the prohibition of drive-up windows and
outdoor storage.
Metro Charrette
The Tigard downtown was one of eight sites selected for a Region 2040 design study prepared
for Metro by Calthorpe Associates in early 1994. Calthorpe was asked to illustrate how the
Tigard downtown and other sites might look fifty years from now. According to the study report,
part of the reinvigorating strategy is "to bring housing downtown and tie Main Street to the new
civic center Small-scale, mixed-use buildings and moderate density housing will infill Main
Street and the perpendicular streets that follow a creek-side park to the civic center. Two i
optional light rail stops are also explored." A copy of the Tigard plan, which includes high- and '
low-intensity, plans is attached.
Metro 2040 Growth Concept
Creating higher density centers of employment and housing is a key strategy of the 2040
Growth Concept. The concept identifies three types of centers based on size and accessibility,
with downtown Tigard identified as one of the smallest or so-called Town Center types.
Briefly, under the 2040 concept, town centers would provide local shopping and employment I
opportunities within a local market area. A density of 40 persons per acre, "the current
densities of development along Hawthorne Boulevard and in downtown Hillsboro", is
J envisioned. Older centers, such as downtown Tigard, would become traditional town centers.
d
f
Until 2040 moves from the concept to the implementation stage, it is too early to tell whether it
ultimately will help to improve the area and enable Tigard to again have an identifiable
downtown. Concepts and regulatory changes by themselves probably will do little to promote
the private investment required to revitalize the downtown. As highlighted in the various
studies, infrastructure improvements to streets, sidewalks, parking areas, and entrances to the
downtown, along with the development of Fanno park are central to promoting downtown f
redevelopment. To the extent that the strategies developed to implement 2040 address these
and other constraints to development in Tigard's downtown, it is likely to contribute to downtown
renewal. a
i:I rp I ntd u a n e\d ow ntovm. d o c
I `
t
1
I 1•~
-
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTS AND IMPROVEMENT ACTIVIES
STREETS AND TRAFFIC (listed alphabetically)
1. Ash Avenue- Extend and improve Ash Avenue to provide a connection
1
between the Walnut/Pacific Highway intersection and the Hunziker
i
Street/Hall Boulevard intersection, following the approximate alignment
of the existing Ash Avenue in the Development Area.
2. Burnham Street. Realign and improve westerly section to Intersect Main
Street opposite Tigard Street and improve to Include landscaping,
sidewalks, street furniture, decorative lighting standards to match or
i
complement Main improvements. Improve balance of Burnham easterly
to Hall Boulevard. Accomodate the potential for light rail in the design of
i Burnham Street.
3. Commercial Street- Improve from Main to Hail.
4. Greenburo Road Extension. Provide a more direct connection between
Greenburg Road and Hall Blvd. south of Pacific Highway.
5. Hall Boulevard. In conjunction with the ODOT, improve Hall Boulevard
✓ from Pacific Highway to Fanno Creek. Provide for landscaped median
and special landscaping at both sides.
6. Main Street Bridae. Construct new bridge across Fanno Creek to be
I complementary to new park development and the reconstruction of Main
Street
7. Main Street. Reconstruct Main Street between its two intersections with
Pacific Highway including new sidewalks, landscaping, street furniture,
decorative lighting standards, improved railroad crossing and special
intersection treatment to improve pedestrian movement
8. Pacific Highway. Improve Intersections through reconstruction and/or
i
signalization to improve access into City Center Development Area. -
20
_ ky
MEW
9. Pacific Highway Ramp. In conjunction with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), construct ramp to permit southbound traffic on
~J Route 99W to enter City Center.
10. $coffins Street. Realign at Intersection with Hall Boulevard and to
r
accommodate the extension of Ash Avenue.
11. Tigard Street. Full Improvement of Tigard from new ramp site to
intersection with Main Street.
i
i
PARKS. BEAUTIFICATION. ENTRYWAYS `
F
12. Entryways. Develop highly visible, attractive entryways at key access
points to City Center Area using landscaping, special structures, lighting, k
signage, etc. to achieve special identity. `
13. Fenno Creek Park. Develop from Hall to Main in accordance with Master
Plan. Acquire additional public park area as needed.
14. Landscaped Areas. Provide for the development and maintenance of
® special landscaped areas adjacent to streets and pedestrian ways,
particularly along Burnham. Encourage private property owners to
participate significantly in these projects.
15. Public Art Provide for development of public art (sculpture, fountains,
murals, mosaics, etc.) which can be viewed from plazas, walks or within
public buildings.
OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
16. Landmarks. Provide for the construction of highly-visible vertical
i landmarks (bell towers, sculpture, observation towers, etc.) on or
adjacent to Tigard. Square and near easterly end of Burnham in or near
s
Civic Center expansion.
17. Parking. Develop additional off-street public parking facilities to
accommodate present and newly developed demand. Construct
21
structures and develop surface lots to serve users of commercial and
public facilities in the Main-Burnham area particularly.
18. Tigard Square. Acquire and develop a public plaza area to serve as a
i 1
focal point for commercial development and public activity.
PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES
i
19. Building Rehabilitation Assistance, The Agency will budget available funds
i.
to establish and cant' on a below-market interest loan program to assist `
and encourage rehabilitation, renovation or improvement of structures
which add to the overall upgrading of the Development Area. Criteria for
eligibility to apply for such
cans and other program details will be
established by the Agency.
20. Pedestrian Weather Protection. The Agency may, subject to availability ii
I. '
of funds, establish and carry on a program designed to encourage the C
extension of buildings, marquees, awnings or other forms of weather
protection over pedestrian ways in the more densely developed and used
portions of the City Center.
21. Program Administratign The Agency will make provision, through
development and adoption of an annual budget, for necessary
management and supporting services adequate to coordinate project
! construction, program activities, marketing efforts and business
development or redevelopment activities.
f..
22. Relocation Assistance The Agency will provide both technical and
financial aid to occupants of property acquired by the City or Agency in
furtherance of Plan objectives or construction of public facilities within i
the Development Area. ff _
I.
t
22
f
CITY CENTER PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
a
i
e
' G
A
~ I -
A 1
~ III
I
A
. 7 Burnham Street Realignment (exact ali ut to be determined)
2 Burnham-Hall Intersection
Burnham street Improvemnut ,
Burnham Street Rnhance~ent - -
HntryvaY Development, Land-aping and Landmark Structures "
Fanno Park Hovolcpmoat {
Hall and Pacific Intersection Improvement (location to be determined)
Public Parking Facilities 1
Ash avenue Improvements (exact alignment to be determined) _
Building Rehabilitation Assistance
Commercial Street Improvements ?
Pacific HighvaY Ramp to Tigard Street (location to be determined) t
Tigard Public Square Development (location to be determined) j.
i Hall Boulevard 8nhancement
4'
ly : 1
e
. ` I CITY CENTEn PLAN TASK FORCE W
VISION FOR TIGARD'S CITY CENTER
The Vision for Tigard's City center is a living and growing downtown, with a
special character and identity. The major unifying feature is the image of a
"City in the Park." This image has as its centerpiece Fanno Creek Park, a
J large publicly owned area of land dedicated to public use and enjoyment in the
heart of the City. Contributing to the image are fingers of green extending
throughout the downtown in the form of leafy trees overhanging streets, richly E
planted pedestrianways, greenway entrance points, and the region's only tea
test garden. This clear and compelling image shows the value that Tigard's
i citizens give to quality of life. h
Integral to the Vision is the belief that the past is worth preserving.
Accordingly, the Vision foresees the preservation and restoration of the
downtown's few remaining buildings of historical significance. These
contribute to preserving our memory of the origin of the City. co-existing
with historical buildings are attractive newer buildings set flush with the
sidewalk to create a sense of enclosure and place. To delineate the downtown
area, the Vision foresees clearly defined edges and entrance points.
Beyond the commercial core, with its predominantly small-scale village center
atmosphere, compatible mixed-use of light industries, factory outlet showrooms,
land extensive retailers, and office developments is achieved. In other areas, f
high-quality, multiple family housing provides continuous support for the City I
' Center economy.
The Vision foresees improved access to downtown from many directions and,
within the area, a grid system of streets with sidewalks to increase frontage
sites and improve traffic circulation. Seen also are several small parking
lots configured to minimize the visual impact on downtown and to disperse the
parking to serve the most businesses.
As attractive as this image is, the Vision recognizes that it is the people who _
make the town. To this end, the Vision foresees a multitude of people drawn to
the city center not only by an appealing environment, but by available
governmental, social, financial, and professional services, and above all by a
strong retail core, with many unique, one-of-a-kind businesses.
Other elements that make the City Center alive and contribute to an ample
nightlife, such as restaurants, street vendors, a storefront theater, and an
outdoor amphitheater are an important part of the Vision.
We believe this Vision statement describes a City Center, with its own
individuality, that is livable and economically strong.
i.
i J
I
J
rt.
CITY CENTER
LAND USE POLICY STATEMENT
1. Land use regulations will be reviewed in the coming year through City
' staff working with business and property owners. Any changes to current
land use regulations will follow the standard public hearing process.
2. The Tigard City Center Development Plan and Report do not modify current
land use regulations.
3. The following policy statement expresses the city's intentions with
j respect to land use issues. N
" I - LAND USE OBJECTIVES
ICCIED USE
I
Promote the development of the City Center as a desirable mixed-use environment
in which to live, visit, do business, work, and play. Development regulations
shall facilitate a diverse mix of general and specialty retailing, destination
retail, commercial and professional offices, government and institutional
offices, residential, and select light industrial uses. The following
statements further clarify the city's intent with respect to specific land
uses.
Retail
Enhance the City Center by promoting an atmosphere conducive to investment
^ by businesses which provide retail goods and consumer services.
Office
Strengthen the City Center's role as an important center for
administrative, financial, service, and governmental activities.
Entertainment
Encourage diversification of entertainment in the City Center area
including restaurants, theaters, and recreational opportunities.
Housing
Broaden residential opportunities in the City Center area for a mix of age f
j and income groups, and provide a quality living environment.
li Select Industrial .
li Retain existing complementary select light industrial uses within specific
areas of the City Center.
EXISTING BUSINESSES
i
1 Support the maintenance and improvement of existing businesses which
complement the Plan concept with rehabilitation assistance and capital
improvements- Support the transition of existing nonconforming business with
J relocation assistance and policies which allow transition to occur over time. `
July 24, 1939
br/LUO.EAN
'Oft
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
18.66.070 Interim Requirements.
(i) Provision of efficient,
A. In the absence of an adopted design plan, the convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle
following issues, under Subsection 18.66.070.A.1.c transit circulation systems, linking developments
must be addressed for new developments as by requiring dedication and construction of
necessary to serve the use and provide for pedestrian and bikepaths identified in the
projected public facility needs of the area, comprehensive plan. If direct connections cannot
pursuant to Ch'-)ter 18.164 as determined by the be made, require that funds in the amount of the
Director. construction cost be deposited into an account for
the purpose of constructing paths;
1. The City may attach conditions to any
development within an action area prior to (ii) Separation of auto and truck
adoption of the design plan to achieve the circulation activities from pedestrian areas; k
following objectives:
(iii) Encouraging pedestrian-
a. The development shall address oriented design by requiring pedestrian walkways
transit usage by residents, employees, and and street level windows along all sides with
customers if the site is within 1/4 mile of a public public access into the building;
transit line or transit stop. Specific items to be
addressed are as follows: (iv) Provision of bicycle parking as
required under Subsection 18.106.020.P; and
(i) Orientation of buildings and
facilities towards transit services to provide for (v) Ensure adequate outdoor
direct pedestrian access into the building(s) from lighting by lighting pedestrian walkways and auto
transit lines or stops; circulation areas.
(ii) Minimizing transit/auto c. Coordination of development
j conflicts by providing direct pedestrian access within the action area. Specific items to be
into the buildings with limited crossings in addressed are as follows:
automobile circulation/ parking areas. If
pedestrian access crosses automobile (i) Continuity and/or
circulation/parking areas, paths shall be marked compatibility of landscaping, circulation, access,
{ for pedestrians; public facilities, and other improvements. Allow
required landscaping areas to be grouped
(fif) Encouraging transit-' together. Regulate shared access where
{ supportive users by limiting automobile support appropriate. Prohibit lighting which shines on
services to collector and arterial streets; and adjacent property. ,
(iv) Avoiding the creation of small (ii) Siting and orientation of land
scattered parking areas by allowing adjacent use which considers surrounding land use, or an
developments to use shared surface parking, adopted plan. Screen loading areas and refuse
parking structures, or under-structure parking; dumpsters from view. Screen commercial and
industrial use from single-family and residential
b. The development shall facilitate through landscaping; and
pedestrian /bicycle circulation it the site is located
on a street with designated bikepaths or adjacent (iii) Provision of frontage roads or
to a designated greenway/open space/park. shared access where feasible. (Ord. 89.06; Ord.
Specific items to be addressed are as follows: 87-56)
18-66-5 Reformatted 1994
~ tff
F,
7 '
1
.
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
i 7 B. Existing nonconforming industrial structures f
at the following locations may continue to be
i utilized for I-P Industrial uses after the
nonconforming use limit of six months: Map 2S 1
2AA tax lot 4700, Map 2S 1 2AC tax lot 100 and
202, Map 2S 1 2AD tax lot 1203, Map 2S 1 2DB tax
lot 100, and Map 2S 1 2DA tax lot 300. (Ord. 91-
30)®
i
l _
1
ul
r ~
1
I
~ j
i
.
18-66-6 Reformatted 1994 '
d ~
.
-;_~w_
Mal now
Jill
1
t - THE RE(=(ON 2040 STUDY
1:4 TIGARD
Location
Tigard offers an unique opportunity to estab- rail was brought to this area. Rail service may
lish a walkable mixed use nc~ hbo`hric dow nt cretu astralongr Pacific i liglmvay lortby establishing
isting rail alit,
supports transit and revitalizes
mncnts, istoric co Via, town, at the same time. .several regional routes (Several station locations could serve Main Street
~Aw.. Tigard sits at the ne and are explored as part of this study)
` the historic Pacific ffighway (now Main ;treed To day, the Rcaverton-Tigard 1 fighway (Route
and the Burlington No and Southern Pacific access it) Tgard. Tile
ides
c nstruction of a freeway i rterch99), c at Route
freeway and connection.
o Railroads. Street align 'n Snhistoric lotting prov
this area reflect th
in i tcreased[traffic
MAD Burnham, Commercial, higairacks; OMainther s5treet w`it rIgrowthf in ti hlefarea, I"vvet bined
volumes along Ile Pacific Highway. Conse-
ry f' ruts parallel to the railroad radc
ruts perpendicular to the railroad tracks and is
atr address for retail activity that originated when qucntly, Main Street's small scale and at g
'I Reg.olut Key Alai,
1 05
crossing and smolt shops on Alain Street-
Railroad 53
Vie W if downtown Tigard looking east.
■ R® ®Logo ® r ~1 ! r low
l
WIMP
t~aG°G~~ irk . f,..;
Iy
fntion and Open Sp°u' generally pro.
Existing Circa which provides of local streets,
h the arca except at
s more difficult. To vides direct routes throng
a loop y i hwaY overpass effec
cess to Main street shop rove access, of the Pacific
While {Bbwa Van nand
estion and +mP the Paclflc H B
g een the top main boundary to the l north,
necessitated a new highway h alleviate as tonbeen PtOP°sed b which intersects t;vely forms a m bounda
railroad crossing ramp TI ardstteet, street Creeks fornaturaaeEincs
main Street, ssand B other new Rock 1htPanno Creek
Street'
northwest of N1 ovetpa to the railroad. between Red and south. ton county.
overpass most traffic ar° avoid
n to osed: the West within Wash`ng
now routes n m art Street to cre. Street next demob shed nta or opP°r"
also ng major water
The overpass have also been streets p WTI` The creek has been i dentified as ccr
eational ac"
ex Cushcept wh M connections
ec ngvers uses he Tigard and Burnham Een Ash and Walnut hour estion. ass Maln efforts to
between ain street and areas ainStteet);betw tunity ard,
y tionair traffic to bYP for habitat restoration, -
mediatel M
ated a battier betty t for streets im allowing some d 11311 Boulevard and flood contc"cate a public amenity
to the north, excep ads. Street t Ash Street an e tivities creek and
the railro estbound ttaf- $tceetl+ and at tect the
adiacent to t,quires w traffic movements in the at o 1th 'g id pro
vet ass also ake left turns to teach (Simplifying would build up
I Theoverpass
to traffic tic on PaciftcHlBhway to m contributes proposed connections
This condition and makes ac-
Main Street. Pacific tiigh'N3y
congestion on
nom.
WWO
- "wow
.rte"
Now-
ILA,
IN'
If
` ` s \ a
jji#
4W~'41# ION
short term.
the
a in
to chang
Indus and are unlikely along Main Street also deserve
Ti ard's'r
m g
potential for Change. including low -intensity a nom Historic buildings an male.
n the short term, Street special consideration for conserving
i comple_
3 Burnham cultural heritage and maintaining
begun. Between Ash and Main Streets, a[k tcial uses and undeMa~n Sd retail, adSom the local network of streets, offer
have beg tnercialusesalong resently undervalued. However, paths, may
of Fanno Creek is now contained within reek is 's
ark along Fanno and Hall Boulevard are present
to rtmain. Tigard merited with new streets and of this p resence and uaranties for eh e de°& n
+ Other uses are more lies a steady p one of the best g hborh nd ood with p
expansion ts
south of Ash Street to i confluence with Center establishes at the southern end human-scaled ncig
planned low levels of traf fic.
Red Rock Creek. This park could aid s Cme 1 ivic Civic Creek, an
$r Patients Tag a potential center of ablest of Fanno oriented connections a that comp Street. under constcuc
public feature 'is from of Burnham complex is presently {f e
for
stablish tra the folio' 'c apartment comp
Center, and would e could also
main Street. Trails foollow inTigard.
center to M iltoads and extend into Lion and demonstrates "'e cuA m~X o viable
~ ment of the ra higher density housing bout the site
the align r
d area atteredthroug
neighborhoods. high
the surrounip° commercial uses are sc 3
Development tenual within d to redevelop 3 varies. Some areas can be exp
a
"miss
I
f ~1
Description of Plans
The Conceptual Plans for downtown Tigard r - t
demonstrate this town can reinvigorate its his-
4•
toric Main Street shopping area by bringing a ~ 1 2; •
complement of housing and jobs to the area, and r' ' - L•
by linking Main Street to the new Civic Center n
with a creekside park and improvements along
Burnham Street. Both Plans take the fundamental IC'.
step of intensifying mixed-use commercial ac- I _ - _ - = G j i j
tivity along Main Street. Vacant lots and under-
valued buildings are replaced with :-to j story
buildings with retail shops at the street and upper-
story offices or apartments. (Upper-story apart-
mcnis are more appropriate south of Main Street ^ ~~~'-,f 1~•~'~~✓
1 -
• tic = Stepp, to the fight
fall a tivity along of 'Main Street will noise.) ccommo- descend unto to v
dated by improvements to the street, including civic PfO7O °1tl"
lligh-Intensity
Plats.
street trees, benches, human-scaled street light-
' - ing, and special paving. Crosswalks will receive
special treatment and a landscaped median will
T ! " • t make street crossing easier by slowing traffic and
" • discouraging use of Main Street as a Pacific
l~_:. 1;~-:^7' • i~AM • j;•";~..„t"-~ - - Highway bypass.
. A ~ Both Plans also assume gradual intensifica-
11'`;f • = r = 1'e~;fj`;~~'' • • , ' ' tion of the surrounding neighborhood as a ve-
It„ '{:ri:~!t t'' ,t hicle for supporting downtown services and
•yi~fiC.V4 ;"~:%•"r^~I ._-r (.~i 1~ ~1: r ~;4 F: s\: i::rt
t,, „ •ar-_• 7 ti, i supporting transit service to the area. Transit
-
1 n io.chn r s- t .a c
5 F • e service will serve as an important catalyst for
~5%.•Y~t. ,.ijl~'~„ijiSe~r1TS~S+Sv. 'k'~d j}:~y_i L.••'~(`id~~b77~..{il: .~h~~'~r.1.
77 bA f' 4" !3J = 3 redevelopment. A mix of land uses, such as
ti"•~ "''~g'~- I~~3 ^~~'l offices, retail shops, and moderate- and high-
,,~:~;E.=:~,~ , t t rppm,~ ~f density housing, can take best advantage of
' !figh-Interoi Plan k:.:`':'~ Q.,...^
s - t, 1'6 Z~ y
ra.: t-?' .~y' r -i=~ TM , 1 transit service. Higher-intensity uses can be
with night rail rl~"~.~~_•7•..~ • - w., ~-1- d.,:, t _
~~O"?! • ti: p,.c`~ expected in the immediate vicinity of the tran-
station overlooking ' Ya ' _ . t ~i?!~ t n; ;
Alain Street.
se "CION2040
~Et~~~
e
L
L 1
O~ M• ^ O
' 4* 7 C!
Jill
1 4 ~M {
1 O
l ,1 ' b ~ `sy' •
ttt U ; '
IIIIW
COVE
.i E
.I
' C
y - ~r A.4tt1.
1 ~ 1 ,t /lam i ~ ~ a
• ~ C~MNr{4o~r'•4' Q f.•"
I.a,,.ptte>uity p{an iC°:tcept Rl
1.040
aclo
SA
1
,i a r
{J e
Mole e,, kkj
t ? 4F ~ tk
it station, with less intensive uses m s 7
further away. of the tran-
tip;+•
priately located the location een the two C
Asa conseveace,
tation berlan iliusaat
critical difference
tation
seholdsand
sit s iM the g, S
schemes, t C t$pO new hou along tuns c1
Concep Z l '7 s
S
ing Metro bs)tht tail the over
w ith a statio•,, r[5hway elevator ~Ali
ih stairwy and all
destrian Alain Street and P dt deuetDp"teut
pass. with mks. The trl'T ' .b fn( Main street
connect the station the existing hound floor W;th IandsmPe
. tial rail service along and g
edesttian stairway that isaeeom
station, P of activity ated
za and is pnnctu r? ' , Kr ,
elevator. J • . .
retail esta rand pla
b)ish a Ce ntet encloses the ent to
modated with a Y
clock tower that located adj ac - ,
S
with a
plan illustrate
With the ttansi. Intensity historic _ _
street, the 11 g ent along this
Main eveloprn`
mot will continu•
s
e intensived
entries and displaaccom
s Paniment,
ine. shop
P Main Street, with
coved street
- - r
ously line street
Ma al aving, °
light st$Cape IS, s e i
in Street's a andards, P lex cinema
trees,distined 1 <i., _rr~',,;,^ Y`r+ -J
median. A ° f Main Street and, r " r. .','..~1.. • 'r 6'_... _ ~~r is ~;-n • t
an , ; . • : ~7' -+,i"w= :,1-~ - .
d a P131"' end o West
rther
anch t n t the ,ti' ..r + r w.~ p'. =
he no park to H r ys. fit'>_ rd{t ° ;r4: _ a ; q,
ors mall p betause
om ,
ha s
wit fir Highway, t
I b-InstiOn paci
t _ eSS ;a~~~~rsG'.. w c ri
aeen
in teway from ma a d adj
Creates a a d for the tine f r addit oval " ,~r.~.: 'il;-'~r,.s r t -7 '•'~k 'YFlaq ..C- A
th i r r• yv, •1- o
n the need
packing dem ce offset, no Creek and _ r., iJ>.'•'•.. •'"?~P3fi ~1" <9 Sdst
" l'ei' pr r ' x,Q
I retail center a fixed. Fan at the IN
m atewaY ~;ti,:, r^ r ' "a•'~ n
~t
parking may be mini estab u shes g the „mL• eL: ! aitstation
sociated par the a bridge purr d y ~R8d9YL
ne , ziaxr
_ 1: oca+n fu
the as end o4 Main Street; redesig the
other ark would be h 79 , ^ t ,n the Low"
y r. south' n.
k and the adjacent park Trails thcoug
a to she
crcc a$eliseof s
to accentuate link main street with 59
-11
~rytr Mt;ir,^nR. C',;~.
this park ain street is
south and west.
character of M viable e%
?he intervening c mixed-use
bination of htstorf burl story
y
a tom
sti and 1-to•3
ins retail uses, °
-woof, -WOW
Ogg,-, wow
R
-
U ) F
buildings. To achieve higher intensities along
Main Street, several public parking structures
are depicted. This provision permits smaller ,
parcels that cannot accommodate surface parking
to be more intensively developed. The proposed
• ramp from Pacific Highway to Main Street via
Tigard Street further enhances the capacity for
vehicular access to this area. Auto access down-
` II~ - town is further improved by extending Ash Street
14 fsrr ~ r i - over the train tracks to Commercial Street, and
M
w~ wa extending Tigard Street to Ash. These streets
also improve pedestrian access throughout the
Proposed Main Street section with median and street trees. neighborhood.
Garden apartments are situated just south of
Main Street, between Burnham Street and Fanno
Creek park. These buildings would the street
with entries, bay windows and balconies. The
f garden apartments overlook the park, contrib-
uting to the park's security and making a more
• pleasant place to live. Just beyond the garden
apartments, townhomes are indicated. Apart-
ment residents will support retail in the area and
will use transit.
• On the other side of Burnham, street-level
retail uses reinforce the pedestrian link between r
i
Main Street and the Civic Center. In the area
between Burnham and the rail line, new office
uses face the extension of Tigard Street and bring i
additional jobs and services to the area. New
pedestrian links across the railroad tracks are t
Optional Main Street with diagonal parking. also provide to provide convenient and memo-
table routes.
60 . REGION 2040 •
_ i
A
® New Sl-b
® iran+it SWp
Fast of the existing rail lines, existing em- D r
y~ ployment and high-density residential uses are
generally maintained. Redevelopment of under-
valued industrial land into a more intensive
research and development complex would oc-
cur nearby, east of Hall Boulevard and along
Commercial Street. ~
The Low-Intensity Plan (Concept B with 300
new households and 900 new jobs) places the
transit stop between the Civic Center and Main Location of new
\ \ %
Street on the existing rail alignment. This lo- streets and
cation establishes a focal point near the geo- transit station in
graphic center of the study area. On one side Plan. ensity \
of the station, a large bus staging area can be _•J
accommodated. On the other side, a neighbor-
hood green stands next to the light rail station
and is surrounded by retail shops at Burnham
Street. Across Burnham, garden apartments,
townhomes and carriage homes face the park ® New sine's
along Fanno Creek. ® Tnnei~s~<q
~ While this station location serves the south-
i
ern portion of the neighborhood better, the
location will draw pedestrian activity away from
Main Street. Because Main Street land uses are
expected to be at a lower intensity, parking can
i i
be supplied at grade and without parking strut-
tures. As a counterpoint to the neighborhood ! .d
green at the transit station, a major plaza marks /
a natural gathering point on Main Street near
the existing post office.
One possible advantage to the transit station \
location in the Low-Intensity Concept is the
Location of new streets and transit \ J
station in Iligh•Intensity Plan.
61
i
C" ri
{ transformation of the Civic Center into a ma- North of the transit station and Commercial hood by fully establishing a walkable, mixed-
jor cultural center. Performing arts, gallery space,
Street, the existing residential neighborhood is use neighborhood. This pattern can achieve a
1 community rooms, and recreational facilities accompanied by infill apartments and variety of important goals. It will intensify land
I could be introduced and combined with ameni- townhomes. The pattern of redevelopment in uses surrounding Main Street and can create an .
i ties associated with the expanded Fanno Creek this area will be incremental occurring lot by active downtown. And, it illustrates the ability
Park. In recognition of this additional civic lot over a longer period of time. Existing in- of Downtown Tigard to absorb its share of
1 activity and additional jobs in the area, a con- dustrial uses north of the railroad and east of housing and jobs even under the most intensive
1 venience retail building anchors the corner of Hall Boulevard would be maintained. regional growth scenario. i
t Burnham Street and Hall Boulevard and ends Under either scenario, new infill and rede-
the vista down Burnham Street, velopment will strengthen the existing neighbor- i'
1.-
is
7
9 is
i
6i ArGION1040 (~1
=IMF E~1~® MOOL7- 11111111111111111F / MWOMA
August 20, 1996
1 N.o . 6) j
To: City Council - City of Tigard
From: Tigard Downtown Merchants Association
1 Subject: Vision for Central Business District
1 The Tigard Downtown Merchants Association (TDMA) was formed a couple of years
ago, with the encouragement of the City of Tigard, to promote economic health and
development of downtown Tigard. TDMA has made efforts to listen to what the business 4
and property owners think and want, to communicate with the City Council and Staff
about any issues of importance to both, and to be proactive with ideas. With a focus on j
accomplishing as much as possible with as little financial impact on the City as possible,
much volunteer time has been contributed in the pursuit of the foregoing.
At this time, the City of Tigard is performing a Visioning exercise. We applaud this
action. Efficiency and accomplishment are the children of planning. As you are aware,
there was a rather lengthy and expensive effort in the late 1980's which was not
successful. TDMA appreciates the opportunity to participate in the process now being
initiated and is optimistic about what we can do.
~y Much of the concepts and visions identified by the City Center Plan Task Force remain a
part of TDMA's goals. We see the center of the Central Business District pedestrian
friendly, a place where cars are parked and guests to our downtown area enjoy walking
up and down our colorful, vibrant streets visiting quality restaurants, coffee shops, antique
stores, frame shops, and other commercial activities of interest. There should be
consideration for encouraging some multi-unit housing, as has been accomplished at the
south end of Main Street. A number of us see this area as a potential for revitalization
much like what has been done on NW 23rd in Portland, the business district in Sellwood,
the community of Multnomah, the downtown area of Gresham, and so on. This salvage
effort of older business areas is taking place all over the United States. There are national,
state, regional, and local `Main Street Revitalization' organizations recognizing the values
of saving our past rather than replacing it with asphalt parks and strip malls. -
Certain parts of the vision of the 1980's plan went beyond (and at a much faster pace)
what we consider reasonable and practical in our present vision. Instead of forcing certain
aspects, we recommend setting the stage for natural changes to occur over time. This is
where the City really participates. Reviewing the traffic flows and designs might be one
major area. Once the street layout is concluded, then design the appearances of those
streets with such enhancements as attractive street lights, below ground wiring, sidewalks
with benches, low maintenance trees and plants, and so on. The City could encourage
individual property owners to make improvements with some property tax incentives, low
interest loans. Public parking is a problem whose solution has some distinct restrictions,
l ` but it is not insurmountable.
Aft-
August 20, 1996
City Council - City of Tigard
t Page 2
1
The City of Hillsboro has seen the downtown business and property owners form a Local i
Improvement District to bring about the revitalization. This also is a possibility in Tigard. t
There has not been any discussion about this in the City of Tigard so we have no way to
know what success such an effort may result in.
Other cities and community areas have been able to do exactly what we are talking about.
We believe the City of Tigard can, too. The Tigard Downtown Merchants Association is
willing to do all it can to work with the City of Tigard to make our Central Business
District a place to be proud of.
We suggest a City CounciVStaff/TDMA bus tour visit to some of the surrounding areas
mentioned, looking at what they have done. Through this activity, we all may be able to
see our vision together and be better equipped to determine what we can do. This might
be a Saturday tour with TDMA providing lunch and the transportation.
Please accept this as our offer to work with you cooperatively towards some very
important goals which will benefit the City of Tigard and our residents for years to come.
TIGARD DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
I
f:-
r.
I
i i ;
. e
J4rc shoo f
3~p rc7; /hcar
~c 1 a/~, y 7
arl-
.2 GC /O - l c ~ Fill ~v r /e2 i
C d h 7 r:. a t~° ; e? G c p S` / L' r/ a .5~~~ e jLj
~r
01 Jr
J/ lam- 'p~Od~n
IYJ19/1?'Nn.. ~Y~m ~r
,..~;,J~, Ct~ /off b~
s ~ s--o o - r
i
! •7H 1~~ ~A ~ wiA7
it I f1. • ~,J•0► ,{i' ` ll.
I
1 • •f `
..t- t' L11+ i
1
Above, in Millet's famous painting, ,3 peasant boy and
girl in France recite the Angelus _it dark. "The An el of
the Lord dech)red unto Mary
It is one of the most famous paintings in the world.
6-12 --6
THE ANGELUS
V. The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
R. Arid she conceived of the Holy Ghost. ("Had Mary"
Pra yr tr)
r ikk.
1 f -
MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No._~ '
1
i' CITY OF TIGARD Meeting of ao N to
l ,
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Record 5
DATE: August 12, 1996
SUBJECT: "Property Tax Reduction Act"
Attached is a copy of the initiative measure for the "Property Tax Reduction Act" (Ballot
Measure 47). Finance Director Wayne Lowry is preparing a presentation on this matter
for the August 20, 1996 Council meeting.
i Aadmlcathykorresp\bm47.doc -
i
,
i
is
•
P
PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION ACT's.
I
. HE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
Paragraah i. The C,^.r x,tutton of the State of Oregon is amended by creating new sediens 11g, 11 h, 111, and 11J
'to be added to and made part of Article XI and to read:
'Section ila: Nc%rithstanding Section•32, Article.l, Section 1. Article IX, Section-ll. Article 'f1, cr.any other
provisionofthtsConstitution;' .
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), dnd'(5) of this section; the.ad valorem property tai on cacti
property for the tax, year 1997-98, excluding the portion of the tax that is levied to pay bonded indebtedness or
interest thereon. shall not exceed the lesser of the following: (t) the ad valorem propertY tax on the same property
for the tax year ending June 30, 1998. reduced by ten percent (10%). or (IA the ad valorem property tax on the
same property for the tax year ending June 30. .
(2)(a) For tax years following tax year 1997-98, except as provided In subsectlMs (3), (4). -and (5) bf this'
section, the ad valorem property tax on each property shall not exceed the tax for the previous year, plus three
percent (3%).
(b) The portion of the Property tax-that Is levied on each property for the payment of bonded indebtedness or
l 'Interest thereon is exempted from the three percent (3%) annual Increase limitation set forth in (a) of this
i
subsection.
(3)(a) On and after the effective date of this section, there shalt be no. new or additional ad valorem property tax
levies against real property unless the question of the levy has been approved by not less than fifty percent (50%)
of voters voting in a general election in sn even numbered os,,or other election.in which not less than fifty..
percent (50%) of the registered voters eligible to vote on the. question east a ballot..' 1
(b) Nothing in this subsection shall affect taxes levied for the repayment of bonded indebtedness approved by
voters in an election held prior to the effectfve• date of this Act; .or the issuance of refunding bonds to pay such
bonded indebtedness. This subsection shall not require voter approval for the Issuance of, or the levy of taxes to
pay, bonds Issued to refund bonds Issued in conformance with this subsection.'
(c) For purposes of. this Article, capital construction and improvements for which bonded indebtedness may be
authorized shall not Include maintenance and repairs, the need for which could reasonably be anticipated, supplies
and equipment which are not intrinsically part of the structure, but shall include public safety and law enforcement . '
vehicles with a projected useful life of not less than five years or the period established for repayment of-the. bonds, whichever is greater.
i . (c) -The ballot title of a bond measure which is subject to this section shall include a reasonably detailed, simple
and understandable description as to the use of the proceeds. and the approximate percentage each use Is of the
whole. i
(d) If an election Is conducted by mall and includes a question, the approval of which would result In a new or `
F
additional ad valorem property tax levy against real property, the front of the outer envelope mailed to electors
shall be dearly and boldly printed In red.with the following statement.' CONTAINS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX
INCREASE F'
(e) When an election Includes a question regarding a new or additional ad valorem property tax levy. elections t
officers shelf provide a timely notice of deadlines for the filing of voters pamphlet statements to each person who
has requested in writing gun they receive such notices.- @
(4)(a) In the event a property Is improved during or after the 1994-1995 tax year. the ad valorem property taxes F
on that property may 1:3Inc: eased, by reason of such Imi;im-zi.ants, In excess of the three' percent (3%) limitation i
of subsection (2) of this section, except that_the tax shell not exceed the lesser of (1) fhe average ad valorem
property taxes paid an similar properties similarly valued and located in the same taxing code area, "(if) the ad
valorem property taxes on the property without regard to the view or additional improvements, plus the ad valorem
property taxes on the improvements at the ,same dollar to value ratio as paid on the property without the
Improvements, 1
Once the new improvements are added to a property and the ad valorem property tax attributable to the new or
additional Improvements is determined, the ad valorem property tax attributable to the Improvements may be
Increased In subsequent tax years in the manner allowed under subsection (2) of this section.
For the purpose of this subsection, 'improvements! mean new construction. reconstrudlon or major additions, i
remodeling. renovation or rehablfrtatton of real property Including stling, Installation or relmWitatlon of
manufactured structures, but shall not Include minor construction or general, on-going maintenance and repair.
(b) In the event a property is rezoned, resulting in a higher assessed valuation. ad valorem property taxes on
that property may be increased M of the limitation set forth in subsection (2) of this section. except the tax
shall not exceed the average ad valorem property taxes paid on similar properties similarly valued and located In '
the same taxing code area, and the ad valorem property thx increase exceeding three percent (3%) per annum
shalt not be in effect until the first tax year after the property is actually used in a manner or for a purpose
consistent with the new zoning unless the zone change was requested in writing by the property owner(s).
1
I
LL__
If prior to the effective date of this Act the ad valorem property taxes on a property have been increased due to a
zone change not requested by the owner of the property, and the property has not been used in a manner of for a
purpose consistent with the new zoning, and there has not been a transfer of ownership, the property shall be 1
reassessed for the tax year 1997-98 consistent with the zoning effective immediately prior to the unrequested zone
change or the"actual use of the property, whichever results in the greater tax- Thereafter, the tax may be
increased only within the limitations of this Act until there is a transfer of ownership or the property is used in a
manner consistent with the neW zoning. T_ ranter of ownership by inheritance shall not be considered transfer of
ownership for purposes of this subsection. .
(c) If a Property Is subdivided into two or more separate parcels, the tax on each newly created parcel shall not
exceed the average Tax paid on property similarly valued to the newly created parcel and located in the same
taxing code area. '
(d) If there Is a (foes ustment between existing, adjacent properties that does not create a new lot of record,
the tax on each newly created parcel shall be adjusted according to any increase ordecrease in value, but the
combined ad valorem property tax on the properties shall not be Increased more than Is permitted under
subsection (2) of this section for the tax year in which the lot line adjustment is taken into account..
(e) If a property Is placed in a different taxing code area, the ad valorem property tax on that property may be
increased in excess of the limitation set forth in subsection (2) of this section if.
(A) The taxing district annexation that resulted in the property being placed In the different taxing code area
was approved by a majority of voters casting a ballot in a general election In an even numbered year or other
election in which not less (han fifty percent (50%) of ;!;e ^gister:d voters eligible to vote in the election cast a
ballot, and
(B) the increased tax on the property does not exceed the average ad valorem property tax paid on similar
property similarly valued in the same taxing code area.
(5). For the first year foifowing*disquafification for exemption or special assessment, or in the event a property is
added to the assessment end tax rolls as omitted property, ad valorem property taxes on that property may be -
Increased in excess of the three percent (3°h) Increase limitation set forth In subsection (2) of this section, except
the tax shall not exceed the average ad valorem property taxes paid on similar property similarly valued In the
same taxing code area.
(6) in no case shall the assessed valuation of any property exceed its real market value.
(7) If It Is necessary to allocate among political subdivisions of the state, or departments or agencies within
those political subdivisions, any revenue reductions resulting from this Ad, redistribution of revenues shall be done
in a manner so as to n prioritize public safety and public education, and VI minimize any loss of local control of
cities and counties to state government;
! (8)(a) No government product or service that on or after June 30, 1995 was wholly or partially paid for by ad
valorem property taxes, shall be shifted, transferred, or otherwise converted so as to be wholly or partially paid' for
by a fee, assessment, or other charge except state income taxes, without prior voter approval. If such a shift,
transference or conversion of a property tax to a fee, assessment, or other charge except state Income taxes,
ocarmed without voter approval after June 30. 1995 and prior to the effective date of this Act,.for tax year 1997-98
and subsequent years, the ad valorem property tax on each such property, the owner or
user of which continues to
be subject to such a fee, assessment, or other charge except state income taxes, shall be decreased by an
additional amount equal to the portion of the fee, assessment, or other charge which was formerly paid through
property taxes until such time as voters approve the fee, ossessmertt, or other charge. .
(b) The limitations of (a) of this subsection shall not apply to a new or increased fee, assessment or other
charge, the imposition or enactment of which directly results in an equal or greater offsetting reduction In property
i taxes levied in the same taxing district, providing that the reduction is in addition to the reductions and limitations
set forth elsewhere in this Act.
Section 11h. Whereas some property owners may prefer not to have their property taxes reduced by this Act,
and voluntarily would provide support for public schools in excess of the limitations of this Act; to facilitate their.
doing so, the state. legislature shall adopt legislation to Implement a mechanism whereby a property owner may
conveniently make'an annual, voluntary contribution in conjunction with property talc payments, and designate the
school or other public entity to which the additional revenue shall be disbursed as a voluntary contribution.
Section 11i. The Legislative Assemblymay adopt and amend legislation to implement the provisions of sections
119 and 11h of this Article.
j Section 11i. SEVERABILITY of Sections 11g, 11h, and 11i of this Article. K any portion, clause or phrase of
Sections ttg, 11h. and 11I of this Artide is for any reason held to be Invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions, clauses and phrases shall not be affected but shall remain in full
force and effect.
LC c k A nP)~!S I
A publication of the
volume III, Issue 9 Tax Supervising & Conservation Commission August, 1996
Ballot Measures
A
~wenty three ballot measures recently qualified for the November 5, 1996 election. According to The ,
Oregonian, the total makes it the most crowded ballot since November 3, 1914, when twenty nine
measures appeared. Certain of the measures will impact local government operating and/or capital
budgets if passed. Listed within this newsletter is a recap of the initiatives having the largest potential financial
impacts on area cities, counties, schools and regional governments. The information is provided as a public
service. The Commission does not advocate for or against passage of initiatives or taxing measures, or for a
specific size and/or role of government.
i w
` Measure: #47
Ballot Title: Reduces and limits property taxes; limits local revenues, replacement fees 1
c
Type: Constitutional amendment -
What it Does: 1. Cuts Property Taxes
-Limits operating property taxes in 97198 to lower of 94195 amount, or r.
95/96 total less ten percent. Taxes currently levied for payment of
bonded debt are exempt from rollback. Reduction is on a property by
property basis.
- i '
2. Limits Growth in Property Taxes
-Limits subsequent year increases to 3%, with certain exceptions -
primarily relating to new development.
i
TdbleofCortterus~'_ x' ~ie _ j
n a a.
cI lv)eas(Cut and CaPZ
2 19feasure:4 ZRegtster~"edsvoter maJonty . e
3Menastzrt``e32}(SN~I~rgh Rail Fundmgj .8
4";leasure45(PubhCEmployecRehrsment)
i
Commissioners:
J Richard Anderson, Anthony Jankans,
Roger McDowell, Charles Rosenthal, Ann Sherman
° I
1
I
S
C® News & Views August, 1996. Page 2
i w !
i What it Does - Cont.: 3. Forbids Alternate Local Financing of Services Historically Funded with
Property Taxes - Without Vote
-Government services or products paid in part or whole by property
1 taxes as of June 30, 1995 cannot be replaced with a fee or other charge
! except state income taxes - without a vote.
i
f 4. Changes Election Rules
-Requires both a majority vote and 50% voter turnout to pass new property
tax measures on any date other than a general election.
-Mail election envelopes contain the following statement in bold red print: "
"CONTAINS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX INCREASE" • - • -
-Bond measure ballot title to contain description of planned use including
S percentage each use is of whole
! 5. Other
- -Limits exclusion of General Obligation bonds to only those issued for
certain purposes. Excludes from the definition of capital construction
and improvements "maintenance and repairs, the need for which could
reasonably be anticipated, supplies. and equipment which are not
intrinsically part of the structure, but shall include public safety and law
.
enforc- ement vehicles with a projected life_of-not less than five years..."
-Directs legislature to establish mechanism to allow property owners to
voluntarily provide support to public schools in excess of taxes limited
by measure.
i
Uncertainties: Measure does not specify how tax cuts should be apportioned by local
government. Instead, it directs that cuts should be made to prioritize public I
safety and public education. It's not clear how the legislature would set these !
priorities. -
i
It's uncertain whether added election language (i.e. majority and 509o turnout) !
opens the door to future operating levy votes (thus, partially negating the 3%
limitation), or applies only to General Obligation bond elections. f
.
Bottom Line: Legislative fiscal office estimates revenue losses to local governments at $472m
in 97/98, $560m in 98199, and increasing thereafter. Individual government
losses will vary depending upon legislature's allocation of cut. State income 1
tax collections are estimated to increase $23m in 97/98 and an additional $7m
in 98/99 as a result of lower property tax deductions. Actual property tax
! reductions will vary depending upon the accuracy of assumptions utilized.
. I
h
SWEEP,
s
s
® ~ S
News & Views August, 1996 Page 3
® In other words, total taxes would decline
Impact on Multnomah County Local roughly 22%, or one-forth if focusing only on the
Governments /Taxpayers: limited operating component. Reductions would vary
by
As shown in the adjoining chart, it's estimated property. The cut is calculated by taking the
10 j the measure would cut Multnomah county property difference between estimated total taxes with and
without the limitation. The limited total was calculated
taxes by approximately $159m next fiscal year (97/ by deducting 10% from 95/96 actual amounts. As
98), from $702m to $543m. previously noted, the Measure limits taxes to the lower
of the 95/96 total less 10% or the 94/95 total. And,
?r E7;1 t the 94/95 total will be less for certain properties. For
~IIA°g¢1 ~.^acdad(aa^ . example, a preliminary analysis of the individual o
parcels within the City of Portland indicated that
uiC: _ y5 B 41 tlt(1;338Ni roughly of properties incurred lower taxes in 94/
95. However, the additional reduction realized by
using these lower totals is roughly offset by the positive
.trastrxx+~ra adjustments `allowedfornewdevelo ment.Obviousl
P Y.
~ T2Q the net effect of these two factors will vary by taxing
district. [
d
tts s _ The property tax reductions can best be _
evaluated when put in context of the changes that have
1 s2 - occurred since enactment of Measure 5. Total property s
taxes in Multnomah County declined 17% between
90/91 and 95/96, from $672m to $556m. When
adjusted for cumulative inflation over the five year
v:eoiti na; 'et i 9 9s ~sg_,99275_< period of roughly 22%, taxes are down about forty
'vRcyiiotdite• 12:93..' '98 3 34~ 749„ Percent. y_
GirsLBarI~ n 21891•_59•„X
J aid 4 51 4 162 I ?
t~ • Total Property Tate
Crn Q , •tlt J32 • 4$8,8 S Yum-h eounty
ODCbgi4 _ _.rs41~ 1033.
53
l
ITavid_Douglas:s'= 923291.6 _ 78S _224313f MHT-/oa5 ~?F wttycamt ( 5)
800
"lift ; `3 1 ■ACwtmr E
S"a'ss 2
....FSI) 6711 2: p ; l
^2 M.
<au .L~ € Soo i M
:y;MEICC.c%--~"`~i ""'S474R6fi `''g'4Mr454` S^7 29n 70T 3 3 :7 T' ~ Y E _ s
^t $u Totat '-`y'21482 430.ar162t47;234 SIt885,~796s~e, : t
RF+ -•n'3• r.~..,."`" «w~~c tea .w, .cu a 2W
eN~'{?us6t: ss-^~,.'.~.Ie•is;,-"'S~„s".3f•.,s -811 6 loo ~r ymGR • - 8 ~S • ;~db:S88 aE~ ~ 5 =•:t _ ~f g l
r Savings from the measure, however, have not i
I - rm r 3 WIR 6 been applied evenly across all property types. Rapid i
agrowth in residential assessments combined with slow !
{ =s 1 t~cF~e«d2~tt to moderate increases in commercial values shifted
x x the property tax burden. The market driven switch
i
S v
C® News & Views August, 1996 Page 4
offset the Measure 5 dividend for numerous ►
"n.. °
homeowners. As a result, many of these taxpayers did
not realize significant reductions to their total bill. F^'.z ; 4• - '
Residential vs. Commercial Tax Burden
Actual:.,
SM (Total Dollars Paid) I990t91_^5362y~ st
3.10 X5672• .p
400 Multnomah County, Oregon 1991~92MI'Mr r 3 5+ ~t2tt~L't~ d2
350 Residential burden 1992193k 3634Yn i3I724Y
300 is flat 1999%94.~t Y= . -362. =22
250 s.- hrr ,z iv .y 9:tiar205 zt>, T•,"'Si6.j,
200 Comrncn:ial burden 1996 ~ 3694iy~ SSE
is decreeing
too ■ Residentiat ForeearteTm :^t'~ )g_~ yr-A,. Y
so ■Comm/Other X199 9,~"" t 422 2f -;641)
p -1997$ o2 X99 't" i~02ir:
90• 91- 92- 93• 94- 95- tI99.7eQT7l t,~CE 5 11548eS
-':°-x-^a.'c_s7 <scr'••:ae• -is.«•:-,:Iruz;..;:
91 92 93 94 95 96'itt?~,..r
Changeslnce~90~9].;,. --me.,-a-~•-.-.:,..s,?~,~..
NO Liiiit' t 1t r +27 9 r ,v
4 S9F,i
The downward trend in total taxes will cease in 24.
9b` z
96/97. Increases in assessed values combined with voter w r'`°~ - ate`
,v eA
approvals should raise taxes roughly 15% to an Changestnce90191 = r
tted^
Um=° t '(24Z 38%Q92)96n
estimated $640m. This is acounty-wide increase. Rates
Inflahon'Ad~mtedw` i314)4G 67.7~y6482ti
of change will likely be slightly higher within the city
of Portland, and lower in other areas such as Gresham.
Impact on Local Government Services Funded
with Property Taxes:
Total Property Taxes It's very difficult to estimate the tax
(Multnomah County) reduction's impact on local government services. For j
em one, as previously indicated, the measure does not
^~t§ti~aeak=p,. specify how tax cuts should be apportioned by local I
u government. Instead, it directs that the cuts should
`CO be made to prioritize public safety and public
v% 2M ❑ (e.; 47) education. Yet, that is precisely where the vast
0 - majority of property taxes are currently applied.
Would the prioritization mean significant cuts to other
9M 91M 9xM 9399 91S T29i 95W 9M 9M
i type services such parks, roads, libraries and animal
Reductions mandated by "Cut and Cap" would control? Or, could these services be considered either
stop the rise, and reduce taxes to approximately what public safety or education? It's not clear how the
they were ten years ago ($545m in 87/88). Total legislature would set and define these priorities,
property taxes would be roughly 19% below the peak allocate reductions, and/or offset any of the cuts with
experienced in 90/91, a reduction of almost one-half increased state support. Also, it is possible that
(48%) when factoring in the cumulative effects of efficiency increases could countervail some of the
inflation. When adjusting for the shift in tax burden required reductions. In other words, alternatives may
that has occurred since 90/91, commercial property exist to pro rata cuts in service. That being said, it's
owners would see their taxes fall by roughly two-thirds hard to fathom how revenue reductions of over$150m
in inflation adjusted dollars. The residential tax burden could be incurred by Multnomah County local
will have declined by approximately one-third. See governments without significant reductions in u
opposite chart. service.
L
~i
I ■
News & Views August, 1996 '
Page 5 I
i
The accompanying graph puts the cuts in Comparisons to Measure 5: j
perspective by expressing them as a percentage of total A number of comparisons have been made 4
general fund resources. School reductions have been between Measure 47 and Measure 5. And, there are
equalized by dividing the Legislative Revenue Office's some distinct similarities. Each measure reduces f
estimated statewide K-12 loss ($210m) by total weighted property taxes and saves taxpayers money. Both also
enrollment (of 599k). The cut of approximately $350 establish ceilings that cannot be exceeded, and in
per student is expressed as a percentage of 96/97 funding doing so limit voters ability to impose additional
formula revenue. Also, an "all county" reduction was property taxes upon themselves. And, each delegates f
estimated for local governments whose boundaries more power to the legislature, M-5 via the switch to I
extend beyond Multnomah county. a state-wide funding system for education, and M-
Note that losses vary by district depending upon 47 through the delegation of tax cut apportionment.
property tax reliance. Finally, both are almost the inevitable result of u.
frustrations generated by a property tax system l
whose burden has or is expected to outpace growth
. in personal income. Despite the strong similarities,
_Tbtal Total Lou
$ Red qe however, there are also definite differences, both in
- „ Juction - G eneral Fund Generaal lF uod
Munldpality,: (All Counties) - 96.97 Budget 96.97 Budget the measures' mechanics, and the fiscal environment
Multnomah County X541,810,338 -,.$256.362.0G4-- 16.3% in place at time of vote. For example: j
Regiond Entities-.
Port of Portland
1,227674 , 114276974 11% A. Fiscal Environment P
J Tri•Ma 0 206 378,310 0.0% 1. Growth in Property Tax Burden
Metro` 15y.2 21666228® 71% I
Subtotal Rieonat- ,s 5.956
342,321.512 0.8% . -Total property taxes in Multnomah
chin _ - county increased 42% in the five years prior
Portland * 60,103953 98383;631 re .1s:1%, to when Measure 5 was enacted (from
T g _
slum 2646809 29,182,602 ,9.4%. $474m in 85/86 to $672m in 90/91). Total
- i routdale 459 897 ? 6,388,877 '..72% '
i Fairview °•391 379 - 2,469,804 5s.9%• property taxes will have declined roughly "
Wood Village 82,945 . 2,316,727 3.6% "
Maywood Park 0 49,270 0_0% 5% between 90/91 and 96/97 (from $672m
Subtotal Crites , 63,684,984 437,790,911 14.6% to an estimated $640m).
Education:
' Portland 21,282,450•.. 283,076,445# _ 7.5%
Pat]- .1,717,050• 16,746,323# 7.9% 2. Financial Condition of State and Local
Reynolds 3,067,750• 37,400,945# 8.2% Governments
Gresham Barlow 4,174,100' 51,690,560# 8.1%
Sauvielsland 75,250• 1,308,650# 5.8% -The vast majority of cities and -
i Centennial 2,200,450' - ' .:,;26.611.072# " 9.3% counties have rebounded from an
Goebert 276,500• ..3,535,674# 7.8% any initial
i David Douglas 2,926,700• 35,184,'25# 8.3% Measure 5 impact. The same cannot be said
j Riverdale 113,750• 2,418,6674.•... 4.7% for school districts. Total statewide funding l -
ESD 4,146,553 39820,416 10.4% formula revenue has not kept pace with tl
PCC 3,705,207 87b65,947 42% inflation and enrollment growth.
Reductions for "flat funded" districts have
MHCC 1,545,942 35,419,218 4.4% been more significant. For example,
{
Subtotal-Education 44,831,702 $620,778,642 7.2% between 89/90 and 90/91, Portland School I - -
j
varloos'omen = ' - - District's General Fund budget increased 6% '
General Gov: - " - '9t1566 - - from S310m to $328m. Reserves totaled to i
-Education 117.982
$25m. The district's 96/97 adopted budget
Total Y154,012,529 declined by roughly 5% (from S319m to I
0 Zoo Operating From $304.5m). Total fund requirements are
Calculatedby:.S350xAverageDaily Membership "(weighted)
-sFunding Formula Revenue down over one-third since 90/91 when
Combined General and FPD&R Funds: Urban Renewal levies also included factoring in inflation. Reserves stand at
combined General andseriat Levy Funds only $1.2m. Further cuts are anticipated in
97/98.
. t
i
S
i
News & Views August, 1996 Page 6
n
The State of Oregon's budget also looks 5. Local Control
vastly different in 1996. Kindergarten through -Measure 5's education rate limit eliminated
community college replacement funding is a an electorate's ability to increase school operating
$2.7b expense in the 95/97 budget, up from $0.5b taxes. However, most cities and counties retained
in 91193. Exceptional growth in income taxes the flexibility to enhance operations with higher tax
{ and lottery ttteipts have enabled the state to meet levies, assuming the public approved. Measure 47's
these increased responsibilities, though future limit on subsequent year growth will effectively take
forecasts anticipate difficulties in funding current away this flexibility - if exclusions apply only to
' service levels. General Obligation bond elections. -
B. Afechanics: 6. Correlation between Taxes Paid and Property
Market Value
3. Magnitude of Year I Cut Under Measure 5, taxes paid continued to
-Measure 5 reduced property taxes 7% be a function of property market value. Those
in the first year of implementation (from $672m receiving the same government services paid the
to $628m). As mentioned, it's estimated Measure same rate of tax. These taxes, though limited, grew
I 47 will reduce taxes 22%, along with property assessed value and voter
approvals. Measure 47 disconnects taxes paid from
i 4. Obligation to Replace Property Tax Losses property market value. Property would continue to
-Measure 5 squired the legislature to be assessed at market, though taxes imposed will be
replace revenue lost by the public school system essentially indexed from the prior year total. This is _
as a result of the tax rate limitation. Measure 47 true even in the event of ownership transfer. Thus,
does not require the state to offset reduced local the resulting tax rates will vary by property -
government property taxes. including for those receiving the same public
services. The de-linking of taxes to market value
} lends stability to the system, though also makes it
less of a tax on capital, and more of a fixed payment,
entitlement based mechanism.
i
i
Measure: #46
Ballot Ntle: No voter-approved taxes without registered voters' majority
1 Type: Constitutional amendment
What it Does: Would require a majority of electors to pass revenue measures - i.e. more than
half of registered voters vs. the current system which requires only a majority
of those voting in the election. In other words, those not voting in revenue
elections would effectively be counted as a "no." The new requirement would
t apply to all proposed tax increases, including property tax operating levies (i.e.
tax base and serial levies) and levies for General Obligation bond issues.
j Uncertainties: By directly amending Article XI, section I l b(3) - Measure 5 language -
} (Specifically, the exclusion for voter approved General Obligation bonds
incurred for capital construction), some believe the measure could be interpreted
I
S
I
Measure # 47 - November 1996 Ballot
j Highlights for Council Discussion - August 20, 1996
f
1. Limits 1997/98 tax bills on individual properties to lesser of 1994/95 tax or
1995196 tax less 10%. llg(1)
2. Limits future increases of tax on individual properties to 3% per year. 11g(2)(a)
r.,
3. Exception for debt service levies currently in existence. 11g(2)(b)
4. Future increases in taxes on individual properties above 3% limit are allowed
only by majority vote at general elections or at least 50% voter turn out with
majority for other elections. 11g(3)(a)
• 5. Exceptions to 3% increase from
year to year for improvements, zone changes,
subdivisions of property, lot line adjustments, annexations, l1g(4)(a,b,gd,e)
6. Annexation increases require majority vote at general election or 50% turn out
I! with majority for other elections. 11g(4)(e)(A)
7. Allocation of cuts among political subdivisions or departments within
jurisdictions shall be done to prioritize education and public safety and to
minimize loss of local control of Cities and Counties, 11g(7)
8. Requires voter approval for increases in any fees or charges that become
necessary to make up for lost property tax revenue. 11g(8)(a,b)
9. Allows voluntary taxpayer contributions to Cities, Counties and Schools.
11g(11)(h)
J
Sheetl Chart 1
Non D/S Tax
1800 739
1676 '
.y
1600 i
y 1451 i i
1400 i
1306
i
I 1200 c /
1000
800
600
400
I
200
0
94/95 95/96 96197 97/98
C PO
Measure # 47 - November 1996 Ballot
Estimated Reduction to Tigard Property Tax Revenue i
The fiscal impact of this measure is very difficult to estimate due to the various ways 1
to calculate the reduction and the vagueness of many of the measures sections. In
i the near future both the Washington County Assessor and the State Department of i -
Revenue will be releasing their estimates of the measures impact on local
jurisdictions. Discussing the estimated impacts now is somewhat risky in that the
1 upcoming information to be released is bound to be more accurate than these
estimates presented today.
Please keep this in mind as we discuss these estimates. This information is based . .
upon the best information we have at this time but the results may change as more E
is learned about this initiative.
{ We have projected the 1997/98 tax revenues two different ways and the calculations
present two different projected losses.
Projection A
Projected 1997/98 levy with no limit 6,889,115
1994/95 Tax Levy 4,267,990
1995/96 Tax Levy less 10% 4,071,663
Measure # 47 limit (lesser of 94/95 or 95196 less 10%) 4.071.663
Projected loss to Measure #47 in 1997/98 2,814,452 -
As a percentage of 97/98 levy 40.8%
Proiection B
Actual Estimated
94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98
Total Rate 13.38 10.43 11.26 11.03
AN 130,000 139,100 148,837 159,256
Tax Bill 1,739 1,451 1,676 1,757
Tax Bill Limited (1,451- 10%) 1,306
Reduction 451
Resulting City Tax Rate (would have been 2.12) 1.58
City AN 3,249,706
Reduced Tax Levy 5,134,535
Projected Loss to Measure # 47 1,754,580
As a percentage of 97/98 levy 25.5%
Measure # 47 - November 1996 Ballot j
Potential Impacts on City Services f
In order to determine what services may be affected by a significant reduction in
property tax revenue, it is important to net the costs of various general fund services
against revenue specific to those functions projected in 1997/98.
Police 5,411,049 314,484 5,096,565 5735%
Library 1,366,663 1,007,830 358,833 4.04%
Social Services/Arts 85,800 85,800 .97% `
Parks Maint 460,146 12,480 447,666 5.04% 4
Maintenance Services 295,306 16,000 279,306 3.14%
CD Admin 227,127 227,127 2.56%
Current Planning 234,980 154,400 80,580 .91%
Advance Planning 317,428 317,428 3.57%
i Engineering 713,230 300,000 413,230 4.65%
City Admin 842,697 70,000 772,697 8.69%
Finance 736,435 444,737 291,698 3.28%
Gen Gov't 265,572 265,572 2.99%
General Capital Imp 250,000 250.000 2.81%
Total 11,206,433 2,391,931 8,886,502
Non Specific Revenues available to apply to net costs:
Property Taxes 5,134,535 4,071,663
Hotel/Motel Tax 402,900 402,900
Franchise Fees 1,703,911 1,703,911
Total 7,241,346 6,178,474
71
i ( -
.
Measure # 47 - November 1996 Ballot
{ Unanswered Questions
How will the assessor in each county apportion the property tax reductions between !
the various taxing jurisdictions?
i
Will the Measure change the five and ten dollar limits established by Measure 5 for
schools and non schools?
:.b
Does section (3)(a) apply to tax base increases or only debt service for bonds?
I
i
j How can public safety and education be prioritized and loss of local control be
I minimized?
`J
Who will make the allocations between jurisdictions and within jurisdictions
described in section 7?
i
What will the process be for determining who paid fees and charges increased
without a vote since June 30, 1995 and how will the resulting reductions in property
taxes be done?
1
j
t .
7. 9
1. }
ODONNELL RRMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 19.96 14:17 t.0.021 P.02
UUU
• O'DONNELL RAMIS CRHW
. CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
f D ATTORNEYOATLAw -
" 1717 N.W. Hoyt stmt
"I PoNuid,Ondun 97309
I! TELEPHONE: (SW)M-4402
PAX- (a47)115-0911 -
DATE: August 19, 1996 1
TO: Wayne Lowry, Finance Director /
FROM: Paul C. Eisner, City Attorney's Offic.1
RE: Low Income Housing Tax Exemptions
• ORS 307.515 - ORS 307.523 t:
• ORS 307,541. - ORS 307.547
You asked me to prepare a short memorandum comparing the major characteristics ofthe two I"
statutory programs set out above in order to assist in the City Council's consideration of the
City's use of either. This memorandum is meant to respond to that request.
OHS QQ,S15 - 307.523 - Low income Rental HouelnE Tax Exemption Rtl E)
This particular statutory program enables a municipality in Oregon to grant property tax
exemption to property occupied jDlt y by (or, in the case of an un-occupied property, is offered
for rent aple]y to) low-income persons. The exemption is for a period of twenty (20) years,
absent a breach of certain conditions. The exemption can benefit either not-for-profit entities that
own (or in limited cases, lease) the affected low-income housing structure, or for-profit entities
i which construct new units of housing for low income persona Aft= the adoption by the City of the
provisions of the enabling statute,
The tax exemption can be for the entire combined tax levy of all taxing districts (school and non-
school) if the governing boards of taxing districts that have a combined rate of taxation equal to
or greeter than 51% of the total "combined rate of taxation" agree to the policy ofthe exemption
manifested in the statute and City enactment granting the exemption. In other words, if the City
and the school district's combined tax levy is equal to or greater than 51% of the total tax levy,
then their approval of the exemption nullifies the property tax of other taxing jurisdictions,
irrespective of whether they agree or not.
Before accepting applications under this statutory program, the City must first adopt standards
and guidelines that are to be used In considering the applications. The standards (which need not
be adopted buy the Council, but preferably would be) may include among other items the
requirement that the person seeking the exemption agree to rental rate agreements reflecting that
the benefit ofthe exemption is actually passed onto the low-income renters as well as an
i
ODONNELL RHMIS ET HL 503-243-2944 Aug 19.96 14:18 No.021 P.03
OVONNBIJ1 RAM1S CRliW
CORRIGAN & BAC14RACH !
Memo re: Low Income Housing Tax Exemptions
August 19, 1996
Page 2
agreement to allow inspections to ensure compliance with minimum maintenance standards for the
affected housing.
{ In order to qualify for the exemption, a person must file an application (along with an appropriate ,
fec) with the City prior to December 1 of the calendar year preceding the first tax year for which y
the exemption is requested. The application must set out some basic information a description
of the property, the purpose of the project, a certification of occupant income levels and a
description of how the tax exemption will benefit the occupants. The City MM then act on the ~
application by ordinance or resolution and send the results of the action it took onto the County
Assessor within 60 days ofthe application's receipt. Ifthe City denies the application, the
applicant can petition for review ofthat denial via a writ ofreview (ORS 34.010 to 34.100) to the
Circuit Court. If the application is approved, on the other hand, the City Council must give notice i .
(on or before April 1 following the approval,) to the County Assessor of the City's approval.
The statutory program also addresses what happens in the event the project either falls out of
compliance with the conditions attached to the exemption or when the project is never completed,
In essence, there is a hearing in ftont of the Council and if they arc not satisfied, then the
exemption is lost and any tax monies owed as a result of the exemption arc required to be repaid.
I am only aware of one jurisdiction that has actually utilized this statute Eugene although
there are others that have apparently expressed interest in it including The Dallca, Pendleton, {
Hood River and Ontario. 1 have some materials from Eugene which I can provide you if you
believe they would be helpful,
OR$ 307.541 - ORS 307,547 - Non-kmnt Corporation Low-income Housing ( PCs 7HE)
The tax emption provided for under this statutory program is procedurally much simpler than the
one described above and as such, has three major significant differences.
The first major difference is that only not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) or (4) organisations are eligible for
the exemption; the second is that the exemption is only for periods of one year (rather than the
twenty contemplated by the LTRHE) although all this means is that the exemption is subject to
yearly review by the City Council; and, finally, the City need not adopt "standards" prior to
implementing the program.
1
ODONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Aug 19 96 14:19 No.021 P.04
O'DONNIiI.i, RAMIS CRAW
1
III CORRIdAN & DACHRAC14
Memo re: Low Income Housing Tax Exemptions `
( August 19, 1996
I Page 3 '
The timing for review of an application Is also significantly shorter the Counci! only has thirty
(30) days from the date of the application to review its terms but the information necessary to
be provided by the applicant is also more limited a description of the property and of the
charitable project; a eertifleation that the organization is a 501(c)(3) or (4) organization; and
finally, a certification of the income levels of the occupants. The applications have to be
submitted to the City in by March 1 ofthe assessment year'.
However, like the LTRHE, the exemption can be for the entire tax levy of all taxing districts f
(school and non-school) if, like the L1RHR program, the governing boards oftaxing districts that {
have a combined rate oftaxation ofequal to or greater than 51% ofthe total "combined rate of E
taxation" agree to the policy of exemption.
The City of Portland is presently using this program rather than the LIRIIE and finds it useful.
From what I understand, there was a conscious decision not to use the LIRHE and stick with the
NPCI.IHE which has been in use since the late 1980's over Sl million dollars in tax exemptions -
have been granted. As we discussed, Mike Saba in Portland's Bureau of Planning is the staff
person assigned to this Project, He can be reached at 823-3067 for Information.
l
Please feel fYee to contact me ifyou have any other questions.
i cc: William Monahan
Timothy V. Ramis, Esq. z
!I pcahcm/900244owry.me2
I
r There is no provision for contesting a denial of an application nor does It seem likely that
there are grounds for denial if the charitable organization meets the criteria listed in the statute.
' i
I
l
Agenda Item N0.
TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Meeting of abtl Q(p
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator
FROM: Kathy Davis, Director of Library Services
DATE: August 13, 1996
j SUBJECT: Review of Library Sponsored Recreation Program
k
The library has offered a variety of recreational opportunities to the public since .
the mid 1980's. For the last two years, responsibility for running these programs
has been contracted out to Recreation Round-Up, a non-profit corporation
located in Wilsonville. No cash compensation is offered to Recreation Round-Up
for the provision of their service, rather, they are allowed free access to
CityScape for the promotion of the classes they offer and are not charged for use
of City meeting rooms. We, in turn, specify how many classes must be offered
and set the cost.
Based on evaluation forms submitted by program participants, as well as f
anecdotal evidence, Tigard citizens have been largely pleased with the f
assortment and quality of classes Recreation Round-Up has provided. A survey
posted in the August Cityscape showed similarly favorable results. (See
attached).
The community's interest in "classroom" type programs seems to be dropping
off. Registration has been so low for these programs that more than 50 percent
of them were canceled this past year. Highest registration was shown for
Summer Camp and field trip activities. +i+
In informal discussions with Recreation Round-Up management, they indicated
~ f
i that they may not choose to continue contracting with us under the current
! terms. If this is the case, or if Council elects to discontinue this contract, there
are several alternatives to consider:
1. Modify the contract. Either limit the scope of service expected (e.g.,
children's "Summer Camp" or senior "field trips") or have the City
subsidize the provision of classes. (Right now, for example, it is not
possible for Recreation Round-Up to run a photography class if the
instructor charges $75 and only 10 people register at $5 each.) i
I
2. Seek an alternate provide r. RFP's could go out, however, there is still no
known organization that can meet all aspects of our contract - including
willingness to have the City set fees.
3. Develop an in-house program. Return to having a City position coordinate
the program. This worked well during the years the program operated this
way (1990-1994). The main issues would be ice and employee costs
(approximately $60,000 per year). Program revenues would not cover
staff costs, but could cover class costs. .
4. Temporarily suspend recreation programs. While visioning process is
underway, programs could be suspended pending receipt of additional
information from the community on what they would like to see offered.
The library will continue to offer classes for children and adults based on
materials in the library collection. We will also highlight our role as an
"information provider" on other agencies and program resources the
community might turn to to meet their recreational needs.
The current contract ends August 30th. Renewal is a simple process, or Council
may choose to move us in a different direction. In either case, it would be
appropriate to get information out to the public by October - the traditional
beginning of the "Recreation Year."
~J
Attachment
j
j hAdocs\connieftmicclrecprog.doc -
111JJi
t
TIMELINE FOR RECREATION PROGRAM
COORDINATED AND/OR SPONSORED BY TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY
19$6 In celebration of the opening of the new library facility, an all-day program
called "Discovery Day" was initiated. Local businesses and citizens set up
informational display tables and demonstrations throughout the library on
topics represented in the library collection. More than 50 different topics
were covered from fly tying and writing a will, to parenting teens and pet
care. In excess of 550 people attended.
1986-87 Based on the success of "Discovery Day," a regularly scheduled "Discovery
Day" event was offered featuring some aspect of the library's collection.
Displays and demonstrations were set up in the foyer to run on one
Saturday per month.
1987 Resulting from the high level of interest in a recreation program indicated by
a city-wide survey, City Administrator, Pat Reilly approached executive staff
to determine whether some sort of minimal program could be offered
without significantly impacting the general fund. Library Director, Irene Ertell
assigned Youth Services Librarian, Kathy Davis to design a pilot program
that would explore citizen interest in an "education oriented, non-athletic
recreation program."
June 1988 One month of free recreation classes was offered through the library.
Classes were available for children and adults on a variety of topics. Craft
programs, field trips, and educational topics were covered.
Summer 1988 Youth Services Librarian was assigned to design expanded, year long
recreation program.
1989 Educational Services Program offered its first classes with no additional
staff and minimal funding.
1990 .5 FTE added to library staff to assist with Educational Services.
i
1991 Full time program coordinator runs Ed. Services Program. Position reports
to Senior Librarian (formerly Youth Services Librarian).
1991-94 Educational Services provides 12-18 new classes quarterly for all ages.
Spring 1994 Coordinator resigns.
Summer 1994 Library scrambles to continue summer camp program bringing in
temporaries.
Fall 1994 - Program continued using "Recreation Round-Up" as a contracted program
Fall 1996 provider. As no cash payment was made for this contract, the savings to
the general fund equaled approximately $120,000 over two years.
~ V
0 0
COMPARATIVE STATISTICS FOR TIGARD RECREATION PROGRAM (FALL QUARTERS) `
# of Classes Offered # of Classes Canceled # of Enrollments Net QjV Cost
i
11
# Fall '90 41 N/A 310 $ 6,527
Fall '91 52 9 514 $ 8,292 *
Fall'92 30 5 370 $10,727 *
Fall'93 35 11 432 $10,800 *
(Contracted program)
Fall '94 30 0 339 $ 0
Fall '95 38 17 167 $ 0
.i
Total Gross Savings to City for two years of Contract: $116,000 (Amount budgeted for Ed. Serv. program FY 94/95
times two.)
* Dollar amount shown is for one season (1/4) of annual program cost.
i
i
t
i
F
I
17
r"
e' on Round-TJz~
~e Home of the Fun Mobile c
(503)685-9613
TO: TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
C/O: KATHY DAVIS
FROM: RECREATION ROUND-UP, INC.
DEBORAH BLESER, PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: CITY OF TIGARD RECREATIONAL / EISURE SUMMARY REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 17, 1996
ATTACHED IS A STATISTICAL REPORT WHICH SUMMARIZES THE CITY OF TIGARD
CLASS AND FUN MOBILE ADVENTURE OFFERINGS AND ENROLLMENT FIGURES FROM j
FALL OF 1994 THROUGH SUMMER 1996.
i e
AFTER REVIEWING THIS CHART, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE CLASS ENROLLMENT HAS
DECREASED DRASTICALLY AND THE FUN MOBILE ADVENTURES HAVE INCREASED.
OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS THE RECREATION ROUND-UP, INC. BOARD HAS
APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE RECREATIONAL SERVICES TO THE
TIGARD RESIDENTS. KATHY DAVIS HAS BEEN OUR LIASION DURING THIS ENTIRE
PROJECT. SHE HAS CONTINUED TO BE A TRUE PROFESSIONAL, A SUPPORTER OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND A DELIGHTFUL PERSON TO WORK WITH. THE CITY OF
TIGARD SHOULD APPRECIATE HER EXPERTISE AND DEDICATION THAT SHE BRINGS
TO THE PROGRAMS.
I
t. THE BELOW SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS THE PAST TWO YEARS FROM THE
CONTRACTOR'S PERCEPTION. PLEASE ACCEPT THE BELOW COMMENTS AND
EXPERIENCES AS OUR EVALUATION. WE HOPE THESE COMMENTS WILL ASSIST THE
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL IN MAKING FUTURE DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE TIGARD
RESIDENTS. i
j
SEPT. 1, 1994 -AUG. 31, 1995 (FIRST YEAR AGREEMENT)
1. WATER DISTRICT BUILDING WAS USED FOR CLASSES ON SATURDAYS ALONG
WITH THE TIGARD CITY HALL. TIGARD RESIDENTS PARTICIPATED IN SATURDAY
CHILDREN'S CLASSES SUCH AS A VARIETY OF ART AND CRAFT CLASSES, MAKE YOUR
OWN BIRDFEEDER AND PARENT / TOT ACTIVITIES.
j 2. SENIOR CENTER FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY
EVENING FOR ENRICHMENT CLASSES (ALL AGES).
SEPT. 1, 1995 - AUG. 31. 1996 (SECOND YEAR AGREEMENT)
1. THE WATER BUILDING WAS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ALONG WITH CITY HALL.
2. THE CITY OF TIGARD CONTRACTED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR
RECREATION ROUND-UP, INC. TO SCHEDULE CLASSES IN THE METZGER PARK
BUILDING BEGINNING NOVEMBER 1, 1995. THE PROBLEM WE ENCOUNTERED WAS
LOW ENROLLMENT AT THIS FACILITY. THE CITY SCAPE DOES NOT GET DELIVERED TO
THE METZGER PARK RESIDENTS (CLASS OFFERINGS WERE LISTED IN THIS
PUBLICATION). A MAIL LIST OF METZGER RESIDENTS WAS DELIVERED TO THE CITY
OF TIGARD MAY 1996. THE METZGER PARK BOARD FINALLY AUTHORIZED THE PA
TO BE SCHEDULE FOR SUMMER CAMPS IN JUNE 1996 (TO LATE).
P.O. Gat 1268
Tualatin, OR 97062
I
s_.
.
1 ~
PAGE (2 OF 3)
3. THE SENIOR CENTER WAS STILL AVAILABLE MON. THROUGH THURSDAY
EVENINGS. NOTE: THE LOAVES AND FISHES DIRECTOR DID RESERVE AND
CONTINUES TO SCHEDULE THE BUILDING TO OUTSIDE GROUPS IN THE EVENING
HOURS. SOME OF THE GROUPS ARE: KNITTERS CLUB, EMBROIDER GUILD, LOW
INCOME HOUSING BOARD, BOATERS CLUB, UNION MEETINGS, P.C. USER'S, ETC. AS A
RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMER, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO SCHEDULE AROUND
THE ONCE A MONTH MEETINGS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY NEED THE LARGE -
UPSTAIRS ROOM. SOMETIMES WE WHERE AWARE OF THESE MEETINGS, AND OTHER
TIMES WE WERE TOTALLY SURPRISED AND HAD TO SHUFFLE OUR PARTICIPANTS. ! .
4. THE SENIOR CENTER JANITORIAL SERVICES WERE A DISTRUPTION
E CONSTANTLY. THREE INDIVIDUALS ARRIVED AT THE CENTER ABOUT 8:45 P.M. - 9 P.M. a ;
THEYCLEANED, VACUMNED, EMPTY TRASH, ETC. WHILE THE CLASSES WERE STILL IN I.,
SESSION. ALSO, THE UPSTAIRS, WOOD FLOORS NEED BETTER MAINTENANCE. THE
DANCE CLASSES STUCK TO THE FLOOR AS THEY DANCED.
IN SUMMARY:
RECREATION ROUND-UP, INC. WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO OFFER FUN MOBILE
ADVENTURES YEAR-AROUND FOR ADULTS AND CHILDREN. THE CHILDREN ENJOY
THE HOLIDAY BREAK AND SPRING BREAK DAY TRIPS THAT WE HAVE OFFERED IN -
THE PAST. ALSO, OUR ORGANIZATION WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO OFFER
SUMMER DAY CAMPS (6-12 YRS.) IN THE CITY OF TIGARD PARKS. k
UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO CONTINUED DECREASING CLASS ENROLLMENT,
RECREATION ROUND-UP, INC. IS NO LONGER INTERESTED NOR FINANCIALLY ABLE
TO CONTINUE TO OFFER ENRICHMENT CLASSES AT THE TIGARD SENIOR CENTER.
i
P.S.
I HAVE ENCLOSED COPIES OF ALL RETURNED CAMP AND CLASS EVALUATIONS FOR
YOUR INFORMATION. THESE ARE YOUR COPIES TO KEEP!
j_
z-:
Sheetl
i
CITY OF TIGARD RECREATIONAL/ LEISURE REPORT FALL 1994-SUMMER 1996
Submitted By Recreation Round-Up, Inc.
' i
Fall 1994 Fall 1995 Winter 1995 Winter 1996 Spring 1995 Spring 1996 Summer 1995 Summer 1996
l
j # Of Classes j
i Offered 30 20 36 13 16 10 36 Camps 39 Camps
# Of Classes
Cancelled 0 10 10 3 6 3 0 5
# Of
Enrollments 339 80 264 108 143 74 424 281
76% decline 59% decline 48% decline
34% decline
Metzger Park Fall 1995 Winter 1996 S rin 1996
# classes 18 7 2
# cancelled 9 1 1
# enrollments 77 43 5
FUN MOBILE
t
(Adult & Youth Fall 1994 Fill 1995 IfInfer 1995 Winter 1996 Spring 1995 Spring 1996 Summer 1995 Summer 1996
# Of Trips 5 30 no trips 27 12 20 19 37
# Cancelled 1 4 offered 10' Floods 2 4 9 12
# Enrollments 52 212 130 95 161 77 192
75% increase 41% Increase 60%
r Increase
t l j Pag~./
r~
4
H
jV
r• I
J 1,
I Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and
1 summer camps
I Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opporhmi-
1 ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching
hikes to first aid training tiny tot coo ing classes.
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de
termine where we should go from here.
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop I
1 the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- I 4
1 rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. 1
1. Have you or has someone in your famil attended any of the fee-based
programs offered through the library? YES ❑ NO
2. How would you rate the quality of these programs? i 6
❑ Excellent ❑ Vend Good ❑ Good jib Fair ❑ Poor
1 Connnents: 22F} 1E3fS itlE~-D, `7Z) /-/OyfE
~ Pro~ssrcyRL . /a~D prZCjg~iz~_ ~
! 3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
❑Too High / ~ ~1 About Right ❑Too Low
f
4. Would you like to see these programs continued? k
❑ YES XNO 1
15. What topics/activities would you like to see added to the existing
program?
I ~ I ~ ~s
16. How would you improve the existing program? 7E~9Lf/EX~
1 _V441101106
-ESGi~L///LL~ GUNEJt) /iUS7YLUC7l.UC~
1 C/-/iLLYZE~ ?GG4~S,S 1~04/tA><-J Sf/ouGp MfITZI-f I
7. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer). G~~~ P/7GYt) I '
❑ A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides.
classes that registrants support through the fees they pay. (Cost of I
program paid primarily by user fees.)
1 An "in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to 1
1 organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies. 1
i r (Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.) 1
E
- 1 ❑EX~Ng Other? 7ElZ/Ly ~S /-Jj2Td G/LyGT~SIZYZ_ f/?J~yE /S I E
i GduS/ST~h77lr~ ZZ We AI)Z> ee j
L J
7
r _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
I Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and
l 1 summer camps
1 Since 1987 the "Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportuni-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching 1
1
hikes to first.
id training to tiny tot cooking classes. 1 d
1
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de
to rmimz where we should go from here. 1
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop
1 the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- I
1 rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223. 1
j Have you or has someone in your family attended any of the fee-based
programs offered through the library?AYES ❑ NO i
i i
1 2. How would you rate the quality of these programs? 1
I 1 I i
❑ Excellent Venj Good 11 Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor
Comments:
I I _
t 1 I F
l i 3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
i ❑TooHigh )90bout ftht ❑TooLow
'"1 1 1
14. Would you like to see these programs continued? '
4
YES ONO I t
15. What topics/activities would you like to see added to the existing I
program? N.rr~~ ear .(1~c e
1 1
16. How lwould you improve the existing program?
1 4z) p a a+ ~p uw~ t S c'"AWUL L-171101 ~ I s
-Z AdL
17. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer). v 1
1 1
1 A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides 1
c ass s that registrants support through the fees they pay. (Cost of
j program paid primarily by user fees.)
l I
t ❑ An "in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to
organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies.
(Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.)
❑ Other?
t
------------------------1
7
j
T!' ; t
i
F
= C l:r
1
%
t Y
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1
1 Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and 1
I summer camps 1
Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportuni-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching
1 hikes to first aid training to tiny tot cooking classes.
f After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de-
termine where we should go from here. 1
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop
I the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di-
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
1. Have you or has someone in your family ~attded any of the fee-based
programs offered through the library? W'1 F.S ❑ NO f .
1 1 _
1 2. How would you rate the quality of these programs?
❑ Excellent ❑ Verb Good EYGood ❑ Fair ❑ Poor
1 I r
Connrteuts: P A
I
3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
1 ❑Too High ElAbout Right ❑Too Low
1
P'1 1 4. Would you like to see these programs continued? I t-
~~JJ I MYL6 ❑ NO
1 -
15. What topics/activities would you like to see added to the existing 1
program?
t
1
16. How would you improve the existing program?
~7i!1C GYt*.<X"10
' 17. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer).
{ 2ndA contracted program where a non-profit organization provides
classes that registrLnts support through the fees they pay. (Cost of 1
program paid primarily by user fees.)
1
J 1 ❑ An "in-house' program where tax dollars pay a City employee to 1 ( .
organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies.
(Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.)
❑ Other?
I I
I I
L J
7
77
s
4
r--------------------------
1 Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and 1
1 summer camps
1 Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opporhmi- I
✓ I ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching
I hikes to first aid training to tiny tot cooking classes. 1
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de- i
1 termine where we should go from here.
1 Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop 1
I the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, lli- I 1
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
1. Have you or has someone in your family attended any of the fee-based 1
i 1 programs offered through tha library?,YES ❑ NO
ii I f
1 2. How would you rate the quality of these programs? I j 6
I
*cellent ❑ Venj Good ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor 1
Comments: 1
I I
Yla c~0~~r
3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
❑Tooffigh XAboutRight ❑TooLow we are not ably to fvkB P
G~ SS Gj ~,.~~,y Park} d olk`tcl
4. Would you like to see these programs continued? b e cca z Yl e FceS 1 a
1 l1•RCYES ❑NO cxlwu~s 4c~ In:c~l. 1
1
1 1
1 S. What topics/activities would you like to see added to the existing I
program? 1
I 1
. 1 1
16. How would you improve the existing program?
1 I
I of
17. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer). J 000, qU q ~l
1
❑A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides f 10 ~Jel
1 classes that registrants support through the fees they pay. (Cost of CO)f
i
program paid primarily by user fees.)
1 1
1 ❑ An "in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to
1 organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies.
(Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.) 1
1 ❑ Other? 1
L J
t
t ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Field Trips fun classes-. . aAs and crafts and
summer camps
x ~J Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportuni-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching
hikes to first aid training to tiny tot cooking classes.
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de-
` termine where we should go from here.
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop
1 the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- d
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
1. Have you or has someone in your family attended any of the fee-based
programs offered through the library? ,YES ❑ NO
I
1 2. How would you rate the quality of these programs?
I
1 ❑ Excellent 'S(Venj Goad ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor
Comments:
~ - 1
3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are: i r
1 ❑ Too High About Right ❑ Too Low 1
4. Would you like to see these programs continued? ,
1 b4YES ❑ NO
1
1 5. What topics/activities would you like to see adcgd to the existing
1 program? (N) 11 re o- c-+( ✓t' f C S 5
I'M der'4VA4t~-
I
6. I low would you improve the existing program?
lL b0.fl~E.~ DQ.~~ a~ra ~n,PS S ot,a'/S Y1 D r % sQc~C/S i _
M V Funding mechanism (check which you prefer).
4C.C ontr acted program where a non-profit organization provides
ses that registrants support through the fees they pay. (Cost of 1
program paid primarily by user fees.)
❑ n "in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to 1
JJ organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies. 1
3 (Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.)
❑ ther?
Ct- lox
r
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
u
P, Ci k
iWSSS`W9o(uisonSt.' -
r RF~Vp p A(/
~ .J~ ~h ~ 1996
f 3 S• SuJ f~a/f ~luc✓
j+ k
F
E..
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and i P
summer camps 1
i Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportune-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching
hikes to first aid training to tiny tot cooking classes.
i
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de
termine where we should go from here.
I 1
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop i
j the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- I
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
i 1. Have you or has someone in your family attended any of the fee-based
programs offered through the library? t YES ❑ NO 1
r I
1 ~
2. How would you rate the quality of these programs? 1
KExccllent ❑ Venj Good ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor
i
i
Comments: I
..9 i
. d 1
3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
~ r
❑Too High C(AGout Right ❑Too Low
O 4. Would you like to see these programs continued?
OYES ❑NO
5. What topics/ activities would you like to see added to the existing
program?
1 I ;
j 6. How would you improve the existing program? I
1
i 7. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer).
A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides
classes that registrants support through the fees they PaY• (Cost of
1
program paid primarily by user fees.)
❑ An "in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to i
organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies.
(Cost of program paid b Tigard taxpayers.)
primarily Y .:j
❑ Other?
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-7-
Ij
1 I.
3 r
r
1 ;
L ~
S& &.MM SLIM I=
1]? ZOS'W66cfi;lVaw
TxX=4 OIV7224
f Q ~ I
II f
i
i
1
f~C 'ECFIVED JUI.
5 sw,.
395
- ,.~~auo DAP 973
T;
- `'jZ LC !i~~1441 'I/'ll'ii1I11 ~i ~1 it 111 l'~111/~11IIIIIIII'1III~IIII IIII'111'II' i
. t_'
-
I
I
I Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and I
i
i 1 summer camps 1
1 Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportuni-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching 1
hikes to first aid training to tiny tot cooking classes. I C
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de-
i termine where we should go from here.
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop 1
the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- I
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
I 1
1 1. Have you or has someone in your family at nded any of the fee-based 1
I programs offered through the library? YES ❑ NO 1
2. How would you rate the quality of these programs? i f
1 G21Ex1e11ent ❑ Veny Good ❑ Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor 1
1 Comments: /A/ i/~[0= ('~D X32 ep_ ` Yrl~ 1
r 1
1
1 3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are:
❑Too High 2About Right ❑Too Low 1
r
~ 4. Would you like to see these programs continued? ~
1 M'//1'ES ❑ NO
_ 1 1
5. What topics/ ctivities would you 1 ke to sag added to the existing
('XfLI~~~K, 1
program? C'- Al7Lrltl (4-
1
16. How would you improve the existing program? yu
i 1
f 1 1 ~
i 17. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer).
1 I
1 ❑ A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides
classes that registrants support through the fees they PaY• (Cost of 1
I I 1
ppro am paid primarily by user fees.)
! 1
LV An i7 n-house' program where tax dollars pay a City employee to
organize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies.
(Cost of program paid pri m rily by Tigard taxpayers.)
-i 1 G;r/Olher? !J 1 l t(j
1
1 1
q
-7• !i
f
:
t
i
'~I~nt'~It'~'it'nl~'ulillunln`~'lu'~Iu~~'i~ln~'nt,t1~~ t9/s• ~'L~/~9~ ~i ,~1,N/~ Y_y~ij~/ ~ -
/ ^ t J
1,7
ss6G 6. sntl a3n13038
31
Hnoq
I
I
s
I ry
Y.
a:
Will
MMr
IF
r------------------------- i
I Field Trips fun classes arts and crafts and
ii I summer camps I
I I Since 1987 the Tigard Library has offered fee-based recreational opportuni-
ties to Tigard citizens. These have included everything from bird watching 1
1 hikes to first aid training t my tot cooking classes. pwp 1
i
After almost 10 years of activities, it is time to reassess this program and de-
1 termine where we should go from here. 1
Please take a few minutes to complete the brief questionnaire below. Drop
the completed form at the Tigard Public Library, or mail to: Kathy Davis, Di- 1
rector, Tigard Public Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
1. Have you or has someone in your family atte ed any of the fee-based 1
1 programs offered through the library? JS ❑ NO 1 `
1 2. How would you rate the quality of these programs?
I
1 ❑ Excellent end Good O Good ❑ Fair ❑ Poor 1
i 1 Conunenls: n
1 ~~nn c~tar. (1oL~, n e n,l.A Vw~~~4,. 1
( (2 ~ t,u.a., tre..~ o~od 1 !fl J.to c.tn;,l~4>e.., • I
3. Do you feel the cost of these programs are: 1
❑TooHigh MAboutRight ❑TooLow 1
4. Would you like to see these programs continued?
YES ❑ NO
1 I
5. What topics/activities would you like to see ad led to the existing
1 program? ua ~s 4- C A l~ r N ecliL LatayA - 1
1 i
1 - 1
at 16. How would you improve the existing program? Qn~N 4Q!=
rta-
1 7. Funding mechanism (check which you prefer). i
i
j ❑ A contracted program where a non-profit organization provides
jl classes that registrants support through the fees they pay. (Cost of
program paid primarily by user fees.)
in-house" program where tax dollars pay a City employee to
X 1
org ize classes and registrants pay for cost of instructors and supplies. 1
(Cost of program paid primarily by Tigard taxpayers.) 1
❑ Other? 1 1.
~
I 7
,
U
r Agenda Item No.
Meeting of -,\-A ,
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
FROM: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor"
DATE: August 7, 1996
SUBJECT: Tigard Triangle Update
Following is an update of our progress in completing the Tigard Triangle Update.
- j
Task Force Meeting
We have held two task force meetings with our third scheduled for August 13th.
A list of the Task Force members is attached (attachment 1). The first meeting
focused on a review of the overarching goals that were proposed in the past
studies. Interestingly, in general, the Task Force rewrote those goals completely
(see attached "First Draft Goals and Principles", attachment 2). We are still
revising some of those goals and principles.
The second meeting continued the focus on goals, and discussed in more detail
the transportation issues in the area with a report submitted by Kittelson and
Associates that compares the assumptions and resulting recommendations from
past transportation studies (see attached Memorandum, dated July 25, 1996,
attachment 3). We are continuing the discussions on transportation at the third
meeting on August 13th, as well as beginning to discuss the Triangle in the
context of Metro 2040 planning and land use issues.
Open House f
On August 1st, after sending out 238 notices to property owners in the area, the
East CIT sponsored an open house for area residents and business owners.
Approximately 60 people attended the meeting. The meeting was intended to
illicit early input on the goals and principles that were being considered by the
Task Force . This was done by having people fill out a "Perceptionnaire"
(attachment 4) which was designed to get a perception of how people use the
area, what they see as area problems and solutions. We have compiled the results
of the survey and they are also attached (attachment 5). We also got input by
' ~ t
07
r _
f~ k
1
^ encouraging people to react to the guiding principles that the Task Force was
{ ti~J working on and requesting them to place colored dots to indicate where they
thought commercial and residential uses belonged in the Triangle.
This exercise was followed by general discussion, questions and comments about
the future of the Triangle. The comments and questions have been compiled and
are attached (attachment 6).
Future Meetines
Task Force meetings are scheduled August 13th, 27th, and September 10th and a
draft report available on the 24th. A second public Open House is scheduled for
September 19th. A timeline for the total project is attached (attachment 7). y
Attachment 1: List of Task Force Members
Attachment 2: First Draft of Goals and Principles °
Attachment 3: Kittelson Memorandum, dated July 25, 1996
! Attachment 4: Perceptionnaire
Attachment 5: Perceptionnaire results
Attachment 6: Comments and Questions
Attachment 7: Project timeline
i
i
Ap5
R
F
i
Tigard Triangle Task Force
1 Membership List
Name Address Phone/Fax
Tim Roth 12540 SW 68th Parkway, Suite B 639-26391624-0239
Tigard, OR 97223
i f.
Gordon Martin 12265 SW 72nd Avenue 620-2477/620-1842
Tigard, OR 97223
i
Jim Corliss Landmark Ford 639-1131/598-8363
12000 SW 66th Avenue a;•;,
j Tigard, OR 97223
1 -
1 Paul Simmons Vice President of Retail 588-3426/588-5657
- Development
Waremart
' P.O. Box 12909
Salem, OR 97309
Darlene Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd 620-9642
Tigard, OR 97223
j Ken Rosenfeld 11930 SW 70th 684-0612
Tigard, OR 97223
Kathy Godfrey 7435 SW Hermosa 620-5184
] Tigard, OR 97223
Laurie Nicholson ODOT 731-8282/731-8259
123 NW Flanders _
Portland, OR 97209-2736 '
Mary Weber METRO 797-17351797-1911
s 600 NE Grand
i Portland, OR 97232-2736
Mary Tobias TVEDC 620-1142/624-0641
10200 SW Nimbus, Suite G-3
Tigard, OR 97223 G_
77
y
S
Don Pollock Don Pollock Investments 292-4373/292-4862
j 1834 SW 58th Avenue, Suite 202
Portland, OR 97221
1
Robert Gerding/Edlen Development 299-6000/299-6703
Gerding/Mark Edlen Company
2525 SW First Street, Suite 201
Portland, OR 97201
Rick Saito Mackenzie/Saito & Associates 224-9570/228-1285
PO Box 69039
Portland, OR 97201/3909
Jerry Koberlein 16104 SW 72nd Ave 598-8634/598-8686 r °
Tigard, OR 97224
Mayor Jim Nicoli 9025 SW Center 620-2086/684-3636
Tigard, OR 97223 (
Mark Padgett Planning Commissioner 620-9858, Ext. 303 E•
11270 SW 95th
Tigard, OR 97223
City Staff Nadine Smith/Jim Hendryx 639-4171/684-7297
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Consultants John C. Spencer 282-9853/282-2723
Spencer& Kupper
3533 NE 24th Avenue
Portland, OR 97212
Elaine Cogan 225-0192/225-0224
I Cogan Owens Cogan C
10 NW Tenth Avenue f .
Portland, OR 97212
7
Beth Wemple 228-5230/273-8169
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
610 SW Alder, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205
Lloyd Lindley 224-9188/227-5810
PO Box 9068
Portland, OR 97207
'7~
-
F-1
July 30, 1996
J MEMORANDUM
TO: TIGARD TRIANGLE TASK FORCE
FR: JOHN .
RE: FIRST DRAFT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES ~
Following is a first draft Goals and Principles for the Tigard Triangle based on the Task Force
discussions during the meeting on June 25, 1996:
Primary Goal: To create a mixed use living and working environment that is complementary to
the rest of the community and the region. k
I -
Guiding Principles:
f
Support the Tigard Triangle's position as a regionally significant location for a variety of !
commercial, office and light industrial businesses.
Capitalize on and improve the Tigard Triangle's accessibility from Pacific Highway, Highway 217
and I-5 by creating a mixed use employment district which serves the entire region.
Recognize that accessibility is the key to a successful mixed use employment area, and that the
automobile will accommodate the vase majority of trips to the Triangle. Support transit and other
modes in order to maximize their potential.
Create a complementary land use pattern that allows for a number of trip purposes to be satisfied
during a single visit to the Tigard Triangle, and distributes those trips over a broad period of the
day.
Add roadways and utilities to existing infrastructure to accommodate future growth.
Include a safe, secure and convenient pedestrian system within the Tigard Triangle that links
internal uses, and connects to the city-wide system.
-1nt e-system- j
Assure that transitions from existing low density residential uses to mixed use employment uses
occur in ways that respect the livability of the residential areas. 1
f -
-
I
is
'
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
610 S W ALDER. SURE 700 PORTLAND. OR 97205 (503) 228.5230 FAX(503)273-8169
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 25, 1996 Project 2056
i'
To: Nadine Smith, City of Tigard
I
1
From: Elizabeth Wemple, P.E. I
i
Project: Tigard Transportation Update Project
Subject: Review of Previous Documents
r
This technical memorandum summarizes our review of recent transportation planning documents I
that were prepared specifically for the Tigard Triangle or that have conclusions or recommendations
that relate to the Tigard Triangle. Generally, the documents contained information that could be
divided into three categories: recent transportation conditions; existing policy framework, and
generalized future transportation needs. Most documents contained information that related to more
than one category. The following lists the categories, and which documents contained information
relating to the category:
Recent Transportation Conditions
• Highway 99W Transportation System and Access Management Plan, David Evans &
Associates, Inc., August, 1995;
• Tigard Transportation Update Study Traffic Analysis, DKS, May 1995;
• I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, W&H Pacific and Kittelson & Associates,
Inc., February 1995; and
• Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study, DKS, July 1993. =
Existing Policv Framework
• Regional Transportation Plan, Metro, July, 1995; and
• The Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, June 1991. j
I
i Generalized Future Transportation Needs
Tigard Transportation Update Studv Traffic Analysis, DKS, May 1995;
I-5/Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, W&H Pacific and Kittelson & Associates,
Inc., February 1995; and
• Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study, DKS, July 1993.
The following memorandum summarizes the findings from our review of this work.
FILE NAME: H:NPROIFILE_056\DOCS',TGRDREV.WPD
i
Ms. Nadine Sauth project.- 2056 ,
✓uN 25 > X96 Pace: 2
Recent Transportation Conditions
The adopted road classification system in the Tigard Triangle is shown in Figure 1. As shown in
this figure, Dartmouth and Hampton Streets are the only east/west major collectors in the Triangle.
The other major collectors in the triangle are all north/south streets: 72nd Avenue, and 68th Avenue.
All other roads within the triangle are local roads. The Triangle is bounded by I-5, Highway 99W
(major arterial), and Highway 217. All three of these roadways are highly traveled and provide a
great deal of access between the Triangle area and the greater metropolitan region.
Figure 1 also shows the existing and planned number of lanes on the roadways. As shown. Highwav
3 99W throughout the Triangle is four lanes wide with a two-wav left-turn lane; 72nd and 68th
1 Avenues are two lanes wide; and Dartmouth Street is four lanes wide west of 72nd Street and two
lanes wide east of 72nd Street. With one exception, under current plans and policies. all of the major
f collectors within the Triangle could be widened to four lanes. Only Dartmouth Street, east of 72nd
Street, is planned to remain two lanes wide.
Figure 2, shows recent average daily traffic volume counts in the Triangle area. These traffic
volumes were estimated from p.m. peak hour turning movement counts performed by DKS in May
1995. As shown in this figure, the highest two way traffic volumes in the study area occurs on
Highway 99W in the vicinity of the Highway 217 ramps (approximately 41,000 vehicles per day),
' Approximately 36,000 vehicles per day travel on Highway 99W in the vicinity of Interstate 5. Of
the north/south streets in the Triangle, 72nd Avenue carries approximately 6,500 vehicles per day
at the south end, and 4,400 vehicles per day at the north end. In contrast, 68th Avenue carries
^1 approximately 6,300 vehicles per day at the north end of the street, and 2,100 vehicles per day at the
4J south end of the street. Finally, between 8,000 and 9,000 vehicles per day travel on Dartmouth
Street within the triangle.
~ i
j The DKS Tigard Triangle Update Study (May 1995) also analyzed p.m. peak hour traffic operating 1.
conditions in the study area. The analysis was based on the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual [
Procedures for signalized intersection level of service (LOS) calculations. This procedure is based
on average delay per vehicle. If motorists experience less then XX seconds of delay on average at
an intersection, the intersection operates at LOS A. If the average vehicle delay is greater than 60
seconds then it is defined that the intersection operates at LOS F. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, all of the study intersections in the Triangle are
operating at LOS D or better. At the intersections of 64th/Highway 99W and Vams Street/72nd, the
intersection LOS is acceptable (LOS D); however the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 0.90. This
indicates that under existing conditions, both of these intersections are operating at or near capacity
i conditions.
j Finally, David Evans and Associates (DEA), Inc prepared the Highway 99TV Transportation System
and Access Management Plan for Highway 99W within the City of Tigard (August, 1995). The
results of this analysis showed that under existing conditions, there are approximately 17 driveways
per mile in the northbound direction of Highway 99W between 64th Avenue and Hall Boulevard,
and approximately 26 driveways per mile southbound on Highway 99W between 64th Avenue and 4
Hall Boulevard. This is a relatively high concentration of driveways for a 1.36 mile segment of
roadway. The studv concluded that access management techniques such as driveway consolidation,
shared access, internal circulation roadways, turn restrictions. striped medians. and/or physical
barriers be implemented along the roadway. These type of improvements would most likely occur
KittelSon d saouateS. Inc' Fcriana, Oregon '
Ms. Nadine Smith Frciect. 2056
JuN 25. 1996 Face: 3
upon redevelopment of the properties abutting the roadway. The study also recommended that the
three independent tiafc signal systems be coordinated into one system for the entire Tigard Higwav
99W corridor.
Existing Policy Framework
The Interim Federal Regional Transportation Plan, July 1995
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), developed by Metro, provides the region with a program
of transportation improvements consistent with a unified policy direction for transit and multi-modal
roadway investments and demand management prom=;. The RTP is required to develop a
financial plan based on a reasonable estimate of the funding sources that will be available with in
the 20 year planning horizon. The total cost to construct, operate, and maintain projects
programmed into the RTP cannot exceed the estimate of available funding. The list of projects is
called a financially constrained network. In the Tigard Triangle area, the following projects were
included in the July, 1995 RTP: h.
• Hall/99W Intersection Improvements,
• Highway 99W Signal Interconnect (interconnect the existing three independent systems),
and
• Interstate 5 Ramp Reconstruction at Highway 217.
The Oregon Highway Plan, June 1991
The Oregon Highway Plan contains four guiding policies relating to the maintenance and
development of the State Highway System. These policies are called: Level of Importance Policy, -
Access Management Policy, Policy on Improving and Maintaining the Access Oregon Highway
System, and Truck Load Restriction Policy.
The Level of Importance Policy is used to prioritize highway improvement needs and define
operational objectives. There are four levels of importance: Interstate, Statewide, Regional, and
District. For each level of importance, level of service standards have been developed which define
target roadway operating conditions. Highway 99W and Highway 217 through the Tigard Triangle
are defined as a roadways of Statewide importance. As such, the target design hour operating
conditions for these roadways through a 20 year horizon is Level of Service (LOS) D. Interstate 5
through the Tigard Triangle area is identified as a roadway of Interstate Importance. This
designation also has a level of service standard of LOS D though a 20 year horizon.
I Since the number of access points onto a roadway affects the operating condition of the roadway,
the Access Management Policy provides a framework for making access decisions that will be
consistent with the function and operating levels of service identified in the Level of Importance
Policy. To implement this policy, the State has developed Access Management categories which,
i based on the level of importance of the roadway and the operating environment (urban vs. rural),
defines the standards for public road, private drive and traffic signal spacing on the roadway. The
existing connections, median openings and traffic signal spacings of a highway segment are not
required to meet spacing standards of the assigned category at the time of assignment. Rather the
assigned category provides a mechanism for improving a highway to its eventual functional purpose. j
_ In the Highway 991V Transportation System and.4ccess kfanagement Plan (August 1995) David
Evans & Associates, identified that Highway 99W through the Tigard Triangle area is a Ca= n
3 Roadway. As such, the Access Mana_ement Policy states that the roadway should have public
roads at one-half to one mile spacing, private drives spaced at 300 feet: and traffic signals spaced
Kitlelson 8 Associates, Inc. For.lanc, Oregon ,
f'
,F7
Ms. Nadine SmIM Project. 2056
iii/V25, 1996 Pace:4
} t^~ one-half to one mile apart.
The goal of the Policy on Improving and Maintaining the Access Oregon Highway System (AOH)
is to provide for the economic growth of Oregon by moving through traffic safely and efficiently
through and between geographic and major economic areas. The AOH will receive top priority for
funding roadway improvements. The objectives of this policy include: designing facilities to
achieve the highest safe operating speed; protecting the integrity of the routes; and strengthening
partnerships between ODOT and local governments to achieve mutual highway and community
goals. Highway 99W through the Tigard Triangle area is identified as an Access Oregon Highway, I
as such planning efforts on this roadway should be sensitive to the goals of this policy.
f Finally the Policy for Truck Load Restrictions on the State High«av System commits additional
funding to increase the percentage of highway system mileage approved for continuous hauling of
heavy loads of 80,000 pounds or less. Highway 99W is one of many roadways in the State which
would be subject to this policy. Conforming to this policy may be one of the reasons listed for
advancing projects through the funding process.
•
Generalized Future Transportation Needs
The Tigard Triangle Area Specific Area Study (DKS, July 1993), and the Tigard Triangle Update
Study Traffic Analysis (DKS, May 1995) identified future transportation system needs in the study
area based on two different types of land use development patterns. In the Speck Area Study, the _
analysis assumed that the Triangle would develop with a fairly balanced mix of retail, residential
and office space. In contrast, the Update Study assumed that the triangle would develop as mostly
a retail and office space area with (relatively) little residential development. Table 1 summarizes
existing land use assumptions, and the land use assumptions developed for the traffic analysis in
each studies.
+"b
Table 1: Land Use Assum tions
Land Use Existing Conditions Specific Area Study Update Study
(1993) (1995)
Retail 492 KSF 623.8 KSF 2,252.9 KSF
j Office 581 KSF 896.0 KSF 581 KSF
1 Residential 140 DU 950 DU 108 DU
Special Generators various various various
i
Figure 4 shows the transportation system required if the land within the Tigard Triangle was
developed according to the Specific Area Study land use assumptions. As shown in this figure,
under this land use scenario, Highway 99W would have to be widened from four to seven lanes. and
all other roads within the triangle could remain two lanes wide. The existing roadway width of I
Dartmouth Street west of 72nd Avenue would remain. In addition a traffic signal would be required y
at the intersection of Dartmouth Street/68th Parkway. The required roadway widths identified in
this study are consistent with the roadway width requirements identified in the existing olannire
documents (see again Figure 1).
- Ij Kittelsen 6 Associates, inc. Pert/and, Creren
f
e
Ms. Nadine Smith Project: 2056
awv 25. 1996 Pace: 5
Figure 5 shows the future roadway needs if the land within the Tigard Triangle was developed
according to the DKS Update Study. In this land use scenario, which relied heavily on retail and
office development, the following transportation system improvements would be required:
• 72nd Avenue would have to be widened to from two to five lanes (current plans call for four
lanes); I
A new three lane roadway connecting Atlanta Street to 72nd Avenue would be required (not l
f identified in current planning documents); e
• Dartmouth Street east of 72nd Avenue would have to be widened from a two lane to a five _
lane roadway (current plans identify this as a two lane roadway);
Highway 99W would have to be widened from a five lane roadwav to a seven lane roadway
(consistent with the current planning documents and the previous land use scenario); and C
Traffic signals would be required at Atlanta Street/68th avenue, Dartmouth Street/72nd
i Avenue, and 68th Avenue./Dartmouth Street.
1 Finally as part of the 1-51Highway 217 Subarea Transportation Plan, (W&H Pacific, and Kittelson
& Associates, February, 1995) improvements called "Toolbox" Improvements were identified.
i These improvements, shown in Figure 6, would complement the proposed I-5/Highway 217
interchange improvement shown in Figure 7. As "Toolbox" improvements, the Citv of Tigard has
agreed to consider these improvements as part of the their future planning efforts. In Tigazd the
"Toolbox" improvements include: -
1 Widening Highway 99W from four to six lanes plus intersection turning lanes;
• Widening 72nd Avenue from two lanes to four lanes plus turning lanes at intersections;
Constructing a structure connecting Hampton Street on the north side of Highway 217 with
Hu aziker Street on the south side of Highway 217. There would be no access between this
structure and Highway 217; and
• Constructing a new diamond interchange at 72nd Avenue.
i
Summary G
Based on this review of recent planning and policy documents that relate to the Tigard Triangle
Area, it has been found that:
Recent Traffic Conditions
• Average daily traffic volumes on Highway 99W range between 36,000 and 41,000 vehicles E ;
per day. ! .
• Within the Triangle, average daily traffic volumes are highest on Dartmouth Street (daily
traffic volumes between 8,000 and 9,000 vehicles). Average daily traffic volumes on 72nd
Avenue and 68th Avenue are as high as 6.500 vehicles per day. Daily traffic volumes on
72nd Avenue are highest at the south end of the roadway near Highway 217, and on 68th
Avenue are highest at the north end of the roadway near Highway 99W.
• Under existing p.m. peak hour traffic operating conditions, the intersections of 64th
Avenue/Highway 99W and Vams Street/72nd Avenue are operating near capacity (volume
to capacity ratios exceeding 0.90). All other intersections within the Tigard Triangle are
a are
i
operating at acceptable levels of service during the p.m. peak hour.
KCe/son fi ASSOC:ateS, Inc. Porrianc. Ore9Cr
i
Ms. Nadine Smith
. 1 Jcdy 25, 1996 Protect• 2056
{ Existing Policy Framework
• The Inerim Regional Transportation Plan (July 1995) identifies includes improvements to
the intersection of Highway 99W/Hall Boulevard, Highway 99W Signal Interconnect
(interconnect the existing three independent systems), and Interstate 5 Ramp Reconstruction j
{ at Highway 217.
' The Oregon Highway Plan identifies Highwav 99W, Highway 217, and Interstate 5 as
1 important roadways in the state. Highway 99W and Highway 217 have statewide levels of
importance, and Interstate 5 has an interstate level of importance. In addition, Highway 99W
is an Access Oregon Highway; therefore it ranks highly in ODOT planning efforts.
~ I
Generalized Future Transportation Needs
Table 2 summarizes the comparison of roadway needs under the different land use developement
scenarios. Notably:
j Of the studies reviewed, all concluded that Highway 99W will need to be widened to meet
future transportation demand in the study area. At a minimum the roadway will need to be
widened from four to six lanes with either turning lanes at intersections or a two-way left
-
turn lane over the length of the corridor. i
• If the Triangle area develops with a balance of residential, retail, and commercial land uses
uses, the roadways within the Triangle will not require as significant improvements as if the
Triangle were developed with mostly retail land uses.
i
I hope that this memorandum adequately addresses your questions. Please feel free to call me with Ij
any questions or comments. t
"
w
t
6.:
t
1 S
I-
J
XCelscn 8 Assoc:afes, inc. -
Pcrlano, Crrescn -
~i Ms. Nadine Smith Ptojecc 2055
i
July 25. 1996 Pace. 7 `
1 Table 2: Comparison of Generalized Transportation S stem Improvements
Roadwav Existing Plans Specific Area Update Study I-5/Highway 217
Study (May 1995) (Feb. 199' 1
(July 1993)
Highway 99W 7 Lanes 7 Lanes 7 Lanes 6 Lanes + Turn
Lanes
72nd Avenue 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 15 Lanes 4 Lanes + Turn
Lanes j
68th Avenue 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes I Not Identified Not Identified
1
Dartmouth 2 to 4 Lanes 2 Lanes 5 Lanes east of 72nd Not Identified
j Street west of 72nd,
I and2Lanes
{ east of 72nd
Atlanta Street Not Identified Not Identified Extend from 69th Not Identified t
i
Ave. to 72nd Ave. - 3
Lanes
Various 1) Widen 72nd to Add Traffic Signals 1) New Diamond
4 Lanes from at: Interchange at
f~ Hampton to Vams 1) 72nd/Dartmouth, 72nd, and
2) Add Traffic 2) 68th/Dartmouth 2) New east/west
Signal at 3) 68th/Atlanta structure
68thJDar tmouth connecting
Hunziker and
Hampton Streets
i
r~
U
' Kittelson 6 Assoctatea, Inc. p I
crt .any Cregon
NORTH
I (NOT TO SCALE) ~c -
'l•
CAPITOL
> OG'if
- .'I FA:c - cT l
= ATLANTA c" -AWES Si'
I
V -AYLOR
- fV N
N CLINTON L. 'SSnq
\ N
o~ '1'OUTN S_
.r 2/2
> 1
EL MHURST ST
HERMOSO
217 FP-,• • I -IN
VELAND .y. -
h~ ST
hZ.~~,a N < i
pT GONZAGA N
J >
HAMP, N ST <
c
2/2- = c
PAMELA S. .
i
VARNS ST " -
t E
s I
Y
- I 1
l
i
i
SOURCE: I-5/HIGHWAY 217 SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN, W&H PACIFIC, FEBRUARY 1995
LEG EN
■ O ■ - MAJOR ARTERIAL
. . • - MAJOR COLLECTOR ADOPTED ROAD CLASSIFICATION
X~X - EXISTING NUMBER OF LANES/
NUMBER OF LANES IN TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE r,- -
l ADOPTED STANDARD TIGARD OREGON 1 \~I
JULY 1996 c
Alft-
+J,
> G
< C
NORTH
(NOT TOO SCALE) < O
~o = 00
36.
~ I
i ppp cp
j o
II ~ C
j ~Op c ;;LAN-- HAIN:5 c- f - .
1 1 r
i h SFr
- ~ - OR cT ,
O `
O < `
v CLINTON
`.A
r DAprs4'DUr~ 7900 ST
+ ~ o
I r ~ o
ET
11 HERm..OSO <
217 FRA KLIN
2EVELAND
tiG cT >
cp ST p GONZAGA = G -
cc; ;
. HAMPTON ST <
SSOOc o n
is
N fAM.=L4 S7
I =
i _
I VFRNS ST _
I j
{
I
4
SOURCE: ESTIMATED FROM TIGARD TRIANGLE UPDATE STUDY. OKS, MAY 1995
J LEGEND
xx,XXx - COUNTS (1DLY 992 195) TRAFFIC
RECENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE
TIGARD OREGON
{ JULY 1996
4
IF
Los=c > >
NORTH -
(NOT TO SCALE)
s c-i
~ W .;APITOL
~ 19SR'1
LOS=C
' V/C=0.94 I
j ~ ■
LOS=C
{ V/C=0.94 LOS=c*
LOS=B > V/C=0.9
V/C=0.72 = ATLAN'A Si 11 HAINES S7
j LOS=C :A?LOP, Si I C
1 = V/C=0.84
WNTON ST ° Fs,
D.a~,SMJJIH Vv
3
/C=3
>
LOS=B*
LOS=C V/C=0.37 eMHURSi ST
V/C=0.78 HERMCSO
2 17 FRA KUN _
?EV-LAND
LOS=B sr > <
NjScSp V/C=0.45 GONZAGA = <
ST
LOS=8 5 >
C=0.6 HAMPTON ST
n
m PAMELA ST
LOS=C LOS=B
V/C=0.78 V/C=0.28
VARNS Si
j rq
LOS=D ZE JS`
j V/C=0.99 ~
F
f
t <
SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE UPDATE STUDY, OKS. MAY 1995
LEGEND
* CURRENTLY UNSIGNALIZED;
ANALYZED AS SIGNALIZED PM PEAK TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (MAY 1995] -
'
LOS - LEVEL OF SERVICE
V/C = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO TI GARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE
Q = V/C 0.90 TIGARD OREGON
JULY 1996 _ - L~~.
{
, r
. 'NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
N c
" _ gaYll i,AP!7OL
7 LANES
2 LANES
I
p:gF:L_ c; -
TL ...'A cT HAIN=S ZT,
I a < 9AYLO-R
Si
- 2 LANES
4. ^ Cl WT ON
DAgrsnp, ry ST LANES
2 LANES
ELMHURST S7
HERMOSO LANES
217 ;'RA KLIN
❑EVELAND Si LANES
Sp GONZAGA =
rJ
e ~ ;
HAMPTON
Si ~
C
2 e
LANES _ PAMELA s
4 LANES
VARNS ST
i Ta Sr
C
{ C
N N
1
NOTE: ROADWAYS WOULD BE STRIPED AT INTERSECTIONS
TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TURNING LANES. -
SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA SPECIFIC AREA STUDY, DKS, JULY 1993
J LEGEND GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS
® LAND USE SCENARIO:
ADD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EMPHASIZING MIXED USE, HIGH RESIDENTIAL
TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE r
TIGARD OREGON A
JULY 1996 ~i- ,
NORTH - G .
(NOT TO SCALE) > > yh
CAPITOL
m
7 LANES
j ff"!F:L: ST
ROADWAY 3
EXTENSION LANES
TO 72ND / 'N
T.
c-
_ HAIn= 5
. - ¢ < 3AYLOR< S7 N
CL!NTCN < ci \FSSr
5 o a~
1
o caRrS,a~~rH LANES ~T
~f 5 LANES
. ELMHURST ST
HER,NOSO
217 FRA KLIN
FEVELAND ST i
X12„Fo 1.
Z
Sp GONZAGA - x-
~ `m J
' - - i HAMPTON Si ~
{f o
c
n
PAMELA Si
f VARNS ST
1
c Vi I.
i I
NOTE: ROADWAYS WOULD BE STRIPED AT INTERSECTIONS
TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL TURNING LANES. '
SOURCE: TIGARD TRIANGLE AREA SPECIFIC AREA STUDY, DKS, MAY 1995
J LEGEND GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY NEEDS
IS LAND USE SCENARIO:
ADD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EMPHASIZING RETAIL USES
i
TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE
TIGARD D OREGON
` JULY 1996
l
AM-
r
NORTH = z
(NOT TO SCALE)
r n
~ ccyl6 LANES PLUS
TURN LANES
AT INTERSECTIONS
i
i
oca - c-
jl;
C >
ATLANi ST :-iNE~ CT
EAYLOR
>
ZF
1 CLINTON $ c SS~R,M1
~b 4 LANES PLUS ST
I TURN LANES < <
i AT INTERSECTIONS -LMI,URST $i
HERMOSO
1 a
217 6EVELAND FRA KUN
tiv c7
Sl GONZAGA -
a
HAMPTON $T ~
NEW STRUCTURE I \ ° ` PAhIEI
CONNECTING
HUNZIKER & HAMPTON
YARNS ST / I
J T '~Sn
NEW DIAMOND J
j INTERCHANGE
I
SOURCE: I-5/1-1IGHWAY 217 SUBAREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN, W&H PACIFIC, FEBRUARY 1995
GENERALIZED FUTURE ROADWAY/NEEDS
"TOOLBOX" IMPROVEMENTS
TO INCLUDE IN TIGARD PLANNING PROCESS
TIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE
I TIGARD OREGON
1 JULY 1996 6
L~
Alk-
j
NORTH
(NOT TO SCALE)
Y
A
` j -
I \
„ i
Y
a
• ( w Y
I
. ~ KRLdE K•,Y
i
i
Y
O
r m
BOHM RD
Y
i
INTERSTATE 51HWY 217
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1 ITIGARD TRANSPORTATION PROJECT FIGURE iE
i TIGARD OREGON if
JULY 1996
I
1
t vv 4-. l
® TIGARD TRIANGLE PROJECT
Perceptionnaire
® The City of Tigard is currently seeking resolution to important issues in the Tigard Triangle. The
purpose of our work Is to finally determine the present and future opportunities for land use,
traffic, commercial development and other issues for this important piece of land. Our mission is
to develop goals, objectives and an implementation strategy that will be in the best interests of all
the people the Triangle serves.
s
As a first step in our work, we want to hear from you! Whether you are a resident, business
owner or visitor, your answers to this perceptionna!re are very Important.
1. I am:
♦ An employee In the Triangle O a
♦ Business owner In the Triangle O
♦ Resident in the Triangle O
i
♦ Visitor in the Triangle O
♦ Other: 13
f
2. 1 shop in Triangle stores: _
♦ At least once a week 6
♦ At least once a month O
3. The stores I patronize most frequently are:
i
4. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being unsatisfactory, 5 most satisfactory, please rank the following
in the Triangle:
Activity Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
1 2 3 4 5
Parking
Traffic
Variety of shopping
opportunities
Pedestrian ease/safety
Bicycle ease/safety
Street lighting
Mix of housing and
commercial
i
F
4
5. Looking 2 to 5 years ahead, the 3 most important problems that need to 1;e solved in the
Tigard Triangle are:
1
2.
3.
6. Do you have any suggestions for solving these problems?
i i
7. Anything else you would like to add?
5
i I
i -
1
i
8. Tell us about yourself: f
Resident of Tigard? Yes O No O
Other Resident? (where)
Male C3 Female O
i
Age: Under 12 O
13-25 O
26-35 17
46-55 O
Over 55 O
l
Would you like to be on our mailing list? Yes O No O
OPTIONAL
i
Name
Address
Thank you! Please leave here or fold and mail to Nadine Smith, Planning Department, City of
Tigard, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223.
STAMP
i
Nadine Smith
Planning Department
City of Tigard ?
13125 SW Hall Blvd. k
Tigard, OR 9723 I
i
j
-
/ A?~"I-PU-AM+s-tT 5
I
i
TRISURVYALS
Tigard Triangle Project
I Perceptionnaire
3
Totals
Question 1
1 am:
An employee in the Triangle
` --.i
A business owner in the Triangle
7
_ -
A resident of the Triangle 21
A visitor in the Triangle 1 ,
Other: landlord of residential or business properly 4
Question 2
I shop In Triangle stores:
Al least once a week 25
RR•RR
Al least once a month 4
Question 3
The stores I patronize most frequently
1I are:
` RRRMR1f
Costco RR 18
j Page l
-
0 IM .-Mold
-
7 _
TRISURVY.XLS
- s -
Cub Foods 21
" RRRRRRRR -
R.RfffR : -
Tigard Cinema 20
PetSmart
7 -
Landmark Ford 1
i Office Max 3
Restaurants 5
Other businesses 3 _
p No comment 1
Question 4
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=unsatisfactory,
5=most satisfactory) please rank the
following: 1 2 3 4 5
Parking fRRR RRRRR RRRRRRf fffR ffRRRRif
.f..R
" RRR1RRfR
- Traffic RRRR RR RRffR R
RRfRRff
fffff ffff R RRRR
Variety of shopping opportunities
RRRffR
' fRRRRRfR -
{ - - Pedestrian ease/safety
uuuf
i - RRRRR
- Bicycle ease/safety
Street lighting
i
,-7- 777
i
-
i r -i m sm, ism -i mmowdi
i TRISURVY.XLS
Mix of housing and commercial •
Looking 2 to 5 five years ahead, the
most important problems that need to be
solved In the Tigard Triangle are:
(Most often comments from perceptionnaire)
-
Planned development - -
- 7~
Improvement of infrastruclure:lighting, sewer, roads (in
and out) of area 22
Preservation of environment (wetlands and trees)
Improvement of bikeways/sidewalks
12
Widen main throughlares
No comments -5
- - ---------4
Question 6 - - -
Do you have any s sugg uggestions for solving ~ -
the problems:
(most common suggestions) -
Plan for a lighbrail stop/mull;-modal lransportalion - - - -
Zoning as a control to protect environment - ------3
Consistency in landscaping and design of buildings '0""• - -4
a e area more user- nen y for bikes an
h pedestrians - - - -
- - 4
i, More residential, less commercial
More commercial, less residential - 10
Other comments - - - -.-_5
No comments a e 3 - 6
_ 1 I
.
l
a
.1Y .
,
TRISURVY.XLS
Question 7 -
Anything else you would Tike to add:
No comment -
City has been wasting time by not making a decision 1
j residential development -
do it - - - - - - 1 r
- - F
Leave theresidents alone 3
72nd Avenue needs help - - - - - 2
Meeting was very helpful -
Question 8 _ yes no -
Resident of Tigard?
_Other resident (where) - 21 4_
Portland - - - Wilsonville - 2
Newberg - - 2
Beaverton - -
j Male
10
Female
14
Age_Under 12 - - - -
i 13.25
I 26-35 - -
3
- 36.55 11
Over 55 ••n•••• 8
- - - -
S
4
Olt ~e®r~ ~asmm71~1.~
tv-
•
TRISURVYALS
j
Mailing list requests:
Mr 8 Mrs. Phil Peters
6430 S. W. Roundtree Court
Portland, OR 97219
Bill Erdle
7405 S. W. Bereland Road
` Tigard, OR 97223
f
Philip and Catherine Fernandez
6803 S. W. Wheatland Run
Wilsonville, OR 97070 - -
Jerry Johnson
7615 S. W. Beveland
Tigard, OR 97223
` Sam Farmer
George Fox University/ Western Evangelical Seminary
-
414 N. Meridian
Newberg, OR 97312
R. Baurer
14165 S. W. 103
Tigard, OR 97224
Bill and Vi Chase
11580 S. W. 72nd Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223
Mark Mahon
11310 S. W. 91st Court
Tigard, OR 97223
age-o
1~ •
w ~~s® ® l
b 1''
t
~ F -
r
' TRISURVY.XLS
Arden & Sue Peters
7105 S. W. Clinton ?
Tigard, OR 97223
Mary Pegles
11720 S. W. 72nd Street
Tigard, OR 97223
I
1 Resident Y
7160 S. W. Baylor
11 Tigard, OR 97223
Robert & Margaret Koch
7130 S. W. Baylor Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Kathy Vinvenl
6830 S. W. Haines Street
i
Tigard, OR 97223
j
t
i
I ~ t
_s Page 6
L~
~wJ
loom in
Iti •
f
r
1 QUESTIONS AND ISSUES RAISED AT
{ s TRIANGLE OPEN HOUSE AUGUST 1, 1996
• After property sells, it doesn't matter what it will look like.
• Are we going to let development go ahead?
• Office moving out of downtown to suburbs.
j f
• Why do we care about the Triangle in 20 years. Emphasis should be on residential.
• Traffic is atrocious. Residential and business don't work. l
• Residential/Employment would decrease traffic.
1 • Residential doesn't make sense because of traffic. !
• What is ratio of S/F in Triangle vs. rental? About 1/3.
• Noise, air pollution, traffic in area making residential not make sense. '
• Problems with sewer.
• Support living Avorking in Triangle. Light rail? Good area to try out mixed use; mix of S/F, M/F,
shopping.
• Is the school going to stay in area? No. Then why have more density?
• How many cars do M/F generate. 6 trips M/F, 10 trips S/F.
• 72nd needs to improve. Can't add 108 units without improvements.
• Don't build until improvement made.
• 1/2 acre lots produce low residential traffic.
• Why improve 72nd from 3 lanes to 4. (3 lane 10,000 max.).
• Baylor needs attention.
• Manage traffic thru grid system.
• Where does funding come from?
• How much land is used for residential? About 1/10.
• Retail dominance is going to get worse. Provide land use incentive to allow residential to get the
most possible for their land.
• Don't want to live on 72nd if there's more traffic.
t • Only homes sold are converted to business or rental.
• Need economic incentive for people to get return based on land use.
• Planning needs to be done on what Commercial will come in i.e., mix of office/commercial.
• City doesn't let people know about what's being developed.
• If residential isn't there what difference does it make what commercial goes in.
• How should Commercial look and behave?
• Info from city necessary.
• Be honest with people.
• It's too late to make Triangle a residential community.
• Big boxes are using land and taking out of the community.
• What can change in code so that what isn't good about big box can change.
OTHER COMMENTS
• Keep and improve existing neighborhoods? Yes keep existing neighborhoods.
• Streets and sidewalks need to provide safe and efficient access for all modes of transportation - not
just auto.
i
j
i ~
T
C
77
' _
Mt9-tT 1 71
t
TIGARD TRANSPORTATION UPDATE
Task Name - 1996
191M' 26/May 021Jun 09/Jun 16/Jun 23/Jun 30/Jun 07/Jut 14tJul 21/Jut 28/Jut 04/Au 11/Au 18/Auq 251A,g O115e OB/Ss 15/Se 22/Sa 29/5s 08/0ct "
1. PREPARE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
a. Prepare draft for rs _
1 '
Is. Raviaw 11.1.t. ff and -11.
2. CREATE MIXED USE ZONE__ _
- a.Review
R.-
b. Rye of uses allowed
f t
c. PraPdraft memo on uses ~ i
d R ve_ Tq Tr pi-, Assess aq t moced use
I Plop memo/mix use scenar o
- g.Piep draft Plan pots -
` In, Prep malt aid.na z_ _ t I j 1
ni. Prep A pl nc I I I 1
! Prep ad d- ces t
TRANSPORTATION UPDATE
I a Fe, a pe s r earls i I® + I ~ i i I I ~
I b. Prep n
f c Esal 111 r.m e l r ~ 1 j j I •
d Pmf _ p - 1 _rat g.
e F:a I J t comp plan r 1
f. Prep e 1 app ,q t
q Prep t t ate _
4 PREPARE DESIGN STANDARDS
a Rev 1 q lad ds !
b. Rev T q d T.. ,p.,.
- - j I 1
d. Revew
e. Prep nnil stds/graph,cs___
5. FINAL REPORT/STAFF REPORTS 7-
a, Prep draft summarYr~H
b Plop I Wm
c_Vrep d alb stall repo t/pl _
i d. Prep dr aft stall%port/ardmances
e. Prep revnlons
1 ADVISORY COMMITTEEMEETINGS
_ 1_Orantatian/Goila
2. In SummazV: Zanin~_g/Transs 'tales -
j 3. Land Use Scenanos 0
4. T,arupartabon hnOrove ent Slrategu p
m
S. Oraft plan/Ordinances/Std'.
6. Draft Room Review
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
1. Worksho 1 ~
2. Worksho 2 4
Printed: 211.1-196
Page 1 \ - .
i l
S
- 1
,
I
1
Agenda Item No.
Ala 1G(,
Heating of l _
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
DATE: August 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Washington County Coordinating Committee Recommendations on Functional f w
Plan
t
l
The Washington County Coordinating Committee is made up of Washington County mayors,
including Mayor Nicoli, that review and comment on policy issues that have an impact on
Washington County. Attached is a memo from the Washington County Coordinating Committee
that outlines concerns with Metro's Functional Plan. The concerns expressed have been previously
discussed and commented on by City Council and staff would recommend that the Council direct
Mayor Nicoli to express support for the positions at the next meeting of the Committee on
September 9th.
Additionally, staff is requesting direction from Council as to whether Council wants to pursue the
issues that the City has presented to MPAC in the past as the Functional Plan moves forward to the
full Metro Council.
I
i
r.
08,091,96 13 36 $503 d°0 2086 yFICOLI ENG. Inc. CI1F OF TIG.IRD X00'
uo. uai ao iaciL YY303 683 7297 CITY OF TIG,ARD JIM \ICOLI 001:00{ u
RUG 29 'SS 11=5 1 1.= Lf LSE-ITrdri5l
P. 1.1d
FAX TRANSMMAL
SEND FAX TO: WCCC.PSl Members fisted below
FAX See As_balow
FAX TRANSMITTED FROM: b
i
I N=F-: Blair Cum aeker
PHONE: 640-3519 EXT: PROGRAM 9 3123
i
TOW number of pages (including cover} d Date: B.9.sfi
MOTES: Per ingftucGew at the a_c_%?"eating, we are FAMng you a copy of a draft letter to the Metro
Ga'mdil telating to the Urban Growth Matrayement FarKy,m-d Plan. The latrur.+dit be diseusred d the
Sam 9 W=C meeting.
34M Xk*=s, tayt~,yo cos-,sz3
glIrpm. 1"YO=, =W of V=ks 324-4633
Jonb Dtaka, Yayq=. city .e Heawartm 526257E
i j ~SDL Sawa. )eye?. city or
~,_.,-„v.a c~o.67s? [:Do®s T_ ri. tL-a sa4es'q ,
`tey✓ 2ck- Tyd--• G-ty at tuxtam S4a.8S95
hadit , d =ad. etty at Yatast G.-W. • 352-3207
. SSKC r_'* Kayo?. CiCy e< ~toa 9EJ~7322 -
SaM Dtca,. a try or WG=x ?Eases 647-Zan
Sap 80ZmGt. QL7 n£ Jbat+md t25-5522
$a R1-u, Mayan, etty aC =ig=d 694-7277
t ata.Cue Yo-m-teae. city ~d ttalaita 992-3421 -
I 0-l"d Dr=ei, Gayer, city a: T-2.so.-.+11c 68z-iciJ -
CLty 3==Loex, a of MIIV esty 631-377%
. ec: Al Sudan. ;:/o city rAr, Cty *S R.41115heeo
WASHINGTON COUNTY
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
155 NORTH FIRSTAVENUF_ SUITE 350
11114360RO, OREGON 9712A
FAY NUMBER iSO3.4924412
}fall pages do t)ot arrive in (egibfe form, Please eotrta¢ reception!" at (502) 692d930.
t
03/09/98 13:47 g303 8.0 2056 NICOLI ENG. Inc. CITY OF TIG_~RD X001
v ooh tzar CI'IF OF TIG•ARD .
FUG e9 'SG 1Ir56APt UqCO L,j'D JIK 'ijCOLI 1®002:004
t p.Z,'4
WASHINGTON C®UN7Y
OREGON
j August 9. 1996
Ta ti~athr , Ccaury Cm=H=iw Coa.vtr . i
From
SM-Ift =Bimm, Dkoctor
lam Use =d Tz=;M df u r
Subject Urban Gr0{tffiM7Ca
Eemeni F~actianal Piaa
At yavr August 5 meaiag you ash.3 us to prepare a drag afa Icazr Ta he Iviettn
f F ~u Counea mmiabd with the WAC-apprort3 draS oftbe U GrowdL
1 drag is WCCC Bad geactaIIY,a,=d was o£canatyaide
mmparraaer. T1te attache:; ~ ~nads~na. -
1 Please
revleSy it jpr to tbo
SML
r 9 WCCC m
dm=mine =bother it Nh~- urld
phML act rletro
t.ctM g as a side t on the
I aright tnrnrica tisat a r~ drs$ ofth~ Plan rx$eccrcg the lVlezia
C•s (G moons should be out Coun~7's Gtoctb Manama
M)jm~ 3w
~SrS was aczde to she E1PAC draft as soda Iris my e=
catIl,baocevcr,rcuir-~cTficamdragw,=xe ~suRoftheGMC'sAagust61 We
issues you raised at the septcmher 9 m emg and Mort our f$dings ~srth to the
Doa't hcssate m call me at 6813822 or prm ' p
qurs q ° Iztzscr;.fakBrotva at 681.3817 ifvcu bays
r
F1a5Yebh„doeaa.a. -
c£Land Use 8t
I65 N First a~+eace, scare ~saTmnsia. mtfn
ng DI7la3oa
`r:
OF TIG.~LRD C~JOOd L,
os'09 98 13:4' ~SOJ 8^0 :038 NICOLI ENG.,Inc. CITY
a•ua. ao 1j: Lo aua ee4 7Y97 CITY OF TICURD Jill NICOLI (Q 003: 004
FLK; es 196 11=56rm WESA Lmmo LGS/IRFt44 P_3,14
I
i
Angut 9, 1.996
Mena Caaaal
Metto Regional Career
600 N£ Grud Ave.
Pccdand, OR 91232-2'736
• L
At its Aagust S mcxtiag, the Urasbitsgtaa County Cmrdmating Ceanmtieo (WCCC) &=ssed The
Urban Grow thManagemra>t Futsesiom1 Plans at sumo lmgdL Wb i1c tb = was general support for
the abJeiLives of Lire plea. t5e Cammitrre rr+na:ne coaccmcd about seal aspeCt6 of t3a P1aa as •
appttsvad by the Mme Policy Ad~isoty Cntsstszitsu The rrs~-_,~.~ o{tfse seas that a ;
sue =W cf mncmms that are shared by WCCC rn ttbers sbmld be relayed ot e Mean Connvl
for it's emusidsr rdm- The WCCC Idetstifiedth= fnllo~- ing is_nses as bring cf ummai conceits:
Rfrrutmmm dMsifm isle L S-ax-mm 4A and0,2mhg e): Kgnirigg devdppsn=t dmsi ics -
to be 90 peraat of =6== may work-harm marirntuas aren't too gmt~ but where
)Yfa~dsatsats ar lsigls, tFus rcgttix nt IItaynot be pr:scticabin. V4CCC members wcpuld
F a peslarma>see option allows local jnri5dietioas to t tbeir sbas=s of
etoteth us a nsa*RS t1+3 d~ns,c b hz appropriate. i nis opcoa was disxassed
- ~ earner m the Planar developtts0tptxess; WCCC tssembat3 qurstina why a. ssarsrnr aa3 -
rtatrictive standard applied msis `sally is preferable to a p_f0n=n= standard that
i ideariEn a desired outeomr (i.&, a regairen+eat to accom o&re a lived gmwth allocadon)
and provides local gas4ns =rs with flare fle7dbility to des'ramia= bzw to achieve that
. outcasts=.
• &glge and desiggmvisiors aide 6-Secaea Zoe. 23-24)- ProviQ direc6mg the
appliesdon. of Boulevard Deagn S=A&nls are unclear and pct=ti U confusing as to
l vd:cdm lez=l gove¢r:ncts must ensure tbas idnabEed d=gn tie= is are cosz_sidered or i
actually applied in an cases. It is curiazdmt+nditig this Mdro bas contracted m bctvz i "
registered mgiaeets =sly= these provi9 = as put cERTP arrest design work We
-would Large at leasrthat such S- e c Azigu vptiom not be adoptmd and/or required utril
this work is eeasplet--
besilM Stan&rds tine Strci Conssecttvtty (Tale 6_ Seceoa 3. t!¢. 24-2n: The camc e= fiere
is that regioeal regtdr==s ofthe specificity laid oat is this section (e.g. specific stsrrt
spaeiasg, caI de-sue leagrhs) ~Y aotpant to be praetirabL--. Addrticnally is this secants, f
tbae trquireracnt for local gwernmuts to do loci stsees planning ittdepeadeot of the !tsar`!
dot pz== phw= a potentially huge am'd a on local gcvernm=iL T6= diffiicethy
(and iim and resw= co=ur=t rguiroff) of this work is evideat its the LiP~at Rail ( '
J StafiOa Co==aity planning w*zk in progress
L~
os:09.96 23:48 $503 620 1088 NICCLI ENG.,Inc. »»b CITY OF TIGARD 0005
( usiu9i96 13:24 $ SOS 684 7291 CITY OF TIGARD JIM NICOLI 10004"004
PLC 09 'SS 11'57FM UPW LCiND USE/TWOCP P. 4-14
• Transporat Petfanrm= Standards tide 6 Section 41: WCCC atmb:rs rataaia
cmeemad aboat the evolation and appikmdoa of these staadards Gearrally, the c=C=
is that the cff= aftbe proposed standards is act yet yell understood. (7z -w notrd that
Matte traaspertmim platlacrs, Washiagtnn Coaaty and othu mtemwd parties are in the
midst of a process dceped to develop and tmderstm%d alternative performance rheas res
and ssata>aards, and'dsat the product of that c:$ic news to be inregrarrd into this glen.) ~ -
Specific DTs is Section 6 ate; 1) S.-.d= 4A provisions idetrdfyatg mode-split as a i
measure of tr=sporta im ei-CCt ==cY is Rtgicaal getters and Swan Comramdties, the f
` ~ and atiliry efttsiag lids rtx..snte remain very nneetsaitg ~d 2) SeKioa 4 B l `
prcvzioas regarding the dem=lnatioa of assptable levels-of-service an
ze$ivpal faalities,
in that Buse provis1=9 severely drlu a The meattiag and impact of havisrg a rep}onal
smadatd at alL (that is, the provisions allow the whittling am-ay at as adoptod regional
sramL rd by a) allowing The adoption of a suggested Mcmti$ed alternative whoa convenient,
b) else t ftflLm lam of undegned aeeessibility memos when that doesn't work, cr e) the
ntilitstion ofa series of eoagestioa vmmg= in actions %%1= aCressbilrty is dctenrSmed to
i
ve ee~npn>~~~rla -
• Provision afttansit WCCC members expressed o tbat there appears to be nothing
in the play wing *c development of a level of transit services ades;uatn to support
proposed syyta_m d®ga and I=d use cages. There eorauzees to be a sigra5cant
j disparky beiw= our b=vy reliance ec ttan it in plaaniag and ut mt appears to be a
knitd real ==In= To provide ad support uaasit smic s. This bas beers and
{ =W= a com= to WCCC mxrnbas.
• lIc beAC-rr ed Pica's parlaag provisions also eontinuc to be a
eeanem to WCCC members. Pants/ concerns relate to the'tmcmmimy of the impacts and
the scope of rhos applieatioa The WCCC's view is that the plan should impose pazidng
I'aaitx i= only in arms with ya-a im= ti=ck srni= The i ripactof tizSe testrietiam is
areas thsi don't enjoy the offseriirtg beacfu of transit service is uncertaim• Ia the view of
WCCC members, sedous problems coald zesulL The plan does allow exceptions flora
campuses= with these pmmioas in arms not served by umtsit. Homeve, Ice the WCCC's
View, ibiS se zns be as avert/ awkward and u m===y eomprcrrise between tbs
original proposal that did not provide fat exceptions at all and ibe proposal that the
WCCC ail=es to support -that maxitsums parking restrictions nor apply outside areas
served by tratrsit
7~k you far your attrition Again, we lack forward to caadaming to work with Metro and arbor
lord goVernmertts at the F,4= toward achieving an effective thbaa (;M** Management
Fnncticsai Flea.
5incaely, _ ,
Washingnt Coady Coordimting Ccmmitr=
' I
r1
J
L~
Y
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director `
FROM: Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor, ,
DATE: August 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Status of Functional Plan s
Attached is an item by item response in the to the City's recommendations
for revisions to the Functional Plan. The letter from the City with requested k
revisions is attached for your information. The Plan was forwarded from
MPAC to the Growth Management Committee who are scheduled to make
a recommendation to the full Metro Council on August 7th. The Metro
Council is scheduled to hold hearings on the Functional Plan on September
5th, 12th and 26th with final approval in mid-October. The latest draft i
i
schedule which also includes a schedule for consideration of the Urban
Growth Report and Urban Reserves is also attached.
! Two totally new Titles were added to the Functional Plan during the MPAC
review process. Title 7 now addresses affordable housing. This title
consists of suggested tools and approaches to facilitate the development of
affordable housing and include a list of suggestions. It also recommends
that manufactured housing be encouraged.
The second new title (Title 9) addresses the monitoring of progress of the
I implementation of the Functional Plan. A series of benchmarks will be
adopted the Metro Council including the amount of land converted from
I vacant to other uses, number and types of housing constructed, their
location, density and costs, the number of new jobs created, infill, and the
protection of environmentally sensitive land. -
The final numbers that we are expected to accommodate are listed on Page
35 of the Functional Plan under Table 1, entitled "Expected Livable Share
Capacity for Housing and Employment Units - Year 1994 - 2017". MPAC
recommended that we use Metro's numbers prior to the City's requested K
adjustments in "Round 2" of the allocation process. Additionally, the table
- now contains figures for household and job increases in "Mixed Use Areas",
with a footnote that provides target densities for regional centers and town
I centers. We had not proposed the density levels within our regional and
town centers that they are showing. We are still evaluating the impacts that
this will have on our capacity requirements.
1
Attachments: 1. Metro Draft Schedule
2. Letter from Mayor Nicoli to MPAC dated
May 29, 1996
3. Status of Tigard Recommendations for Revisions
i'
r
i
- i
{
Sheetl
URBAN GROWTH REPORT ' '
- - -
ate Entity Action
24-Jul MPAC Review
14-Aug MPAC Final Recommendation
1 3-Sep G.M.C. Work Session t U
10-Sep G.M.C. Work Session
0-7
`07",,n`")
17-Sep G.M.C. Final Recommendation
19-Sep Council Growth Report delivered 0
3-Oct Council Work Session
10-Oct Council Vote on Growth Report i
i
FUNCTIONAL PLAN
Date Entity Action
k,
30-Jul G.M.C. Work Session
6-Aug G.M.C. Work Session/Final Recommendation
8-Aug Council Functional Plan delivered'
5-Sep Council Work Session ;
I Public Hearing
12-Sep Council Work Session I'
1 Public Hearing
26-Sep Council Work Session
j 3-Oct Council Work Session
1 17-Oct Council Work Session
24-Oct Council Vote on Functional Plan
URBAN RESERVES
Date Entity Action r
3-Sep G.M.C. Receive URSA report
17-Sep G.M.C. Work Session
8-Oct G.M.C. Public Hearing
22-Oct G.M.C. Work Session/Final Recommendation
7-Nov Council Urban Reserves delivered
Council Work Session
12-Nov Council Public Hearing in Hillsboro
14-Nov Council Public Hearing in Gresham
19-Nov. Council _ Public Hearing in Oak Grove
21-Nov Council Public Hearing at Metro
5-Dec 'Council Public Hearing in Beaverton
h
,12-Dec'-. :Council ..Vote on Urban.Reserves ;
PLEASE NOTE: This schedule is subject to change by the Presiding Officer at any time.
The schedule is to be used as a planning guide only.
Page 1
r ~ v
CITY OF TIGARD
May 29, 1996
OREGON
I I
MPAC
Metro Regional Center
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97232-2736
Dear MPAC Members:
On behalf of the Tigard City Council, I am forwarding the following comments and concerns I
regarding the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
The Tigard City Council recognizes the need for regional planning to deal with growth issues that
affect the livability of the area for everyone. The Council recognizes that Metro's chart
er
empowers Metro to lead the efforts to create this regional plan. For Metro to succeed, it is
necessary that Metro engage local governments. It is we who must balance the needs of the
region with the needs and desires of our citizens. We recognize that success in handling regional
issues can only occur if Metro and local jurisdictions forge an effective partnership. Metro may
develop a variety of plans, but it is the cities that will have to execute the plan. Accordingly, it is in
our interest to be heavily involved in creating the tune to which we all must march. Tigard intends
to participate as a full partner in this process.
We are very dissatisfied with the time that we have been given to address this important issue,
We consider our comments to be preliminary at this point and expect to continue to respond to
further drafts of the document With the amount of time that we have had to review the document
i and the document as it exists today, we cannot support approval of the Functional Plan.
i
Our comments are in two parts. First, we wanted to orovide the philosoonical basis for the seta na
part of our comments which are specific request tea crianges to the Urban Growth Management
Fun -lonal Plan_
Public Process in Tigard i
I ,
fI Since the draft of the Functional Plan has been available, the City Council has been briefed on a I f
monthiv basis, with two work sessions on the content of the Plan. Additionally, the City hosted a
rcrum fcr'Narirgton County jurisdictions to discuss ;he Plan with Metro's executive officer.
C;tv star has met with each of ;he C.I. i s (C,izzn Involvement Teams) during the month of May ;o
rrovice an overview of ;he Func;iorai Plan. In addition, staff have deve!oced an informational
cuesticnrai. (ached) to provide an avenue for written public comments.
With this iener, we intend to summarize the input :hat we have received or, the Furcticnal P!ah to
tnis pcint Scme of the issues have been previously creserted to MPAC and the Metro Council,
zutbear. soe_trrcatthistime.
-3125 FN =CII Blvd. 7card, OR 9723 (533) 639-417 ?DD (533) 684-272
1
%
/ Issues with the Func Tonal Plan
• Governance and Local Control
The Functional Plan will require local iunsdi&ons to adopt many of its elements into their
comprehensive plans. This moves decision making further away from citizens and property
owners of a municipality - the very people who will be affected by these decisions regarding
land use and growth. Although Metro has provided the opportunity for public input in the form !
of regional public open houses. ano despite the local efrors to provide information regarding
the Functional Plan, the reality may be that the majority of citizens in Tigard will first beca:rre
aware of the changes associated with the Plan when comprehensive plan and local
ordinances are amended to implement the Functional Plan. There is great concern that City
Councils and local policy makers will be required to implement code and plan revisions over
_ which they have no control and have had tittle ability to impact. We have raised this concern
consistently throughout the process.
Metro's current means for gathering input from municipalities is MPAC. This structure does
not fully serve the needs of the City. Because its role is primarily to advise rather than to
govem, MPAC does not allow cities to have a direct say in policies that will govern their future.
Not only does Tigard lack direct input to Metro, it also lacks direct input to MPAC. A structure
having one representative serving several cities in Washington County implies that the
jurisdictions have no differing or conflicting interests. Metro must develop better ways for
cities to orovide meaningful input so that each distinct community has a voice. 4
Life Style Opportunities
The Functional Plan, by determining what particular design type and density is appropriate for
the entire region, does not allow the life style opportunities that Tigard has always had the
ability to provide. i hat opportunity includes not only the ability to provide for a dense, urban
living environment but also the ability and place to provide large lot• upscale developments, a
variety of retail opportunities and convenient parking and access to customers and residents.
This expected life style also includes some historic agncuiturai uses that are a par, of Tioard's
history.
i rte City of Ticard's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance currently contain the ability to
accommodate the numoer of households that Metro has asked us to accommodate. The
market reality, however, is that we are currently pevelcpinc at about 401,16 cf tite allowable
comprehensive plan and zoning density. This tells us that the new residents of Tigard are
coming here seeking a particuar life s:rie that includes a neichbomood of a particular density.
We intend to continue to offer that ooportunity. If, in five years, we find that we are continuing
;Rt cut a: a !ower density tnan a!lewed by our codes c, assigned :o us by Metro, w0 do
not want to --e aced with Metro enforcement procedures. Therefore. W. poled: ie limitations
wricn would force us to net only ignore marRat conditions. but create densities whici are
ooiecpcnaole to our Pubic.
i i.
Tie orooosal to limit retail uses in emolcyment and industrial areas to 50.000 feet of gross
Iess:bie area also iimits the life syle cncicas in T card. The "big box' industries provide a
service cf economically priced cecds that are an imoorant choice for T gard residents.
A citionally. docent proviaers commerc:ai ac:!it;e_ c ,en contain a vane v o," retail uses'
user one roof whicn could con„e!vacly be counted as separate retail users, thereby avoiding
J the limitation. Aca!n„ we cannot icnore the market. Why create limitations and rules that wiii
cause imaginative grcpa:J owner, ano retailers ro create Innovative ways to comply with
j
I
1
artificial limits while "getting around them.' Also, the 50,000 square foot limit may vcrk for a
developed Portland, but not for a thriving retail based suburb.
• Transportation Issues
1
As a growth concept that relies heavily on the availability of transit, the Functional Plan's
limitations on parking and requirements for regional accessihility and density assume that
transit is a readily available resource to the citizens of Tigard. While this may be true in other
jurisdictions in the Metro region where substantial investments have cr are being made in light
rail, this is not true in Tigare. With limited ability to access public transportation, the City
should not be required to assume the same regional share of population as other jurisdictions.
Additionally, it is critical that Metro coordinate and gain agreement with ODOT on the regional
street design concepts so that there is a common design for State transportation facilities that
are a part of Tigard's transportation network. With input from the City, a common vision for r.
A the appearance, transportation capabilities and funding strategy for State facilities must be ;
provided. The locations and cost for providing the 'Boulevard Design' as envisioned in the i
Functional Plan must be resolved.
hl.
• Clarity of Regulations
Understanding that the Functional Plan in its current forth continues to be a draft that will
change after the public input in May and June, holes still exist in the regulations that make
comment difficult. For instance, the Title relating to Water Quality and Flood Management
includes an option to adopt the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management model ordinance.
This ordinance has not yet been developed. In the Definitions section, definitions such as
'economic infeasibility' and "prior commitments' which 5gure into the determination of the
City's compliance have not been developed. Opportunity must be provided for careful review
and comment on those sections of the draft which have not to date been available to us.
i Unfunded Mandates
Obviously, the work associated with amending comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances
to comply with the requirements of the Functional Plan will place a heavy burden on the staff
of the City. -he financial assistance of Metro on provision of staffing to accomplish this work
is necessary. We estimate that at leas; 5250.000 will be necessary tc complete the work
i =cuirec by the Functional Plan. We have no resources to funs this work.
~ i
Thank vcu very much for the opportunity to comment on this very imoortan; issue. The decisions
that are mace will =reatly impact the current and 'uture residents of 7oarc and we inteng to stay
verv involved in :Na process.
Sincere~v
Jim Nic-41 `
1r7ayor
J
A acn _n.;s
R
AM~
tn' .
y
n
} Recommended amendments to the April 24, 1996 draft of the Urban Growtn Management
Functional Plan (deletions are shown as o::;ke Guts, with additions in bold):
TITLE 1: REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT ACCOMMODATION
Section 2, Line 81:
'during the planning period by the private market or assisted I~G
W FRG- _ pFGC;a
once all
Comments: The financial burden to require communities to Provide assisted housing programs in
order to accommodate increased densities is not acc_eoraole nor planned for within Tigard.
Section 4(A)1) Line 93-104
Comment The procedure for establishing the estimates discussed in this Section are currently
under consideration by the Growth Management Committee. The final methodology that is
adopted will impact the final growth allocation target The City of Tigard cannot be expected to
comment on this section until that growth allocation is known and the growth allocation variables
have been established. Implementation of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan should
be delayed until the final growth allocation decisions are made and evaluated by local
1 governments, and the availability of urban reserve lands to accommodate that growth are known.
i
Section 5.(A) Line 145
1 J !L
Comment Jurisdictions do not have the ability to demonstrate or be responsible for determining
where the market is or is not likely to build.
Section 5.(D) Line 156-158
coal oovernments have adopted
- - - ' zcnmo designations that provide a
pe:aaa:-3c 'a: for that jurisdiction's expected capacity oor housing units or employment;
and"
Comm=ent: We cc nct acree that minimum densities are an apprc_nate means cf providing for our
pooulation increases in me future anc it does not make sense to trv anc accrv this standard to
employment. We believe that our oblication is to assure that zonina anc comprenensive plans do
not prohibit or ciscourge t^,e densities and will accommodate our growth allocation without
ar:,icially c^cos:ne areas where increased density will be forced to occur. j
~ I
"Upon request, Metro will provide grant moneys to allow jurisdictions _;ral
#a,-- to reviewe„ :neh- puciic acility caoacides anc plans and have, or can
orovice funding sources to provide olannec cuolic facilities to accpmrttecate crowth
•.vttttir, me otan pen.,.., and"
I
Common. -ae Cir: c Tica:d wil! :ecu a :ra assistance Me::c in :na _:aiuatic. of the Ci,r's
`
cidinc cacacity as it relates to public .--Jiues. Witnout this assistance. finis recuvement results
7 0.
- 1
F'
r~
I ,
in an unfunded mandate to accomplisn studies that the City has not anticipated and does not have
'.yam J
the resources with which to comply.
Additionally, it is important not only to identify where public facilities are needed, but also to
identify whether there are available `ending sources to provide those facilities.
Section 5 , Line 164 Recommendation for Additions
G. Prior to final adoption of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.
the capacity required for each jurisdiction shall be adopted by Metro Council as well
as the location of urban reserves for each jurisdictions.
Comment We have participated in all of the work to this point in establishing growth allocation
j tarcets and have fully evaluated the numbers divert to us by Metro. It appears that the variables
used in arriving at those numbers are currently under consideration for revision and that the k
numoers will very likely change. This, coupled with the uncerainly that exists as to how much
land will be available in urban reserve land provides an unclear picture of our requirements. Until
local jurisdictions know what they are expected to accommodate for housing and employment,
and how much land will be available to accommodate the growth we cannot evaluate the impacts
of the expected growth. E
j
I H. Prior to final adoption of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,
legislative notification shall be given where rezoning is required to meet
jurisdictional capacity requirements. At least one public hearing shall occur at the
i local jurisdictional level to receive testimony on the potential rezoning. The cost of
notification and of the hearing shall be bome by Metro and at least one Metro
Councilor shall be in attendance at the hearing.
Comment Although Metro has held numerous open houses on the issues associated with the
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, the public will not really become involved until
jurisdictions are required to rezone properties to meet the goals of the Plan. The Plan should not
be adopted until the public has been given an opportunity to know specifically what the Plan
means to their property and their neidnbomoods. Metro and the local jurisdiction have an
cblication to hear that testimony and reac;icn of the public before growth allocations are finally
determined. Since this is an action that is imposed by Metro, it is also incumbent upon Metro to
pay for the necessary notification.
Section 5.(A.), Line 174 i
measured in household 7 yme;:: density per net developed acre." `
C=menC The City of Ticard (and many other jurisdictions) do not have any means of comparing
the -goo - 1995 actual built emplown-) density. Compihnc these ficures would be a major task
and ;ne 5cures may rct ce avaiisci=_. Zonir.c ordinances conmonly alicw a c-riduiar buildino foot
r, i; :c occur it cennercial and industral zones arc cc not reculate the nunder of employees
w.trir. a dwidinc shell. It is not clear wny this information is needed.
Section 5(3) Line 181-182
btetro reccnmencs the use cf minimum density requirenents as a creferr_d measure :o i
aca,eve ac;uai built ,._nsites -;xe; ;s_-a aas.•
2
i
= - Ae -
t
1
1
Comment We prefer this wording that is given as a recommendation. ather than a requirement
that allows jurisdictions to have the option of using minimum densities along with the other
strategies that are listed. not only in mixed ❑se are=_s as is proposed, but in all areas.
TITLE 2: REGIONAL PARKING POLICY
Section 2. (A), Line 210
"A. Local Government - _ , - may adoot amendments, if necessary, to
insure that"
i-
Comment The intent of this section refers to the reduction of venicle miles traveled and parking
as a requirement of the Transportation Rule. Jurisdictions will, of course, be required to comply
with all aspects of this rule as well as DEQ's ozone maintenance plan and employee commute
option. To recuire kcal govemments to use parking as a strategy for growth management when
they may prefer to use other strategies is not approorate in communities where there has not h
been an investment in mass transit The reduction of parking is dependent on the availability of
alternative means to access commercial sites and the type of establishment where the goods
purchased can be easily transported without an automobile. Parking should be an option for local i:.
governments to utilize as a growth management and not a requirement I'
Section 2 (A)(3.), Line 228-229
~r
3. " Estaalirh A;; Ensure that an administrative or public hearing process for considering
ratios for individual or joint develooments that ace allow adjustment for parking:"
Comment It may not be necessary or desirable to establish a hzw procedure to allow
adjustments for parking. Local iurisdictions should only be required to indicate that there is an
avenue that allow adjustments.
Section 2(D) , Line 248
Y.
"D• LaGal - Metro shall
monitor on an annual basis:"
L'.
Comment: If Metrc wishes to monitor this infornation, their staff resources srould be used to
Compile the necessary info,:^natioh.
i TITLE 3: WATER QUALITY AND =LOOD MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION
Section 3(A). Line 270
-A. - G- _ _ - -
_ oc
j
j Comment. The document referred to in this line has not been written. At this point. we have no
icea wnat will cont=ain or wna: our comne.^,ts vriil be. Because of this. reference to this
i
coo::ment is net aocroohate as a par, Cf a =uhc:ic.^,aI Pear :rat :he City must react to and "
,.Cmmunicate to our citizens abcut',vithin i4 cnch:; s =_CCoacr..
J Sezncn 3(°_) Line 293 2Sd
HOW
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF
4. i
_ f
B. Water Quality. The purpose of these standards is to protect and allow for
enhancement of water quality associated with beneficial use - -
Comment: Without the provision of specific definition of what this refers to (what document?, what
definition of water quality? what is a benefic.al use?), the reference to OWRD and DEC have no
meaning.
Section 4(8(1)) , Line 298-3C1
- j:
or"
Comment Without having the standards referred to as an arzachment there is no way to
determine what this will mean for a local jurisdiction. If it is a permit that is necessary from the a
State, then it is not necessary to include in this document
Section 4(B(2)), Line 303-305
FaqUiF8;R9F#G 061,
F
and Unif,
Comment Without having the document or ;hat portion of the document specifically referred to,
there is no way to determine whether this is an appropriate standard for a growth management
document -
Section 4(B(3)), Line 306-308
bbt
a.'dFesF -9Q
I Comment Without having more specific information as to what this standard means and wnat
the permits and regulations are 'hall are not already required by DEC, this standard simply
presents a confusing requirement I.
Section 4 (4a, 1.
(B• Line 314-318
"ensure that in the landscacec area expcsed soil is Stabilized -4;r
- - - _ I,
gaze i
to maintain 90 percent vegetation cover within three years.ma;:ding replacement of
removec trees and shrucs - - _ and" i "
The onrase. "a''ne eanies: ''.ac:icapie gate'. is nc: glee,. `See 1Aetro giant list", revers
a cocumert that --ces not exist, anc is tner_fcr_ not approprate to include in this document at
:nls time.
Section 4(B(=b)), Line 318-32: j'
-
%
i
1
Comment This refers to a section of a document that has not yet been created. This provision
should not be included in the Functional Plan until the document and this section are available for
review.
Section d(C), Line 326-331
^ ^ '
d ,
- ^
~'ave sups, PAZ
" MG^^^
Comment Until it is known what the substantially equivalent effect of the Metro Water Quality and
y Flood Management Model Ordinance is, this section should be deleted in that local jurisdictions do
Jj not know what is being required of them. p
Section 4(D(3)), Line 361-365
'Require the revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants to 90 percent cover within
three years. Disturbed areas should be replanted with native plants on an to-Metm ;2JaR
6:s; a; an approved locally adopted plant list.
Comment Since no Metro approved list of plant nor a Metro prohibited list of plants exists at this
time, plantings within disturbed areas should be left to local approval.
} Section 4(D(4)), Line 365-370
w n ^ n ^
;ampliaRre j `p-;n ' . Limit in-stream development activities that would impair
fish and wildlife during key life-cycle event - ^ '
Resa~t::,as- _
Comment: If there are specific requirements for in-stream deve!opment activities from the
documents that are referred to that should be adopted regionally, then those requirements should
be made a par, of this document rather than included by reference.
37.
Section , Line 71 -
-Metro snail complete LCCC Gca! 8 economic, socal. environmental and energy (c5c=)
artaivses . ny beginning with the inventory of local FSc°_, with local input, and identifying
_'cs .-a:
Cc.rnmen : Local ir,pu; must oe assured as ^ of any =SF= that s accomplished by Metre.
Section 5, Line 3.8-374
Tn:s title shall riot become e 2C5 -e until :he 24 months from the time that the Metro j
C-uncii has adopted a Mccel Cc.._ -ac aggresses all o. the orovism s this i
Comment Jurisdictions snowd be given time tc address Lne provisions of this cocument and
,.rcona;e ;rcwsicns r„:c their ccm-_renens;ve plans and ordinances.
i
1 .
i
i
T.' -F; n RE--' 11 IA1 C1 1 P' _ C 7
Comment: It is the City of Tigard's position that this Title snould be deleted from the urban Growth
Manaeement Functional Plan. We are committed to crowding a variety of retail experiences in the
City and limiting retail to 50.000 feet of gross leasable area makes no sense. The employment
and industrial areas are intended to be mixed use, and that mix of uses should be allowed at the -
discretion of local planning commissions and city councils. A limitation of 50,000 feet of leasable
area seems arbitrary and would be difficult to enforce.
TITLE S. REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY
Section 2, Line 461-:64
town center designated on the Boulevard Design Map, all cities and counties within the
Metro region are hereby required to allow implementation of boulevard design elements
as improvements are made to these facilities. Eacn jurisdiction shall adopt amendments, if
necessary to ensure that their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances require
consideration of the following
Comment Without the amendments recommended, this provision seems to assume that cities
and counties have the ability to implement boulevard design. In some cases, the boulevard may
be within a city's limits and transportation plan but is under the jurisdiction of the state or county.
In other cases, money may not be available to "imolement boulevard design eiements", and to
require a city to do so would be unreasonable. The amendments recommended require that city's
make what ever amendments to their comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances that
} would allow boulevard designs to occur.
T'i T LE 7: COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Section 1, Line 588
r
'functional plan within twenty-four months of the effective date of this ordinance once all
elements included in this document have been adopted by Metro Council."
1 Comment When City's are given 24 months to comoly with the reouirements oft, e Functional
Plan, compliance should be based on a comolete cccument hat contains all of the required growth allocations, ordinances and plant lists with wnicn compliance is required, and all definitions
t^at ar>_ referrer tc in the cocuments.
{
Section" Line 60; Additional Language
"Metro will provide funding to accomplish the technical analysis required for these
items."
Comment: bye wiii require additional s;ac :o crowce ne tecnnical anarvsis necessary to
In=lament the Functional Plan and to provide an analysis of public facilities, transocrtation reeds
and revisions necessary m our codes and ordinances. Altncugn we do not want this worx to de
_cne "v Met we feei s.culc orvide r .cinc d ac omniisn the r_-gdved work.
y
-1777
:il ~ 1 a is .x.l... m• '
)11
_ t
{
E. A recommendation for where the unacccmmodated growth could be located adjasefy;
Comment: Since we may not have aeorconately located land designated as urban reserve
adjacent to our city limits, we feel that we snould have flexibility in our recommendation as to
where unaccommodated growth will located.
Section 3. Line 650-651
i4-- "~e u__ ' After Metro has accepted a compliance plan,
any change to a comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance snail be consistent with f
the functional plan requirements contained in titles 1 through" l
Comment: City's are given 24 months to provide for implementing ordinances, and during that
time. City's should not be required to comply with an ordinance that they are still evaluating. After
the City has acopted implementing ordinances and Metro has agreed with the City's approach, all e
future comprehensive plans and ordinances should comply.
TITLE 8. Definitions
Line 679-680
'Designated Beneficial Water Uses means the same as the term as defined by the Oregon
Department of Water Resources.'
_ Comment The definition from ODWR should be repeated rather than referenced. J
Line SSS-6699
i
"Hazardous materials means materials described as hazardous by Oregon Department of
r i Environmental Quality"
Comment This definition from DEQ should be repeated rather than referenced. f
4
1
I
I ~ •
J
Status of Tigard Recommendations for Revisions to the
{ Functional Plan
August 5, 1996
Title Title 1 - Line 81
Proposed amend line to read: "during the planning period by the
Amendment private market or assisted heusing-pfG9fam once all...
a
Metro Executive Recommended no change to existing language
Officer
Recommendation
w, Metro Staff State planning law, adopted by the legislature requires that
Analysis all jurisdictions throughout the state provide needed
housing, which is defined to include assisted housing.
MPAC No change to existing language. (Line 93)
Recommendation
i
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers C
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strikeouts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 1 y
t .
s
:
Title Title 1, lines 93-104
Proposed City can't comment on this section until growth allocation is
Amendment known and the growth allocation variables have been
established. Implementation of the Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan should be delayed until the
final growth allocation decision is made and evaluated by
local governments and the availability of urban reserve
lands to accommodate that growth are known.
Metro Executive Recommended that deliberation proceed. f
Officer
j Recommendation
~ I
1 Metro Staff This comment would not change functional plan text.
Analysis Local governments have been requested to determine the
growth capacity and responses have been received.
i i
MPAC Deliberations have proceeded
Recommendation
f.
oi.
l
Notes: i
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through 6tfike outs with recommended additional
language indicated though bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 2
5 W.
i
r ~ I
L' .
Title Title 1, line 145
Proposed delete the phrase:
Amendment
plaMiFlg-peried and
j.
Metro Executive Recommended no change to existing text.
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff This is language that closely follows state law (HB 2709),
Analysis adopted by the state legislature at the last session. Even
if Metro would not require this test, compliance with state
law would.
MPAC No change to existing text. (Line 177 - 178)
Recommendation }
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
%
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 3
Paul
~i
Title Title 1, Lines 156-158
e
Proposed Local governments have adopted
Amendment
afea-Fades i all zoning designations that provide aaere
thaR 40 peFGeRt of that for that jurisdiction's expected
capacity for housing units or employment and...
• i
Metro Executive No change to existing language
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff The Metro 2040 Growth Concept calls for a compact urban
Analysis form and calculation of the capacity of the urban growth
boundary requires a clear ul arstanding of the potential
capacity of jobs and housing within the current UGB. l
Without specific numbers, it would be difficult to implement
or monitor progress of the 2040 Growth Concept or better
manage the urban growth boundary.
MPAC This provision was eliminated by "PAC and a new
Recommendation provision F was added which reads: Local governments
have considered one or more of the tools listed in
Section 613, 1-6. (Line 195 - 196)
j 1
k
t.
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
v 2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 4
A_
f
5
0
•
Title Title 1, line 159
I Proposed Upon request, Metro will provide grant moneys to
Amendment allow jurisdictions lesal gevef meats have to reviewed
their public facility plans and have, or can provide funding
sources to provide planned public facilities to
accommodate growth within the plan period, and...
Metro Executive Metro expenditures decisions are the prerogative of the
Officer Metro Council and are determined on a year to year basis.
Recommendation While Metro may decide to offer assistance from time-to-
time, it is not appropriate to include the above proposal in
the functional plan language.
Metro Staff This is a budget and policy issue for which Metro elected
Analysis officials would determine.
Metro along with the State and Federal governments, have
provided planning funds from time to time. r
MPAC No change to language. (Line 189 - 191) i:.
Recommendation
I
f
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering. §
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 5 E
6, .
t.
0
Title Title 1 - new language to be added after line 164
Proposed G. Prior to final adoption of the Urban Growth
Amendment Management Functional Plan, the capacity required for
each jurisdiction shall be adopted by Metro Council as
well as the location of the urban reserves for each
jurisdiction.
Metro Executive Recommended no change to the existing language. `
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff The adoption of the Urban Growth Management
Analysis Functional Plan would include a Metro adoption of the
required capacity of each jurisdiction.
Determination of the amount of land needed for urban
1 reserves can only be done after determining the capacity
I within the current urban growth boundary. A decision
about the capacity of all of the jurisdictions within the
current urban growth boundary could be done at the same
time that a determination of the needed number of acres of
urban reserves.
MPAC No new language was added.
Recommendation
i
l "
Notes: '
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 6
wli
{
Title Title 1, new language after line 164 t
Proposed H. Prior to final adoption of the Urban Growth
Amendment Management Functional Plan, legislative notification
shall be given where rezoning is required to meet
jurisdictional capacity requirements. At least one
public haring shall occur at the local jurisdictional
level to receive testimony on the potential rezoning.
The cost of the notification and of the hearing shall be
borne by Metro and at least one Metro Councilor shall r
be in attendance at the meeting.
Metro Executive Recommend no change to existing language.
Officer
i Recommendation
Metro Staff The Metro Council will hold a public hearing, which will
Analysis likely consist of several days and evening where the public
will testify about the Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan growth allocations and jurisdictional
capacity requirements.
MPAC No new language added.
Recommendation
k
Notes: I
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 7
L
Title Title 1, line 174
Proposed revise the line to read, "measured in household eF
Amendment ernpleyffteat density per new developed acre."
■
Metro Executive Recommended approval of the above recommendation.
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff Measuring employment density, or guaranteeing such, is a
Analysis difficult task. Many industries of similar characteristics
may cluster in particular parts of the region and may be
more or less land extensive in their needs.
f
MPAC Added the following language : Employment
Recommendation performance shall be measured by comparing the
actual jurisdiction-wide increase during the years
1990-1995 with the jurisdiction-wide increase listed in
Table 1. (Line 207 - 208)
- .i
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through ctuke-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 8
%
I .
,
Title Title 1, lines 181-182
Proposed revise the lines to state: Metro recommends the use of
Amendment minimum density requirements as a preferred measure to
achieve actual built densities mixed 1 -re areas
Metro Executive Agree with proposed language t.
Officer
Recommendation
' f
1 Metro Staff The mixed use areas of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept
t Analysis are critical to the success of the plan, but they are not the
only areas in the region.
MPAC Language was revised to read: If the average of actual
Recommendation built densities for 1990-1995 is less than 80 percent of
permitted densities, cities and counties shall amend their
plans and implementing ordinances if necessary to meet
the performance standard and demonstrate how the
actual expected capacity in Table 1 will be achieved.
MetFe FeGGFnmeRds the u6e of minimum de
1 t
hunk do••t
1 n •P...•....:n..,d use -a,as. Section 2 of this Title
requires the use of minimum residential density
requirements to achieve expected capacity. (Line 212 -
217) f ,
Notes: i
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 9
r
}
j ~
Title Title 2, line 216
Proposed revise line to read: "A. Local Governments afe hereby
Amendment required to may adopt amendments, if necessary, to
insure that......
r
Metro Executive Region wide parking policy is important to implementation
Officer of the 2040 Growth Concept. Provisions have been made
Recommendation in the title to allow for local adjustments, but the principle h
of reducing parking for the region, its economy and its air
quality should include requirements not recommendations.
{
I Metro Staff Proposed language would likely have the effect of
Analysis changing title from requirements to recommendations. f
MPAC Retained existing language (Line 250)
Recommendation 1
I
r Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
l associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 10
i
Title Title 2, lines 228-229
Proposed Revise the line to read: "€stablish are Ensure that an
" Amendment administrative or public hearing process for considering
ratios for individual or joint developments that are allow
adjustment for parking."
Metro Executive Recommended approval of the proposed language.
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff The intent of the original language was to make sure that
Analysis local jurisdictions did provide for adjustments of parking
requirements as may be needed.
MPAC Amendment accepted (Line 265 - 267)
Recommendation
i
i
4
y
I '
I
i
I
i
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike euts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 11
jlll y ;
Title Title 2, line 248
Proposed D. Leeal Q i
Amendment following data to Metro shall monitor on an annual basis.
. f.
Metro Executive While Metro could gather this data, perhaps the most
Officer important consideration is the number and size of parking
Recommendation requirements made by the jurisdictions. Recommend no
change to existing text.
I `
Metro Staff Metro, through a private contractor, currently gathers a
Analysis substantial amount of information from local jurisdictions,
especially building permit data. Gathering parking data
could be added to this task.
MPAC No change to existing language. (Line 286 - 293)
Recommendation
i -
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
1r'1 2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 12
I n7
Title Title 3, line 270
Proposed delete line: "A. F=itheF adept the FelevaRt PFGViGiGR6 of the
Amendment I
Metro Executive Recommend no change to existing text.
Officer
Recommendation
j Metro Staff Section 3 describes the implementation process for local
Analysis governments. The model ordinance will be developed
i within the next several months and local jurisdictions on
WRPAC and MTAC will develop the ordinance language.
Neither Title 3 nor the attached map take effect until the
model ordinance is approved by the Metro Council. Local
j jurisdictions will have full opportunity to comment on the
I content of the Title 3 ordinance.
( MPAC No change to existing language. (Line 307).
Recommendation
F
I
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through stpke eats with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 13 C
6 -
J
w _
W77-,
t
Title Title 3, lines 293-295
•
Proposed Without the provision of specific definition of what this
Amendment refers to (what document?, what definition of water
quality? What is beneficial use), the reference to OWRD
and DEQ have no meaning. Accordingly, revise the lines
to read "B. Water Quality. The purpose of these
standards is to protect and allow for enhancement of water
quality associated with beneficial uses as def+aed by the
Pepa*neRt of CanyiFenmeRtal Quality.
Metro Executive Specific references to already defined terms help clarify
Officer intent. Recommend retain existing language.
Recommendation
Metro Staff The Title 3 model ordinance will refer to the specific DEQ
Analysis and WRD code defining beneficial use. "Beneficial use" is
a term of art used to describe the many competing uses
for water. Some of these are agriculture uses, urban
drinking water sources, fish habitat, etc.
k.
MPAC ~elanguage was retained. (Line 332 - 334)
! Recommendation
Notes: f.
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers !
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional I
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 14
a
I
I
j Title Title 3, lines 298-301
Proposed Without having the standards referred to as an attachment
Amendment there is no way to determine what this will mean for a local
jurisdiction. If it is a permit that is necessary from the i
State, then it is not necessary to include in this document.
Accordingly, delete the following: i
reams ppafev
meet the Feq
Permit Ne. 1200C, but shall apply te all paFGels, GF"
Metro Executive With the replacement of the WRPAC/MTAC draft, concur
Officer with removal of above language.
Recommendation
Metro Staff This specific language has been removed by WRPAC and
Analysis MTAC in its joint proposed language for Title 3 dated May f
23, 1996. Both committees have recommended that this
language be included in the model ordinance.
MPAC Language removed from draft. f
Recommendation
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strikaoats with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 15
l
J.Ji Title Title 3, line 303-305
i
Proposed Without having the document or that portion of the
Amendment document specifically referred to, there is no way to
determine whether this is an appropriate standard for a
growth management document. Accordingly, delete:
i
FecluiFemeRts outliRed in the 'Erosion PFeventien and
Metro Executive With the replacement of the WRPAC/MTAC draft, concur
Officer with removal of above language. f
Recommendation ;
Metro Staff WRPAC and MTAC have agreed that this specific
Analysis language be removed from Title 3 and included in the r .
j model ordinance. See WRPAC and MTAC Title 3
' recommendations dated May 23, 1996.
MPAC Language removed from draft. t
Recommendation
i -
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 16
Title Title 3, lines 314-316
b
Proposed The phrase at the earliest practicable date" is not clear.
Amendment "See Metro plant list" refers to a document that does not
exist and therefore no appropriate to include in this
document at this time. Accordingly, revise the lines to
read:
"Ensure that in the landscaped area exposed soil is
stabilized at the eaFliest praGtiGable date to maintain 90
percent vegetation cover within three years, including
replacement of removed trees and
i
Metro Executive With the replacement of the WRPAC/MTAC draft, concur
1 Officer with removal of above language.
Recommendation
1 -
Metro Staff WRPAC and MTAC have recommended that this language
Analysis be removed from Title 3 and that the issue of timing for
landscaping be developed in the model ordinance (see
WRPAC and MTAC language dated May 23, 1996). The
Metro prohibited plant list will be developed when the
ordinance is written.
f _
MPAC Language removed from draft.
Recommendation
j
I -
Notes: l
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 17
a of - - -
'h
r
Title Title 3, lines 318-320
i
Proposed This refers to a section of a document that has not yet
Amendment been created. This provision should not be included in the
Functional Plan until the document and this section are
available for review. Accordingly, delete the following:
k
,
Metro Executive With the replacement of the WRPAC/MTAC draft, concur
Officer with the removal of above language.
Recommendation
Metro Staff The document entitled "Prohibited Plants for Stream
Analysis Corridors and Wetlands" will be developed at the same
time as the Title 3 model ordinance. Implementation of
Title 3 will not take place until a model ordinance is i
adopted by Metro. Local jurisdictions can participate in the
development of model ordinance language through
WRPAC and MTAC, as well as commenting through public
testimony.
MPAC Language removed from draft.
Recommendation
i
Notes: I
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through stoke cuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 18
i
I 7,
Title Title 3, lines 328-331
Proposed Until it is known what the substantially equivalent effect of
Amendment the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Model
Ordinance is, this section should be deleted as follows:
transfer of den '
x
I
BF~iRaR6~ ! -
Metro Executive Transfer of development rights is a useful tool that can
Officer help to ensure that a property owner achieves the density j
Recommendation local zoning may suggest - while still conserving important
resources. Recommend no change
I
- f -
Metro Staff This section describes the land use tools local jurisdictions
Analysis can use to meet the requirements of Title 3 while still
allowing for development. The Title 3 model ordinance will
j establish specific performance standards and map the
affected resources which local jurisdictions must protect.
MPAC Language remains in proposed ordinance. (Line 351 -
Recommendation 354)
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 19
i '
Title Title 3, lines 361-365
1
Proposed Since no Metro approved list of plants nor a Metro
Amendment prohibited list of plants exist, revise language as follows:
"Require the revegetation of disturbed areas with native
plants to 90 percent cover within three years. Disturbed ;
areas should be replanted with native plants ea the Metre
'laRtt Lis or an approved locally adopted plant list.
i H
ited."
l ~
Metro Executive With the adoption of the WRPAC/MTAC revisions to Title
Officer 3, believe concerns have been addressed
Recommendation -
Metro Staff The "Metro Prohibited Plant List" will be developed when
Analysis the Title 3 model ordinance is written. Title 3 does not
become effective until the ordinance is adopted and the
plant list will be available at that time.
MPAC Language left in recommended ordinance. (Line 391 -
Recommendation 395)
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
} 2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 20
REM
a
Title Title 3, lines 366-370
Proposed If there are specific requirements for in-stream
Amendment development activities from the documents that are
referred to that should be adopted regionally, then those
requirements ;should be made a part of this document
rather than included by reference. Accordingly, revise
language as follows:
Limit in-stream development activities that would impair
fish and wildlife during key life-cycle events asseFdiag-te
i Resetfrses.
i
R
Metro Executive Recommend that existing language be retained.
Officer
Recommendation
i.
Metro Staff Staff recommends that references to the ODFW guidelines
Analysis give clarity and the most technically sound guidance to
local jurisdictions and to ensure there is consistency
between jurisdictions in how this work would be carried
out.
I
I MPAC Language retained in recommended ordinance. (Line 396
Recommendation -400)
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through st4ke-o4its with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 21
rte., . _ , , '
Title Title 3, lines 371-372
I
Proposed Local input must be assured as part of any ESEE that is
Amendment accomplished by Metro. Accordingly, revise the language
to read:
"Metro shall complete LCDC Goal 5 economic, social,
environmental and energy (ESEE) analyses by beginning
with the inventory of local ESEE, with local input, and
identifying gaps that "
i
Metro Executive With the adoption of the WRPAC/MTAC revisions to Title
Officer 3, believe concerns have been addressed.
Recommendation
I
Metro Staff WRPAC and MTAC have recommended new language
Analysis that replaces lines 371 to 375. Refer to the joint WRPAC
and MTAC language dated May 23, 1996. This proposed
language states that Metro will use existing Goal 5 data
developed by local jurisdictions to identify inadequate or
inconsistent date and protection of Goal 5 resources. 1
Metro shall then complete Goal 5 ESEE analyses for
mapped regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas I
only for those areas where inadequate or inconsistent data
or protection has been identified.
MPAC New language added: "2. Metro shall adopt a map of,
Recommendation regionally significant fish and wildlife areas after (1)
examining existing Goal 5 data, reports and regulation
from cities and counties, and (2) holding public
hearings. 3. Metro shall identify inadequate or
inconsistent data and protection in existing Goal 5
data, reports and regulations on fish and wildlife
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through stake-Guts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 22
I
R
-
F11
habitat. City and county comprehensive plan
provisions where inventories of significant resources
were completed and accepted by a LCDC Periodic
Review Order after January 1, 1993, shall not be
required to comply until their next periodic review. 4.
Metro shall complete Goal 5 economic, social,
environmental and energy (ESEE) analyses for
mapped regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat
areas only for those areas where inadequate or
inconsistent data or protection has been identified."
(Lines 406 - 417)
1
i -
i~
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
f~ associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through str+ke-Guts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. "
23
I
Title Title 3, Lines 378-379
i
Proposed Jurisdictions should be given time to address the
Amendment provisions of this document and incorporate appropriate
provisions into their comprehensive plans and ordinances.
Accordingly revise language to read:
"This title shall not become effective until t#e 24 months
from the time that the Metro Council has adopted a
Model Code and map that addresses all of the provisions F
of this title."
i
Metro Executive Recommend no change to existing language.
Officer
Recommendation
' I
y Metro Staff This title will become effective as soon as it is adopted as
Analysis model code by the Metro Council. This Urban Growth
Management Functional Plan is being developed so that
implementation can take place immediately and to avoid
loosing current opportunities to achieve the Region 2040
Concept. Local jurisdictions will have ample opportunity to
participate in the development of the model ordinance
j language. There will also be a 16 month period for local
jurisdictions to change their local comprehensive plans to
be consistent with the Urban Growth Management
Functional Plan.
MPAC Language added: Sections 1 - 4 of this title shall not
Recommendation become effective until 24 months after Metro Council
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 24
1,77, -7
r
has adopted a Model Code and map that addresses all
of the provisions of this title. Metro may adopt a
Model Code and map for protection of regionally
significant fish and wildlife habitat. Section 5 of this
title shall be implemented by adoption of new
functional plan provisions. (Line 423 - 427)
e
f
t
i.
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the tine numbers
associated with that draft.
i
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through stake outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 25
'
i
r;
Title Title 4 - General
1
Proposed Title should be deleted. Employment and industrial areas
Amendment are intended to be mixed use; local planning commissions
and city councils should be allowed to determine that mix
of use.
• l
C
Metro Executive Believe that the existing language provides the opportunity
Officer for local jurisdictions to make exceptions. Recommend no w
Recommendation change to existing text. l
Metro Staff The Urban Growth Management Functional Plan allows
Analysis jurisdiction, using the Metro 2040 Growth Concept Map, to
designate areas where they believe that large scale retail -
commercial uses may be appropriate in employment or
industrial areas.
MPAC Title remains in proposed document (Lines 436 - 455)
Recommendation
4
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft. t1t1t1
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike auts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 26
- -
. - d
iU
Title Title 6, Section 2, lines 461 - 464
Proposed Revise sentence to read "...town center designated on the
Amendment Boulevard Design Map, all cities and counties with the
Metro region are hereby required to allow implementation `
of boulevard design concepts as improvements are made
to these facilities" Without this amendment, the provision
assumes that cities and counties have the ability to w:.
implement boulevard design. In some cases, the
boulevard may be within a city's limits and transportation
plan but is under the jurisdiction of the state or county. In
other cases money might not be available to implement
this design and to require a city to do so would be
unreasonable. The amendments recommended require
that city's make whatever amendments to their
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances that
would allow boulevard designs to occur. j
Metro Executive Recommend revised to read "...town center designated on
Officer the Boulevard Map ODOT (for state highways), and all
Recommendation cities and counties within the Metro region are hereby
required to implement boulevard design concepts as
improvements are made to these facilities..."
Metro Staff This change could be made and be consistent with the title
Analysis intent.
I
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
"r 2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 27
p
44
F77
l _
MPAC Language revised to read: ...all cities and counties
Recommendation within the metro region are hereby required to
implement or allow to be implemented boulevard
design elements as improvements are made to these
facilities including those facilities built by ODOT or Tri-
Met. (Line 515 - 518)
i ~ -
b
F
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike Guts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 28
I _
i
Title Title 7, Line 588
Proposed ....functional plan within twenty-four months of the
Amendment effective date of this ordinance once all elements
included in this document have been adopted by
Metro Council.
Metro Executive Recommend no change to existing text.
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff The intent of this functional plan is to encourage early
Analysis implementation of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. In
Title 3, there are model ordinances to be completed after
adoption of the functional plan. If this proposal is made a
part of the functional plan, early implementation would not
be likely.
MPAC No change was recommended to the document. (Line
Recommendation 691)
i
Notes: j
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
.._w associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike-outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 29
Title Title 7, line 601
Proposed Line 601 (additional language): Metro will provide
Amendment funding to accomplish the technical analysis required
for these items.
I
Metro Executive Metro on any annual basis, through its proscribed budget
Officer process could decide to make funds available to cities and
Recommendation counties of the region. However, do not believe that this is
an appropriate addition to the functional plan. r
dld
Recommend no change to existing text.
i
Metro Staff Similar to additional proposal, this has Metro budgetary
I
E'
Analysis implications that the Metro Council would need to decide.
MPAC No language was recommended to be added to the
Recommendation document.
1 '
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strikeouts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 30
J
Title Title 7, lines 617 - 618
1
Proposed Line 617 - 618 e. A recommendation for where I
i
Amendment unaccommodated growth could be located adjacent to the
Gity OFGGURty. 1
Metro Executive Cities and counties, along with the region have
Officer responsibilities for accommodating growth. Recommend
i Recommendation no change to the existing text.
Metro Staff One of the concerns with the management of the urban
Analysis growth boundary is that communities could simply suggest
that growth be accommodated some place else. The
( cumulative effect of this could be that forecasted growth !
would not be accommodated as required by state law.
This requirement was placed in the document to have any
city or county which could not accommodate growth within
their current limits help Metro with the task of finding other I
appropriate places.
MPAC Added language: Metro, along with local governments,
_ . " Recommendation shall estimate the cost of providing public services
and compare those with estimated costs in section
2.b.1.a. (Line 721 - 723)
• 1 -
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft. t
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike outs with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 31
1
Title Title 7, lines 650 - 651
Proposed After Metro has
Amendment accepted a compliance plan any change to a
comprehensive plan or implementing ordinance shall be 4
consistent with the functional plan requirements contained C
in titles 1 though 8.
Metro Executive While in general, Metro does not wish to address individual
Officer projects, early and effective implementation of the Metro
Recommendation 2040 Growth Concept is important. Recommend no
change to existing text.
Metro Staff The existing text provision was included so that even
Analysis though a local jurisdiction may not have made revisions to
its comprehensive plan and ordinance, individual projects
would not "go backwards" from the intent of the Metro
2040 Growth Concept. ;i
1MPAC No change was proposed to the document.
Recommendation
i
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers
associated with that draft.
v 2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike nuts with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 32
- - -
r3
Title Title 8, line 679 - 689
i YY
Proposed The definition of Designated Beneficial Water Uses from
Amendment ODWR should be repeated rather than referenced.
Metro Executive Recommend add definition with reference.
Officer
Recommendation w
Metro Staff This could easily be added to the definitions section, as
Analysis long as it was clear that if the state changed the definition,
this reference would change as well.
MPAC Definition added. (Line 829 - 833)
Recommendation
S
j
i
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers r
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike outs with recommended additional
F. 4:
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 33
i
FI-
Title Title 8, lines 698 - 699
Proposed The definition of Hazardous Materials from DEQ should be j
Amendment repeated rather than referenced. I
Metro Executive Recommend change, with reference.
Officer
Recommendation
Metro Staff This could easily be added to the definitions section, as
Analysis long as it was clear that if the state changed the definition, f
this reference would change as well. I
.j
MPAC No change has been made to the document.
Recommendation I
Notes:
1. Proposed Amendments are taken from April 24, 1996, draft and refer to the line numbers f
associated with that draft.
2. Recommended deletions are indicated through strike a -is with recommended additional
language indicated through bold lettering.
3. Line number under MPAC Recommendations refer to July 11, 1996 Functional Plan draft. 34
-
Agenda Item No. l a
MEMORANDUM Meeting of • $ ao!G(o
CITY OF TIGARD
f
TO: Bill Monahan
FROM: Duane Roberts
! DATE: 8/7/96
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Proposals'
CDBG is the federal program that provides funds for activities that benefit low and moderate
income persons. As mentioned in a previous memo, the process for determining the
expenditure of county CDBG funds that will be available for the three-year period 1997-2000
is now underway.
Earlier this year the city submitted a wide ranging list of needs or problems within the city that
could be addressed through the CDBG program. They included needs, such as lack of
space for the homeless, that were within the scope of interest of Tigard-based non-profit
organizations, and needs, such as sidewalk improvements, that were within the city's
traditional scope of interest. Both municipalities and non-profit organizations are eligible to
sponsor projects.
The next step in the application process is for sponsors to decide which needs to seek funds
to address and to develop specific project proposals. According to the CDBG application
process, proposals are due on September 6th. Sponsor oral presentations are scheduled
for mid-January. Following this, the Policy Advisory Board will rate applications based on a
set of objective criteria developed by the board. These criteria include such items as the
number of persons served by a project, the CDBG expenditure for each person served, the
effectiveness of the project in meeting an identified need, prior CDBG funding received, I
sponsor's performance on past CDBG projects, and so on.
Project submissions recommended by staff are listed below. As required by HUD, surveys
are now being conducted to ensure that the geographic areas served by these projects are
income qualified for CDBG assistance. Based on preliminary survey results, all of the areas
listed below qualify.
Because of the large number of potential projects relative to the amount of funding
available, the CDBG Policy Board decided not to accept applications for stand-alone
r , handicapped accessibility projects for the present funding cycle. During the "needs
identification" phase of the CDBG application process, the city identified the need for
automatic door openers for the main upper- and lower-level entrances to the Tigard Senior
Center. Because of the board decision, this project has dropped out.
r ~ a
.
All applications require. Council endorsement. At its August 27th meeting, Counci; will be
asked to review and adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of CDBG project proposals.
Storm Drainage Improvements
Thorn Street storm drainage improvements, between 79th and 82nd Avenues: Existing
storm drainage facilities are inadequate. Springs and a high water table contribute to year
round standing water along both sides of the street. Adjacent properties are lower value
single family housing. The total number of area residents is approximately 60. Estimated
cost for this project is $75,000.
t
Pathway and Sidewalk Improvements
Sidewalk and storm drainage improvements along Lincoln Avenue between Greenburg
Road and Commercial Street: The substandard width of the street and lack of sidewalks
cause safety problems for vehicles and pedestrians. Lack of adequate storm drainage
facilities results in surface water problems for adjacent properties. This older single family
neighborhood contains approximately 200 residents. Estimated cost is $190,000.
Pathway or sidewalk connecting Tiedeman/North Dakota area to Fanno Creek l
1 greenway trail: Tigard's main recreational trail is the Fanno Creek greenway trail. The
Tiedeman/North Dakota area includes several affordable-rent apartment complexes. Lack of
sidewalks and shoulders along Tiedeman and North, two busy collector streets, make it
dangerous for anyone living in the apartment area to attempt to walk or bicycle to the
greenway trail. Approximately 600 people live in the apartments. Estimated cost is
$125,000. s
Sidewalks along 91st Avenue between Greenburg and Center: This particular one-block
long street is substandard in terms of width, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. An 84-unit
apartment complex is located within the block, which connects to 91st. Lack of sidewalks
creates a safety problem for the many children walking to and from the school bus stop on
Greenburg Road. A sidewalk and associated improvements would serve approximately 200
residents. Estimated cost is $190,000.
Sidewalk along one side of Commercial Street between 95th Avenue and Main Street:
This older street, which connects the adjacent neighborhood to the downtown core area, was
constructed without sidewalks. Some sidewalk sections have been installed to the west as
redevelopment has occurred. Lack of sidewalks within the area creates a safety problem for
those residents wishing to walk to the city center area. Approximately 75 people would be
served by this project. Estimate cost is $95,000.
Sidewalk or path along one side of Garrett Street: This older street, which connects to
Pacific Highway, lacks shoulders, storm drainage, and sidewalks. Several apartments
buildings are located along this street, intermingled with single family housing. The lack of
t
1
J
F7
E
ti t
pedestrian facilities creates pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. Approximately 400 people live
along Garrett. Estimated cost is $75,000.
f
Hrpn/dr/block.doc
_ I.
i
r
k
%
r ?
i
I'
7
f.
i
1
Agenda Item No. a
Meeting of a0 i F
MEMORANDUM a
CITY OF TIGARD
i
{ TO: Bill M.
FROM: Duane R.
DATE: July 19, 1996
SUBJECT: Senior Center CDBG Project
r
r
This project includes paving the center's lower level parking area and creating a small
accessible garden space for seniors with disabilities.
Gary Alfson has been working on the final plans and bid documents. He indicates that
the project budget is short by up to $20,000. We won't know the actual amount until E..
bids are received. The original cost estimate was prepared three years ago as part
of
an application for Community Development Block Grant funds.
To address the shortfall, staff proposes to request additional funds from the CDBG
policy board. A local contribution also would be needed. Engineering staff have been
asked to look at opportunities for reallocating funds.
drpn/duane/cdbg.ga
i
I
l j