The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 09/10/1996 OREG®~ a t, A ceV c0u0 TeGN~D EETi~G ~E~ Cf,19 W1 Sep~TE WILL 3f FETING COOS ILT.deEL E` lsv D 7~ c}r k t: A 639-4171 SDI 15031 684 -772 j SW ~a1t BNd:: Tigard, OR 97223 X503) 13125 CITY OF TIGARD it II PUBLIC NOTICE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 6:30 ECM Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda "GARD CITY HALL item should sign on the appropriate sign- up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask TiGA@FE7, OREGON 97223 to be recognized by the Mayor at the I beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's I Agenda items are asked to be two i minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7.30 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). f 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 4 • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 1 y AGENDA Tigard City Council Meeting - September 10, 1996 6:30 p.m. STUDY MEETING > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), at (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 j' meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose a any information discussed during this session. > Discuss City Administrator Review Process > Agenda Review 7:30 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call - of lle 'a ~ i ..a Pledge o..-...., ante ~ 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - July 29 and August 13, 1996 3.2 Receive at File: a. Council Calendar ! b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Mark Cottle as the East County City Emergency Medical Service Policy Representative i COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 2 j 3.4 Amend Water Meter Installation Charges - Resolution 96-5 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Reject Bid from Kerr Contractors, Inc., for Construction Contract for the Tigard Senior Center Improvements , b. Award Bid to A.C.E. Janitorial for the janitorial Services Contract C. Award Bid to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicholson Architects PC for Architectural Services for the Expansion of City Hall at the Police Department • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. i 7:55 p.m. 4. METRO FUNCTIONAL PLAN DISCUSSION/UPDATE • Metro Councilor ]on Kvistad 8:20 p.m. 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR NON-PROFIT, LOW- INCOME HOUSING Staff Report: Finance Director • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-3t( 8:40 p.m. 6. FINAL ORDER - CPA 96-0002 (AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.) - TO DENY A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial land uses. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. • Staff Report: Community Development Director • Council Discussion • Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96- COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 3 8:45 p.m. j 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUA ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 REQUEST: The owner requests ai the city and a change of the Washington County R-5 to City c LOCATION: At Southeast Corr APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA are Comprehensive Plan policies i delivery capacity; 10.1.2, be designation. Community Develop requirements; and 18.138, land 4 Presently, Washington County R• a. Open Public Hearing i b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community I d. Public Testimony (Propon e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Re 9:00 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSII SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT C METHODOLOGY PERTAINING SDC's. Under the proposed schedule, t1 increase from $845 per equivah charge for the Bull Mountain Sy! to $1,507. The charges for w 1990. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Public Work d. Public Testimony (Propor e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: R4 9:20 p.m. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBEF JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE NDERS ANNEXATION ation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into mprehensive plan and zoning from ;ard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. A Johnson Street and 106th Drive. he relevant review criteria in this case citizen involvement, 10.1.1, service ary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning in Code chapters 18.136, annexation fication of annexed territory. ZONE: I lopment Department Opponents, Rebuttal) :ion 96= at Ordinance`96- CHANGES TO THE CITY'S WATER LGES (SDC's) AND TO THE 3 THE CALCULATION OF THESE barge for the 410 service zone would swelling unit (EDU) to $986 and the would increase from $1,000 per EDU SDC's have not been increased since apartment Opponents) ition 96-6~1? , 1996 - PAGE 4 J J r t 9:30 p.m. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive ~ Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), az (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. 9:45 p.m. 11. ADJOURNMENT I cca960910.DOC i t i is 9 i I k COUNCIL AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 5 I Agenda Item No. f f ~G M i ng o eet TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 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; Legal Counsel Chuck Corrigan (for Executive Session only); Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Associate Planner Laurie Nicholson; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, introduced Laurie Nicholson who had been hired to take Ray Valone's position as an Associate Planner. > Bill Monahan, City Administrator, advised Gus Duenas was recently hired to fill Gary Alfson's position as Engineering Manager. He reported that they did not fill the City Engineer's position from this round of applicants; they would readvertise in January. Meanwhile, Gus Duenas, Greg Berry, and Brian Rager would temporarily divide up the City Engineer's duties. - > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:42 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. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported that the Planning Commission rejected the staff recommendation to remove the historic designation from the Tigard Feed & Seed store due to lack of information on the costs of renovation. This matter was scheduled to come to the City Council in two weeks. Mr. Monahan explained that there was a new property owner involved in the Sanders Annexation (Agenda Item ##7) and requested that it be set over to September 24. He noted that the County just repaved two roads in that area. i Mr. Monahan noted that the Cityscape was not published on time. He said that Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, has spoken to Community Newspaper j Publishing who has assured the City this would not happen again. Councilor Rohlf expressed concerns regarding the Solid Waste Task Force that was established at the last Council meeting. He pointed out there was not sufficient provision for citizen input on this issue of interest to the community. CITY COU NCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 1 s He stated that the review would not succeed as long as it only looked at the ' ' e s comments on efficiencies rather than also including the citizen haulers comments on service. Mr. Monahan said that he would have Loreen Mills contact Councilor Rohlf. > Discuss City Administrator Review Process Mr. Monahan presented three of the City Administrator evaluation forms he requested from eight neighboring jurisdictions as samples for Council to review in developing an evaluation form. He explained that the contract called for a Council evaluation by October 16. Mayor Nicoli suggested that the Council meet alone next week for 10-15 minutes i to discuss the handouts and develop a direction for the review process. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:40 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING ~ S Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board F Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:46 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None e Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: j I > Mr. Monahan noted a non-agenda item to consider an intergovernmental agreement on the shared use of the public telecommunication network. > Mr. Monahan asked that Council set Item #7 over to September 24 at the request of the new property owner. Il 1 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt the Consent Agenda: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 29 and August 13, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Mark Cottle as the East County City Emergency Medical Service Policy Representative 3.4 Amend Water Meter Installation Charges - Resolution 96-55 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 2 3.5 Local Contract Review Board: a. Reject Bid from Kerr Contractors, Inc., for Construction Contract for the Tigard Senior Center Improvements b. Award Bid to A.C.E. Janitorial for the Janitorial Services Contract J9 C. Award Bid to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicholson Architects PC for t Architectural Services for the Expansion of City Hall at the Police Department Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 1 4. METRO FUNCTIONAL PLAN DISCUSSION/UPDATE Mr. Monahan reviewed the status of the Metro Functional Plan, presently under consideration by the Metro Council. He said that staff invited Jon Kvistad, Metro Councilor, to address the Council on how they could best participate in the remainder of the process. t Jon Kvistad, Presiding Officer of the Metro Council, explained that the Functional Plan was part of a three step program to adopt rules and guidelines to manage regional growth. The program was comprised of the Urban Growth Report, the Functional Plan, and the discussion on the 28,000 acres in the Urban Reserve areas, including a decision ! on the expansion of the UGB; the Functional Plan was the early implementation of the Ills 2040 plan to give the region a headstart on managing the growth that was already here. Councilor Kvistad noted the short timeline that the Metro Council had to review the Function Plan. He commented that he was not sure that either the local jurisdictions or Metro were prepared for the consequences of early implementation of 2040 if the Functional Plan went forward as scheduled. j Councilor Kvistad stated that he was familiar with Tigard's comments on the Functional Plan. Although he personally agreed with the majority of them, he said that he could not say that a majority of the Metro Council would support them. f Mayor Nicoli referenced the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) letter that outlined six items of mutual concern to all the Washington County cities within the Metro region. He noted that all the mayors were signatory to the letter, and that the County Commissioners, while not signatory, did reference it in their letter to Metro. He emphasized that these were the issues that the WCCC, not just individual mayors. Mayor Nicoli commented on the process of the 2040 plan, noting that while they had I been given opportunity to provide input, there was one issue (addressed in writing to Metro) which Metro staff refused to address: who would pay for the implementation of the 2040 plan? He cited the Plan expectations regarding street improvements and pointed out that transportation funding was disappearing. Mayor Nicoli said that they could not afford to implement the 2040 plan, every item of which had associated costs. He reiterated that Metro has refused to discuss the financial side of the 2040 Plan. He suggested that Metro halt the process until their staff could - provide them with the implementation cost impacts for each jurisdiction, contending that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 3 t they should know what it would cost before implementing favor 2040 but expressed his concern that adopting the Ph discussion on its financing was improper. Councilor Kvistad concurred that the funding issue was or Metro Council had to address; two Metro Councilors havr remained a minority. He commented on the difference in elected officials from different cities. He said that Washii know what their money was buying and how much any pi agreeing to it; therefore, they reasonably expected a regio same information. Councilor Kvistad commented that there was a misconcep Executive Officer. Because he was also elected, many tho when in fact he managed the affairs of the agency; the fui were all vested in the Metro Council. Councilor Kvistad said that there would be a full and corn of every line item in the Functional Plan, despite the shor Growth Management Committee. He reported that based the Functional Plan, there were a lot of opinions in the re moving forward according to the schedule was debatable. Councilor Rohlf asked which of Tigard's positions did Cc support. Councilor Kvistad said that Metro could not she this alone. He reviewed the structure of the Metro gover and noted that they had no tax base or source of general t organization with deadlines by which to complete certain money to fund those programs. He said that he did not k r between what they could reasonably ask the regional parr k could do. Councilor Kvistad said that he was concerned about the rF Functional Plan, stating that the citizens did not know wh reported that Metro's current density numbers for 2017 rr density for every community outside of Portland, both in: unincorporated areas. Councilor Kvistad said that a second concern was housin€ community the cost of a single family house was in exces the average citizen as a homebuyer. He stated that the re should not further degrade the ability of average citizens Councilor Rohlf asked if there was any discussion at Met funds. Councilor Kvistad said that they discussed it daily not in terms of how much specifically each jurisdiction w accommodate growth; they did not know what those requ big concern of his was the fact that, though larger commi to implement the required code changes and implementati cities did not. L CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 19 ;i. He said that Tigard did +ithout at least one f the major issues that the oken to that very point but spective among regionally n County cities wanted to ;t would cost before government to provide the regarding the Metro t that he was a policymaker ms and powers of Metro e discussion at the Council neline developed by the the first public hearing on r on this plan, and that the ilor Kvistad find difficult to ;r the burden of paying for i nt according to the Charter, s. They were a planning ;rams but they had no v where the line was to do and what Metro atory nature of the he Plan meant to them. He t doubling the existing city limits and in the j 'ordability; right now in this $145,000 - this eliminated itions of the Functional Plan uy homes. n how to generate the terms of Metro budgets but have to allocate to rents were. He said that a - es had the staff and dollars mechanisms, the smaller PAGE 4 J J Councilor Kvistad recommended that t] the Council what they thought, pointin, meetings (though many special interest I Mayor Nicoli expressed discomfort wit planning organization instead of remair functions. He asked if the Metro Cour happening. He noted that many people 1 and would not trust Metro to do so eitl Councilor Kvistad stated that ultimatel3 prior to the passage of the Metro Chart that the Charter and the Regional Fram y on into regional growth planning. 1 Mayor Nicoli concurred but reiterated I Metro was supposed to be involved in i make the region work in terms of inten shared (i.e., transportation, garbage, et Mayor Nicoli said that he has been sho staff and questioned whether or not Me recommended for themselves. He said Metro Council to ask its staff how muc manpower requirements needed to make suggesting the end of 2040 but rather sl ' functions at Metro and keeping Metro a i Councilor Kvistad commented that 204( grow and that most people thought that difficulty lay in the regulatory part whit could not develop that without coordina Comprehensive Plans but each local jur priorities. Yet the regional government half of Oregon's population, was trying address everyone's needs 20 years in thi i Councilor Kvistad said that either they i enough hand and a natural progression c region or they could create a situation v of life, they would destroy the basics of could not use a cookie cutter approach i Councilor Kvistad commented on the ch since he was born. He noted the need t discussions and "headbutting" over deck only to be expected. He said that it wa; win-win solution than to wait 10 years housing became so unaffordable to the a U created into which people commuted to CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEP ity Council attend the Metro hearings to tell f t that few elected officials attended the rps did). etro taking on the role of a day to day in an oversight capacity coordinating regional rs understood that that was what was n't trust the cities to make the right decisions the decisions would be local. He said that 1 1992, they had been working on 2040 but rk Plan transformed what they were working he agreed with the group that did not think o day planning functions but rather was to ecting the cities in those areas which they all f at some of the statements made by Metro taff understood the role that they have that was why he thought it was fair for the would cost and what were the daily Plan work. He said that he was not ig completely away from daily planning iigher level. i s intended to address how the region would general structure worked. He said that the as the regional Comprehensive Plan; Metro with local jurisdictions and their tion was unique with different needs and )resenting 1.5 million people, approximately evelop a plan that in theory should be able to i ure. i" d successfully develop a plan with a light ents that they would end up with a quality they would not only not enhance the quality individual communities. He said that they region with such a diversity of communities. :s in Washington County that have occurred al with what was coming and that on dealing with transitional problems were ter to go through that process now to find a the roads and infrastructure collapsed and ge citizen that an "island of wealth" was a place in which they could not afford to IBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 5 i J • a 9 a 1 j j live. He noted that another major concern was "rural sprawl", the ancillary cities growing towards the Metro area. Councilor Kvistad commented that Tigard has stood up for what it believed in and was taking the heat for it. He said that he agreed with the City Council in terms of the philosophy behind their amendments and in terms of what Metro's role was. He said that he was concerned that more cities have not stood up to say that more attention needed to be paid to their areas of concern. He noted that the "drop dead" deadline for Metro Council was December 31, 1997 when they had to have the Regional Framework Plan completed per Charter mandate. Councilor Kvistad said that the slow, complex and detailed process was difficult for the Metro Councilors to understand, let alone the jurisdictions and the ordinary citizen. He reiterated that the average citizen did not understand what this plan meant. He said that when he explained to citizen groups what 2040 was they invariably said don't move the UGB and don't put density in my neighborhood. He noted over 70 people move into the State of Oregon every day with 45 - 50 of those people coming to the Portland Metro area. He emphasized the need to make hard choices by the mandated deadline to meet the growth that was coming. Councilor Kvistad said that while he did not know if the timelines were viable, they were the ones they had to work with. He emphasized that it would be very difficult to move off the current agenda without City Councilors coming to the hearings and telling the Metro Council what they thought. Councilor Hunt asked if the projects in the plan were so intertwined that they could not be separated out, should it prove not possible to fund everything. Have priorities been set on what could be eliminated to save dollars? Councilor Kvistad said that the Functional Plan had certain specifics and targets that each city would be required to meet. He explained that the Functional Plan was early implementation of the 2040 plan in order to reduce the need to expand the UGB and to minimize the amount of land needed in the future because of the changes made within in the current UGB. Councilor Kvistad commented that a discussion that could occur would be on whether it was possible to implement 2040 faster or to stop or mitigate the expansion of the UGB. He said that he thought that if Metro worked closely enough with the Planning staff and Commissions of the larger jurisdictions, they could implement a solid portion of this by shifting and changing density and looking differently at the way they were currently i growing. Councilor Kvistad said that he did not know if all communities would be able to live up to all the elements in the Functional Plan but that there was nothing in the Plan that could be opted out. He expressed concern that the Functional Plan also lacked a process for amending it and reconsidering elements that did not work. i i. Councilor Kvistad commented that the money would ultimately come from the citizens, whether it went through Metro or the cities. He said that it was difficult to know what was reasonable to expect people to spend but that he hoped they could be flexible enough g to keep the plan in place while allowing reconsideration of elements. _ Councilor Rohlf commented that it appeared that Tigard, despite its letters and staff time allocated to this issue, was not as effective in communicating their message to Metro as they could be. He asked Councilor Kvistad how they could be more effective. Councilor Kvistad stated that the political makeup and structure of the Metro Council and the detail of the Plan required local jurisdictions to come forward to talk to the I Metro Council about their concerns. He said that the little cities needed to come forward because Metro mostly heard from those communities who have had the majority of the problems with growth. Councilor Kvistad commented that the major voice Metro has heard has been MPAC which was supposedly representative of all the jurisdictions; it was not but was composed of a subset of the jurisdictions. He said that many of the recommendations i and amendments to the Functional Plan came from what was represented to the Metro Council as being the local governments - namely that the local governments wanted the parking maximums, stream corridor setbacks, etc. Councilor Kvistad noted that the Council also heard from the special interest groups and the Metro Executive Officer. He mentioned the need to educate the seven Metro Councilors on the issues and pointed out that three of the Councilors have not had a role in the growth management aspects of Metro. He said that he understood the time conflicts of elected officials but reiterated the importance of elected officials coming in person to testify before the Metro Council. Councilor Rohlf suggested that the Metro Council initiate meetings with the City j Councils and Mayors to get one-on-one feedback instead of trying to go through MPAC or written statements, if they truly wanted to engage the local jurisdictions as "partners." Councilor Kvistad said that he attended meetings of the cities in his district as did most of the other Councilors; however the Metro Council was also part time. He said that he 1 would like to use the same process they used in presenting the 2040 plan to each city but 1 that the time constraints were different at this time. I y Councilor Rohlf said that he thought the meeting between Mike Burton and the 1 Washington County jurisdictions was productive. He suggested bringing the cities together at one place and time to meet with the Metro Council to give direct feedback without competition from the special interest groups. Councilor Kvistad reiterated that a major problem was the misconception that the Metro Executive could make policy decisions; that was the prerogative of the Metro Council. He said that he would take the suggestion under advisement but stated that it would be impossible to convince certain Councilors to implement it, even though the entire Council needed to hear the jurisdictions' comments. E 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 7 a Councilor Kvistad cited the Metro Listening Posts concept to take hearings out into the community; they would use that with the urban reserve plan. He said that while he had advocated doing the same thing with the Functional Plan, certain Councilors strongly opposed doing so; only two public hearings testified to the unwillingness of the Metro Council to take the Functional Plan out to the community. He reiterated the importance of the Council hearing what the people had to say, noting that it was different from what he heard sitting on the Council. Councilor Hunt asked if the Council would receive a staff member presenting a City Council's opinions. Councilor Kvistad said that they would to the extent that the staff person represented the Council's views. However he pointed out that a staff member was not as powerful a presence as an elected official, noting that one Mayor has made a difference by attending nearly every session and speaking to the changes. Councilor Kvistad asked the Councilors to come to the hearings to support their position. Though he agreed with many of their comments, he was a minority vote on the Council. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern on several issues, asking how Metro would address those. These included the transportation problems on Highway 99 and the allocation of all transportation dollars to light rail, the increasing problems with displaced wildlife as more and more development occurred, and the dissolution of the Boundary Commission in a year. He asked if reducing the number of Metro Councilors from 13 to 7 was a better working arrangement. Councilor Kvistad said that a seven-member Council was better able to handle the functions of a deliberative body. He stated that he thought Metro had an opportunity to play a major positive role in the community far beyond anything he has seen so far, and to be a facilitator government for local jurisdictions. It could also become something 1 that it was not intended to become unless checked and held on track. Councilor Kvistad said that they were moving into the next level of the Transportation Improvement Plan in which they had $80 million dollars to allocate among $400 million dollars worth of projects around the region. He pointed out that they would see traffic increase by one third to one half over the next two to three years because of the growth within the UGB even if it was not expanded; communities were not equipped to deal with it. He said that he did not think that the region was politically willing to take the heat it would take to deal with the transportation needs because it meant road construction and reconstruction. He said that he saw a move in the opposite direction, away from constructing roads, as though the quality of life could be preserved by making it impossible to live here. Councilor Kvistad said that, with regards to the wildlife issue, he thought that what they were experiencing has been experienced by every city on the East Coast at some point; it was part of what happened when a community grew. He pointed out that Oregon was a small rural state with a basically rural tax base; the Portland Metro area represented half the state's population and less than 5% of the state's land mass. He commented that contradictions occurred when trying to rapidly adapt this many people to that amount of area. Councilor Kvistad said that hopefully the Functional Plan would give them a framework LCITY COUN I C L MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 0 1 a 1 ' with which to move forward. He said that he was willing to work with Tigard on every f ) aspect of it because they agreed on probably 90% of the Plan; the other 10% they could Y work out. Noting local attempts to clean up Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River, Councilor Scheckla asked what Metro would d di th d i f i h o regar ng e ump ng o sewage nto t e + Willamette by Portland's storm sewer system. Councilor Kvistad stated that that was P l d' } ort an s problem, and not one that Metro had to address. He noted that Portland would spend $3 billion to rebuild their sewer and storm water system without fixing the j problem; the open sewer pipes would still overflow into the Willamette. He said that he thought it was still worth communities cleaning up rivers and maintaining water quality despite the frustration over the lower Willamette. Mayor Nicoli commented that currently there was a move to erase all the current transportation projects with allocated funding; new projects would be allowed into the mix and the funding reallocated. He noted the I-5/217 interchange and the Greenburg { Road overpass in particular as Washington County projects whose funding could be pulled. He expressed his distress that Metro was doing this while at the same time Tri- Met was asking for the bulk of transportation dollars to buy new buses with. He asked Councilor Kvistad do everything he could to see that the state and Metro lived up to their commitments on the already funded projects. Mayor Nicoli noted that Washington County and some of its cities were funding a study on light rail on heavy rail lines. Councilor Kvistad said that he told Commissioner Rogers that he would fully participate and move at the Metro Council to participate in funding the project. Mayor Nicoli said that he was upset when he heard the commitment that Metro was going to make, noting that Sherwood could outfund Metro. Councilor Kvistad concurred with Mayor Nicoli's comments. He said that he directed staff to do some funding of the project, and while they were not happy about it, he ! thought that they got the message. He reiterated his commitment to this issue. 1 Councilor Kvistad stated that as a Metro Councilor he would fight anyone that would remove any of the Washington County projects from the list. The County has been a good regional player and it was now its turn to have its projects funded. He said that he would work for full funding of the I-5/217 interchange, including the overcrossing. Mr. Monahan said that he understood that Tigard would continue to give input and attend the Thursday hearing. He asked how much time a Councilor would be allowed to i speak. Councilor Kvistad said that normally the Council allowed elected officials to j finish their comments if they went beyond the three minute time limit. Mr. Monahan asked the Council for direction on whether or not to include Councilor f Rohlf's suggestion in the testimony before the Metro Council. Mayor Nicoli said that he would try to attend the Thursday hearing; staff should attend regardless. U 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 9 i NEW } 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND APPLICATION CRITERIA FOR NON-PROFIT, LOW-INCOME HOUSING Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, referenced the August 20 Council work session on this topic, and noted that consideration of affordable housing was a Council goal. He ■ explained that the ordinance established a section of the Tigard Municipal Code under which non profit corporations could apply for property tax exemption for low income housing projects. He said that approval of this ordinance did not approve any tax exemptions; it simply put a process in place for non profits to apply for an exemption. He mentioned that the Council would approve or deny the requests on an annual basis. j In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Lowry clarified that "governing I body" referred to the Council. In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Lowry reviewed how this ordinance followed state law. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla to adopt Ordinance No. 96-34. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-34, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SECTION OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLED "NON PROFIT CORPORATION LOW INCOME HOUSING" AND ESTABLISHING THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA. - v Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") i 6. FINAL ORDER - CPA 96-0002 (AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.) - TO DENY A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.192)(1a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial land uses. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planing Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.l(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8. 1.1 and 12.2.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon i Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the resolution that Council directed staff at the August 13 public hearing to prepare to deny this request. He recommended approval. b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-56 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf to adopt Resolution No. 96-56. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 10 ' i The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution. 1 i RESOLUTION NO. 96-56, A RESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT SEEKING A 96-02 REQUEST BY AKA BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION J REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.2.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to set this hearing over to September 24, 1996. r-. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs) AND TO THE METHODOLOGY PERTAINING TO THE CALCULATION OF THESE SDCs. Under the proposed schedule, the charge for the 410 service zone would increase from $845 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to $986 and the charge for the Bull Mountain System would increase from $1,000 per EDU to $1,507. The charges for water SDCs have not been increased since 1990. a. Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report Ed Wegner, Maintenance Director, referenced the CHzM Hill rate study adopted by the Intergovernmental Water Board in June which recommended ~ increasing SDC charges for the first time since 1990. He said that staff reviewed the study and proposed increasing the City's SDC charges in the 410 and Bull Mountain zones. Mike Miller commented that the purpose of the SDCs were to generate revenue for the City and to insure fair and equitable financing of water system improvements necessitated by new development. He noted the fee increases: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 11 E from $845 to $986 per EDU in the 410 service area and from $1000 to $1,507 ! per EDU in the Bull Mountain service area. He pointed out that even with the increase in the 410 SDC, Tigard's rate was the second lowest in the region; the increase in the Bull Mountain SDC put the rate near the middle of SDCs in the region. He reviewed the methodology CH2M Hill used to generate the figures. In response to a request from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Miller explained that the Bull Mountain SDCs were higher because the water had to be pumped up to that region from the 410 reservoir; also additional facilities were required to serve Bull Mountain. Mr. Wegner reported that the Homebuilders Association of Metro Portland submitted a letter supporting the recommended changes but requesting an 9 effective date of January 1, 1997 instead of the November 1, 1996 date stated in the resolution; staff had no objection to the requested change. He said that they received no objections at the public meeting held by the City. Councilor Rohif asked what the financial implications were of those additional months. Mr. Wegner said that there wouldn't be much construction activity during November/December. j C. Public Testimony: None d. Staff Recommendation 1 Mr. Miller recommended approval of the new SDCs. e. Council Questions % Councilor Hunt requested more discussion on the new date. Mr. Monahan commented that many multifamily applications have been initiated and asked about commercial applications. Mr. Hendryx said that last year the City issued 350 single family permits but that he did not have the data on the multifamily or commercial permits here. Mr. Monahan explained that staff proposed two additional months to give adequate notice. He said that they expected a rush of applications prior to the + effective date, and felt that it would be a service to the community to push off I that rush by a couple of months. Mr. Lowry said that, give 60 units in the 410 zone, the City would not get $8,000 - $9,000 by postponing the date. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. i g. Council Consideration: Resolution 96-57 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution 96-57 with the effective date to December 1, 1996. The City Recorder read the number and title of the Resolution. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 12 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96-57, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF TIGARD WATER SERVICE AREA SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND THE METHODOLOGY USED TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGES. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan requested a Council motion authorizing the Mayor to sign an IGA for the City to secure use of public communication network equipment with Hillsboro, Washington County, Lake Oswego, and Tualatin Valley Water District. He said that they have cooperatively purchased equipment over the past year with those cities; this agreement included access to the Internet for $2 a month for all City computers. He said that the money was in the 1996/97 budget. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to authorize the Mayor to sign the intergovernmental agreement. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Ms. Wheatley distributed information sent by Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton explaining his proposal on the urban reserve areas , 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None 11. ADdOURP•TViENT: 9:13 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or, City of Tigard Date: 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 - PAGE 13 4 h t - 1 71 ►q L r., COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 618 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 <FCEiV i:' Legal Notice Advertising 199 • City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 S47 Hall Blvd. '7iy `)F MARL, • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit •Attn:Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION j STATE OF OREGON, ) j COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I I, Kathy SnyHpr I being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the.TIgard-Tualatin Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the City Council Business Meeting 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: 4. • i; September 5,1996 • _~.l 1V Lt i Subscribed and sworn afore me thisl2th Aay of SaTtemb X996 OFF: IAL SEAL t _ All µ t ROE','! A. E:!?GESS t NOTA.' . -OREGON f Not ub is for Oregon l' COL;'.• 024552 My Commission Expires: .'iceSMAY1899'. AFFIDAVIT t' rr t 1 ~ e~...,t ,fin.....-.~-. -__~...'-M- ..ra.... _ --,I . e r) The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING September 10, 1996 TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL 13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) • Executive Session: The Tigard City Council may go into 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. • Agenda Review Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) Council Update Jon Kvistad wil visit with the Council on the Metro 2040 Plan Public Hearings: • Annexation: Consider forwarding to the Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel (0.33 acres) located at the southeast corner of S.W. Johnson Street and 106th Drive. • Water System Development Charges (SDCs): Consider changes to the water SDCs and to the methodology pertaining to the cal- culation of these SDCs. Council Consideration: • Final Order - Legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 96-0002 AKA Business Services. Deny request to amend the text of policy 12.2.1(2)(1 a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commer- cial land uses. • Consider property tax exemption for non-profit corporation which is working to make housing available to low-income citizens. M618 - Publish September 5, 1996. E k 77. COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal Notice TT 8610 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 < E C E I V E G ' Legal Notice Advertising t 1996 *City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice '11I Y OF TIGARr 13125 SW Hall Bled. • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit •Tigard,Oregon 97223 *Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION r STATE OF OREGON, ) r,.r COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, as. ( Kathy Snyder r_~{= being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertismg i Ti g d-Tuala n Times Director, or his principal clerk, of the. a newspaper of general circulation Qa ddefined in ORS 19in~he and 193.020; published a aforesaid county and state: that the 5 Sander Annex., vrA 96-000 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the I t entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and T:q consecutive in the following issues: August 29 1996 r r (J Subscribed and sworn to fore me this 9th day of August , OFFICIAL SEAL ± 1 ROE!"-' A. F.1:7GESS i : - OREGON 7 NOW Notary b i for Oregon aX 024552 rs MAY 16.1991 My Commission Expires: rte. AFFIDAVIT ` y j E'• ` V 1 --]I ,j 1 s _ 4 y a L~ The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on Sc tem- ber 10 1996 at 7:30 P.M. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Half, 13125 77 . Ya ou nvrd Bard, Oregon. Both public, oral and written tes- timony rs invitel. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance e with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the re- quest or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decisionmaker an upportunitg to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling (503) 639-4171. n DI ( "I F11"Y PUBLIC HEARINGS: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 96-0005 Sanders Annexation REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R-4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1; service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, an- nexation requirements; and 10.138, land clasification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. M610- Publish.August 29, 1996. ~ F 0 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. j f Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8 b 1 2 1 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 R E C E I V E D i Legal Notice Advertising 1Fi> U 3 1996 'City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice CITY OF 'fIGAkG 13125 SW Hall Blvd. •Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit . ~ 'Accounts Payable ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION s ; !t STATE OF OREGON, ) t ' - - COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )'a' , Kathy Snyder t;ra 1 , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of them; Bard- rua l at i n mimes 'N S. a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 rr.+, and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the -Cit'y'c Wa+ar Syc}am Haaring - _ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for QN.F successive and consecutive in the following issues: August 29,1996 ~ I Subscribed and sworn afore me this29th day of August , ]eJb`. OFF :'AL SEAL a _ f 00 A P{)- NOT OREGON ' Nota blic for Oregon 024552 "IC: ~'s MAY 16,1997 r My Commission Expires: AFFIDAVIT _ CC f NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On September 10, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., in the Town Hall room of city hall the Tigard City, Council will conduct a public hearing to consider changes to the City's water system development charges {SDCs) and to the methodology pertaining to th'e calculation of these SDCs. Both public oral and written testimony is invited . , Under the proposed schedule, the charge for the 410 service zone would increase from $845 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to $986 and the . - ; i charge for the Bull Mountain system would increase from $1,000 per i to $1,507. The charges for water SDCs have not been increased I 1990. since ~ l Please contact Mike Millen at 639-4171 if you have any questions or would like dditi l d i a a ona eta ls bout the City SDC study or the fee adoption process A co of th Cit ' w r S C . py e y s ate D study is available upon request. M612 -Publish August 29, September 5, 1996. : i 1 t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 96-54 NCE NO a . ORDINA AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SECTION OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLED COME HOUSING" AND ESTABLISHING THE "NON-PROFIT CORPORATION LOW-IN EXEMPTION CRITERIA. WHEREAS The City of Tigard City Council has a goal to consider issues of affordable houing, and j WHEREAS, The Council has determined it necessary to adopt the criteria set forth in ORS 307.540 - ORS 307.547 establishing a property tax exemption application process and critieria. k THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 1 SECTION 1: Tigard Municipal Code section 3.50 is established and titled "Non-Profit Corporation Low - Income Housing" as shown in the i attached "Exhibit A". f SECTION This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. r PASSED: By U nQ ;11iYYlOllS vote of all Council members present after be'ng read by number and title only, this ly - day ' - Of .S,P•D 1996. t~V_IIXX ULU 2q- therine Wheatley, City Reco er ,,-n~,,,, J ~I'1 f ~~1~'~"'~~ I 4 _.SL_ day o APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this 1996. ~I J s Nico i, May 6r Approved as to form: V. vg~ n Att C or ey y Date 1 3 z ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 11W . MEW— "EXHIBIT A" (Non-profit Corporation Low-income Housing) 3.50.010 Definitions (1) "Governing body" means the city of Tigard City Council. (2) "Low-income" means income at or below 60 percent of the area median income as determined by the State Housing Council based on information from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3.50.020 Nonprofit corporation low Income housing; exemption; { criteria. (1) Property that meets all of the following criteria shall be exempt from taxation as provided in this section. (a) The property is owned or being purchased by a corporation that is exempt from income taxes under section 501(c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended before December 1, 1984. (b) Upon liquidation, the assets of the corporation are required to be applied first in payment of all outstanding obligations, and the balance remaining, in cash and in kind, to be distributed to corporations exempt from taxation and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or - educational purposes or to the State of Oregon. (c) The property is occupied by low income persons. I (d) The property or portion of the property receiving the exemption, is actually and exclusively used for the purposes described in section 501(c) (3) or (4) of the Internal Revenue Code as amended before December 1, 1984. (e) The exemption has been approved as provided in section 3.50.050. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a corporation that has only a leasehold interest in property is deemed to be a purchaser of that property if: (a) The corporation is obligated under the terms of the lease to pay the ad valorem taxes on the real and personal property used in this activity on ! that property; or (b) The rent payable by the corporation has been established to reflect the savings resulting from the exemption from taxation. (3) A partnership shall be treated the same as a corporation to which this section applies if the corporation is: (a) A general partner of the partnership; and (b) Responsible for the day to day operation of the property that is the subject of the exemption. 3.50.040 Application for exemption. (1) To qualify for the exemption provided by 3.50.020, the corporation shall file an application for exemption with the governing body for each Exhibit A Ordinance 96-3q r F- assessment year the corporation wants the exemption. The application shall be filed on or before March 1 of th f t hi h h e assessmen year or w c t e exemption is applied for, except that when the property designated is acquired after March 1 and before July 1 the claim for that year shall be filed within 30 da aft th , ys er e date of acquisition. The application shall include the following information: (a) A description of the property for which the exemption is requested; (b) A description of the charitable purpose of the project and whether all or a portion of the property is being used for that purpose; j , (c) A certification of income levels of low income occupants; (d) A description of how the tax exemption will benefit project k residents; and C (e) A declaration that the corporation has been granted an I exemption from income taxes under 26 U.S.C. section 501(c) (3) or (4) as amended before December 1, 1984. (2) The applicant shall verify the information in the application by oath or t affirmation. 3.50.050 Determination of eligibility for exemption; notice to county assessor. { (1) Within 30 days of the filing of an application under 3.50.040, the governing body shall determine whether the applicant qualifies for the exemption under 3.50.020. If the governing body determines the applicant qualifies, the governing body shall certify to the assessor of the county where the real property is located that all or a portion of the property shall be exempt from taxation under the levy of the certifying governing body. (2) Upon receipt of certification under subsection (1) of this section, the county assessor shall exempt the property from taxation to the extent certified by the governing body. MCRYWMEXORD\TAxEXEMP.ORD ' d Exhibit A Ordinance 96-3 T v CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-3~ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0005). ' WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 24, 1996, to consider a zoning designation for one parcel of land located at the Southeast comer of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. WHEREAS, on September 24, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and j / WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected property shall be designated as follows: Tax Map. Lot Number Current Zoning New Zoning fI 2S1 03 AN lot 1916 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 ! - f SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U1141IittM.liI3 vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, thise24 day of 996. k.z •.u~b-Qe,GZ~ Catfienne Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of 11996. dames-P~iseli; Maye A roved as to f ri~: Cit Attomey r v/''& Date j I MM 1 I:\CrrYIM0E'.0RD%ZCA96.05.0RD 9 V .1 ' u. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 z1 ORDINANCE NO. 96- aL AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0006). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 24, 1996, to consider a zonin Y 9 designation for four parcels of land totaling 2.52 acres, located south of Gaarde Street and west of 114th Avenue. i s WHEREAS, on September 24, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: Tax Map. Lot Number Current Zoning New Zoning ` 2S1 10 AB, lot 3700 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 2S1 10 AB, lot 3800 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 2S1 10 AB, lot 3900 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 t 2S1 10 AB, lot 4300 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, I 999 signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By UYW A irt1w vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this o7uf~day of t.+1~1 6. 99 ~ ~ ~ nrz henne Wheatley. City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of 1996. James Nicoli, Mayor pprQve as tp o City Altey a~9 Date F 1ACITYWIMORD2CA96-06.01RD ORDINANCE No. 96-3& Page 1 F 7 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : September 10. 1996 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. 4 STAFF NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED i. i 1. l . I:IadmlJolvlsitshl.doc f f ~ ` •r 16 depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of }ne each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. J~ AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: September 10, 1996' PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0005 SANDERS ANNEXATION REQUEST: The owner requests annexation of one parcel of 0.33 acres into the city and a change of 4 the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard Low Density Residential/R- I 4.5. LOCATION: At Southeast Comer of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-5. I - - PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS j i p1 0 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. c ~ ~ w < a III ,.depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount of ' a each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to supplement oral testimony. AGENDA, ]ITEM NO. 8 DATE: September 10, 1996, PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC's) AND TO THE METHODOLOGY PERTAINING TO THE CALCULATION OF THESE SDC's. Under the proposed schedule, the charge for the 410 service zone would increase from $845 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to $986 and the charge for the Bull Mountain System would increase from $1,000 per EDU to $1, j ' r PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS I : i i i I~ 1 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Agenda Item No. 3.1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of ,~1_1 10111110 SPECIAL MEETING MEETING MINUTES -JULY 29, 1996 1. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING • Mayor Jim Nicoli called the special meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. • Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Legal Counsel Pam Beery; Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; and Development Review Engineer Brian Rager. f • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLACED ON THE FORAN SUBDIVISION (SUB 95-0002). Request for a Subdivision (SUB 95-0002)/Lot Line Adjustment (MIS 95-00120 and Sensitive Lands Review (SLR 95-0006) - Foran/Piculell Group City Administrator Bill Monahan stated that the intent of this meeting was to discuss the conditions of approval that were placed on the Foran Subdivision in September 1995. He reviewed the history and discussions regarding the subdivision, noting in particular the issue of tree preservation. He said that according to the meeting minutes, the applicant intended to save seven to eight trees on the western portion of the property (Lot 1) adjacent to Mr. Metzler's property, and that the Council accepted staffs recommendation on the basis that it meant preserving trees. 1 Mr. Monahan explained that since the approval, the applicant has provided new 1 information to staff regarding the cut and fill, and that last week they were given a permit to remove all the trees on the site. He said that Mr. Metzler brought this to j staffs attention and to Councilor Scheckla's attention. Staff concluded that the best course of action was to have Council review the conditions of approval and determine whether or not all the trees could be removed or if there was an alternative. He noted that Brian Rager was handling this matter in lieu of the original engineer Michael Anderson who has left the City. Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff reviewed the decisions of the Hearings Officer, two of which the applicant appealed: alignment of the proposed street to save trees and an improvement to the pedestrian easement. He said that Council approved the conditions with phased tree removal permits, the first for tree removal for geotechnical services and the second for tree removal on individual lots. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 29, 1996 - PAGE 1 i t a i i j I Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff approved a permit to remove all trees on the basis of the grading plans (as approved by the Engineering staff) which indicated that the trees would not survive the amount of cut and fill required. Dev. Review Engineer Brian Rager reviewed the chronology of the City review of the engineering plans. At meetings with the staff and applicant, the street alignment and the requirement for a half street to extend to the south were 1 discussed. He said that the applicant could not gain the needed slope easements from adjacent property owners to accommodate the required grading. Therefore, d b an ecause the street was not needed at this time, staff agreed to let the developer pay an estimated amount for the improvement which would be made in the future. Mr. Rager explained that staff also allowed a reduction in the width of the right of way for the street from 50 feet to 44 feet, per new regulations, to minimize grading I for the street. Mr. Rager mentioned the proposal submitted by Jay Harris in March to Gary Alfson and himself regarding the site grading approaching the west property line which staff rejected because it did not comply with City engineering standards. He 3 reviewed the grading plan on a map. Mr. Rager said that the additional reports required by staff were submitted in April. j During the plan reviews, staff rejected a proposal for a pedestrian path following the west property line because it was so stee th t it ' p a meant stairs would be required along the entire path; staff felt that this involved unacceptable liability for the City. He pointed out an earlier proposal which showed the path following the contours of r the land. He said that the applicant returned with a second proposal that eliminated j i the need for steps with the steepest slope at 23%; since other city pathways had slopes up to 25%, staff felt that this was a reasonable compromise. j Mr. Rager said that the plans complied with the engineering design standards and subdivision conditions. He noted that the permits have not been issued. Mr. Rager reviewed the grading on the site, explaining how the cut and fill would work in putting the road in and obtaining lots on both sides of the street. He noted a staff concern about keeping the fill out of the drainage area. He said that the developer verified with a wetland consultant that the drainage area was t j no a wetland. He said that the Division of State Lands concurred with that finding and ! held that this was not a "waters of the US," meaning that the only construction limitations were the general storm drainage and erosion control standards adopted by the sewage agency. He pointed out that staff has required an erosion control plan and erosion control fencing all the way down the slope which the applicant has complied with. Mr. Rager stated that the engineering required to comply with the slope requirements, design standards, and fill slope requirements resulted in more CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 29, 1996 - PAGE 2 t -71 grading than was originally evident ii ! noted that most arborists held that a damage the tree and probably kill it. that any of the trees could be saved, trees. In response to a question from Mayc evening was whether or not the cone plan as approved by the Council incl whether or not staff had the authorit} i issue a tree removal permit for all the Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council ha( would not be cut down. Mr. Monaha conditions, it was said at the meetinc the meeting tape in which all four Co jj wanted to save the trees. Councilor Scheckla said that a major ' the knowledge that the developer we that the plan has been modified after should be left on Lot 1 and no house Mr. Monahan pointed out that the rec answered a Council question by stati other trees could be removed once tl Councilor Scheckla asked if this item a ruling. Legal Counsel Pam Beery authority to reopen the hearing at thi: place for several months. She expla' included a provision that allowed the enforcement (whether or not the app y approval). a Ms. Beery pointed out that staff was on the new grading plans. She expls considering only the language of the stated intent of the Council during the staff was trying to limit the number of removing the trees for the street and Mr. Bewersdorff verified for Counciloi trees would be saved. He stated thal application came under the old tree n mitigation. 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUL' preliminary review of the project. He d fill anywhere near a fir tree would ed on the cut and fill, and the unlikelihood f approved a permit to remove all the oli, Mr. Monahan said that the issue this s placed on the application to carry out the an obligation to preserve any trees, and pprove the final engineering plans and as based on the final information provided. Je it mandatory that the trees on Lot 1 d that while it was not written in the i . certain trees would be saved. He cited ors and the applicant indicated that they Dr in his vote to approve the project was ave those trees. He said that it appeared vote and suggested that perhaps the trees ' j ndicated that Mr. Bewersdorff specifically iat the plan would save trees but that I ens for Lot 1 were received. I d be sent back to the Hearings Officer for ised the Council that they did not have the it because the final decision has been in that the enforcement section of the Code -ings Officer to resolve questions of was living up to the conditions of g that the trees could not be saved based t that the Hearings Officer was limited to I written order, not any verbal comments or sting. She read Condition 6, noting that removed by phasing tree removal, first for the individual lots. eckla that as of now, it appeared that no nitigation was required because this ,al permit provisions which did not require 1996 - PAGE 3 i Mayor Nicoli stated that he thought that staff and the applicant made the reasonable attempt he expected them to make to save the trees. He said that as e7' long as the staff and the applicant were in agreement, he saw no reason for the Council to get involved. Councilor Rohlf commented that a lot of effort went into trying to save the trees at the original meeting and that the neighborhood left thinking the trees would be preserved. He said that he would have worked longer to find an alternative if he had thought this would be the end result. He said that they had found a balance that evening but now they were "cutting the neighborhood off at the feet" and leaving them no recourse. He said that he did not think that was fair to the neighborhood. He noted that removing those trees did not help with the erosion problems they have had on hillsides in the last year. that the remaining trees would most likely blow over onto homes, such as happened last winter. He said that while he wished that they could save the trees, he felt that the staff has "gone the extra mile" to save them but it didn't happen. He said that he did not see that the staff had done anything wrong and that the Council should back them up. Councilor Hunt said that he had mixed emotions about this issue. He stated that while he agreed with the Mayor about the trees blowing down on homes, he thought that there might have been misrepresentation (not necessarily intentional) that the trees could be saved. He agreed that the people left thinking that the trees would be saved and that taking all the trees out now wasn't fair to the neighborhood. He said that if the developer had requested removal of all the trees originally, he would not have opposed that because he believed the firs and pines would present problems in the long run. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that legally the Council was bound by the written order, and that they could not go back and take any further action. Mr. Monahan said that the object of the meeting was to clear up what the direction was on the first decision - whether or not there was Council direction to save the trees even if it wasn't part of the conditions - and to give staff direction for future hearings based on a real life situation. Mayor Nicoli concurred that removing the trees did not help the hillside but noted to get before. Councilor Scheckla commented that Michael Anderson could probably clear up a lot of the questions. He asked how the reduction in the right of way came about and if there was any way for the developer to acquire the easement thev had failed Mr. Bewersdorff explained that the standards changed since the original application to allow a narrower right of way for streets, and that staff allowed the reduction because of grading considerations and because they did not need the wider right of way. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 29, 1996 - PAGE 4 Mr. Rager stated that he mentioned the easement issue as background to the discussion. He explained that the street stub did not have any bearing on the preservation of the trees in question. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the original staff i proposal to extend the street to the north might have taken out those trees but that B i staff recommended holding off on the final proposal. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern about the process, commenting that he saw this as a political resolution that was not tied into the engineering of the site. He reiterated that he had left the meeting thinking that the maximum number of trees a would be preserved. He said that they should have either conditioned the proposal or used different language or made it clear to the neighborhood that the trees were still at risk. i Councilor Scheckla said that he thought they had reached a win-win compromise i the night of the hearing. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff also had believed that the trees could be saved; they did not know of the implications of the grading and the cut and fill. Councilor Rohlf stated that he did not fault staff who had not done anything wrong. This somehow slipped through the cracks. ii In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Bewersdorff said that these kinds of issues were not normally dealt with at the preliminary approval stage in the i, subdivision process. He reiterated that everyone thought they were going to save trees. He explained that the standard process under the old tree removal process was to ermit t l b p ree remova ased on the location of public facilities. He noted that the new standard included planting of trees as mitigation. .t Mayor Nicoli stated that he saw this as an unfortunate situation and that he understood why the neighbors were not happy. He said that he thought Council could not take any legal action one way or another, and that staff did as Council directed them to. j An audience member asked to speak. Ms. Beery stated that she was uncomfortable with either the developer or the neighborhood speaking to the j Council outside of a noticed public hearing. t The Council discussed the options of reconvening the public hearing or sending it to the Hearings Officer to determine if a violation of conditions has occurred. Ms. 3 Beery reiterated that the Council could not legally reconsider their decision at this point; the only question was whether or not a violation of conditions has occurred , and by law the Hearings Officer could consider only the language of the written order. Councilor Scheckla spoke for sending this to the Hearings Officer. Mayor Nicoll expressed concern that doing so was misleading to the nei hbors beca it g use implied that the Hearings Officer might reverse the decision when in fact it was extremely unlikely that he would do so. Councilor Scheckla said that simply having a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 29, 1996 - PAGE 5 P the matter heard by the Hearings Officer would help clarify the situation to his ti f ti M Ni li id th t h i f sa s ac on. ayor sa co a e was sat s ied with staffs actions, though not happy with the outcome. Councilor Hunt asked what could be done in the future to avoid this situation. Mr. Monahan said that staff could "flag" issues that were politically sensitive or had a significant amount of public input and bring them back to a Council work session, should there be a significant change in the applicant's ability to meet the condition. Councilor Hunt agreed with Councilor Rohlfs comment that the process in this d situation has been a waste of time, though he did not fault staff. He concurred with Mr. Monahan's suggested procedural change. i Mr. Monahan said that they could also clarify in the record when there were unknowns that could affect the final decision. 4. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 5. ADJOURNMENT: 8:07 p.m. Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Administrator - 1 Attest: as- i I Mayor, City of Tigard i i Date: I j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 29, 1996 - PAGE 6 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item No. 3 Meeting of gI llDla to MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt > Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt; Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf (arrived at 6:37 p.m.) and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer; Computer Services Network Manager Paul DeBruyn; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > Update: Council Computers Paul DeBruyn, Network Services Director, presented the staff report. He reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the three types of computers available, noting that each had similar capabilities. The three types of computers presented were a desktop model, a laptop model with an active matrix screen, and a laptop model with a passive matrix screen. He mentioned that the desktop computer cost around $2,000 and the laptops around $2,200 with the active matrix screens running about $500 more. Staff budgeted $6000. He recommended the laptop with the passive matrix screen. The Council discussed the potential use of laptops during Council meetings to display the agenda packet, to access the Code, and to converse via e-mail. Councilor Scheckla noted a concern with conversing via e-mail during a public meeting. Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, addressed a public records question and stated that with any notes created on a computer in the context of making a decision on a public matter, a reasonable argument existed that those notes were public record. He advised the Council to use e-mail and the computers with caution during a public meeting. Council President Hunt noted that the budget allowed the purchase of only two laptops at this time, and asked how staff intended to handle the matter. Bill Monahan, City Administrator, stated that they needed to make a decision on that. He suggested evaluating who needed a computer at this time (some Councilors had their own computers) or increasing the budget or waiting a year because prices were continually falling. Discussion followed. Councilor Scheckla suggested waiting until after the election. Councilor Rohlf stated that he intended to use his own computer but was interested in a high speed modem from the City. Councilor Moore said that he could wait on getting a laptop since he had a computer at home. a COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 1 Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on using a City computer at home for non-City uses. Mr. Monahan said that staff expected a City computer at home to be used primarily for City business. Mr. Monahan suggested that Mr. DeBruyn use a questionnaire and follow-up conversations with the Councilors to determine needs and priorities. Staff would decide after the elections. Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the computer problems experienced at City Hall several weeks ago. Mr. DeBruyn reviewed how the servers and back-up servers failed. The result was that Community Development and the Finance Departments were without computer equipment for several days. He report that not all problems are resolved; the manufacturer is replacing some of the equipment. Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 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. Executive Session adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Review: Proposed Changes to City Charter Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, reviewed the five proposed changes to the City Charter. The Council discussed the first change which to amend the method of electing Councilors. Currently, Councilors file for candidacy by position number. The change would provide that candidates would file for the open positions k (two positions would be available at the General Election every two years). - The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes would be elected. r Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that the change would open up the race to those with the money needed to campaign against the whole field whereas running for an individual Council position limited the number of contenders f running against each other. He said that he could not support the change. Council President Hunt said that the change would reduce the chances of a group of citizens trying to oust a particular Councilor. He noted he initiated this proposed charge. i Councilor Rohlf said that he liked the idea of the top two vote getters getting j the seats, pointing out that a candidate whom a number of people wanted to i oust could still be elected in this method. He said that while he was f ambivalent, he would support the change since he did not see anything wrong with it and he knew that it worked elsewhere. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 e a j t Councilor Moore stated that he could see advantages for but his preference leaned toward the existing method for election. Councilor Rohlf commented that it was easier to run a campaign with individual positions because a candidate knew who and what issues he/she had : ' i to address; otherwise a candidate had to address the whole field of candidates. Council President Hunt commented that with the Council positions, the least qualified candidate could be elected because he had no opposition whereas two strong candidates had to fight it out. The Council decided to wait to give staff direction until after the public hearing on August 27. Ms. Wheatley reviewed the second change of transferring the City Manager position to the Charter from Sections 10 and 20 of the Code. Council President Hunt objected to the statement in the ordinance that.the i Mayor appointed the City Manager, noting that the process used to hire Mr. Monahan involved an evaluation of the candidates and the entire Council voted - on the final decision. He asked that the phrase be changed to appointment by the City Council. Ms. Wheatley reviewed the other changes, including updating the language in 6 the oath of office and making the Charter gender neutral. She reported that t ff h k d i ' s a c ec e w th the City Attorney s office in response to a suggestion during the previous discussion that the urban renewal clauses in the Charter be removed because they could not be used. As noted in the Council packet material, Legal Counsel Paul Elsner advised that the urban renewal financing methods were still viable options available to the City. The Council discussed the current Charter section on urban renewal. Councilor Scheckla commented that feelings ran high in the City at the time of that vote. The Council decided to leave the urban renewal language in the Charter. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan reported that staff opened the two bids received for Consent Agenda items 3.3a and 3.3b today. Gary Alfson, Consulting Engineer, reported that the City received two bids for the Main/Commercial Streets project and these bids were higher than estimated. He reviewed the funding sources and the scope of project for the Main/Commercial Streets project, noting that the bid overran the $560,000 allocated in the budget by $27,000. `.J COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 l~ _ r I~ Mr. Alfson reviewed the options available to the Council. He advised against readvertising the bids in the spring because the streets would further deteriorate during the winter and cost more to repair next year. He recommended maintaining the scope of project for the Main/Commercial Streets project and use $27,000 of contingency money from the gas tax fund. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Alfson explained that few contractors remained in the market for projects at this time of year; most other cities have already bid out their regular development projects. Councilor Rohlf asked why the City's bid was so late. Mr. Alfson stated that the main reason was the budget process was not finalized until July 1. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Alfson said that the liquidated damages in the contract were around $1,000 a day. Mr. Alfson reported that the bids received for the Major Maintenance Program were also high. He advised against readvertising in the spring for the same reasons as stated before. He recommended changing the scope of the project rather than funding the difference between the bid and budgeted amounts. Mr. Alfson said that the contractor has agreed to eliminate two streets to this project in at the budgeted amount. The completion date was also bring November 15, 1996. Councilor Rohlf asked why the engineer's estimates were low. Mr. Alfson said that the estimates were based on typical prices during a good bidding climate. Councilor Rohlf suggested approving projects for a fiscal year in advance to get a headstart on the bidding season. Councilor Scheckla raised the issue of waiting on the maintenance program until next year in order to get a lower bid. Mr. Alfson recommended proceeding now to avoid further deterioration of the roads which would result in increased costs next year. In addition, it would cost more for maintenance during the winter. Mr. Alfson stated that staff would eliminate the two projects which were the i lowest ont he priority list: Cascade Avenue and 68th Street. > Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan reviewed the changes to Tigard's projected contribution to the joint project for the Cook Park gray water line, phase 2. Mr. Monahan reported that he has returned the agreement with USA because they sent a version with a term with which he did not agree. He said that the City Attorney's office was working with USA's attorney to resolve the situation. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 Mr. Monahan noted a resolution honoring Randy Mr. Monahan reported that the Mayor wanted to h and County Commissioners in September to discus other transportation issues. Staff estimated the cos $400. There was no objection. > Update: Ballot Measure 47, "Cut and Cap" This item was rnntinneA to nrYt -L- i J - 0 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board d Council President Hunt called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. i 0 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan asked to move Item #11 up to just after the Consent Agenda, .a and to insert Chief Ron Goodpaster's report on the Olympics as Item #5. He asked to add two non-agenda items: the Cook Park gray water line and a resolution honoring Randy Volk. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA _ > Curtis King, 12130 SW Parkmoor Drive, King City, King City Councilor, expressed concern regarding the paved pathway near Pacific Highway and Beef Bend Road. He said that even with a curb, the path looked like a road and cars were jumping the curb to use the road and it was dangerous for pedestrians. He said that the vehicle STOP sign at this location was confusing. Council President Hunt said that he brought this matter to staff's attention several a weeks ago, and discovered that the County had jurisdiction. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that staff reviewed the situation and found out that the County closed off the road that accessed Beef Bend Road but neglected to remove the traffic sign. He referred the matter to the County but has not heard the resolution; he said he would check with the County to see where matters stood. Mr. King requested the City to ask the County to install posts to prohibit cars from using the path. He also requested a "No Exit" sign. I > Betty Morgan, 10940 SW 79th, advised that she represented over 80 taxpayers whose homes were located on the intersecting streets on SW Pfaffle between Hall j Blvd and 79th Street. She expressed concerns with traffic on Pfaffle, citing impending construction of 84 apartments (Carriage House Apartments) in the area. Y She said that the City has already granted Andrews Management Company a variance to the City access standards that would make the traffic situation worse. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 . Ms. Morgan said that the neighbors understood that this permit was granted based on an outdated traffic study that preceded the construction of Cub Foods and Costco. She expressed concern with emergency vehicle access during the peak traffic hours. She said the neighbors were not consulted by the developer of the apartments. She presented a petition with over 80 signatures requesting a neighborhood forum to discuss the development prior to commencement of construction. The petition also requested an updated traffic study of the area and any necessary upgraded traffic controls. Council President Hunt asked staff for clarification on what the Council could affect on this decision at this point in time. Mr. Hendryx reviewed the specifics and history of this development, noting that the site development review (SDR), variance, and lot line adjustment were granted under staff administrative review following notice to the property owners within 250 feet of the site. He said that the Planning Commission heard the appeal of the SDR and variance last week; they were appealed on compatibility issues pertaining to construction of wall or fence on the adjacent property line. Mr. Hendryx said that following the final order, the Council could call up this matter under its review process, even though it has gone through the appeal process. Ms. Morgan presented her notice of the final order. Mr. Hendryx said that the Council had to call the matter up for review by August 22. Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council consider whether or not they wanted to call this up for review at their study session on August 20. •i { Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the public could still appeal the decision even if Council chose not to call the matter up for review. Councilor Rohlf asked for clarification on the process. Mr. Hendryx explained that the application was appealed on a single issue and the Planning Commission restricted testimony to that single issue (the issue of fencing). Ms. Morgan commented that many more people were affected by this development i than the property owners within 250 feet of the site. She asked for broader notification of the neighborhood. > Edward Metzler, 13267 SW Bull Mountain Road, presented a formal written 1 complaint regarding the final authorized plans for the Foran subdivision. He stated that the compromises reached at the September 26, 1995 Council meeting were later modified by the developer and staff. He cited a new alignment in the proposed road that would affect his future development plans for his property because it cut off a section of a corner on his property. Mr. Metzler stated that Arthur Picullel committed to saving certain trees and that staff was directed by the Mayor to work toward saving those trees at the September meeting. He said that all those trees were removed; a permit was granted to Mr. Picullel to remove all the trees on the site. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 6 Mr. Metzler stated that he was not allowed to voice any of his concerns at the special Council meeting on July.29, 1996. He requested a formal hearing per Section 18.24.04 of the City Code. Mr. Ramis stated that Mr. Metzler was advised by staff on the proper procedure for reviewing these situations; Mr. Metzler submitted a letter to the Planning Director that would trigger the review process as stipulated in the ordinance. > Vlasta Barber, 11120 SW Summerlake Dr., on behalf of the Executive Board of the Tualatin Chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, thanked the Mayor for proclaiming February 22 as NAFRE Day. She noted that the proclamation was reported in the NAFRE magazine. She thanked the staff and Council for the work they did. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Monahan noted the updated figures on the bid awards for Items 3.3a and 3.3b. Councilor Scheckla requested that Item 3.4 be removed. Council President Hunt asked for clarification on the City taking jurisdiction over Durham Road from Hall Blvd to Boones Ferry Road in order to put a stoplight at 79th Street. Mr. Monahan said that that was correct; the intersection did not warrant a signal per state standards and if the City wanted a stoplight, the City must accept the transfer of jurisdiction. Council President Hunt noted that they needed the stoplight to protect the children crossing the street but that it meant an operations and maintenance cost of $18,000 f per year. Mr. Monahan commented that the City also received control over the traffic signals at Hall and Durham and at Durham and Boones Ferry. Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the bid costs for Items 3.3a and 3.3b. Mr. Monahan explained that Item 3.3a was $578,523 (Main and Commercial Streets) and Item 3.3b was $355,769 (major maintenance program). He said that they were eliminating Cascade Blvd and 68th Avenue from the maintenance program in order to remain within the budgeted amount. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Y the ~ Consent Agenda, removing Item 3.4. I Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: July 9 and 16, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 7 ~i a i i 3.3 Local Conti a. Awa Recc b. Awa Prog 3.4 Approve Hi of Commen 3.5 Accept Trar Department e Consent Aei j 3.4 Appi Char Cour the C props Mr. ports remo on th that t propt Moti appr Tigai Motif (Coin "yes. > The Council considi > Report on the Olyi Council President H vacation time to ser j COUNCIL MEETING MIN i i 71 ict Review Board: •d Contract for Construction of the Main Street/Commercial Street nstruction Project d Contract for Construction of the 1996 Major Maintenance toric Application Fee Waiver Request from the Tigard Chamber e sfer of Jurisdiction of a portion of Durham Road from the Oregon of Transportation nda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion eve Historic Application Fee Waiver Request from the Tigard fiber of Commerce :ilor Scheckla asked that a condition be imposed stipulating that ity would receive any revenue collected for parking on City rty. donahan reviewed the City's intent to build a parking lot on its m of the Tigard Feed & Garden store lot once the building is red. He said that the request tonight was solely for the fee waiver historic designation. He noted that Council has given direction to City receive all the revenue generated by the City-owned rty- in by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to ive the Historic Application Fee Waiver Request from the d Chamber of Commerce. f n was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. icil President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted red Agenda Item No. 11 at this time. ■ .]pies ant commented that Chief Goodpaster volunteered to use his ,e on the security force at the Olympics. *dpaster reported on his month long participation in the Security Atlanta Olympics; this involved 1300 officers from 45 hat as a Security Section Leader, he was responsible for setting the security at the public access points, the athlete arrival point, and the arena for the basketball venue at Morehouse College. urity procedures and equipment used. :TIES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 8 v e Chief Goodpastor said that after the bombing he also volunteered to work as a Section l ffli t d b h t d h i e a c e y ea e numerous peop one t Leader at the Olympic Stadium. He ment stroke and related several anecdotes. He noted that that police forces around the world had significant differences in operating procedures and equipment. Council President Hunt thanked the Chief for representing the City of Tigard at the Olympics. % 4. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 7.32 - OFFENSES s AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER • Staff Report Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He stated that this ordinance f would bring the City of Tigard Code into compliance with state law. He reviewed the changes in state law that regulated private security. He mentioned the addition of "bows and arrows and crossbows" to the list of unlawful weapons, citing problems they have had in the City. He said that the changes transferred much of the responsibility for the process to the state. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-28 The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-28. ORDINANCE NO. 96-28, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.32 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-28. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - AMENDING CHAPTER 5.10 - DETECTIVES AND MERCHANT POLICE • Staff Report j Chief Goodpaster presented the staff report. He reviewed the need to add "or employee" to the ordinance to alleviate problems the police have had in the past in investigating security licenses. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-29 ORDINANCE NO. 96-29, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.10 DETECTIVES AND MERCHANT POLICE Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-29. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 3 Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. 6. CONSIDER ORDINANCE - ADOPTING ANNEXED PROPERTY DESIGNATIONS • Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He reviewed how certain lands within 1 the City remained at the County designations due to the Boundary Commission annexation process. He said that the intent of these ordinances were to give those properties their proper City zoning designations. He said that this was in accordance with the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County. Staff explained that separate ordinances were needed to amend the Comprehensive Map and the Zoning Map. • Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-30 and Ordinance No. 96-31 The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-30. ORDINANCE NO. 96-30, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED PROPERTY. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-30. ! Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") i The City Recorder read the number and title of Ordinance No. 96-31. ORDINANCE NO. 96-31, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING DESIGNATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Ordinance No. 96-31. ' I Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6,445 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED ON SW 135TH AVENUE I The request was initiated by the City Council on June 11, 1996, Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said public right of way. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by August 13, 1996, by 7:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 10 v a. Council President Hunt opened the public he criteria. b. Declarations or Challenges: None j c. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He vacation of public right of way was in conju Castle Hill No. 2 subdivision; SW 135th Ave intersection at Walnut. He explained that the five adjacent property owners listed in the sta the Council approve the vacation. d. Public Testimony Cindy Buckingham, 13428 SW Scottsbridg how utility companies would access the water they would have to go through her backyard. behind her fence would be moved. Councilor Moore raised a question about the and the access easements needed for mainte said that he would have Engineering research the utilities would remain, and if they remain He also noted that if the City had to create ea would be easier to do so before the City vac The Council directed that this item be set ov 8. PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPR ' AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS July 9, 1996 Council Meeting) 3 REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) modify the spacing and locational criteria for Gene LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLIC Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Ti 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2 Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon A Division 12. a. Council President Hunt read the hearing title a b. Declarations or Challenges: None C. Staff Report 7 ' Mr. Hendryx distributed written submittals. Nels Mickealson, Associate Planner, presen the policy under consideration was one of the E evaluate the Comprehensive Plan map amend COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 aring and read the hearing 0 stated that this request for nction with the construction of the nue was realigned to provide a T- right of way would revert to the g ff report. He recommended that e Drive, expressed concern about and phone lines for repairs since She asked if the fire hydrant j provision of utilities in the area Hance and repairs. Mr. Hendryx the questions of whether or not ed, how they would be accessed. sements to access the utilities, it aced the land. er to August 27, 1996. ` HENSIVE PLAN SERVICES (set over from the of the Comprehensive Plan to raI Commercial land uses. i ABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: gard Comprehensive Plan policies .2; Tigard Community dministrative Rule Chapter 660, and opened the public hearing. I ted the staff report. He said that criteria used to analyze and ments that proposed the PAGE 11 E redesignation and rezoning of land to allow for General Commercial (CG) uses. He pointed out that it had citywide application. Mr. Mickealson reviewed the existing plan policy that stated the criteria was "to be construed in a flexible manner in order to accommodate proposals that 1 were found to be in the public interest," and which stated that a commercial area could not be "surrounded by residential districts on more than two sides." Mr. Mickealson reviewed the proposed change to the policy, summarizing it as "the existing restriction would still apply to new commercial areas but existing commercial areas could expand if the Council found all of four criteria." These criteria were 1) the expanded commercial area was not surrounded by R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 or R-7 districts on more than two sides; 2) the increased commercial area would not adversely affect the surrounding residential districts; 3) the size of the increased commercial area would allow an appropriate buffer to be provided between the uses allowed in the commercial district and the uses allowed in the surrounding residential district; and, 4) the increased commercial area was the minimum size necessary required to allow the appropriate redevelopment of the existing commercial area. Mr. Mickealson explained that the applicant, AKA Business Services, Inc., owned a parcel with split zoning of CG in the front and R-12 in the back. He said that the property owner believed that the current policy could prevent him from expanding the CG portion of his site into the multifamily portion; - therefore, he has applied for this legislative text amendment change. Mr. Mickealson stated that the proposal did not meet all the relevant criteria, including State Goal 10 Housing. Because this proposal would allow the expansion of CG into multifamily residential areas, it reduced the City's opportunities to make available housing units at various price ranges and rent levels, and to allow for flexibility of location, type, and density of housing. Mr. Mickealson said that Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.4 was not satisfied because this proposal would facilitate the expansion of commercial areas into residential districts (which was prohibited by the policy). He said that Policy 6.1.1 was not satisfied noting that although the amendment itself would not cause the City to drop out of compliance with the Metro housing rule, it would result in the incremental loss of housing opportunities for the City to provide a diversity of housing densities and types. Mr. Mickealson said that regarding Policy 12.2.1(2)(1a), the spacing and location criteria, the proposal would hold single family and multifamily residential areas to a different standard. He stated that staff believed that these areas should be treated equally if the City's intent was to protect all residential i areas. Mr. Mickealson reviewed the notice sent and responses received. He said that ODOT chose not to comment because they evaluated only parcel specific COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 amendment requests for compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule. Metro saw the proposal as permitting a greater mix of uses in Tigard and supported such efforts; however, Metro had no guidelines for reviewing cities' Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Mickealson said that only the Central-West CIT expressed concern about the proposal; they suggested that the applicant pursue a rezone via the quasi- judicial route first. The Planning Commission recommended denial by a vote of 5-2 at the June 17, 1996 hearing. He said that the planning staff recommended denial because the applicant has not met all the applicable review criteria nor has he made a convincing argument that the amendment was beneficial to the City. He pointed out that the applicant could apply for a rezone on the property and argue for interpretation of the policy in a flexible manner. Mr. Mickealson reviewed three examples of how the proposed amendment would affect different areas in the City. d. Public Testimony f, i' i k i i i PROPONENT Mr. Robinson reviewed three reasons why the Council should approve the text amendment request. He said that the proposal was an improvement of the current policy giving the Council clear criteria to use in making judgment calls on residential surrounding commercial on more than two sides. Mr. Robinson said that the proposal did not really change the current policy because the Plan already allowed the Council to construe the policy in a flexible manner; he Mike Robinson, 900 SW Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Portland, represented the applicant. He stated that he disagreed with Mr. Mickealson's assessment that the examples he showed would not be allowed under the current locational criteria. He argued what the "construing in a flexible manner" clause might allow them. He said that adopting this change would not mean that any given parcel could be rezoned more easily because the Council had to find that the four criteria have been met. He contended that this change would make it easier for all parties to make the judgment call in those instances when a commercial site was surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Mr. Robinson pointed out that this was a legislative text amendment and did not apply to a particular parcel. He said that it was not unusual for a text amendment to apply citywide. He reiterated that the proposed language did not apply to new commercial areas, but only to existing commercial areas. Mr. Robinson stated that the Tigard Code already distinguished between single family and multifamily districts, citing the lack of a criterion requiring buffering from adjacent commercial areas for high density residential areas while such a criterion existed for low density residential areas. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 contended that the current policy lacked clear criteria, that certain terms in the policy f were ambiguous and that the language placing a greater burden of proof on a development with a greater impact was difficult and impractical. Mr. Robinson stated that this proposal would not make it easier to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of a residential property to commercial but would make it easier to identify those instances when it would be in the public interest to have commercial surrounded on more than two sides by residential. Mr. Robinson stated that while the current language applied citywide and allowed any new commercial areas to use the "flexible manner" interpretation, this proposal left an j airtight standard for the new commercial areas and provided strict criteria for the 1 expansion of existing commercial areas. He asked that the Council approve the request. OPPONENTS k Martha Bishop read her testimony opposing the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. She said that the applicant could achieve his plans through the quasi-judicial process without changing the current requirements for single family zoning citywide. She noted the existing conditions near Watkins and Grant Streets at 110th, and spoke against the encroachment of commercial on established neighborhood residential areas on minor collectors. She said that safety for homeowners and the children should be the top priority. She noted the exact location of the commercial area on Hwy 99W near Watkins. She mentioned that CG and f commercial could not be placed on a minor roadway. i Duane Myer, 13210 SW Watkins, read his testimony opposing this proposal. He mentioned that the Planning Commission has already studied the many factors involved in this application and recommended denial. He asked that the Council deny ! the proposed change and suggested that the property owner settle his request without affecting the whole City of Tigard. Tammy Gustin, 10670 SW Dairy Dell Court, representing herself and her husband, I stated that approving this amendment without knowing the impact of it on each residential neighborhood in the City was unjust. She spoke for the Planning Commission evaluating the affected properties on an individual basis in order to analyze fairly the impact on each neighborhood. She noted the detrimental effects on safety in her area caused by the increased commercial traffic using Hollywood Video; people have discovered that Watkins was a cut-through to Hwy 99W. She said that residents could no longer safely walk on their street nor allow their children to use the bike paths; motorists drove on the pathway to avoid the speed hump. Mrs. Gustin said that residents were not happy that this proposal could potentially affect so many properties. She reiterated the dan gerous traffic situation caused by cut through traffic. She suggested that AKA Business Services pursue his concern on an individual basis and leave the rest of the City out of it. Mr. Hendryx distributed a letter submitted by Mr. Kleinman. Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW Sixth Ave, Portland, an attorney representing Northwest Retail Services, said that this letter was a revision of his fax earlier today, in which some material was deleted. Mr. Kleinman spoke in support of the staff and Planning Commission's recommendations to deny this proposal. He said that while Mr. Robinson has attempted to address the problems, he concurred with previous testimony that the o application did have a citywide impact and that it was a matter of grave concern to make the change without analyzing each of the other sites that might be affected. He d h b ut argue t at a agreed that the AKA Business Services property did have a problem citywide amendment was not the way to deal with it. Mr. Kleinman said that the proposed amendment had an inherent impact in addressing the statewide and city planning goals by making it easier to site commercial where multifamily currently existed. He said that the impact on the City's inventory of residential properties was a grave concern. He stated that the Code did not say that multifamily residential was entitled to less protection than single family from intrusion by commercial. Mr. Kleinman said that the impact of the proposed amendment included some potential domino effects. He pointed out that while the amendment did distinguish f between new and existing commercial areas, it did not take into account that once a commercial area received its designation, it became existing commercial and the proposed amendment would apply. He noted that once one site in the City qualified under the four criteria, precedent was set and people would use the argument of precedence to get the same benefit for their property. Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not find that the four criteria listed provided 1 adequate protection at the next level of quasi judicial amendments. He contended that the criteria were vague and unclear and called for subjective judgments. He said that it would be challenging to apply the criteria in a consistent manner on a case by ease basis. He stated that the proposal only resolved a problem for this applicant on this one site while it created a possible multiplicity of future problems. i j Mr. Kleinman said that they did not find that the proposal resolved any problem with the locational criteria as presently written because nothing in the proposal removed l the "flexible manner" provision. Mr. Kleinman categorized the applicant's arguments as "the proposed amendment is harmless because..." He concurred with staff that there has been no demonstration that the proposed amendment was either needed by the City or beneficial to the City as a whole. He said that they did not oppose a later site specific application but held that this was legislative change did not have a sound basis. j e. Public hearing was closed. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 L I - r _ 3 f. Council Consideration: Councilor Rohlf said that he liked the idea of tight standard to justify Code decisions , commenting that it was difficult to justify some of the decisions based on the ambiguous charts in the Code. He said that while clarity for the developer from the City would be an improvement, he did not see any reason to change the status quo. He said that he agreed with some of Mr. Kleinman's comments th t th ' a e applicant s arguments were that the proposal did no harm because the Code already allowed flexibility. He said that, considering the opposition from citizens he leaned toward , the position that there was no need for change. Councilor Moore said that he saw this proposal as leaving things too open. He agreed that the criteria was vague and open to subjective judgments. He said that he upheld the staff recommendation. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Moore. He cited the work of the Planning Commission and the lack of a benefit to the City as a whole. Councilor Rohlf commented that he supported the staff report to the extent that the staff focused on protecting the livability of multifamil y areas. He spoke to creating quality multifamily residential areas for those who couldn't afford houses. Council President Hunt said that he had no additional comments to make. He stated that he did not favor changing the policy. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to deny the proposal and direct staff to return with final order for adoption by Council. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Rohlf referred to the cut-through problem on Watkins and asked that staff do traffic studies on Watkins or research current studies to determine if action could i be taken to retain the livability of the residential neighborhood. Mr. Monahan said that staff would look into the situation. > Council President Hunt recessed the meeting at 9:50 for a break. > Council President Hunt reconvened the meeting at 10:02. 9. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANL IENDMENT (CPA) 96-0004/ZONE CHANGE (ZON 96 0 ) - 003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) 96-0002 - SATTLER SITE a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx stated that staff has returned with the final order per Council direction at the July 23 meeting to ap rove the zon h p e c ange. He recommended that the Council approve the ordinance. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 16 l : j Councilor Scheckla said tt the property owners. b. Council Consideration: 0 The City Recorder read th ORDINANCE NO. 96-32 CONCLUSIONS TO APF AMENDMENT AND ZO DEVELOPMENT COMP. Motion by Councilor Ro { Ordinance No. 96-32. T Motion was approved by i (Council President Hunt, Scheckla abstained.) 1 10. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0001 a. Staff Report Mr. Hendryx stated that s direction at the July 23 m Amendment to add a new residential areas. He recc b. Council Consideration: R The City Recorder read tt RESOLUTION NO. 96-4 COUNCIL ADOPTING I APPLICATION FOR CO 0001, REQUESTED BY Motion by Councilor Ro Resolution No. 96-46. g Motion was approved by President Hunt, Counciloi 11. CONSIDER RESOLUTION DI THE PROCEEDS FROM THE UAIi -4 STREET, TIGARD, OF a. Staff Report COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AL a l~ would abstain from voting as he was related to ice No. 96-32 fiber and title of Ordinance No. 96-32. ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND E A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HANGE REQUESTED BY MATRIX e CPA 96-0004/ZON 96-0003/PD 96-0002. .conded by Councilor Moore, to adopt nous roll call vote of Council present. ilors Moore, and Rohlf voted "yes"; Councilor 1SLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN E " )SOE is returned with the final order per Council to deny the Comprehensive Plan Text - addressing assignment of zoning in low ided that Council approve the resolution. ion No. 96-46 tber and title of Resolution No. 96-46. 3ESOLUTION BY THE TIGARD CITY NGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DENY AN EHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 96- 3LEDSOE. I :conded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt nous voice vote of Council present. (Council )re, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") IATING THE FUTURE EXPENDITURE OF E OF THE PROPERTY AT 12420 SW N 13, 1996 - PAGE 17 f tI 4 } Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He explained that the Council moved the $92,000 received from the sale of the old City Hall building in December 1994 from the General Fund to the Facilities Fund. He said that though it was stipulated through the budget process that those funds would be used to partially fund the police expansion, the 1994 Council had wanted a future Council to have the opportunity to make a formal decision regarding the use of these proceeds. He stated that the resolution was in accordance with the Budget Committee's direction to use the proceeds for the police expansion. b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-46 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt j Resolution No. 96-46. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council " ) President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes. 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Local Contract Review Board: Cook Park gray water line bid Mr. Monahan reviewed the bid for the Cook Park gray water line, Phase 2, a project in conjunction with USA to use recycled waste water to irrigate Cook Park. He pointed out that the Tualatin Country Club has approved their portion of the project. ' s He explained that due to an error in the calculations by the contractor, Tigard contribution was reduced from $88,971 to between $70,000 to $75,000. He stated that although the City of Tualatin has decided not to participate, it would not affect i Tigard's contribution amount. He confirmed for Councilor Scheckla that the Tualatin j Golf Club was another participant who would share in the costs. Councilor Rohlf asked if there were any estimates on the annual savings the City would net. Mr. Monahan said that, although at budget time they had had an estimate of $7,000 a year in savings, the revised master plan for Cook Park increased the ; usage and the estimate was no longer accurate. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to recommend approval of the bid. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > A Resolution honoring Randy Volk Mr. Monahan mentioned Randy Volk's long time service as an employee of the Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard. He said that the resolution was to acknowledge his valuable service and his willingness to go the extra mile. e The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-48. ~ C COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 18 i ' r RESOLUTION NO. 96-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HONORING RANDY VOLK FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TIGARD. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Resolution - No. 96-48. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 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. 14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. i Catherine Wheatley City Recorder Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard Date: f: \recorder\ccm\ccm0813.96 ~.i COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1996 - PAGE 19 C~ Council Agenda Item 3" Q" For Agenda of ~I I I L) I C1 (a MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan, City Administrator DATE: September 2, 1996 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, September through November 1996 Regularly s cheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. , September 2 Monday Labor Day Holiday (City Offices Closed) *10 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting *17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session l + Business Meeting a October *8 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session f Business Meeting *15 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting November 10 Mon Veteran's Day Holiday (City Offices Closed) *11 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 15-17 Fri- League of Oregon Cities Conference - Jantzen Beach, Portland Sun *18 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) *25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session Business Meeting 28-29 Thurs- Thanksgiving Holidays (City Offices Closed) Fri i:\ad mka lhy\cound1\ccca1.doc r r Agenda Item No. 3 D b Meeting of Q 1 ! 019 Lo e Updated 9/2/96 by C. Wheatley TENTATIVE COUNCIL AGENDAS (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) 4 Date: September 17, 1996 r Type: Workshop (No TV ~ f. Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: r > CIT Communications (Liz) > CIT Communications & Meeting with CIT Facilitators and Staff Resource Teams (1 hour) (Liz, Facilitators, Staff Resource Teams) > Status: Metro 2040 (Jim) I > Status: Council Goals (Bill) > Status: Long-Term Computer System Plan (hardware, software) Plus Public Access to Information (Paul deB.) > Annexation Discussion - Walnut Island Options (Jim Hendryx) > Education on Land Use Appeal Process (Planning Staff) f t (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: September 24, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review > Mediation Program Update (Wendi Conover Hawley) Proclamations: > October as Disability Employment Awareness Month (Cathy) > Recycling Awareness Week (Oct. 5-12) (Loreen) Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes • a f' Business Meeting: f > Public Hearing: Tigard Feed and Garden - CPA to remove historic district overlay designation (Duane) > Public Hearing: ZCA 96-0006 Hatch Annexation (Nels) i' wb, 4 c;~ l (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: October S, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting X< Study Session: > Agenda Review i Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes Business Meeting: > Visioning Project Review (Liz, Loreen) > Public Hearing: Hatch Annexation (Nets) > Review and approve Planning Commission Bylaws (Dick, Jim) t i l i i J f - i $ n (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- d b up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 15, 1996 Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: - > CIT Communications (Liz) > Status: Metro 204 n (Jim) > Consi~g-RnPan for Development and Main enance of City Streets (Ed, Engineering) > Joint Meeting with the Library Board i (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: October 22, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: k > Agenda Review r Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes Business Meeting: > Public Hearing - CPA 96-0006, ZON 96-0001 - Dr. Davis - - (Nadine) > Public Hearing - Right-of-Way Vacation - SW Torland Court (Will) > Review Findings: Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (Engineering, Police Department, Bev Froude) (r. i' 3 { Lam.. _ i ~ - f - (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 12, 1996 f ` Type: Business (TV) F i Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting ^ Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes Business Meeting: i f' (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) r Date: November 19, 1996 I Type: Workshop (No TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Workshop Meeting Topics: > CIT Communications (Liz) > Update: Metro 2040 (Jim) > Report: Employee Wellnoe Y-~..ogCs,;, (Sandy) > RRtportda P F •n ring FeeC Schedule n. o C ui u ~ Ratification (Engineering) i I_ t i. t 1 J i 1 (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: November 26, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes Business Meeting: a ~ Y i t 15 f (Note: Items underlined are associated with the Council's Goals or are scheduled to follow- up a Council matter or request.) Date: December 10, 1996 Type: Business (TV) Start Time: 6:30 p.m. Study Meeting 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting u Study Session: > Agenda Review Consent Agenda: > Approve Council Minutes Business Meeting: f > Public Hea ring: Complete 99W Analysis, Adopt Findings and Design Standards (Jim) > Public Hearing - Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment - i CPA 94-0002/ZON 940002 (Nadine) , . I r° L~ - p, F 1. - ITEMS PENDING - DATES TO BE SCHEDULED n • Finalize Long Range Plan - Cook Park (Bill, Jim) • Transportation Comprehensive PlanChanges (Jim) ort on Information ff R St ili i ep a t es • Surface Water Quality Treatment Fac Requested by Council on September 1995 (Engineering Dept.) • OPEU Contract Negotiations - approval of new contract (Sandy) - COMPLETED • Dartmouth LID Financing Hearing (Gary, Wayne) • Items to be scheduled after CiCity Vision Statement process is completed by Council: > > • Half Street Improvement Policy (Engineering) r January 1997: • Develop Annexation Policy; especially for island areas (Jim) • Integrate Council into Computer System (Paul DeBruyn) • Develop Long-Term Water Resources (Ed, Bill) • Review City's Street-Light Policy (Engineering) • Schedule Council Goal Setting Session June 1997: • Rewrite Tigard Development Code - Buffering (Jim) • Engineering Fees (Engineering Dept.) • Finalize Visioning Process - Implement (Liz, Loreen) • Evaluate Use of Traffic Calming Devices - S.W. North Dakota (Engineering) • Finalize Sewer Extension Program (Engineering) Ongoing (as needed) • Consider Issues of Affordable Housing • Support Passenger Rail Service Planning through Tigard roach to Working/Dealing with Metro ard'c A Ti • Define/Develo g p pp • Secure Long-Term Water Supply Note: CIT facilitators and resource teams meet with Council for 1 hour at the work session meetings in January, April and September. E All Workshop Meetings - schedule a time for CIT updates and Metro 2040 Updates. f ftinkalhyVenlagm t i ® AGENDA ITEM # . 3 3 FOR AGENDA OF September 10. 1996 ® CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Approve Mark Cottle as the Fact Washington County City Emergency Medical Service Policy Representative I 1 PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley' DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMINOK ISSUE BEFORE. THE COUNCIL h . Should the Council confirm Mark Cottle as the East Washington County Emergency Services Policy Board Representative? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Confirm the appointment of Mark Cottle as noted above. INFORMATION SUMMARY 'ttached is a letter from Joanne McGilvra Hoyt, EMS Coordinator for the Washington County Emergency Medical Services. Ms. Hoyt requests Council review and, if it concurs, confirm the appointment of Mark Cottle as the East Washington County Emergency Services Policy Board Representative. East Washington 3 County cities include: Tigard, Sherwood, Tualatin, Beaverton, King City, Durham and Wilsonville. One correction was noted by Ms. Hoyt in a recent telephone conversation with the City Recorder: If appointed, { this will be Mr. Cottle's second and last term as there is a two-tern limit. i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Consider another name for nomination. FISCAL. NOTES n/a - iAcitywidc\sumkms.doc i t ~ r s `F7 CITY CI _TIGARD ORECOiV 41 September 11, 1996 Joanne McGilrva Hoyt EMS Coordinator Washington County EMS Office 111 N.E. Lincoln Hillsboro, OR 97124 - Bear Ms. Hoyt: Enclosed is the form you requested indicating the Tigard City Council's support of Mark Cottle as the Eastern Washington County City representative on the EMS Policy F Board. City Council action on this matter took place on September 11, 1996. f H you need anything further, please contact me. Sincerely, C~ Catherine Wheatley City Recorder 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 d t AI MININk WASHINGTON 6 COUNTY, OREGON August 15, 1996 1 !1~1i 1 t r_rz t AUG Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Tigard, OR 97223 Dear City Manager Monahan, 1 This letter is to request you place before your Council the name of Mark Cottle, Councilor, City of Sherwood, as the eastern Washington County City representative on the EMS Policy Board and request their favorable action to elect Mark Cottle to the position. If elected, Mr. Cottle's term would begin July 1, 1996 and end June 30, 1998 at which time he will be eligible for a second two year term. Mark Cottle was selected by representatives of the eastern Washington County Cities, for the position i in response to being contacted by Gordon Faber, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, EMS Policy Board member representing the western Washington County Cities, as the mid- term city EMS Policy Board member. Please indicate the action of your Council on the enclosed form and send it to the EMS Office or send a copy of the minutes of your Council indicating the action taken F~ on this matter. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. S, rely, CZ~~ i oanne McGilvra Hoyt EMS Coordinator enclosure: form Emergency Medical Services Juvenile Services Building, Suite 120L • 111 N.E. Lincoln Street, MS 23 • Hillsboro, OR 97124 • phone: (503) 648.8637 f a ~l ct-r - -j uty i ' Cuundt On the City Gauscel of the i date O 1 A Cam' met and voted to confirm f city t tQf't~ l.c~ ~ as the east Washington ~ name of appointee (Mark Cottle) County City Emergency Medical Services Policy Board representative for the term July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1998 tern. - i ;5/:M:~ -ayor i City- i As soon as possible, please return to: Washington County EMS Office Juvenile Services Bld., MS 23 111 NE Lincoln Hillsboro, OR 97124 Thank you. Note: a copy of the minutes which records your Council's action in appointing Mr. Cottle may be substituted for the form. 3 AGENDA ITEM # t , FOR AGENDA OF September 10, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Water Meter Installation Charges PREPARED BY: M. Miller DEPT HEAD OK V~ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shafl the City amend the current water meter installation charges to reflect increases in costs associated with the installation of water services and meters? 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution which amends the current water service and meter installation charges. { INFORMATION SUMMARY Since 1990, the Water Division has only adjusted the costs associated with the actual installation of water rvices and water meters once. This adjustment took place in May 1993 for 5/8" x 3/4" and 1" water meters. F 1 1/2" and 2" water meter installation fees have not been increased since 1990. The current charges for water meter installations within the Tigard Water Service Area are based on the actual average costs to install and set a water meter. Although the labor and equipment costs for water services and meters have not increased significantly sine 1993, increases in material costs do warrant a corresponding increase in water meter rates. Under this proposal new water meter and service installation charges for a 5/8" x 3/4" would remain at the current price. However, the meter charges for the 1", 11/2" and 2" water meters would be increased. By increasing the installation fees as proposed, the City will be able to recover the total costs associated with the installation of these common meter sizes. For a I" water meter, the installation charge increases from $435 to $570, a 31% increase. For a 1 1/2" water meter, the installation charge increases from $715 to $830, an increase of 16%. For a 2" water meter, the installation charge increases from $945 to $985, an increase of 4%. d Effective date: November 1, 1996. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action and leave the installation fees as is, and continue to subsidize the installation fees from the Watcr eneral Fund. i 71 1 ~ ; FISCAL NOTES For illustrative purposes, if we were to project the same number of meters to be installed as in the last fiscal year, without increasing the installation fees for these meters, revenue from installation fees would not cover installation expenses by $13,915. ✓pt i I F ' h`.L~a'aM`mtmmidoc F' I f. 4 t - F l i y. 4 s tr, AC Fc CITY OF TIGARD, - COUNCIL AGENDA ITE ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE, Award of Construction Contract fi LE PREPARED BY: Gus Duenas DEPT HEAD OK ISSJE BEFORE THE Should the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, award t Improvements. STAFF R OMM Nr 1. That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject the 2. That the project be rebid in February or March of next year a project and paving under another. INFORMATION On August 29, 1996, bids were opened as follows: Kerr Contractors, Inc., Tualatin, Oregon, Bid Amount: $ Engineer's Estimate: $40,800 The purpose of this project is to pave the lower parking lot at thi the area between the lower parking lot and the building. This pi Development Block Grant, and HUD requirements have to be fc available for the project with a strong possibility of obtaining an if needed. The bid amount is $25,000 over the funding that can bidder on the project. The paving portion of the bid appe, exceptionally high. We can expect bids at this time of the year work to complete before the summer ends. However, the landsca i and rebidding the project as two separate projects in the Spring in much lower bids for the landscaping segment. Landscaping cc the landscaping portion without having to deal with the paving a project into two separate projects for bid advertisement in the Spi OTHER ALTERNATIVES Award of the project with $25,000 in local funding being added t FISCAL NOTE The project budget is $22,335 with $17,645 available from Feder in-kind contributions. There is a strong possibility that an additi Federal sources. The indications from Washington County are C r this project. oCnYW1 D EZU W SCSUM. DOC _i~_J i ITEM # 3. 5 0. Mda of September 10. 1996 ON 4MARY Tigard Senior Center Exterior Improvements CITY ADMIN OK bVhqy`- d C` T T' tract for the Tigard Senior Center Exterior lY d submitted for this project. z-parate projects with landscaping under one .00 r Center, and create a landscaped garden in s primarily funded through the Community 1. There is currently approximately $22,000 nal $18,000 to $20,000 in Federal Funding, tained for this project. There was only one sonable, but the landscaping portion is abnormally high as most contractors have )id is unreasonably high. Rejecting the bids enhance the bidding atmosphere and result )rs should be more amenable to bidding on Rejection of the bid and repackaging of the 7ecommended. roject. ces, $3,290 from local funds, and $1,400 in 18,000 to $20,000 could be obtained from funding would still be available next year J J a r 1 CITY OF TIGARD y. 4 JANITORIAL BIDS Listed below are the monthly costs for janitorial services for the Civic Center, Niche, Water Building, Public F Works, and the Senior Center. The contract will be for one year with the option of renewing for up to three years. COMPANY MONTHLY COST I Pony Express 3,176.00 A.C.E. Janitorial 3,195.88 I First Quality Janitorial 3,830.00 AM/PM Maintenance 4,060.00 Service Masters of Tigard/Newberg 4,224.00 Unequalled Janitorial 4,894.00 Wervice Masters of SW Portland 4 901 , .00 Oregon Home & Janitorial 5,785.00 Cascade Building Maintenance 7,706.00 3 True Service Company 8,218.81 r c AGENDA ITEM # 3. 5 G FOR AGENDA OF -September 10. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Archite tual rvicec for the xpamion of City Hall at the Police n nartme PREPARED BY: G N Berrv DEPT HEAD OK ~hg CITY ADMIN OK I U SS E BEFORE THE .O tN I Shall the contract to provide architectual services for the expansion of City Hall be awarded? S TAFF R OMM NDATION That the contract be awarded to Hanson, Dunahugh, Nicholson Architects PC. INFORMATION S IMMARy Pursuant to recently adopted personal service contract rules, a request for statements of qualifications from ualified architectual firms was published. Of the five firms responding, the following firms were interviewed staff. r. HDN Architects PC, Portland Or. Ingrim Architecture PC, Tigard Or. I Peck Smiley Ettlin Architects, Portland Or. The recommended architect, HDN Architects, has completed several other projects for the City including remodeling of Police Department offices, the most recent library addition, and the preliminary design for this project, OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL. NOTES Architectual fees are included in the budget for the building expansion project. ppd-h li~l 1 2 1996 July 1Q 1996 CITY OF TIGARD City of Tigard Engineering Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223-8199 Subject: Fees for Phase I and II Addition and Remodel of Police Department The following are estimates of architectural and engineering fees for Phase I and 11. These fees are for full service (design development, working drawings, bidding and observation) including architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical services in both phases. Printing of documents and specifications will be extra at our costs plus 15% markup. Phase I work: 2844 sq.ft. of addition with a budget approximately $285,000.00 Fee $23,940.00 Add for additional parking spaces budget approximately $22,000.00 In existing parlang lot Fee $1,200.00 Phase 11: Remodel of 2200 sq.ft. Of existing area within the existing building and cyclone fence around Police parking area. Approx. budget $94,000.00. I Phase II work will have spec's on drawings Fee $9,200.00 We understand that Phase I work would start in the near future and that Phase II will start in early 1997. 4 Please feel free to call me with any questions. Since ly, Russell K. anson ~ I ~11'il Hanson Dunahueh Nicholson Architcas pc • Architecture. Urban Design and Planning With offices located m: '_IS Nnrthucst Park Avenue. Portland, ncceon 972_0`)-1316 Telephone' X5(131 224-Ill 10 Fax: (5031 224-5948 % f MO{TN(•TI LO )Ol O))1 )1 )00I )fix ))0)N ).{0{'));ON t)t 11 -cQ_ VL q/i al q~ Mr. William Monahan METRO September 3, 1996 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Monahan: want to share with you my recommendation to the Metro Council regarding Urban Reserves. It is clear because of your attendance at an open house regarding the urban reserve study ! areas you have an interest in the final decision that will be made by the Metro Council. As the Executive Officer of Metro, it is my job to make policy recommendations to the Council, and as the policy body for the region, the final decision is the Council's. My recommendation to the Metro Council for the urban reserve study areas were very different than the Council chose to adopt. I recommended 13,790 acres, and the Council adopted 22,450 acres as urban reserve study areas. I also recommended that minimum natural resource land be included in the urban reserve study areas, and the Council adopted over 5,000 acres of natural resource land be designated at urban reserve study areas. My recommendation to the Metro Council, briefly, is: • No natural resource land that does not meet state law requirements of being surrounded on three sides by other than natural resource land. • Designate the minimum amount of urban reserve for a 30-50 year land supply - 14,000 acres. • 575 acres in Clackamas County redisignated to employment use to balance jobs and housing. • Masterplan urban reserves. • Urban Reserve Study Areas not designated urban reserves should be designated Rural Reserves. • Not one inch to be brought in to the Urban Growth Boundary that is not master planned to 2040 concept standards. The decision now belongs to the Metro Council, and any thoughts or concerns should be directed to the Council. Their number is 797-1540. ;i Thank you for your commitment to our region. Best regards, e Burton - ~ Executive Officer 797-1502 MB:ck i:~executivetrbanresv%ursaophs.doc _ 7 ,i aeo :o:rna.ffr e:n:o •rr:uf I •n:e o. o:a::e arfrf frfa f rn for re> tree :•:fef rfr rrar M ETRO 4 Executive Officer Recommendation 1 0 j Urban Reserves Sept. 3, 1996 The issue of urban reserves is being brought to you today as one more important growth management ' milestone that is mandated by state law. That state law, which has guided Oregon faithfully for nearly 30 years, requires that Metro designate urban reserves as part of our growth management responsibility. The recommendation I am bringing forward to you today is based on those factors imbedded in state law that clearly emphasize the protection of agricultural and natural resource land. Before I get into my actual recommendation, bear with me while I utter what will become a constant (perhaps somewhat tiresome) refrain: Urban reserves are not the same thing as the urban growth . boundary. There's been considerable confusion among the public about those two related, but distinctly separate, growth management decisions. So one of my goals for the next few months is to reiterate, remind and re-emphasize: Urban reserves and the urban growth boundary are not the same thing. +"dJan reserves form the long-range (30 to 50 years) land supply for the metropolitan area. They are -_l outside the current urban growth boundary, and their purpose is to identify which lands eventually may become urbanized. The urban growth boundaEy provides for a 20-year land supply within the metropolitan area. If, at some point, the Metro Council decides to expand the UGB, the acres would be selected from areas that are within the urban reserves. s I continue to strongly support the commitment from local governments that there is no need to expand the UGB at this time. I also continue to advocate for as small an urban reserve as possible, with a resounding emphasis on keeping natural resource lands out of urban reserves. In addition, I urge the Council to act quickly on the urban reserve policy decision. To continue Oregon's long-standing history of forward-thinking and planning ahead, this region needs to begin the work ! . associated with urban reserves. I am speaking primarily of the need to do master planning within the urban . reserve areas that are selected. It is my continued belief that not a single acre should ever be brought inside the urban growth boundary unless it has been master planned to meet the 2040 growth concept standards. Small urban reserve recommended The Metro Council directed last December that 23,000 acres be studied for suitability as urban reserves. My recommendation today is based on an analysis of that 23,000-acre urban reserve study area. t r - Executive O@"iar Recommendation ' Man Reserve Decision Page 2 I am recommending that the Metro Council adopt 14,000 acres of urban reserves. Of that 14 000 acres I , , recommend that only 800 acres of natural resource lands be included. The only reason I advocate for natural resource land is because those specific 800 acres already are surrounded by urbanization. It makes sense, and meets state requirements for exce tions th t th p , a ose acres be placed within urban reserves. i Also part of my recommendation is to re-designate 575 acres of land within the urban reserve study area from residential to employment uses. This would provide a better balance of jobs and housing primarily in , Clackamas County where there is more housing than jobs. Basis of recommendation My recommendation as Executive Officer is based upon five major factors, which, again, are mandated by state law. The five factors as required by the state's u b , r an reserve rule, are: 1. Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services 2. Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area I 3. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences 4. Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority - 5. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities The weighting of those factors, however, is a critical policy decision facing the Metro Council. In my recommendation, I have chosen what I consider to be the most logical use of those factors, which is to assign them an equal weight of 20 percent each. Since two of the five factors involve agricultural lands , this method provides significant consideration to the preservation of farm and forest lands. ; 1 The role of urban reserves T'ne acres that will be designated as urban reserves will serve an extremely vaiuabie roie in the region's long-term livability. Some of the reasons for having urban reserves include: (1) Urban reserve designations are required by law Urban reserves are required by state law. In addition, urban reserves are directly or indirectly required in several important Metro documents. For example, the Metro Charter requires that Metro protect lands outside the urban growth boundary for "natural resource, future urban or other uses." Metro also made a commitment in the Regional Urban Growth Goals d Ob i ' an ject ves (RUGGO s) to designate them, and Metro's Code (Chapter 3) already makes provisions for the implementation of urban reserves. (2) Urban reserves protect resource lands Urban reserves protect farmland by indicating which areas adjacent to the current urban growth boundary are likely to be urbanized t 1 a some point in the future. Farmers whose land is not designated as an urban Executive Officer Recommendation Reserve Decision -g. 3 reserve can continue agricultural uses confident that inve: be recouped. Wise designation of urban reserves - inclue land is the single most important step to take toward sa reso tr ! (3) Urban reserves control speculation a One of the major economic benefits of urban reserves is t } Bear in mind that while there always will be land spec designating which land is likely to become urbanized speculation. By not designating urban reserves, all lai speculation. That is particularly unfortunate for good continuing agricultural uses rather than being swallowed it (4) Urban reserves support rural reserves Urban reserves support rural reserves. Rural reserves development within the foreseeable (30 to 50 years) demonstrated that lands already have been designated fo reserve designation, rural land that has no business b 1 %.Tteing brought into the urban growth boundary. (5) Urban reserves support master planning for the 204 I believe that not a single acre should be brought into the meet 2040 standards. Urban reserve designations and mass designated urban reserve areas will allow easier transition communities throughout the region. Urban reserves should b Urban reserves, when adopted, will establish where future possible, however, that urban reserves could remain outs another 15 years or so. It is crucial that we not wait until tl continue our long-standing Oregonian tradition of thinking State administrative rules required that urban reserves be d obtained two extensions to allow the 2040 process to be cc and it is time for Metro to complete the work required by s 9 Conclusion As the Growth Management Committee and the Metro Coi add some final thoughts. i i is in new stock and machinery are likely to :alously guarding every acre of asriculhyraj and preserving this region's valuable natty ai ey reduce the amount of land speculation. in - that's the nature of that business - on a long -way t--ward squelching that tside and near the- UGB are subject to :ultural sites, which should be used for : urban area. areas in which Metro assumes no urban e, can be better supported if it can be -term future urban land needs. Without a rbanized at some point would be in danger awth concept idary unless it has been master planned to wring go hand-in-hand. Master planning in urban development and help build livable ided now nsion can or cannot happen. It is entirely e present UGB and not be developed for acre inside the boundary is used. We must Banning ahead. tted by December 1993. Metro has ted. The growth concept is now adopted, tw. :onsider urban reserves, I would like to Executive Officer Recommendation Urban Reserve Decision Page 4 I urge the Council to make its decision carefully and to consider all opportunities to protect resource lands. While we are bound by state laws and policies that have encouraged this approach, we must continue to help ensure that our region, as well as Oregon, remains different from other metropolitan regions around the country. In addition to preserving natural resource lands, Metro should continue to support and maintain a compact 3 region. This means designating the minimum amount of urban reserves necessary to meet cxpec--ted need. If too much land is placed in urban reserves, the reality is that we cannot retrace our steps. We cannot "subtract" land from the urban area once it has been placed in urban reserves. 4 I alsosecommend that whatever acres within the 23,000-acre urban reserve study area that are not selected as urban reserves be placed into the category of rural reserves - further protecting them from both urban and rural sprawl. The analysis and technical information developed by staff contain a great deal of essential information for master planning. The cost of services, the amount of buildable lands, and assumed densities are all included. As soon as the Council decides on tirban reserves, it is my recommendation that the Council should, in conjunction with our local partners, prioritize those areas that should be master planned in the immediate future. Only then will the region be assured that we are well on our way to achieving the 2040 growth concept. AMA, It will be noted that most of the urban reserves in my recommendation are within Clackamas County. The reason is that most of the growth projected to occur will be in Washington and Clackamas counties. Our technical analysis shows that Washington County already has a substantial amount of buildable land inside the urban growth boundary that will accommodate new growth. Clackamas County, on the other hand, contains relatively little. My final point is that I fully recognize the difficulty of the decisions facing the Council on urban reserves. T here are a few cases, such as those in the Comeliusti orest Grove area, where there are strong arguments j for inclusion in urban reserves. I chose to base my recommendation on specific, numerical criteria - and therefore did not include the Cornelius/Forest Grove area - but am acutely aware of the need for an industrial designation of land near Cornelius. Some land near there should be given close scrutiny to determine whether the area should be given an exemption. Thank you for your consideration of my Executive Officer recommendation. My staff and I continue to be available to assist the Council in its policy-making deliberations. AGENDA ITEM # i` For Agenda of September 10, 122 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ti COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Non-Profit Corporation Low-Tncome Housing PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE B O , R H COUNCIL Shall the Council adopt the process and criteria for Non-Profit Corporation Low-Income Housing set forth in ORS 307.540 - 307.547. STAFF R . OMME DATrQN Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance which establishes the process and the criteria. INFORMATION SUMMAR One of the Council goals is to "Consider Issues of Affordable Housing". The uncil has been approached by several parties wanting to purchase and then model apartments in the City to improve the housing available to Low- Income citizens. The most recent organization is a non-profit corporation called Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH). They have requested a property tax exemption from the City of Tigard and from the School District. Oregon Revised Statutes allow the granting of property tax exemptions for this type of project provided the governing body has adopted the criteria j set forth in ORS 307.540 - 307.547. The attached ordinance establishes a ~ • new section of the Tigard Municipal Code which contains the criteria , established in the statutes and the process to be followed to apply for the - - exemption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not adopt the criteria. j Change the criteria and then adopt. - - FISCAL NOTES f i i AGENDAITEM# FOR AGENDA OF_ September 10, 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE CPA 96-0002 (AKA Business Services Inc.) 42 PREPARED BY: Nels Mickaelson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE O N II, Should the Council adopt the final resolution to deny a comprehensive plan text amendment proposed by AKA k ` Business Services Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the final resolution for denial be approved by Council INFORMATION SUMMARY n August 13, 1996 the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny a request for a comprehensive Can text amendment to add a new policy which modifies the locational criteria for the expansion of General. Commercial Areas. _ i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approval of the request. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. I. ` is\citywide\sum.dot v AGENDA ITEM # 77 1 For Agenda of September 10. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation ZCA 96-0005 ScLndi em I j PREPARED BY_ Nels Mickaelson DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK f ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council forward to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission a request to initiate annexation of one parcel consisting of 0.33 acres located at the Southeast corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation request to the Boundary Commission and to assign a zone designation to the properties in conformance with the city comprehensive plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed annexation consists of territory comprised of one parcel of land totaling 0.33 acres. Because the territory is located within Tigard's active planning area and has already been assigned a comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Residential, the City Council only need assign a Tigard zone designation to the property. Attached is a resolution initiating annexation and an ordinance to change the zone designation from Washington County R-5 to Tigard R-4.5. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CQNSIDERED Deny the request. f FISCAL NOTES t Since the territory is within Tigard's active planning area, the city is responsible for the Boundary Commission application fee of $225. 1ACITYWIDE\SUMIZCA96.05.SUM Eau!) i ! y r" STAFF REPORT EXHIBITA September 10,1996 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Info[mation CASE: Zone Change Annexation 96-0005 " REQUEST: To annex one parcel of .33 acres of unincorporated Washington County land to the City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County R-5 to City of Tigard R-4.5. i i APPLICANT: Maryrose Sanders j 12390 SW 106th Ave t Tigard, OR 97223 r OWNERS: Same i LOCATION: At Southeast corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive - WCTM 2S1 3 AA, lot 1916 (see vicinity exhibit map). 2. Vicinity Information ` f Properties to the north, south, east and west are in Washington County and zoned R-5. These parcels have single family residences on them. 3. Background Information The applicant approached the city with a request to annex the property. No previous applications have been reviewed by the city relating to this property. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The site is sloped to the north with a gentle rise toward the southern end. There is one single family house on the southern portion of the site. The site is located on 1 the corner of SW Johnson St. and SW 106th Avenue which are both local streets. The site has approximately 100 feet of frontage along SW Johnson Street and 150 feet along SW 106th Avenue. The applicant has requested that the site be annexed to the city by means of the i double majority method. Representing the owners of more than half the land (100%) and a majority of the registered electors (100%) of the area proposed to be a annexed, the applicant has initiated this action through her written consent. The ; j y applicant intends to obtain sewer service after annexation to the city. ~ The proposal includes the request to initiate annexation to the city and to change the zone only on the property. Because the property is in the city's Active Planning ;i Area, it has already been assigned a Tigard Comprehensive Plan designation, which is Low Density Residential. 5. Agency Comments The Engineering Division, Tigard Police and Water departments, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, PGE and General Telephone have reviewed the proposal and have no objections. No other comments were received at the time of this report. b✓ B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS t The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, i. 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.136 and 18.138. - Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of f- the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policy 2.1.1, requiring an ongoing citizen involvement program, is satisfied y because the Central and West CITs and surrounding property owners have been notified of the hearing and public notice of the hearing has been published. 2. Policy 10.1.1, requiring adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels, is satisfied because the Police Department, Engineering, Water a Department, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District have reviewed the proposal and indicate that adequate services are available and may be extended to accommodate the affected property. i ! 3. Policy 10.1.2, boundary criteria for annexations, is satisfied because the Police Department has been notified of this request and has no objection; the affected land is located within the city's urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary; and adequate services are available to accommodate the property. 4. Policy 10.1.4, zoning designation, is satisfied because the affected parcel will be designated as R-4.5, which is the most closely conforming zoning designation to the existing Washington County zoning of R-5. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based on the following findings: 1. Code Section 18.136.030, requiring approval standards for annexation proposals, is satisfied because: ' a. Service providers have indicated that adequate facilities and services are available and have sufficient capacity to serve the affected site. b. Applicable comprehensive plan policies and code provisions have been reviewed and satisfied. C. The zoning designation of R-4.5 most closely conforms to the county designation of R-5 while implementing the city's Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. d. The determination that the affected property is an established area is 3 based on the standards in Chapter 18.138 of the code. ! 2. Code Section 18.138, providing standards for the classification of annexed land, is satisfied because the property shall be designated as an established area on the development standard areas map of the comprehensive plan. f C. RECOMMENDATION F Based on the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends approval of ZCA 96-0005. IaLRPLN W ELSIZCA96.05.STF WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a hearing on September 10, 1996, to consider the annexation of one parcel consisting of 0.33 acres located at the Southeast corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. 41 WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundar Commi i V y ss on law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the property which lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be automatically withdrawn from those districts immediately upon completion of the annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The City Council, pursuant to ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B), hereby initiates proceedings for annexation to the City of Tigard of the territory described in Exhibit A and illustrated in Exhibit B. Section 2: The City Council hereby approves the proposed annexation and requests that the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission approve the proposal and effect it as soon as possible. Section 3: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the resolution with ~ the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once. PASSED: This day of 1996. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder,- City of Tigard Date 3 I aCITYWIOE\RES%ZCA96-05. RES RESOLUTION NO. 96- Page 1 sl- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96-- AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0005). WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on September 10, 1996, to consider a zoning designation for one parcel of land located at the Southeast corner of Johnson Street and 106th Drive. WHEREAS, on September 10, 1996, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the e proposed annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission; and WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Low Density Residential. : J i THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected property shall be designated as follows: l Tax Map. Lot Number Current Zoning New Zoning d 2S1 03 AN lot 1916 Wash. Co. R-5 Tigard R-4.5 i >a SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, j signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1996. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder a APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of 1996. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date 11CITY W I DE\ORD%ZCA96-05.0 RD ORDINANCE No. 96-_ Page 1 k w i I 'INN ZCA96-0005 Sanders Annexation L 11 ® ANNEXATION AND ZONE CFW FROM COUNTY R.5 TO CRY Rd.5 PND COM'REFENSIVE PLAN GRANDE FROM COUNtt R-5 TO CRY LCNV DFNSffY. AN WITHIN TIGARD CITY LIMITS ; I J + AGENDA ITEM # ' FOR AGENDA OF September 10. 1996 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amend Water System Development Charges and Methodology PREPARED BY: M. Miller DEPT HEAD OK / CITY ADMIN OK _IA~ ' r ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City amend the current Water System Development Charges (SDCs) and adopt the methodology used to calculate the Water SDCs used in the Water SDC study? - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution which amends the current Water SDC fee schedule. INFORMATION SUMMARY The current charges for water SDCs are based on a study completed in June 1990. A number of the projects Contained in the 1990 W r C t it l I P a e ap a mprovement rogram have been completed and it is time to reevaluate and adjust the Water SDC fee schedule to meet the needs of continued growth. The objective of a SDC is not merely to generate money for the City, but to ensure fair and equitable financing is available to support needed capital additions. By imposing an updated SDC fee schedule on new development, the City ensures that new development continues to reimburse current customers for their payments for existing excess capacity and contribute to the cost of constructing new capacity. Through the implementation of fair and equitable SDCs1 j existing and future customers will not be unduly burdened with the cost of new development. A survey of neighboring cities indicates that Tigard's current water SDCs are one of the lowest of any city in the area. Revising the fees to the levels recommended would still place the City's 410 service zone as one of the lowest and place the Bull Mountain system in the mid-range. For example, a 5/8" x 3/4" water meter, within the 410 service zone, the SDCs will increase from $845 to $986. This is an increase of 17%. For a 5/8" x 3/4" water meter, within the Bull Mountain system, the SDCs will increase from $1,000 to $1,507. This represents a 51 % increase. Effective date: November I, 1996. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not amend the current Water SDC fee schedule. j f l k i FISCAL NOTES Without increasing the water SDC fee schedule, the City will not be able to complete the water capital projects } as identified in the five year water capital improvement plan. Simply stated, growth or new users will not be paying for growth. n' _._....-.,o, a-.!+ _ _ .F Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland 503/684-1880 Fax # 503/684-0588 15555 S.W. Bangy Rd., Suite 301 • Lake Oswego, OR 97035 September 10, 1996 V) r i HCJr, , ~CS~i ry~U c,l 1 Tigard City Council Av ndi Tf., v= Ci f Ti d ty o gar 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed System Development Charge increase for water service in the City of Tigard. I am sorry that I am unable to testify in person, but I am addressing another issue in a different jurisdiction this evening. Please accept these written comments as my testimony. Y The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland does not have any major objections to the proposed System Development Charge increase. We appreciate the City of Tigard's efforts to keep the rising cost of SDC's low and hope you will continue to work diligently to do so. We do have one major recommendation. Since the SDC report we received does not indicate what date this increase becomes effective, we would strongly suggest you wait r until January 1, 1997. The winter months are a natural breaking point for the building industry and by choosing this date, you would not be placing the increase on those builders who are just completing their projects this fall. These builders have estimated t( j their costs based on the old SDC rate and we believe it would be unfair to saddle them 1 with a SDC increase this late in their project. A January start date would allow enough i time for builders to be made aware of the increase and to factor it into their costs. It y would also allow builders finishing their projects at this time to do so on budget. 1 It is important to remember that ultimately, SDC increases end up coming out of the pocket of the home buyer. Each time SDC's are increased, the cost of a new home also rises and affordable housing goes down. Again, we appreciate Tigard's efforts to provide fair System Development Charges. Sincerely, Kevin E. Curry Assistant Director 5 Local Government Affairs NNW 9 t MEMCaRANDUM ' 05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Fred VanNtana, Oregon State Home Builders Association via Facsimile Transmission: 503-585-8547 FROM. ( Wheatley. 'ry Recorda~(~/" 1 DATE: August 29, 1996 j f j SUBJECT: Water System Development Charges (SDC's) - Proposed changes to the 1111 water SDC's and to the methodology pertaining to the calculation of these SDC's. Mr. VanN arts, thank you for leaving the a voice mail message concerning a hearing we have I , scheduled for September 10, 1996. You advised you had no objection to the hearing proceeding if l 1 the local chapter of the Home Builders Association was notified of the hearing. Mr. Mike Miller in ~ . } our Public Works DepaMnent has been in contact with Mr. Kzvin Clary of the Home Builders { Association of Metropolitan Portland. As you suggested, l am sending this memorandum to you via fax 1 uadastaad that we also are to remove your name from the notification list (per ORS 223.304 (5)) so long as the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland are on the nodfication list and they are on this list Please sign the statement where indicated below and I will add this to our SDC notification file. Thank you for your assistance. l Ae Oregon State Home Builders Association has no objection to the hearing proceeding on September 10, 1996, before the 27gard Ctry Council to consider changes to the Water System Development Charges and Charge in Methodology to Calculate These SDC s In addltton, the Dragon State Home Builders Association 1 requests that they be removed from the notification 1 so long at the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portl on at, atfcafion list. _ F anNatra Oregon State Hone Builders Association i5 (~~1 '1aR7 Dare f 1 11 - ~ TO 3°"d _p~or.-~_ o.•_r ?CrT.per 01 } ¢ A F CITY OF TIGARD, COUNCIL AGENDA ITE ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Consider Integovemmental Agr( Communication Network Internet Access Communication De PREPARED BY: Paul deBruyn DEPT HEAD OK _ ISSUE BEFORE THE Should the Council Approve an Intergovernmental Agreement Internet Access, Communication Devices and Computer Equip: STAFF RECOMMET Approval INFORMATION StI This is an Intergovernmental Agreement among several Wash employee access to the Internet including Internet e-mail ev 3 purchase of necessary computer equipment and the distributioi quipment maintenance, and support fees from the Internet Ser e World Wide Web is valuable and useful to every departmei financial information, vendor contracts, GIS data exchange, an basis. OTHER ALTERNATIVES In 1995 the equivalent access capability, with no email, and charges of this agreement. FISCAL NOT The computer equipment was budgeted and paid for last fiscal been budgeted. These charges are $400 per month for 24-hour City of Tigard inventory. This reduces to a charge of $2 per me As other agencies join the consortium, their fees will contribute i:\adm\citywidc\pdb.doc I NDA ITEM # ~llottl- 9Qn~CL, i agenda of 10111 i i EGON iUMMARY ent Regarding the Shared Use of the Public s and Computer Equipment CITY ADMIN OK )UNCIL the use of the Public Communication Network, it? kTION QARY ton and Clackamas County agencies to provide City employee. The Agreement provides for F on-going monthly charges for telephone lines, Provider. The ability to access the Internet and t the City. Some uses include law enforcement, )mmunication with other agencies on a national iN ID ED Library access only was double the monthly The monthly charges for this fiscal year have I day, unlimited usage for every computer in the i per computer for e-mail and unmetered access. the costs of equipment upgrades. 1 i. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT USE OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION NETWORK, INTERNET COMMUNICATION DEVICES AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT ered into by and between the units of local government; E local government, and districts listed in Appendix A, which is ;regiment by this reference. Each entity listed shall be referred to as i authorizes each Participant to enter into this Agreement for the ill functions and activities that each Participant has authority to )ant finds it desirous to enter into this Agreement; ticipant agrees as follows: ['HE AGREEMENT !nt will allow each of the Participants to: e usage of advanced technology such as the Internet; I the equipment and services associated with interfacing/accessing net: V b. Equally share in the costs of purchase and installation of a 256 K fractional 11 T-1 Frame Relay connection to the Internet This service will be provided by a selected Internet Provider. 2. City of Hillsboro Responsibilities. The City of Hillsboro will make available a Sun Server as well as an NT server to support Internet services for participants during the duration of this agreement The City agrees to provide on-going support and maintenance to the NT server. 3. Washington County - Support Services Responsibilities. Support Services will house the Internet equipment or replacements and associated software in the County's data center for the duration of this agreement 4. Washington County - Cooperative Library Services Responsibilities. 1 Cooperative Library Services will provide access and use of a Cisco 2501 router i for connection to fractional T-1 Frame Relav connection to the Internet for the duration of this Agreement III. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES 1. All Participants. Each Participant agrees to: y a. Maintain secure computer connections to the shared broadband minimum infrastructure configuration in accordance with the Procedures Manual. b. Use the shared Wide Area Network in a manner that will not impair other Participants' use of the Wide Area Network and the Internet connection. j c. Meet on a regular basis, or as required, with all Participants in this 1 Agreement to establish and modify procedures for use of the sham broadband channel and the Internet connection. The group shall be called the Broadband Users Group. j d. Appoint a person to act as a "Liaison" for this Agreement who shall have authority to execute the Procedures Manual and any amendments to that document and be the BUG Member. M COMPENSATION 1. Initial Payment All Participants shall contribute five thousand nine hundred fifty-eight dollars and ninety-eight cents ($5958.98) ("Initial Payment') to be included as a Participant in this Agreement This will cover the initial cost of the Internet server and firewall software. Any unexpended money will be retained PAGE 2 - INTERNET IGA JULY 12,1996 455 PM 1 i C I, and used to upgrade the server and associated hardware and software, as authorized by majority vote of BUG members. 2. New Participant(s). Any new party that wishes to become a Participant in this Agreement must be approved by a majority of the existing Participants and t must pay an initial fee to be defined at time of application. This payment will be required regardless of the length of time remaining in this Agreement 3. Ongoing Maintenance. All Participants agree to share equally in the on-going costs of maintenance as well as maintaining a connection to the Internet The equipment including all hardware and software shall be listed in an attached equipment schedule. The schedule shall be updated as new equipment is purchased. 4. Initial Payment Refund. The Initial Payment is nonrefundable re ardless of the g withdraw of participation by any Participant or termination of this Agreement i . V. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1. City of Hillsboro responsibilities. The City of Hillsboro will: ' a. All expenses will be paid by the City of Hillsboro. The City of Hillsboro ill i h w nvoice t e other participants as outlined in IV. 3., including a copy of the original invoice. b. Follow accounting and financial management procedures as outlined in the Procedures Manual and in accordance with its purchasing rules. Should there be a conflict between the Procedures Manual and its purchasing rules, the purchasing rules shall prevail. 2 Participant responsibilities. All maintenance expenses incurred by the Participants on their own equipment, that is not identified on the Attachment; are the responsibility of the respective Participants. All invoices relating to expenses for hardware/software maintenance or troubleshooting consulting on the equipment identified in the Attachment will be submitted to the City of Hillsboro. Any changes to maintenance rates and Internet connection must be brought to the BUG meeting for prior approval. Any Participant may dispute troubleshooting consulting expenses. This dispute may be referred and voted upon at the next BUG meeting. VI. PROCEDURES MANUAL AND BUG MEETINGS 1. Preparation. A separate document referred to as the "Procedures Man l" ill ua w be prepared and used in conjunction with this Agreement by the BUG. The PAGE 3 - INTERNET IGA JULY 12, 1996 455 PM AMk Procedures Manual is intended to provide operational definitions for Participant responsibilities in a format that can be changed as needs are identified over time. 2. Amendment The Procedures Manual may be amended at any meeting of the BUG by two-thirds vote of those Members present, provided notice of such amendments has been given in writing to all Members at least two weeks prior to this meeting. 3. Review. The Procedure Manual shall be reviewed annually. 4. BUG Members. Each Participant shall have one voting Member of the BUG. 5. Quorum Requirements. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, a quorum (one half plus one) of Members is required for any formal action at a BUG meeting. VII. EQ UIPMENT 1. Ownership. All equipment and software shall be owned jointly by each Participant in equal proportion. 2. Future Use. The equipment and associated software acquired (excluding Section IL 2. and 4.) during the course of this Agreement shall be made available to all Participants that wish to renew this Agreement If no agreement can be obtained that is mutually satisfactory to all the Participants, it will be agreed that all the equipment and software purchased during the course of this Agreement will be sold. If any Participant indicates an interest in purchasing the equipment/software, a meeting will be called for all the Participants. Each Participant can submit a sealed bid for all the hardware/software purchased under this Agreement The highest sealed bid will have ownership of the hardware/software. If no sealed bids are obtained, the City of Hillsboro will be asked to sell the hardware/software to a third party and distribute the money received in equal proportion to all Participants. Any funds remaining in the account will be divided equally among the participants. VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2 1. Term of the Agreement The term of this Agreement shall be from execution by each party through and including June 30, 2001. 2. Reviewed. This Agreement may be reviewed annually by the Participants. i PAGE 4- INTERNET IGA JULY 12,19% 455 PM ed by mutual agreement of all n work or any functions under original employer regardless of s Agreement )regon Tort Claims Act, each harmless from and against any 7 damage arising out of the abed by mutual consent of all f E t I om participation by providing The withdrawing Participant ie effective date of withdrawal his Agreement Date Date Date I I City of Lake Oswego: Signature Printed Name Date i t City of Tigard- Signature Printed Name Date . Tualatin Valley Water District Jesse Lowman August 22, 1996 ature Printed Name Date f PAGE 6 - INTERNET IGA JULY 12,1996 8:42 AM r J 111 , Yk APPENDIX A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS J City of Hillsboro Washington County - Support Services Washington County - Cooperative Library Services City of Tigard F - City of Lake Oswego A. Tualatin Valley Water District M1 r< AF ' V _ a ` 7 PAGE 7 - INTERNET IGA JULY 12, 1996455 PM T