City Council Packet - 04/07/1998
CITY OF TIGARD
},r'{•}Y'r:• •Si: ,.>2:}4 :r•':+in:•:: ::i:•i4; n:?p:•:4: ~•r?•:E?i.i
.4:::4•?::.ice}:i:f i}irE;Ef: ;l.: :};S:~E%±.rf:~,~:?:rii:'iE':::E: ~S::i:i:•v+';:
:i•'ii!!4►'~yy, /q YY~~y fff fiiS:?:'::(:~{:/'::i::::Ei::ivin
YY::SR4Yf:\~ iFi:tiy v:$j::?:}? j}!ii.~^}1/~'rrC;.•u •$?i•E4:jti;:yi'f}}<:<:y}?ri~i
1% : ~ ..f,?'.i:::...i•z}%;i;igxrv?:r?.,.:i.,&;<::::•E.:fi.::.:~.`^.%~.::n?.:i:SEi~i~:i>'%f' i;`~:i`'i~
.S:CS ?.I1M4:EJF'+';sis2.'!:iRsi:;%?f:E:;'::R;SE:
'r'9?j::?R:,:y:,:.,:!i^:`.:ck}~:;;i>•:o::::fi:i:.r:^S;E:r~v.}2i<::i;'ii ~:sW r:: ~E;: r:';.?~~~ :;:;k:::::;:i;:ES.:;.
#y/ i•` p~!y ~~..nq~~ (~y ~q ~f, ~i?`3~E•?.':iE??i'::.kgi;<;,iE':°::~irE~,:i%:
,.L,~~~~?;F~;i;i(?:t JI;1.',,;lA;~~::S;,ui~:;>:~Si?:.,A;;}:•:?;n::.::
?./,}iSnn:u.F}:'?${;.::i??;y,}:;.1:;%}:•i+?1}'?: :f•'i};4i•1:•}}:}i}i: : : rki/,..::: nv:
'.Yi~:3,.'',ll~,'•„~,.•,.'. if if::;~'~.'•'~IGiE;?::C:.1::~r:'a}::1}i;:;i:<i;:
S: :%~4y%~F.~±A:•:>y:f:xv y~~+.}:.:::
•:::::1r. r: %:ES:E$;;:;C::;}:::•a v%:^i:E~~??:'tii~;:r
1;s:: `?n?yvru±:::i•}l~:.r ~ ':;r}ES:~':4:i+' •iif r }iYtitiWi:> n}
:<:5,'c1i^!°naYY.i4;~:.$?R.y. `.>?iE` ;7~ESGt::a,.2;E1#T;.a,Y'y;.:Cf,.;C:~E#'i2;i:E:i.'•::i:::f: F.::?
`Sri:+a::: ,!,•}..:.i..v::; .ui:i:.: .>.:::?:a .i..E.::.3..:. >E::E::E:;i'.iE::;
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying
be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda
items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
Council meeting. Please call 6394171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
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: 6394171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - - PAGE 1
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 7, 1998
6:30 pm
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations,
real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 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.
7:00 pm
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:06 pm
2. FUTURE FACILITIES - DISCUSSION OF TELEPHONE POLL OF TIGARD
VOTERS
• Introduction: Assistant to the City Manager
• Review: Consultant
• Council Discussion/Direction
7:16 pm
3. JOINT MEETING: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
• Introduction: Planning Manager
• Presentation: Consultant Bev Bookin and Planning Manager Dick
Bewersdorff
• Council/Planning Commission Discussion and Set Tentative Schedule
for Public Hearing Process
8:16 pm
4. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL AGENDA - - PAGE 2
8:26 pm
S. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session
under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. 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.
9:46 pm
6. ADJOURNMENT
1:1admlcathybc \980407.doc
COUNCIL AGENDA - - RAGE 3
Agenda Item No.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
Attesting of
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 7, 1998
• Executive Session
The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. tinder the provisions of ORS
192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and
pending litigation issues.
• Mayor Nicoli adjourned the Executive Session at 7:30 p.m.
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the special meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Planning
Manager Dick Bewersdorff; and Library Director Melinda Sisson.
2. FUTURE FACILITIES - DISCUSSION OF TELEPHONE POLL OF TIGARD VOTERS
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the reasoning behind the Council's decision to inquire into a survey to
assess voters' opinions regarding a $17 million bond measure for new city administrative,
library, and police facilities. He pointed out that the library was overcrowded now and that the
recent police addition would handle their needs for only 10 years. He mentioned other concerns
of probably needing a road improvement bond in the next few years, and the demand placed on
the City's budget to handle the recent 50% increase in parks and open spaces in the city. He
commented that the size of bond measure that the voters were willing to approve determined
what facilities would be built.
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the strategic concerns in putting a bond measure on the ballot. In
November they did not have to meet the 50% of registered voters voting requirement that was
required during any other election. If they lost in November, then they had to wait two years for
the next November ballot. Therefore, the Council wanted to assess the taxpayers' opinions
before the election on what they were willing to support.
Bill Monahan, City Manager, introduced Adam Davis from Davis & Hibbitts, the public
opinion research company contacted by Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Manager.
Mr. Davis mentioned that he and his partner have been conducting this type of survey for 10
years in the Portland metro area. He explained that they administered a questionnaire to a
random sample of registered voters. He reviewed the options which the Council had in
structuring the questionnaire. One option was a split sample in which half were asked about one
dollar amount, and the other half about a different dollar amount, with appropriate contextual
information, such as the impact on a $100,000 house.
Mr. Davis explained a second option of presenting a list of elements that could make up the
bond measure which the voters would rate in terms of how they felt about those elements as part
of a package. He suggested including validation questions, such as voters rating a list of city
services in terms of the value they were receiving for the tax dollars.
Mr. Davis reviewed the survey procedures, including "warm up" questions, such as "how do
you feel about the direction Tigard is taking?" He commented that the survey could give the
Council a good sense of what the priorities of the people were right now.
Councilor Hunt mentioned the need to present contextual information to the survey respondents.
He spoke to informing them that the road bond measure that they were currently paying on
would be paid off before this facilities bond measure kicked in. Essentially one would replace
the other. He also spoke to asking them if they would be willing to commit to a road bond
measure in a couple o years, in addition to the facilities measure.
Mr. Davis advised presenting the issue to the voters as closely as possible to what would appear
on the ballot, meaning the ballot title with a short explanation. He said that he did not see how
they could include in the ballot title the tradeoff information Councilor Hunt referenced. He
recommended assuming that the citizens did not understand the tradeoff.
Councilor Hunt pointed out that the Tigard Library Board has already stated its intention of
working hard to inform the electorate about this bond measure. He said that the public would be
better informed on this measure than on a lot of other issues. Mr. Davis commented that, with
that kind of local support, and based on the experience of other jurisdictions with library bond
measures, the library was an issue that might be very appealing to local voters.
Mr. Davis did not recommend raising the taxation-related arguments in garnering support for the
facilities bond measure. He said that doing so opened the door to questions of efficiency and
government waste. He held that Tigard had stronger arguments for support of the bond
measure.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned the concern about the large number of ballot measures slated for the
November ballot. He mentioned Tri-Met, Port of Portland, Washington County, and Metro all
as probable competition during the election. He said that they wanted to know how their local
measure would fare in this forest of regional issues. Mr. Davis commented that voters were
selective about which measures they supported, and did not unilaterally deny everything on the
ballot. He said that they have found that the closer to home or the neighborhood an issue was,
the better chance it had.
Planning Commissioner Ron Holland pointed out that Tigard passed its road bond measure by
a 2 to I margin during a time when no one else could get a measure passed for streets. He
credited the work done by the Citizens for Tigard Committee who used town halls to educate the
citizen on the needs of the community, and to get input on what citizens felt were the highest
priorities. He mentioned the door to door canvassing a week before the election to answer
questions and handout information as a making a difference in getting the measure passed.
Mr. Davis said that it was encouraging to hear that Tigard already had an organized group of
people in place ready to roll. He mentioned a rule that people responded favorably to a good
idea more than to the detail of the dollars and cents, even in the current climate of taxation
concerns.
Mark Padgett, Planning Commissioner, asked if Mr. Davis would take a random survey
sample or aim for the motivated voters, given that this was a non-Presidential election with a
traditional low turnout. Mr. Davis recommended aiming at motivated voters.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the survey results would help the Council to make an educated decision.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the Council already knew that it had an organized group of citizens to
help with the campaign and locate campaign funding. He said that the final piece of information
they needed was how the voters felt at this time about services and what they were willing to
pay for those services. The survey could give them that information so that they could make an
informed decision.
A Planning Commissioner suggested dividing the different facilities into separate ballot
measures so that the voters would know exactly what they were getting. Mr. Monahan
commented that they would have to add elements in with each facility because what happened
with one space affected what happened with another space. Mr. Davis said that they found with
the "Books and Crooks" campaign in Multnomah County that people responded better to the
issues as separate ballot measures. However organizing the campaign behind both of the
measures worked well.
Mr. Davis agreed to draft a questionnaire for Council review at their next meeting.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor ]Hunt, to hire the consultant for the
questionnaire.
Motion passed by unanimous voice of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt,
Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.")
3. JOINT MEETING: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Director, introduced Beverly Bookin of The Bookin Group, the
consultant manager for the Code rewrite project.
Mr. Bewersdorff reviewed the Code rewrite process begun in late 1996 to simplify and clarify
the Development Code to a more user friendly document for the public and staff. He mentioned
the incorporation of responses to changes in federal and state law, and court cases. He noted
the project team, including representatives from a law firm, an environmental firm, a graphics
firm, who worked with the Steering Committee, the Planning Commission, staff, developers,
and Metro staff. He mentioned the community meeting and presentation to the CITs
summarizing the major Code changes. He expressed his satisfaction with the Code rewrite but
pointed out that they would continue to make changes as they went along.
Ms. Bookin explained that the main reason behind the Code rewrite had been to reorganize the
Code for easier understanding and reduction in staff time to administer it. She reported that the
cost was $75,000, a cost that she believed the City would recoup over the long term with the
reduction of the burden on staff.
Ms. Bookin complimented the City on the Steering Committee which had excellent
participation. She said that the first thing they did was to reorganize the Code into a logical
sequence. Then they evaluated the Code, finding that much of it was just fine.
Ms. Bookin said that they reduced the bulk of the Code by 25% . She pointed out the change
from the two column format to the single page format, and reviewed other specifics of the
formatting changes that made the Code easier to use. She mentioned that they eliminated
outdated sections, cleaned up the language as necessary, and added sections as necessary, but
retained 80% of the same content as before.
Ms. Bookin noted the work of the Technical Advisory Committee of staff who provided
significant input. She observed that this was a collective effort between staff, the citizens, and
the consultants.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the Code changes section by section, answering questions as they arose.
She mentioned that the major change in 18.100 Introduction was the reduction of the use
classification list by one-third. She reviewed the main use categories: residential, civil,
commercial, and industrial.
Ms. Bookin said that 18.200 Administrative Procedures was mostly intact. She explained the
major change - the concept of "established area" and "development area" - which was a useful
concept developed in the 1980s for mapping purposes. She mentioned that this was a
potentially controversial change but they did work with neighborhood representatives on the
density issues. Mr. Bewersdorff commented that under the prior Code provisions, developments
ended up putting the parking, garbage, etc., next to single family residential which did not
benefit anyone.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the minimum density requirement mandated by the 1996 Framework Plan
of Metro 2040. Development on a property could not be less than 80% of the maximum density
allowed by the zone. If one property was underdeveloped, then the difference had to be made up
elsewhere in the city in order to meet the Metro density requirements.
Councilor Scheckla commented that the NPOs had been involved in the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan that set the densities. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the NPOs were simply
the form of citizen involvement that Tigard had at the time, and were not required in and of
themselves for adoption of the Plan.
Ms. Bookin said that 18.300 Land Use Decisions did have significant changes because the
permit process was chaotic under the old Code. She explained that they adopted a nomenclature
developed by Rick Daniels when he was at the City of Gresham that was now widely used. This
divided all land use permits into four categories: Types I, 11, III, IV. She said that Type I were
those permits that were granted by staff if the applicant met the clear and objective standards;
there was no discretion and no notification.
Ms. Bookin said that Types II & III were quasi-judicial permits which were discretionary,
required notice to the adjacent neighbors, and had an appeal process. Type II permits were
administrative level minor permits decided by staff with appeal to the Planning Commission.
Type III permits were those that required a public hearing from the beginning, such as a planned
development. The more routine Type III permits went to the Hearings Officer while those with
more likelihood of being of community interest went to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Bookin explained that subdivisions were moved to Type II permits because they were
prescriptive with a list of requirements. If the requirements were met, then a subdivision permit
was granted because there was little controversy. On the other hand, planned developments
were Type III because they were very discretionary with their own design standards and internal
variances, etc., and because they were likely to be of concern to the neighbors. Mr. Bewersdorff
said that they were responding the changes in state law that required certainty for a developer
over a period of time.
Ms. Bookin said that Type III permits were appealed to LUBA, although the Council could call
it up for review. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that those situations requiring an interpretation of
the Code, staff would send directly to Council, rather than to the Planning Commission, because
the system gave more deference to a City Council's interpretation of its Code.
Ms. Bookin mentioned that legislative matters were Type IV permits, such Code or map
changes, annexation, or creating a new zone. They also included the procedures for expedited
review and limited land use actions that were allowed by state law. Mr. Bewersdorff
commented that the reorganization also created a better process for citizen involvement because
now notices would be sent to neighbors before a decision was made (at the same time as notice
was sent to agencies for comment) and after the decision was made.
Ms. Bookin pointed out that each type of permit (Type I, II, III, or IV) had the same submission
and notification requirements for the specific permits within the type. This greatly simplified
the process. She reviewed how to use the Code to find both the permit type and the specific
permit requirements. She directed attention to the permit summary in 18.310 which functioned
as a table of contents for permits. She noted that they removed the administrative permission
requirements from the Code and put them on handouts as part of the packet of information a
citizen would receive to apply for a particular permit.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the changes made to the variance procedures. She said that, in addition to
retaining the standard variance, they created two new adjustments: one for very minor
development changes and one for items that had their own specific criteria for approval (like
parking requirements, signs, access, etc.) She noted the index to the different areas of the
special adjustment.
Ms. Bookin mentioned that the decision making procedures were done by an attorney and
former Tigard Hearings Officer who insured that the Code adhered to even minor elements of
state law.
Ms. Bookin noted the three chapters of 18.400 Land Division: lot line adjustments, partitions,
and subdivisions. She explained that they separated lot line adjustments and partitions because
lot line adjustments were a legal operation, not a land use decision, while partitions affected
density and surrounding neighborhoods. She said that they eliminated the distinction between
minor and major partitions, as it served no function. Partitions (creation of three or fewer lots)
and subdivisions (creation of four or more lots) were both Type II permits.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the lot averaging provision that allowed variation in lot size as long as a
smaller then minimum lot was compensated for by an equally larger than minimum lot.
Commissioner Holland asked if a property owner with a large lot could partition his property
into more than three lots without going through the subdivision process (which required public
roads) by waiting for several years in between partition requests. Partitions could use private
roads. He mentioned deep properties on McDonald and Gaarde that had little access to the back
of the properties, making development difficult unless the existing houses were torn down. Ms.
Bookin said that they might run into minimum density issues.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the consolidation of the separate sections for residential, commercial, and
industrial zones that were scattered throughout the Code into one chapter for each zone type
under 18.500 Zoning Districts. She directed attention to the District tables that presented each
listed land use in relation to each zone of a district and what the requirements would be for that
land use in those zones, including whether or not it was a permitted use. She mentioned the
table showing the development standards for the various zones also. She reiterated that the only
controversial change was the Metro requirement for 80% minimum density.
Mr. Bewersdorff credited Ms. Bookin's extensive work in reformatting the zone and
development standards information into tables.
Ms. Bookin mentioned the special areas included in the Commercial District zones:
neighborhood commercial, community commercial, and mixed use employment. She pointed
out the Metro requirement prohibiting big box buildings of 60,000 square feet in industrial
zones as a way to preserve valuable industrial land.
Ms. Bookin commented that the Tigard Triangle plan was the only section so far in 18.600
Community Plan Sub-Areas, although they have put a placeholder for the Washington Square
Plan.
Ms. Bookin reviewed 18.700 Specific Development Standards. This included anything that
would affect development in terms of development or design standards (15 to 20 different
sections). She mentioned that the Steering Committee worked for two sessions on developing
reasonable standards for the accessory units in residential zones (required by Metro). She noted
that design compatibility standards were a new section in lieu of development in established
areas. She said that they reformatted the water resources overlay district done by Winterowd to
bring the City into compliance with Goal 5. She commented that they created the wireless
communication district at Council's direction.
Mayor Nicoli suggested a formatting change to include section numbers on a page similar to a
dictionary format to show which sections were covered by that page. The Council and
Commission discussed other formatting and font issues, agreeing to leave the font at an 11 point
serif font.
Ms. Bookin discussed 18.710 Accessory Units in more detail, reviewing the eight standards
developed by the Steering Committee to regulate their design and use. The Council and
Commission discussed detached units versus attached units, allowing more than one additional
parking space, and the enforcement issues involved with requiring the property owner to reside
in either the primary or accessory unit.
Ms. Bookin reviewed 18.720 Design Compatibility Standards. She explained that the intent of
this section was to have standards that would minimize the scale of a more intense use placed
next to a less intense use, such as multi-family next to single-family.
Ms. Bookin reviewed the Metro requirement for maximum parking ratios, as reflected in 18.765
Offstreet Parking and Loading. She said that the table showing minimum and maximum
parking ratios was intended to give a range of adequate but not excessive parking. She
mentioned the adjustments for going above the maximum or below the minimum. She pointed
out that many uses had more parking than they needed, wasting land. In addition, excessive
parking discouraged alternative modes of transportation.
Ms. Bookin explained the Zone A and Zone B of the Metro parking requirements. She pointed
out that almost all of Tigard was in Zone B. She said that Metro adopted maximums for 17 to
18 land uses in Zone B but for the rest of the land uses, the project team adopted maximums
based on work that she has done for the City of Gresham. She mentioned that they included a
section on parking garages (which might be needed in the future), and cleaned up bike parking
regulations. She said that staff was very happy with the reorganization of this section.
Commissioner Padgett asked if there was a definition of where Zones A and B were in Tigard.
Ms. Bookin said they would have to work with Metro to create a map to define those zones.
Ms. Bookin said that they simply reformatted the sign code section. She commented that they
wrote the wireless communication facilities section to allow the maximum regulation that a
local jurisdiction could have. They made it easier to site cell towers in industrial zones and
harder to site them in residential zones, and included aesthetic requirements.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council interpretation on screening requirements for cell towers (as
found for an appeal of a cell tower located next to a residential zone) were incorporated. Staff
indicated that they specifically included the wording of the finding of the appeal.
Ms. Bookin said that 18.800 Street and Utility Improvements was a technical chapter revised by
the City Engineer to clarify items. She noted the only requirement changed to meet Metro
standards in this section: cul-de-sacs at 400 feet instead of 200 feet. She emphasized that the
five Metro requirements were incorporated in their appropriate sections of the Code.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the bulk of the Code was reduced by 50%. Ms. Bookin said that, while
certain sections were reduced by at least that much, overall the Code was reduced by 25%.
Mayor Nicoli said that while he agreed with the general approach of allowing residential units
on the second floor, he would like to allow residential units on one level in buildings with a
daylight basement and street level commercial use. He also proposed allowing a business owner
with a large one story building to live in the back of his building. He said that in the second
situation, it should be owner occupied but not necessarily so with the first situation.
Mayor Nicoli spoke to the Council's intent to work on revitalizing the downtown. He said that
encouraging property owners to put in second story residential would help by bringing more
people to live in the downtown. He concurred that requiring a one to one ratio in their
community at this time was inappropriate. He cited an example of buildings near the Lloyd
Center that had retail at ground level or below and apartments or condos for three or four stories
up. He said that might be appropriate for the Washington Square area.
Ms. Bookin said that they allowed general retail on the ground floor of the two high density
zones, making them mixed use. She said that they stuck with what was in the Code for
commercial zones, other than making the housing a little more generous, and for the industrial
zones which did not allow housing (except for a caretaker facility). She confirmed that
residential in commercial zones was allowed on the second floor. She mentioned the possibility
of a variance for situations where it was not the second floor, although she thought such
occurrences would be rare. She noted that single family and multi family residential was
allowed in all commercial zones except for neighborhood commercial.
Mayor Nicoli asked why it was not allowed in neighborhood commercial. He supported
someone living over his/her store in a neighborhood.
A Planning Commissioner commented that jurisdictions that tried residential in industrial zones
found the situations unsatisfactory, as industrial zone uses were not conducive to good sleeping
and living.
Mr. Bewersdorff recommended that staff proceed with the hearing process and the agen..:1
notifications.
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9:38 p.m.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
4. NON AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Nicoli informed the Council that the U.S. Attorney was willing to help them on the
Tiffany Court situation by pressuring the property owner. He expressed his concern that if the
Washington County Housing Authority bought Tiffany Court, they would only improve the
living units, and not the playground and community center. He said that the County was not
working with Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) and has offered the property
owner half a million more for Tiffany Court than the owner paid for it. He spoke to applying
that money to the playground and community center.
Mayor Nicoli reviewed his conversations with Charlie Cameron and Roy Rogers at the County,
both of whom were willing to pull the issue until the County staff met with the City to discuss
the situation. He said that if the City did not like the results of the meeting with County staff
tomorrow, then they could talk to Roy Rogers and explain the successful project at Villa La Paz
and the difficulties with the County staff.
Councilor Scheckla mentioned that CPAH was looking for another project at this time. If they
did not get Tiffany Court, they would do a project coming up in Tualatin. He said that HUD
and CPAH emphasized different levels of improvement.
The Council discussed the option of asking the County to back out and give the Tiffany Court
situation to CPAH. Mayor Nicoli commented that if they lost the County Housing Authority
and CPAH could not do it, then they were in trouble. Another option was asking the County to
meet or exceed the Villa La Paz project. Councilor Scheckla reported that Susan Wilson of the
County has told CPAH that they did not want to partnership with them. Mayor Nicoli
mentioned that the County already had an affordable housing program with 2000 units.
The Council discussed their strategy for the meeting tomorrow.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled.
6. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m.
(iolL-t'ku
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
yor, City of TigarA
Date: C eCl g
I: W DM\CATHY\CCM%980407. DOC
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9075
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
Legal Notice Advertising
*City of Tigard ` ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of them; gard-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
-Sppn; a 1 MP i nc- City Council
e 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:
_A~ril 2.1998
Subscribed and sworn t afore me this2ncLclay of Apr i l ,19 9 8
G OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
No Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
My Commission Expires: *COMMISSION NO. 062071
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT
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.
SPECIAL MEETING
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
Y AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
April 7, 1"8-6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
• Executive Session
o • Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on the Development
Code Rewrite
TT9075 - Publish April 2, 1998.
CITY OF TIOARD 'RO- (A Q`'"e~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE [TITLE 181 UPDATE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The City of Tigard began a major development code update this last year (1996). After a
considerable amount of time and effort, a new "DRAFT" of the code has been compiled. The
underlying intent of the code update is to simplify the document and make it more user friendly
wherever possible.
The following list attempts to summarize the proposed changes. It does not include every
change proposed. Many changes relate to the entirely new format of the code. Please refer to
the "DRAFT" REVISED DEVELOPMENT CODE document for a complete picture of all
proposed changes.
Material bigbllgbted in the "DRAFT" revised development code is new language.
Material that is to be Omitted is Crossed-out or s1hketbrougb.
EXAMPLES:
• Reorganization of sections, new code format and numbering system.
• New and revised definitions. (18.120)
• New land use classification and land use tables. (18.130 & 18.500)
• New land use review process organized into Type I, 11, III and IV decisions. (18.390)
• Detailed submittal requirements taken out of code and replaced with Director's lists that can
be changed only once a year.
• New adjustment process to allow quicker and simpler variation from minor standards.
(18.370)
• Ten (10) business day appeal period for land use decisions with no special call up
procedures. (18.390.040.G)
• No local appeal of Type III hearing decisions; appeal goes directly to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). (18.390.050.G)
• Revised buffering standards and matrix chart. (18.745.040)
' Provisions to determine nonconforming use status. (18.760.020)
Z • Added requirements to upgrade nonconforming uses with development additions.
(18.760.040.0.2)
Li
• Totally revised parking standards with minimum and maximum requirements. (18.765)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Title 18) UPDATE Page 1 of 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
• Added standards to address the Metro 2040 plan and the State Transportation PIdMiPte
Rule including accessory dwelling units and minimum number of dwelling units required at
80% of maximum density. (18.710 & 18.715.020.C)
• Tree mitigation plan required for all land partitions and the elimination of distinction between
major and minor land partitions. (18.790.030.A. & 18.420)
• Clarification of commercial forestry definition that tree removal according to a tree mitigation
plan is not commercial forestry. (18.790.020.A.2)
• Clarification that tree mitigation is exclusive of other tree planting requirements.
(18.790.030. B.2)
• Elimination of solar access requirements.
• Elimination of established/developing area distinction.
• New planned development provisions allowing mixed uses and density bonuses. (18.350)
• Deletion of compatibility matrix and addition of design compatibility standards. (18.720)
• Addition of provisions to allow lot size averaging without cause for a planned development
review. (18.430.020.D)
® Clarification that a "street" serves three (3) or more lots. (18.120.030.128)
• Addition of residential use classification relating to household and to eliminate discriminatory
family definition. (18.130.020.A)
• Clarification that no building permits shall be issued without compliance with development
code standards. (18.210.020.A)
• Elimination of residential density transition requirements with addition of new buffering
standards. (18.745.040)
• Addition of automatic assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations
concurrently with annexation. (18.320.020.C.)
• Revision of dedication requirements to reflect Dolan decision which requires consideration of
dedication rather than a automatic dedication requirement. (miscellaneous sections)
• Increase in the number of vehicle trips from 20 to 100 to require a major modification of a
site development review approval. (18.360.050.8.7.)
• Addition of development standard that requires new development to be connected to a
collector or arterial street by a paved street. (18.810.030.A.3.)
• Reduction in cul-de-sac length to comply with Metro standards. 8.810.030.K.)
• Additio- of bicycle and pedestrian easement requirements at no more than 330 feet in block
length design except where precluded by environmental or topographical constraints or
existing development to comply with Metro standards. (18.810.040.B.2)
bcurp1n\dick\devc0de.sum
15-Dec-97
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Title 18) UPDATE Page 2 0(2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
..a
METRO REQUIREMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE
CITY OF TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION/UPDATE
The City of Tigard began a review process to streamline its development code in late
1996. At the same time, the City chose to incorporate those METRO requirements of
the METRO Functional Plan that can be included at this point in time. Some of the
METRO Functional Plan Requirements are outside the scope of the development code
review. Currently, those include: congestion management, fish and wildlife protection,
water quality management and affordable housing, among others.
METRO REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS
• Local Share Regional Housing • Incorporates Minimum Density at
(minimum residential density) 80% of Maximum.
• Auxiliary Dwelling Units • Adds Accessory Dwelling Units
Subject to Standards.
• Regional Parking Policy • Adds Maximum Ratios with Revised
(minimum and maximum ratios) Standards Compatible with METRO;
and
• Allows for Parking Adjustments.
• Prohibit 60,000 Square Foot Retail in • Limits Retail in the I-P Zone.
Employment Zones
• Design Standards for Street • Provides for Street Connections;
Connectivity No Cul-de-sac over 200 Feet;
• No more than 20 Dwelling Units per
Cul-de-sac;
• Requires Future Street Plan for
Developments within 660 Feet; and
• Pedestrian Connections Required at
no more than 330 Feet.
1ACURKN O WCODEMET.COM %-Dec•97
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder /DATE: March 31, 1998 SUBJECT: Council Packet Information - 4/7/98 Meeting
Attached is your agenda packet for the April 7, 1998 Meeting. Additional information on each of
the agenda items is as follows:
1. Executive Session - Enclosed is a confidential envelope containing material for this
agenda item.
2. Future Facilities - Discussion of Telephone Poll - Consultant Adam Davis will be
present to discuss an overview of how a telephone poll could be used for obtaining
information. Mr. Davis will be prepared to answer Council questions. Issues
identified at the last meeting included obtaining information from voters about
facilities (space) needs when compared to other items that deserve attention, such as
transportation improvements.
3. Joint meeting with Planning Commission. Please bring your notebook that was sent
to you previously containing the draft revised Community Development Code.
Inside the front cover of this notebook is a memorandum from Dick Bewersdorff.
If you need additional information, please give me a call.
iAad m\cathy\47pckt.doc