City Council Packet - 07/18/2006
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
July 18, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED
1:\Ofs\Donna's\Ccpkt3
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
Agenda Item No. C1, I
For Agenda of IS,
TIGARD
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes
Date: July 18, 2006
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon
Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding
Councilor Sally Harding
Councilor Sydney Sherwood
Councilor Nick Wilson
Councilor Tom Woodruff
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Study Session Mayor Dirksen called the Study Session to order at
6:30 p.m.
Staff Present: City Manager Prosser, Finance
Director Sesnon, Engineer Duenas, Counsel Chuck
Corrigan, Community Development Director
Coffee, Risk Manager Mills, Assistant Public Works
Director Rager, and Right-of-Way Administrator
Werner
Press: Luciana Lopez from the Oregonian and
Barbara Sherman from the Tigard Times
City Manager Prosser noted that two items were
being brought back from the Budget Committee for
Council consideration: 1) Senior Center Remodel
and 2) Remodel and Relocate the Public Works
Department to the Water Building
City Manager Prosser said the Budget Committee Risk Manager Mills will
1. Senior direction was to leave the money in the budget but communicate to the Senior
Center not spend anything on additional architectural work Center Site Committee the
Remodel and until the status of the Community Development Council's reasons for
Additions Block Grant is known. wanting to reconsider a
remodel at this time.
Assistant Public Works Director Rager said there Councilor Sherwood offered
would be a Conditional Use Permit required to do to serve on a committee to
the building additions discussed by the committee help look at options before
and Loaves and Fishes. If the CUP process is not we o ahead with a project.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 1
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
started until January (when the CDBG's are Councilor Woodruff
awarded) the City will be on a tight timeline to get it suggested taking these ideas
done. He also noted a mistake in the memorandum to the Site Committee and
attached to the Agenda Item Summary which says asking them to weigh in.
the City needs to hire an architect in January. He Risk Manager Mills will do
said it should be corrected to say the City needs to this and bring their input
hire an architect now to prepare a CUP application back to the Council for
and preliminary drawings. further discussion.
Councilor Sherwood said she wanted to put this off
for one year and do an audit to see if meals can be
prepared at the Senior Center. She felt the best way
to attract users is to cook meals on site rather than
just warm day-old meals from Loaves and Fishes.
She noted that the Senior Center attendance is very
low given the City's population. She toured five
different facilities that cook meals on site and said
they have much better attendance and offer more
flexibility to rental users. She said remodeling just
to have a warming kitchen would be waste of money
since we may want to remodel it again. She has had
several people approach her asking that the City
look at cooking meals at the Senior Center.
Councilor Sherwood said she also didn't feel the
City would get the full $475,000 CDBG request
amount as there is only $700,000 available for the
entire county. Councilor Harding suggested looking
at other grant funding sources.
Mayor Dirksen asked if there were items that must
be done immediately, such as seismic upgrades, or if
the building was failing or substandard. Risk
Manager Mills said electrical upgrades are part of the
proposed remodel package but are not required
outside of this remodel plan. She said seismic
improvements are required and were going to be
included as part of this remodel. They must be
completed whether we do this project or not but
could be combined with a future remodel project.
Mayor Dirksen recommended not spending the
money if none of this needs to be done now.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 2
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
2. Discuss Rein- Assistant Public Works Director Rager discussed the Staff will prepare a budget
stating Funds to needs of the Public Works staff. He noted that the amendment for Council
Remodel and Executive Summary Councilors have in their packet consideration to proceed
Relocate the is a draft. He handed out a revised version to with a remodel of the Water
Public Works replace it. Building.
Department to
the Water Mr. Rager said the location of Public Works staff is
Building operationally less than ideal. Some are in the two-
story office building with a break room and showers
in the lower level. Some work in an old house
known as the Public Works Annex which is located
on the corner of Ash and Burnham Streets.
He said the Water Building is currently underutilized
and the original idea was to move all of Public
Works staff there, but it has been determined there
is not enough room. An interim solution is to
house the public works office staff in the Water
Building.
Vacating the Public Works Annex building is the
first step in the Ash/Burnham intersection project
and is critical to that intersection.
Vacating the two-story public works building would
make it available for other departments to use as
storage, which would save the city $25,000 annually
in rented space. High density housing is ultimately
planned for the operations yard site.
City Manager Prosser noted that this project was
taken out of the budget by the Budget Committee
and there was discussion on the need for the
project. There is no General Fund money; it was all
placed in the Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm
Sewer Contingency Funds. He said that if this
project is approved by Council, staff will come back
with a budget amendment to transfer the money.
Councilor Woodruff asked if there was a perceptual
issue as we talk about reducing services yet are
considering spending money on buildings. He said
careful communication to the public was needed,
noting that the money proposed for this project
cannot be used for other things. He said that the
Budget Committee minutes say it would be held off
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 3
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
in the contingency until further exploration.
Councilor Harding said we need to be prudent with
how we manage our budget if we want to be able to
move forward with other kinds of things. She also
noted that she attended the Washington County
Coordinating Committee meeting yesterday where a
study was presented by a firm that said the biggest
issue citizens had county-wide was with the
perception of accountability and money being spent
inefficiently. She wanted Tigard to be a leader in
credibility and accountability. She said until things
are completed on the Task Force list, this project
should be on the shelf.
Councilor Sherwood asked if staff could move into
the Water Building without a huge remodel. Mr.
Rager said the HVAC system is an aging system and
did not work properly for the staff previously in the
building. The partitions proposed to be used are
surplus from the Army Corps of Engineers so there
are savings there. The computer and phone cabling
needs to be upgraded according to IT staff. Interior
wall work needs to be done to house more people.
Mayor Dirksen asked if Mr. Rager was saying that
the building needs to have some existing systems
replaced whether more staff moves in or not. Mr.
Rager said the HVAC system work would need to
be done regardless and noted that it is a large part of
the estimate.
Councilor Wilson commented that the Annex
building is actually an old house that is in poor
condition and the land it's on is valuable. He said
there's a point at which you pinch pennies and end
up wasting dollars.
City Manager Prosser said looking long term we
don't want a Public Works yard in the center of our
downtown.
Mr. Rager said there is also the public perception to
consider - the Water Building is underutilized, and
the inefficiency in having Public Works staff spread
amon three buildings.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 4
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
City Manager Prosser said we will ultimately need
more space for city staff overall and might consider
a downtown office building in the future or look at a
public safety campus near TVF&R. He said this
Water Building remodel will help now with an
immediate need. Councilor Harding asked if the
entire remodel was really necessary and why we
should do it in pieces as interim steps.
Mayor Dirksen said he felt it is not money wasted
down the road when all the little pieces move us in
the right direction. The goal is to use the Water
Building to its best ability and allow the City to
vacate those other properties so those pieces of
property can be put to their best use eventually. He
said that before we talk about any new facilities we
need to make sure we are using the ones that we've
got efficiently. The Water Building is not being used
efficiently. He said a lot of this money is going to
repair systems that need to be replaced before the
building can be used.
Councilor Woodruff said he would feel comfortable
explaining to the Budget Committee the decision to
move ahead with the remodel. He noted the
expenditure would not be from the General Fund
and the remodel will add to our efficiency.
City Manager Prosser said he will ask staff to get a
budget amendment prepared to take to the Council.
3. Discuss Right-of-Way Administrator Werner said staff Staff will return with an
Revisions to the previously discussed the right-of-way usage fee and ordinance for Council
Tigard Munici- other amendments to the Tigard Municipal Code consideration on Right-of-
pal Code Incor- with the Council. Staff has worked with the City Way usage fees.
porating a Attorney and sent draft proposals for review by
Right-of-Way utilities. Staff has two issues they are seeking Council did not agree to any
Usage Fee Council guidance on before they present final franchise fee percentages.
revisions in a few weeks.
The first issue is eliminating the franchise
requirement. The current Code anticipated that
every utility would have a franchise agreement. She
said this is still most desirable but they're trying to
write a Code that will apply even when there is no
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 5
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
agreement, as several telephone companies have
refused to sign franchise agreements. They're
proposing three options for utilities that want to
have utilities in our rights of way. 1) No franchise -
they would be subject to the Code provisions and
would have a right-of-way usage fee which would
operate just like a franchise fee, 2) Standard
franchise - basically the Municipal Code provisions
in a contract form with no negotiations, and 3) A
negotiated contract that clarifies terms that could be
different from the Code. Utility company feedback
suggested we need to make it clear that there can be
a variance between language in an agreement and
the Code.
City Manager Prosser said that any franchise
negotiated would come before the Council for
approval. It will ultimately be Council's decision
whether a variance is acceptable. It will also help
with some issues, in particular with
telecommunication companies trying to use the law
to claim that they can't be forced into accepting
certain terms in order to use the right of way. Ms.
Werner said that the inflexibility of our current
Code is potentially litigious. She said franchise
agreements would be encouraged but it helps to
have a system offering a choice.
Councilor Wilson asked if other cities have a menu
like this. Ms. Werner said other cities are in the
same position as Tigard. Many have a separate code
specifically for telecoms and then they have a
franchise agreement which may or may not have the
same terms as their code.
In response to a question from Councilor Wilson,
Ms. Werner said companies often want to negotiate
relocation provisions, stipulating who pays when the
utility has to relocate something. She also
mentioned penalty payments if an audit shows a
utility underpaid the City.
City Manager Prosser noted that the existing
Telecommunications Code states that if a company
accepts our standard agreement, Council shall
approve it b resolution and it is effective
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 6
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
immediately. If they want more extensive changes -
it can be done - but it comes to Council by
ordinance, there can be an emergency clause and the
process is more involved. Right-of-Way
Administrator Werner said the suggested changes
take what we have in the Telecom Code and apply it
to all utilities. But there would also be a third option;
that is, if you have nothing, the fallback is the Code.
Mayor Dirksen said that we have the opportunity in
the ordinance to negotiate a franchise, which gives
us a chance to approach a franchisee before the
renewal of their franchise and negotiate something
above and beyond their normal franchise.
The rate for the Right-of Way fee was also
discussed. Ms. Werner said they considered setting
it the same as the franchise fee so it is revenue
neutral. You would only pay to the extent that you
don't pay a franchise fee. Effectively no one would
pay a right-of-way usage fee unless they don't have a
franchise.
She said that currently, PGE's franchise rate is 3.5%
and Northwest Natural's is 5%. NW Natural
counsel told staff that gas and electric utilities are
competitors and PGE's lower rate gives them an
advantage. She thought it was best to inform
Council so they know this issue was raised and may
come up again in the future. She said NW Natural
was told that in a freely negotiated agreement they
chose to go to 5%; PGE did not. She said the
upside of going to 5% for the electric utility is
additional revenue, which would be raised by
$246,000, and everyone would be on a "level playing
field." Unfortunately, PGE would probably just
pass this along to their customers and would be
shown on their bill as some sort of municipal fee.
Mayor Dirksen stressed that the Council's position
on this was to do these changes one step at a time
and make it revenue neutral. He said that at some
point in the future, once we see how this goes, we
may look at some kind of a balance or a change.
Ms. Werner clarified that she just brought this up so
Council would be aware, when the are considering
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 7
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
the final amendments, NW Natural may have a
representative there. She did not want Council to be
blindsided. Mayor Dirksen said, "Our answer to
them is that we may reconsider that at a future date
but are choosing not to at this date. That would be
my recommendation."
In response to some questions from Councilor
Harding, Mayor Dirksen said, "We are not changing
any of those percentages." He reiterated that
Council had previously decided that if a change was
made, it would be revenue neutral.
Administrative >Appointing a new member to the City Center
Items Advisory Commission was discussed. Mayor
Dirksen said he spoke with the two alternates to see
if either of them was interested in being on the
Commission. He recommended a Resolution
appointing Mr. Alexander Craghead. City Manager
Prosser said there would be a resolution on this
added as a non-agenda item at tonight's meeting.
> It was agreed that Councilors wanting to carpool
to the Washington County Commissioners meeting
will meet at City Hall at 5:30 p.m. on July 25.
> Quello House Correspondence - City Manager
Prosser said Community Development Director
Coffee put together a memo that was in the
Council's packet. A discussion on this will be
rescheduled for the August 15 Workshop Meeting.
> City Manager Prosser will let the TVF&R Board
know that the Council did not want to attend a
meeting separate from the luncheon.
>City Manager Prosser asked for opinions on draft
revisions to the agenda first page indicating how
people can sign up to speak at Council meetings.
Councilor Woodruff felt the changes did not go far
enough to make it clear that not all items are open
for public testimony. City Recorder Wheatley will
work on the form. Councilor Harding mentioned
that the problem at the July 11`" Council meeting
was that a ma was not distributed until 9:30 .m.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 8
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
May 301h Fifth Tuesday Update: There were some
potential Code violations on not only the properties
being complained about but also on property
belonging to those that made the complaints.
Community Development Director Coffee said they
will be followed up on equally.
Business 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the
Meeting Local Contract Review Board to Order at 7:30
p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors
Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
Councilor Harding mentioned she attended a
Washington County Coordinating Committee
meeting and will bring a report and her condensed
notes regarding a Washington County traffic survey
to the next Council meeting.
City Manager Prosser announced that Tom Coffee is
no longer the Interim Community Development
Director but has accepted the position of
Community Development Director.
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda
Items
Mayor Dirksen asked if anyone objected to hearing
Non-Agenda Item No. 9 between Agenda Items 4
and 5. There were no objections.
2. Citizen Gretchen Buehner, 13249 SW 136`h Place, Tigard,
Communication 97223. Mr. Buehner asked that Council consider
how to provide access to businesses during
downtown road construction. She said, "I'm very
concerned about making sure that we don't do
damage to our retail businesses... while
improvements are being made on the street." She
mentioned that over 30% of downtown Portland
businesses along that route failed during
construction of their transit mall. She is also
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 9
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
concerned about utilities and said there should be
some effort to have utilities get their portion of the
work done in a timely and coordinated manner. She
referenced the recent gas company work that
necessitated tearing up Walnut Street after the road
had been finished, adding months to the project and
also reducing the life of the road. She asked if there
was anything Council could do in terms of
proposing interim ordinances as we structure these
demonstration projects so early in the process, to
make sure that utility work is done in a timely
manner and within their timeframe.
Councilor Sherwood said we should look at having
things done similar to when Gaarde Street was being
worked on, where areas were done at certain times
so the whole street wasn't blocked.
Ms. Buehner said, "The problem is that Gaarde is
basically a residential street, as was Walnut. We're
dealing with a very busy business street. Those
businesses are largely dependent upon walk-in traffic
and I don't want to see them fail." Councilor
Sherwood said since they could figure out a way to
keep Gaarde open they could probably find a way to
keep these streets open. Ms. Buehner said she just
didn't want a utility to cause a major problem and
potentially cost a business their existence.
Councilor Wilson said, "Those are really good
points and we just passed our street opening
moratorium so utilities will have to coordinate that
work. I think it would be a good idea to have, in
addition to liquidated damages if they go beyond the
scope, incentives for finishing early." He said it
would probably be a good idea, as soon as we know
what the projects will look like, to start discussions
with property owners and suggested, "using a little
bit of urban renewal money, to assist businesses
with advertising while construction is ongoing."
Ms. Buehner also mentioned that there can be
problems within large utilities in that the person you
discuss plans with does not communicate very well
with the entity in the company who is actually doing
the construction.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 10
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Mayor Dirksen said the City needs to be very
sensitive when letting contracts and have language in
them regarding local access. He said, "This street in
particular is going to have a major impact. We have
a fire station on this street and I'm pretty sure
they're going to need to have access during
construction so we definitely need to figure out a
way to do that."
Ralph Hughes, new Chamber of Commerce
President spoke. He gave some personal
background and noted he is an alternate on the City
Center Advisory Commission. He said the
Chamber's concept this year is "Buy Tigard First -
use the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Directory to
find people you want to do business with as use it as
exclusively as you can." He recommends any
business in Tigard become a Chamber member and
get their name in the Directory as a way to get their
name out to customers. He said he'd like the
Chamber to become more politically active this year
at the local, county and state level on issues affecting
Tigard businesses. He mentioned the upcoming
City elections and said he'd like to see interaction
between the candidates and the Chamber members,
so they can select who they want to vote for. He
mentioned a tourism tax that was recently increased
and said there will be discussions on promoting
tourism in this area and said he is open for input.
Councilor Sherwood noted that she received a
notice that the Leadership Series is starting up soon.
Mr. Hughes said the City gave a $5,000 grant
towards this series, which is a cooperative effort
between the City and Chamber. He said anyone
interested in attending should contact the Chamber
at their TigardChamber.org website.
Mayor Dirksen asked the audience if there was
anyone who didn't get a chance to sign up to speak
for Citizen Communication but would like to speak
on an issue that isn't on the agenda tonight. There
was none.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page I I
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
(Deputy City
Recorder's
Note: There is
no Agenda
Item 3.
4. Consent Mayor Dirksen gave a brief summary of the Motion by Councilor Harding,
Agenda Consent Agenda Items: seconded by Councilor
Woodruff to approve the
4.1 - Approve Workers' Compensation Volunteer Consent Agenda.
Coverage through City County Insurance Services The motion passed with a
unanimous vote of Council
4.2 - Amend Insurance Agent of Record Contract present:
extending from Three to Five-Year Contract
Mayor Dirksen Yes
4.3 - Local Contract Review Board: Reject bids Councilor Harding Yes
for construction of Hall Blvd. /Wall Street Councilor Sherwood Yes
Intersection Phase II and Library Parking Lot Councilor Wilson Yes
Expansion. City Manager Prosser mentioned that Councilor Woodruff Yes
the City is rejecting the bid because we only got
one and it was more than double the engineer's
estimate.
Mayor Dirksen asked if any items needed to be
removed from the consent agenda.
Councilor Harding commented that Council
should revisit the RFP process as this wasn't the
first time in the last few years only one bid was
received. She expressed concerns about the
publications chosen for the City's RFP
advertisements. She said that the media we
choose to advertise in is one of the lowest read in
the Portland area. Mayor Dirksen agreed that the
City staff should make sure the word gets out.
9. Non-Agenda The Mayor announced that a Non-Agenda Item will Motion by Councilor
Item (Note: this be considered at this point - Appoint a City Center Sherwood, seconded by
item was heard Advisory Committee Alternate to a Voting Position. Councilor Harding to approve
out of order.) He said there were two alternates, Alexander Resolution No. 06-44.
Craghead and Ralph Hughes. Alexander Craghead
agreed to take this position. The motion passed with a
unanimous vote of Council
present:
Resolution No. 06-44 - A Resolution Mayor Dirksen Yes
Appointing a Member to the City Center Councilor Harding Yes
Advisory Commission Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 12
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
5. Initiate Associate Planner Sean Farrelly gave the staff report. After discussion Mayor
Planned He said that on April 18, 2006 the Planned Dirksen directed staff to
Development Development Code Review Committee came before prepare a draft ordinance
Revisions the Council with their preliminary and begin the public hearings
Reviewed by recommendations. At that time Council directed process.
the Planning them to revisit and refine their proposed changes
Commission and come back to the Council in 90 days.
The Committee met two additional times to
incorporate feedback from Council, the City
Attorney, Planning Commission and staff.
He said the current revision was presented at the
Planning Commission work session on June 19,
2006. One major change is that applying the overlay
zone is not a separate section in the approval
process. It will be done at the same time as
approval of the detailed development plan.
He also said the site analysis requirement has been
deleted. The overall process is more streamlined
than in previous recommendations. Mr. Farrelly said
they are asking for direction from the Council on
whether to proceed with preparation of an
ordinance. He mentioned that some committee
members were in the audience and staff was here as
well to answer any questions.
Councilor Woodruff asked if it represented a
consensus of the group. Mr. Farrelly said it was a
consensus of all the currently active members.
Councilor Woodruff said they put together a diverse
group and it was meaningful to him that everyone
came together on this.
Councilor Wilson said, "I think stream lining's a
good move. Simple is good; it will be simple and
effective."
Mayor Dirksen stated that he thought there were
some very innovative concepts and it would be
interesting to see how they fare in public hearings.
He wants to see what kind of concerns people have.
He asked why the site analysis requirement was
removed. Planning Manager Bewersdorff said they
looked at the site analysis requirement and felt it just
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 13
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
created more bureaucracy. He said there would be
contour plans as well as other plans and that a site
analysis wouldn't bring much to the process. Mayor
Dirksen was concerned that citizens viewing this
change in the ordinance might think a step is being
taken out that would make sure the sensitive nature
of a site is adequately addressed.
Councilor Wilson noted that the site analysis
requirement was not taken out of the existing code.
It was added to and then taken out of the proposed
new code. He said a site analysis is often done
internally by the designer or architect and that staff
acted wisely to remove this unnecessary step.
Mayor Dirksen asked about the recommendation
from the Planning Commission. He asked if they
concur with the changes to the ordinance. He
recognized a Planning Commission member in the
audience and asked if she would be willing to
comment on behalf of the other members.
Planning Commission member Gretchen Buehner
said, "I think that there was a really good general
consensus and support for the recommendations
that have been made." She said their current
president is a planner who raised questions that
helped them clean up and streamline the document.
When the document came back to the Planning
Commission all their questions had been addressed.
Mayor Dirksen asked if there was a date when the
public hearing would go before the Planning
Commission. Mr. Bewersdorff said there was not a
date set yet.
Councilor Woodruff asked what the smallest size
parcel was that could have a planned development
on it. Mr. Farrelly said there was no limit.
Councilor Harding thanked everyone on the
committee for their work on this long process. She
said it was sad that there is less land available now to
consider than when they started this process a few
years ago.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 14
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Councilor Sherwood thanked the Commission for
sticking with this project and for their work over the
past two years.
6. Compre- Community Development Director Coffee gave an Senior Planner St. Amand
hensive Plan introduction to this agenda item. He introduced advised that on the August 8,
Update: Citizen Senior Planner St. Amand who presented 2006 Council Meeting
Issues and information on the latest survey as well as other consent agenda there will be
Values recent surveys, bringing that information all a Resolution officially
Summary together. He noted that she also prepared some designating the Planning
information and follow-up that Council requested Commission as the
regarding how other cities compare and how to Comprehensive Plan Update
interpret this information and go deeper into some Steering Committee.
questions.
Senior Planner St. Amand reported that at the last
Council meeting, when Community Attitude Survey
results were presented, Council requested
information regarding how Tigard measured up
compared to other jurisdictions. She said they put
together data and focused on four questions. Her
PowerPoint presentation is on file in the City
Recorders Office. She said that when people are
asked what they value most about their city, the
number one answer indicates how many define their
city. Tigard's top answers were location and
atmosphere.
She said the "Priority Future Issues" question shows
a lot of common themes across the region.
Together we are dealing with similar issues. For
Tigard, our priority future issue is "traffic and
congestion" which came up frequently. In addition,
growth, schools and streets were mentioned.
Senior Planner St. Amand said under the "Top Core
City Services," the Library is first with Tigard
residents. West Linn and Tigard are the only two
cities listing libraries as the top service. Other areas
that have their own fire protection services list that
as number one. She said it is clear to people that
TVF&R provides our fire service, not the City.
One other question about "Key Issues" showed that
in Tigard, public safe came up, showing that in
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 15
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
general, people are concerned about health and
welfare of their families and property.
She said the best part of the survey was the "Overall
Quality of Life" rating. Not all jurisdictions asked
this, but of those that did, Lake Oswego was at the
top with 8.6; Tigard came close at 7.8. Hillsboro
had 7.0 and Gresham had 5.6. She said this
provides a sense of where we have commonality
with other jurisdictions and where we stand out as a
city.
Councilor Wilson asked if these were all scientific
polls by these cities. Mr. Coffee said that they were.
Councilor Harding mentioned that in a survey the
County did, the fire department came up as the top
rated "performer."
Senior Planner St. Amand pointed out that there
was a little different result for the question, "What
are your Future Priority Issues?" than what staff
originally sent out. She said the response initially
noted in the report was traffic congestion as number
one, and population and overcrowding as number
four. But as they started working on the Issues and
Values Summary, staff took a deeper look at the
data and thought it did not make sense. In every
other survey done in the last four years, growth was
number two. They asked the consultants to
reexamine the verbatim results to make sure they
weren't micro-grouping the answers and obscuring
what the issues were. Revised percentages place
traffic congestion as first and growth as second,
followed by street and road improvement and
maintenance, and schools and school funding.
Councilor Harding noted that from the Washington
County survey, transportation was listed first, then
schools, land use, housing, and jobs.
Senior Planner St. Amand discussed the Issues and
Values Summary which is a synthesis of survey
results from 2002-2006. A copy of her presentation
is on file in the City Recorder's Office.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 16
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
She said for community areas downtown, which is a
major focus area for the City, issues that came up in
the 2004 and 2005 surveys were appearance and
transportation, particularly pedestrian access.
Regarding values, downtown is very important to
residents and is used regularly. In two surveys
residents responded that they use the downtown
area at least once a week. She said it was 60% of
respondents who said that, which is a very high
number.
Senior Planner St. Amand said the reasons given
why people value downtown were convenience,
character, and the services that are available. They
do feel that downtown is a vital and unique part of
Tigard, important not only for the community, but
also for the local economy. They value downtown
as a gathering place for the community.
She said, regarding natural resources, that this
question was not specifically asked in many of the
surveys that they looked at. When it was addressed
it came out strongly. Only one survey ranked it as
an issue. She wasn't sure what that meant - did it
mean that people are currently satisfied with the
options they have? She said they know it is a strong
value. When people are asked how they feel about
natural features and areas, it ranked very highly on
both surveys. She said they consider it a major
identity for Tigard and it also came up most strongly
in its relationship to neighborhood livability and for
downtown. She said this is where the
Comprehensive Plan process will have to do more
work in asking how we treat these areas. The words
- preserve, respect and protect - have different
meanings and connotations. She said they would
need to be very clear about what these terms mean.
For each of these words there is a financial
component. There would be a priority, but also the
question of the mode of action and how to make
that happen.
She said for public facilities questions, the main
issues that came up were roads, effectiveness and
maintenance, planning, recreation, public safe and
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 17
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
future costs. She said residents value the current
level of service. The recent survey showed that
people are quite satisfied with their current level of
service. Library, police and parks are the top rated
services. She said one thing to keep in mind when
planning for future options is how to maintain
current levels of service that work for existing
residents and still move forward to the future.
Schools and school funding ranked very highly as an
issue. Senior Planner St. Amand said the current
Tigard Comprehensive Plan does not address
education or schools and the current work program
they are working on today does not either, although
it was included in the Tigard beyond Tomorrow
process.
She said "communication" as a topic was not
identified through any scientific surveys but there
was a volunteer survey from 2005 and the leadership
group concluded that there was no one best way
to communicate with our citizens. A multiple
approach would be best and the City will be
following that throughout the Comprehensive Plan
Update process.
Senior Planner St. Amand said that the key issue of
the surveys is determining how Tigard will grow in
the future. Does it mean limit growth or does it
mean accommodate growth? And how will this
choice affect available design solutions for the
community or impact the community's values?
Councilor Wilson thanked staff, saying this was the
first time he'd seen everything analyzed together.
He found it interesting that people liked the library
before we built the new one.
One thing Councilor Wilson felt needed more study
was the issue of accommodating or discouraging
growth. He said it seemed that there are different
aspects to growth and they are controversial. He
said increased density in neighborhoods always
upsets people yet there is also the issue of
commercial growth. He said people don't usually
object to a new grocery store or something even
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 18
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
though more traffic comes with it and that's a hot
button issue. He said it would be helpful to learn in
more detail, what about growth upsets people.
Councilor Woodruff said it would be interesting to
determine whether "accommodate" means growth is
grudgingly accepted because its here and we can't
stop it - or if it means that we want to do it and we
want to do it in the right way.
Community Development Director Coffee said the
latter approach is what's in the Tigard beyond
Tomorrow document that says "accommodate
growth while protecting natural resources."
Mayor Ditksen said there was another survey done
at the behest of Metro and the results were viewed
by the Mayors and Chairs Forum. They asked some
of the same questions about growth but in a
different way such as, "Do you think that it's
possible to curb growth or is it something that we
just have to accept will happen?" And the
consensus among people was that they were not
particularly excited about growth but they
acknowledged it's going to happen and we need to
deal with it in a comprehensive way so we can
regulate and control it - not necessarily stop it.
Councilor Wilson said he was surprised that
protecting trees did not rank among the top issues,
yet it's always one of the "hot button" issues for
every development that comes before the Council.
He said perhaps people are lamenting the loss, but
feeling like it's fair to allow people to do what they
want to do.
Community Development Director Coffee said the
Planning Commission and the Code committees
have been looking at tree protection and the Tree
Code. The Tree Board is looking at the Code from a
different perspective.
Senior Planner St. Amand noted that in a 2004
Recreation Options Survey a very high percentage
of respondents said they wanted to protect natural
areas et support for a bond measure to do exactly
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 19
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
that was significantly less than the majority.
Councilor Woodruff asked what the next steps were.
Community Development Director Coffee said the
reason for bringing this information to the Planning
Commission and Council was to summarize in one
place what the community's been hearing for the
past few years and more or less verify, with a
statistically valid study, the visioning process that's
been going on for several years. He said it would be
the basis for drafting policies and alternative
scenarios for growth and development of the City.
He said that will form the basic draft plan that will
be taken through the Planning Commission and out
to the public. The workload will be managed by
breaking it down into sections and dealing with one
section at a time, bearing in mind that it will all have
to relate and inevitable conflicts resolved.
Senior Planner St. Amand said they are currently
working on the State of the City 2006 report which
essentially assesses the current conditions for each
topic. They have been to the Planning Commission
with the Environmental Quality topic and Natural
Resources is next on the docket, followed by
Community and Public Facilities. The reports
should be done by the beginning of 2007.
They are now sending out information to interested
parties through an electronic news list, press releases
and Cityscape articles to encourage people to
participate by commenting through a-mail or
attending meetings. Next year the focus will be on
active decision making and looking at alternatives
together and going out to the public and focusing
on each topic.
Mayor Dirksen gave commendations to Senior
Planner St. Amand and said it was an excellent
report and analysis of current and prior surveys
compiled together. He said it was a valuable
document that will be of use to the City in many
ways.
Community Development Director Coffee said that
was the idea behind making the Comprehensive
Plan more than just a land use document; it really is
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 20
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
a strategic plan for the City.
7.'Status Engineer Gus Duenas said that Councilor Wilson Mr. Duenas said a contract
Report: asked about the Tualatin River Bike/Pedestrian and budget amendment will
Tualatin River Bridge at the June 13, 2006 Council meeting. be coming to the Council on
Bike/Pedestrian He introduced Paul Hennon, Community Services August 8, 2006. If a contract
Bridge Project Director from the City of Tualatin, who gave a is approved, the project
PowerPoint presentation on the project. construction period would
be August 28-October 13,
Mr. Hennon said the project is well underway. All 2006.
materials are on site and available. He said the costs
have been within the estimate and the change orders
are within the project contingency. He noted that
the project is expected to be completed either by the
end of calendar year 2006, or January 2007. A
Grand Opening next year will be coordinated
between the three cities of Tigard, Tualatin and
Durham.
Mr. Hennon said one issue is an effluent reuse line
from the Durham Sewage Treatment Plant to the
Tualatin Country Club across the river. The
pipeline would have to be lowered as it runs across
the proposed path in Cook Park. The solution
developed was to re-route the path from Cook
Park's Butterfly Garden to the bridge, which avoids
the additional cost of lowering the reuse pipeline.
He said it was also a more elegant design. The path
is a little longer now but additional concrete costs
paid by Tigard will be reimbursed at the end of the
project.
The Path on the Tigard side will go under the
railroad bridge. Safety fence will be installed to
protect pedestrians from falling rocks. The bridge
contract covers laying the path foundation. The
City of Tigard will have to pave it.
Mr. Duenas gave an overview of the realigned trail.
He said the realignment requires a revised
Cleanwater Services easement. It eliminates the
needs for stairs. It is about 1400 lineal feet of trail.
The bids were opened on July. Mr. Duenas noted
that bids were advertised in the two places Tigard
normally advertises - the Tigard Times, because the
City is required to advertise locally, and the Daily
journal of Commerce, which is the paper read b all
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 21
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
the contractors. Five bids were received ranging
from $99,540 to $179,299. Staff recommends
accepting the low bid. The available funds are
$92,800, down from the original $97,000 because
some design fees were made necessary by wetland
delineation. $120,000 is the amount needed for
construction and there is a funding shortfall of
$27,200. Mr. Duenas discussed this with the City's
Finance Department who has indicated there is
sufficient funding in the contingency to award this.
He also noted that Mr. Hennon said Tigard will
receive some reimbursement at the end of the
project.
Councilor Woodruff asked Mr. Hennon what the
amount of the refund at the end of the bridge
project would be. Mr. Hennon "did not give a
number but said, "It would cover that."
Mayor Dirksen said he looked forward to the grand
opening and being able to ride a bike across the
bridge. The length of the trail was discussed and
Mr. Hennon said a previously published map should
be redone to indicate this new trail connection
between Tualatin Community Park and Tigard's
Cook Park. Ultimately, Mr. Hennon said, you
would be able to go from Cook Park across this
bridge, take the Tualatin River Greenway Trail over
to the new Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge.
City Manager Prosser said the region's long range
vision is to have a trail system that circles the entire
region. So as each jurisdiction completes these
segments that vision comes closer to reality.
8. Council
Liaison Reports
9. Non- This item was considered between Items 4 and 5.
Agenda Items
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 22
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
10. Executive Not held.
Session
11. Mayor Dirksen adjourned the Council Business Motion by Councilor
Adjournment Meeting. Sherwood, seconded by
Councilor Woodruff to adjourn
the Council Meeting and
convene the Local Contract
Review Board Meeting
The motion passed with a
unanimous vote of Council
present:
Mayor Dirksen Yes
Councilor Harding Yes
Councilor Sherwood Yes
Councilor Wilson Yes
Councilor Woodruff Yes
Local Contract 1.1 The Local Contract Review Board was called
Review Board to order by Chair Dirksen.
1.2 Roll Call
Local Contract Review Board Members
Present: Chair Dirksen, Board Members
Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 23
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
2.Consider City Engineer Duenas gave the staff report. He Motion by Councilor Wilson,
Awarding noted that on November 8, 2005, the LCRB seconded by Councilor
Contract for awarded a contract to OTAK for Phase 1 design of Sherwood, to approve the
Design Services the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape OTAK contract
for Phase 3 Project. Phase 2 is for Commercial Street and Phase
The motion passed with a
(Burnham 3 is for Burnham Street. He said the original unanimous vote of Council
Street) of the Request for Proposals included design services for present:
Tigard all three phases. However, because the streetscape
Downtown design was expected to determine the design Mayor Dirksen Yes
Comprehensive elements to be included in Phases 2 and 3, the Councilor Harding Yes
Streetscape contract award for those two phases was withheld. Councilor Sherwood Yes
Project He said the intention was to execute an additional Councilor Wilson Yes
contract for those phases once the design concepts Councilor Woodruff Yes
were established and the scope for the next two
projects was better defined.
Mr. Duenas said they have now determined what
Burnham Street will look like after working with the
Streetscape Working Group, the City Center
Advisory Commission and the Council. He said
they want to get going on this project as soon as
possible so they can meet the timeframe for
constructing Burnham Street. There is also some
right-of-way acquisition that needs to be defined.
Mr. Duenas said staff and OTAK negotiated the
cost for the basic design as well as some extra
services to help with the bid phase and through the
construction phase. He asked that Council approve
a contract in the amount of $463,525 with an
additional contingency amount of $46,353, for a
total amount of $509,878.
Councilor Woodruff asked what assurances Mr.
Duenas had that this was a competitive bid
compared to what other bids were.
Mr. Duenas said several firms submitted proposals
in the RFP process. The initial proposal was based
on not knowing the full scope of what Burnham
Street would be. They didn't want to award the
contract until they knew what the scope would be.
Councilor Wilson asked what the price was for
OTAK's original proposal. Mr. Duenas said it was
$315,000, but it was based on a loose and vague
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 24
0
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
concept. He we needed to explore which Green
Streets elements were going to be added. He said a
basic design for this project, including underground
utility and survey information was done about five
years ago. This information had to be verified but
was usable. This same information was available to
all other firms submitting a proposal. He felt that
OTAK's price was competitive. He noted that the
more care taken in the design phase, the better the
chances are that you'll get a good bid for the
construction phase.
Councilor Wilson said, "The proposed price is so
high and I was thinking that by getting a better idea
of what you're doing, the price might go down a
little, rather than the opposite ...I'm chagrined that
that happened. I thought Green Streets were in the
plan from the beginning and it's still not clear to me
what would have caused it to go up, other than it
being perhaps anti-competitive."
Mr. Duenas said that one of the charges we had
with OTAK was to see if the Green Streets
elements were feasible. He said it wasn't certain at
the time we went out for the RFP to what extent we
could do Green Streets.
Mayor Dirksen said, "I'm not sure what else we
could do other than ask for a detailed breakdown of
the bid and I'm considering asking for that before I
give approval."
Councilor Harding said she would concur.
Councilor Woodruff said he had no problem with
OTAK and thought they've been doing a great job.
He said, "On a principle basis, when you're talking
about this much money ...public dollars... the way
that we are obligated to do that generally is to have
an open and competitive process and to evaluate
bids that come in for a specific project that has
specific deliverables and specific details determined.
Without that, we're making judgments that this is
the best bid for whatever reason. And it certainly
may be. Maybe it's the best; I just don't' know
that."
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 25
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
Mr. Duenas pointed out that in an RFP process,
cost is only one consideration; it is based on
qualifications also. He said one of the key items in
the selection of OTAK was not only price but the
capabilities of the firm and their availability to get
the work done. They have staff ready to start right
now.
Councilor Sherwood said what they were asking for
is a detailed breakdown of what everything will cost.
Mr. Duenas said staff could provide that. Mayor
Dirksen noted that if they ask to see it today their
next opportunity to meet is August 8`h. He asked
Mr. Duenas what that would do to the schedule.
OTAK Principal Dan Dawson spoke to the Council
regarding the contract their proposed. He said it is
time and materials contract whereby they've given
an estimate of what they think it will cost but they
will only charge for actual time spent. He also
commented on bidding professional design services.
He suggested that what the Council is really
interested in is the total cost of the project. He said
often times more money spent up front on good
design can save money later on construction. He
said as far as scheduling, there is a lot of
construction going on right now and the first piece
of this contract is for surveying. He said OTAK has
their own survey staff ready to finish the final survey
to get the right-of-way going.
Councilor Wilson said, "I can vouch for the fact that
people are busy right now and it's very likely that we
could go out (for bid) again and not fare much
better. You want to hit the construction window
and hit the ground running in the spring."
Mayor Dirksen said he wanted to see the City get
value for taxpayers' dollars spent. He said Council
has to rely on professionals, and staff in particular,
to tell Council whether they are making the best
decisions.
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 26
Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u
I Adjournment The Local Contract Review Board Meeting was Board Member Sherwood
adjourned at 9:45 p.m. motioned to adjourn and Board
Member Harding seconded.
The motion passed with a
unanimous vote of Council
present:
Chair Dirksen Yes
Board Member Harding Yes
Board Member Sherwood Yes
Board Member Wilson Yes
Board Member Woodruff Yes
Carol A. Krager, Deputy City Rec er
Attest:
6 ,
Mayor, ity of Tigard
Date:AUCL41,54 aMD
July 18, 2006 City Council Meeting page 27
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL °
CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD M
MEETING
JULY 18, 2006 6:30 p.m.
TIGARD CITY HALL _ ~ '
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
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. Citizen
Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future
Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
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
7:3012.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 503-639-4171,
ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT
REVIEW BOARD AGENDA -JULY 18, 2006 page 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
(limes are estimated.)
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> Discuss Proposed Senior Center Remodel and Additions
• Staff Report: Public Works Department
> Discuss Reinstating Funds to Remodel and Relocate the Public Works Department to
the Water Building
• Staff Report: Public Works Department
> Discuss Revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code Incorporating a Right-of-Way Usage
Fee
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying
the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing
from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions,
as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive
Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.
Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
730 PM
1. BUSINESS 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
7:35 PM
2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
• Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Representative: President Ralph Hughes
• Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication
COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT
REVIEW BOARD AGENDA -JULY 18, 2006 page 2
7:40 PM
4. 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:
4.1 Approve Workers' Compensation Volunteer Coverage Through City County
Insurance Services
4.2 Amend Insurance Agent of Record Contract extending from Three to a Five-Year
Contract
4.3 Local Contact Review Board:
a. Reject Bids for the Construction of Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection -
Phase II and Library Parking Lot Expansion
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion. Any items requested to be removed fmm
the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted
on those items which do not need discussion.
7:45 PM
5. INITIATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVISIONS REVIEWED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. Council Discussion
C. Council Direction: Should staff prepare a draft ordinance for public hearings?
8:45 PM
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: CITIZEN ISSUES AND VALUES SUMMARY
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
9:15 PM
7. STATUS REPORT: TUALATIN RIVER BIKE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT
a. Staff Introduction: Community Development Department
b. Report from Paul Hennon, City of Tualatin
C. Council Discussion
8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT
REVIEW BOARD AGENDA -JULY 18, 2006 page 3
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an
Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced
identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or
making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
11. ADJOURNMENT (Local Contract Review Board Meeting will follow the City Council
meeting.)
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
(IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ADJOURNMENT OF THE
JULY 18, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING)
Times are estimated.
9:40PM
1.1 CALL TO ORDER: LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB)
1.2 ROLL CALL
2. CONSIDER AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR PHASE 3
(BURNHAM STREET IMPROVEMENTS) OF THE TIGARD DOWNTOWN
COMPREHENSIVE STREETSCAPE PROJECT
a. Staff Report: Community Development Department
b. LCRB Discussion
C. LCRB Consideration: Motion to approve the contract award to OTAK, Inc., in the
amount of $463,525 and authorize an additional amount of $46,353 to be reserved
for contingencies and applied as needed as the design of Burnham Street progresses
towards completion and into the construction phase. The total amount for Phase 3
is $509,878.
10:00 PM
3. ADJOURNMENT
i:tadmkkathytccat20061060718.doc
COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT
REVIEW BOARD AGENDA -JULY 18, 2006 page 4
M
TIGA:CITY NCIL M
LOCAREVIEW BOARD
JULY PM TIGAL
13125 D
TIGA97223
Study Meetings are usually held in the Red Rock Creek Conference Room (formerly Town
Hall Conference Room). The public is welcome to attend this meeting and all City Council
meetings, except for Executive Sessions. Executive Sessions are called only when the _
Council must discuss legal issues, labor relations, or other such matters allowed by law.
If there are more people than can be easily accommodated in the Red Rock Creek
Conference Room, then the Council will move the meeting to the Town Hall.
6:30 PM
STUDY SESSION -
♦ HELD IN RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
Public Welcome
EXECUTIVE SESSION(S)
♦ HELD IN RED ROCK CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
Not Open to the Public
7:30 PM
BUSINESS MEETING
♦ HELD IN TOWN HALL
Public Welcome
i:\adm\cathytccs sign u&ouncil hoard%usiness.doc
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
July 18, 2006 - 6:30 p.m.
13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon
6:30 PM
• STUDY SESSION
> Discuss Proposed Senior Center Remodel and Additions
• Staff Report Public Works Department
> Discuss Reinstating Funds to Remodel and Relocate the Public Works Department to the
Water Building
• Staff Report Public Works Department
> Discuss Revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code Incorporating a Right-of-Way Usage Fee
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
• ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
➢ Discuss City Center Advisory Commission Appointment - Non Agenda Item?
➢ Determine carpooling plans for July 25 to Hillsboro for the Washington County Board of
Commissioners Meeting. Meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. Set departure place and time.
➢ Discuss Quello House correspondence.
➢ Does City Council want to schedule a meeting with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Board? If
yes, when?
➢ Review proposed revised wording for the first page of the City Council agenda.
➢ Update on Code violations reported at the last 5th Tuesday meeting.
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to
the public.
Council Calendar
July
• July 18 Tuesday City Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
• July 24 Monday Lunch at the TVF&R Fire Station in Tigard (Burnham Street) - Noon
• July 25 Tuesday City Council Business Meeting Cancelled. Possible quorum of City
Council to attend Board of Commissioners Meeting in Hillsboro; 6:30
p.m. (Washington County Public Services Building, 155 North First
Avenue, Hillsboro, OR)
Executive Session -
The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited
situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a
governing body, which is clared to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters."
Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions:
192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents,
If the body has satisfied certain prerequisites.
192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have
an open hearing).
192.660 (2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital.
192.660 (2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.)
192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations.
192.660 (2) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public
inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised
Statutes.
192-660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing
body is competing with other governing bodies.
192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties
regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed.
192.660 (2) To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted
by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief
executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected
person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to
be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing
body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for
public comment.
192.660 (2) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private
persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of
public investments.
192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board.
192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board.
192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security.
iAadmYathylcca sst2006t060627ps.doc
Agenda Item # S'f~l e✓ Yes-S / Oh
Meeting Date Tuly 18, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Proposed Senior Center Remodel and Additions
Prepared By: Daniel Plaza Dept Head Approval: ~ City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council authorize up to $100,000 in FY'06/'07 to contract for architectural consulting services in order to
produce preliminary construction plans and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for the proposed Senior
Center remodel and additions?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council authorize up to $100,000 in FY'06/'07 to contract for architectural consulting services
in order to produce preliminary construction plans and a CUP application for the proposed Senior Center remodel and
additions.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
♦ Loaves and Fishes/Senior Center Site Committee has identified potential remodel improvements and building
additions.
♦ Building additions would include a new meeting/library room near the front entrance and a new garden room
off the ground floor on the north side of the building. The combined new square footage would be
approximately 1,280 square feet.
♦ In order to obtain more accurate construction cost estimates and to be ready to submit a land use application,
architectural consulting services will be needed.
♦ This expenditure retains enough funding for the City to negotiate a second $100,000 contract for architectural
services to produce the final construction plans and bid documents.
♦ This matter was discussed with the Budget Committee; the Committee included the expenditure in the budget,
but directed staff to prepare a report for the City Council before any further work was done.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council could choose to abandon the project or change the scope of the project.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memo from Dan Plaza to the City Council dated July 18, 2006
FISCAL NOTES
There is $200,000 in the FY'06/'07 Facilities CIP budget earmarked for architectural design work relating to this
project. Preliminary construction estimates show the full project will cost approximately $1 million. This amount is in
the FY'07/'08 Facilities CIP Budget.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) staff have notified the City that there is roughly $700,000 in grant
funds available in Washington County. The City's Community Development staff is preparing a CDBG application,
requesting $475,000 in matching funds.
Loaves and Fishes has committed to raise $100,000 for this project.
Attachment 1
It
MEMORANDUM
A •
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Plaza, Parks and Facilities Manager
RE: Proposed Senior Center Remodel
DATE: July 18, 2006
Background
The FY '06/'07 Facilities CIP budget includes funds for design services for a proposed
remodel and seismic upgrade of the Tigard Senior Center. Earlier this year, staff met
with the Loaves and Fishes (L&F)/Senior Center Site Committee on several occasions
to help formulate the scope of the remodel portion of the project. After a lengthy
public input process, the Committee recommends the following improvements be
completed by the City:
♦ Priority #1- Main building improvements:
o Seismic upgrade of the building
o Four bathrooms to be revamped, upsized and remodeled
o Remodel main floor area
o Complete remodel of the kitchen and food serving area
o Upgrade the electrical panel
o Upgrade the interior lighting
o Upgrade the phone system
♦ Priority #2 - External improvements:
o Upgrade concrete loading dock
o Upgrade exterior and parking lot lighting
o Re-stripe the parking lot
o Add bicycle racks
♦ Priority #3 - Building additions:
o Addition of a library/meeting room near the entrance
o Addition of a garden meeting room off the back (north)
o Purchase permits
A local architectural firm, Ankrom Moisan, volunteered pro bono services to L&F to
produce concept level drawings for the remodel and building additions. These
drawings were useful for discussion purposes and for preliminary estimates. If the full
project is constructed, with both building additions, staff anticipates the cost would be
approximately $1 million.
The two building additions would increase the overall size of the building by more
than 10 percent, requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A pre-application
conference for this project was held on June 5, 2006, and overall the project appears to
be straightforward and CUP approval seems likely. In order to move forward with a
CUP application, preliminary construction plans will need to be developed.
Funding
When this project was first conceived, staff thought the City could obtain a
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to cover a significant portion of the
project cost. During the financial forecasting process, staff projected $475,000 of
General Fund monies would be used in FY '07/'08 as matching funds, assuming a
$475,000 CDBG grant were obtained.
L&F has committed to raise $100,000 for this project.
On June 28, 2006, staff spoke with CDBG staff and was informed that there is roughly
$700,000 in grant funds available in Washington County. Staff believes the City
should apply for a $475,000 CDBG grant to complete the full project including the
additions. There is a chance the City would not be awarded the entire $475,000. If this
were to occur, CDBG staff indicated the City could reduce the scope of the project to
match any funding we might receive.
Critical Milestones
Community Development (CD) staff is currently working toward a CDBG grant
application which will come before Council in September, 2006. At that time, CD
staff will ask the Council to authorize the application, which is due October, 2006.
CDBG staff indicated the City will receive feedback about its grant application in
January, 2007.
Assuming a grant is awarded, the project would need to be constructed within one
calendar year beginning July 1, 2007. Therefore, if the City receives word in January,
2007 that a grant is awarded, staff would have roughly 18 months to complete the
project.
As stated previously, a CUP is required before the City can begin construction. If the
City waits until January, 2007, to begin the CUP process, there may not be enough
time to complete the project by July, 2008. A sample timeline is as follows:
January, 2007 ■ Procurement time to hire an architect
■ Preparation.of preliminary drawings
■ CUP application, process, approval
Estimated time: 9 months
October, 2007 Architect produces final construction drawings and bid
documents to procure a building permit and a
contractor.
Estimated time: 2 months
Janua , 2008 ■ Begin construction
Jul 1, 2008 ■ Project completion date
Staff is concerned the project could not be constructed in the remaining six-month
window from January, 2008, through July, 2008.
The FY '06/'07 Facilities CIP budget allocates $200,000 toward design efforts for this
project. During the CIP budget approval process, Council requested discussion with
staff before funding is expended. Staff requests authorization to expend a portion of
these funds to hire an architect to begin the CUP application now.
Recommendation
In light of the anticipated timeline for completing this project and assuming a CDBG
grant is awarded to the City in January, 2007, staff recommends the Council authorize
up to $100,000 to hire, on or about January, 2007, an architect to prepare a CUP
application and preliminary construction drawings. The procurement process for the
architect could be structured such that the initial contract would be for preliminary
plans and the CUP application. The. City would have the option to negotiate a second
$100,000 contract for architectural services to produce the final construction plans and
bid documents.
Agenda Item # S TuA
Meeting Date "tA 18, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Reinstating Funds to Remodel and Relocate the Public Works Department to the Water Building
Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: K City Mgr Approval OP~C*
CA4
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Staff is seeking Council direction on reinstating funds for the remodel/relocation project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Council direct staff to prepare a budget amendment reinstating funds for the remodel/relocation project.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
■ The remodel/relocation project has been underway since 2004. This project was budgeted, though not
completed, in FY'05/'06.
■ The Budget Committee removed the funds from the budget and placed them in contingency to complete this
project in FY `06/'07 and directed staff to return to the Council with more information.
■ One of the urban renewal catalyst projects calls for a new intersection at Ash Drive and Burnham Street. The
public works annex, located at this intersection, is slated for demolition as part of the project. Eight staff
members are currently housed in this building.
■ The proposed project would:
- Make way for one of the first urban renewal projects, allowing for the demolition of the annex, by
providing a work space for staff currently housed in this building.
- Consolidate administrative staff in a single, modern building.
- Provide park and street staff, operating out of the public works yard, with ADA compliant restroom
and lunchroom facilities.
- Get the City one step closer to vacating the public works office/operations complex for urban renewal
projects.
- Provide funding to accomplish water building upgrades, allowing the City to make good use of a
partially vacant, relatively modern facility.
- Save the City about $25,000 annually in rented storage space.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Council could choose not to reinstate funding, in which case the City will need to delay the Ash
Drive/Burnham Street urban renewal project or find some other location to house the eight employees currently,
working in the annex.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
2006 Tigard City Council Goal #2: Implement Downtown Plan
Implement catalyst projects including improvements to Burnham Street and identify and purchase land for a
downtown public gathering place
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memo from Dennis Koellermeier to Craig Prosser dated July 3, 2006
Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis, Executive Summary
FISCAL NOTES
The estimated cost of the remodel/relocation project is $630,000. If Council wishes to complete the project, staff will
prepare a budget amendment funding the project. As directed by the Budget Committee, designated contingencies
were established in the sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water funds. The budget amendment will transfer the
appropriations out of the designated contingencies and into the capital improvement budgets for each fund. The cost
of the project will be split between the three funds as follows: water fund - $400,000, sanitary sewer fund - $130,000,
and the stormwater fund - $100,000.
1~
Attachment 1
71
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director
RE: Reinstating Funds to Remodel Water Building
DATE: July 3, 2006
In the proposed FY '06/'07 budget process, the Public Works Department requested funds to
remodel and subsequently relocate some staff to the water building. The Budget Committee
restricted the funds for this project, but authorized Council to reconsider this decision should
it wish to do so.
I am requesting the Council revisit this decision. The current proposal allows for the annex to
be vacated and the partially vacant water building to be completely utilized. The current
public work's yard will be used by park and street staff. The remodel/relocation project will
accomplish the following:
Issue Current Proposal
■ The public works annex building is scheduled Provides building upgrades to
for demolition in FY '06/'07 or '07/'08 to create a functional work space for
accommodate an urban renewal project, a new staff displaced by the annex
intersection at Ash Avenue and Burnham demolition.
Street. Demolishing the building will displace
eight staff members. The only space available
for relocation is the water building, but this
building requires upgrades before it can be used
as a functional works ace.
■ The Public Works Department is currently Consolidates administrative staff in
spread over three locations, an arrangement a single location and eliminates one
that is cumbersome and inefficient. of three existing locations.
■ The current public works office/operations Relocates staff from an outdated
complex is not ADA compliant and has building into a modern building
inadequate heating and ventilation systems. that requires only minor upgrades
Along with a seismic upgrade, the building also in order to meet current building
requires plumbing, accessibility and interior standards and provides staff
upgrades in order for it to meet current remaining in the yard with ADA
standards. For this reason, some department compliant restroom and
functions, such as the computerized water lunchroom facilities.
control system, have already been relocated to
the water building.
■ In the urban renewal plan, the current location Gets the City one step closer to
of the public works office/operations complex vacating the public works
is slated for high density housing. Situated next office/operations complex.
to Fanno Creek Park, the site is expected to
become rime, developable property.
■ The majority of the water building has been Provides funding to accomplish
vacant since the Finance Department moved to upgrades, allowing the City to
City Hall following the renovation of the old make good use of a partially
library. vacant, relatively modern facility.
■ Should the remodel and relocation take place, Saves the City about $25,000
the vacant public works office/operations annually in rented storage space.
complex will be temporarily used as storage for
records and police evidence until urban
renewal activities necessitate the City
completely vacate the property.
■ The FY '06/'07 budget request was a Will allocate funds in the proposed
continuation of the remodel project which has FY '06/'07 for the completion of
been underway since 2004. This project was the remodel/relocation project.
budgeted, though not completed, in FY
'05/'06. The Public Works Department
retained an architect and has conducted a
facility needs analysis.
Facility Needs Analysis
Highlights of the facility needs analysis are as follows:
■ Currently, the Public Works Department is spread across three sites totaling 7.07 acres.
These facilities support 65 personnel, provide 14,375 square feet of office space and
13,045 square feet of shop space.
■ Under ideal conditions, the Public Works Department requires a facility of
approximately 8 acres, with 12,600 square feet of office space and 15,000 square feet of
shop space.
■ None of the three existing sites are large enough to handle a consolidated facility.
■ In addition, the two Ash Avenue sites will ultimately be needed for urban renewal projects,
with the public works annex slated for demolition in the next year or so.
The analysis concludes, as an interim solution to a new facility, park and street staff should be
assigned to a portion of the current public works office/ operations complex, while administrative
staff should be assigned to the water building. The study assumes the annex will be vacated at the
earliest opportunity.
A copy of the Executive Summary of the Facility Needs Analysis is attached.
Scope of the Remodel
The work associated with the project will consist of the following:
■ Replace the current HVAC system, since existing equipment is at end of its useful life (20 plus
years old). This work was already planned in the facilities five-year forecast and is being tied to
the proposed remodel project since there may be some cost savings to do the remodel and
upgrades at the same time.
■ Provide minimal ADA upgrades to restrooms
■ Install computer/ communications cabling
■ Paint
■ Replace carpet and floor tiles
■ Design and install partition systems purchased at state auction
■ Replace some lighting for energy efficiency
■ Consider other energy efficiency modifications
■ Install a trailer at the existing public works office/operations complex to provide an ADA
compliant restroom and lunchroom facilities
Recommended Action
I recommend the City fund this project in the FY'06/'07 budget. If Council concurs, staff will
prepare a Council budget amendment to fund the project. As directed by the Budget Committee,
designated contingencies were established in the sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water funds, should
Council decide to complete the project. The budget amendment will transfer the appropriations out
of the designated contingencies and into the capital improvement budgets for each fund. The cost of
the project will be split between the three funds as follows: water fund - $400,000, sanitary sewer
fund - $130,000, and the stormwater fund - $100,000.
Executive Summary
The following is a synopsis of the data compiled and an overview of the findings of this Facil-
ity Needs Analysis. This summary is divided into major categories of Existing Conditions,
Ideal Conditions, Options Developed and Interim Proposed Solution.
Existing Conditions
The existing Public Works Department is comprised of 66 full time positions and 4 seasonal
staff. The staff is distributed among multiple buildings at three sites, the Public Works Office
and Yard, Public Works Annex and the Water Building. The total available area at the three
sites totals 7.7 acres of total property including 14,375 SF of Office Space, 13,045 SF of
Warehouse/Shop Space. Summarized as follows:
Location Site Are # of Staff Office Shop Space
Space
Public Works Yard 3.27 Acres 21 2975 sf 5475 sf
Public Works Annex .35 Acres 8 1640 sf 0
Water Building 4.04 Acres 26 9760 sf' 7570 sf
TOTAL 7.07 Acres 14,375 sf 13,045 sf
'Water Building office space is only partially utilized by Public Works, rest of the building was
recently vacated by staff move to City Hall. All other areas noted are utilized 100% by Public
Works.
Public Works Office and Yard: The Warehouse and Yard areas serve the needs of the Parks
and Streets departments. The open space is adequate for these departments, well organized
and maintained. Parking is adequate and the location is centralized in the City. The Ware-
house buildings house some staff offices that may not be code compliant and lack adequate
ventilation, accessibility, and seismic protection.
The Office Building serves administrative staff space needs, as well as field crew, lunch and
shower areas. It also houses the SCADA equipment. The second floor offices are an inef-
ficient use of space for staff positions and are not handicap accessible. This building is well
maintained but due to the buildings age, the Heating/Ventilation systems are inadequate.
Other systems in need of upgrade or replacement to bring up to current standards include the
plumbing, accessibility and interior finishes. Though the building structure is in generally good
condition, it would not withstand a significant seismic event.
Public Works Annex: This building was not studied in detail as it is assumed that it will
be vacated at the earliest opportunity. This former residence meets the current space needs of
the balance of the administrative department but the layout of individual rooms as offices is
inefficient. The quality of the lighting and mechanical systems and interior finishes are not up
to current standards. The building roof and exterior is deteriorating and in need of upgrade
or replacement. This entire site area is subject to street realignment and may not be available
for future use.
Water Building: This building is modern compared to the Annex and Yard structures. The
spaces are in very good condition and well maintained. The open space is well laid out and
includes amenities not. included at the older yard including a fuel station and a compliant
City of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis
n r c h i r e c r s i n r.
equipment cleaning area with proper drainage.
The office building provides a combination of open office spaces and private offices and will
allow an efficient furniture layout. A large public meeting room is available and is shared with
other departments and serves as the Emergency Operations Center for the City. The locker
room includes mud rooms, showers and a dry room, but they are small and accommoda-
tion for female staff is minimal. The electrical system includes emergency power systems and
adequate service for most uses. The mechanical system appears to be at the end of its useful
life and will require some upgrade as part of any renovation.
The exterior appearance of this building is a modern and well maintained masonry building
that is holding up well. Parking is adequate and is located at a highly visible intersection, yet
the yard areas are screened by low walls to maintain an organized appearance.
Ideal Conditions
Based on questionnaires, staff interviews and comparisons to similar Public Works depart-
ments, an ideal space program was developed with staffing projections in five and ten year
increments. Noted below is a summary of the required space including total recommended
site area, projected number of staff, and estimated area for Office and Shop/Warehouse
Space. It was a general concensus among staff that the ideal situation would be one site that
housed all Public Works functions. The current location, near to City Hall and centrally located
is preferred, but is not vital.
Location Site Are #of Staff Office Shop Space
Space
Public Works Yard 8.0 Acres 66 12,600 sf 15,000 sf
A rough comparison with similar sized Public Works Departments shows that the ideal facility
needs program is in line with industry standards.
city Population Staff Stie Area
Tigard 45,500 66 8 Ac
Albany 43,000 102 5 Ac / 1 Site
Corvallis 50,100 113 27 Ac / 1 Site
Lake Oswego 36,000 43 6.35 Ac / 1 Site
Kirklan, WA 45,500 80 48 Ac / 2 Sites
Olympia, WA 44,000 .215` 11 Ac / 4 Sites
Redmond, WA 46,400 150 7 Ac / 1 Site
`Includes transportation departments
Options Developed
After determining the ideal conditions, several options were tested to determine feasibility. It
was a general consensus that the Water Building site alone is not adequate to accommodate
the ideal conditions. The Water Buildings can be expanded to consolidate staff, but the Yard
is not able to adequately serve the needs of the City without acquiring additional property.
1
The site is locked by the rail line to the north, public roads to the east and south, and the fire
station property to the west. If additional contiguous property could be found to the west of the
fire station, it is possible that the Water Building site could meet the ideal conditions, however,
this does not align with the City's Downtown Improvement Plan.
Two general sets of options were reviewed. Options 1 and 2 are slight variations based on the
expansion of the Water Building to accommodate all staff, but will require that the Yard area
remain in service. The Office can be re-used for purposes other than staff. These options open
the Annex building to be re-used or sold.
Options 3 and 4 are variations based on the staff remaining divided between the Office/Yard
and Water site, but consolidates the Annex staff into the Water Building. These are considered
to be the minimal required to improve the efficiency of the Department and are relatively cost
effective as short term solutions. No expansion of the Water Building is required. These op-
tions allow the Annex Building to be re-used or sold.
The Ideal Option, reflects comments noted above and provides pricing for the option of build-
ing an entirely new complex on a new site or adequate expansion of the Water Building site.
All costs below are based on current conditions and will increase by a factor of 3 to 4% for
every year projected. The costs are for construction and soft costs only and do not include
land purchase.
Cons Cost
LOpfion Pros
1 - Expand WB to ac- Consolidates all staff; Limited space for future $1,706,458
commodate all PW staff Frees up Yard and growth;lnadequate yard
Annex for other use area
or sale
2 - Expand WB to ac- Consolidates majority Rebuild fleet at Yard loca- $1,631,318
commodate all except of staff; Frees up Yard tion; Inadequate space for
Fleet and Annex for other future growth;lnadequate
use or sale yard area
3 - Parks and Streets Annex is vacated; Wa- Does not consolidate all $495,508
stay at Yard ter Bldg is completely staff.; Operating costs at
utilized Yard are maintained
4 - Parks and Streets Annex is vacated; Of- Does not consolidate all $565,656
stay at Yard and con- fice is vacated; Water staff.; Operating costs at
solidate in Shop Space Bldg is completely Yard are maintained
utilized
Ideal - Purchase new Sell off existing Yard Highest initial cost; Short- $5,750,000 if new
standalone property or and Annex Building, age of adequate sized site$2,735,000
purchase contiguous Lower operating cost parcels in Tigard ifWater Bldg site
property to Water Bldg
site
Interim Proposed Solution
Options Three and Four are being evaluated for an interim proposed solution.
City of Tigard Public Works Department Facility Needs Analysis ,
n rch ilec fs in r.
Agenda Item # 5-/1(X, e5slo/L
Meeting Date Tuly 18,2&6
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code Incorporating a Right-of-Way Usage Fee
Prepared By: Nancy Werner Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discuss revising the Municipal Code to incorporate a right-of-way usage fee and change the franchise requirement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff with direction on revising the Municipal Code to incorporate a right-of-way usage fee and change the
franchise requirements.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
In discussions with Council on December 13, 2005 and May 16, 2006, Council directed staff to draft amendments to
the Tigard Municipal Code to incorporate a right-of-way usage fee ("ROW Fee") that would apply to utilities using the
rights-of-way to the extent the utility is not paying franchise fees. Staff has been working on these revisions with the
City Attorney, and we have recognized two issues the Council should consider before a hearing on the amendments.
1. Elimination of Franchise Requirement: The City currently requires private utilities using the rights-of-way to
receive a franchise from the City. Staff recommends that this requirement be amended to allow, but not require, a
franchise. Utilities using or desiring to use the rights-of-way could choose from three options: (1) No franchise, and
thus be bound by the relevant Code provisions; (2) Sign a standard franchise, which would be essentially the same as the
Code provisions; or (3) Negotiate a franchise, the terms of which may vary from the Code provisions.
Staff believes this approach is preferable to the franchise requirement because it ensures that utilities using the rights-of-
way without a franchise are subject to the Code, and the City would not be required to enforce a franchise requirement
on a utility that is otherwise acting consistent with the Code provisions (e.g., obtaining permits, paying the ROW Fee).
2. ROW Fee Rate for Electric Utilities: Council directed staff to implement a ROW Fee at the same rate as current
franchise fee rates so that the ROW Fee would be revenue neutral (because franchise fees would be deducted from the
ROW Fee). The current franchise fee rate for PGE is 3.5%. NW Natural and all other utilities are at 5%. In
comments on draft amendments to the Code, counsel for NW Natural noted that gas and electric utilities are
competitors and thus a lower ROW Fee for electric utilities gives PGE a competitive advantage.
Staff recommends that Council consider a ROW Fee of 5% for electric utilities to eliminate this concern. This would
result in the same ROW Fee rate for all utilities. It also would generate additional revenue to the City, although PGE
likely will pass the additional 1.5% fee on to customers as a municipal tax or fee on their electric bill. (Under Oregon
Administrative Rules, electric utilities may separately list the portion of a franchise fee or related tax over 3.5% as a
municipal tax on customers' bills. Gas utilities may separately list any portion over 3%, so there is a history of treating
gas and electric utilities differently in this area.) The alternatives are to: (1) leave the ROW Fee at the same level as the
current franchise fee rate regardless of the discrepancy between electric and the other utilities, or (2) lower the gas ROW
Fee to 3.5%, which is less than the 5% franchise fee agreed to by NW Natural and likely would result in a loss of
revenue upon the expiration of NW Natural's franchise in 2014.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The ROW Fee would contribute to the Council Goal to "Stabilize Financial Picture" and the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
goal to "Identify and Develop Funding Resources" for Transportation and Traffic by ensuring continued payment for
use of the rights-of-way and, if the electric ROW Fee is increased to 5%, providing additional revenue that would be
available to the General Fund, or which could supplement other funding resources for improvements to City streets.
ATTACHMENT LIST
None.
FISCAL NOTES
Implementing the ROW Fee for electric utilities at 5% would generate an estimated $540,000 per year in additional
revenue for the City. Lowering the gas ROW Fee to 3.5% would result in an estimated loss of $246,785 per year after
the expiration of NW Natural's franchise, based on FY2005-06 franchise fee payments from NW Natural.
I
MEMORANDUM
TO. Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Tom Coffee, Interim CD Director
i
RE: Quello House Use Question
DATE: July 13, 2006
Councilor Sally Handing recently suggested that the City should allow the use of the Quello
House (and presumably other similar houses) for events on a rental basis. To allow such
activities, the Qty would have to amend the Development Code to permit what would be a
commercial use in residential zones. This could be accomplished through a conditional use
process.
Such a proposal for this specific property was considered in 2000. The property owner
applied for a code amendment to allow weddings and bed and breakfasts in historic overlay
zones as a conditional use. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 2 to recommend denial of
the proposed code amendment to the City Council. Their reasons included: the lack of
historic properties, not an appropriate use in residential zones, and neighborhood
opposition.
In August 2000, the City council voted unanimously to deny the proposed amendment. In
2002, the Planning Commission reconsidered the need for a code amendment for bed and
breakfasts and unanimously chose not to proceed with amending the Code because: their
was "no public outcry" for B&B's, concern for commercial activity in residential zones and
they felt that the costs of preparing and processing a code amendment should be borne by
Those who desired to have such a use.
Further action on this proposal would require direction from Council to initiate a Code
amendment."
I
i
AGENDA
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Agenda Category: Public Hearing - County Administrators Office (CPO 4B)
Agenda Title: CONSIDER THE PROPOSED INCORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF BULL MOUNTAIN (CASEFH E WA-3106)
Presented by: Robert Davis, County Administrator
SUMMARY:
On May 30, 2006 the Bull Mountain Residents for Incorporation filed a petition concerning the
formation of the new city of Bull Mountain. The petition requests that the County place the
incorporation on the November 7, 2006 General Election ballot. .
The proposed city is generally located east of Roy Rogers Road, north of Beef Bend Road, west
of the current city limits of Tigard, and south of Scholls Ferry/Barrows Road (see Exhibit A). The
proposed new city encompasses approximately 1,869 acres, the majority of which is located
within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The proposed new city also includes UGB
expansion Areas 63 and 64, which were added to the Regional UGB in 2002.
On June 6, 2006 the Board scheduled two public hearings on the proposed petition (WA-3106).
The public hearings are scheduled for July 25, 2006 at 6:30 PM and August 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM.
On August 0. the Board may issue a decision or continue its review to August 8 h at 10:00 AM
for a decision and, if necessary, to August 9t' at 10:00 AM. Approval of the petition would allow
the incorporation to be placed on the November 7th ballot.
Notice of today's hearing has been made in accordance with state law and Metro Code
requirements. The staff report (File Number: WA-3106) will be provided to you under separate
cover prior to the initial public hearing and will also be available at the clerk's desk.
Attachments: Map of proposed boundary (Exhibit A)
DEPARTMENT'S REOUESTED ACTION:
Conduct the fast public hearing. At the conclusion of public testimony, continue the hearing to
August 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION:
I concur with the requested action.
Agenda Item No. 3.a.
Date: 7/25/06
EXHIBIT A
All
Illy
t ~ a. • ~ t ~i~` y 7 ~ 1?~i *r eta y
BE~4E RT®N _a~ z BULL MOUNTAIN
t
Proposed City Boundary
AF25 tR rt2 %Y '
OlL-g FERRY BARRO• WS ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ o >
gCF1 • 'r ,
• u Y~ v Bull Mountain (Proposed City)
y Y L 7 + MK3 Proposed City Boundary
ry ` ° ~ x`~k ® UGB Expansion Areas (2002)
ZENr y Af
L II''~TI GSA RED .A Current Urban Growth Boundary
Area~64 'R}2` a 5yy; Incorporated Urban Areas
d z ` ALE, y t 2 _ ~~s' Isc :l Existing Cities
A s mxr ; MA Unincorporated Areas
{
Land Use Designations
f $,c AF5-Agriculture and Forestry
AF10-Agriculture and Forest
aF vm. " - AF20-Agriculture and Forest
~ .fiet~+k K . k EFU- Exclusive Faun Use
BULL MOUNTAIN " ~ t ? o INST- Institutional
R6- Residential
v a°s RRS-Rural Residential
r - r'•
to ~r+~ I ys~`
W M yI,v+a$~~j
o W
D r' :
Y .n W ~ M..:. • ~.:i
EFU Area 63 M
a i
N
EFU
BEEF g~N: I N ST 0 0.25 0.5
BEEF BENb ;}r' R6 h Mmes
AF10 - _
EFU AF5 RR5
roTON G IS
KING CITY'
Geographic
Information
_ .3% Systems
oxeoo>•
i
. y
MEETING
FIGARD ARD CITY COUNCIL
'2006 6:30 p.m.
CITY HALL
125 SW HALL BLVD
° .
TIGARD, OR 97223
DRAFT
PUBLIC NOTICE:
To request to speak to the City Council:
➢ Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
➢ If no sheet is available for the agenda item you would like to address, sign the Citizen
Communication sign-in sheet and ask the Mayor if you may speak to the Council when that
agenda item is considered.
➢ For Citizen Communication items regarding items not on the agenda, citizens are asked keep
their remarks to two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by
contacting the Mayor or the City Manager.
➢ If you need assistance determining how to sign in, please speak to the staff greeter who will be
near the entry to the Town Hall before the Council meeting.
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 503-639-4171,
ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deao.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - , 2006 page 1
WerrSeSS~ o ~
Proposed Incorporation of Bull Mountain
Provided below is a table that summarizes the hearing schedule of the incorporation proposal
(WA - 3106), Ordinance No. 666 and the proposed amendments to the Tigard Urban Service
Agreement. A summary of the incorporation review criteria is provided after the schedule.
Schedule of Key Events
I Board hearing for WA - 3106 July 25
• Only date property can be added to the boundary if the property owner isn't resent
Planning Commission hearing for Ordinance 666 July 26
1" Board hearing for Ordinance 666 August 1
• Staff's recommendation is to engross the ordinance to amend the Tigard UPAA
and the Bull Mt. Community Plan
Board considers proposed amendments to the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (not a August 1
public hearing)
• May continue to August 8b
2° public hearing WA - 3106 August 1
• Last opportunity to adjust the proposed city boundary so that the legal description
can be prepared
Public hearing for A-Engrossed Ordinance 666 August 8
• Adopt or reject ordinance
If necessary, the Board considers proposed amendments to the Tigard Urban Service August 8
Agreement (not a public hearing)
• Adopt or reject proposed changes
3 Board hearing for WA - 3106 August 8
• Make final decision; or
Make tentative decision about the petition and continue to August 9th
If needed, last date the Board may act on WA - 3106 August 9
Final date to adopt the ballot ti tle for WA - 3106 August 9
July 18, Board of Commissioners Worksession
Summary of Key Incorporation Review Criteria
1. Incorporation is a land use decision. The Board must determine whether it meets the relevant
standards of the county's Comprehensive Plan and the Metro Code. Staff also recommends
that the feasibility of compliance with the statewide goals be addressed.
2. It is staff's opinion that the incorporation must be consistent with the Washington County -
Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement and the Tigard Urban Services Agreement.
Appropriate changes to those agreements have been prepared and should be adopted if the
Board decides the incorporation should proceed, if not, the amendments are unnecessary.
3. The petition may be rejected if a neighboring city objects that the proposal will adversely
affect the city.
4. There is no definition of "benefit" under state law. The Board may exercise its judgement in
deciding what property will benefit from incorporation. The Board may add property to the
boundary that it deems will benefit, but notice must be given if the property owner isn't
present at the hearing.
The Board may delete property it deems will not benefit, but may not reject the petition by
concluding that no land benefits.
5. Land outside the UGB must be removed from the proposal as required by the statute.
6. The Board may not alter the proposed tax rate, which is $2.84.
wpshare\Board Bull MG issuest.Schedule of key events_7-17-06
July 18, Board of Commissioners Worksession
Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda 07-25-06 Pagel of 3
Washington County, Oregon
Board of Commissioners
last update. July 17, 2006
Meeting Notice
Washington County Board of Commissioners
July 25, 2006
6:30 p.m.
CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
TOM BRIAN JOHN LEEPER DICK SCHOUTEN ROY ROGERS ANDY DUYCK
The Board of Commissioners will meet for a general
Board Agenda worksession in Room 140 of the Public Services Building
Worksession Agenda at 2:00 p.m.
Meeting Schedules and Procedures
Meeting Calendar
The Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County, as the governing body of Washington County,
the Housing Authority and all County service districts for which this Board so acts, will meet for
its regular Board meeting in the Shirley Huffman Auditorium of the Public Services Building at
6:30 p.m.
All public meetings are recorded.
The agenda items listed below are provided in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. The latest free Acrobat
reader may be downloaded from: www.adobe.comiproducts/acrobat/readstep.htmi.
Board of Commissioners Agenda i'
TABLE OF CONTENTS (PDF, 409K)
1. CONSENT AGENDA
The items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will all be adopted
in one motion unless a Board member or person in the audience requests, before
the vote on the motion, to have the item considered separately. If any item is
removed from the Consent Agenda, the Chairman will indicate when it will be
discussed in the regular agenda. A list of Consent Agenda items is included at
the end of the agenda packet.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Limited to two minutes per individual; ten minutes total.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/cao/bd comm/agenda06/ag072506.htm 7/18/2006
Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda 07-25-06 Page 2 of 3
a. Consider the Proposed Incorporation of the City of Bull Mountain (CPO 9
4B) (PDF, 11 KB) (PDF, 11 KB)
4. COUNTY COUNSEL
a. Introduction and First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 665. An 11
Ordinance Adopting Title 14 of the Washington County Code, Relating to
Buildings and Construction, and Chapter 15.08 of the Washington County
Code, Relating to Roads for the Unincorporated Community in the Bull
Mountain and West Tigard Community Plan Areas (CPO 4) (PDF, 10
KB)
5. ORAL COMMUNICATION
6. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
CLEAN WATER SERVICES
a. Authorize General Manager to Sign Insurance Contracts for Fiscal Year 13
2007 Non-Represented Employee Benefit Program (PDF, 22 KB)
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
b. Execute Deeds Dedicating County-Owned Property to the Public as 15
Right-of-Way for the Baseline Road/201 st to 231 st - Phase 3 Project
(CPO 6,7,9) (PDF, 11 KB)
C. Approve Declaration of Necessity and Protective Rent Payments for 27
Right-of-Way Acquisition for the Gales Creek-David Hill Intersection
Project (CPO 12) (PDF, 11 KB) (PDF, 11 KB)
d. Approve Agreement Between Washington County and the City of 33
Sherwood (CPO 5) (PDF, 13 KB) (PDF, 12 KB)
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
e. Approval of Agreement with the Hillsboro School District (PDF, 11 KB) 35
SUPPORT SERVICES
f. Amend Contract/Increase Expenditure Authority for Telecommunications 37
Cable and Infrastructure Upgrade Project (PDF, 15 KB)
g. Award Contracts/In Home and Personal Care Services for Elderly 39
Residents of the County (PDF, 14 KB)
h. Accept Bids/Award Contracts for Asphaltic Concrete (PDF, 15 KB) 41
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/Cao/bd comm/agendaO6/agO72506.htrn 7/18/2006
Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting Agenda 07-25-06 Page 3 of 3
i. Amend Contract/Increase Expenditure Authority for Purchase and 43
Installation of Carpet (PDF, 11 KB)
j. Scheduling Public Hearing for Transfer of Willow Creek West Park to. 45
City of Hillsboro (CPO 6) (PDF, 13 KB) (PDF, 151 KB)
SERVICE DISTRICT FOR LIGHTING NO.1
k. Form Assessment Area, Authorize Maximum Annual Assessment, and 49
Impose a First Year Assessment for Johnson Street Condos (CPO 6)
(PDF, 55 KB)
1. Form Assessment Area, Authorize Maximum Annual Assessment, and 59
Impose a First Year Assessment for Johnson Street Condos No. 2 (CPO 6)
(PDF, 55 KB)
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Calendar
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Worksession - 2:00 p.m.
Board Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Worksession - 8:30 a.m.
Board Meeting - 10:00 a.m.
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Extended Worksession - 8:30 a.m.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Extended Worksession - 8:30 a.m.
Washington County Phone: 503-846-8681
Administrative Office Fax: 503-846-4545
155 N. First Avenue, Suite 300 E-Mail: cao(a,co. washington. or. us
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Home Board of Subject page
Commissioners Index
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/caoibd comm/agendaO6/agO72506.htm 7/18/2006
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
IINNI ,
2006 6:30 p.m.
TIGARD CITY HALL
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
To request to speak to the City Council:
➢ Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
➢ If no sheet is available for the agenda item you would like to address, sign the Citizen
Communication sign-in sheet and ask the Mayor if you may speak to the Council when that
agenda item is considered.
➢ For Citizen Communication items regarding items not on the agenda, citizens are asked keep
their remarks to two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by
contacting the Mayor or the City Manager.
➢ If you need assistance determining how to sign in, please speak to the staff greeter who will be
near the entry to the Town Hall before the Council meeting.
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 503-639-4171,
ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - , 2006 page 1
FWAGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE: July 18, 2006
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
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.
This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All
written and oral testimony become part of the public record. The names and addresses ofpersons who attend
or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public
record.
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF
Please Print ' , / I CONTACTED
Name:
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address/"5'~)-
City
State Zip 2- 2-~>
Phone No. J--d'-3
Name:
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address
City
State Zip
Phone No.
Name:
Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will
help the presiding officer pronounce:
Address
City
State Zip
Phone No.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATION
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGO
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE CITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, City Council established goals for 2006 that includes "Implement the Downtown
Plan"; and
WHEREAS, in May 2006, Tigard voters approved Urban Renewal and Tax Increment Financing
for use in the Downtown; and
WHEREAS, the Tigard Municipal Code calls for a City Center Advisory Commission composed
of 7-12 members, to advise and assist the City's Urban Renewal Agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Center Advisory Commission will be actively involved in the
implementation of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that;
SECTION 1: The following representative is appointed to the City Center Advisory
Commission: Alexander Craghead
SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2006.
Mayor - City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 06
Page 1 of 1
Citizen Communications
For follow-up on July 18, 2006 referencing the July 11 communications received:
• Jeanette Slepian, 16020 SW 146"' Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 signed in; however, she
was not present during the Citizen Communications portion of the agenda. Ms. Slepian
returned to the Council Chambers and approached the testimony desk when the Mayor
called for Agenda Item No. 8: Comments to Washington County Commissioners
Regarding Proposed Bull Mountain Incorporation. The Mayor, City Attorney, and
Assistant City Manager explained no public testimony was required for this agenda item
and the Mayor declined to allow testimony. Ms. Slepian objected noting the published
agenda appears to state that persons will be allowed to testify. City Attorney Ramis
clarified that a person has the right to observe the City Council discussion; however,
allowing public testimony for this matter is not an obligation of the City Council.
• Lisa Hamilton-Treick, noted her concerns with the procedure for tonight's meeting. She
said she was unclear when they would have the opportunity to comment and also was
concerned about a map showing Tigard-owned properties within the proposed new
incorporated City of Bull Mountain. She said this new information significantly impacts
residents in the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Discussion followed. The position to
be represented to the Washington County Board of Commissioners does not differ from
what the Tigard City Council has said publicly all along. In response to a question from
Ms. Hamilton-Treick, Councilor Woodruff said the Council position will continue to be
to consider annexation of properties when the property owner requests annexation. City
Attorney Ramis added that, in fact, the City Council is obligated to hear the case for
annexation when such a request is made. Ms. Hamilton-Treick reiterated her
disappointment in the process and the change in the boundaries when it is so close to
possibly going out to a vote. Mayor Dirksen noted the Tigard City Council must
continue to represent the citizens who voted for them.
• Madeline Utz, 14880 SW 133`d Avenue, Tigard, OR advised she served for many years as
a volunteer to the Tigard Library. She referred to a reciprocal agreement the City has
with the Washington County Cooperative Library Service. She said she cannot
understand why it is such an issue for Bull Mountain residents to use the Tigard Library
and she noted that residents of Durham and King City use the library also. She said she
is tired of hearing that Bull Mountain residents should not be using the library. She said
that because of the high assessed values of properties on Bull Mountain, the residents
there are paying a good share of the operating costs. Mayor Dirksen noted that he did not
say people were not welcome to use the library, but paying a fair share is of concern. He
noted that about 9 percent of the operating revenue comes from unincorporated Bull
Mountain; however, 20 percent of the population uses the library. When the population
of Bull Mountain was relatively low, the impact was low. The area has continued to
develop, which means increased impact on facilities. Ms. Utz noted there is a fee for a
card in Multnomah County and, perhaps, the City of Tigard should explore this with the
Cooperative. She noted she now uses the City of Lake Oswego Library because she feels
unwelcome in Tigard.
is\adm\cathy\ccm\citizen communication follow up\060718.doc
Agenda Item # V/1 /
Meeting Date July 18.2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Approve Workers' Compensation Volunteer Coverage through CCIS
Prepared By: Loreen Mills Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay F-.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City continue to provide workers compensation insurance to volunteers to protect them if they are injured
during their volunteer work time?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve resolution to provide workers' compensation benefits to City volunteers.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
■ Protect City volunteers by providing Workers' Compensation Insurance for them when they volunteer
■ Workers compensation insurance is less costly and provides more benefits than health insurance
• City Council has placed high value on volunteers and the volunteer program and has provided this coverage for
several years to protect them if they are injured during volunteer work.
■ Oregon law requires cities decide whether workers' compensation insurance will be provided to volunteers (ORS
656.031).
■ City County Insurance Services requires Council adopt a resolution annually to provide volunteers with workers'
comp coverage.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
■ Provide health care coverage and accidental death & dismemberment insurance rather than workers'
compensation insurance for volunteers. (Health & accidental death/ dismemberment insurances are too expensive and
would provide less coverage for volunteers than workers' comp coverage.)
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Council Goal - Stabilize Financial Picture. This action reduces the City's liability exposure by insuring volunteers if they
are injured during their volunteer activity.
ATTACHMENT LIST
■ Resolution
■ Exhibit A - listing of volunteers and assumed wages used to purchase insurance benefits.
FISCAL NOTES
Workers compensation insurance premiums for volunteers are in the 06/07 fiscal year budget. About $10,000 of the
City's workers comp premium provides coverage for City volunteers.
Tigard Resolution No. 06- Exhibit A
Volunteer Pro ram - 2006-2007 Workers Com Insurance Renewal
Volunteers Volunteer Time Assumed
Anticipated Anticipated Wage (per
Position title WC Code (number of) (in hours) hour) Notes
$2,500/
Boards & Committees 8742V N/A N/A board/yr Board Meetings & travel to field sites
Building Maintenance 9015V 4 4 $7.50 Room set up & tear down, general cleaning
Car Transport 8380V 0 0 $7.50 Fleet vehicles to other locations for testing/repairs
$800/
CERT Volunteers month/
Training & Activation 7720V 20 1000 member Initial training & activation
$800/
month/
City Council & Mayor 8742V 5 1040 member Council Meetings
Earth Day, Make A Difference Day, etc. Includes planting
trees, library shelf cleaning, community cleanup, street
Citywide Celebrations 9402V 250 450 $7.50 cleanup patrols
Supervision of community service, PEER Court & Municipal
Community Service Supervisors 7720V 9 410 $7.50 Court work crews/individuals.
DARE Camp Supervisors 9015V 60 4800 $7.50 Mentoring kids at camp (does NOT include driving)
Door to Door Distribution 9410V 5 50 $7.50 Delivery of brochures/door hangers
Election Ballot Collectors 9410V 5 10 $7.50 Collecting ballots at drive-up collection point (not ROW)
Prepairs & distributes project advance notices - No driving
Engineering Project Notice Asst. 8742V 1 96 $7.50 allowed (rides in City rig with City EE driving)
Painting over graffiti on bldgs (not ROW). City provides
Graffiti Removal Maintenance 5474V 12 60 $7.50 paint, brushes, cleaning solvent
Graphics Art Designer (Design) 8810V 1 40 $7.50 Working in office setting or in the home.
Graphics Art Designer (Painting
Design on Trailer) 9505V 0 0 $7.50 Installing art by painting trailer - no ladder work.
Grant Writer Assistants (Indoors
Only) 8810V 2 100 $7.50 Working in office setting or in the home.
Grant Writer Assistants (Field
Work Only) 8742V 0 0 $7.50 Working in the field = site visits
Juvenile Court Offenders 7720V 50 200 $7.50 Juveniles from Municipal Court providing community service
All tasks in-house; check-in materials, shelving, data entry,
Library Volunteers (No travel) 8810V 280 17500 $7.50 processing new materials, etc.
Driving persona ve icles to homes of "shut ins" deliver
Library Volunteers (Traveling) 7380V 12 500 $7.50 materials
Page 1 of 2
LoreenlC:000UME-11Cathy.0001LOCALS-ffemplVolunteer WC Res Ex A 7-11-06 Last updated 7-11-06
Tigard Resolution No. 06- Exhibit A
Volunteer Program - 2006-2007 Workers Comp Insurance Renewal
Volunteers Volunteer Time Assumed
Anticipated Anticipated Wage (per
Position title WC Code (number of) (in hours) hour) Notes
Office Assistance 8810V 27 1850 $7.50 Clerical type work assignments in administrative offices
Painting Services (Interior) 5474V 10 100 $7.50 Bldg. interiors with latex paint & ladders
Planting trees, blackberry removal, greenway cleanup, path
clean up, trail maintenance. This code allows use of gas
Park Landscape Maintenance 9102V 400 1500 $7.50 powered leaf blowers and reciprocating weed eaters.
Teenagers serving as attorneys, jurors, clerks in court
PEER Court Service 7720V 24 450 $7.50 room. Adults serving as judges and facilitation of process.
Photographer 4361V 1 10 $7.50 Photographer indoors and outdoors - can use ladder
Police Crime Prevention Support 8810V 1 120 $7.50 In office work only
Police Crime Prevention Support 8742V 0 0 $7.50 Site visits
Police Elder Victims Reassurance
Program 8810V 0 0 $7.50 In office work only
Reserve Police Officers 8411V 12 4500 $4100 Assumed wage is per month each
Stenciling catch basins, Adopt-A-Creek program with
weeding & limited trash removal & cleaning/painting water
hydrants. This code allows use of gas powered leaf
Storm/Water Maintenance 9402V 100 500 $7.50 blowers and reciprocating weed eaters.
Roadside cleanup. This code allows use of gas powered
Street Cleanup Program 9402V 100 600 $7.50 leaf blowers and reciprocating weed eaters.
Driving personal vehicles to discover and remove illegal
Temporary Sign Removal 9402V 4 80 $7.50 temporary signs.
Traffic & Accident Data Coor. 8810V 1 200 $7.50 Data entry and work within office setting only
Work within the ROW. Minimal traffic control & will require
Traffic & Accident Data Coor. 5506V 0 0 $7.50 flagging training from certified COT staff member.
Working in office setting or in the home translating
Translators 8810V 2 80 $7.50 information from one language to another.
15 Boards, Committees & Task Forces - WC Code 8742V
Budget Committee, Building Appeals Board, Committee For Citizen Involvement, City Center Advisory Commission, Financial Strategies Task Force,
Intergovernmental Water Board (2 or 3 members only; Tigard representatives and at-large member if appointed by City), Library Board, Mayor's
Appointment Advisory Council, Park & Recreation Advisory Board, Planned Development Code Review Committee, Planning Commission, Streetscape
Work Group, Transportation Financial Strategies Committee, Tree Board, Youth Forum
Page 2 of 2
LoreenlC:IDOCUME-11Cathy.000ILOCALS-11TemplVolunteer WC Res Ex A 7-11-06 Last updated 7-11-06
Agenda Item # L 1
Meeting Date 7/18/06
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Amend Insurance Agent of Record Contract extending from three to a five year contract.
1
Prepared By: Loreen Mills Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should Council extend the Insurance Agent of Record contract from three to five years in length?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Motion to amend JBL&K contract on August 1, 2006 to extend the termination date from December 15, 2006 to
December 12, 2008.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
■ JBL&K has been Insurance Agent of Record under current contract since 12/3/03
■ JBL&K provides excellent service and manages our insurance programs with the insurance market
■ Current contract says the contract can be extended from 3 years to 5 years without going back out to bid.
JLB&K continues to provide excellent service and helps the City save money on our insurance costs. The existing
Council-approved contract with JBL&K says that if the City's purchasing rules were amended during the first three
years of the contract to allow for five year contracts that this contract could be extended to five years. The City's
purchasing rules were amended by City Council to allow for five year contracts.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Don't extend the contract and require new bid process this year for Insurance Agent of Record.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Contract amendment.
FISCAL NOTES
The Insurance Agent of Record commission is reflected each year in Risk Management budget as part of the
insurance costs. This change in the contract will not change the budgeted amount for insurance commissions or
costs.
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
CITY OF TIGARD
INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD
This Contract Amendment is entered into by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of
the State of Oregon (City) and JBL&K Risk Services (Contractor) and amends that contract dated
December 2"d, 2003 on file with the Tigard City Recorder as the Insurance Agent of Record Contract.
Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed that Section 2B "Effective Date and Duration" provision of the
Insurance Agent of Record Contract is amended as follows with underlined language being added:
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
A. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution, and shall
expire, unless otherwise terminated or extended, on December 15, 2006 except
as- noted in paragraph B below. All work under this Agreement shall be
completed prior to the expiration of this Agreement.
B. Should the City's current purchasing rules be revised during the first three
years of this contract to allow a five-year contract timeline for Agents, this
contract may be extended to December 15, 2008 unless otherwise terminated.
City amended purchasing rules to allow for a five-year contract for insurance
broker services (as set out in Section 10.055A2 of the Ci of Tigard
Purchasing Rules) therefore this contract is extended to December 15, 2008
unless otherwise terminated.
This Amendment will commence on August 1, 2006 and will remain in effect through the duration of the
Insurance Agent of Record Contract which is December 15, 2008, unless otherwise terminated.
City Manager Insurance Agent of Record - JBL&K
Date: Date:
Loreen\H:\D0CS\1nsurance\Agent of Record\2006 Contract Amendment 5-1-06.doc
CONTRACT AMENDMENT
CITY OF TIGARD
INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD
This Contract Amendment is entered into by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the
State of Oregon (City) and JBL&K Risk Services (Contractor) and amends that contract dated December 2"d
2003 on file with the Tigard City Recorder as the Insurance Agent of Record Contract.
Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed that Section 2B "Effective Date and Duration" provision of the Insurance
Agent of Record Contract is amended as follows with underlined language being added:
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
A. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date of execution, and shall expire,
unless otherwise terminated or extended, on December 15, 2006 except as noted in
paragraph B below. All work under this Agreement shall be completed prior to the
expiration of this Agreement.
B. Should the City's current purchasing rules be revised during the first three years of
this contract to allow a five-year contract timeline for Agents, this contract may be
extended to December 15, 2008 unless otherwise terminated. City amended
purchasing rules to allow for a five-year contract for insurance broker services (as set
out in Section 10.055A2 of the City of Tigard Purchasing Rules) therefore this
contract is extended to December 15, 2008 unless otherwise terminated.
This Amendment will commence on August 1, 2006 and will remain in effect through the duration of the
Insurance Agent of Record Contract which is December 15, 2008, unless otherwise terminated.
Ron Graybeal
City Manager Insurance Agent of Record - JBL&K
Date: Date: June 15, 2006
Agenda Item # L/ 3
Meeting Date July 18, 2006
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title: Rejection of Bids for the Construction of Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection - Phase 11 and
Library Parking Lot Expansion
Prepared B : G. Ber Dept Head Approval Tom Coffee TC city M Approval: Craig Prosse
ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
Shall the Local Contract Review Board reject bids for the construction of the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection -
Phase II and Library Parking Lot Expansion?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, reject the received bid.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The project was advertised forbids on June 13 and June 22, 2006 in The Daily Journal of Commerce and The Times
respectively. One addendum was issued for the project. Bids were opened on June 27, 2006 at 2:00 P.M. and
the bid results are:
Parsons Excavating Tualatin, OR $1,923,131.00
Engineer's Estimate Range $750,000 to $915,000
• Because only one bid was received and the bid amount is more than twice the highest estimated cost, rejection
of the bid is recommended. Contractors have indicated several reasons for not being able to bid the project: too
busy during the summer, short of staff, unspecialized in wetland mitigation work and inability to handle projects
of this size. Staff will rebid the project at a later time when circumstances may be more favorable to receiving
multiple bids and, hopefully, lower bid prices.
• Since the street extension portion of the project requires work within the creek, which is restricted to July 1st to
September 30"', consideration will be given to requesting bids for only the library parking lot expansion portion
of the project sometime during the remainder of this calendar year. The street project with wetland
enhancement work will be rebid in the spring of 2007. Advertising a project early in the calendar year is usually
the best strategy to follow since most contractors have not yet committed to other projects. The need to wait
for approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and sensitive lands permit delayed the bid of this project
until mid June of this year.
• The proposed project would have included construction of 360 feet of Wall Street east of Hall Boulevard to
provide a joint access for the Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums and expansion of the Library parking
lot to provide an additional 20 parking spaces for Library patrons.
i
• All necessary permits have been obtained, which include the following: a Tree Removal permit, a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Sensitive Lands Review from the City of Tigard, a Connection Permit
from Clean Water Services, a Removal/Fill Permit restricting work in Pinebrook Creek from July 1`t to
September 30th from the Department of State Lands, a Wetland Impact permit from the Corps of Engineers
and a Miscellaneous Operations on a State Highway permit from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT). The Department of State Lands permit restricts work within the creek from July 1" to September
30th. In addition to the permits, deed restrictions and right-of-way dedications required for the construction of
Wall Street and Pinebrook Creek have also been obtained from Fanno Pointe Condominiums.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No alternatives considered. The bid amount is substantially higher than that expected for the scope of work
developed and should not be awarded based on a single bid. In addition, funding sufficient to award the contract is
not available.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Controlling access to Hall Boulevard by extending Wall Street would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
Transportation and Traffic goal of "Improve Traffic Safety". Providing additional parking by expanding the existing
Library parking lot would meet the Urban & Public Services goal of "Adequate facilities will be available for efficient
delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages".
ATTACHMENT LIST
Project location map
FISCAL NOTES
The project is funded for the total amount of $955,000 by the following FY 2006-07 CIP funds:
- $700,000 under the Traffic Impact Fund for the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection - Phase II
- $180,000 under the City Facilities Fund for the Library Parking Expansion project
- $75,000 under the City Facilities Fund for Library Property - Voluntary Cleanup for removal of
contaminated soils prior to construction of the project.
I:\eng\2006-20071y cip\hall blvd - wall st intersection phase 2.360'to hall\council\7-18-06 hall blvd-wall at contract award ais.doc
TAYLOR'S FERRY
- WALL STREET/HALL BOULEVARD N
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 2 A "o'°
Fly
AND < < NORTH DAKOTA
II - LIBRARY PARKING LOT EXPANSION x
BARROWS rr STREET Y
L a
Q
STREET MCDONAID
BULL MOUNTAIN RD
BONITA RD
pRoj
4
<
x
BEEF BEND RD• $ DURHAM
RIVER
VICINITY MAP
\ - ' FANNO
II O _
N
O'MARA ST pl,
LIC
LIBRARY
O MARA Sr m „ O
PROJECT
LOCA TION
J
J
Z I
J
o /
C:l
Tol
FANNO 3
W POINTE
I
REGINA LN
VICINITY MAP
NTS
Agenda Item # 5-
Meeting Date Tuly 18, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Initiate Planned Development Revisions /Planning Commission
Prepared By: Sean Farrelly Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS
At the City Council's request, the Planned Development Code Review Committee has further refined its
recommendations to amend the Planned Development section of the Development Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council determines that the proposed Planned Development revisions are appropriate, Staff should be
directed to prepare a draft ordinance for public hearings.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Planned Development Code Review Committee presented its recommendations to the City Council on April 18,
2006. At the Council's direction, the Committee met two additional times and appeared before the Planning
Commission. The original recommendations have been streamlined. Two notable changes from the previous draft are
applying the overlay zone concurrently with the approval of the Detailed Development Plan, and removing the site
analysis requirement. The attached memorandum (Attachment 1) outlines the proposed changes.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Growth and Growth Management, Goal No.1 - Growth will be managed to protect the character and livability of
established areas, protect the natural environment and provide open space throughout the community.
Two of the strategies to implement this goal are:
1) Review and modify development code sections to integrate open space preservation and protection into
design standards. Planned Actions include: revising code sections to ensure that residential development
incorporates open space; and developing and implementing design standards that preserve and protect open
space, greenways, and natural areas.
I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\7 18 06 AIS - PD.doc
1
2) Develop and implement design standards that preserve and protect open space, greenways, and natural areas.
Planned Actions include: amending code to promote design that includes natural features and promotes
connectivity to open space, greenways, and natural area access; and implementing a public process for
adequate development/design review.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memo to Council dated July 3, 2006 - Planned Development Code Review Committee Recommendations
2. Copy of proposed changes to Planned Development chapter with strike-outs and additions
3. Clean copy of proposed changes to Planned Development chapter.
4. June 19, 2006 draft Planning Commission minutes
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\7 18 06 AIS - PD.doc
2) Develop and implement design standards that preserve and protect open space, greenways, and natural areas.
Planned Actions include: amending code to promote design that includes natural features and promotes
connectivity to open space, greenways, and natural area access; and implementing a public process for
adequate development/design review.
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Memo to Council dated July 3, 2006 - Planned Development Code Review Committee Recommendations
2. Copy of proposed changes to Planned Development chapter with strike-outs and additions
3. Clean copy of proposed changes to Planned Development chapter.
4. June 19, 2006 draft Planning Commission minutes
FISCAL NOTES
Not applicable
I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\7 18 06 AIS - PD.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner
IRE: Planned Development Code Review Committee Recommendations
DATE: July 3, 2006
1
The Planned Development Code Review Committee was appointed by the City Council in January,
2004, to review and recommend changes to the Planned Development chapter of the Development
Code (18.350). The concept of Planned Developments is to grant flexibility to the underlying
development code standards, in order to achieve a desired public purpose. Concerns arose in the
community about the density, appearance, and lack of open space in some of the developments
approved under the provisions of the Planned Development chapter.
The Committee had its first meeting in April 2004, and worked for several months on the proposed
changes. There was a several month delay due to staff shortages and turnover. The Committee came
before the Planning Commission on April 17, 2006, and the City Council on April 18, 2006, with its
recommendations. The Council and the Commission made several suggestions to refine the
proposed changes in the code. The PD Committee agreed to a timeline of 60-90 days to make its
final recommendation.
The Committee met on two occasions - May 2°d, and June 6`''. Feedback from the Council, City
Attorney, the Planning Commission, Staff, and Committee members, was incorporated into the
revised proposed code amendments. The Committee appeared before the Planning Commission on
June 19, 2006, and presented the revised proposals.
The revised code chapters can be seen in Attachment 1 (Clean Copy) and Attachment 2 (Draft
Annotated Copy.) The Committee's final recommendation to the Planning Commission is to
substantially reorganize and rewrite the Planned Development chapter. These are the highlights of
the proposed changes:
1. New Purpose Statement
The purpose statement was completely rewritten to emphasize the link between applying
flexible standards and balancing impacts with amenities such as preserving open space and
natural resources, the use of alternative and sustainable building designs, and other public
purposes.
2. Revised Approval Process
The revisions make a clearer distinction between the three sections of the approval process:
• Concept Plan
• Detailed Development Plan
• Overlay Zone
The Overlay Zone is applied concurrently with the approval of the Detailed Development
Plan. Concurrent applications can be made for the Concept Plan and the Detailed
Development Plan, but the Planning Commission must take separate actions on each part.
A. Concept Plan:
New Concept Plans would require addressing these new approval criteria:
• Provision of open space
• Protecting natural resource areas
• Integration of development into the existing neighborhood
• Promotion of walkability/ transit
• Identification of the uses and arrangement of the site
• Demonstration that the planned development has significant advantages
over standard development (i.e. protects natural features and provides
additional amenities for the development/neighborhood.)
B. Detailed Development Plan:
The approval of a Detailed Plan was made a distinct step in the process.
The Detailed Development Plan would require addressing the following approval
criteria:
• Conformance to the Concept Plan.
• Compliance with various Development Code chapters. Up to a 10% density
bonus is allowed. A 1% density bonus for each 5% of the gross site area set
aside in open space, and up to 5% for other amenities, including items from
the Planning Commissioners Toolbox.
• Additional criteria, including a mandatory shared open space requirement
(20% of the gross site area.)
C. Overlay Zone:
The Overlay Zone is now applied concurrently with the approval of the Detailed
Development Plan. The overlay zone approval does not expire.
3. Changes in Definitions Chapter (18.120)
Three new definitions (to apply to the entire code) would be added:
• Density bonus
• Landscaping
• Open Space Facilities: (Makes a distinction between three types of open space
facilities - minimal use, passive use recreation, and active use recreation.)
4. The Planning Commissioners "Toolbox"
The Committee developed a Planning Commissioners' "Toolbox": a packet with
requirements of the process as well as illustrations and case studies of preferred developments
around the country. The Toolbox, which will be distributed at the pre-app, is intended to be
used as a guide for developers, and as a reference for the Planning Commission, during
Planned Development hearings.
5. Pre-Application Conference Materials
In addition to the Planning Commissioners Toolbox, Staff will distribute examples of high
quality materials (clear site plans and explanations) that have been used by developers at
neighborhood meetings. The pre-app checklist will include a statement that if there are
significant changes in the plans submitted at the neighborhood meeting, they will have to re-
notice.
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Planned Development Code Revisions, June 2006
Explanation of Formatting
These text amendments employ the following formatting:
1~ - For text to be deleted
[Bold and Italic] - For text to be added
',oxe - For staff notes and comments related to specific amendments. These are not
part of the proposed codified text.
I
Chapter 18.120
DEFINITIONS
[SS. "Density bonus" -Additional dwelling units that can be earned as an incentive for
providing undeveloped open space, landscaping, or tree canopy as defined further in this code.]
[87. "Landscaping"-Areas primarily devoted to plantings, trees, shrubs, lawn and other
organic ground cover together with other natural or artificial supplements such as water courses,
ponds, fountains, decorative lighting, benches, bridges, rock or stone arrangements, pathways,
sculptures, trellises and screens.]
[104. Open Space Facility related definitions. Open Space Facilities may be privately or publicly
owned.
a. Minimal Use Facilities. Areas reserved for low-impact recreation, limited to soft surface
trails which are minimally maintained. No other improvements (apart from underground
utilities) are allowed.
b. Passive Use Facilities. Areas reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses
related to the functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact
site improvement, including soft surface trails, raised walkways, pedestrian bridges,
seating areas, viewing blinds, observation decks informational signage, drinking
fountains, picnic tables, interpretive centers, and other similar facilities.
Accommodations forADA access shall be provided where site considerations permit.
c. Active Use Facilities. Areas reserved for high-impact recreation that require a greater
degree of site development and/or ground disturbance, such as sports fields, playground
equipment, group picnic shelters, swimming pools, hard and soft surface pathways,
restrooms, and similar facilities.]
[Renumber definitions after #55 according to the above amendments]
Chapter 18.350
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
I
Sections:
18.350.010 Purpose
18.350.020 The Process
Page 1 of 21 June 12, 2006
a J
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
18.350.040 Noneomplianee! Bond
18.350.050 Applienbility in C-OMMeFeift! and industrial Zones
18.350.060 Allowed Uses
18.350.070 Applieability of the Base Zone Development Standards
18.350.080 Exeeptions to Under-lying Development Standar-ds
18.350.I0 [18.350.0401 Conceptual n Plan Submission Requirements
[18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria]
[18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements]
[18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria]
48.350.100 Approval CFite":°
18.350.010 Purpose
A. Purpose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
a To t,r..........,.means iv. vav...unb ricuuivu v"
standards, •i zero lot 1i ar- > streets,
and other- innevative planning pr-aefiees whieh will
result in a superior- living affangement-,
2 To f4eilitate the effleient use of land;
use, buildings, eir-ettlation systems, open
p. ee, nR utilities;
4 To pr-eseFve to the greatest extent possible the existing landseape featffes and amenities
p> mite; and
5 To eneetwage develepfnei# tha4 r-eeegaizes the relationship between buildings, their- use,
living efn,ir-ewneats.
[I. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive
Plan through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the
potential impacts to the City; and]
[2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City,
alternative building designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural
resources, aesthetic appeal, and other types of assets that contribute to the larger community
in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of the Tigard Community Development Code;
and]
[3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural
accents, use of open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their
character and city benefits, while respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods
through appropriate buffering and lot size transitioning, and]
[4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities
(trees, water resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and
Page 2 of 21 June 12, 2006
analysis, presentation of alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate
the type and design of a development to a particular site; and]
[5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements,
which will balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and]
[6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through
sustainable and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials.]
18.350.020 The Process
A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all
zones. [An applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance
with the requirements of this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project, an
approval authority may apply the provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any
a lication or the development.]
Staff note: The added text was moved to incorporate 18.350.050 Applicability in Commercial and
Industrial Zones.
B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval
process, as follows:
2 The appreval of the planned develepmen4 eeneept plan; and
3 The appr-eval of the detailed develepmea4 plan.
[l. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and
2. The approval of the detailed development plan.
3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone.]
/~V11V
C. Decision-making process. A new planned de.e'.epme .4 ever-lay ene and/or- tieept plan shall
be j-eeessedby means -6 pe M-PCpr-eeedu ° a by 0 5 0
, -a"sge`'°irrccr~vcct crorr -rv.390.v~v,~r.~xrig
appr-eval er-iteria eentained in -Sec-tien8.350.100. The detailed development plan shal
feviewed by means e€a Type 11 preeedufe, as geverred-by 1839TV.04v, to eiisufe-tha4
substantially in eemplianee~Toith theapproved eeneept-deyelepfnen plan. 7 the ease of an-
existing planned development ever-lay zone fer- afty other- type of applieation, the applieati
land use .
[l. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed
by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.1
[2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by means of a Type III-PC procedure,
as governed by 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the
approved concept plan.]
Page 3 of 21 June 12, 2006
[3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of
the detailed plan.]
[4. Applicants may choose to submit the concept plan and detailed plan for concurrent
review subject to meeting all of the approval criteria for each approval. All applicants are
advised that the purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear
direction in developing the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a
corresponding rejection of the detailed development plan and overlay zone.]
[5. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone, once construction of the
detailed plan has been completed, subsequent applications conforming to the detailed
plan shall be reviewed under the provisions required in the chapter which apply to the
particular land use application.]
[6. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for
preliminary plat approval and the applications shall be heard concurrently with the
detailed plan.]
D. Geaeuff eat Md eeneeptual plan "Wieatieqp-~-. ' The apphea4ion for- the ever-lay zone
and fer--appreval e€the- eeaeepwa4-develep be heard eeneuffefAly if
land, the applieant met), apply fer- prelifninar-y p1a4 appr-eva4 and the appheatiens shall be heard
[D. Concurrent Applications for Concept Plan and Detailed Plan. In the case of concurrent
applications for concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications,
the applicant shall clearly distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning
Commission shall take separate actions on each element of the Planned Development
application (i.e. the concept approval must precede the detailed development approval); however
each required action may be made at the same hearing.]
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
[A. Time limit on Tung of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after
1-112 years unless an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a
preliminary plat approval or request for extension is filed. Action on the detailed development
plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as
governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.070.1
A.[B.] Zoning map designation. M-e fe- ° planned deve opment v..'.,., zone has been a e
[The planned development overlay zone application shall be concurrently approved if the
detailed development plan is approved by the Planning Commission.] The zoning map shall be
amended to indicate the approved planned development designation for the subject development
site. The approval of the planned development overlay zone shall not expire.
Page 4 of 21 June 12, 2006
B. Time 1i it on Alin- - etailed develowngLg p!gp Within 1 1/2 years after- the date -of
Gem.'Hi a! of the eeneeptual develepfnefA plan, the eA%er- shall prepare and file
the Dir-ee't-e-r- -A dettailed development plan. Aefien on the detailed develepfnen4 plan shal
fninister-ia4 and taken by the Diffeeter- by means of a Type 11 pr-eeedur-e, as govemed by Se
1 18.390.040,tising ,1 ,.~;+i below.!
1 . The Dir-eeter- shall approve the detailed development plan upen finding that ~he final
the Commission. The detailed plan shall be approved unless the Dkeeter finds.!
a. The ehange iner-eases the residential densities, iner-eases the lot eever-age by
buildings or- r-eduees the ameupA of pafWag;
b. The ehange r-eduees the afneufA of open spaee and ;
6. The ehange involves a ehange in use;
subjeet to a potential hazard; and
> streets,
proposed paf-king !at > easements, t4ilky landseaping or- other- site •
2. A deeisien by the Dir-eeter- may be appealed by the appliean4 or- ether- aff-eete&appr-eved
pafties-te the Cenanrsme-andrt1Ye Cenunission shall deeide whether- the detailed
development plan s'ubsts'H tia4llly eefiferms tthe approved eneepwai development plan
based en the er-iter-ia set fefth in Subseetien I of this seetien. This appeal shall be govemed
C. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required
fee, grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that:
1. No changes have been made on the original conceptual development plan as approved by
the Commission;
2. The applicant can show intent of applying for detailed development plan [or preliminary
plat] review within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance
provisions on which the approval was based.
D. Phased development.
1. The Commission shall approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases, but in no case
shall the total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for
conceptual development plan review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased detail development plan proposal are that:
a. The public facilities shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; and
b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of
temporary public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to
the applicable City or district standard.
Page 5 of 21 June 12, 2006
E. Substantial modifications to concep!!W plan. [If the Planning Commission finds that the
detailed development plan or preliminary plat does not substantially conform to the concept
plan, a new concept plan shall be required.] Substantial edifie tiens made to the approved
VV11VV~l.KN.v o .
eeneeptua1 development pla shall Y ' t
[F. Noncompliance. Noncompliance with an approved detailed development plan shall be a
violation of this chapter.]
[G Issuance of occupancy permits. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved detailed development plan including landscaping and recreation areas before any
occupancy permits are issued. However, when the Director determines that immediate
execution of any feature of an approved detailed development plan is impractical due to
climatic conditions, unavailability of materials, or other temporary condition, the Director shall,
as a precondition of the issuance of a required permit, require the posting of a performance
bond or other surety to secure execution of the feature at a time certain not to exceed one year.]
18.350.040 Noneomplianeel Bond
A. Neneempliffingg. Neneemplianee with an approved detailed development plan sha4l
.latio of this ehapter
appr-eved detailed development plan ineluding landseaping and r-eer-eation areas before any
exeeutien of any feature of an appr-eved detailed development plan is impr-aefieal due to elimatie
eendifiens, unavailability of materials, or- other- tempefaiF~, eendition, the Pir-eeter- shall, as-a
other- surety to seeur-e emeeutien of the featwe at a time eet4ain not to eXeeed ene year.
Note: moved to 18.350.030
18.350.050 Appheability in Commer-eial and industrial Zones
pr-ejeet as a planned development, in eemplianee with the requirements of this ehapt
may apply the provisions of this ehapter- as a eendition of appr-evi "keation fer- a
0
18.350.060 Allowed Uses
Note: moved to 18.350.040
Page 6 of 21 June 12, 2006
may develop the site te pe-eentain a fnixtwe of uses subjerat to the density pr-evisiens e
allowed Aith planned development approval -
i All uses allewed outright in the under-lying zening distfiat
2 Single family detaehed and at4arahed residential units;
4 Multi family residential unit&,t
the zone;
r°,,.,,,,,,,,:t„ building;
> >
9--- 9utdeer- r-eer-eatienf4eility, gelf eeufse, golf driving e g peel, tennis ee•
:1., and
appr-eval may develep t ce, sitee, *.A- re-wentain all of the uses pefmiaed outright in the under-lying
0
family dwellings in these een:Hner-eial zenes that do net list multi family dwellings as an
„tr ght use.
G, In ind-ustrial zones. in all industfial zones, a planned development shall eentain enly these uses-
18.350.070 Applienbility of the Base Zone Development Standards
Note: moved to 18.350.060
A. Complianee te speeifie development sfandard~- The provisions of the base zone are applieabi
€ollows@
I Lot dimensional standards; The minimum lot size, let depth and let width standards sha
not apply ° v~avv °"+Y~ as related to the dens utJ „ avi„+afie under- rl'.,* 18.44-5-,
a"YY`J to u uvuu 2 Site eever-age.: The site eever- - . . . is of the base zone shall ;
3-Building heigM: Thebuilding height pr-evisiens-shall net apply;-and
4. Struetwe setbaek pr-evision6it
a. Front yar-d and r-ear- yar-d sethaeks for- stfuetur-es en the perimeter- all be the
same as that required by the base zene unless other-wise provided by Chapter- 18.3460-;
b. The side yar-d setbaek. . . hall not apply emeept thM all detaehed stfue~ufes shall meet t
1i€e Building Code- r-eqtiir-ements for- fire walls; and
e. Fre ' . I I ear- yard setbaek r-equir-emen4s in the base zone setbaek sha4l net apply to
st1uetffes en the n4erier of the = feet except that
(1) A minimum fient yard setbaek of 20 feet is r-equir-ed fef any gar-age sti-deture whieh epens
Page 7 of 21 June 12, 2006
f e °t1eet
(2) A minimum ffent yar-d sethaek of eight feet is required fer- an), gar-age Opening for-
at4aehed single family dwelling f4eing a pr-ivate stfeet as leng as the required off stfeet
park spaees are provided.
B. Other- provisions ef thig. hwug 7nne. All ethe of the base zone sha4l apply eNeep
fnedified by this ehapter-.
18.350.080 Exeeptions to Under-tying Development StandaFds
The t street
Jivn-nxa7-guiir -air°zccptie civr to rc t cne -vff acrccc
xx-
on findings that-;
one i e segtien is natgreater- - tha$-per-cent of the required
2 The n1:e do is f r- " use `lesig ed for- ":f" ' pur-pese „hie "tended t . L.e
e.g., pefmanent in nature, > >
3 The * Aunity fer- sharing par-king and there is ~witten evidenee that the pr-epel4y
4 Publie transpertatien is available to the site, r-edtteing the standards and will not adversely
whieh make it in the publie ipAer-est te grant an exeeptien to par-king standards.
B. Eyceeptions _ em one-C-effffflissieft ery grant an exeeptien to thesign
dimensional r-equir-em n4s in the applieable z based on findings that-;
stanch' f
The
3 The sign will be eempatible with the ever-all site plan, the stf:uetffal impr-evernents and
the~tmetufes and uses on adjoining e"t:e
G. Eyceeptions to land tifements. The GenHnissien may grant an exe-eption te the
landseap . . its of this title upen a finding that the over-all landseape plan pr-evides
20.04 of the gress site area to be landseaped.
18.350.090 118.350.0401 Concept*al Development Plan Submission Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of
the general information required for a Type 1114 [-PC] procedure, as governed by Section
18.390.050 [and the additional information required by 18.350.040.B.] In addition, the
applicant shall submit the following:
1 A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the
particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include:
[a.] A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind
Page 8 of 21 June 12, 2006
the assumptions and choices made by the applicant.
[b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are
utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed.]
[c. An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the Planned Development
Chapter as expressed in 18.350.010.1
[d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the Planning Commissioner's Toolbox.]
2. A [general] development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the
planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed.
3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or
portions of the planned development. [In the case where a residential subdivision is
proposed, the statement shall include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant will
build the homes, or sell the lots to other builders.]
4. A na ative statement presenting infeFmatien, a detailed deser-iption of whirsh is available
f e the n:r-eete '
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above,
the conceptual deve epme plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information,
the detailed content of which can be obtained from the Director:
1. Existing site conditions;
2. A site concept [including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including
housing types, and their general arrangement on the site] ;
3. A grading concept;
4. A landscape concept [indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open
space and landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s);
[5. Parking concept,]
-5. [6.] A sign concept; and
.[7. A streets and utility concept, and]
[8. Structure Setback and Development Standards concept, including the proposed
residential density target if applicable.]
Page 9 of 21 June 12, 2006
[C. Allowable Uses]
1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval
may develop the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the
underlying zone and the density bonus provisions of 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are
allowed with planned development approval:
a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district;
b. Single-family detached and attached residential units;
c. Duplex residential units;
d. Multi-family residential units;
e. Manufactured homes;
f. Accessory services and commercial uses directly serving the planned development only and
which are customary or associated with, but clearly incidental to, the residential uses
permitted in the zone [such as personal services, preschool or daycare, and retail uses less
than 5,000 square feet in sum total],
g. Community building;
h. Indoor recreation facility; athletic club, fitness center, racquetball court, swimming
pool, tennis court or similar use;
i. Outdoor recreation facility, golf course, golf driving range, swimming pool, tennis
court, or similar use; and
j. Recreational vehicle storage area.
2. In commercial zones. In all commercial zones, an applicant with a planned development
approval may develop the site to contain all of the uses permitted outright in the underlying
zone and, in addition, a maximum of 25% of the total gross floor area may be used for multi-
family dwellings in those commercial zones that do not list multi-family dwellings as an
outright use.
3. In industrial zones. In all industrial zones, a planned development shall contain only those uses
allowed outright in the underlying zoning district.
[18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria]
[A. The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met.
1. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and
describes their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how
they protect natural features of the site.
2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant. natural resources, if any, and identifies methods
for their maximized protection, preservation, and/or management.
3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing
neighborhood, either through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by
providing a transition between the existing neighborhood and the project with compatible
development or open space buffers.
Page 10 of 21 June 12, 2006
4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods
may include separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than
vehicular routes, linkages to or other provisions for bus stops, etc.
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case
of projects that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes
shall be shown in relation to their proposed location on site.
6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results
in development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has
a significant advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone
in which it is located at overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features
or providing additional amenities or features not otherwise available that enhance the
development project or the neighborhood.]
[18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements]
[A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the
general information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the
additional information required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under 13.350.070.1
[B. Additional Information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the
detailed development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information:
1. Contour intervals of 2 to 5 ft, depending on slope gradients, and spot elevations at breaks in
grade, along drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed.
2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity,
including demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public
improvements, and building construction for each phase.
3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants.
4. Moderate to High Density Development Analysis. If proposing development in an area within a
Metro designated town or regional center, the following additional information may be required.
a. Air movement. Prevailing breezes characteristic of a region may be greatly modified by
urban high-rise structures. Predominant air movement patterns in a city may be along
roadways and between buildings. The placement, shape, and height of existing buildings
can create air turbulence caused by micro air movement patterns. These patterns may
influence the location of building elements such as outdoor areas and balconies. Also a
building's design and placement can mitigate or increase local wind turbulence.
b. Sun and shadow patterns: The sun and shadow patterns of existing structures should be
studied to determine how they would affect the proposed building. This is particularly
Page 11 of 21 June 12, 2006
important for outdoor terraces and balconies where sunlight may be desirable. Sun and
shadow pat- terns also should be considered as sources of internal heat gain or loss.
Building orientation, window sizes and shading devices can modify internal heat gain or
loss. Studies should include daily and seasonal patterns and the shadows the proposed
building would cast on existing buildings and open spaces.
c. Reflections: Reflections from adjacent structures such as glass-clad buildings may be a
problem. The development should be designed to compensate for such glare or if possible,
oriented away from it.]
[C. Compliance with specific development standards. The Detailed Development Plan shall show
compliance with base zone provisions, with the following modifications:
1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply.
There shall be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be
less than 80% of the minimum size required in the base zone.
2. Site coverage: The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum
site coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such
as streets and sidewalks,
3. Building height: In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum
in the base zone will require that the structure be setback from the perimeter of the site a
distance of at least 1-112 times the height of the building.
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. Setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required
by the base zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360;
b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply except that:
(1) All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements;
(2) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure
which opens facing a street. This setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded
garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing
movements are accounted for.
(3) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for
an attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required
off-street parking spaces are provided. This setback may be reduced for rear or side
loaded garages, if specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing
movements are accounted for.
c. If seeking to modify the base zone setbacks, the applicant shall specify the proposed setbacks,
either on a lot by lot, or project wide basis. The applicant may propose, or the commission
may require, actual structure footprints to be shown and adhered to.
Page 12 of 21 June 12, 2006
5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as
modified by this chapter.]
18.350.100 [18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan] Approval Criteria
[A. Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. A detailed development plan may be approved only
if all the following criteria are met.
1. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept
plan do not make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless:
a. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or
reduces the amount of parking;
b. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping,
c. The change involves a change in use,
d. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a
potential hazard, and
e. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots,
landscaping or other site improvements.]
A. ReWienshif) to site rdevelopment review. Th Chapter- -18.360, Site Development
Review, are net applcable to Fluted-Be~~elep ext~~ei4ews. n detailed develepmeat
is intended te address the same type of issues as the Site Develepmen4 Review.
The Cenunission shall make findings tha e--;4eQ.r-i-A are not safisfied when denying an
appl;tien
1 [2.] All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.410, 18.420 [Partitions] and
18.430 [Subdivisions], shall be met [f applicable];
-2. [3.] Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A
planned development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides
alternative designs and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose
of this [chapter] sectie. In each case, the applicant must provide findings to justify the
modification of the standards in the chapters listed i Subseetio 3 below. [The applicant
shall respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and
clearly identify where their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application of
the standards. For those chapters not specifically exempted, the applicant bears the burden
of fully complying with those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been
requested.]
Page 13 of 21 June 12, 2006
[a. Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, are not applicable to Planned Development Reviews. The
detailed development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as
the Site Development Review.]
[b. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. The Commission may grant an
exception to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional
engineer that the resulting access will not be detrimental to the public safety
considering emergency vehicle needs, and provisions are provided for all modes of
transportation using the site (vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit).]
--a: [c.] Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below,
density shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning
district, [using the minimum lot size established for that district. Where a project
site encompasses more than one underlying zoning district, density shall be
aggregated for each district, and may be allocated anywhere within the project
site, as deemed appropriate by the commission.]
The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an
incentive to increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/
or site variation incorporated into the development. These factors must make a
substantial contribution to objectives of the planned development. The degree of
distinctiveness and the desirability of variation achieved shall govern the amount of
density increase which the Commission may approve according to the following:
(1) [A I% bonus for each 5% of the gross site area set aside in open space, up to a
maximum of 5%,] " maximum e ~0'- is allowed for the provision of [active use
recreational open space] undeveloped eemmen space, exclusive of areas
contained in floodplain, [steep] slopes greater than 25 'A, drainageways, or
wetlands that would otherwise be precluded from development;
(2) [Up to a maximum of 5% is allowed for the development of pedestrian amenities,
streetscape development, recreation areas, plazas, or other items from the
"Planning Commission's Toolbox.
feel 3°,e is allowed fer lendseaping; etseape deve ,.pfnefA; deve epe
develepmef4; and/or- retention of existing vegetation;
(4 maximum of 3-0,4 quality of ar-ehiteE~ffal quality ° le; hafmon ous use
fna*r-ials; innovative building orientation er- building grouping; an&er- varied use
of housing es
Page 14 of 21 June 12, 2006
[d] Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. [The Commission may grant an
exception to the landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the
overall landscape plan was prepared by a licensed landscape architect,
provides for 20% of the net site area to be professionally landscaped, and
meets the intent of the specific standard being modified.]
[e.] Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements. [The
Commission may grant an exception to the off-street parking dimensional
and minimum number of space requirements in the applicable zone if
(1) The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than 10
percent of the required parking, and
(2) The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is
intended to be permanent in nature, e.g., a nursing home, and which has
a low demand for off-street parking; or
(3) There is an opportunityfor sharing parking and there is written evidence
that the property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement; or
(4) Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards
will not adversely affect adjoining uses, or
(S) There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural
features of the site which make it in the public interest to grant an
exception to parking standards.]
[f.] Chapter 18.780, Signs. [The Commission may grant an exception to the sign
dimensional requirements in the applicable zone if.•
(1) The sign is not increased by more than 10 percent of the required
applicable dimensional standard for signs; and
(2) The exception is necessary for adequate identification of the use on the
property; and
(3) The sign will be compatible with the overall site plan, the structural
improvements and with the structures and uses on adjoining properties.]
[g.] Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. [The Commission may grant an exception
to the visual clearance requirements, when adequate sight distance is or can be
met,]
[ h.] Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks; and
18.810.060, Lots. Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited
basis, and nothing in this section shall obligate the City Engineer to grant an
exception. The Commission has the authority to reject an exception request. The
Page 15 of 21 June 12, 2006
Commission can only grant an exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by
the City Engineer. The City Engineer may determine that certain exceptions to
the street and utility standards are permissible when it can be shown that.
(1) Public safety will not be compromised; and
(2) In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with
a conforming design; and
(3) The design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate
or amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of
pollutant treatment.]
v. Chapter- 18.730, LAV Vl/11V11J 1 Development Standafds-;
e. Chapter- 18.79G Visti,1 Clo e Area.t
w, v1aKl/~vi 1 Chapter- 18.745, LKl1l1JV Ki,/11I r andseapi g an c
,
e. .,..Ki.,~.,. l V chapter 14., V✓ 765,
Par-king Off "t"oo Jul.,.,.. t and Leading Requirements;
fl. Chapter- 18.705, n eeess Egress and r 1 t ; and
g. chapter- 18.780, Qigns
[4.1 In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
(1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to preserve
the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree possible. [The
commission may require the applicant to demonstrate why a particular alternate site
plan that may result in greater preservation of trees, topography and natural drainage
would either not be feasible or would result in a greater loss of those resources; ]
(2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and sliding [as
demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation,]
(3) Ther-e shall be adequa4e distanee between eft site buildings and ethef: en site eaid off site
fire pr-eteefieft-,t
(4) [(3) Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal,] the
structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions, where
possible; and
(5) Trees presued to the-eK4ent possible. ep=csccnienc t of crcc~ f trees zT c , et to the
-rc the
rv., o o.. ts of C=hapter- 18.790, T„°° Removal.
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
(1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between
single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses;
(2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), [the
requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a
registered Landscape Architect is submitted that attains the same level of buffering
Page 16 of 21 June 12, 2006
and screening with alternate materials or methods.] The following factors shall be
considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer required under
Chapter 18.745:
(a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels, absorb air
pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier;
(b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to achieve the purpose;
(c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed;
(d) The required density of the buffering; and
(e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile.
(3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as service areas,
storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops shall be provided and the
following factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy of the type and extent
of the screening:
(a) What needs to be screened;
(b) The direction from which it is needed; and
(c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round.
C. Privacy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings
shall be located on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible,
to protect the private areas on the adjoining properties from view and noise;
[d. Exterior elevations - residential use: Along the vertical face of single-family attached and
multiple family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing
any two of the following:
(1) Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet,
(2) Extensions, e.g, decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight
feet, a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and
(3) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.]
d. [e.] Private outdoor area [residential/ multi famil use:
(1) in addition to the requirements of subpa~°gmph (3), [Exclusive of any other required
open space facility,] each ground-level residential dwelling unit shall have an
outdoor private area (patio, terrace, [or] porch) of not less than 48 square feet [with a
minimum width dimension of four feet;]
(2) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun;
and
(3) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of
the space.
e. [f.] Shared outdoor recreation areas - [residential] multi family use:
(1) in addition to subpar- gr-ap s (2) an (3) of this s ti [Exclusive of any other
required open space facilities,] each multiple dwelling [residential] development
shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development
plan as follows:
(a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit; and
(b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
Page 17 of 21 June 12, 2006
(2) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for
reasons of crime prevention and safety;
(3) The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
(a) it may be all eutdeer- spaee; of
(b) it may bepai4 etitdeer- spaee and pai4 indoor-space; for- example, an outdoor- (d) it may be a4-E6 ea space and pai4 priyat2;f6r- example, it eould be an +.a
to indoor- t' , and ti. 1 1, .v1u11J vv.,.1 .ava vuu unit; (e) 11vae VK1eV1a1vV K.Yt FFMWttI .V W111J, the baleenies shall not be less than 4 8 squar-e feet.
[(a) Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities;
(b) Additional outdoor active use open space facilities;
(c) Indoor recreation center; or
(d) A combination of the above.]
[g. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
(1) The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such
as streets or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas
are clearly defined to establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide
for crime prevention and to establish maintenance responsibility; and
(2) These areas may be defined by, but not limited to:
(a) A deck, patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine,
(b) A trellis or arbor,
(c) A change in elevation or grade,
(d) A change in the texture of the path material,
(e) Sign; or
09 Landscaping.]
[h.] Access and circulation:
(1) The number of [required] a4lewed access points for a development shall be provided
in Chapter 18.705;
(2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate
emergency [and service] vehicles; and
(3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways [abutting and through a
site] if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan for terminate at the boundaries
of the project site.]
g. [i.] Landscaping and open space:
(1) Residential Development: In addition to the [buffering and screening requirements of
paragraph b of this subsection, and any minimal use open space facilities,]
a minimum of
20 percent of the site shall be landscaped. [This may be accomplished in improved open
space tracts, or with landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a
Page 18 of 21 June 12, 2006
landscape plan, prepared or approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for
such landscape installation,]
-Genunefeial D('yelepi efA: A o 15 per-eent of the site shall be
1andseaped; and
(3) industrial Development. A mifflimum of 15 per-eepA of the site shall be ;
1} [j.] Public transit:
(1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts [or is within a
mile of] a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on:
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
(2) The required facilities [may include but are not necessarily limited to] shall be limit
°a
to such facilities as:
(a) A waiting shelter;
(b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and
(c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area.
[(3) If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the
developer may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the
Commission establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the
impact of the development and the requirement.]
s;
(1) in addition to the provisions of Chapter- 18.780, Sig*s--.
(a) Leemien of all signs proposed for- the development site; and
(b) The signs shall not ebseu°° yehiei° driver's sight dicta
j- [k.] Parking:
(1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter Chapte 18.765;
(2) Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings
may be provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned
development as long as each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space.
1F [].]Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter [18.810.1 J 8.775 n the er-iter-ia i the adopted 1981 . act
drain ge plan; [An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on
the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will
result from the use of such means as green streets, porous concrete, or eco roofs.]
t [m.]Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent
to the 100-year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of
sufficient open land area for a greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area
shall include portions of a suitable elevation for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle
pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted pedestrian bicycle pathway
plan.
Page 19 of 21 June 12, 2006
[n.J 1850.zi0 Shared Open Space [Facilities]
[Exclusive of any other required open space or buffer areas, the detailed development plan
shall designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as an open space facility. The open
space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following:
(1) Minimal Use Facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied
by reserving areas for minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around
sensitive lands (steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or 100 year floodplain).
(2) Passive Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied
by providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping,
irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use.
(3) Active Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by
providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping,
irrigation, pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use.
(4) The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat
or covenants.]
[o. Open Space Conveyance. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a
plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may
require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the
reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park
system.
Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive
plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use
areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the
subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks
or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the
impact of the subdivision on the park system. The open space shall be conveyed in
accordance with one of the following methods.]
A. Requir-ements for- shafed even ~pgg2 Where the epen spaee is designated en the plan as
i The open spaee area sha4l be shey.% on the final plan and r-eeer-ded with the Dir-eeter-; and
L• The o v eenveyed in aeeer-danee with v shall be
of the feflewing methods:
e- [(I) Public OwnershBy dedie +:^n to the City „i.liel , eA%ed an f4ainea ,
epees Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it
with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and
maintenance limitations [A determination of City acceptance shall be made in
writing by the Parks & Facilities Division Manager prior to final approval.
Dedications of open space may be eligible for Systems Development Charge
Page 20 of 21 June 12, 2006
credits, usable only for the proposed development. If deemed to be not acceptable,
the open space shall be in private ownership as described below,]
[(2) Private Ownership.] By leasinge conveying title (including beneficial ownership)
to a corporation, home association or other legal entity,[and granting a conservation
easement to the City in a form acceptable by the City. The terms of the
conservation easement must include provisions for the following:]
with t4e City r-etaining the development rights to the property. The tefms of sue
lease or other- instn*nefA of eefweyanee must ifielude pr-evisiefis suitable to the Cky
04 (a) The continued use of such land for the intended purposes;
(2-) (b)Continuity of property maintenance;
(3) (c) When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance;
(4) (d) Adequate insurance protection; and
(5) (e) Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise.
Page 21 of 21 June 12, 2006
ATTACHMENT 3
Proposed Planned Development Code Revisions, June 2006
Chapter 18.120
DEFINITIONS
55. "Density bonus" - Additional dwelling units that can be earned as an incentive for providing
undeveloped open space, landscaping, or tree canopy as defined further in this code.
87. "Landscaping" - Areas primarily devoted to plantings, trees, shrubs, lawn and other organic ground
cover together with other natural or artificial supplements such as water courses, ponds, fountains,
decorative lighting, benches, bridges, rock or stone arrangements, pathways, sculptures, trellises and
screens.
104. Open Space Facility related definitions. Open Space Facilities may be privately or publicly owned:
a. Minimal Use Facilities. Areas reserved for low-impact recreation, limited to soft surface trails which are
minimally maintained. No other improvements (apart from underground utilities) are allowed.
b. Passive Use Facilities. Areas reserved for medium-impact recreation and education uses related to the
functions and values of a natural area that require limited and low impact site improvement, including soft
surface trails, raised walkways, pedestrian bridges, seating areas, viewing blinds, observation decks
informational signage, drinking fountains, picnic tables, interpretive centers, and other similar facilities.
Accommodations for ADA access shall be provided where site considerations permit.
c. Active Use Facilities. Areas reserved for high-impact recreation that require a greater degree of site
development and/or ground disturbance; such as sports fields, playground equipment, group picnic shelters,
swimming pools, hard and soft surface pathways, restrooms, and similar facilities.
Chapter 18.350
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Sections:
18.350.010 Purpose
18.350.020 Process
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements
18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria
18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements
18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria
18.350.010 Purpose
A. Pu ose. The purposes of the planned development overlay zone are:
1. To provide a means for property development that is consistent with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan
through the application of flexible standards which consider and mitigate for the potential impacts to the
City; and
Page 1 of 15 June 6, 2006
2. To provide such added benefits as increased natural areas or open space in the City, alternative building
designs, walkable communities, preservation of significant natural resources, aesthetic appeal, and other
types of assets that contribute to the larger community in lieu of strict adherence to many of the rules of
the Tigard Community Development Code; and
3. To achieve unique neighborhoods (by varying the housing styles through architectural accents, use of
open space, innovative transportation facilities) which will retain their character and city benefits, while
respecting the characteristics of existing neighborhoods through appropriate buffering and lot size
transitioning; and
4. To preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing landscape features and amenities (trees, water
resources, ravines, etc.) through the use of a planning procedure (site design and analysis, presentation of
alternatives, conceptual review, then detailed review) that can relate the type and design of a
development to a particular site; and
5. To consider an amount of development on a site, within the limits of density requirements, which will
balance the interests of the owner, developer, neighbors, and the City; and
6. To provide a means to better relate the built environment to the natural environment through sustainable
and innovative building and public facility construction methods and materials.
18.350.020 Process
A. Applicable in all zones. The planned development designation is an overlay zone applicable to all zones. An
applicant may elect to develop the project as a planned development, in compliance with the requirements of
this chapter, or in the case of a commercial or industrial project an approval authority may apply the
provisions of this chapter as a condition of approving any application for the development.
B. Elements of approval process. There are three elements to the planned development approval process, as
follows:
1. The approval of the planned development concept plan; and
2. The approval of the detailed development plan;
3. The approval of the planned development overlay zone.
C. Decision-making process.
1. The concept plan shall be processed by means of a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by
Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria contained in Section 18.350.050.
2. The detailed development plan shall be reviewed by means of a Type 111-PC procedure, as
governed by 18.390.050, to ensure that it is substantially in compliance with the approved concept
plan.
3. The planned development overlay zone will be applied concurrently with the approval of the
detailed plan.
4. Applicants may choose to submit the concept plan and detailed plan for concurrent review subject
to meeting all of the approval criteria for each approval. All applicants are advised that the
Page 2 of 15 June 6, 2006
purpose of separating these applications is to provide them clear direction in developing
the detailed plans. Rejection of the concept plan will result in a corresponding rejection of
the detailed development plan and overlay zone.
5. In the case of an existing planned development overlay zone, once construction of the detailed plan has
been completed, subsequent applications conforming to the detailed plan shall be reviewed under the
provisions required in the chapter which apply to the particular land use application.
6. If the application involves subdivision of land, the applicant may also apply for preliminary plat
approval and the applications shall be heard concurrently with the detailed plan.
D. Concurrent Applications for Concept Plan and Detailed Plan. In the case of concurrent applications for
concept plan and detailed development plan, including subdivision applications, the applicant shall clearly
distinguish the concept from the detailed plan. The Planning Commission shall take separate actions on each
element of the Planned Development application (i.e. the concept approval must precede the detailed
development approval); however each required action may be made at the same hearing.
18.350.030 Administrative Provisions
A. Time limit on filing of detailed development plan. The concept plan approval expires after 1-1/2 years unless
an application for detailed development plan and, if applicable, a preliminary plat approval or request for
extension is filed. Action on the detailed development plan shall be taken by the Planning Commission by
means of a Type 111-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, using approval criteria in 18.350.070.
B. Zoning map designation. The planned development overlay zone application shall be concurrently approved
if the detailed development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. The zoning map shall be amended
to indicate the approved planned development designation for the subject development site. The approval of
the planned development overlay zone shall not expire.
C. Extension. The Director shall, upon written request by the applicant and payment of the required fee,
grant an extension of the approval period not to exceed one year provided that:
1. No changes have been made on the original concept development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission;
2. The applicant can show intent of applying for detailed development plan or preliminary plat review
within the one year extension period; and
3. There have been no changes to the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and ordinance
provisions on which the approval was based.
D. Phased development.
1. The Commission may approve a time schedule for developing a site in phases, but in no case shall the
total time period for all phases be greater than seven years without reapplying for concept development
plan review.
2. The criteria for approving a phased detail development plan proposal are that:
a. The public facilities shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase; and
Page 3 of 15 June 6, 2006
b. The development and occupancy of any phase shall not be dependent on the use of temporary
public facilities. A temporary public facility is any facility not constructed to the applicable City
or district standard.
E. Substantial modifications to the concept plan. If the Planning Commission finds that the detailed
development plan or preliminary plat does not substantially conform to the concept plan, a new concept
plan shall be required.
F. Noncompliance. Noncompliance with an approved detailed development plan shall be a violation of this
chapter.
G. Issuance of occupancy permits. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
detailed development plan including landscaping and recreation areas before any occupancy permits are
issued. However, when the Director determines that immediate execution of any feature of an approved
detailed development plan is impractical due to climatic conditions, unavailability of materials, or other
temporary condition, the Director shall, as a precondition of the issuance of a required permit, require the
posting of a performance bond or other surety to secure execution of the feature at a time certain not to
exceed one year.
18.350.040 Concept Plan Submission Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general
information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050 and the additional
information required by 18.350.040.B. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following:
1. A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the planned development through the
particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement should include:
a. A description of the character of the proposed development and the rationale behind the
assumptions and choices made by the applicant.
b. An explanation of the architectural style, and what innovative site planning principles are
utilized including any innovations in building techniques that will be employed.
c. An explanation of how the proposal relates to the purposes of the Planned Development
Chapter as expressed in 18.350.010.
d. An explanation of how the proposal utilized the Planning Commissioner's Toolbox.
2. A general development schedule indicating the approximate dates when construction of the
planned development and its various phases are expected to be initiated and completed.
3. A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or
portions of the planned development. In the case where a residential subdivision is proposed, the
statement shall include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant will build the homes, or
sell the lots to other builders.
B. Additional information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the
concept plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information, the detailed content of which
can be obtained from the Director:
Page 4 of 15 June 6, 2006
I . Existing site conditions;
2. A site concept including the types of proposed land uses and structures, including housing types, and
their general arrangement on the site;
3. A grading concept;
4. A landscape concept indicating a percentage range for the amount of proposed open space and
landscaping, and general location and types of proposed open space(s);
5. Parking concept
6. A sign concept;
7. A streets and utility concept; and
8. Structure Setback and Development Standards concept, including the proposed residential density
target if applicable.
C. Allowable Uses
1. In residential zones. In all residential zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may develop
the site to contain a mixture of uses subject to the density provisions of the underlying zone and the density
bonus provisions of 18.350.070.A.3.c. The following uses are allowed with planned development approval:
a. All uses allowed outright in the underlying zoning district;
b. Single-family detached and attached residential units;
c. Duplex residential units;
d. Multi-family residential units;
e. Manufactured homes;
f. Accessory services and commercial uses directly serving the planned development only and
which are customary or associated with, but clearly incidental to the uses permitted in the zone,
such as personal services, preschool or daycare, and retail uses less than 5,000 square feet in
sum total;
g. Community building;
h. Indoor recreation facility; athletic club, fitness center, racquetball court, swimming pool,
tennis court or similar use;
i. Outdoor recreation facility, golf course, golf driving range, swimming pool, tennis court, or
similar use; and
j. Recreational vehicle storage area.
Page 5 of 15 June 6, 2006
2. In commercial zones. In all commercial zones, an applicant with a planned development approval may
develop the site to contain all of the uses permitted outright in the underlying zone and, in addition, a
maximum of 25% of the total gross floor area may be used for multi-family dwellings in those commercial
zones that do not list multi-family dwellings as an outright use.
3. In industrial zones. In all industrial zones, a planned development shall contain only those uses allowed
outright in the underlying zoning district.
18.350.050 Concept Plan Approval Criteria
A. The concept plan may be approved by the Commission only if all of the following criteria are met:
I. The concept plan includes specific designations on the concept map for areas of open space, and describes
their intended level of use, how they relate to other proposed uses on the site, and how they protect natural
features of the site.
2. The concept plan identifies areas of significant natural resources, if any, and identifies methods for their
maximized protection, preservation, and/or management.
3. The concept plan identifies how the future development will integrate into the existing neighborhood, either
through compatible street layout, architectural style, housing type, or by providing a transition between the
existing neighborhood and the project with compatible development or open space buffers.
4. The concept plan identifies methods for promoting walkability or transit ridership, such methods may include
separated parking bays, off street walking paths, shorter pedestrian routes than vehicular routes, linkages to
or other provisions for bus stops, etc.
5. The concept plan identifies the proposed uses, and their general arrangement on site. In the case of projects
that include a residential component, housing type, unit density, or generalized lot sizes shall be shown in
relation to their proposed location on site.
6. The concept plan must demonstrate that development of the property pursuant to the plan results in
development that has significant advantages over a standard development. A concept plan has a significant
advantage if it provides development consistent with the general purpose of the zone in which it is located at
overall densities consistent with the zone, while protecting natural features or providing additional amenities
or features not otherwise available that enhance the development project or the neighborhood.
18.350.060 Detailed Development Plan Submission Requirements
A. General submission requirements. The applicant shall submit an application containing all of the general
information required for a Type III-PC procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.050, the additional information
required by 18.350.040.B and the approval criteria under 13.350.070.
B. Additional Information. In addition to the general information described in Subsection A above, the detailed
development plan, data, and narrative shall include the following information:
1. Contour intervals of 2 to 5 ft, depending on slope gradients, and spot elevations at breaks in grade, along
drainage channels or swales, and at selected points, as needed
2. A specific development schedule indicating the approximate dates of construction activity, including
Page 6 of 15 June 6, 2006
demolition, tree protection installation, tree removal, ground breaking, grading, public improvements, and
building construction for each phase.
3. A copy of all existing and/or proposed restrictions or covenants.
4. Moderate to High Density Development Analysis. If proposing development in an area within a Metro
designated town or regional center, the following additional information may be required:
a. Air movement: Prevailing breezes characteristic of a region may be greatly modified by urban high-
rise structures. Predominant air movement patterns in a city may be along roadways and between
buildings. The placement, shape, and height of existing buildings can create air turbulence caused by
micro air movement patterns. These patterns may influence the location of building elements such
as outdoor areas and balconies. Also a building's design and placement can mitigate or increase local
wind turbulence.
b. Sun and shadow patterns: The sun and shadow patterns of existing structures should be studied to
determine how they would affect the proposed building. This is particularly important for outdoor
terraces and balconies where sunlight may be desirable. Sun and shadow pat- terns also should be
considered as sources of internal heat gain or loss. Building orientation, window sizes and shading
devices can modify internal heat gain or loss. Studies should include daily and seasonal patterns and
the shadows the proposed building would cast on existing buildings and open spaces.
c. Reflections: Reflections from adjacent structures such as glass-clad buildings may be a problem. The
development should be designed to compensate for such glare or if possible, oriented away from it.
C. Compliance with specific development standards. The Detailed Development Plan shall show compliance with
base zone provisions, with the following modifications:
1. Lot dimensional standards: The minimum lot depth and lot width standards shall not apply. There shall
be no minimum lot size except that lots on the perimeter of the project shall not be less than 80% of the
minimum size required in the base zone.
2. Site coverage: The maximum site coverage is 80%, except in the IP zone where the maximum site
coverage shall be 75%. Site coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces such as streets and
sidewalks;
3. Building height: In residential zones, any increase in the building height above the maximum in the base
zone will require that the structure be setback from the perimeter of the site a distance of at least 1-1/2
times the height of the building.
4. Structure setback provisions:
a. Setbacks for structures on the perimeter of the project shall be the same as that required by the base
zone unless otherwise provided by Chapter 18.360;
b. The setback provisions for all setbacks on the interior of the project shall not apply except that:
(1) All structures shall meet the Uniform Building and Fire Code requirements;
Page 7 of 15 June 6, 2006
(2) A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet is required for any garage structure which opens
facing a street. This setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if specified on
the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing movements are accounted for.
(3) A minimum front yard setback of eight feet is required for any garage opening for an
attached single-family dwelling facing a private street as long as the required off-street
parking spaces are provided. This setback may be reduced for rear or side loaded garages, if
specified on the detailed plan and proper clearances for backing movements are accounted
for.
c. If seeking to modify the base zone setbacks, the applicant shall specify the proposed setbacks,
either on a lot by lot, or project wide basis. The applicant may propose, or the commission may
require, actual structure footprints to be shown and adhered to.
5. Other provisions of the base zone. All other provisions of the base zone shall apply except as modified
by this chapter.
18.350.070 Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria
A. Detailed Development Plan Approval Criteria. A detailed development plan may be approved only if all the
following criteria are met:
1. The detailed plan is generally consistent with the concept plan. Minor changes from the concept plan do not
make the detailed plan inconsistent with the concept plan unless:
a. The change increases the residential densities, increases the lot coverage by buildings or reduces
the amount of parking;
b. The change reduces the amount of open space and landscaping;
c. The change involves a change in use;
d. The change commits land to development which is environmentally sensitive or subject to a
potential hazard; and
e. The change involves a major shift in the location of buildings, proposed streets, parking lots,
landscaping or other site improvements.
2. All the provisions of the land division provisions, Chapters 18.420 Partitions and 18.430 Subdivisions,
shall be met if applicable;
3. Except as noted, the provisions of the following chapters shall be utilized as guidelines. A planned
development need not meet these requirements where a development plan provides alternative designs
and methods, if acceptable to the Commission, that promote the purpose of this chapter. In each case, the
applicant must provide findings to justify the modification of the standards in the chapters listed below.
The applicant shall respond to all the applicable criteria of each chapter as part of these findings and
clearly identify where their proposal is seeking a modification to the strict application of the standards.
For those chapters not specifically exempted, the applicant bears the burden of fully complying with
those standards, unless a variance or adjustment has been requested.
Page 8 of 15 June 6, 2006
a. Chapter 18.360, Site Development Review. The provisions of Chapter 18.360, Site
Development Review, are not applicable to Planned Development Reviews. The detailed
development plan review is intended to address the same type of issues as the Site
Development Review.
b. Chapter 18.705, Access, Egress and Circulation. The Commission may grant an exception
to the access standards, upon a demonstration by a professional engineer that the resulting
access will not be detrimental to the public safety considering emergency vehicle needs, and
provisions are provided for all modes of transportation using the site (vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, and transit).
C. Chapter 18.715, Density Computation and Limitations. Unless authorized below, density
shall be governed by the density established in the underlying zoning district, using the
minimum lot size established for that district. Where a project site encompasses more than
one underlying zoning district, density shall be aggregated for each district, and may be
allocated anywhere within the project site, as deemed appropriate by the commission.
The Commission may further authorize a density bonus not to exceed 10% as an incentive to
increase or enhance open space, architectural character and/or site variation incorporated
into the development. These factors must make a substantial contribution to objectives of
the planned development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirability of variation
achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which the Commission may approve
according to the following:
(1) A 1% bonus for each 5% of the gross site area set aside in open space, up to a
maximum of 5%, is allowed for the provision of active use recreational open space,
exclusive of areas contained in floodplain, steep slopes, drainageways, or wetlands
that would otherwise be precluded from development;
(2) Up to a maximum of 5% is allowed for the development of pedestrian amenities,
streetscape development, recreation areas, plazas, or other items from the "Planning
Commission's Toolbox."
d. Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening. The Commission may grant an exception to the
landscape requirements of this title upon a finding that the overall landscape plan was
prepared by a licensed landscape architect, provides for 20% of the net site area to be
professionally landscaped, and meets the intent of the specific standard being modified.
e. Chapter 18.765, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements. The Commission may grant
an exception to the off-street parking dimensional and minimum number of space
requirements in the applicable zone if:
(1) The minimum number of parking spaces is not reduced by more than 10 percent of
the required parking; and
(2) The application is for a use designed for a specific purpose which is intended to be
permanent in nature, e.g., a nursing home, and which has a low demand for off-
street parking; or
Page 9 of 15 June 6, 2006
(3) There is an opportunity for sharing parking and there is written evidence that the
property owners are willing to enter into a legal agreement; or
(4) Public transportation is available to the site, and reducing the standards will not
adversely affect adjoining uses; or
(5) There is a community interest in the preservation of particular natural features of
the site which make it in the public interest to grant an exception to parking
standards.
f. Chapter 18.780, Signs. The Commission may grant an exception to the sign dimensional
requirements in the applicable zone if:
(1) The sign is not increased by more than 10 percent of the required applicable
dimensional standard for signs; and
(2) The exception is necessary for adequate identification of the use on the property;
and
(3) The sign will be compatible with the overall site plan, the structural improvements
and with the structures and uses on adjoining properties.
g. Chapter 18.795, Visual Clearance Areas. The Commission may grant an exception to the
visual clearance requirements, when adequate sight distance is or can be met;
h. Chapter 18.810, Street and Utility Improvements, Sections 18.810.040, Blocks; and
18.810.060, Lots. Deviations from street standards shall be made on a limited basis, and
nothing in this section shall obligate the City Engineer to grant an exception. The
Commission has the authority to reject an exception request. The Commission can only
grant an exception to street sanctions if it is sanctioned by the City Engineer.. The City
Engineer may determine that certain exceptions to the street and utility standards are
permissible when it can be shown that:
(1) Public safety will not be compromised; and
(2) In the case of public streets, maintenance costs will not be greater than with a
conforming design; and
(3) The design will improve stormwater conveyance either by reducing the rate or
amount of runoff from present standards or increasing the amount of pollutant
treatment.
4. In addition, the following criteria shall be met:
a. Relationship to the natural and physical environment:
(1) The streets, buildings and other site elements shall be designed and located to
preserve the existing trees, topography and natural drainage to the greatest degree
possible. The commission may require the applicant to demonstrate why a
particular alternate site plan that may result in greater preservation of trees,
Page 10 of 15 June 6, 2006
topography and natural drainage would either not be feasible or would result in a
greater loss of those resources;
(2) Structures located on the site shall not be in areas subject to ground slumping and
sliding as demonstrated by the inclusion of a specific geotechnical evaluation;
(3) Using the basic site analysis information from the concept plan submittal, the
structures shall be oriented with consideration for the sun and wind directions,
where possible; and
b. Buffering, screening and compatibility between adjoining uses:
(1) Buffering shall be provided between different types of land uses, e.g., between
single-family and multi-family residential, and residential and commercial uses;
(2) In addition to the requirements of the buffer matrix (Table 18.745.1), the
requirements of the buffer may be reduced if a landscape plan prepared by a
registered Landscape Architect is submitted that attains the same level of
buffering and screening with alternate materials or methods. The following
factors shall be considered in determining the adequacy and extent of the buffer
required under Chapter 18.745.:
(a) The purpose of the buffer, for example to decrease noise levels,
absorb air pollution, filter dust, or to provide a visual barrier;
(b) The size of the buffer needs in terms of width and height to
achieve the purpose;
(c) The direction(s) from which buffering is needed;
(d) The required density of the buffering; and
(e) Whether the viewer is stationary or mobile.
(3) On-site screening from view from adjoining properties of such activities as
service areas, storage areas, parking lots and mechanical devices on roof tops
shall be provided and the following factors shall be considered in determining the
adequacy of the type and extent of the screening:
(a) What needs to be screened;
(b) The direction from which it is needed; and
(c) Whether the screening needs to be year- round.
C. Privacy and noise: Non-residential structures which abut existing residential dwellings shall be located
on the site or be designed in a manner, to the maximum degree possible, to protect the private areas on
the adjoining properties from view and noise;
Page 11 of 15 June 6, 2006
d. Exterior elevations - residential use: Along the vertical face of single-family attached and multiple-
family structures, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 30 feet by providing any two of the
following:
(1) Recesses, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight.feet;
(2) Extensions, e.g., decks, patios, entrances, floor area, of a minimum depth of eight feet, a
maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet; and
(3) Offsets or breaks in roof elevations of three or more feet in height.
e. Private outdoor area - residential use:
(1) Exclusive of any other required open space facility, each ground-level residential dwelling unit
shall have an outdoor private area (patio, terrace, or porch) of not less than 48 square feet with
a minimum width dimension of four feet;
(2) Wherever possible, private outdoor open spaces should be oriented toward the sun; and
(3) Private outdoor spaces shall be screened or designed to provide privacy for the use of the
space.
f. Shared outdoor recreation and open space facility areas - residential use:
(1) Exclusive of any other required open space facilities, each residential dwelling development
shall incorporate shared usable outdoor recreation areas within the development plan as
follows:
(a) Studio units up to and including two bedroom units, 200 square feet per unit;
(b) Three or more bedroom units, 300 square feet per unit.
(2) Shared outdoor recreation space shall be readily observable from adjacent units for
reasons of crime prevention and safety;
(3) The required recreation space may be provided as follows:
(a) Additional outdoor passive use open space facilities;
(b) Additional outdoor active use open space facilities;
(c) Indoor recreation center; or
(d) A combination of the above.
g. Demarcation of public, semi-public and private spaces for crime prevention:
(1) The structures and site improvements shall be designed so that public areas such as streets
or public gathering places, semi-public areas and private outdoor areas are clearly defined to
establish persons having a right to be in the space, to provide for crime prevention and to
establish maintenance responsibility; and
Page 12 of 15 June 6, 2006
(2) These areas may be defined by, but not limited to:
(a) A deck, patio, low wall, hedge, or draping vine;
(b) A trellis or arbor;
(c) A change in elevation or grade;
(d) A change in the texture of the path material;
(e) Sign; or
(f) Landscaping.
h. Access and circulation:
(1) The number of required access points for a development shall be provided in Chapter 18.705;
(2) All circulation patterns within a development must be designed to accommodate
emergency and service vehicles; and
(3) Provisions shall be made for pedestrian and bicycle ways abutting and through a site
if such facilities are shown on an adopted plan or terminate at the boundaries of the
project site.
i. Landscaping and open space:
(1) Residential Development: In addition to the buffering and screening requirements of paragraph b
of this subsection, and any minimal use open space facilities, a minimum of 20 percent of the
site shall be landscaped. This may be accomplished in improved open space tracts, or with
landscaping on individual lots provided the developer includes a landscape plan, prepared or
approved by a licensed landscape architect, and surety for such landscape installation;
j. Public transit:
(1) Provisions for public transit may be required where the site abuts or is within a'/4
mile of a public transit route. The required facilities shall be based on:
(a) The location of other transit facilities in the area; and
(b) The size and type of the proposed development.
(2) The required facilities may include but are not necessarily limited to such facilities as:
(a) A waiting shelter;
(b) A turn-out area for loading and unloading; and
(c) Hard surface paths connecting the development to the waiting area.
Page 13 of 15 June 6, 2006
(3) If provision of such public transit facilities on or near the site is not feasible, the developer
may contribute to a fund for public transit improvements provided the Commission
establishes a direct relationship and rough proportionality between the impact of the
development and the requirement.
k. Parking:
(1) All parking and loading areas shall be generally laid out in accordance with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 18.765;
(2) Up to 50% of required off-street parking spaces for single-family attached dwellings may be
provided on one or more common parking lots within the planned development as long as
each single-family lot contains one off-street parking space.
1. Drainage: All drainage provisions shall be generally laid out in accordance with the requirements set
forth in Chapter 18.810. An applicant may propose an alternate means for stormwater conveyance on
the basis that a reduction of stormwater runoff or an increase in the level of treatment will result from
the use of such means as green streets, porous concrete, or eco roofs.
in. Floodplain dedication: Where landfill and/or development is allowed within or adjacent to the 100-
year floodplain, the City shall require consideration of the dedication of sufficient open land area for a
greenway adjoining and within the floodplain. This area shall include portions of a suitable elevation
for the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway with the floodplain in accordance with the adopted
pedestrian bicycle pathway plan.
n. Shared Open Space Facilities: Exclusive of any other required open space or buffer areas, the detailed
development plan shall designate a minimum of 20% of the gross site area as an open space facility.
The open space facility may be comprised of any combination of the following:
(1) Minimal Use Facilities. Up to 75% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by
reserving areas for minimal use. Typically these areas are designated around sensitive lands
(steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or 100 year floodplain).
(2) Passive Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by
providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation,
pathway and other structural improvements) for passive recreational use.
(3) Active Use Facilities. Up to 100% of the open space requirement may be satisfied by
providing a detailed development plan for improvements (including landscaping, irrigation,
pathway and other structural improvements) for active recreational use.
(4) The open space area shall be shown on the final plan and recorded on the final plat or
covenants.
o. Open Space Conveyance. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a plan
adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the
dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication
is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system.
Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies,
and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission
Page 14 of 15 June 6, 2006
may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent
and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or
dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. The open space
shall be conveyed in accordance with one of the following methods:
(1) Public Ownership. Open space proposed for dedication to the City must be acceptable to it
with regard to the size, shape, location, improvement and budgetary and maintenance
limitations. A determination of City acceptance shall be made in writing by the Parks &
Facilities Division Manager prior to final approval. Dedications of open space may be
eligible for Systems Development Charge credits, usable only for the proposed
development. If deemed to be not acceptable, the open space shall be in private ownership
as described below;
(2) Private Ownership. By conveying title (including beneficial ownership) to a corporation,
home association or other legal entity, and granting a conservation easement to the City in a
form acceptable by the City. The 'terms of the conservation easement must include
provisions for the following:
(a) The continued use of such land for the intended purposes;
(b) Continuity of property maintenance;
(c) When appropriate, the availability of funds required for such maintenance;
(d) Adequate insurance protection; and
(e) Recovery for loss sustained by casualty and condemnation or otherwise.
Page 15 of 15 June 6, 2006
• ATTACHMENT 4
DRAFT _
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
President Inman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center, Red Rock Creek Conference Room, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: President Inman; Commssioners Brown, Buehner, Caffall, Duling,
Harbison, Meads, Munro, and Walsh. Also present was Jeremy Vermilyea, Commission
alternate.
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Beth St. Amand, Senior Planner; Darren
Wyss, Associate Planner, Sean Farrelly, Associate Planner; Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission
Secretary
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE
REPORTS
Commissioner Buehner reported on the City Center Advisory Commission. They are working
on the strategy for the short term planning for the Downtown plan. They will make a
presentation to Council tomorrow night and hear their fate shortly.
There has been no meeting of the Transportation Financial Strategies Task Force since the last
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Meads reported that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board have been
discussing land acquisition - things are proceeding. The consultant hired to help gather
infon-nation on a recreation program finished her presentation. The Board is going take
suggestions on how to proceed to Council. The Board is also working on their mission
statement. They are trying to work out how they can be both an advisory and an advocate
board.
Commissioner Duling advised that the Committee for Citizen Involvement received an update
from Liz Newton on the Neighborhood Program Newton received comments from areas 4
and 8 (the Metzger and Tigard Iiigh School areas). She is working on the National
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 1
y
Neighborhood Day, Sunday, September 7th. The CCI also were updated on the public
involvement program for the Hwy. 99W improvement plan. ODOT is providing the bulk of
the funding for the study. OTAK and DKS have been hired as consultant teams. July is the
tentative start date for the study, which should take approximately 3 months. There will be 5
citizen involvement meetings and 3 open houses.
4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES
It was moved and seconded to approve the June 5, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The
motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioners Harbison and Walsh abstained.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
Senior Planner Beth St. Amand advised that the Community Attitude Survey has served a
dual purpose - to get a report card on City services and to address the Comprehensive Plan
update and look at community attitudes toward planning and livability issues. The report
will be issued tomorrow night at the Council worksession. The Planning Commission will
discuss it next month.
St. Amand and Associate Planner Darren Wyss provided additional information to the
Commission on buildable lands, capacity, and residential density (Exhibit A). The memo
details how Wyss calculated the overall residential density of the City. Currently, the City has
approximately 6 dwelling units per acre. Over the last few years, the City has maintained
approximately 6.8 units per acre.
Regarding Metro's Functional Plan requirement of 6308 additional dwelling units for Tigard,
the Planning Commission had asked that if the 2005 buildable lands were fully developed,
would we meet that requirement. Wyss estimates that, by the end of 2005, Tigard had added
3281 dwelling units - approximately 52% of the goal. Based on projections from Long
Range Planning, the City will be very close or may even exceed the Metro Functional Plan
requirement. St. Amand advised that the original planning era was to the year 2017 in the
Metro Functional Plan. The plan does not specify when we need to meet these numbers;
however, it is assumed that it would be during this era. The numbers are based on the
dwelling units inside the City limits beginning in 1996.
Staff advised that a methodology has been developed to continue tacking buildable lands
and development both on and outside of the buildable lands inventory.
1. Public Involvement Program/Update
St. Amand reported that she came to the Commission in March with a general overview of
the public involvement program for the Comprehensive Plan update. The Commission
made comments which St. Amand has incorporated into the modified public involvement
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 2
program (included in the Commission's packet). She noted that the City received a citizen
comment, also included in the packet.
Commissioner Meads asked if the items noted in Mr. Frew e-mail would be resolved.
St. Amand advised that the CIT structure is not currently in existence, however, there are
former CIT members on the Committee for Citizen Involvement, which has been expanded
to include additional board and committee members. The NPOs no longer exist; however,
there is a Neighborhood Enhanced Program which will be in effect later this fall.
Commissioner Meads asked if Council shouldn't formally appoint the Planning Commission
as the steering committee for the Comprehensive Plan update. After some discussion, the
Commission directed staff to draft a formal resolution for Council that would address the
role of the Planning Commission in the Comprehensive Plan update.
St. Amand advised that information collected during the update process would filter through
the Planning Commission. This will occur primarily next year. At this point, we are setting
the fact base - dealing with current conditions.
Commissioner Buehner noted that in earlier discussions about the public involvement
portion, the Planning Commission talked about the importance of holding stakeholder
meetings with various industry and business groups. This would allow us an opportunity to
get input and incorporate those ideas before the hearing stage. She would like to see this
happen. St. Amand said that, right now, staff is putting together the factual base. We need
to know what's going on right now or we will have a difficult time having discussions with
people next year.
St. Amand said the website would be a main venue for providing information to the public,
but copies of the Planning Commission binder will be available at the Permit Center and the
Library. Commissioner Buehner noted that 30% of the City's population is not computer
literate. She does not believe the website is a viable resource for providing information and
that a specific outreach with homeowner's associations needs to be done.
St. Amand advised that the active outreach program will begin next year. This year is the
inventory period. Staff will focus more on more individual topics next year, with open
houses and interactive surveys.
St. Amand noted that the Committee for Citizen Involvement recommended staff make sure
the public feels they are part of process throughout and make it relevant to their lives. The
CC[ is also talking about doing more outreach to minority groups. The City now has a
voluntary Spanish translator. She also advised that staff may try to get the update into the
school curriculum, or maybe work individually with a class, or have an essay contest.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 3
St. Amand will send the revised document to the Commission in their next packet. The
Commission asked if the changes could be identified some way other than by using "track
changes".
2. Environmental Quality/ Overview
Associate Planner Darren Wyss gave a PowerPoint presentation on Environmental Quality
(Exhibit B). He advised that the Environmental Quality report will cover 4 sections (land,
air, water, and energ)). He will be discussing the land quality section tonight.
Commissioner Walsh noted that human impact could be both negative and positive. It
implies negative, but there is a huge part of industry that supports benefiting resources to
improve it.
Commissioner Munro suggested that conservation should include natural resources, not just
energy.
Wyss advised that land resources qualitywould be focusing on collection and disposal of
development-related (e.g., population, commercial, industrial) waste that impacts the health
and welfare of the community. The City is part of the Metro Regional Solid Waste
Management Plan (RSWMP). We're also part of the Washington County Cooperative.
Land resource quality has been divided into 4 topics: solid waste, recycling, hazardous waste,
and wastewater sludge. Wyss noted that for solid waste, recycling, and hazardous waste, there
are no storage or permanent collection facilities in Tigard.
For recycling, the RSWMP has set a 64% target rate for waste reduction for 2009. At this
point in time, they have been meeting their waste reduction rate. Education is a key
component to get people to recycle more. Commissioner Munro asked if construction debris
can be tracked. Construction recycling is one of the big programs that Metro offers.
Commissioner Munro believes this may be something the City might want to look at. Jeremy
Vernulyea said the City could also require recycling in their contracts for City projects.
Commissioner Walsh noted that there is a market for this very valuable material.
Wyss advised that staff is setting the base now for how things are currently managed. Policies
will be discussed later. St. Amand said that people should be thinking about where they want
to go with this - in some of our values and issues surveys, we've heard about natural resource
protection, but we haven't discussed sustainability. What kind of data do we need now to help
us make choices later. Commissioner Walsh noted that education only works to a certain
extent. We need a structure with policies that really push recycling (e.g., incentives, both
positive and negative).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 4
Wyss reported that hazardous waste is regulated byDEQ. The biggest problem is household
hazardous waste because it's not easily regulated. Commissioner Buehner believes there is a
real problem in the community because there is no effective, efficient way to handle hazardous
waste. Because recycling programs are in such disarray, we're losing a lot of people who might
otherwise want to recycle. Commissioner Walsh said that education is a big help with regard
to hazardous waste. Metro will take it, but it's difficult. Tigard has not done anything locally
to address this; we've allowed the regional level to handle this, but they're not doing good job.
Wyss advised that both Metro and DEQ have programs to help try to reduce hazardous waste
and they both have collection events. Commissioner Walsh noted that this is an opportunity
to partner with businesses, especially larger businesses that create hazardous waste.
For wastewater sludge, Wyss reported that Clean Water Services (CWS) recycles the sludge
from their facility and then transports it outside of the City. The methane gas is burned.
Commissioner Buehner noted that the County has been coordinating efforts for waste
management. She believes the population of the County has gotten too big for them to be
able to handle it effectively. Perhaps we should explore the possibility of Tigard and
Beaverton working together.
President Inman said that a future consideration could be adding incentive programs.
Commissioner Walsh suggested partnering with the County or Metro.
St. Amand noted that there is a carrying capacity to each of the systems. We will be looking at
how we're going to grow and develop. We'll have to consider how these systems can support
the people.
Since contracts with the garbage haulers are negotiated, Commissioner Walsh suggested that
the City can affect policythrough those contracts by making different demands.
Buehner believes that Metro's presentations on their programs are too long and involved.
Maybe the City can help them to condense things and pick priorities.
Commissioner Harbison asked if it's possible to move an item to different section in the
Comp Plan if we think it would fit better elsewhere. St. Amand answered that the Comp Plan
can be modified. We need to make the Plan useable for everyone.
Commissioner Meads asked if it's possible to change the Municipal Code to address how long
garbage cans and recycling bins can be left out on the street. Discussion moved on to the fact
that the code addresses hours for construction noise, but garbage trucks don't have to follow
the same rules.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 5
6. WORKSESSION WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE
John Frewing from the Planned Development Review Committee joined the Planning
Commission in this discussion. Commissioner Buehner noted that the Planned Development
Review Committee met last week and only made minor changes to the proposed code
revisions.
Commissioner Walsh advised that issues from the last Planning Commission workshop have
been discussed and addressed, as well as questions and issues from outside the group and from
the attorney.
President Inman noticed that the concept plan and the detail plan are still separate. John
Frewing advised that they can be submitted at same time but they are two different items.
Dick Bewersdorff noted that if both plans are done all at once, there will only be 1 staff report.
It will take longer and the fees may be higher. Conunissioner Walsh said that the heart of the
matter is to keep the plan from changing too much from what goes to the neighborhood
meeting and what is eventually submitted to the City. This process would provide more
control and would allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to suggest changes.
Commissioner Meads asked how detailed the concept plan has to be - do the homes have to
be shown on the lots. The Commissioners advised that development means the putting in the
roads and utilities, and creating the lots. There is no time limit for building the homes.
With regard to the detailed development plan approval criteria, Commissioner Munro said the
whole idea of a PD is to allow more creativity from developers. She is concerned that, if the
Commission wants a developer to be more creative, would this require them to go back and
do a whole new concept plan? Dick Bewersdorff answered that some things are flexible in the
PD process and there are things that limit, such as street standards. He doesn't think that this
has changed much.
President Inman asked if the detailed development plan would require its own neighborhood
meeting. If it's done separately, yes. If done concurrently, no.
Commissioner Buehner believes that most of the time, the concept plan should come at the
pre-app meeting. She is worried about the 120 day rule - could we be opening ourselves up
for issues? Bewersdorff noted that the City can ask for an extension, or the Commission can
deny an application if they have findings.
President Inman thinks the language for a concept plan is very vague. Are we going to have a
public hearing over a hand-drawn sketch, or are they going to be detailed plans and we've just
added another step. John Frewing said it's up to the Planning Commission to ask for more
details. President Inman noted that the Planning Commission already has and has exercised
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 6
this ability to hold developers accountable, and it doesn't require separating the process. Just
because a developer may have spent a lot of money on a concept plan, doesn't mean the
Planning Commission has to like it. They can send it back.
Bewersdorff advised that the staff review which goes to the Planning Commission is an
analysis of whether the application meets the code provisions or not.
President Inman asked about the sign concept. Bewersdorff said it relates to number of signs
and where they'll be placed (e.g., monument signs). If the Commission doesn't like it, they can
have the developer change it.
Commissioner Munro asked about the public transit improvement fund. The idea is that
when developments don't have public transit facilities on site, the developer can contribute to
a fund for public transit improvements elsewhere. The money would be used for CIP transit
projects inside the City.
President Inman asked about requiring the applicant to state his intentions with regard to
building the homes or selling the lots to other builders. John Frewing said it is just their intent.
They can change their mind the next day.
Staff advised that the next step for the proposed code revisions would be to go through the
Planning Commission public hearing process, then to the City Council.
It was noted that the tool box won't be in the code officially.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
President Inman reminded the Commissioners about the attendance policy. Commissioners
can miss 3 meetings in a row or 6 in year. Good attendance is important - we have a lot of
things coming up and we don't want to spend time re-educating Commissioners. If something
does come up that would require absences in excess of the limit, she asked that people notify
the Commission. The Planning Commission can decide as a group whether or not the
absences would be acceptable. President Inman said she hopes to only miss 2 or 3 meetings
when her baby is born. Commissioner Caffall advised he will be gone from July 17th to
September 1St.
The secretary reviewed the calendar with the Commissioners and handed out application
binders for their next meeting on July 17th.
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 7
Jerree Lewis, Planning Commission Secretary
ATTEST: President Jodie Inman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - June 19, 2006 - Page 8
MEMORANDUM
~_o
ATIGARD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darren Wyss, Associate Planner
RE: Capacity Numbers
DATE: June 19, 2006
At a May 2006 Planning Commission meeting, a few follow-up questions were asked in regard to
buildable lands, capacity and residential density.
1. What is the overall residential density of the city?
There is not a 100% accurate way to calculate the overall density of the city from existing data. We
can calculate the density of new development since 1989 because of the permit database, but the
information is not available before that time. However, several methods may be used to get a good
"guesstimate". Using estimated dwelling units (2000 Census housing units plus dwelling units built
since April 1, 2000) divided by estimated residential acres (derived from Metro GIS taxlot file), the
estimated overall residential density is approximately 6 units per acre. This includes existing single
family and multi-family housing units.
18,872 (estimated du)/ 3,031 (estimated residential acres) = approximately 6 dwelling units/acre
2. If the 2005 buildable lands were fully developed, would we meet the Metro Functional
Plan number of 6308 additional dwelling units?
At the end of 2005, Tigard had added 3281 dwelling units towards the goal of 6308 (52%).
Using a methodology created by the Long Range Planning Division, the potential residential
dwelling unit capacity for the 2005 Buildable Lands Inventory is 2858 to 3310. This range includes
all residential and mixed-use zoning districts. The low end is based on the 80% minimum density
requirements in the CDC and the high end is based on the'density of new construction in each
zoning district that has occurred over the past five years.
3281 + 2858 = 6139 (97%)
3281 + 3310 = 6591 (104%)
3. Can we continue tracking buildable lands and development occurring on and outside of
the buildable lands inventory?
Yes, a methodology has been developed. Each will be tracked and included in the yearly Buildable
Lands Inventory Report. The 2005 Report is in the final stages of completion.
P1.111 Update wilm O-cs F- mr WC
•
ffc,
Stme /C
fr, 17,
Cilv
20101 Pull U11,1311tte
•
St W'Mliz~,Jlotwl
VOL 1,
illu
r
AtIc, 1w, I'll' I-kiMcc
1,iak Ali, N\
~Ccli of- (T
10
Land
all
"It"'tc of
the
clim, 11 it,
-'Jill" rate
1
s:
Agenda Item # y
Meeting Date july 18, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Comprehensive Plan Update: Citizen Issues and Values Summary
Prepared By. Beth St. Amand Dept Head Approval: Qty Mgr Approval: O-P
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Receive a briefing on the Comprehensive Plan Update project, including a Citizen Issues and Values Summary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive and comment on the information presented.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
• The City is updating its Comprehensive Plan, a citizen-driven guide for Tigard's investments and actions for the
next 20 years. It guides City decisions on land use, the provision of public facilities and services, and community
livability.
• The Plan will be based on the values and issues identified through previous citizen surveys, Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow and the Community Attitudes Survey, as well as a fact base of current conditions and state and
regional requirements.
Tonight's update will focus on three areas:
1. Issues and Values Summary. The attached "Citizen Issues and Values Summary" condenses all of the
Issues/Values documents into a unified report to guide the planning process. It will be reviewed at tonight's
meeting for Council's information and comment.
2. Project Update. Phase II, Inventory of Current Conditions, is now under way. Staff will provide a brief
progress report.
• 3. Planning Commission Role. The proposed Comprehensive Plan work program was reviewed at the
Council's Feb. 21, 2006, meeting, which included designating the Planning Commission as the Plan's Steering
Gonunittee. This action is consistent with Tigard Beyond Tomorrow's Comprehensive Plan strategy under
Growth & Growth Management. At the Council's Aug. 8, 2006, meeting, the Council will be asked to pass a
resolution to designate the Planning Commission as the project's Steering Committee. This future consent
agenda item will be previewed briefly tonight for Council's comment.
OrHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not applicable.
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Council Goals
• Revise City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow: Growth and Growth Management
No. 6: The City Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and revised to:
• Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established neighborhoods;
• Provide for the preservation of the natural environment and open space throughout the community,
• Provide for parks and alternative transportation (e.g., bike paths);
• Create community gathering places.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Issues and Values Summary
FISCAL NOTES
This project is funded through the 2006-07 Long-Range Planning Division budget.
I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\2006\7 18 06 AIS COMPPLANAm
ATTACHMENT I
DRAFT
CI'T'Y] OF TIGARD
ISSUES AND VALUES
SUMMARY
2002-2006
202
T i g a r d 2 0 2 7 T h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P I a n U p d a t e
P r e f a c e
What do Tigard residents value? From 2002 to 2006, the City conducted 11 surveys of its residents,
from written surveys distributed at the library to 12-minute phone surveys, to find out what citizens
think about a variety of issues from parks to city services.
Today, that body of work represents an important historical record of Tigard residents' values and
identified community issues. Viewed individually, each survey provides detailed information to
inform decision-making about a particular topic. Collectively, the data forms a solid foundation for
the City's Comprehensive Plan Update (Tigard 2027). The City's updated Comprehensive Plan will
guide decisions on land use, the provision of public facilities and services, and community livability
for the next 20 years.
As the community develops alternatives for its future through Tigard 2027, it will build upon these
issues and values. Every topic is inter-related; choices made for one topic will affect another, but all
will be based on this commonality of values.
To aid and inform all citizens, elected officials and staff involved with the Comprehensive Plan
Update, the following document provides a unified summary of all results. Taken together, what
themes emerge from the last four years, and what areas does the Comprehensive Plan Update need
to consider more closely? Through this cohesive review, areas of consistency and contradiction
became apparent. Areas of conflicting views for further examination have been identified, as well as
areas that clearly stand out as priority.
A Note About Surveys
It should also be noted that the method of data collection should be considered. Surveys that are
"self-selected" are considered to capture less of the public opinion spectrum; often, those on either
extreme of an issue are motivated primarily to respond. Surveys that are "randomly selected" in a
"scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture the range of
opinion on an issue. Where applicable, this analysis attempts to link each type of survey on a
common issue to examine consistency. A survey index is located at end of the document.
1
I n t r o d u c t i o n
In 1993, the City of Tigard asked its residents to "talk" about their community in the first Community
Attitude Survey entitled "Tigard Talks." Residents were, in the words of the report, "fairly pleased" with
Tigard as a place to live. Residents rated Tigard's livability as a 7.7 out of 10, citing location and atmosphere
as their top reasons for enjoying life here. Top rated services included the library, senior services, police, and
parks.
Thirteen years later, the City of Tigard conducted its second Community Attitudes Survey. The news
remained positive: the City's livability rated a 7.8 out of 10, and Tigard's citizens consistently gave living in
Tigard and its services high ratings. A majority of residents also mentioned location (61%) as what they like
most about living in Tigard, with atmosphere (community character (nice/quiet), safety, trees) coming in
second. Once again, top-rated services included the library, police and parks.' And when residents were
asked about what they liked least about living in Tigard, the second-highest response was "nothing I like
least."
In a world where life moves fast and change can be swift, it's encouraging to view these two surveys and see
that after all, values have stayed constant in Tigard during the last thirteen years. The ideals that draw and
keep residents here continue to make this a place that people call home.
However, when Tigard's residents were asked in 2006 about the City's future livability, they were almost
evenly divided, saying either it will be better (339/6), worse (340/o), or stay the same (27%). Over time, the
issues faced by a community can shift and change happen incrementally. Surveys allow the City to monitor
citizens' experiences and concerns and respond accordingly. A comparison of the top citizen-identified
issues (Table 1) shows that over the last 13 years, the top three issues for Tigard are consistent, but the
ranking has changed. Whereas in 1993 growth and development ranked as the top threat to quality of life
(the question as asked then), in the last three years citizens have consistently ranked transportation and
traffic concerns as the biggest issue.
Table 1. What is the Most Important Issue for Tigard?
1993 Ti-ard Talks Survev 00 005 Ti-ard Downto,,vn 2006 Cominunitv Attitudes
• Biggest quality of life) Sunre\r
Random, mailed survey of Self-selected survey (409) Random, scientific survey of Random, scientific survey of residents
resident voters 483 responses) resident voters 401 400
1. Development and 1. Traffic Congestion 1. Roads, traffic and 1. Traffic and congestion
Growth (41%) transportation (37%) problems (37%)
2. Traffic and 2. Growth 2. Growth, population and 2. Street and road
Transportation (27%) annexation improvement/maintenance*
9%
3. Safety /Crime 3. Environmental 3. Education 3. Schools and School Funding
Preservation
4. Taxes and Costs 4. Downtown 4. Infrastructure/Public 4. Population/ Overcrowding
Services
5. Poor Planning 5. Community 5. Public Safety
Appearance
6. Education/Schools 6. Safety
*2005 included this topic in roads, tra ec, tran ortation.
1 The 2006 survey did not ask about senior services.
2
As we embark on the Comprehensive Plan Update, these values and issues will guide Tigard's path to the
future. The following report takes an in-depth look by topic, as defined by our citizens through their words
and responses over the last four years.
Transportation is Number One
Issues
Clearly, Traffic Congestion ranks as Tigard citizens' number-one issue. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow Community Survey, 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, and the 2006 Community
Attitudes Survey, Tigard residents named traffic congestion as the top community issue. In addition, one in
two residents mentioned traffic as what they like least about living in Tigard (2006 Community Attitudes
Survey). While some of the responses mentioned 99W, others focused on neighborhood traffic: In both the
2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey and the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey results,
neighborhood traffic ranked as the first and second most important residential neighborhood characteristics.
Citizens also recognize the effect of transportation and traffic on Downtown. In the 2004 Downtown
Survey, respondents identified Transportation one of the top two areas for improvement. Specifically,
residents cited modification of the 99W/Main Street relationship, improving traffic flow, accessibility and
improving the pedestrian environment.
In the 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey, 17 open-ended responses addressed
transportation, despite the survey's communications topic. These comments focused on traffic, traffic
control, and neighborhood traffic.
" Tigard Beyond Tomorrow
Residents also recognize that the transportation system needs I he ti-isi()n starcmcnt does 11w
improvements. Nine percent of respondents ranked street and road address rf"ansporraaon. l 1~~~~ c~ cr,
improvement/maintenance as the most important issue for Tigard ncc 20H5 Traffic and "lransporrarion
(2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2005 Tigard Downtown l)irccrion srar(Anlcnt includes the
Improvement Survey). Street improvements to provide better access E~" 11 int !h<,M hi"ghliglirs kc\
to Downtown produced the most support for Tigard Downtown pointsi:
Improvement financing in the 2005 Tigard Downtown -Tigard takes proactive role in
Improvement Survey. regional transportation planning.
1 l tvc adcynate fundiii- s()urces to
Summary of Values
build and maintain system
Tigard residents value their travel time and want to be able to travel -Streets safely handic traffic
from point A to point B easily and without being mired in traffic; for ~lc;i ned to scry c
specific roads, 99W is most frequently cited as a problem, l .kcal traffic scr~ ed b\ \%-C11-
particularly its effect on accessibility to the Downtown area. o mmuctcd ,trccr nctv, orl:; pritn"An
Considering 99W's central location throughout Tigard, it affects a r-<,:a~ls ace<~nunodare through-traffic
majority of trips throughout the City and citizens' daily experience. ro minimize traffic impacts on
At the same time, residents want to preserve their neighborhood local neighborhoods
livability by minimizing neighborhood traffic levels. Residents also _Alternative transportation
recognize that the street system needs improvements, particularly in rncrh, ids aivm]:Iblc and eIlo mrkgcd
the Downtown area. These conclusions are consistent with the
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow direction statement.
Future Growth and Development
Issues
While traffic and transportation run away with the top ranking, growth and growth management take
second place in the community's consciousness. Growth has two components: an general perception of
overall City growth, and a more personal perspective that considers neighborhood effects of development,
which will be considered under "Community."
3
While the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey named growth as Tigard's second most
important issue (density, control or manage growth, and overdeveloped/crowded conditions), it fell to
fourth in the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey issues list, preceded by traffic congestion, street
improvement/maintenance, and schools and school funding. When respondents were asked what they liked
least about living in Tigard, growth ranked third, behind traffic and "nothing I like least."
In the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 27% of residents cited growth, population and
annexation issues as the most important issue facing Tigard, almost half as many as the top choice (47% for
roads, traffic and transportation). Respondents addressed small lots, overcrowding, and a need for better
community and growth planning. Regarding growth through annexation, while the majority of Tigard
residents were supportive of annexing Bull Mountain (2002 Bull
Mountain Annexation Public Attitude Survey), specific comments Tigard Beyond T'omorros>
reflected a concern how growth would impact city services and taxes, 1110 Vision srltcment d(_)e:
including future funding sources. not addres~ ro« rh.
H()wever, the 200; Gro,, rh
In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, when residents were asked anel Grov th Mana-cmcnt
"as more people move to the region, do you believe the City should Direction titammcnt ,rates
promote growth, accommodate growth, or attempt to limit growth?", the follo\vulg (uulj, "ro)v/h
they were evenly divided between accommodate and limit (430/6), with 1*/r/,,.!_!C,1!<,ni'c'jll iinvtr~1~~~:
10 percent advocating for promoting growth. These results turn on the GroNvth %%ill be
definition of "accommodate" and how residents perceived it. It could accommodated n-hilc
either lean more toward "promote" (allow) or reflect a resignation that ;protecting the character
growth will happen regardless. In any case, this question shows the and livability in ncv%' and
difference in opinion for the City's future growth. establishcLl ncighborlho()ds.
Summary of Values
Growth is on Tigard residents' minds, although traffic and transportation is still the clear priority. Perhaps
the difference in growth and traffic management reflects personal experiences. Almost every person who
has to travel within Tigard experiences traffic on a daily basis. It also could relate to location of, and age of,
homes; those residents located in older neighborhoods may have experienced new development within their
neighborhood, while new residents are part of growth. The 2006 survey shows that the longer a respondent
lived in Tigard, the corresponding percentage of "limit" growth responses increased: While 33 percent of
new residents said "limit" growth, 54 percent of 20-Year-and-Over residents said limit. 2
This question reflects a difference in opinion for the City's future growth. With the failure of the Bull
Mountain annexation, Tigard is essentially land-locked with growth focused on remaining parcels within
Tigard's boundaries. How will Tigard grow? To answer this question, the Comprehensive Plan Update will
focus on this critical topic to define the terms (accommodate), and understand the needs of existing
neighborhoods and long-time residents, as well as those of new neighborhoods and residents to the area.
The section regarding neighborhood characteristics (under "Community") also shows that perhaps certain
amenities can affect how people accept or perceive new development/growth. Additional exploration of
these characteristics will be done during the growth alternative phase to address future development and
design. Lastly, it is important to citizens to consider the impacts of new growth on existing City residents
and services.
2 The highest percentages of ,limit' by geographical area isn't as clear, as 20 percent of respondents were unable to identify their
neighborhood school.
4
Community (Housing and Employment)
Housing
To assess growth's impacts on neighborhoods, both the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey and the 2004
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey asked respondents to rate the importance of residential
characteristics to neighborhood livability. Table 2 shows that the top four characteristics are almost
identical, with the exception of compatibility and protection of trees and natural resource areas. While
compatibility is ranked fifth in the 2006 survey, natural resources have taken a higher priority.
Table 2: Residential Livabili Characteristics
2004 Ch aracteris tics Score 2006 Characteristics Score
or Verv 10; 10
1111portaot) highest)
1. Compatibility between 92% 1. Protection of trees and natural 8.4
existing and new resource areas.
developments
1. Neighborhood traffic 92% 2. Level of neighborhood traffic 8.2
management
3. Pedestrian and bike paths 89% 3. Maintaining existing lot sizes 7.8
within established neighborhoods
4. Maintain existing lot sizes 87% 4. Pedestrian and bike paths 7.7
within established
neighborhoods
5. Undeveloped open 84% 5. Compatibility between existing 7.6
space/greenways within half and new development
mile of home
6. Large lot sizes 83% 6. Bus service 7.4
7. Small neighborhood parks 82% 7. Strengthening regulations to 7.4
within a half mile of home improve the appearance of the
community
8. Variety of housing types 54% said 8. Neighborhood parks within a half- 7.2
within new developments somewhat or mile of home
very
unimportant
9. Small lot sizes 70% said 9. Variety of housing types 7.0
somewhat or
very
unimportant
10. Neighborhood commercial 6.1
within a half mile of home.
Overall, Table 2 shows that residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat, a place away from
high levels of traffic, that allows for recreation, views of trees and other natural areas. They also value
maintaining existing densities and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new
development. As neighborhood commercial within walking distance ranked lowest on livability indicators
(2006 Community Attitudes Survey), yet pedestrian and bike paths ranked highly, it could be inferred that
most residents already perform their errands by car or bus and want recreational trails in neighborhoods, as
the survey shows is a strongly held value, and could want to keep their neighborhoods separate from
commerce. This conclusion will be tested during the Comprehensive Plan Update.
While a variety of housing types ranked significantly in the 2006 survey, it was considered unimportant to
almost half of respondents in the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow survey. This difference could be due to
the additional 2004 wording: ivithin new developments, which would possibly bias residents to focus mostly on
their dislike or like of new developments. It could also be based on a respondent's definition of "variety":
while the 2006 survey intended to refer to a diversity of product (single-family, apartments, condominiums,
townhouses), the respondents could have meant aesthetics; i.e., facades and colors.
5
Downtown
Downtown has been a focus of the community. Although only one survey identified Downtown as a top
issue for Tigard (2004 TBT), other surveys reflect that the community values Downtown. In the 2005
Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey, 58% of respondents feel that it is either extremely important or
important to have a vital downtown area that is uniquely Tigard. Eighty-four percent said that improving
Downtown will be good for the whole community, and investing in Downtown will help attract business
and stimulate the Tigard economy. Eighty-one percent of 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community
Survey respondents said that redeveloping/reenergizing Tigard's Downtown area was very and somewhat
important.
The passage of the Urban Renewal measure in May 2006 by 66% of Tigard Beyond Tomorr&v
voters also shows strong community support for Downtown's The~vision'staremenr does
revitalization. Downtown issues, as identified earlier, include iiot,sp'ecificalh refer to
transportation and access, as well as appearance (2004 Downtown Dowritown. TllC (:on,munitv`Survey). In the 2004 Downtown Survey, 62% of respondents felt that Character,.and Qualiry,'Of t.ife
the look and feel of Downtown should change. Both the 2005 and directions'tatcn)ciitwicludes
2004 Downtown-related surveys show that Downtown is very well"Tl The Main Strect Area will
used; approximately 60% of respondents visit at least once a week, be seen:as<aJ61c'at poirnt for
mostly to shop, use the post office, eat, or personal services. ~rthe';,comrnumty.
What do people like best about Downtown? The 2004 Downtown Survey named the old-town historical
character; convenience/location and businesses as primary reasons. Seventy-nine percent of the 2005 Tigard
Downtown Improvement Survey respondents said they would be more likely to use the Downtown if it had
more shops and restaurants. Many of the responses for Downtown also asked for a gathering place for the
community.
Business
The 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey also asked questions specifically business. A
high percentage of respondents felt that retaining existing businesses and Tigard: Beyond. Tomorrow
attracting new businesses was very and somewhat important, with The vision statcrncnr states
Downtown a slight priority over other commercial areas. Respondents at "small-and local„
felt very strongly about the beautifying the appearance of existing '
bus•inesses tlinve. Biisiness,~
commercial areas. This emphasis on appearance was also seen in the owners are involved aind„take
2006 Community Attitudes Survey, where respondents gave a 7.4 out of 1 ;responsibility forthe impacts,
10 to "Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the tlieirbusuiesses have`on the,,,,,,,
community" under residential neighborhood livability characteristics. r
community.
Lastly, as mentioned above, a high percentage of 2005 Tigard
Downtown Improvement Survey respondents believe that Downtown
plays a major role in Tigard's economy, agreeing that investing in
Downtown will help attract business and stimulate the Tigard economy.
Summary of Values
Residents value their neighborhoods as a suburban retreat, a place away from high levels of traffic, that
allows for recreation, views of trees and other natural areas. They also value maintaining existing densities
and the character of their neighborhoods, especially in relation to new development. Regarding housing
choice: more work will need to be done to clarify the conflicting results on these questions.
Downtown is important to residents; many use it on a weekly basis. They value it for the convenience, the
services, and its feel. But they also recognize that changes are needed, particularly in transportation,
pedestrian environment, and appearance. Many are seeking it as a gathering place, a center for the
community.
6
Regarding business, residents believe that having commercial businesses is an important part of Tigard's
mix, but emphasize beautifying its appearance.
Natural Resources: Preserve/Protect/Respect
Issues
Four surveys asked specific questions regarding natural resources (wetlands, open space, greenways, trees):
the 2004 Recreation Survey, 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement
Survey and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey.
In the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, environmental preservation - which included
comments addressing preservation or the need for more open space, greenways, trees and parks - was
ranked as the third most important issue for the Tigard community, although it did not rank in the 2005 or
2006 surveys.
The other surveys identified community values. When the 2004 Recreation Survey asked residents if they
liked that the city is "considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways" and if they favored the
idea "that would preserve our natural resources," 69% agreed. Reasons k
Tigdrd Beyond Tomorrow
for support included need to preserve open space and it's good for the The;Rvision;statement ucludes t
environment. Slightly less than half of respondents favored a bond r,
measure focused on this issue; 22% were willing to pay an additional the`,following satennt
amount per year. In general the concept is supported not funds (bond
ague, `to'
or fees). The 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey shows community,
stronger support for Downtown projects: 86 % of respondents said respecropen spaeess.and
natural features'; encourages.
they would support projects that preserve and restore greenspaces in
and around Downtown Tigard. However, that question did not tie the acce'ss,to these <byour
citizens:
concept to a specific funding source.
The 2005 Urban& Public
In the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, protection of trees and .
Services Direction Statement
natural resource areas was viewed strongly as the most important
does-not address this topic,14~ ,
neighborhood livability characteristic (8.4/10). In addition, respondents
specifically; however;;it,doesa
cited the city's small/rural feel (18%) and trees/greenspaces (60/6) as
include the goal "Open'~space1
what they liked most about Tigard. In the 2004 Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow Community Survey, 84% of respondents ranked &.greenway areasshall;be
undeveloped open space/greenways as an important residential preserved-and protected "
characteristic.
Summary of Values
When asked, Tigard's citizens consistently value natural features and areas, linking them with Tigard's
identity. The strongest support is recorded when these spaces are linked with residential neighborhood
livability or Downtown. This reflects residents' personal experiences with these areas. While there is strong
support for the concept, there is less support for specific funding measures. Combined with environmental
protection not ranking consistently in the top issues, this could show that while residents value these
features, the current approach could be viewed as effective and these areas are not viewed as threatened.
The Comprehensive Plan Update will need to examine this topic further.
The words "respect, "preservation" and "protection" have all been used in conjunction with natural
resources, in the surveys and in Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. The Comprehensive Plan Update process will
need to clearly define each of these terms and further explore citizen support for these approaches. Most
importantly, the financial considerations tied to these proposals must be examined, as well as trade-offs
associated with additional preservation and its effect on growth.
7
Public Facilities and Services
Issues and Values
Survey questions on City services primarily focus on two ti gar
Tid:Beyond Tomorrow
areas: current performance and future services. For current
performance, a low rating could identify an issue for the The Tigard Beyond Tomotr<~~~ vision,
community. The City's 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, statement includes.~tlie folloutn~~i elated
statements: 1
which focused on performance ratings, reflected an overall
satisfaction with current services. Of the 13 services tested, "Tigard is a safe, dynamic
eight scored 7.5 or above (includes Library, Police, Parks, community supported b~
Sewer/Water). The next three - the Permit Center', coordinated and efficierit.pubbc
services Fiindui~ fc~i seancesis
recreation and leisure activities, street maintenance - all
scored around 6.5, and community planning received a 6.1. `~srihlc:. nd recij~icnrs p ~v their,,, iarc.
The last service, ranked 5.3, was ability to get around the =itizeiis,aic cducarcd aGout ho"% to
city. While still above the halfway point, both street access public seitixc p and
maintenance and recreation activities have been identified as understand therrresponsibility to
issues in other surveys. These survey results do indicate participate as,inembers~o£tlie_
community concern over street conditions, the lack of community
recreation activities, traffic/transportation, and the _ Many leisure-tune and recreatioriah;
effectiveness of the City's planning efforts. ;.v; copportunit%es~are available for our
community.
Regarding future service provision, the 2005 Tigard hhc direction,statemcm for Pubhc"
Downtown Improvement Survey ranked Safctn' Mcludes: the following (repeated
infrastructure/public services as the fourth most important themes_fium statement not included): "
issue facing Tigard. This included more parks and recreation -Public 'SafetSr~service providers shall ;
facilities; water treatment and supply; and more police, fire plan for their service deliveryin
and library. These results were not replicated in the 2006 such, a -wa~~"as to m niniize"<the
Community Attitudes and 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow negativc impacrs <,f the regional
Community Survey. It could be due to one survey allowing ::populations that -rrati el r<>:uZd
multiple answers and the latter two only allowing x rhrough ~)ur community, each.dav::,
respondents to choose the Most Important response. The ~tabl~ h,nding,will piov ide
sections below focus on specific services named by citizens: uninterrupted'"pubho: ~afety~services
~t desired ,levels. .
...t;
Public Safety. Ranked as the fourth most important issue in
the 2006 Community Attitudes Survey, consistent with the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community
Survey. While citizens rank their perception and experience with the Police Department highly, the
identification of public safety as an issue differs. Residents may have identified it as an issue, when it may be
actually a strongly held value. This is an area that needs further definition to properly inform the
Comprehensive Plan process.
Recreation and parks. In the 2004 Recreation Survey, respondents supported the creation of a Recreation
Division over a special Recreation District, but struggled with the tax increases that would come with
proposals for additional recreational opportunities. Even though slightly more than half of respondents
opposed a bond measure for a Community Recreation Center, information that it would enhance
recreational opportunities for all residents significantly increased support for the proposal (although not
supportive of additional costs associated with it).
Library
The Library yearly survey (2003-2006) shows that users value this facility, and accessibility and convenient
hours in particular. Over half of respondents visit the library at least 4 times a month, and rate the majority
of services as good or excellent. These results are consistent from year to year.
3 71% of respondents had no interaction with this service.
8
Summary of Values
Tigard residents value the current level of service they receive. As the above surveys show, the police, library
and parks are all well-valued services by City residents. Future service improvements or provision will need
to consider the cost and impact to existing residents and systems.
Other Topics Identified by Residents
• Education. Although the School District provides education, not the City, education has been
identified as an issue. The 2006 Community Attitudes Survey included schools and school funding
as the third most important issue for the City of Tigard (9% of respondents), which is consistent
with the 2005 Tigard Downtown Improvement Survey (25%, multiple responses allowed). Tigard
Beyond Tomorrow, which included school district staff in the visioning process, includes education
in its vision statement: both for life-long learning and the responsibility of each citizens to promote
and support quality education. The Schools and Education direction statement emphasizes quality
education and stable funding for efficient delivery of services. The current Comprehensive Plan does
not address schools, and the update does not currently include this topic.
• Communication
The 2005 Citizen Leadership Communications Survey addressed this topic. Residents have not
identified this as an issue specifically in previous surveys as an issue or a value; Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow addresses communication as a goal of Community Character and Quality of Life.
However, the 2005 Communications Survey found that there is no one best way to stay in touch
with the City's residents; a multitude of approaches are needed. This diverse approach will be
followed throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update.
• Community Appearance
This issue was named as part of the 2004 Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Community Survey, both for
residential and commercial concerns. "Strengthening regulations to improve the appearance of the
community" had support in the recent 2006 survey under residential neighborhood livability
characteristics. This is an issue that will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update to
determine what residents mean by this statement and what they support.
9
Table 3. Survey Index
Responses
1. "Tigard Talks" Community 1993 483 Random' mailed survey of voters
Attitude Survey
2. Bull Mountain Annexation 2002 305 (151 City of Random phone survey of voters
Public Attitude Survey Tigard residents)
3.a. Libra Community Survey 2003 1481 Self-selected
3. b. Libra Community Survey 2004 1261 Self-selected
3. c. Libra Community Survey 2005 2834 Self-selected
3. d. Libra Communi Survey 2006 2366 Self-selected
4. Recreation Survey 2004 383 Random phone survey of voters
5. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow 2004 409 Self-selected
Community Survey
6. Downtown Survey 2004 588 Self-selected
7. Tigard Downtown 2005 401 Random phone survey of
Improvement Survey "supervoters" (voted in most recent
elections
8. Tigard Citizen Leadership 2005 Over 230 Self-selected
Communications Survey
9. Community Attitudes Survey 2006 400 Random phone survey of residents
a Surveys that are "randomly selected" in a "scientific" survey attempt to eliminate some bias in respondent selection and capture
the range of opinion on an issue.
10
. eCe~h ~-e d 7. 16
~h
CAM C
REVISED
Q19. What is the most important issue for the City of Tigard as it plans for the next 20
years? (Open-ended question)
Roughly two in five residents (37%) mentioned the traffic and congestion problems in the Tigard
area as important issues to consider while planning for the next 20 years.
Small percentages mentioned the following as important issues for consideration:
✓ Growth (15%)
✓ Street and road improvement / maintenance (9%)
✓ Schools and school funding (8%)
✓ Public safety (6%)
Many more individual issues were mentioned; please see the Verbatim Appendix page 4.
MRILEY RESEARCH 22
ASSOCIATES
Community Survey Data by City
Tigard Lake Oswego Tualatin Hillsboro West Linn Gresham Eugene Oregon City
Small Small Community/Sense
I Location (Accessibility) Feeling of Safety Town/Community of Community Good Schools Shopping Opportunities Central Location N/A
Feeling
Atmosphere
(Nice/Quiet, Safety/Low Natural Beauty Rural Feel/Small Openness and Acceptance Friendly People N/A
1 Crime, Trees, Green Freeway Access Close to Work Community
Space)
What do you like or value most Sense of Community/
about your City? (Top 4) Location/Close to Amenities (Schools, Quality Schools Recreational Opportunities/
3 Parks, Library) Parks and Open Space Convenience of Location Work/Easy Opportunities to Attend Climate/Weather N/A
Commute
Cultural Events (Tied)
Size of City,
Friendly People/Good
4 Don't Know/Other Small Town Feeling Neighbors Convenience of Shopping Pretty/Scenic Job Opportunities Scenery/Terrain N/A
(Tied)
Growth Come City Funding/
1 Traffic/Congestion Schools/Education Traffic School Funding Management/Ensure Drugs Taxes
Character
1 Growth Growth Management Schools/Education Traffic Congestion Smooth Running Government Taxes Education Growth
G
What are priority future issues Growth, Traffic,
for your City? (Top 4) Street and Road Road Homeless,
Overpopulation/ Control
3 Improvements/ Downtown Development .Maintenance/Signs/ Growth/D Traffic Management Crime Government, School Funding
Maintenance Sidewalks Growth/Development Unemployment
(Tied)
Lack of Retail Stores &
4 Schools/School Funding Developing More Parks Crime Improve Affordable Housing Traffic Congestion N/A Library
Schools/Education &
Crime (Tied)
*Sateys rondwted in following years 2006 2005 Unkmwn 2003 2006 2004 2005 2006
Community Survey Data by City
Tigard Lake Oswego Tualatin Hillsboro West Linn Gresham Eugene Oregon City
1 Library Services Fire Services Parks and Open Space Fire Protection Library Services Fire Services Bikeway System Fire
2 Law Enforcement Police Law Enforcement Police Protection Law Enforcement Bus/Transit Services Library Services Police
What are the Top 4 City Services? 3 Parks Water Services Library Services Water Service Public Outreach Information City Parks and Access to Them Fire and Rescue Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)
Protecting Environment Hult Centex for
4 Water/Sewer Streets and Wildlife Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Recycling Performing Arts Parks
Overall Quality of Life Rating 7.8 8.6 N/A 7.0 N/A 5.6 N/A N/A
*Snaryf rnn hu3eArn follannngyeart 2006 2005 Unknown 2003 2006 2004 2005 2006
Agenda Item # Z
Meeting Date July 18, 2006
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Status Report - Tualatin River Bike /Pedestrian Bridge Project
Prepared By: A.P. uenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND KEY FACTS
Informational briefing on the status of the Tualatin River Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Project. No Council action required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Paul Hennon, Community Services Director for the City of Tualatin, will be making the presentation on the project.
Staff recommends that Council ask questions during or after the presentation to ensure full understanding of all
relevant aspects of the project.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Tualatin River Bike/Pedestrian Bridge project constructs the long-awaited bicycle and pedestrian bridge connecting
the cities of Tigard and Durham on the north side of the Tualatin River to the City of Tualatin on the south side. The
project is federally funded with substantial local contributions from the cities of Tigard and Tualatin. The construction
contract was awarded to Capital Concrete Construction, Inc., by ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) on
April 17, 2006. Construction work is in progress and is expected to be completed in late 2006 or early 2007.
The City of Tualatin is the lead city on this project. Paul Hennon of the City of Tualatin will be making a presentation
to Council on the project and is prepared to answer any questions that may arise at that time. The alignment of the
Tualatin River/Cook Park trail from the Butterfly Garden in Cook Park to the new bicycle and pedestrian bridge has
been revised as part of the bridge project at its approach to the bridge. Council will also be provided a status report on
the trail project, including its final alignment and schedule for implementation.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
The bicycle and pedestrian bridge across the Tualatin River strongly supports the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of
Alternative modes of transportation will be available and use shall be maximised.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Memorandum to Council dated June 15, 2006 providing a brief status report on the project.
FISCAL NOTES
Tigard's share of the Tualatin River Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Project is $592,578 of which $224,928 is from MTIP
(Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) funds and $367,650 is from parks SDC (system development
charges) funds.
The Tualatin River/Cook Park Trail from the Butterfly Garden to the bridge is funded from the City's Parks Capital
Fund in the amount of $97,530.
iAengtgustcoundl agenda summadestnew agenda summary formatk7-18-06 status report-tualatin Over bike-ped bridge project ais.doc
MEMORANDUM
TIGARD
TO: Mayor and City Councilors
Craig Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Gus Duenas
City Engineer
RE: Tualatin River Bike/Ped Bridge Project
DATE: June 15, 2006
At the Council meeting on June 13, 2006, Council asked about the status of the Tualatin
River Bike/Ped Bridge Project. The following is a brief summary of the current status of the
project:
• Construction contract awarded by ODOT on April 17, 2006
• Contractor: Capital Concrete Construction, Inc.
• Contract award is within the range of costs estimated for the project
• Funding is not at issue at this point. It was prior to the bid resulting in additional
funding being requested. That is no longer an issue.
• Project is expected to be completed either by the end of calendar year 2006, or
January 2007
Current construction status: The contractor is building a temporary bridge from the
Tualatin side so that a crane can be moved into place to install the permanent bridge. Piles
are now being installed for the permanent bridge. The construction work is progressing
satisfactorily.
We propose to brief Council in depth on this project at the Council workshop on July 18,
2006. Paul Hennon, Community Services Director for the City of Tualatin, will be here to
make a presentation on the project and answer any questions at that time. We will include a
briefing on the City's trail project and how it matches up with the new bridge.
3
I
Agenda Item No. C
Meeting of L/7Z-'
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue/Agenda Title Award of Contract for Design Services for Phase 3 (Burnham Street Improvements) of the
Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Stre tsca e Project
Prepared By: A.P. uenas Dept Head Okay City Mgr Okay
ISSUE BEFORE THE LCRB AND KEY FACTS
Should the Local Contract Review Board approve the contract award to OTAK, Inc., for design services to perform
Phase 3 (Burnham Street Improvements) of the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to OTAK, Inc., in the amount of
$463,525.00 and authorize an additional amount of $46,353.00 to be reserved for contingencies and applied as needed
as the design of Burnham Street progresses towards completion and into the construction phase. The total amount
committed to Phase 3 is therefore $509,878.00.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At its meeting on November 8, 2005, the Local Contract Review Board approved the contract award to OTAK, Inc., to
provide design services for Phase 1 of the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Project and authorized the
City Manager to enter into a separate contract at a later date with the same consultant (assuming satisfactory
negotiations and agreement on price) for the subsequent two phases, Commercial Street Streetscape (Phase 2) and
Burnham Street Improvements (Phase 3). The Commercial Street project will provide pedestrian access to the
downtown area and the commuter rail station from the residential area west of the Highway 99W overpass. In addition,
through implementation of streetscape design elements, it will become one of the gateways into the Tigard downtown.
The construction of Burnham Street upgrades a deteriorated street to the ultimate street section needed to enhance the
redevelopment efforts for the Tigard downtown and also includes gateway treatment at its intersection with Hall
Boulevard. Both projects are identified as major catalyst projects to kickstart the implementation of the Tigard
Downtown Improvement Plan.
The original Request for Proposal included design services for all three phases. However, because the streetscape design
was expected to determine the design elements to be included in Phases 2 and 3, the contract award for those two
phases were withheld with the intention of executing an additional contract for those two phases once the design
concepts were established and the scope of work for the next two phases were better defined. Through the streetscape
design process and discussions with City Council, the Streetscape Working Group, and the City Center Advisory
Commission, the design elements for Burnham Street were established.
The consultant submitted cost proposals to provide design services for Phases 2 and 3. The City included additional
services in the fee proposal request for Burnham Street for public involvement during the design phase, consultant
support during the bid phase, design support during the construction phase, and construction staking. These services
were not included in the original Request for Proposal, but will be needed as the projects proceed through the design
phase into and through the construction phase.
Because OTAK performed the Streetscape design for the downtown area, the firm is in the best position to perform
the additional design services for the project. They are poised to begin the next two phases immediately and will not
need a project orientation or a period of familiarization with both the downtown plan and the design effort so far.
After extensive negotiations with the firm including total design effort required, City staff and the consultant reached
agreement for the design fees to cover the basic design for Burnham Street (including assistance during the bid phase
and gateway design for Hall Blvd/Burnham Street entry) plus the additional services to help the City with public
involvement during the design phase, potential design issues through the construction phase, and with construction
survey support. The design fees for Phase 2 (Commercial Street Streetscape) are still under negotiation. If the City can
reach agreement on the fees for that phase of the project, it will be brought back to the Local Contract Review Board at
a later date.
However, because the Burnham Street design needs to move ahead as soon as possible, award of a contract for Phase 3
(Burnham Street Improvements) is recommended at this time. The following are the consultant fees for this phase of
the overall project:
Phase 3 (Burnham Street)
Design services for Burnham Street (including support during the bid phase): $340,000
Additional services during design and construction phases: $ 70,025
Construction Staking: $ 54,500
Total contract amount for Phase 3 (Burnham Street Improvements): $463,525
Contingency amount for the project phase: $ 46,353
Total funding commitment requested: $509,878
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW VISION STATEMENT
Street improvements on Burnham Street meet the Council Goal to "Implement Downtown Plan." The project also
meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of "Improve Traffic Safety" and "Improve Traffic Flow."
ATTACHMENT LIST
None
FISCAL NOTES
The amount of $300,000 is available in the FY 2005-06 CIP for the Burnham Street Improvement Project. The
project design was anticipated to begin earlier in calendar year 2006, but was delayed until the design elements could
be clearly identified. In formulating the budget for FY 2006-07, it was anticipated that $20,000 would be expended
in FY 2005-06 and $950,000 would be made available in the FY 2006-07 CIP for design and rights-of-way
acquisition on that project. Because the contract award is so late in the fiscal year, there will be no expenditure of
funds in FY 2005-06. The $20,000 projected for expenditure in FY 2005-06 and the budgeted amount of $950,000
for FY 2006-07 provides $970,000 available for the project. This amount is sufficient to award the contract to
OTAK, Inc., for Phase 3 (Burnham Street Improvements) of the Tigard Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape
Project covering design services and construction-related services for the design and construction of Burnham
Street. It is also sufficient to allow an additional amount of $46,353 to be set aside as a contingency amount for the
project. The total funding available is therefore sufficient to commit $509,878 to this phase of the Tigard
Downtown Comprehensive Streetscape Project. This leaves a balance of $460,122 for rights-of-way acquisition on
the project for the remainder of FY 2006-07. The right-of-way funding can be supplemented in FY 2007-08, if
needed.
iAeng\7us\counci1 agenda summades\new agenda summary format\6-27-06 award of contract for design services-burnham street and commercial street ais.doc