City Council Minutes - 04/10/1989 3 . 1
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 10, 1989 - 6:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors: Carolyn
Eadon, Valerie Johnson, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz; City Staff: Pat
Reilly, City Administrator; Chuck Corrigan, Legal Counsel; Phil Grillo,
Legal Counsel; Ed Murphy, Community Development Director; Liz Newton,
Senior Planner; Catherine Wheatley, Deputy City Recorder; and Randy
Wooley, City Engineer.
2. STUDY SESSION:
a. Agenda Review:
o City Administrator and Council reviewed agenda item topics:
- Community Development Director briefly reviewed Agenda Item
No. 4 - Public Hearing - Appeal Di•rector's Interpretation-Use
Classification of Laser - Technical Instruments, Inc. There
was general discussion on the difference between manufacturing
uses versus office uses. Also discussed was the possibility
of changing the zoning; this property was adjacent to light
industrial zones.
- Agenda Item No. 5 (Authorize Preparation of Preliminary
Engineer's Report for the Proposed PacTrust Local Improvement
District) was discussed. Community Development Director, in
response to a question by Councilor Eadon, noted if
engineering work was done for the proposed PacTrust Local
Improvement District, the City would be reimbursed whether or
not the LID was formed.
b. Presentation by Mr. Pete Kolleas:
o Mr. Kolleas read his presentation from prepared text. Following
are highlights of his remarks:
- He reviewed his professional background, noting he had been a
truck driver since 1947 and possessed a very impressive
driving record without a chargeable accident. He has been a
Tigard resident for the last 26 years. Mr. Kolleas worked on
the project which provided for better signalization for
entering and exiting Highway 99. He advised he also had been
trained in fire schools, the handling of petroleum products,
and hazardous materials (Haz-Mats).
He cited potential problems with transporting dangerous cargo
in tanker trucks on Highway 99W. He alleged these trucks were
exiting I-5 and then traveling on 99W to Highway 217. He
advised that the grade on a portion of 99W as well as the
number of traffic lights and heavy traffic presented a safety
problem for trucks carrying flammable material.
Page 1 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
o He described what would happen if an incident such as a
gasoline fire would occur. A loose cargo of petroleum would
not be containable, controllable, or extinguishable.
o He proposed rerouting of truck traffic to avoid the most
potentially dangerous sections of Highway 99. Then, when it
was necessary to travel on Highway 99, the trucks should be
routed through in designated lanes (using signs). Also, Mr.
Kolleas noted problems with trucks impeding traffic by
traveling side by side down both lanes.
o He noted the importance of handling hazardous materials in the
correct manner.
o He reported problems concerning emergency vehicles. He
advised that in order to be heard fire trucks were sounding
sirens and horns; this, in turn, subjects neighborhoods such
as his to excessive noise. He said the use of a public
roadway was not a right, but a privilege which must be done in
a safe and courteous manner. Mr. Kolleas strongly urged the
governing bodies and staffs of the fire district and
surrounding communities to address safety issues.
Council commented on the issues noted by Mr. Kolleas noting they
agreed safety was a high priority. It was noted that Highway 99
was a State highway and regulations and restrictions of truck
traffic must be mandated by them.
Mr. Kolleas advised that the traffic volume and the speed of
traffic on Gaarde Street has become a serious problem in the
residential areas. He noted a growing number of people were
taking short cuts through neighborhood areas which was creating
problems for the residents.
Mayor Edwards advised Mr. Kolleas that Council would review these
issues. Mayor requested a copy of the text of Mr. Kolleas'
comments for further study by Council.
Mr. Kolleas left the meeting.
c. Washington County Commission Chair, Bonnie Hays, updated Council on
the Transportation 2000 project. She reviewed committee membership
and project structure. She also reviewed the ongoing efforts
through the Legislature and advised of issues which were being
studied at this level. Transportation 2000 was an alliance of
government and private sector business people who have forged a
consensus on the metropolitan region's road, transit, and rail
priorities. The goal of the Transportation 2000 Committee was to
encourage an economy that can compete in the 21st century and
maintain the quality of life that Oregonians enjoy. Livability and
growth depend upon a solid transportation system that will serve the
state and regional economies. Ms. Hays went through the
Transportation 2000 legislative program, which consisted of eight
points:
Page 2 — COUNCIL MINUTES — April 10, 1989
1. Increase the state gasoline tax and equivalent weight-mile
tax by two cents per gallon by January 1, 1991.
2. Increase the state's annual vehicle registration fee from
$10 to $20 on January 1, 1990.
3. Enable counties to levy a local vehicle registration fee no
greater than the state fee.
4. Extend the transit payroll tax to local governments (Senate
Bill 476).
5. Establish a Regional Light Rail Construction Extension Fund
to set requirements and name the projects eligible for
state funding. The legislation does not appropriate monies
this session (Senate Bill 475).
6. Provide routine transit capital match at approximately
$8,000,000 per biennium.
7. One-cent cigarette tax increase dedicated to elderly and
handicap transportation (House Bill 3209).
8. Referral of a constitutional amendment to allow local
vehicle registration fees to be used for transit. Funds
from this registration fee could only be used following
approval in a statewide election on the constitutional
amendment and in a second local election (Senate Joint
Resolution 12).
Chair Hays reviewed some of the more controversial issues, noting
the payroll tax, if passed, would be phased in over five to ten
years; implementation would begin next budget year. In response to
a question by Councilor Schwartz, Chair Hays advised that the
payroll tax revenues would be generated as follows:
0 60 to 65 percent would come from the School District
0 25 percent from private and non-profit organizations
0 15 percent from city, county and state governments.
She advised some intergovernmental agreements would become necessary.
After discussion, Council consensus was to think about the
legislative program until their meeting on April 17, 1989. At this
time, they would discuss whether to endorse the proposal by the
Transportation 2000 Committee.
3. PROCLAMATION - NATIONAL CONSUMERS WEER
a. Mayor Edwards proclaimed the week of April 23, 1989 as National
Consumers Week.
Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
4. VISITORS' AGENDA
a. Bibianne Scheckla, Secretary/Treasurer of the St. Vincent DePaul
Organization for Tigard (participant of Neighborshare), requested
assistance from(-CANCEL-)for purchase of a computer. Mayor noted
the City contributed funds to the Neighborshare Program this budget
year. After discussion, Council consensus was to request
Ms. Scheckla to work with staff for presentation of her request to
the Budget Committee.
b. David Oringdulph, Century 21 Properties, Tualatin, Oregon, testified
regarding Consent Agenda No. Item 3.3 (Approve Final Order -
Grabhorn (Centron) - SDR 88-25, MLP 88-16, and V 88-39). He
distributed a map which illustrated the location of his property
relative to the property which was the subject of this agenda item.
Mayor requested opinion from Legal Counsel concerning whether the
Final Order, which was before Council at this meeting, could be
altered by Council as a result of testimony by Mr. Oringdulph.
Legal Counsel Corrigan responded the proposed resolution represented
the summation of the Council decision reached after the public
hearing on March 27. Council could receive Mr. Oringdulph's
testimony, but they would not be able to change what has already
been acted upon.
Mr. Oringdulph said he was asking the Consent Agenda Item be removed
from consideration for two weeks for further study.
Mr. Oringdulph resumed his testimony saying he objected to the
public east-west road. He said this requirement destroyed their
property and they couldn't allow this to happen. He reviewed the
history of their property noting they now have 11 buildable lots.
He said they allowed the City to take the lower section of their
property for a park. In addition, they were required to dedicate
around 1,200 feet of public right-of-way including 700-feet of
60-foot right-of-way. Adding to the expense of development was the
necessity for a bridge over Fanno Creek.
According to Mr. Oringdulph, with the requirement of the east-west
road, the property would have negligible worth. He testified this
road was not on any City Plan; in fact, it was removed from the
Comprehensive Plan during an update.
Mr. Oringdulph advised of the following objections he had with
construction of an east-west road:
o Traffic would be encouraged to go through a residential area
rather than traveling 400 feet farther to Scholls Ferry Road
which was a major thoroughfare.
0 130th and 135th Streets would be basically identical and would
enter onto Scholls Ferry Road. By encouraging traffic to bypass
" Scholls Ferry Road, inevitably there would be a great deal of
public conflict.
Page 4 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
o The City park would not generate enough traffic to warrant
construction of a public east-west road.
o No parking area has been designed for the City park.
o Brittany Square area could absorb some of the traffic increase
generated by park usage.
o There would be an increase in public liability and additional
burden to the City to maintain and police a 1,300 street.
o The Centron project would have their own recreational area
negating some of the use needs for the City Park.
o Dedication of additional property would remove developable land
from the tax rolls.
o No reason for building the road, other than for park usage, was
established.
Mr. Oringdulph requested Council to remove the Final Order from the
Agenda to study the issue another two weeks. He said he believed his
request had the support of Centron, Mr. Grabhorn, and others involved
with these properties.
Mayor Edwards reminded Mr. Oringdulph there had been a public hearing
on this issue. The findings contained in the proposed resolution was
Capproved by a 3-2 Council vote after the public hearing was closed. In
order for the item to be removed from the Consent Agenda, Council must
approve such action by motion.
Councilor Johnson commented on Mr. Oringdulph's testimony at the public
hearing held March 27, 1989, on this issue. She asked why he did not
speak to the economic issue of the road requirement at the hearing.
Mr. Oringdulph advised the road, at that time, was strictly east-west
and did not enter his property. He learned from staff recently that
the Council action which required the road to be undulating and was now
aligned to cut through his property. He advised he testified at the
public hearing, even though he has no connection or economic interest
with Centron, because he did not feel the road was appropriate.
Councilor Johnson recalled that it was in no small part due to
Mr. Oringdulph's testimony concerning the "straight-shot" design of the
east-west road, that Council made such a point of requiring the
circuitous route. She asked the Community Development Director if the
road alignment had completed within the last two weeks.
Community Development Director responded a preliminary alignment had
been designed. He noted the original concept was to have half of the
dedication on Century 21 property and the other half on the property to
the north.
Mr. Oringdulph advised this road did not affect their property until
the requirement of an undulating road was made.
v900 5 - rOUNCTT, MINUTES - Anril 10. 1989
Mavor thanked Mr. Oringdulph for his testimony.
Note: Mayor Edwards asked during Conscnt Agenda consideration if there
was any councilor who wished to make a motion calling for the removal
of any item on the Consent Agenda (other than Item 3.5, which had been
pulled at the request of staff). No motion was made to this effect.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
5.1 Approve Council Minutes: February 20, 27, and March 6, 1989
5.2 Receive and File:
a. Council Calendar
b. Review of Waste Haulers Annual Reports
c. Report on Status of Traffic Study - "Diamond" Area
5.3 Approve Final Order - Grabhorn (Centron) - SDR 88-25, MLP 88-16,
and V 88-39 - Resolution No. 89-27
5.4 Accept Mara Woods Subdivision - Resolution No. 89-28
5.5 Approve Gutherie Slusarnko Associates (GSA) Contract Payment -
Resolution No. 89- - Withdrawn
Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Council or Johnson, to
approve the Consent Agenda with Item 3.5 withdrawn from
consideration as requested by staff.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION - USE
CLASSIFICATION OF LASER-TECHNICAL INSTRUMENTS, INC.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
c. Summation by Community Development Director: An appeal had been
filed requesting the Council to overturn the Community
Development Director's interpretation that the operations of
Laser-Technical Instruments, Inc. would be considered
"manufacturing of finished products" for purposes of determining
zoning districts which would allow the use. The business
combines commercial and industrial aspects of producing and
marketing precision marking instruments.
The appellant requested the business be found to be considered a
commercial use. The appellant suggested that the "manufacturing
of finished products" component of their business was subordinate
to the other components which would also be conducted at this
site. Other components would include: "business equipment sales
and service," "research services," and "professional and
administrative services." These use classifications were
permitted uses in several commercial zoning districts.
Laser-Technical Instruments submitted a letter dated January 31,
1989 providing details on the operating characteristics of their
business and the appeal request dated March 14, 1989, providing
additional information. (These documents have been filed with
the Council packet material).
.,.... TT MTTTT1r VC - A,.r41 10_ 1989
Community Development Director recommended Council affirm the
Director's Interpretation that the operation of Laser-Technical
Instruments, Inc., constitutes an industrial use with associated
commercial aspects subordinate to the "manufacturing of finished
products" aspect of the business.
d. Public Testimony:
John E. Schwab, attorney for the appellant, testified that his
client presently has an earnest money agreement for purchase of
the property; he wanted to relocate his Lake Oswego business to
Tigard (Address: 7580 SW Hunziker Road.)
Mr. Schwab said they were appealing the Director's interpretation
because they disagreed with the finding that the primary functiGn
of the business was to manufacture finished products with ot�Ler
aspects of the business being subordinate. He advised that final
assembly comprised only about 15 percent of the floor area of the
current operation and only about one-third of all labor hours.
He noted no noise or fumes would be created to impact surrounding
areas.
Mr. Schwab's testimony included the following points:
o Property across the street was zoned light industrial.
o Contended this situation was no different from the decision
the Council made in 1986. At that time, the former
Community Development Director interpreted the Code in a
manner which would prevent Magno-Humphries from processing
and distributing vitamin tablets in the Central Business
District (CBD) zone. Council had decided that vitamin
production was secondary to warehousing when deciding the
use on the property; therefore, the business was allowed to
operate in the CBD zone.
o Assembly was incidental to the use of the property and
would have virtually no impact on surrounding property
owners. The predominant uses of the property would be the
sales and service of the products, including a show room,
and the research, development, and administrative functions
that support sales.
Mr. Schwab requested that Council find that Laser-Technical
Instrument's business activity would better be described as
"business equipment sales and services" which would allow for it
to be a permitted use in the CP zone.
Council discussion followed. In response to a question from
Councilor Johnson, Mr. Schwab advised his client would prefer not
to go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process He noted
the appeal process was the option they chose to address their
issues.
Page 7 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
After discussion, Council consensus was the Director correctly
interpreted the manufacturing use; however, the surrounding area
was developed as a light industrial zone and perhaps this
property should be reviewed for rezoning.
There was discussion on granting the appeal as requested by the
applicant and stipulating a condition limiting the amount of
floor space used for assembly work. Meanwhile, Council would
place the issue on their work schedule for further study.
Councilor Eadon advised she would prefer to change the zoning,
but she could support granting the appeal, with conditions, so
long as it was understood the zoning in the area would be
reviewed.
e. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
grant a conditional use for Technical Instruments to use the
property at 7580 SW Hunziker Road for their business use with the
condition that no more than 15 percent of floor space could be
utilized for assembly work.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
Council consensus was for staff to review the area for possible
rezoning.
7. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED PACTRUST LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:
a. Community Development Director advised this issue was before
Council at their March 27, 1989 meeting; Council consensus was to
postpone consideration until April 10, 1989 to allow the property
owners an opportunity to present their concerns to Council.
Community Development Director advised that once the Engineer's
Report was completed, there would be two more formal steps,
including a public hearing, before formation of an LID could
occur.
b. Community Development Director advised that PacTrust has agreed
to reimburse the City for staff time and any cost associated with
the project.
c. Public Comment:
o John E. Smets, 6830 SW Bonita Road, introduced members of his
family and employees of Smetco. He advised Smetco had been in
Tigard since 1973. (The text of Mr. Smets' testimony has been
filed with Council packet material.)
Page 8 — COUNCIL MINUTES — April 10, 1989
Mr. Smets advised PacTrust verbally offered to purchase his
entire property or exchange it for another property, but at a
price so low it would be impossible for them to move their
business and duplicate the convenience they now have. He
advised his business was in an easy-to-find, safe, and
accessible location and was also close to suppliers. He
further noted his business was steadily growing and he planned
for future expansion. He said the proposed 60 to 80 foot
right-of-way would deprive him of land needed for his
business's growth; he purchased the property for the purpose
of expansion. Evenutally, Smetco planned to employ about 70
people.
o Steven Pfeiffer, attorney representing PacTrust, agreed with
staff's recommendation to proceed with the preliminary
engineering report. He noted many of the concerns regarding
the feasibility of developing the LID would be answered during
the preliminary engineering work. He said failure to act
tonight would cloud the issue.
d. Council discussion:
o Councilor Eadon advised she thought it appropriate for the
information gathering process be initiated and was in favor of
adopting the proposed resolution calling for the preliminary
engineering study.
o Councilor Johnson agreed with Councilor Eadon's comments, but
felt every opportunity should be given so this issue could be
resolved privately. She said she would favor delaying a decision
on the resolution for two weeks to allow the two parties more
time for negotiation.
o Councilor Schwartz noted he was supportive of long-time residents
and business owners in Tigard, but was also supportive of
corporations such as PacTrust, whose developments benefit all
within the Tigard area. He noted he would like to see a
"Win/Win" situation and agreed with Councilor Johnson that a
two-week postponement may be a way to gain this.
o Councilor Kasten noted the results of the preliminary engineering
report would clarify some issues. He agreed that the public
forum should not be the arena in which disagreements of this kind
were resolved; he endorsed Councilor Johnson's suggestion for the
postponement of a decision on the resolution for two weeks.
o Mayor Edwards advised, after reviewing the facts and keeping the
emotional factors aside, he supported proceeding with the
preliminary engineering report. He did not believe an additional
two weeks would make a difference in resolving the issues between
the two parties. He noted he did not believe proceeding with the
engineering study would preempt a fair hearing.
e. RESOLUTION NO. 89-29 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO HAVE PREPARED
A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF
PROVIDING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH THE FORMATION OF A
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED PACTRUST
DEVELOPMENT.
Motion By Councilor Eadon, seconded by Mayor Edwards, to approve
F4 Resolution No. 89-29.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 2-3; Councilors Johnson,
Kasten, and Schwartz voted "Nay."
f. Discussion followed.
Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor Johnson, to
continue consideration of Resolution No. 89-29 to the April 24, 1989
meeting as a Consent Agenda Item.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
(Council meeting recessed at 9:05 pm; Council meeting reconvened at 9:15 pm.)
8. CONSIDERATION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON SW 135TH AVENUE
a. Summation by Community Development Director:
On March 27, 1989, the Council heard testimony regarding the need
for parking restrictions along SW 135th Avenue. After hearing the
testimony, Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would
prohibit parking on both sides of 135th Avenue, between Scholls
Ferry Road and Morning Hill Drive. The Council further directed the
parking restriction should be effected on May 1, 1989. Enclosed
with the Council packet was a proposed ordinance which would
formally adopt the parking restrictions as directed by the Council.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 89-12. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130,
PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE PORTION OF SW 135TH AVENUE, AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
C. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz, to
adopt Ordinance No. 89-12:
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present.
9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT: ORDINANCE FOR
APPROVING THE PLAN AND RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT
a. Senior Planner Newton reviewed and highlighted the past history
of the City Center development which resulted in the proposed
plan and report as presented to Council in their packet. She
also noted some changes which were being suggested for
clarification and in response to concerns raised by members of
Council and citizens. She reviewed the following documents
distributed to Council:
1. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Revisions
2. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Additions.
3. City Center Development Plan and Report -- Proposed Deletions.
Page 10 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
Community Director noted that the changes were the result of
suggestions made by legal counsel.
Community Director advised staff's recommendation remained
unchanged; that is, adoption of the Plan and acceptance of the
Report with the changes noted in Documents in 1 and 2 above.
b. Council Comments:
Councilor Johnson reviewed the City Center Development Plan
process over the last two years. She noted it appeared unlikely
for the Tigard City Center to be able to draw new business or
encourage expansion of business until some major improvements
were made to the infrastructure. She advised the success of
downtown development would mean a vital city center area which
would help offset property taxes for all the citizens in Tigard.
Councilor Johnson reviewed tax increment financing, noting this
would not mean an automatic large sum of money for Council to
spend in an unplanned fashion. She advised Council's most
important responsibility was, and would remain, to provide
services to the citizens of Tigard. She advised she also felt
the Council had the broad responsibility to review policy issues
which would keep the community vital.
Councilor Johnson noted that language changes suggested by staff
made a better Development Plan. She said there has been concern
expressed by numerous people that there has not been enough
explanation of the procedures for the development of the
downtown. She suggested postponement of the decision to forward
the Development Plan issue to the voters from the May election to
the November election to allow additional time for public
education on the issues. This way, the educational process could
be completed in a more thorough fashion. Also, during this
expanded timeframe, the land use and development code issues,
which were outside of the study to date, could be addressed.
Councilor Schwartz agreed with Councilor Johnson. He advised
that downtown Tigard has remained almost unchanged for 20 years;
an inactive downtown area costs Tigard citizens money. He noted
this expense would continue if the downtown area was not
revitalized. He further advised that it was the City's intent to
assist downtown businesses to expand.
Councilor Schwartz advised he felt it would be important to
postpone the issue to the November election to allow more time
for meetings and workshops to address concerns in the community.
Mayor Edwards referred to Councilor Johnson's comments and
reiterated that the delay was for education purposes. He advised
that throughout the hearings on the issue, concerns were
continuously noted. Council would use the additional time to
attempt to resolve those concerns. By the time the issue was
referred to the voters, the Mayor hoped there would be a better
understanding of the tax increment financing feature of the
proposal and what the Downtown Development Plan would accomplish.
Page 11 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989
C. Lengthy discussion followed on consensus for wording of a motion
for Council consideration; the result of this discussion was:
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Kasten, to
receive the Development Plan, Report, and documents prepared by
staff (Proposed Revisions, Proposed Additions, and Proposed
Deletions); Council intent would be to place a final Development
Plan on the November 1989 ballot.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present.
Discussion followed. Community Development Director asked for
clarification and direction to staff. Council consensus was that
the above action was simply receiving all the documents presented
at this meeting; the Development Plan should not be altered to
reflect any of the changes which were in the three documents
presented by staff.
Council consensus was to direct staff to prepare a timeline/work
program for Council review on land use and Development Code
policies for the city center area.
10. CITY CENTER BALLOT TITLE - Cancelled
11. NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were none.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Exec-'-"ve
Session at 9:58 p.m., under the provision of ORS 192.660(1)(d)(e)"n),
to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and
pending litigation issues.
13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:00 P.M.
Approved by the Tigard City Council on 1989.
W
Deputy Recorder - C ty of T and
ATTEST:
ayor - City of Tigard
cw/9618D
Page 12 - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1989