ZOA1996-00001 ZOA I9910 - 0000 I
Ad
111, 09111
CITY OF TIGARD
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
FILE NO: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
FILE TITLE: UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Same
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 639-4171
REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Tigard Community
Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add Sections C.
and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground
utility requirement and a fee in lieu of undergrounding.
LOCATION: City Wide
ZONE: City Wide
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies
1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code
Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
CIT: West, East, South and Central
CIT FACILITATOR: List Available Upon Request
PHONE NUMBER: (503)
DECISION MAKING BODY
STAFF DECISION
_ HEARINGS OFFICER DATE OF HEARING: TIME: 7:00
X PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF HEARING: 3/18/96 TIME: 7:30
X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 4/9 or 4/23 1996 TIME: 7:30
RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN X OTHER
STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff (503) 639-4171 x316
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
• �O'DONNELL RAMIS CRl S
CORRIGAN & BACHRAC f&
ATTORNEYS AT LAW a' �
1727 N.W.Hoyt Street (q� '1 vY'
Portland,Oregon 97209 "' �� ,.,i
TELEPHONE (503)222-4402 / _ Nr�
FAX (503)243-2944 7r (,py�'�46j"
DATE: January 23, 1996 (" r r I
TO: William A. Monahan, City Administrator Q�
(" ' G
FROM: Pamela J. Beery, City Attorney's Office& Y
RE: Utility Undergrounding Ordinance
•
Enclosed is a draft ordinance which amends section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code
to require undergrounding of utilities pursuant to a request made by Randy Wooley on January
5, 1996.
One potential concern that you may want to be aware of is in cases where the electric utility or
telephone utility company is the applicant. If the applicant is an electric utility and chooses to
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding utilities, it may charge back to the customer anything in
excess of the 3.5% the City collects by franchise. See OAR 860-22-040 (1) & (3). If the
applicant is a telephone utility, it may charge back to the customer anything in excess of the 4%
the City collects by franchise. See OAR 860-22-042 (1) & (3). This could be a concern as the
rule also allows the extra cost to be itemized on the customers'. bill as a city fee. The likelihood
of a utility being the applicant may be very low; however, we wanted you to be aware of these
regulations.
As to adoption of the enclosed ordinance, Randy Wooley had suggested Planning Commission
and Council review. You may wish to consult with community development staff in this regard.
Chapter 18.30 does appear to require both Planning Commission and Council hearings and
approval.
In addition, the ordinance calls for establishment of undergrounding districts and fees by the City
Engineer.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed ordinance, please give me a call.
PJb\acm\90024\undergrd.mel
N N
CITY OF TIGARD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUlREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities
to be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fords that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by adding&;:ctions 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exception to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where
existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost
and technical difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs
the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development.
The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most
common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage
development for which undergrounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above
ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right of
way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee
in lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall
apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be
placed underground.
- 41HP
N
D. Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development
does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this
code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a
front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs
incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The
City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after
review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the
request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which assures
that monies collected in a service area are used for projects within
that service area.
PASSED: By vote of all City Council members present after being read by
number and title only this day of , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED this day of , 1996.
Jim Nicoli, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Date
pub\acm\90024\undergid.or1(1/23/96)
P 431 238--678
I.,r
Certified `Mail
IIE Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
N UNITED STATES Do not use for International Mail
POSTAL SERVICE
-'i (See Reverse)
+i
-H Sent to
C DLCD
-H 0 sied-1-1 17Court St. , N.E.
cs fai P.O.,State and ZIP Code
.,-I no Sa 1 PM,. nP Q7un-or,go t
rz3 fcC Postage $ 1 5B 1
O O Certified Fee I f 1
_$
tT N
Li u Special Delivery Fee
a)-H
r0 4-)
�Z Restricted Delivery Fee
M O- Return Receipt Showing
O 0) to Whom&Date Delivered
0 y Return Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date,and Addr:: :`rs
Ol TOTAL Po .• r tUn 6 1S
&Fees AA •¢ `
•
O- Postma -- (::kQ 5 It
w a-
•
j Ti; SENDER: I also wish t :eive the
1 ■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for•'`tonal services.
rn. ■Complete items 3,4a,and 4b.L ) following sel as(for an I
d •Print your name and address on ine reverse of this form so that we can return this
I card to you. • extra fee): 6 I
> •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the bail* El k if space does not does Addressee's Address 2 t
12 permit. s_ I.
N •Write'Retum Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. l=1 Restricted Delivery N I
• •The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date .,
C delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. o-
-0 3.Article Addressed to: . - 4a.Article Number 0 , -
w Dept. of Land'-Conserv. & Dvlpmnt. P 431 238 678 E '
E 1175 Court Street, N.E. 4b.Service Type d
0 Salem, OR 97310-0590 ❑ Registered Ill Certified or
w ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured
°.
Q ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD 2
0 7.Date of Delivery
of
z
a+
5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested t
ut
cc
and fee is paid)
r
g 6.Sign re: (Addres e orAgen
T> �P1 et Q l
en
It PS Form 811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt l
• •
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
This form must be mailed to DLCD not later than 5 working days after adoption
ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660,Division 18
See reverse side for submittal requirements
Jurisdiction City of Tigard Local File # ZOA 96-0001
Date of Adoption 7/23/96 Date Mailed 7/24/96
Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD 2/15/96
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
• x Land Use Regulation Amendment _ Zoning Map Amendment
New.Land Use Regulation
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached."
Amendment to Tigard Development Code Section 18.164.120 to provide for
exception to underground uti 1 it .eqiirements and to provide fees where
not technically or financially feasible to install.
•
Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment. If it is the same,
write "Same." If you did not give notice of the proposed amendment,write "N/A."
Provides that funds col ected will be used for undergrounding within
the city at large.
Plan Map Change From to
Zone Map Change From to
Location: Acres Involved:
Specify Density: Previous Density New Density
Applicable Goals: 1, 2 and 11. Was an Exception adopted? _ Yes g No
DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deaciine
• •
e .
Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing?
x. Yes _ No: _ The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply
Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review
Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts:
Metro and private utilities.
Local Contact: Richard Bewersdorff, Planning Manager Phone: (503) 639-4171
Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
ORS 197.615 and OAR Chapter 660.Division 18
1. Send this Form and One (1) Copy of the Adopted Amendment to:
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 Court Street, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310-0590
2. Submit three (3) copies of bound documents and maps larger than 81 by 11 inches.
3. Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than five (5) working days
following the date of the final decision on the amendment.
4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus
adopted fmdings and supplementary information.
5. The deadline to appeal will be extended if you do not submit this Notice of Adoption
within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed
within 21 days of the date Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD.
6. In addition to sending Notice of Adoption to DLCD,you must notify persons who
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision.
If you need more copies of this form, please call the DLCD at 503-373-0050 or this form
may be duplicated on green paper.
•
CITY OF TIGARD
ORDINANCE NO. aP J
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities to
be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by adding sections 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exception to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing
utilities which are not underground will serve the development and
the approval authority determines that the cost and technical
difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of
undergrounding in conjunction with the development. The
determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common,
but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for
which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional
poles, rather than the removal of above ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right of
way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in
lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall apply
only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed
underground.
• S
D. Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay
a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does
not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined .based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a
front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred
in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City
Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of
cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for
credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities within the City at large. The City Engineer
shall prepare and maintain a list of proposed undergrounding
projects which may be funded with the fees collected by the City.
The list shall indicate the estimated timing and cost of each project.
The list shall be submitted to the City Council for their review and
approval annually.
m t 044.1
PASSED: By A vote of all City Con cil members present after being read by
sdinumber and title only thiy of 44A,Iiy , 1996.
th erine e Wheatley, City • : •rder i rd
APPROVED this .23 day of J, 1996.
I.
T 1 i •li, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
>gder
Ci ty Attorne y c5
7/z3/9ep .
Date
pjlAmmd\tigerd\umdergrd.ot2(7/11/96)
f
• •
:ii4tiYi}:�yv.\. \\:\}v.ii}4:}:;ti::iti'?`}'\vy}Av\\Ai'.'•tii\'•��}}`} :.4�2.1.$i:i:::;{:;i�iv,::.'�::
`:::..ti}:.::.:».a��\\\��+k4ti }::i:v ii\l�,v�.\�::.:::\:.`::i.:w::>}::;v\�::t::�:.;•.l•,y'};};•::}..:
__41191,-1641 I
.\:� l l l\\\ v v v} O•'� l ;\`6lw • CITY OF TIGARD
\ nl ; ,, , 3x
•
�s t:::ti{:i:::T::t:�:[:�':.i:i:::L:iii:::5i:::iit?.ntv:
�rN see ..�;\ti}�{':�y v\'{;:.'}tiff\i'i'ii':i':ititiiitiv$:
vn\:}:}\••;•}\l}}:�'; ••i;.�:::i}v:L.S4•:�\\<}\}:v:ytii;vi•Lti}}L:i:\:i}tikti:i\::i`:•,'.�.,'.i\';}ii ti'r;:;r:
``litre S \\: �:?\?.`\a• :::
�:\: :J:ti?r;ti.. .."��:•:2;}}:..v;•:\i��•:�:}•{.• 'ti:\\' '<L'.;;\:ti��.�?{�\�T,
\tiv 4 \\ ` 'v\.
:}\�$: •:<�\'1:••4•\\ 0::. ll\.�y:.:4v\�1.1vryR`1'\\\'n\\•:iQv:�tt\i•::+?:rn.,j:ti}i`o}}:u4:•:}:::}:
•nyk:S.T•.\\�\.\v,\i:i}:v:;\.,{.;.{:.;•v: ..ti..}'�:}'�}:•...:':�:?:•.::..:•\.}}}}};}•;.:::v:}v;?i:4:':;::}:•?:yj.
.............n.........ri.................. i4A;}nyi:.}:\tiry'i:'?•}�::}:i.}}:i.:O::i?•:i;L•ii:•;i:v{•}:{;•::::...�::
PUBLIC NOTICE: 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 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
•
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE 1
TIGARD CITY AG COENUNCDA IL MEETING -
June 18, 1996
6:30 P.M.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council at Local Contract Review Board
• Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 p.m.
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM COMMUNICATIONS
• Citizen Involvement Team Representatives
6:45 p.m.
3. UPDATE: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
(CPAH)
• CPAH Executive Director Sheila Greenlaw-Fink
7:05 p.m.
4. UPDATE: METRO 2040
• Community Development Staff
7:20 p.m.
5. DISCUSSION: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
• Engineering Staff
7:40 P.M.
6. DISCUSSION: ANNEXATION POLICY
• Community Development Staff
8:10 p.m.
7. UPDATE: INSURANCE "101"
• Administration Staff
8:20 p.m.
8. UPDATE: CITY COUNCIL GOALS
• Administration Staff
8:40 p.m.
9. DISCUSSION: CHARTER AMENDMENTS
• Administration Staff
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE 2
•
9:15 P.M.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9:25 P.M.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1 ) (d), (e), 8z (h) to
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending
litigation issues. This Executive Session is being held under the provisions
of ORS 192.660 (1 ) (d), (e), 81 (h). As you are aware, all discussions
within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting
may be disclosed by those present.- Representatives of the news media are
allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information
discussed during this session.
9:45 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
cca0618.96
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE 3
• •
AGENDA ITEM #: `T
For Agenda of: ,.,-�% IZ S i4i)
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA 96-0001) Undergrounding Utilities Exception
PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT. HEAD OK Ak CITY ADMIN. OK li
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Should the City amend the Development Code Section 18.164.120 to provide for exceptions to underground utility
requirements?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Ordinance amending the Community Development Code.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Code requires that all utilities be placed underground. Costs and
technical difficulties sometimes outweigh the benefits of placing some utility lines underground. Therefore, the
City Engineering staff has been using a fee in lieu of undergrounding as a condition of development approval in
certain circumstances.\ie City Attorney's Office drafted the attached ordinance after consultation with Randy
Woolev. This is a legislative action. The ordinance creates code language authorizing what has previously been
done by condition. Attached is a short staff report including findings as well as the ordinance amending the
Development Code. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Leave code as is and require undergrounding in all instances.
2. Revise the attached ordinance.
FISCAL NOTES
None
i:\citywid6um\zoa96-01.sum
dickb\03120/96 9:52 AM
•
• •
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities to be
installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW,THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by adding Sections 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exceptions to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where existing
utilities which are not underground will serve the development and
the approval authority determines that the cost and technical
difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs the benefit of
underarounding in conjunction with the development. The
determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most common.
but not the only, such situation is a short frontage development for
which undergrounding would result in the placement of additional
poles, rather than the removal of above ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right-of-
way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee in
lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall apply
only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be placed
underground.
ORDINANCE No. 96-
Page 1
D. Fee 1•ieu of Undergrounding: •
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall pay
a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development does
not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a front
foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due from
any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs incurred
in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The City
Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after review of
cost information submitted by the applicant with the request for
credit. In no case shall the credit exceed the amount of the
calculated"fee in-lieu" for the project.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which assures
that monies collected in a service area are used for projects within
that service area.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature
by.the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this day of , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1996.
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
i:\cinwide\ord\zoa96-01.ord
Date 03/25,96 1:47 PM
ORDINANCE No. 96-
Page 2
•
• • Agenda Item: 5,2
Hearing Date: March 18,1996 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT CITY OF TIGARD
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE: FILE NAME: UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION
Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 96-0001
PROPOSAL: The City proposes amendments to the Community Development
Ccde Section 18.164.120 to provide for exceptions to underground
utility requirements.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A
• 13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
ZONING
DESIGNATION: N/A
LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community
Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance program according
to the findincs found in Section III of this report.
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
•
The e Past City Engineer. Randy Woclev, requested that the City attorney's office
draft
amendments to the underground utiiity requirement of the Community Development Code
Section 18.164.120. The attached ordinance provides for exceptions to the
undergroundinq of utilities where technical difficulty and cost outweigh the benefits. In
these individually determined circumstances, a fee in lieu of undergroundina utilities is
Recctt ,.tJ cf TicartiUndercrcundinc :it': -•j Exception Page 1
then required to be utilized to guarantee undergrounding 11Phe service area. The
amendments apply to existing utility lines. All new utility lines will be placed underground.
The addition of the two new Community Development Code Sections C. and D. to
18.164.120 replicates what the City has previously done through conditions of approval
on development projects.
IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
LCDC Goals:
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was
advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITS,
DLCD, and all utility companies.
•
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for
under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing
adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services. Energy services is listed as a key facility.
Public facilities and sewers in urban areas are to be provided at levels necessary and
suitable for urban uses. Local government is allowed to determine standards and the
level of service.
Comprehensive Plan Policies:
1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide
planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address
statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments.
2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for
comments was sent to all City Citizen Involvement Team Individuals and was legally
advertised.
2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and
findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since March 7, 1996.
7.1.2 c. - This policy requires all new development utilities to be placed underground.
The amendments recognize that technical difficulties sometimes outweigh the benefit of
undergrounding existing utilities and establishes a fee in lieu of undergrounding to
guarantee undergrounding within the service area. All new utilities are to be placed
underground.
7.7.1 - This policy requires land use planning shall be coordinated with private utility
companies to ensure that availability of services when needed. Utility companies were
asked to comment. The proposed amendments provide for a case by case analysis of
technical difficulty and cost while guaranteeing undergrounding by a fee in lieu, if not
feasible when development occurs.
Staff Report City of i gard/Undergrounding Utilities Exception Page 2
R • •
Community Development Code:
Chapter 18.30 - This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments
to the Community Development Code.
Chapter 18.164 - This is the section of the code to which the amendments are being
added.
V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Engineering Department and Building Division have reviewed the
proposal and have offered no comments or objections.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Service providing utilities have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have
offered the following comments:
GTE states that it's GTE's position that it's not economical to place a new cable
underground when they have existing aerial facilities along a route. Financially GTE
cannot underground all existing facilities when we require reinforcement of an existing
lead. GTE is in agreement with undergrounding all facilities within new developments.
No other comments have been received.
PREPARED BY: Richard Bewersd orff% DATE
Senior Planner,.
Staff Report City of Tigard/Undergrounding Utilities Exception Page 3
•
Agenda Item No. • 1
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 51 N/
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Paul Hunt, Bob
Rohif, and Ken Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz
Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services; Jim
Hendryx, Community Development Director; Gary Alfson, Consultant; Wayne
Lowry, Finance Director; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Terry Mahr, City Attorney,
Pro Tern; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, and
Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director.
> Agenda Review
City Administrator Monahan reported that Legal Counsel Jim Coleman would step
down from the Albertson's remand hearing to preserve the record against the
possibility of a conflict of interest. Terry Mahr, the City Attorney for the City of
Newberg, would fill in for him.
Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council either consider agenda items 13 and 14
prior to agenda item 12 (Albertson's hearing) or continue those items to another
meeting. This would allow the Council to dismiss Mr. Coleman for the evening
once item 12 was reached.
Mr. Mahr noted that one issue of concern on the remand hearing was the possibility
that the participants would submit a lot of new documents into the record. He said
that if that was the case, the City might want to take the position that they would not
accept new documents into the record until staff had a chance to review those
documents and make sure that they only addressed the remand issues.
Mr. Mahr stated that he has spoken with the applicant about the statutory provisions
allowing him seven days to rebut.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the applicant's attorney would write the findings, should the
Council make a positive decision. Mr. Mahr said that the applicant's attorney has
already written the findings which were contained in Exhibit A. Mr. Monahan said
that if other findings were needed because of new evidence, staff would send them
out to the applicant's attorney.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 1
• •
Mayor Nicoli asked if he could assign time limits to the testimony. Mr. Monahan
said yes.
Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to "appeal" on the appeal. Mr. Mahr •
said that passing an ordinance was an appealable decision to LUBA, the Court of
Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. He commented that the applicant has told
him that he expected the decision to be appealed.
Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Mater if he saw anything in the findings that looked
out of the ordinary. Mr. Mahr said that he thought everything looked good.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the revised language on Item 3.6 on the Consent Agenda,
(the resolution on the waiver of processing land use applications).
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that staff sent notices to every property owner in the
Triangle informing them that this issue was on the agenda tonight. Nadine Smith
received about six calls from people interested in what was going on.
Planning Commission applications were distributed to Council. Mr. Monahan asked
that Council comment to staff by May 2 to allow Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Rohlf
time to review them before the May 20 interviews.
Mr. Monahan reviewed additional agenda changes, The Mayor of Durham
requested that Item 6 be withdrawn from consideration. He explained (on the
Willamette River option).that the City of Tualatin wanted to be included on the next
level of that study at a cost of $15,000 to each of the now seven participants; it
would cost Tigard approximately $2000 more with the funds coming out of the water
budget. He said that they needed to sign a memo of understanding to continue the
process.
Mr. Hendryx reported that there was a letter for the Mayor to sign supporting the
recommendations of the Committee regarding folding the Boundary Commission into
Metro's process and streamlining the process. He said that one concern staff had
was that a lot of the procedural detail and criteria for approving has not been worked
out yet; Tigard wanted to remain involved in that process.
Councilor Hunt asked if this was giving more power to Metro. Mayor Nicoli
commented that this cut back the entire process. Mr. Hendryx said that he thought
this'gave more control at the local level.
Mayor Nicoli asked if they could still refine the RFP criteria for the study at Cook
Park even if they passed that item this evening. Mr. Monahan said yes. Mr.
Hendryx asked the Council to give staff direction to approve the request subject to
input from the other agencies.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 2
• •
BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
•
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call •
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohif, Ken Scheckla, Paul
Hunt and Brian Moore.
Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner;
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director; Liz
Newton. Asst to City Administrator; and, Jim Hendryx, Community Development
Director.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Administrator Monahan noted the following adjustments to the agenda: pulling
item 3.9 from the consent agenda for further discussion and withdrawing item 6 at
the request of the City of Durham.
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
> Michael Mills, Construction Inspector, President of OPEU Local 199, strongly
recommended that the Council approve the new OPEU contract. He stated that the Union
members have already ratified the tentative agreement. He said that they understood that
the-Council has reviewed that agreement and would approve everything except the return
of the 6% retirement contribution. He said that it was their understanding that the Council
believed that the 6% could only be set aside if Measure 8 were found to be invalid; however
Council needed to understand that the Union members believed that they had a contractual
right to the pension benefit.
Mr. Mills stated that they felt that their contract with the City has been violated and that the
Council was trying to bypass the bargaining process. He said that the Union has tiled a
grievance over the City's taking of this benefit and was ready to go to arbitration to settle
the issue. He said that if they could settle this without arbitration they could save the City
approximately $8,000 (the average cost of arbitration).
Mr. Mills said that this was seriously affecting the morale of the employees. Though the
Council needed to consider the will of the citizens of Tigard, they also needed to consider
the City employees. He contended that the citizens didn't vote on Measure 8 knowing that
it would mean a reduction in City employee benefits. He stated that the citizens have
approved numerous bond measures based on the performance of City employees. He said
that the Tigard city employees have complied with the provisions of Measure 8 in
contributing at least 6% towards their own retirement.
•
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 3
• •
Mr. Mills said that the City Administrator presented alternative methods of implementation
to the Council Iast December. He said that both the attorney hired by the City to negotiate
this contract and the City's bargaining team have recommended ratification of this
•
agreement. He said that the agreement was a complete package achieved by both sides
working to find a balance between the needs of the City and the Union; this agreement was
meant to resolve all the remaining issues. He said that removing an important aspect would
have an opposite effect somewhere else in the agreement. He asked that the Council
support the Tigard public employees and approve the new contract tonight.
> Dick Skowden, 6105 SW 148th, Beaverton,spoke on the issue of growth and the area's
ability to accommodate the growth comfortably within the UGB. He stated that it was
important to hold the line on the UGB. He pointed out the dramatic population growth in
the area over the last year and stated that it was important to work as quickly as possible
to accommodate the growth and stay ahead of it. He said that it was important that
Washington County and Metro provide staffing to help the local governments take quick
action in a fair way in order to make proper land use decisions.
> Bonnie Mulhearn addressed the issue of the OPEU contract. She asked if the Council
thought .that their representatives had done a poor job during the negotiations. She
contended that the Council was violating the existing Union contract and keeping money that
rightfully belonged to the Union employees. She said that the Council should vote on
whether or not they agreed with the tentative agreement in open session.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Monahan asked to pull Items 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 from the consent agenda.
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent
Agenda Items 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors
Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
3,.1 Approve City Council Minutes: March 19, 1996
3.2 Receive and File:
April 12, 1996 Memorandum from Human Resources Director to Mayor & Council
regarding the Employee Recognition Program
3.3 Terminate Waterline Easement within the Proposed Hilishire Creek Estates
Subdivision
3.4 Extinguish Sewer Easement for Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision - Resolution No.
96-22
3.5 Support Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) Request for Metro Greenspaces Funds
to Help Them Purchase the Thomas Dairy Property - Resolution No. 96-23
3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Properties Under Study as Part of the Transportation update Within the Tigard
Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24
3.7 Enter into a Personal Services Contract with Spencer & Kupper to Complete the
Scope of Work for the Tigard Transportation Update
•
3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a Plan
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 4
• •
3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract
• Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion
• . > 3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
for Properties Under Study as Part of the Transportation update Within the Tigard
Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24
Mr. Monahan explained the revised language to the resolution as recommended by
the City Attorney to clarify the City's position: the City would not accept
applications at all as opposed to accepting applications and not processing them.
Mr. Hendryx reported that Nadine Smith received some phone calls in response to
the notification sent out to the property owners in the Triangle.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent
Agenda Item 3.6 as modified.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a Plan
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park
Mr. Monahan stated that this RFP drafted by staff has been sent to their potential
partners (USA and various Tigard sports groups) for comment and review; staff
wished to insure that the RFP included the necessary detail to meet all the partners'
needs.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent
Agenda Item 3.8 with future amendments.
•
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
> 3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract
Mr. Monahan recommended that the Council pull this item from discussion tonight
because there wasn't a contract to sign, unless the Council decided to agree to the
added provision suggested by the Union on top of the issues that the City's
bargaining team recommended.
Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a motion to move forward on this item. There was
none.
Mr. Mills protested. He stated that there was a tentative agreement (ratified by the
Union) before the Council tonight. He said that the bargaining team has
recommended that the Council ratify the tentative agreement because the team agreed
to the ground.rule that when a tentative agreement was reached they would bring it
to the Council for ratification. He contended that the signing of the contract was not
until much Iater in the process.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 5
• •
Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had no problem going back into negotiations
with the staff. He noted that there were other options under State law that the Union
could take if it so desired but that the Council would not move forward on this item
tonight.
4. TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPNIENT CORPORATION UPDATE
Mary Tobias, TVEDC, referred to the packet mailed out earlier to the Council. She
reviewed the latest issue of Doing Business in Washington County, commenting that it has
been very well received. She pointed out the healthy growth in Washington County over
the past six to eight months. She reported that they have seen a 10% increase since last
year in the number of requests for the demographics and economics services provided by
TVEDC, the majority of which came from within the Portland Metro area - businesses
looking at-expansion or relocation. She noted that the major employers list, while not
complete, was a good representation of employers in the county.
Ms. Tobias reported that the Board of Directors was in the process of approving an
ambitious 1996/97 work plan that built on last year's work plan. She said that the Housing
& Transportation committee was investigating the housing and land use issues in the 2040
study. She said that the Transportation committee was finding much in the regional
transportation policy with which they concurred but that they did have some concerns about
possible discrepancies between the Metro projected numbers and what was realistically
probable.
Ms. Tobias pointed out that though a certain number of jobs might be feasible on paper, the
characteristics of a particular community might preclude that number existing in reality; for
example, Sherwood might be able to accommodate 8000 new jobs but it was unlikely to
actually do so. She suggested that everyone step back from the models and consider reality.
Mayor Nicoli asked if TVEDC would come out with position papers regarding the 2040
process, once the final draft came out from Metro. Ms. Tobias said that their Land Use
committee was working on three position papers (including growth management and
affordable housing) while the Transportation committee was working on the first of three
refinements of the transportation policy segment of 2040.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council could get those comments before the City had to respond
to Metro, noting that TVEDC had a different perspective. Ms. Tobias said that they would
share what they developed as they developed it.
Councilor Scheckla asked how TVEDC defined affordable housing in Washington County.
Ms. Tobias said that they have not yet achieved a workable definition, pointing out that the
region was struggling with this difficult and complex issue. She said that the subcommittee
was looking at a mathematical formula that included all the myriad of factors involved in
the issue, and that hopefully in 30 days they would have a workable definition.
5. CONSIDER PRO TEM JUDGE APPOINTMENTS: MARC ABRAMS AND PETER
ACKERMAN
a. Staff Report
Nadine Robinson, Municipal Court Director, and Michael O'Brien, Senior
Judge, presented the staff report. Ms. Robinson reviewed the need for pro tern
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 6
• •
judges to serve as backups for Judge O'Brien and the process they used to select the
appointees. She said that they recommended the appointments of Marc Abrams and
Peter Ackerman as pro tern judges on the basis that they had the necessary
qualifications to serve as pro tern judges and that their philosophies most closely
reflected Judge O'Brien's.
b. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve
Resolution No. 96-25.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-25 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH MARC ABRAMS,
MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
No. 96-26.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-26 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH PETER ACKERMAN,
MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
d. Administer Oaths of Office
Mayor Nicoli administered the Oath of Office to Marc Abrams and Peter Ackerman
individually.
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REPRESENTATION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL
WATER BOARD
This item was pulled (see Study Session notes above).
7. CONSIDER LIBRARY EXCLUSION ORDINANCE
a. Staff Report
Kathy Davis, Library Director, gave the staff report. She stated that though the
vast majority of citizens served by the Library were wonderful, there were a few
whose behavior was less than appropriate for a library setting. She explained that
the intent of this ordinance was to give library staff some recourse to deal with
illegal or inappropriate behaviors through removal from the premises and revocation
of library privileges for 90 days.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 7
• •
b. Council Questions
Mayor Nicoli asked about the line item on page 18.stating that no food or beverages
were allowed in the library. He said that he still hoped to see an area in the library
where people could read while eating or drinking. Ms. Davis explained that that
item was the "user friendly" version of the ordinance that would actually be posted
in the library. She said that the behavior guidelines outlined in the ordinance were
basic common sense and common courtesy.
Ms. Davis noted a change in the wording in the guidelines to state that a person
violating the law would be removed from the premises and have their library
privileges revoked for up to 90 days.
•
Mr. Monahan noted typographical errors in the ordinance on page 3 - Chapter 1.16
should be changed to Chapter 1.17.
c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-15 and 96-16
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-15.
t.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-15 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-15, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 7.100, EXCLUSIONS
FROM TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Rohif, Scheckla, Hunt and Moore voting "yes.")
Motion by'Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-16.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-16 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-16, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 1.17, APPEAL TO CIVIL
INFRACTIONS HEARINGS OFFICER.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor
Nicoli. Councilors Rohif. Scheckla, Hunt and Moore voting. "yes.")
S. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE CAPITAL
LEVY
a. Staff Update
Ms. Davis presented the staff update. She reviewed the specifics of the levy, noting.
that Tigard's share of the S30 million dollar levy for its service population of
12.79 0 of the total county pbpulation amounted to S3.8 million dollars.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 8
• •
Ms. Davis reported that several members raised a concern at the Library Budget
Board meeting that their share of the allocation (using the funding formula based on
service population) would not be adequate,to meet their individual building needs;
these members suggested raising the amount of the levy to a high enough level
where their needs could be met by their share of it. However this put in question
the funding mechanism that would have allowed an equitable distribution of the
funds.
Ms. Davis stated that the issue of the total dollar amount of the levy and the
allocation formula would be discussed at the May County Library Advisory Board
(CLAB) meeting. She presented the Tigard Library Board's position statement on
this issue. She said that the Board would not be supportive of the levy unless they
were assured that some sort of funding mechanism would be in place that would
provide some equity in funds distribution, regardless of the levy rate.
Mr. Monahan stated that both he and Ms. Davis agreed with the Board's position
that the funding formula already worked out was equitable and made sense both
county wide and for the individual cities. He asked the Council to consider whether
or not they supported the Board's position and to direct he and Ms. Davis to present
this position at the May CLAB meeting.
b. Council Discussion
Councilor Rohlf stated that he supported the Library Board's position. Mayor Nicoli
concurred.
Councilor Hunt stated that he would not vote on this because he thought that it was
not fair to the rest of the City's building programs. He said that he was not
objecting to the Board's position but to any part of the levy.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to support the
Tigard Library Board's position on the county wide capital construction levy,
giving the Library Director and the City Administrator authority to represent
that position at the May 1 CLAB meeting.
The motion passed by a four to one vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Rohlf, Moore and Scheckla voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no.")
Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:32 p.m. for a break.
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF
PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES PROJECTS (Continued from the April 9,
1996 Council Meeting.) Continuation of hearing to select greenspace projects. Tigard is
entitle to receive 5758,000 in local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure.
a. Continue Public Hearing
b. Update of Council Discussion from the April 16, 1996 meeting
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 9
• •
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, distributing materials
to the Council. He reviewed the matrix (on file with the Council packet material)
of the different properties under consideration. He recommended that the Council
apply any funds left over after purchasing the forest projects to trail corridor
acquisition; Metro has agreed to match trail corridor acquisition funds by a 1:2 or
more ratio per local dollar. He also recommended that the Council pass a resolution
expressing their intent to expend future year SDC funds towards the project as well.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the current park SDC funding schedule, noting the amounts
tentatively identified for trail property acquisition and improvements. He
commented that the amount of land to be protected was 27 acres of forest land and
approximately 50 to 75 acres of floodplain.
Councilor Hunt asked if there was an intent from the County to co-opt the purchase
of the Fern Street property. Mr. Roberts said that the County never identified that
piece on their list.
Mayor Nicoli opened the discussion up to public comment; there was none.
c. Council Comment
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council decided to commit some of the park funds
(i.e., SDC dollars) to try to obtain all of the land mentioned on the list -- in
combination with the Metro money.
Mr. Roberts recommended that the Council approve the list of projects, authorize
the Mayor to sign the IGA with Metro to receive the local share funds, and authorize
the Mayor to prepare a letter to be sent to Linda Peters making an offer on the 129th
site.
Councilor Hunt asked if the list was prioritized in any way. Mr. Roberts said no
and stated that the only breakdown was between forest properties and trails
properties.
Councilor Rohlf asked about the letter to Washington County. Mr. Roberts said that
the County has advised them to proceed in this way and to include letters showing
community support for the acquisition. He said that the County was looking for
community support. He said that they also recommended that the City pass a
resolution declaring the City's intent to commit future year park SDCs for trail land
acquisition.
d. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
e. Council Consideration
Councilor Rohlf said that he had no disagreements with any Of the recommendations
. presented by staff. Councilor Moore concurred.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 10
• •
Councilor Scheckla asked about the Metro money for trails. Mr. Roberts explained
that the money for trails was a separate component of the bond measure with $3.5
million allocated for property acquisition along the Fanno Creek main stem but not
for the improvements themselves. He indicated on the map where two of the four
target areas identified by Metro were located within Tigard's area of interest.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the
Greenspaces project list and send it to Metro and to authorize the Mayor to
send a letter to Washington County coopting the 129th property.
Motion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to authorize the
Mayor to sign the IGA with Metro and direct staff to draft a resolution that
indicates the Council's intent to commit future funding for parks.
Motion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor
Scheckla abstaining.)
10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA
96-0001 SHULTZ
Request: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plan
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the
zone from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull
Mountain Road, across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan
polices 2.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary
criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters
18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory.
ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures.
c. Staff Report
Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the location
of the site on the map. He stated that the application complied with all the
applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and
had adequate facilities available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were
sent and that they have received no objections. Staff recommended approval.
•
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -. APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 11
• •
d. Public Testimony
John Godsey, Consulting Engineering Services, 15256 NW Greenbriar Parkway,
Beaverton, representing the applicant, asked for a favorable consideration of their
request.
e. Staff Recommendation
• Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
g. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-27 & Ordinance No. 96-18.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve
Resolution No. 96-27.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-27 by number and tide.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-27, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve
Ordinance No. 96-18.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-18 by number and tide.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-18, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
11. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION
Request: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to
City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at
9275 Locust Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. • APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen
involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria: and 10.1.3.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 12
• •
•
zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation
requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently,
Washington County R-9.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
Mayor Nicoli read the hearings procedures.
c. Staff Report
Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed the location and specifics of the
sites. He stated that the application complied with all the applicable City policies
and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and had adequate facilities
available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were sent and that they have
received no objections. Staff recommended approval.
d. Public Testimony
Bert Lundmark, applicant, stated that it was his desire to develop the property
with the construction five row homes.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.
f. Council Questions: None
g. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-28 & Ordinance No. 96-19
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf,to approve Resolution
No. 96-23.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-28 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-28, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B. ZCA 96-02.
•
•
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt. Moore. Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 13
• •
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinance
No. 96-19.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-19 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-19, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-02.
The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
(Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
The Council considered Items 13 and 14 at this time.
12. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) -ALBERTSON'S INC./DUNCOMBE Land
Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand - Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 93-
0009/Zone Change (ZONE 93-0003; Site Development Review (SDR) 93-0014/Minor
Land Partition (MLP) 93-0013
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) remand for the
following development approvals:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight
acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community
Commercial on Tax Lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel
from neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on Tax Lot
100. The Zone Changes accompanying the above plan changes include a change
from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) and R-30
(PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planner Development ) to C-C (Community
Commercial) and from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25
•
units per acre);
2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot
stand-alone tenant pad and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 4,950
square feet adjoining the anchor pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square
foot stand-alone tenant pads; and
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel into two parcels of
approximately eight acres and 3.95 acres each.
The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required City Council to receive and make additional
findings on the following issues:
1. Transportation Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 8.1.3 (f)-(h) and 8.4.1
2. Air/Water Quality: LCDC Goal 6
3. Air Quality Impact: TCP Policy 4.1.1
4. Water Quality Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1
5. Commercial Compatibility: TCP Policy 5.4
6. Buffering: TCP Policy 6.6.1
7. Storm Drainage Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2
8. Design Criteria: Community Development Code 18.61.055
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 14
•
• •
LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry
Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, Tax Lots 100 and 200); APPLICABLE
REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goal 6; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1,
1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.4, 6.6.1, 7.1.2 and 8.1.3 (f)-(h) and 8.4.1; Community Development
Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.61.055. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood
Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased
at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services,
children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and
services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential
neighborhoods. Community Commercial centers typically range in size from a minimum
of two acres to eight acres. In terms of building square footage, these centers range from
30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise
multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone
permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning
district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms
of design, access, etc.
>
•
Mayor Nicoli noted that Mr. Mahr from the City of Newberg would be serving as the City's
legal counsel on this item because of a conflict of interest with Tigard's City Attorney. Mr.
Monahan explained that the issue was raised that Mr. Coleman has represented Albertson's
in the past.
Mayor Nicoli briefly recessed the meeting.
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
b.. Declarations or Challenges: None
c. Staff Report
Mr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He stated that the Council approved the
Albertson's comprehensive plan zone map amendments as well as their specific
development plans (subject to numerous conditions) on December 27,1994; the
decision was appealed to LUBA who remanded it to Tigard on October 20, 1995.
He listed the eight issues on which LUBA remanded the appeal to the Council.
Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the applicant has completed his work on the remand
issues. He advised the Council to limit its review to the main findings on the eight
remaining issues before LUBA. Mr. Mahr stated that he spoke with both the
applicant and the appellant, both of whom understood that testimony was limited to
the eight issues.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 15
• •
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures and time limits.
PROPONENTS
John Shonkwiler, representing Albertson's, introduced Don Duncombe,
Albertson's; Norm Schoen, Project Architect; Steve Ward, West Tech Engineering;
and Phil Roarth, Kittleson & Associates (traffic analysis).
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed that this was a request to move the existing neighborhood
commercial designation of approximately seven acres on one corner of Walnut and
Scholls Ferry to a community commercial designation of eight acres on another
corner of Walnut and Scholls Ferry. He stated that the Council approved their site
development plan for a 40,000 square foot grocery store with 17,550 square feet of
other commercial area; this use was appealed by Marcotte & Thriftway but upheld
by LUBA.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that a lot of the consideration here was to clarify the City's
position on the language of the ordinance and how it worked with the
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the total allowable square footage of
commercial in a community commercial zone was 100,100; this proposal was for .
57,500 square feet.
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the first remand issue: Transportation, CP policy 8.1.3
(t)-(h). He said that all of the provisions of this policy were challenged before
LUBA but that LUBA upheld all of them except for subsections (t) through (h)
which LUBA felt needed more specificity in the findings.
In regard to (f), the provision of transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters, Mr.
Shonkwiler pointed out that this property was not served by transit, and that Tri-Met
has stated that it did not intend to provide service in the near future. He said that
the Council could find that the Albertson's site and its designated uses did not
generate transit ridership. He reviewed how the plan allowed for the possibility in
the future of bus pullout lanes near the proposed mini-park which could serve as a
bus stop area. He contended that the plan did meet the requirements. However they
were recommending an additional condition of approval on page 4 of the remand
statement allowing the City, through a public process, to make that designation in
. the future.
In response to subsection(g), handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Shonkwiler explained
that the appeal on this arose from a conflict between the two sets of findings before
the Council. He said that the mistake was that the second set of findings did not
reflect the changes recommended in the set of findings based on the staff report. He
referred to the revised site and landscape plans that showed the relocation of some
of the handicapped parking spaces as recommended by staff to service all entrances
to the store.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that they could not locate the handicapped parking spaces for
the other commercial pads until they knew where the main entrance would be.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 16
•
• •
Though they showed handicapped parking in a specific location on the map, it could
be moved anywhere along the front to the best location for the eventual entrances.
He said that the determination of the exact location of those spaces could be made
at the time of the building permit application.
In regards to subsection (h), land dedication for bicycle/pedestrian corridor, Mr.
Shonkwiler referred to the City's adopted pedestrian/bike pathway plan, noting that
the proposed pathway in the area did not abut this site; both Scholls Ferry Road and
other land were between the Albertson's site and the proposed pathway, making it
impossible for the applicant to dedicate any land for the pathway. He said that he
thought that the Council could make the finding that the land dedication was not
required.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to LUBA record #390 (the site plan) and #391 (the
landscape plan) to demonstrate the extension of Murray Blvd and its connection to
Walnut Street, already proposed by the City. He reviewed how the sidewalks
depicted on the plan along Scholls Ferry, Walnut and Northview Drive connected
to the intersection which in turn would feed up to Murray Blvd and the proposed
pathway. He also reviewed the internal site circulation with accesses to those
sidewalks. He said that their circulation system was in the best interests of the City
for a pedestrian/bike network from the site to the pathway and vice versa.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the second, third and fourth remand issues (Air and
Water quality impacts) have been sufficiently addressed by the West Tech study in
the record. West Tech has analyzed the state, federal and regional plans and stated
that this plan was in compliance with all regulations and could feasibly satisfy all the
conditions of approval.
• Mr. Shonkwiler spoke to the fifth issue: Commercial Compatibility, TCP Policy 5.4.
- "The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall not
encroach on residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or
industrial uses." He proposed that the City define the residential area being affected
as the area surrounding the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Walnut (the
neighborhood commercial, the residential on two sides, and the multi family
designations to the west, northwest and south). He said that he thought that the City
could adopt that as part of its interpretation.
Mr. Shonkwiler commented that, in considering how the area was affected by the
proposed development, this area already had neighborhood commercial in the
residential area; there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that forbade changing
the commercial use from one to another or from the residential area to a place that
would better provide more buffering to eliminate the impacts to the surrounding
areas. He contended that the whole point was to not have an overt shock to the
residential uses in the area.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that there already was a substantial commercial use and that
they were replacing it with another commercial use. The next question was how
much impact would that have. . He referred to the traffic studies in the record that
showed that there was an insignificant difference between the effect of neighborhood
commercial on 6.93 acres and the use Albertson's was proposing. He said that
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 17 .
• •
overall the evidence in the record would support that switching from the
neighborhood commercial to community commercial was a rational planning
position. -
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the question of why move the designation across the
street. He stated that community commercial allowed more flexibility in how they
could develop the property. He pointed out that the triangular shape of the
neighborhood commercial property made it difficult to provide both commercial uses
and adequate buffering to eliminate adverse impacts to the abutting property; also
the flat area abutted directly up against the multi family structures, allowing no •
latitude for separation.
Mr. Shonkwiler said that by moving the property across the street they could
excavate down so that the surrounding properties would overlooked two-thirds of the
site; it would also shape the property into a rectangle to allow for better buffering.
He noted that the City required 20% open space area around the property; they were
providing 30% which necessitated going from seven acres to eight acres. He said
that he thought that was full justification for why they met the policy.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the Council was entitled to make an interpretation on the
two different comprehensive plan polices, 5.4 and the locational criteria, which
should be compatible. He contended that if they met the locational criteria, it should
be presumed that they also met the requirements of 5.4.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the sixth issue: Buffering TCP policy 6.6.1. He noted the
code section 18.100 which implemented the landscaping screening requirements
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that if the applicant has met
the code provisions, then they have satisfied the Comprehensive Plan policy 6.6.1
as well. He stated that the previously adopted findings showed that they have
complied with 18.100; since those findings were not challenged, he said that they
could reasonably rely on them today.
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the specifics of the landscaping plan in terms of how they
were providing an air pollution absorber, noise and dust filters and a visual barrier
through excavation and landscaping.
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the West Tech report as setting out fully how the
applicant met the seventh issue of storm drainage and making the conclusion that the
applicant has met the requirement and could feasibly satisfy the conditions of
approval.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that. in response to the eighth issue of design criteria, it was
a similar mistake as with the handicapped parking. They submitted a change
between the staff report and the final decision that was not corrected in the findings.
He referred to LUBA 390 (site plan) and LUBA 391 (landscaping plan) that showed
the specifics of the landscaping plan. He said that they have met LUBA's
requirement that they revise their plans to clarify exactly what was happening.
Mr. Shonkwiler requested approval of the application and adoption of the findings.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 18
Alk
Barbara Collins, resident at Northview '& Castle Hill, stated that the neighbors
felt strongly that Albertson's was doing its best to meet all the requirements and to
take the neighborhood into consideration; they were trying to make having a
commercial entity in the neighborhood as livable as possible. She said that they
hoped this could be worked out as soon as possible and that they felt that Albertson's
had a good plan.
Scott Russell, property owner; addressed two issues: transportation and air quality.
He said that neighbors have expressed concern over the potential for a future access
to Northview; he stated that one of the conditions of approval stated that, should the
City decided to put in that access, it would have to go through a public process and
address the neighbors' concerns. He said that he thought air quality had been
compromised by the opposition.
OPPONENTS
Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW Sixth Ave, Portland, representing Marcotte Holdings,
Inc. and Murray Thriftway who were the appellants at LUBA, commented that
he thought that there was a general belief that if LUBA remanded something and the
applicant threw a "bunch of stuff" at it, then the applicant should automatically
prevail. He said that the "stuff" had to be responsive and address the issues or the
applicant was not entitled to prevail. He said that the appellants felt strongly that
the applicant has not sufficiently addressed two of the eight issues.
Mr. Kleinman said that they felt that the issue of commercial compatibility was a
fundamental Comprehensive Plan issue that needed to be looked at because the
applicant was asking the Council to make an interpretation that set a dangerous
precedent that did not suit the City's Comprehensive Plan objectives. He noted that
this issue was raised by LUBA and in the proposed order of the City Council
submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Kleinman contended that the neighborhood commercial site that the applicant
said was 6.93 acres was in actual fact a five acre neighborhood commercial site. He
submitted materials into the record obtained from the City which mentioned a five
acre parcel at this site to support his contention (the 1986 City annexation decision,
a 1991 memo from Jerry Offer to Katie Dorsett, and a 1991 letter to Tigard
Planning from the City of Beaverton).
Mr. Kleinman pointed out that LUBA looked at the appellants' objections to
substituting community commercial for neighborhood commercial; LUBA found that
the argument in the findings that a mistake was made in the original designation
during the annexation process was sufficient to justify the zone change (the City's
designation of the parcel as neighborhood commercial when it had a commercial
designation in the County). He stated that the parcel so designated was five acres
only.
Mr. Kleinman cited LUBA's findings that the applicant had not adequately analyzed
the impacts on the different residential natures of the surrounding neighborhoods
resulting from substituting a larger development for a smaller one on the opposite
corner of the same intersection. He contended that the applicant still has not done
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 19
• •
this but rather relied on the proposition that it was all the same, as supported by its
experts. He stated that the impact was there. He said that while Albertson's might
be able to address this issue sufficiently to allow them to prevail, they have not done
so yet.
Mr. Kleinman stated that he read a different interpretation of the findings than the •
applicant presented and summarized to the Council. He said that the applicant urged
the Council to interpret the policy to mean that(since a community commercial zone
had a trade area of a 1.5 mile radius) there was no impact from moving the
commercial from one place within that radius to another, if it already has some
residential in it. He stated that interpreting the code in that manner was doing a
grave disservice to the citizens. He contended that the applicant was avoiding the
analysis required by LUBA by asking for a code interpretation.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the applicant's proposal that policy 5.4 was complied with
simply by meeting the locational criteria was another way of not addressing the
encroachment issue; making that interpretation was also a bad idea for future
proposals. He said that he thought that the Council would be foreclosing the City
from exercising some of its review options down the road.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the differences between the existing neighborhood
commercial and a community commercial site demanded a finding of greater impact
and a measurement of the impacts. He stated that a neighborhood commercial site
was limited in the code and the plan to a two acre development; they could find
nothing that exempted the existing neighborhood commercial zone from that
requirement.
Mr. Kleinman noted the differences between the neighborhood commercial
designation and the community commercial designation. He cited plan policy
12.2.1, section l.a (2) that limited the trade area of a neighborhood commercial to
serving 5000 people; community commercial served a trade area within an 1.5 mile
radius. Neighborhood commercial did not permit restaurants, bars, general retail
uses or general office uses; community commercial did. Individual buildings in
neighborhood commercial were limited to 4000 square feet; the Albertson's store
alone was 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Kleinman stated that the Council should consider the total square footage that
could be developed under community commercial (100.000 square feet), contending
that they did not know what would happen on that site in the future. He said that
a development of 57,000 square feet would have a substantially different and far
greater impact than a neighborhood commercial development limited to two acres.
citing the traffic impacts in particular.
Mr. Kleinman reiterated that there has been no analysis of how the impact on the
residential areas differed from moving the site across the intersection. He stated that
they thought that the site impacts should be analyzed in reasonable detail prior to
moving forward on this application. He said that they believed that the end result
was an encroachment under policy 5.4 and an application lacking even the most
fundamental baseline analysis of the impacts pertaining to the encroachment.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23,. 1996 - PAGE 20
• •
Mr. Kleinman reviewed Albertson's objectives of securing more space for its store.
and rental space but held that that objective in itself was not compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan or code provisions. He contended that Albertson's concerns
that the triangular shaped property would not be a profitable site to develop were
personal economic considerations not permitted in this analysis and could not justify
under the plan a non-existence of impacts of encroachment.
Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not think that the air quality impacts criteria
discussed by LUBA have been successfully addressed. He referred to his memo.
He said that the Plan required the City to ascertain from DEQ the permissibility of
these uses, particularly for the indirect source air pollution permit He contended that
the applicant's statement that they have prepared an application for the permit did
not meet the necessary test,of approval required to comply with the Plan.
REBUTTAL
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he wanted to review the document submitted by Mr.
Kleinman into the record as he suspected that there might possibly be one issue he
raised that was outside the scope of the remand. He stated that he reserved his right
to submit a written rebuttal within seven days.
Mr. Shonkwiler pointed out that Mr. Kleinman was not involved with this process
from the beginning and might not be aware of all the evidence in the record. He
cited a separate order from the City Council that stated that when Walnut Drive went
in, the shape and the size of the lot would be neighborhood commercial. He said
that this document resolved the five acre issue - the parcel was 6.93 acres, as
already decided by the Council.
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that Mr. Kleinman admitted that LUBA found that a mistake
was made in the zone designation at the time of the annexation of this property into
the City and that that was a legitimate reason to uphold the zone change and plan
amendment. He contended that the types of uses and size limitations of 'a
neighborhood commercial had no relevancy in this matter because the zoning should
have been community commercial instead of neighborhood commercial. Therefore
the impacts that Mr. Kleinman contended existed with a major change did not in fact
exist because the zoning designation was wrong from the time of annexation. LUBA
found that this zone change corrected a mistake.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he would submit a written rebuttal addressing each of
these issues and submit it within seven days.
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked about undergrounding facilities. Mr. Shonkwiler said that
they intended to underground all the facilities. He explained that the statement was
on page 18 because undergrounding was a condition of approval.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 21
•
• •
g. Close Public Hearing
•
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
Mr. Mahr stated that it was appropriate to close the record at this point and allow
the applicant seven days to submit a written argument; the argument could not
consist of any new evidence.
Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council would take no further action on this item this
evening and closed the record.
Mr. Monahan said that staff would set this for the date certain of May 14, 1996 for
Council action.
13. PUBLIC HEARING - LEGISLATIVE: PROPOSED LAND USE APPLICATION
FEES/CITY OF TIGARD
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
c. Staff Report
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, commented that staff has been
working for the last year on this update of fees to reflect today's costs. He stated
that the last update was 10 years ago; the report prepared four years ago was not
acted on at the time.
Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said that the
original report prepared four years ago never got to the Council for action. He
stated that the open house staff held for developers was attended only by the
Homebuilders Association; though the Association would not endorse the fees, they
would not oppose them either.
Mr. Bewersdorff noted that these fees related solely to the cost of processing
applications; they did not include any follow up or long ranee planning efforts. He
said that staff recommended recovering 100% of both direct and indirect costs.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Bewersdorff recommended that Council direct staff to prepare a resolution to
recover 100% of the direct and indirect costs of land use applications, including
adding fees for those items listed in Exhibit A that the City did not charge fees for -
at this time.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 22
• •
f. Council Questions
Councilor Scheckla asked about the new fees in Exhibit A. Mr. Bewersdorff
reviewed the list of those new fees. He said that they were trying to recoup some
of the cost of the processing so that those costs wouldn't be borne by the general
taxpayer.
Councilor Scheckla asked about the 40% additional fees mentioned. Mr.
Bewersdorff explained that when they received two applications at the same time,
such as a site development review application accompanied by a variance request,
they did not charge the full fee for the second application; they proposed to charge
only 20% of the fee because so much of the work and notifications were done for
the first application anyway.
g. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration
Moved by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Hunt to direct staff to come
back with a resolution.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
Mr. Hendryx reported that over the course of the next year staff would evaluate two
other fee schedules: Community Development looking at building related fees and
Engineering looking at land development fees.
14. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001 - CITY OF TIGARD -
UNDERGROU1 DING UTILITIES EXCEPTION (Set over from April 9, 1996 Council
meeting.) A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section
18.164.120 to add Sections C and D to provide for exceptions to the underground utility
requirement and a fee in lieu of undergrounding.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges
Councilor Moore stated that he would abstain from participating since he had a slight
conflict of interest.
c. Staff Report
Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He said that the intent of this ordinance was
to codify in written form the provisions and standards setting the City's ability to
recover the costs for undergrounding utilities. He explained that sometimes it was
not practical to underground facilities at the time of development as required by City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 23
•
• •
standards. This ordinance set up a method that allowed the City Engineer to
determine when undergrounding was applicable and when it was not, and to collect
a fee in lieu of undergrounding in order to have the money available for
undergrounding in the future when it became practical to do so. He said that it set
up a series of service districts throughout the City to hold the money assessed in
each district for that district's future undergrounding.
d. Public Testimony: None
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the proposed ordinance.
f. Council Questions
Councilor Hunt stated that he opposed setting up service districts because of the
amount of bookkeeping it would generate in tracking the different funds by district
and because any given district might not have enough money by itself to
underground utilities.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the fund wasn't currently set up in service districts. Mr.
Bewersdorff said that the process was currently divided into six or seven districts in
order to provide a more accurate expenditure relative to the area, making sure that
the funds were spent in the area from which they were collected.
Councilor Hunt asked if this was the only fund divided by district. Mr. Bewersdorff
said that he believed that it was the only one. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he
could not support the ordinance.
Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments about one area not
having enough money to underground utilities and the unnecessary bookkeeping. He
suggested pooling the money into one large pot and allowing the City the discretion
to move the funds around as needed. He stated that he would not support the
ordinance either, though item #4 was the only portion that he did not support.
Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought that they needed to have some way to get the
money back to the areas so that those who paid for undergrounding could get it.
Mayor Nicoli concurred.
g Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
Mayor Nicoli suggested sending this to a workshop session for discussion on the sole
issue of contention (item #4). He asked that it be scheduled for a session in June
after Councilor Hunt's return.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that without the ordinance, staff did not have a codified
policy for the procedures they currently used.
CITY, COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 24
• •
Mr. Monahan stated that staff would schedule this for the June work session with
final Council action at the last meeting in June.
15. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
t.
16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3). & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
17. ADJOURNMENT: 10:33 p.m.
Attest: therine Wheatley, City Re order...,..../. ,
•
May ity of Tigard d
D : '/?C? / (CCCP
v
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23. 1996 - PAGE 25
•
Agenda Item Na. 3. 1
Meeting of f q(O
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996
• STUDY SESSION
> Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken
Scheckla.
> Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz
Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Ed Wegner, Public Works Director:
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director:
Pam Beery, Legal Counsel; Ray Valone, Associate Planner; Nadine Smith, Senior
Planner; and, Duane Roberts, Associate Planner.
> Others present included John Rosenberger, Washington County Director of Land Use
& Transportation; Charlie Cameron, Washington County Administrator; and
Commissioner Roy Rogers who arrived at 6:40 p.m.
> Discussion: Country Transfer of Active Area Responsibilities
John Rosenberger, Director of Land Use & Transportation, and Charlie
Cameron, County Administrator, addressed the Council.
Mr. Cameron stated that the intent of the County was to provide efficient
development services in this portion of the County. He explained that this proposal
was made within the context of County 2000 (last updated in 1994) which recognized
the County as two separate organizations: one that provided services to all residents
of the County, and one that provided city services to the city residents in the urban
unincorporated areas of the County (approximately 160,000 people and growing).
Mr. Cameron said the County realized it cannot provide both county-wide and city
services; the Board made a commitment to provide county-wide services and to try
to get the cities to assume responsibility for providing municipal services through
annexation.
Mr. Cameron noted that since County 2000 was adopted, annexation activity has
been slow because of cumbersome annexation statutes. He said that the infill
development within the County urban areas means that the County needs to provide
neighborhood planning services to a growing population.
He also referred to the number of state responsibilities in the process of transferring
to the counties, such as in the area of corrections.
Mr. Cameron mentioned SB 122 that required the counties to plan for urban
services: Washington County decided that the best way to do that was through
intergovernmental agreements. such as one to provide development services to
current county areas that fell within Tigard's future boundaries.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 1
• •
Mr. Cameron emphasized that the County had no ulterior motives in making this
proposal; their sole interest was to implement County 2000. He said it was vital that
they test how to transfer functions.
Councilor Scheckla raised the funding issue, citing law enforcement as an example.
Mr. Cameron said that this had nothing to do with law enforcement at this point.
He pointed out that once an area annexed into the City, the County lost its taxing
authority.
Mr. Rosenberger stated that the County would contract with the City for urban
services such as building, planned development, road maintenance, code
enforcement, etc. He pointed out that all those services were fee-for-service and that
the City would fund those services from the fees collected, in addition to the lump
sum the County paid them to handle those services for the County.
Mr. Cameron said that this transaction should be revenue neutral and that the County
needed to start the SB 122 process. He said that the planning issues of infill
development and neighborhood planning were issues of greater intensity, and that
the County could not provide those services.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the County Board was completely unanimous about this
proposal. Roy Rogers, County Commissioner, stated that he has talked directly
with four out of the five but that the County has not yet voted on this proposal. He
commented that this was a sensitive issue on which both sides were moving
cautiously and collaboratively; the County did not want to make a statement without
consensus from Tigard.
Commissioner Rogers said that the current County Board's position was against
forced annexation. He said that they were giving out information about the County's
cost to provide services. He reiterated that the cities are better at offering urban
services such as parks, library or planning.
Councilor Scheckla asked why the County wanted to downsize its base and let the
cities take over the area. Commissioner Rogers stated they were not downsizing
because even with transferring some functions to the cities, the county population
was growing so fast. He said that they were trying to work with the cities to
provide the level of service wanted by the citizens.
City Administrator Bill Monahan said that the city and county staffs have
discussed a lot of the details of this proposal. The next step was an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) to take to the County Board and the City
Council. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx stated that they have
done their initial evaluation and were still working with the County about refining
several issues.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the public process was defined yet. Mr. Rosenberger said
that, assuming that the Council wanted to move forward, they would go to the
County Board next week and then have staff meet with NAC and CPO leadership
to formulate the public process while working on the technical aspects of the IGA
at the same time.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 2
• •
Mr. Monahan commented that in drafting the ordinances that would implement this,
Tigard staff wanted to make sure to honor any longstanding agreements already
made regarding development, roads, etc.
Commissioner Rogers said that he wanted to make it very clear that the County was
not attempting to excuse itself from any responsibility in those areas or trying to
force people to annex. He said that they were trying to implement economies and
efficiencies that would allow the government to provide services to their citizens at
the least possible cost to the public.
Mr. Rosenberger cited the building construction program as an example of
improving customer service. Councilor Scheckla asked if there wasn't a way to
• share maintenance department equipment. Mr. Rosenberger said that they already
did that.
Mayor Nicoli noted that Councilor Hunt has been briefed on this issue and indicated
that he wanted to move forward.
The Council agreed by consensus to let the staffs move forward.
> Discussion: Menlor Reservoir Site
Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services Director, reported that the Menlor Reservoir
has been in the CIP for four to five years, waiting while staff worked on the water
supply plan. He said that the IWB has heard this proposal and recommended
forwarding it to Council. He directed Council's attention to the preliminary design
report prepared by Murray, Smith & Associates explaining why they still needed to
build this reservoir.
Phil Smith and Chris Huber of Murray, Smith and Associates made a
presentation to the Council.
Mr. Smith reviewed his qualifications to work on this program in lieu of Hal
Murray, the senior partner who recently retired.
Mr. Huber reviewed the history of the site. In 1986 the Tigard Water District
(TWD) conducted a survey of the Bull Mountain area which recommended building
two 2.5 million gallon reservoirs on the south side, and a 2.5 million gallon and 1.5
million gallon reservoir on the Menlor site. He reviewed the specifics of the
proposal in terms of building at certain elevations to create a logical progression of
pressure zones on both sides of the mountain. He said that they identified a potential
site for the 550 foot reservoir on Old Scholls Ferry Road at about 154th.
Mr. Huber reviewed the factors they took into consideration in determining whether
or not they could fit a reservoir at that site, including ground elevation, the size of
the reservoir, the need to replace the existing leaking 800.000 gallon reservoir, and
the capacity needs of the area for 2.5 million gallons of added storage and
approximately 1 million gallons of replacement storage.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 3
• •
Councilor Rohlf asked if there was any way to fix the leaking reservoir and put it
back in service. Mr. Huber said yes.
Mr. Huber reviewed on the map the existing and proposed piping and the
recommended access points. He said that they recommended access from the
Roundtree Estates because it had the most direct access to a major street. He
reviewed the other two possible access sites, Track G through Bull Mountain
Meadows and Sunrise Lane.
Mr. Huber reviewed the recommendations in the report, including looking
immediately for other reservoir sites for the 550 foot reservoir, starting the
conditional permit use process at the County, and making capacity improvements to
the transmission system to insure that adequate water was available. He stated that
they have gone through the pre application process at the County and determined a
process for the City.
Mr. Huber pointed out the project cost estimate of approximately $3 million dollars.
He recommended expanding the current discussions with the property owners of the
land needed for access.
Councilor Scheckla commented on the unsuitability of the Sunrise Lane access. Mr.
Huber concurred, pointing out the difficulties of that site as the reasons why they
were not recommending access through there.
Mr. Wegner reported that the IWB recommended that Murray Smith & Associates
submit a proposal to the staff for consulting services; staff would present it to the
Council on April 23 if it was ready. He reviewed the timeline for the project,
stating that they hoped to appear before the Hearings Officer with their application
in August.
Mr. Monahan reviewed that the general services contract that the City currently had
with Murray Smith & Associates did not include this work. He stated that the IWB
made it very clear that this was a separate project which they wanted Murray Smith
to handle because of their knowledge of and previous work on the water system.
> Discussion: Fences and Hedges
Mr. Monahan noted the memo in the packet regarding this issue raised by Mr.
Larson at a previous meeting; staff recommended that the City not regulate fences
and hedges at this point in time for the purpose suggested by Mr. Larson.
Mr. Hendryx stated that if the City regulated living fences, there would be a
resulting cost to enforce the regulations. He said that the City has not documented
any of these fences and that the implementation process could be time consuming.
He said that other jurisdictions have ordinances that successfully regulate vegetation
in specific view corridors.
Mayor Nicoli commented that this might be a good situation for a mediator. The
Discussion followed.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 4
Councilor Scheckla commented that obscuring views might be a problem with the
reservoirs. Mr. Huber said that issue would have to be addressed in the permit
process.
> Agenda Review
Mr. Monahan stated that one potential non agenda item was the Western EPS
Corporation's request for a monopole, if the Council wished to call it up.
> Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
1. BUSINESS MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.
1.2 Roll Call
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, and Brian
Moore.
Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Gary Alfson, Acting City Engineer;
Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Brian Rager, Engineering; Nadine Smith,
Senior Planner; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Sandy Zodrow, Human
Resources Director; Liz Newton, Asst to City Administrator; and, Jim Hendryx,
Community Development Director.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA
Ben Larson, 14465 SW 125th, addressed the Council regarding his neighbor's "living
fence" of fir trees that has grown to obscure his view of Mt. Hood. He stated that the
neighbor refused to maintain the fir hedge at a reasonable eight-foot height, and has
essentially abandoned his back yard. He said that without the view of Mt. Hood. his
property was devalued.
Mr. Larson cited the letter he received from Mr. Hendryx that included the code definition
of fences obscuring sight and asked why a living fence could not be included in that
definition. He asked that the City support his defense of his rights. He said that he thought
that enforcement of a living fence regulation would not be difficult. -
Mr. Larson stated that the neighbor's hedge was also growing out into his private access
road. and requested that the neighbor be required to maintain the hedge and keep it out of
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 5
• •
his space. He asked the City for help in dealing with this issue, reiterating that he simply
wanted the hedges maintained, not removed.
Mayor Nicoli explained that the Council did not wish to reopen the controversy surrounding
the tree ordinance (which also regulated shrubbery), noting that it had taken two to three
years to reach an agreement within the community regarding the regulation of trees on
private property. He suggested that Mr. Larson and his neighbor go through the mediation
process to reach a solution to this problem.
Mr. Larson stated that he did not feel it was a satisfactory position of the City Council not
to defend him when they would do so for other kinds of site obscuring problems. He said
that this was a solid wall of trees, not a single tree, and that his neighbor's laziness in not
maintaining his backyard was destroying the value of his property. He said that he thought
there should be some kind of protection against allowing someone to build a solid fence in
front of someone else's property.
Mayor Nicoli said that the Council sympathized with Mr. Larson's position but noted the
difficulty the community had in reaching agreement on the tree ordinance. He said that the
Council was willing to see if a solution could be found with the cooperation of Mr. Larson
and his neighbor.
Councilor Rohlf expressed his reluctance to try to pass an ordinance that would impose
regulations city wide simply to address Mr. Larson's specific problem. He said that he
would feel better about discussing this situation if the mediation process was tried and didn't
work.
In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Beery stated that there was nothing
in the code addressing this issue when it affected only private property.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: February 27, 1996 and March 12. 1996
3.2 Receive and File:
a. City Council Calendar
b. Tentative Agenda
3.3 Ratification of Emergency Expenditure - Repair of Sink Hole at Cook Park
3.4 Approve Listing of the City Council Goals for 1996/97
3.5 Endorse Changes to the Community Development Block Grant Intergovernmental
Agreement and Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter
3.6 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Award Contract for Construction of the 109th Avenue Extension and
Authorize the City Administrator to Sign the Contract
3.7 Approve Sprint Spectrum Request for a Monopole
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on Item 3.7. Mr. Monahan stated that the lease
proposed by Sprint to place a monopole on Tigard Water District property included a clause
that automatically renewed the lease every five years with a 20% escalator on the fee (the
industry standard). He noted that the revenue would go to the water fund, not the City of
Tigard.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 6
• •
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the Consent
Agenda.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors
Rohlf, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.")
4. CONSIDER REQUESTS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
4.1 Tigard Festival of Balloons - Resolution No. 96-18
> Stan Baumhofer and Bruce Ellis, Balloon Festival Board, made a presentation to
the Council.
Mr. Ellis reviewed the expanded scope of the Festival with evening performances
in the park, including music and a stage show. He said that the additional cost
exceeded their initial budget, and asked that the Council grant them additional funds
to continue this Festival that was now in its fourth year. He noted that adding
afternoon and evening events would allow more residents of Tigard to participate
since part of the Festival took place in the morning.
Councilor Scheckla asked what entertainment would be provided under Night Glow.
Mr. Ellis said that the balloons would be inflated at night as a backdrop for the
stage. He reviewed the performers with whom they were currently negotiating,
including Tom Grant, the community band, and the Broadway Rose theater group.
Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of how much money came into the community as
a result of the Festival last year. Mr. Ellis said that the Festival has committed to
donating any funds generated beyond the budget to improvements for Cook Park.
In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, he listed the Tigard service
organizations that participated in the Festival. He said that the high school booster
club raised $2900 parking cars in the morning and could double that this year with
evening parking. He said that he did not know exactly how much money the
organizations made; Mr. Baumhofer reported that the Rotary and Chamber made
between $12,000 and $14,000 last year.
Mayor Nicoli commented that the service organizations did make money from this
Festival, as well as the business community from all the out of town visitors. He
said that the service clubs immediately returned the money to the community in
service projects. He said that he supported the request.
Councilor Rohlf cited the Festival's letter to Mr. Lowry, and asked how the Festival
affected the County_ Daze. Mr. Ellis said that as far as they knew, there were no
formal plans made yet for County Daze.
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution
No. 96-18.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-18 by number and title.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING'MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 7
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 96-18, A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING CONTINGENCY
IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE TIGARD FESTIVAL OF BALLOONS FOR
JUNE, 1996.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and
Councilors Rohif, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.")
> 4.2 Tigard Graduation Celebration Committee - Resolution No. 96-19
Mr. Monahan explained that the Committee submitted a request to the Budget
Committee for funds for next year but only recently became aware of the possibility
of funds for this year. He said that this request was for $500 for this year's event.
Mayor Nicoli stated that while he has personally supported the graduation party for
the past several years, he did have concerns with giving city money to what was
essentially a private party; usually the City gave funds to events more accessible to
the general public. He also expressed concerns over the amount requested.
Councilor Moore stated that he also has supported the graduation party for several
years and found the dollar amount requested "light." He suggested donating a larger
amount to support the kids in the community and give them something positive to
do on graduation night.
Councilor Rohlf concurred with Mayor Nicoli's concerns with giving money to a
private party and noted that it could establish a precedent that other schools might
ask the City for money. He commented that on the other hand it was only a small
investment in the youth of the community and that the City did care about its youth.
Councilor Scheckla expressed his disappointment that no one from the Committee
appeared before Council to lobby for their request: He said that he could support
giving the $500.
Mayor Nicoli noted that policy decisions were usually made at the Budget
Committee. Mr. Monahan pointed out that another consideration was whether or not
this request fit into the arts & events program category in the budget.
Councilor Moore said that he was willing to support a $500 donation.
Councilor Scheckla asked if granting this proposal would take money away from the
other budget items to be discussed on April 18. Mr. Monahan explained that this
request was for the present budget and not related to the discussion on the 18th
concerning next year's funding.
Councilor Scheckla noted that Mr. Lowry had informed the Council that the City
had received more money from a certain fund than was anticipated. He asked if
money could be taken from that fund to support this request. Mr. Monahan said that
funds could be taken out of the contingencies available in the general fund. He
confirmed that the City did receive more revenue from the PGE franchise than
anticipated.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 8
i •
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Resolution 96-19.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-19 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-19„A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING CONTINGENCY
IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE TIGARD GRADUATION CELEBRATION
COMMITTEE, FOR JUNE, 1996.
Motion was approved by a 3-1 vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and
Councilors Scheckla and Moore voted "yes"; Councilor Rohlf voted "no.")
5. CONSIDER FINAL ORDER - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 95-
0006 - PHIL LEWIS SCHOOL SITE REQUEST to amend the Comprehensive Plan map
from Public Institutional to General Commercial (C-G) on the Phil Lewis School site.
Location: Northwest corner of Hwy 217 and SW 72nd Avenue
a. Staff Report
Ray Valone, Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the previous Council
action approving this application with a 4-0 vote and one abstention. He said that
the contract purchaser's attorney volunteered to do the findings.
b. Council Discussion
c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-11
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Ordinance No. 9641.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-11 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-11, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT BY THE TIGARD TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, CPA 95-06.
Motion was approved by a roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and
Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.")
6. PUBLIC DARING-CONSIDERATION OR PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES
PROJECTS AND CONSIDERATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH METRO
Review of recommendations from the Citizen Involvement Teams. Planning Commission
and City Staff. Tigard is entitled to receive 5758,000 in local share funds from Metro.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 9
• •
b. Declarations or Challenges
Councilor Moore declared that he had been a member of the Planning Commission
at the time the Commission made its recommendation to City Council but that he felt
he could participate because of new testimony received by the Council.
c. Staff Report
Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council probably would not take action on this item this
evening, though they would take public testimony. He explained that the Council
wanted to buy all the properties on the list and would investigate other funding
sources or mechanisms to do so.
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the specifics of the $753,000 of local
share funds received from Metro Greenspaces to purchase greenspaces and trail
related projects (no active park improvements included). He said that the staff and
CITs developed a list of potential sites. He reported that the City has agreed to a
$125,000 purchase price for the Fern Street property, the first priority on the list.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the other projects on the list for which they had $663,000 left.
He noted other potential funding sources such as partnership opportunities with
Metro through the regional trail component in the greenspaces bond measure and
with Washington County which included two sites of interest to Tigard in its list of
projects for its Greenspaces money. Another potential funding source was the park
SDC funds which should generate $440,000 per year on an average.
Mr. Roberts said that staff conducted a preliminary owner survey to see which of
the identified target areas were most receptive to selling land and allowing the City
to develop a pathway.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the chart listing the priorities of each CIT and of the Planning
Commission. He pointed out that the intent of the bond measure was to protect
buildable land.
Mr. Roberts recommended that the Council adopt the Planning Commission
priorities with some modifications, including price changes. He noted that the
neighborhood pledged 532.000 towards purchase of the Bond Street property; the
Wetlands Conservancy is holding the money has pledged it contingent on the City
agreeing not to extend the road in the future.
Mr. Roberts recommended that the City try to partner with the County on the
purchase of the 129th site. He commented that Metro officials strongly
recommended that jurisdictions maximize their potential for receiving regional
corridor dollars, citing the identification of a land acquisition corridor running from
Hall Blvd down to the existing trail as a potential partnership opportunity. He said
that any money not allocated on list projects should be shifted to trails to maximize
the leverage opportunity with Metro.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 10
• •
d. Public Testimony
Mayor Nicoli opened the hearing to public testimony and explained the hearing
procedures.
> Jack Broome, PO Box 26, Tualatin, Wetlands Conservancy Properties Director,
referred to his letter to Mayor Nicoli. He said that when they talked with the Gage
sisters about acquiring the property and with others about donating money towards
purchasing the property, they pledged to protect all four acres as open space. He
stated that the Gage sisters have agreed to the bargain price of $150,000 and the
neighbors have pledged S32,000 based on that understanding. He said that the
Wetlands Conservancy felt that it needed to honor that pledge.
Mayor Nicoli asked if the Gage sisters had put any time constraints on the offer.
Mr. Broome stated that though their option had expired, he understood that the
Gages were still open to the proposal, as they wanted to protect their property.
> Matt St. Peter, 14356 SW 130th, showed slides of the land around 129th and Bull
Mountain to illustrate the wilderness nature of the property. He stated that he
supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to purchase area F-3 on 129th
and Bull Mountain, citing as reasons that it was a valuable area and the only
remaining undeveloped land in that vicinity. He pointed out that the essentially-flat
topography of the site allowed wheelchair access while the rear slope connected the
property to another property to the north being dedicated to the City. He said that
the entire 12 acre site provided the experience of being surrounded by a wilderness
area.
> Scott White, 14423 SW 130th, distributed a memo dated April 8, 1996 that
included a petition signed by residents of Wood Fir Estates requesting purchase of
the F-3 forest area on 129th and Bull Mountain Road. He spoke to the purchase of
this parcel as a Tigard issue that would benefit the entire city, much as the other
parks and trails benefitted the city. He stated that the property owners have
indicated to him that they intended to sell this property this summer, either to the
City, the County, or to developers.
Mr. White said that he thought the purchase of this valuable land fulfilled the
Greenspaces initiative. He expressed his appreciation to the Mayor and Council for
trying to maximize land acquisitions and spoke for maximizing trail funding as well.
He asked that the Council move now, pointing out that the County has also identified
this as a Greenspaces area. He asked that the Council not defer its action to the
point where the property was lost.
> Mark Brennan, 14378 SW 130th, spoke in support of the Planning Commission's
recommendation to purchase the F-3 forested area at 129th and Bull Mountain. He
said that he and his family moved to the area because of the forested nature of that
immediate area. He said that with the amount of development occurring, he liked
the City's pursuit of greenspaces and passive parks to keep the beauty of the area.
> Chris Counts. 9600 SW Riverwood Lane. spoke in support of the purchase of the
Cook Park parcel (F-2). He thanked Duane Roberts and Liz Newton on staff and
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 11
• •
the Friends of Cook Park for their work over the past four to five months to enhance
Cook Park as a resource for the entire community. He summarized the report on
the F-2 parcel that he had presented previously to the Planning Commission and to
the Council.
Mr. Counts contended that the parcel F-2 should be purchased with greenspace
dollars because it contained sensitive forest, valuable wildlife habitat and had strong
community support. He noted that the 1987 Tigard park plan recommended
purchase of parcels such as this to complete the Tualatin River Greenway. He stated
that this was an ecologically significant parcel.
• Kenneth Steele, 8035 SW Churchill Court, and Rick Weigill, 8110 SW Bond
Street, Friends of Tigard Greenspace, addressed the Council.
Mr. Steele stated that they supported the staff recommendation of purchasing
buildable lands before building trails. He said that he thought that in the future there
would be more money available for building trails from the SDC funds and other
sources. He pointed out that the F-4 parcel was very buildable, was the only parcel
with funding from the neighbors, and had a seller willing to sell below the assessed
value. He noted that the Gage sisters have been very willing to grant extensions of
time when the Friends' fund raising efforts did not reach the amount needed; the
Gages' intent was to see the land preserved in its natural state.
Mr. Weigill stated that he felt that the Gage sisters saw selling the land below its
value as a means of preserving all four acres as wetlands.
Councilor Rohif asked what impact would building the road to make the connection
have on the money pledged by the neighbors. Mr. Weigill said that many neighbors
would be concerned about that because their primary concern was safety for the
children in the area. He said that they did not want to encourage traffic on the road.
Mr. Steele said that part of the bargain included not developing the road, and that
the Gages might not be willing to sell it for that price if it included the road.
> Mike Boyd, 14390 SW 130th Avenue, expressed his support for the purchase of the
F-3 parcel on 129th and Bull Mountain. He said that one of the issues right now in
this area was the lack of places to walk; there were no sidewalks on Bull Mountain
Road. He said that he thought it would be advantageous and safer for children and
pedestrians to have an area where they could walk and/or play. He pointed out that
they were running out of room up there with all the recent development.
• Mark Vossler, 9500 SW Riverwood, stated that he was there to testify on behalf
of the South CIT. He said that they reached consensus on a strategy of maximum
land acquisition with the dollars as opposed to developing trails with the Greenspaces
money. He said that they favored distributing the money over several projects rather
than using most of it on a single project. He stated that they also favored
partnerships with Washington County on purchasing the larger more expensive
projects like area F-3.
Mr. Vossler reviewed the three proposed sites that the CIT found to be outstanding:
area F-2 north of Cook Park to complete the Tualatin River Greenway, area F-3
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 12
• •
with its strong neighborhood support, and area F-1 to complete the Fanno Creek
corridor.
> Brent Black, 15690 SW 82nd Avenue, supported the comments of Mr. Vossler in
support of purchasing the three proposed areas. He pointed out that area F-5 was
the parcel at Bond Street and 82nd, not area F-3.
e. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
f. Council Consideration
Mayor Nicoli said that the Council would consider this at the informal workshop
session next week. He noted that their goal would be to take formal action at the
April 23 meeting.
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 9.:15 p.m.
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:24 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA)
95-0007 PRICE/HIRING
Price requests annexation of one parcel of 0.41 acres into the City and changing the
comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County Office Commercial to City of
Tigard Professional Office/C-P. Hirning requests annexation of one parcel of 0.34 acres
into the city and changing the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County
Office Commercial to City of Tigard Professional Office/C-P. LOCATION: Southeast
corner of SW Hall Blvd and SW Oak Street.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges: None •
c. Staff Report
Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the
location of the two parcels at the southeast corner of Hall Blvd and Oak Street in
Metzger; the vacant north parcel belonged to Dorothy Hirning and Sharon Sargeant
while the south parcel with a duplex belonged to Ira and Linda Price. He said that
these two separate proposals were combined into one application for annexation.
Mr. Valone said that the proposal complied with all city policies, met the
requirements of the Boundary Commission for a double majority action, and had
adequate services and facilities available to the properties. He stated that the zoning
for the land upon annexation would be Commercial Office. He said that the only
notified party responding with an objection was the Police Department who
recommended that the owner of the south parcel comply with the zoning code
provisions prior to annexation into the city.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 13
•
Mr. Valone explained that the back part of the Prices' parcel was used for a tree
cutting operation that was illegal under the current county zoning of Office
Commercial; because of lack of compliance action by the owner, the County was
pursuing an enforcement action against him. Annexation into Tigard was one of the
three options available to the owner; however, the use was also illegal under the
City's Commercial Office zoning and would require the City to take enforcement
action against the owner.
Mr. Valone stated that staff agreed with the Police Department and recommended
that the owners of the south parcel comply with the zoning code prior to annexing
into the city. He recommended that the Council annex only the Hirning property.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the owners have been spoken to about withdrawing their
tree cutting operation. Mr. Valone said that the County talked to them about it, and
he informed the Prices earlier that the use was illegal in the City. Staff was
recommending against annexation; however, Mr. Price indicated that he still wanted
to go forward with the annexation.
d. Public Testimony
> OPPONENTS
Terry Wolfe, 10545 SW 85th Avenue, reviewed the various problems he saw with
the property to the back of him. He said that there was now a cliff off the back side
of his property, causing him concern for the safety of his young children and the
possibility of landslides. He said that the owner parked large pieces of equipment
on the land, and ran the operation 7 days a weeks, 365 days a year, beginning early
in the morning.
Mr. Wolfe presented signatures from the surrounding neighborhood disapproving of
a tree cutting operation at that location. He asked what the City and County
regulations were regarding someone who started a business without filing for
permits, especially when the business turned out to be illegal.- He noted the
detrimental effects on the neighborhood including loud noise, traffic violations,
devalued properties, destruction of a wetlands, and the presence of a garbage dump.
Mr. Wolfe asked that Mr. Price's business be removed if it wasn't supposed to be
there, and that the damage he has caused to the neighbors' property be rectified. He
said that he had videotaped evidence of the situation.
> APPLICANTS
> Judy Huff, representing Dorothy Hirning, stated that Ms. Hirning wanted
her property to be annexed so she could get utilities. She said that Ms.
Hirning was not aware of any illegal activity on her parcel but was trying to
determine what was going on.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 14
• •
Councilor Moore asked why the applications were combined. Mr. Valone said that
they were two separate requests coming in about the same time that were combined
by the staff for ease of processing and cost savings in the Boundary Commission
process.
> Ira Price, owner of Lot 2800, stated that he has talked with Mr. Valone.
Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on what was involved in his tree cutting
operation. Mr. Price explained that he served residential property owners
who needed trees cut down for whatever reason and then he cut the trees for
firewood.
Mayor Nicoli reiterated that Mr. Price had an illegal use on his property that
the City would pursue through the court system to remove from the property.
He asked Mr. Price if he was willing to discontinue the use and move it to
another zone where that use was permitted.
Mr. Price commented that there were other businesses in the City that did
exactly the same thing he did, only they were listed as landscaping firms
instead of tree cutting operations at the state level.
Mayor Nicoli stated that the staff has advised the Council that Mr. Price's
use was illegal, and therefore the City would send an officer out to cite Mr.
Price, should a complaint be filed.
Mr. Price stated that he would be cutting himself out of a livelihood: He
contended that just down the street, 50-feet from Safeway, another tree
service operated doing exactly what he did. He said that he wanted to annex
into the City to get better security and services for the duplex on the
property. He stated that he had not been aware when he bought the property
that he could not operate his tree service on it. He stated that he has since
cleaned up the unsightly mess on his property.
Mr. Price said that his operation was brought to the attention of the County
by a neighbor on the east whose property extended some 20 feet on to his
property (this was done when the flag lot was developed to achieve a 5.000
square foot lot). He said that the neighbor built an 8' x 10' shed on
approximately 15 feet of his property. and after the neighbor reported him
to the County, Mr. Price asked him to move his shed.
Mr. Price said the County noticed the illegal operation when they came out
to look at the property. He said that the County suggested he annex into
Tigard which was why he was here.
Mayor Nicoli stated that while the Council had no objection to Mr. Price as
a resident of the city, they were concerned at the likelihood of immediate
court action upon annexation into the City.
Mr. Price stated that he wanted to know why others have been annexed in
and he couldn't come in. Mayor Nicoli said that they would have to
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 15
• •
investigate that on an individual property basis, noting the various ways
someone might come into the City with that use.
Mr. Price confirmed that none of his operation extended on to Ms. Hirning's
property; he only stored firewood there temporarily with her permission. It
has. since been removed. He noted that Ms. Hirning was in the process of
selling her property.
Councilor Rohlf asked if Mr. Price has talked with any of the other
neighbors about their concerns regarding his operation. Mr. Price reviewed
the neighbors he has talked to. all of whom appreciated his cleaning up the
mess. He said that the only complaint he received was from the neighbor
who built his shed on Mr. Price's property and objected to the cutting down
of the trees. He noted that development of the properties was inevitable. He
stated that he would put up whatever type of fencing was required to improve
the property.
> OPPONENTS
> Mike Davis, 8535 SW Pine, expressed concern at saying that the property
was "cleaned up" when there were piles of tree clippings all over the
property. He said that he hoped that there were regulations that would
prohibit running machinery at 6 a.m., require onsite sanitation facilities for
the workers, and prevent excavation of a property without provisions for the
protection of the neighbors' properties. He mentioned concerns about
landslides on Mr. Wolfe's property.
Mr. Davis said that he understood that permits were required prior to
excavation. Though he did not know if such permits had been obtained, he
was led to believe by others in the neighborhood that those permits were not
obtained. He stated that he was opposed to the City of Tigard taking on the
financial responsibility of lawsuits to evict an illegal business, contending that
the County should settle the matter to their satisfaction prior to the City's
allowing Mr. Price to annex into the city.
• Pat Kindrick, 10565 SW 85th Avenue, commented that the property
smelled like a sewer and was covered with gravel. water, mud and chips.
She said that for the 45 years she has lived here, it had been pretty to look
in that direction but now they can see Hall Blvd with trucks going in and out
on a daily basis. She suggested looking at Mr. Wolfe's videotape.
> Hazel Lyon, 10440 SW 87th Avenue, stated that the property was an
eyesore and that trucks were parked on the property. She said that she hoped
something could be done for the neighbors.
- > APPLICANT
> Dorothy Hirning, SW 90th. answered questions from Mayor Nicoli. Mayor
Nicoli asked if she was aware that by allowing her neighbor to operate a
portion of his business on her property, she might be in violation of City
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 16
• •
ordinances. Ms. Hirning said that she allowed Mr. Price only to store some
firewood temporarily on her property with the understanding that it would be
moved as soon as he could move it.
e. Staff Recommendation
Mr. Valone said that staff recommended that Council adopt the ordinances allowing
only Dorothy Hirning's lot 2801 into the City and excluding lot 2800.
f. Council Questions
Q Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-20 & Ordinance No. 96-12
Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought it would be silly for the City to take on the
problems Washington County has already addressed. He said that he supported
allowing in only the Hirning property.
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No 96-
20 per Attachment A.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-20 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-20, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A,
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, CCA 95-07.
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and
Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.")
Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt'Ordinance
No. 96-12 per Attachment A.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-12 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-12, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING A.N
EFFECTIVE DATE, ZPA 95-07.
Motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli and Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla. and Moore voted "yes.") -�
<-z6�-o)
8. PUBLIC HEARING_(LEGISLATIVE) CITY OF TIGARD -cUNDERGROUt DLNG�
1IILITIES EXCEPTION-3
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C and D to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 17
•
in lieu of undergrounding. Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 96-0001 LOCATION:
City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning
Goals 1,2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c and
7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
a. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing.
b. Declarations or Challenges
Councilor Moore declared that he had been the PGE representative who presented
the original request to the City Council two or three years ago; this might be a
conflict of interest for him. He said that he also had some concerns about the
wording of the proposed agreement. He asked for further Council discussion of this
issue during a study session.
Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a rush on this item, pointing out that
Councilor Hunt wasn't here. He said that he also had some questions regarding this
issue.
Mr. Hendryx said that there was no rush on this; it was something that needed to be
cleaned up in the Code. He said that staff could provide whatever explanations the
Council needed at a study session.
The Council discussed Councilor Moore's request and agreed to advise Councilor
Hunt of the situation and to set the item over to April 23.
9. CONTINUATION OF APPEAL OF PDR 95-005, SUB 95-004, SLR 95-007
(HILLSHIRE WOODS H)
a. Staff recommendation: City Council-withdraw the subdivision application.
b. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-21
Motion by Councilor Rohif, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution
No. 96-21.
The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-21 by number and title.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21, A RESOLUTION TO WITHDRAW DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION OF SUBDIVISION 95-04, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW, PDR 95-05, SENSITIVE LANDS REVIEW 95-07, FOR THE FERN
STREET METRO GREENSPACES PROPERTY.
The motion passed by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla and Moore voting "yes.")
10. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE CAPITAL
LEVY
a. Staff Report
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 18
• •
b. Council Discussion and Direction
This item was continued to April 23.
11. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT
a. Staff Report
Pam Beery, City Attorney, presented the staff report. She stated that the resolution
now reflected the Council's discussions and allowed for an annual fee adjustment at
the discretion of the Council. She said that the fee adjustment had been mandatory
in the previous draft.
b. Council Discussion
Ms. Beery confirmed for Councilor Rohlf that this provided for the Council to make
a determination as to whether or not there would be a return on the investment for
the applicant. She said that when the applicant made his request before Council, that
request included the adjustments.
Councilor Moore commented that he thought the changes made the reimbursement
district were more fair to those who had the district imposed on them. He said that
it seemed odd that they would not have some kind of reasonable return on.their
investment of funds.
Ms. Beery stated that in the first draft, the adjustment was a given; Councilor Hunt
had previously expressed concern that the Council have discretion over the
adjustment, rather than it being automatic.
Councilor Moore stated that the term "annual fee adjustment" implied that the fee
was adjusted every year rather than set for the entire period of the reimbursement
district. Ms. Beery reiterated that the increases would be determined at the
beginning of the district and would not change from year to year.
c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-13
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance
No. 96-13.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-13 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-13, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.09
(REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE).
Motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli and Councilors Rohlf. Scheckla. and Moore voted "yes.")
12. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION - A.N ORDINANCE REPEALING TIGARD
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.16 - PARKS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1996 - PAGE 19
• •
a. Staff Report
Ms. Beery explained that this was a housekeeping measure to repeal a section of the
code rendered obsolete by the Council's decision regarding parks SDCs.
b. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-14
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt
Ordinance No. 96-14.
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-14 by number and title.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-14, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL
CODE BY REPEALING CHAPTER 3.16
Motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor
Nicoli and Councilors Rohif, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.")
13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:25
p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real
property transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
15. ADJOURNMENT: 11:58 p.m.
Ltd 7ammr.
Attest: , / Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
, yor, City o Tigard
Date. ct-45}_ / L /`( `�Lv
f:lrecorder\ccm\ccm0409.96
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 9. 1996 - PAGE 20
• •
After further discussion, Commissioner Holland moved to accept the applicant's
proposal (SDR 96-0003/PDR 96-0001), with Plan A1.2, as long as they meet the
City's conditions of approval. Dick Bewersdorff advised that, if they chose to
approve the application, the Commission would have to make a finding that
Section 18.106.020(1) requirements have been met. Commissioner Griffith
seconded Holland's motion. A voice vote was taken and the vote was 3-3.
Commissioners Griffith, Holland, and DeFrang voted for the motion.
Commissioners Wilson, Padgett, and Anderson voted against the motion.
Commissioner Padgett moved to hold the public record open until the next meeting
to allow the applicant more time to submit information supporting the idea of the
restaurant parking spaces qualifying as off-peak. Commissioner Holland
seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
Will D'Andrea informed the applicants that the code is concerned about when
people come to the restaurant - do they come at the same time as people using
the office spaces.
5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
PROPOSAL: The City proposes amendments to the Community Development
Code Section 18.164.120 to provide for exceptions to underground utility
requirements. ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11;
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1;
Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
STAFF REPORT
Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff presented the staff report on behalf of the
City. He said the City is proposing amendments to the development code to all
exceptions to underground utility requirements. He said these are requirements
the City has been putting in place by conditions with no authorizing language in the
code. He advised that the comp plan indicates utilities should be placed
underground, but in some cases, the cost has been difficult. He said the City
Attorney's office has drafted some amendments relating to this.
He noted that this would give the Engineering staff more options. He said this is
for when there are existing lines, not for new utilities. He said the City has not
received any objections to this and the utility companies supported it.
Bewersdorff said the fees paid in lieu of would go into a specific area.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
No one signed up to speak on this issue. -
PLANNING CON INIISSION MEETING MINUTES- March I S. 1996-Page 6
• •
AGENDA
TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION q
MARCH 18, 1996 - 7:30 P.M.
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER -TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
4. APPROVE MINUTES.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
5.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 96-0003/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW (PDR) 96-0001 DURHAM 99 ASSOCIATES, LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Request: A request for the following development applications:
_1.) Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,775 square
foot commercial building, with additional modifications to the existing parking within
the center; 2.) Planned Development Review. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: General Commercial (C-G). ZONING DESIGNATION: General
Commercial, Planned Development - C-G(PD). LOCATION: North of SW
Durham Road and west of SW Summerfield Drive. (WCTM 2S1 10DC, tax lots
400 and 500). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.62, 18.80, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18.116, 18.120,
18150 and 18.164.
5.2 ZONE ORDINANCE ADMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
PROPOSAL: The City proposes amendments to the Community Development
Code Section 18.164.120 to provide for exceptions to underground utility
requirements. ZONING DESIGNATION: N/A LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11;
Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1;
Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. ADJOURNMENT
• • u Agenda Item: 5.2
Hearing Date: , rch 18.1996 Time: 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT CrMMOFTIGARD
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASE: FILE NAME UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION
Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 96-0001
PROPOSAL: The City proposes amendments to the Community Development
Code Section 18.164.120 to provide for exceptions to underground
utility requirements.
APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, Oregon 97223
ZONING
DESIGNATION: N/A
LOCATION: City Wide
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community
Development Code.Chapters 18.30 and 18.164. •
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance program according
to the findings found in Section III of this report.
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Past City Engineer, Randy Wooley, requested that the City attorney's office draft
amendments to the underground utiiity requirement of the Community Development Code
Section 18.164.120. The attached ordinance provides for exceptions to the
undergrounding of utilities where technical difficulty and cost outweigh the benefits. In
these individually determined circumstances, a fee in lieu of undergrounding utilities is
Staff Report City of Tigard/Undergrounding Utilities Exception Page 1
'then •required to be uled to guarantee undergrounding S the service area. The
amendments apply to existing utility lines. All new utility lines will be placed underground.
The addition of the two new Community Development Code Sections C. and D. to
18.164.120 replicates what the City has previously done through conditions of approval
on development projects.
IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
LCDC Goals:
Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. Notice of the hearings and opportunity for response was
advertised in the local newspaper and request for comments were sent to all CITS,
DLCD, and all utility companies.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Adoption of implementation measures is provided for
under Goal 2 and ORS 197. The proposed ordinance requirements fine-tune existing
adopted and acknowledged ordinance requirements.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services. Energy services is listed as a key facility.
Public facilities and sewers in urban areas are to be provided at levels, necessary and
suitable for urban uses. Local government is allowed to determine standards and the
•
level of service.
Comprehensive Plan Policies:
1.1.1 a. - This policy requires that legislative changes are consistent with statewide
planning goals and the regional development plan. The findings above address
statewide goals. Metro was sent a request for comments.
2.1.1 - This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement process. A request for
comments was sent to all City Citizen Involvement Team Individuals and was legally
advertised.
2.1.3 - This policy requires that information on issues be available. The staff report and
findings, and proposed ordinance have been available for review since March 7, 1996.
7.1.2 c. - This policy requires all new development utilities to be placed underground.
The amendments recognize that technical difficulties sometimes outweigh the benefit of
undergrounding existing utilities and establishes a fee in lieu of undergrounding to
guarantee undergrounding within the service area. All new utilities are to be placed
underground.
7.7.1 - This policy requires land use planning shall be coordinated with private utility
companies to ensure that availability of services when needed. Utility companies were
asked to comment. The proposed amendments provide for a case by case analysis of
technical difficulty and cost while guaranteeing undergrounding by a fee in lieu, if not
feasible when development occurs.
Staff Report City of Tigard/Undergrounding Utilities Exception Page 2
• •
Community Development Code:
Chapter 18.30 -This code section establishes the procedures for legislative amendments
to the Community Development Code.
Chapter 18.164 - This is the section of the code to which the amendments are being
added. •
V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS
The City of Tigard Engineering Department and Building Division have reviewed the
proposal and have offered no comments or objections.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Service providing utilities have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have
offered the following comments:
GTE states that it's GTE's position that it's not economical to place a new cable
underground when they have existing aerial facilities along a route. Financially GTE
cannot underground all existing facilities when we require reinforcement of an existing
lead. GTE is in agreement with undergrounding all facilities within new developments.
No other comments have been received.
PREPARED BY: Richard Bewers rff DATE
Senior Planner -
Staff Report City of Tigard/Undergrounding Utilities Exception Page 3
• CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON • T
DRAF
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities to
be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement .
Standards" is amended by adding Sections 18.164.120(0) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exception to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs
when the development is proposed to take place on a street
where existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost
and technical difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs
the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the
development. The determination shall be on a case-by-case
basis. The most common, but not he only, such situation is a
short frontage development for which undergrounding would
result in the placement of additional poles, rather that the
removal of above ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right-
of-way from the applicant's property shall pay a fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from
the requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the
fee in lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall
apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be
placed underground.
ORDINANCE No. 96-_
Page 1
u. ree in ueu or unaergrvunaing:
UHAFT
- 1. The City Engineer shall establish utiiservice areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development
does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this
code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total
estimated cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be
allocated on a front foot basis to each party within the service
area. The fee due from any applicant shall be calculated based
on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs
incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The
City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after
review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the
request for credit. In no case shall the credit exceed the amount
of the calculated "fee in-lieu" for the project.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which
assures that monies collected in a service area are used for
projects within that service area.
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council,
signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by
number and title only, this day of , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 1996.
James Nicoli, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date Ocitywidebrd\zoa96-01.ord
ORDINANCE No. 96-_
Page 2
P 4 238 672
o n•�+ Receipt for .
▪ V tCertified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided
•4 Do not use for International Mail
(See Reverse)
M▪ Sent to
Dept. of Lan3aneecv. & Devlput.
Street and No.
$1 1175 Quirt Street, N.E.
P.O.,State and ZIP Code
Salem, OR 97310-0590
Postage
• � Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
O Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing I t J
cr) to Whom&Date Delivered
m Return Receipt Showing to Whom, 4.1
�>'I C Date,and Addressee's.Address 0
rte; TOTAL Posta(:)‘;.•3 111:.41�/i\ $ �lt
'S�LG_• &Fees ^—��
a 0
CO
Postmar .bil ate\\-". a4j
*4)
0-11.4 15= k` ,, $
SENDER: and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
to •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. 0 following services.(for an C
114 •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form suihat we can return this extra fee):
1 d ■p card to aac?this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address •� /
■Write•Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. . f
m a 4 p 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery N ►
t ■The Rbtum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date ,,,
c , delivered. - Consult postmaster for fee. .9
1:: 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number d 1
d Dept of Land Conservation P 431 238 672 E '
E
aria Development 4b.Service Type
8 1175 Court Street, N.E. ❑ Registered ® Certified °C
w Salem OR 97310-0590 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured .y
cc ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD
a7.Date of Delive�rryii �, w
c.
a
m 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested c 1
w
cc and fee is paid) ~ 1
•
6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent)
X . �
�' J f
f— PS Form 3 1 , December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt
NOTICE PROPOSED AlOPNDMENT
- This form must'be received by DLCD at least.45 days prior to.the final hearing: .r t t,
y w:: y: wCaLrSr �w ''`' %1: •
ORS ..
'197610`'and'OAR-Chapter 660;Division 18`~ ~ '"
See reverse side for submittal requirements
Jurisdiction City of Tigard
Date of Final Hearing 4/9/96 Local File# .2OA 96-0001
Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? Yes _ No Date
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
X Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment
New Land Use Regulation
Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical.terms. Do not write°See Attached.°
Amendment to the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to
provide for eyc4 ptions to tividPrrjrolinA i,t-i l i t-req,i remeritta anA to prnvi AA fppg
in lieu where not technically or financially feasible.
Plan Map Change From - to
Zone Map Change From to
Location: Acres Involved:
Specified change in Density: Current Density Proposed Density
Applicable Goals: Goals 1, 2 & 11 Is an Exception proposed? _ Yes X .No
Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts:
Metro and private utilities.
Local Contact: Richard Bewersdorff Phone: (503) 639-4171
Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223
DLCD File# Date Rec'd #Days Notice
•
CITY OF TIGARD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities
to be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by adding Lections 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exception to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where
existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost
and technical difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs
the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development.
The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most
common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage
development for which undergrounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above
ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right of
way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee
in lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall
apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be
placed underground.
IMO
D. Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development
does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this
code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a
front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs
incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The
City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after
review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the
request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which assures
that monies collected in a service area are used for projects within
that service area.
PASSED: By vote of all City Council members present after being read by
number and title only this day of , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED this day of , 1996.
Jim Nicoll, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Date
PJb\acm\90024\uodergrd.or1(1/23/96)
. • •
• e
. __/_��IN_���,..,
I
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: David Scott. Building Official
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)96-0001
> CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: . City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
XWe have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact • of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
—
•
Please provide thefollowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: J Gap Z
IPhone Number(s): 3 il I
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
• •RECEIVED PLANNING
FEB 2 1 1996 701010116\
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Brian Moore. Portland General Electric
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION <
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add'
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in'
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
✓ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:.
•
•
•
•
Prease provide the foCrowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: e1
IPhone Number(s): �� l3Sl
•
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Cathy Wheatley. City Recorder
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION <
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. •
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
-,c)6/6, Is aoe cuyrazzr-uvt
lo/w,..eat. r
Pkase provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: P4,J
IPhone Number(s): YL-3b 4
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
} • •
CITY OF TIGARD
ORDINANCE NO. �.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities
to be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fords that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapte 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by addin � tions 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
C. Exception to Undergrounding Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where
existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost
and technical difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs
the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development.
The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most
common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage
development for which undergrounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above
ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right of
way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee
in lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall
apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be
placed underground.
• •
D. Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development
does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this
code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a
front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the fee for costs
incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The
City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after
review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the
request for credit.
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which assures
that monies collected in a service area are used for projects within
that service area.
PASSED: By vote of all City Council members present after being read by
number and title only this day of _ , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED this day of-,, , 1996.
Jim Nicoll, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
/ C1
Date '• '_.0
PJb\acm\90024\undergrd.orl(1/23/96)
• • -
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENT IVED PLANNING
DATE: February 14, 1996
FEB 21199
TO: Nadine Smith, Senior Long Range Planner
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION <
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
•
(lease provide thefofawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting:
Phone Number(s): I
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
' , !
, ti 1
.))) t
' .i\\ ' k .s. . 1
1
1 t
i
, a
vm 347 cu,
(r✓ ?—U/ — -7 V�
h
L c -' vcv0C-,
c
Vg S ''''4.^Zi
145: 1-1 rn 1 7)—z -I a L T' rV V)(/ '�^-�� lac,T Ctp
("1
��_ �r�N�,-'►s ?Q 7 c7�S° (� ('2_> J
6-V
S Q 7r' o?.i S
U
• 0
(Z 6 /�.„,,,,���pIN�IM�i�A
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14, 1996 . - . .
TO: Elaine Self. GTE Engineering Office
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
> CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future: -If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February" 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your corrimerits. -If your are-unable-to-respond by-the-above date,-please-phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
•
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
5( Written comments provided below:
18 . 164 . 120 C . 4 .
It ' s GTE ' s position that it ' s not ec'anbmical to place a new cable •-ndergrounrl
when we have existing: aerial facilities a-1nng a rcutP Financially GTE cannot
underground all existing facilities _when—We :regiiirP reinforcement of an existin
lead . GITE is in ' gteeme"nt" With -uriderground,i•ng all .facilities within new
developments .
((lease provide the foio winginformation).Name of Person(s) Commentin �4w .):t3__)
IPhone Number(s): 5 'S ��� y ��
,A 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
cdEIVED PLANNING
o 8 199d
A�iNyg \
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Brian Rager, Development Review Engineer
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE: •
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)96-0001
> CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18:164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding., LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below_or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
_ We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
':': •Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:— ,o.►an 41A4 pat.p -p cf-1").
SceR- —c , is the �F ITS - �-Q-�E -Tekst.)
• D 3 AM> %Ksc�cT- -R, i-t,kt-r Tim cizeorc
° I v,►' Do -sue
Ut, ✓ -tang wt-(N R-. ?
(Tlease provide the forlinving information) Name of Person(s) Commenting:
1110
I Phone Number(s): l
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
•
• •
� l 0; -rtier-r
`t. -L._ A LIMA'( - --cv AAA0-+-4-1.
•
•
CITY OF TIGARD
ORDINANCE NO. \._
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.164 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
AUTHORIZING EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY REQUIREMENTS.
WHEREAS, Section 18.164.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code requires underground utilities
to be installed under certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that there are certain instances where exceptions to those
requirements are warranted as set forth herein;
NOW, T EREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.164, "Street and Utility Improvement
Standards" is amended by adding k_sections 18.164.120(C) and (D) to read as
follows:
18.164.120 Utilities
•
C. Exception to Undergrouncling Requirement:
1. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding costs when
the development is proposed to take place on a street where
existing utilities which are not underground will serve the
development and the approval authority determines that the cost
and technical difficulty of undergrounding the utilities outweighs
the benefit of undergrounding in conjunction with the development.
The determination shall be on a case-by-case basis. The most
common, but not the only, such situation is a short frontage
development for which undergrounding would result in the
placement of additional poles, rather than the removal of above
ground utilities facilities.
2. An applicant for a development which is served by utilities which
are not underground and which are located across a public right of
way from the applicant's property shall pay the fee in lieu of
undergrounding.
3. Properties within the CBD zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements for undergrounding of utility lines and from the fee
in lieu of undergrounding.
4. The exceptions in subsections 1 through 3 of this section shall
apply only to existing utility lines. All new utility lines shall be
placed underground.
• •
D. Fee in Lieu of Undergrounding.
1. The City Engineer shall establish utility service areas in the City.
All development which occurs within a utility service area shall
pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding for utilities if the development
does not provide underground utilities, unless exempted by this
code.
2. The City Engineer shall establish the fee by utility service area
which shall be determined based upon the estimated cost to
underground utilities within each service area. The total estimated
cost for undergrounding in a service area shall be allocated on a
front foot basis to each party within the service area. The fee due
from any applicant shall be calculated based on a front foot basis.
3. An applicant shall receive a credit against the .fee for costs
incurred in the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. The
City Engineer shall determine the amount of the credit, after
review of cost information submitted by the applicant with the
request for credit. la.e c.sz> .5=4,00-4— imac crr -$
't c
NAIDANcr o Tice ccs-s..r✓Ylto -4.490 to PgableCt
4. The funds collected in each service area shall be used for
undergrounding utilities only within that service area. The City
Administrator shall establish an accounting system which assures
that monies collected in a service area are used for projects within
that service area.
PASSED: By vote of all City Council members present after being read by
number and title only this day of , 1996.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
APPROVED this day of , 1996.
Jim Nicoli, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Date
p jb\acm190024\timdcrgrd.or1(1/23/96)
•
REIVED PLANNING
A i�
FEB 2 0 1996 .•!,L
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: John Benneth. South Tigard CIT
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)96-0001
> CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
41—44'6-€411/1— 4.ai/14-el4
- @Vase provide tkefoltowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: , �
JC�lf7lJ _ /� tJ/U�7;�J
1 Phone Number(s): - 9//3
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
• O RECEIVED PLANNING \
FEB 2 0 1996
AA
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Michael Miller. Operations Water Department Manager
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff (x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION <
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
x We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
(lease provide the following information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: /14/e,g.
IPhone Number(s): K 395
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
6 0 0 N O R T1rE A 5 T GRAND A V E N U E I P O R T L A N D, O R E G O N 9 32 z 7 3 6 PLANNING
TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1797 RECEIVED PLAN
F E B 2 61996
METRO
February 21 , 1996
Mr. Richard Bewersdorff
Planning Department
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. Bewersdorff:
Re: Zone Ordinance Amendment 96-0001 - City of Tigard Undergrounding Utilities
Exception
Thank you for forwarding a copy of the above mentioned Zone Ordinance Amendment to
Growth Management Services for comment.
While we would not usually provide comments of matters of this nature, we appreciated
being included in your circulation process and would like to remain on your "Requests for
Comments" notification list.
Sincerely,
Brenda Bernards
Senior Planner
Growth Management Services
BB/srb
I:\GM\BERNARDS\TIGARD.WPD
•
Recycled Paper
• fee A
4 � �IN7111iI
y
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Development Services Technicians •
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff (x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA)96-0001
> CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
i3oljet ,,,
• We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.' /
Please contact of our office.
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
•
•
4
('1 ase provide thefollawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting:
IPhone Number(s):
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
• REED PLANNING 47
• FEB 1 6 1996 ,
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Kelley Jennings. Tigard Police Dept. Crime Prevention Officer
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION Q
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and. 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26. 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
1/4/---We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office. •
Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
(lease provide tkeforrowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: I II,L4ok —�'
Phone Number(s): ( r
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
• •
4i4 ,�INµ�IMI,11\
CITY OF TIGARD
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
DATE: February 14. 1996
TO: Per Attached
FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff(x316)
Phone: (503)639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297
RE:
ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001
➢ CITY OF TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION <
A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add
Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement and a fee in
lieu of undergrounding. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: City Wide. APPLICABLE REVIEW
CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1
a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 7.1.2 c. and 7.7.1; Community Development Code Chapters 18.30 and 18.164.
Attached is the Proposed Ordinance Amendment for your review. From information supplied by various departments
and agencies and from other information available to our staff, a report and recommendation will be prepared and a
decision will be rendered on the proposal in the near future. If you wish to comment on this application, WE NEED
YOUR COMMENTS BACK BY: Monday - February 26, 1996. You may use the space provided below or attach a
separate letter to return your comments. If you are unable to respond by the above date, please phone the staff
contact noted above with your comments and confirm your comments in writing as soon as possible. If you have any
questions, contact the Tigard Planning Department, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223.
PLEASE CHECK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THAT APPLY:
We have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to it.
Please contact of our office.
_ Please refer to the enclosed letter.
Written comments provided below:
(2hase provide thefotThwing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting:
IPhone Number(s): I
ZOA 96-0001 C.O.T./UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS
•
•QUEST FOR COMIIIEN101
NOTIFICATION LIST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 'Z-Oik q if --Oft,/
- .. . ..... ... ... .. ..__ ..... .. ......... .... ..
--•-•.:.::::":.--.::::.--:.---: --:"•::1: .:-" -:•.--: --'''::::- :-.0,-.-:.:: :-: '--M-
CITIZEN INVOL*EfilENT4EAM! ::''':::':':---:-:-:.-':. . '•:::::::."':::i.:."",••.:::::::;:•'' .-"'...:---:- :::.::..::- ':ii: ::"?-:-""••:-.::].:
. . •::•'. .::.:...-:.'":::..- ::::::::::•. . ..-:•.•: - ..- - .::::•••:•:..... . _:.;:iiii::i::i:. -::::::::::::, :.::::::::,•:,..,:::•:::•: .: .. . . .::::::::: :. . .:: • ,:::::••• .... . .:::::::::ii: . : . .:::::::: ••:::•:::. . - - •.
1CIT Area: oragtho 0 Placed for review in Library CIT Book El
CITY DEPAITMENTS..... - - -'...' - " -- -:- -. -:.-.•:••"-.----••—•. ••..-••:::•:,...: - -:--.:,:-.-..••:::-:•.•:•.•:••- "•.;.•,..:.,",
• 'BLDG.DEPT./David Scott,Bluilding Official AOLICE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,Crime Prevention Officer 4DPERATIONS/John Acker,Moinf.Spvsr.
iCITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,CitRecorder _LANG.DEPT./Brian Rager,DoveIopnenIReviowEnginoer _ZCOM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S
ADV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, Planning Supervisor _IAVATER DEPT./Michael Miller,Operations Mgr./Operations Mail Box
SPECIAL Distikett.::.:-:::-"::--:::: :Ei-:::-!:!: :::-:::::::: : •:::::::::::::::::::i:::::::::-:::1?.::::•-::-:::-:::::::: :::::::-.::::::::::i..--:::::::::::::.-:..1.:i::::::':_,:
. - -•:::::::::: --::: ::::::::::.:: . ::: : . ::::::•:•:•- :::::::::::.:: - : .:::: : - . -. .-...:• :... -:•::::::::•: -. .--: -:: -- . -: .:• ..:•::::::::::- ::::::•.:: ::-- :': : .- : .:::::::::: ..:::::::::.- ::::::::::: -
_FIRE MARSHALL _UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DIST.
Gene Birchell SWM Program/Lee Walker , PO Box 745
Wa.County Fire District 155 N.First Street Beaverton,OR 97075
(pick-up box) Hillsboro,OR 97124
AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS
--.:.:.-..-::.-:-:: ::...,••.-.-:•-•:-:•:-:-:-.--::---.:•.-:-.-:-::-:.:.•-:-:-::-.--....-:.-"
. . . .. ... .. ... . . ...... ...... ..... ...... _ . ...... ... . . /.. . .
a----, r,
WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE&TRANSP. METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION VMETRObREENSPACES/ 'rAl)(31110/ri.
I
150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel Hue (CPA's/ZOA's) IfetZ
Hillsboro,OR 97124 Portland,OR 97232-2109 600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland,OR 97232-2736 6g.44k
_Brent Curtis(CPA's) STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION
_Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi ODOT/REGION 1
Mike Borreson(Engineer) PO Box 25412 Laurie Nicholson/Trans.Planning
_Scott King (CPA's) Portland,OR 97225-0412 123 N.W.Flanders
_Tom Harry(Current Planning App's) Portland,OR 97209-4037
_Lynn Bailey(Current Planning App's) _OREGON DLCD(CPA's/ZOA's)
1175 Court Street,N.E. _ODOT/REGION 1, DISTRICT 2-A
CITY OF BEAVERTON Salem,OR 97310-0590 Bob Schmidt/Engineering Coord.
Larry Conrad,Senior Planner 2131 SW Scholls/PO Box 25412
PO Box 4755 _CITY OF PORTLAND ' Portland,OR 97225
Beaverton,OR 97076 Planning Director
1120 SW 5th _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO •
_CITY OF BEAVERTON Portland,OR 97204 City Manager
Mike Matteucci,Neighborhood Coordinator PO Box 369
PO Box 4755 _CITY OF DURHAM Lake Oswego,OR 97034
Beaverton,OR 97076 : City Manager
PO Box 23483 _CITY OF KING CITY
_CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard,OR 97281-3483 City Manager
PO Box 369 15300 SW 116th
Tualatin,OR 97062 _OTHER King City,OR 97224
SPECIAL AGENCIES
. .... . .. . . . . . . ...... ................. ......... . .. . . . . . ........ ...... ................... ..... . ...... ........ .. . . . . .
. . .. ... . . , ,. . .. .. ..... ........... ........... .............. .. . .. ... . .. ........ ....,.....„.„.......... .......... ................ .,.,......_.„.........._ ........ . .. .... ......
/GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC V PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC • C• ••■BIA CABLE _. re.0
Elaine Self,Engineering Brian Moore Craig Ey- -r,=4,
PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. 14200 SW Brit .•4' •
Tigard,OR 97281-3416 . Beaverton,OR 97007 Beavert•-,OR 9701•5
I NW NATURAL GAS CO. Phone:(503)721-2449 •I
METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS TRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT
Scott Palmer Fax:(503)721.2502 Jason Hewitt Kim Knox,Project Planner
220 NW Second Avenue Twin Oaks Technology Center . 710 NE Holladay Street
Portland,OR 97209-3991 1815 NW 169th Place S-6020 Portland,OR 97232
• eaverton,OR 97006-4886 '
. .
ITCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON US WEST COMMUNICATIONS _SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANS.CO.
Linda Peterson Pete Nelson Duane M.Forney,PLS-Project Eng.
3500 SW Bond Street 421 SW Oak Street 800 NW 6th Ave.,Room 324 .
Portland,OR 97201 Portland,OR 97204 Union Station
Portland,OR 97209
t'IATt AGENCIES ::::':: ::::':'--• :n::-N:•• :AN:l::::::::::•::--:lg:::::-.:::::::::!::::::•:----::::]:•••::::::]::]]::':'::;::-.::$::::::: ::: ' ,.40004:40***g.::-1::::::::::::::Y':-::i:;:::::.-:i!,
-:.,...,:•:...,... :.::-..:.::•--:..:::: :::•: ..::::::-....:-.:::,:::::::..--:::,:ii::::..::.::,.:::i:::: ::-...,-„-.„--:.-::-::: ..--......,,, „----.-:.:::,::-:•:'::::::::::::::.-:.:.::.:-:-..:•-.:.
_AERONAUTICS DIVISION(ODOT) _DIVISION OF STATE LANDS ___US POSTAL SERVICE
_COMMERCE DEPT.-M.H.PARK _FISH&WILDLIFE Randy Hammock,Growth Cord.
_PUC _DOGAMI Cedar Mill Station
_DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - Portland,OR 97229-9998
_OTHER _U.S.ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEERS
hAlogin\pattyVnasters\rIcnotic.mst
• •
Abdullah Alkadi Beverly Froude
11905 SW 125th Court 12200 SW Bull Mountain Road
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224
Bill Gross Kathy Smith
11035 SW 135th Avenue 11645 SW Cloud Court
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224
Kathie Kallio Linda Masters
12940 SW Glacier Lily Drive 15120 SW 141st Avenue
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97224
Ed Howden Scott Russell
11829 SW Morning Hill 31291 Raymond Creek Road
Tigard OR 97223 Scappoose OR 97056
Bonnie & Jim Roach Cal Woolery
14447 SW Twekesbury Drive 12356 SW 132nd Court
Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223
Clark G. Zeller Mary Swintek
13290 SW Shore Drive 9915 SW Frewing, #23
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223
Larry Westerman Craig Hopkins
113665 SW Fern Street 7430 SW Varns Street
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223
Christy Herr Mark F. Mahon
11386 SW Ironwood Loop 11310 SW 91st Court
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223
Barbara Sattler Joel Stevens
11245 SW Morgen Court 9660 SW Ventura Court
Tigard OR 97223 Tigard OR 97223
June Sulffridge Pat Wyden
15949 SW 146th Avenue 8122 SW Spruce Street
Tigard OR 97224 Tigard OR 97223
• •
Jack Biethan
15525 SW 109th Avenue
Tigard OR 97224
John :-11 44.5e) ' 1109th Avenue
Tigard OR 97224
Brian Martin
10965 SW Pathfinder Way
Tigard OR 97223-3930
Karl Swanson
11410 SW Ironwood Loop
Tigard OR 97223
*All CIT's mailing labels as of 2/14/96
h:\login\patty\docs\allcits.lbs