The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA1996-00003 z OA I 9 0003 ,a, hoidilopti CITY OF TIGARD PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION FILE NO: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 FILE TITLE: DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Same 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 REQUEST: The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies CRITERIA: 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. CIT: West, South, East, 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: 4/8/96 TIME: 7:30 X CITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 5/14/96 TIME: 7:30 RELATIVE COMPONENTS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPING PLAN NARRATIVE X ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SITE PLAN OTHER STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff (503) 639-4171 x316 ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • • • a,A • CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18, 1996 TO: City of Tigard Community Involvement Team Members FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Richard Bewersdorff (x316) Phone: (503) 639-4171 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28, 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 the folrowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS • • 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 Vams 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 Sather 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 JBiethan • • ck Biet 15525 SW 109th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 John Benneth 15550 SW 109th Avenue Tigard OR 97224 Brian Martin 10965 SW Pathfinder Way Tigard OR 97223-3930 Karl Swanson 11410 SW Ironwood Loop Tigard OR 97223 *All CITs mailing labels as of 2/14/96 h:\login\patty\docs\allcits.lbs • • • -- Ana �Ip�N��l II I\ CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: . City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28. 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: h, (lease provide the fotowing infonnation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS . t • . • . , . - ' REQUEST FOR COl ItIENTS • _-- NOTIRCATION LIST FOR LAND USE&DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS =_ `° . - . - -. • • .. .• I - �.(c'ade 6ne} CIT Area: (W) (S). (E) (C) ® Placed for review in Library CIT Book r ri:;:::::).::::::::Eal:ii.i::::ii:i:IN:'.:;':Mi.i.:::'.:2: T.:::::''.:::;;;:;;;;.:.: i;ii:i:: 4;1.k:iiiCI :;!ibi'ai CITT :DEPARTbIENT .. c�BLDG.DEPT./David Scott,et txsc� POUCE DEPT./Kelley Jennings,otme Prevention Officer OPERATIONS/John Acker,Mart.sue. _.CITY ADMIN./Cathy Wheatley,croft ** LNG.DEPT./Brian Rager,De.eto mentReviewrrpiree !�OM.DEV.DEPT./D.S.T.'S 6.--AbV.PLNG./Nadine Smith, 9tm.kvsuoaw. WATER DEPT./Michael Miller,Opertr(veMQ•/Operatiae Mai eaR . ;:::: ::<:>::::' ::i. :::::_::< :::::: s :>:::;:::::::: ::>.:>::::::_<::SPECJAL DISTRICT'S :;:>:< ;: :: ,::; ;: ::::;:;<: :<:<: :':':; :::: <::::. :::::::'::;:..;:::: _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 (<::;r::E:>:::<:>::>::>::::»::.•..*::»::>::>::>::>::;:>::>::>_:::»:K::>::>>:::::>;» ::>a»>::::::<»::»::>::>::AfiPECTED= B1SDiiC1IQN ................................ ......... .._..-.... .,„....... :< :; >;ii:� >:�!::;?:::_i:f>:>: >E>>::>:>:<2%:? i3>iii>: : > :«:>; : >i;:;:>:: ? ::>?:::>::= `::<>-"? : >i=i '?` :`:':; ::<:?>': ':;::5 `>'':i<:» <>.::>: 'i <>:.;:><:�>:>::::-:' - ::: :?> <',;<'_. `:: WA.CO.DEPT.OF LAND USE&TRANSP. _✓METRO AREA BOUNDARY COMMISSION _METRO-GREENSPACES . 150 N.First Avenue 800 NE Oregon St.#16,Suite 540 Mel Huie (CPA's/ZOA's) Hillsboro.OR 97124 Portland,OR 97232-2109 • 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland,OR 97232-2736 /Brent Curtis(CPA's) _STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION • / ' _Jim Tice(IGA'S) Sam Hunaidi !-,DOT/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 _OTHER _CITY OF KING CITY Portland.OR 97204 • City Manager _CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO• 15300 SW 116th _CITY OF DURHAM City Manager . King City,OR 97224 City Manager PO Box 369 PO Box 23483 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 _CITY OF TUALATIN Tigard.OR 97281-3483 , PO Box 369 Tualatin,OR 97062 ::::SPECfAL AGENCIES::>`::`:::::::>>< ::>'< >:< :<' is` :; ::;::::`::;:>:::.>:: ::::>:»::<:::: >:' >: /GENERAL TELEPHONE ELECTRIC .ORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC • _COLUMBIA CABLE CO. Elaine Self,Engineering . Brian Moore Craig'Eyestone PO Box 23416 14655 SW Old Scholls Ferry Rd. - 14260 SW Brigadoon Court Tigard,OR 97281-3416 /Beaverton,OR 97007 eaverton,OR 97005 J a 003)rn V NW NATURAL GAS CO. ph -2449 ' METRO AREA COMMUNICATIONS LTRI-MET TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT • — Scott Palmer i rsosn rn-cos 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 I T peaverton,OR 97006-4886 / _ CI CABLEVISION OF OREGON _JUS 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 r ■ Union Station ' Portland,OR 97209 >;;b'TATE AGENCIES::>::;�;::::>s>: <:>::::>>>::<::>:::::;::::>:.::::: >:::»>:::>:::>::»>.:::::>::>>;. »; :<;::<::»>::::>:»:c :;::::;:::::_::>::: <:> ;>:: <:=»:;:::.>:: . ::, PEDEItAL:Afi)HIIICIFS `=: : '< = ::>" _ _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 h:iaginWatt a,tasrtcrwacmst iv U ._1 P 4.31 238 677 oi • a Receipt(for, • › Certified Mail � m No Insurance Coverage Provided -W Do not use for International Mail cr) (See Reverse) . .1.1 Sent to C)RRC,nN TW.C.T) 04 strref'7 "COURT STREET, N.E. H P.O.SALMOR3310-0590 •0` Postage $ 15S ro (0O Certified Fee 4 ,"1 0,4 f 0 4-i o ••14J Special Delivery Fee aO Restrict&Delivery Fee a CO i_a Return Receipt Showing OOm to Whom&Date Delivered , 1 Co •ai I arc; Return Receipt Showing to Whom, 0 "DUc Date,and Address ...-I d?�m C.' r r J-n TOTAL Postag �, ' . • 01 S 4_, � &Fees t(tf t�� a Postmark a ur� d M o 11 C d € 0- 1996 .0 • y lisps c.1, Fc a. d SENDER: 13 •Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the Ft •Complete items 3,4a,and 4b. following services(for an d ■Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this extra fee): dcard to you. ai •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece,or on the back if space does not 1. ❑ Addressee's Address n ?2 permit. i co ■Write'Return Receipt Requested'on the mailpiece below the article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery 6 'The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. 0 V w 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number 0 cc o OREGON DLCD P 431 238 677 E ' c 1175 COURT STREET r N.E. 4b.Service Type d • SALEM OR 97310-0590 ❑ Registered I Certified rn, rn _ il w ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured g . cc N . o 0'Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD ` 7.Date of Deli e <� � � � 0. ,, . 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addresse 's Add ess(Only if requested c ua and fee is paid) t g re: (Addis d Agent)c I- I ,1 I ` X Gc I 11 C ,; PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt I - - I • TICS OF ADOPTI N 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 96-0003 Date of Adoption June 11, 1996 Date Mailed June 17, 1996 Date the Proposed Notice was mailed to DLCD March 18, 1996 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." Amended the Community Development Code to require public facility impact analysis with rlcwalnpment applications to ensure dedications roughly proportional; adds requirement for findings. • 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." Did not adopt proposed language permitting reservation of land for park, utility, greenway, and storm management as well as setbacks from reservation areas. Plan Map Change From to Zone Map Change From to Location: • Acres Involved: Specify Density: Previous Density New Density Applicable Goals: 1, 2, 11 and 12. Was an Exception adopted? Yes _ No DLCD File# DLCD Appeal Deadline Ala• Did DLCD receive a Notice of Proposed Amendment 45 days prior to the final hearing? Yes _ No: The Statewide Planning Goals do not apply •• • - Emergency Circumstances Required Expedited Review Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: 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 812 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 findings 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. • • AGENDA ITEM# For Agenda of___6.7 - CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Ordinance Amendment(ZOA 96-0003) Impact Study Requirements PREPARED BY: Dick B. DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve amendments to the Development Code pertaining to dedication and impact study requirements to address"rough proportionality"? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments as shown as Exhibit"A"to the attached ordinance. This exhibit eliminates reservation area requirements. INFORMATION SUMMARY • To address the results of the United States Supreme Court case Dolan v. City of Tigard, the City Attorney's office drafted development code amendments. The proposed amendments require that an impact study quantify the effect of each development on public facilities and services. After public hearings by both the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council directed staff to eliminate language related to park and greenway reservation and setbacks. The attached ordinance follows that directive. The Council should complete the public hearing and then take action of the proposed ordinance. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED • 1. Leave the development code as is. 2. Modify the proposed language. 3. Add language to permit reservation and setbacks from floodplains, greenways, etc. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable i:lctywidAsmm■ma96-03.rev dic11305/2296 8:32 AM • • CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED SECTIONS 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, TO ADD DEDICATION, AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a June 24, 1994 decision concerning uncompensated takings and the need to justify dedication conditions by showing a "rough proportionality" to the impact of development; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising the above Code Sections at a public hearing on April 8, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code Sections as shown in Exhibit"A"; and WHEREAS,the City Council held a public hearings on May 14, 1996 and June 11, 1996 as well as a work session on May 21, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments. NOW,THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 • • 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12 Transportation, are met because the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of public facilities and services, and transportation facilities in a more timely, orderly and efficient manner to provide defined levels of service improvements determined to be necessary by studies showing specific facts and findings for each development to be consistent and "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent case law. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. 3. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these policies call for development control of floodplains and greenway areas and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and need for improvements, reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 4. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 8, Transportation which call for ensuring that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City standards. The proposed changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. 5. - Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. SECTION 2: Community Development Code Chapter 18.32 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: 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. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 2 . • • Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this . day of ,1996. James Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date is\citywide\ord\zoa96-03.ord DickB05/22/96 8:41 AM ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 3 . • • EXHIBIT A DEDICATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underlined. 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refus. of an Application B.5. Include an impact study The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address. at a minimum. the transportation system. including bikeways. the drainage system. the parks system. the water system. the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards. and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large. public facilities systems. and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests. the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement. or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 18.32.250 E.2 Conditions may include, but are not limited to; a. Minimum lot sizes; b. Larger setbacks; c. Preservation of significant natural features; and d. Dedication of easements When a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property. the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. EXHIBIT A-PAGE 1 DEDICATION AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE(ZOA 96-0003) CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 96- 3 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED SECTIONS 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, TO ADD DEDICATION, AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a June 24, 1994 decision concerning uncompensated takings and the need to justify dedication conditions by showing a "rough proportionality" to the impact of development; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising the above Code Sections at a public hearing on April 8, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code Sections as shown in Exhibit"A";' and WHEREAS,the City Council held a public hearings on May 14, 1996 and June 11, 1996 as well as a work session on May 21, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments. NOW,THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. .Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. ORDINANCE No. 96-.2 3 Page 1 • • 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12 Transportation, are met because the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of public facilities and services, and transportation facilities in a more timely, orderly and efficient manner to provide defined levels of service improvements determined to be necessary by studies showing specific facts and findings for each development to be consistent and "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent case law. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. 3. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these policies call for development control of floodplains and greenway areas and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and need for improvements, reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 4. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 8, Transportation which call for ensuring that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City standards. The proposed changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. 5. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. SECTION 2: Community Development Code Chapter 18.32 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: 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 LA n C n i mo vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only,this I I 4:13 day of J.Con_ ,1996. ORDINANCE No. 96-2 3 Page 2 • • • Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of ,1996. J coli, Mayor Approved as to form: v c-c - -)— ,6Vx/LAA)ity Attorney C:2/ 11 /qCo Date is\citywide\ord\zoa96-03.ord DickB05/22J96 8:41 AM ORDINANCE No. 96- a3 Page 3 411 EXHIBIT A DEDICATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underlined. 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal of an Application B.5. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services, The study shall address. at minimum, the transportation system. including bikeways. the drainage system. the parks system. the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact. the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards. and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large. public facilities systems. and affected private property users. In, situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests. the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement. or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 18.32.250 E.2 Conditions may include, but are not limited to; a. Minimum lot sizes; b. Larger setbacks; c. Preservation of significant natural features; and d. Dedication of easements When a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. EXHIBIT A-PAGE 1 DEDICATION AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE(ZOA 96-0003) • Agenda Item No. 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of `7 14 q(Q MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Bob Rohif, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Associate Planner Dick Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis (introduced associate Legal Counsel Paul Elsner); and City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > City Administrator Monahan mentioned that staff would like to know which Councilors intended to attend the MPAC meeting tomorrow night and the • Washington County elected officials' caucus Thursday night. He announced that he, Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hunt were meeting with the City of Durham on June 26 to discuss how the Cook Park expansion might relate to Durham Park. > Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, introduced Paul Elsner, a new attorney with his firm who also works on City of Tigard business. He reviewed Mr. Elsner's background. He noted that Mr. Elsner was the liaison to staff. > Councilor Scheckla asked if the regulations on high grass would be enforced this summer. Mr. Monahan stated that usually staff tried to step up enforcement efforts if there appeared to be a safety hazard; that is, vision clearance (for traffic) or fire. > Cook Park Update Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reported that out of the 34 Request for Proposals (RFPs) distributed to the consultants, eight proposals were received. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff hired Fishman & Associates delineate the wetlands on the Thomas property. He reviewed the type of information that the consultants would provide. He directed attention to the memo summarizing the concerns expressed at the South CIT meeting (18 people filled out comments sheets). He noted that the main concerns included: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • 1. Participation should include more interest groups and there should be a broader representation on the steering committee. 2. A parks master plan should be developed for all City parks (not just Cook Park). Brian Wagner, South CIT, stated that the RFP appeared to be written by those with an interest in athletic fields with no representation of those who valued Cook Park as a natural area or by the neighbors concerned about the impacts of the changes. He said that a group of citizens was meeting tomorrow night to draft a letter explaining their position. Mayor Nicoli asked if the CIT was aware that 25 acres of the expansion would be purchased by other people with only 10 acres purchased by the City. Ms. Newton said that Duane Roberts had explained the situation during a question- and answer-period at the CIT meeting. Mr. Wagner stated that no one else had been solicited to contribute funds; other interests might have been interested in contributing but weren't asked. Mr. Hendryx stated that Mr. Roberts gave the CIT an overview of the RFP contents and the public involvement process. Mr. Wagner said that one of their concerns was that the public involvement should have been done prior to sending the RFP. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff would provide Council with regular updates on the process. He commented that part of the parks CIP included funds allocated over 4-5 years for purchase of park areas. > Discussion: Wetland Polices Mr. Hendryx commented that with the last request to use City wetlands for mitigation, staff thought it advisable to develop a policy laying out the process for those who wanted to use City wetlands to mitigate impacts of their projects. Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, stated that this policy from staff's standpoint potentially provided as much flexibility as possible. He reviewed the six points of the policy, pointing out that the decisions on whether or not a request met the criteria lay with the Council. The criteria included documented physical enhancement, benefit to the City, compensation to the City in the form of rent or a lump-sum payment, no additional maintenance cost to the City, a direct relationship between the mitigation and land development within the UGB, and no potential for onsite mitigation. He stated that the City had about 80 acres in low quality wetlands potentially suitable for mitigation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Councilor Scheckla asked about current process for wetlands mitigation. He expressed concern that building on natural wetlands could result in flooding and impacts to neighborhoods. Mr. Bewersdorff explained that normally wetlands mitigation required DSL approval with a 3 to 1 mitigation factor to give more flood plain capacity. He acknowledged Councilor Scheckla's concern as a question whenever dealing with wetlands, stating that one of the major considerations in applying this policy was the impact to the natural system. He said that this policy gave staff standards to review potential wetlands mitigation on City property and that any mitigation request required DSL approval and must meet the City's standards. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City was liable if people were flooded out of their homes. Mr. Hendryx explained that regardless of whether it was wetland or not, people had to build to standards, which included building above the flood plain. He noted that if buildings were built above the 100-year flood plain as identified by FEMA, the buildings shouldn't be damaged. Councilor Moore commented that this policy allowed for enhancement of the City-owned wetlands. He said that they only allowed commercial or industrial development in the flood plain (not residential). In addition, developers would have to make sure that the excavation was equal to the amount of fill. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that the City prevent things like what happened up on Aspen Ridge or Benchview from happening again. He stated that he wanted to make sure that they were protecting wetlands. Mr. Hendryx advised another option would be to adopt a policy to disallow using city-owned wetlands for mitigation purposes. Mayor Nicoli commented that he thought that the policy was too tight. He said the State was beginning to say no to wetland mitigation on privately owned wetlands and may only be allowing government agencies to provide for mitigation on their properties because of a concern that private owners would not protect the wetlands. He said that he thought it was in the City's best interest to keep policies as flexible as possible and to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. In response to a question from Mr. Monahan, Mayor Nicoli said that he wasn't concerned about properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); he added that Unified Sewerage Agency had large wetland sites that they needed to mitigate. He said that he saw this as a balancing act with a need to find wetlands to mitigate in different areas. He expressed concern about imposing too many restraints. He stated that he thought the City should act like any other private CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • property owner and evaluate whether a request to mitigate wetlands on their property was in their best interest. He commented that he felt that the City would be dealing with this issue more and more as the UGB is developed. Mr. Monahan asked what it was in the proposed policy that the Mayor found restrictive. Mayor Nicoli cited the provisions that no new wetlands should be created and also the compensation to the City. He said that he didn't want to charge people for the use of City property when they would be enhancing it. He noted that there were several areas of former farmland that were slowly becoming wetlands that could use some help in making the transition more quickly. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City shouldn't receive compensation for the use of their property for mitigation, the same as any private property owner. He noted that they might negotiate a trade off or waive the cost. Mayor Nicoli agreed, stating that's why he wanted a more flexible policy. He suggested identifying City-owned wetlands and putting the word out that the City was interested in someone improving those wetlands regardless of whether they were inside or outside of the City. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that that was the intent of No. 3. If the mitigation was of enough benefit to the City, then the Council agreement would not include compensation. He said that they could also drop the sentence regarding no new wetlands. Councilor Moore said that he didn't have a problem with taking that sentence out, as long as they didn't approve new wetlands on developable land needed to meet the City's density requirements. Mayor Nicoli stated that he did not have concerns about the Council action (see Resolution No. 96-32) on the Summerlake property because it was a unique situation. He suggested encouraging people to talk to the City if they wanted to use City-owned wetlands for mitigation. Councilor Rohlf said that he interpreted the policy as it was written as saying "we don't want to be in the business" but what he heard from the Mayor was that "we should consider being in the business if it was to the City's advantage." Mayor Nicoli concurred. He noted that the City itself might have to mitigate projects occasionally. Mr. Bewersdorff said that he thought staff wrote the policy because it was beneficial to allow the mitigation under certain circumstances and to provide guidance for the Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Councilor Rohlf suggested including a preamble stating that the City was open to the process. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff would bring this back to Council after incorporating the comments heard this evening. Mayor Nicoli commented that he didn't have a problem with the policy but that he thought they needed to leave their options open as much as they could. > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned at 7:24 p.m. > Update on Balloon Festival Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder, reported on the Tigard Festival of Balloons. The event begins on Thursday at 6 a.m. as "Press Day." As a sponsor, the City will receive four balloon rides each day of the event. > Councilor Rohlf referred to the Gross v. City of Tigard case. He noted that the property owner on one side of the designation has already built out according to the CN zone. He asked what would happen if the designation reverted back to the original designation. Mr. Monahan stated that people built at their own risk with the understanding that if an approval was overturned, they would have to come back into compliance with the City Code. > Councilor Scheckla asked about "Fantastic Sam's." Mr. Monahan reviewed the developer's concern regarding the promptness of the City's review of his application. He cited Mr. Hendryx's memo describing the problems in staffing levels and change of policies that occurred at the same time as the application review. He concurred with Councilor Scheckla that staff's response time wasn't that far outside the usual amount. > Agenda Review Mr. Monahan of two non-agenda items requested by staff: 1. A resolution honoring Mr. Gene Seibel of the Tualatin Valley Water District. 2. Update on sewage issue at Ventura Court area. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • 1. BUSINESS MEETING • Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. • Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None • Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: See Item No. 9. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, asked the Council what they considered to be redevelopable land; did it include all the houses or just those that looked as if they could be redeveloped soon. He said that he thought this was an important issue. Mayor Nicoli stated that part of the answer to Mr. Bledsoe's question depended on whether Metro decides to require a higher density of build-out. The City might be required to open up existing neighborhoods for redevelopment to increase densities. Mr. Bledsoe stated that he thought the City needed to make a determination now about how they would look at redevelopment. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff had maps based on a set of assumptions as to what was considered redevelopable land. He explained that typically it was based on a valuation between structure versus property. He confirmed that not all housing was redevelopable, only that which met the criteria. Mr. Hendryx noted that Mr. Bledsoe was also raising the issue of the infill that could occur on large lots. He said that infill has also been mapped by Metro and reviewed by staff. He said staff would provide Mr. Bledsoe with a copy of the map. s 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: May 14 and 21, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. City Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Approve Board and Committee Appointments a. Appoint Craig Wanichek to Budget Committee - Res. No. 96-35 b. Appoint Michael Neff to Planning Commission - Res. No. 96-36 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 6 3.4 Local Contract Review Board Award Bid for 130th/Winterlake Drive Bridge Connection to Mowat Construction Company and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign the Contract 3.5 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for approximately 6,445 square feet of Public Right of Way on SW 135th Avenue - Res. No. 96-37 3.6 Approve Public Library Services Agreement and Authorize the City Administrator to Sign 3.7 Approve Amendments to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Intergovernmental agreement with Washington County > Mayor Nicoli introduced the new appointees: Michael Neff to the Planning Commission and Craig Wanichek to the Budget Committee. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - 1996-97 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Budget Officer Wayne Lowry, Budget Officer, noted that Tigard received $200,000 a year from state revenue sharing. He reviewed the opportunities available for public comment and the requirements needed to qualify for these funds. d. Public Testimony: None e. Recommendation by Budget Officer Mr. Lowry recommended approval of the proposed resolution and ordinance. f. Council Questions or Comments: None g. Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-38 and Ordinance No. 96-22 The City Recorder read the number and title of Resolution No. 96-38 and Ordinance No. 96-22. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 7 • RESOLUTION NO. 96-38 - A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY OF TIGARD PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING FOR STATE SHARED REVENUES ORDINANCE NO. 96-22 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES Motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 5. PUBLIC HEARING - 1996-97 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Summation by Finance Director Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, reported that the Budget Committee made some changes to the proposed budget and recommended that Council adopt the budget. He noted the two options presented in the Council packet. Option 1 was the Budget Committee's recommendation with no further changes. Option 2 contained several staff recommended changes to the budget. Mr. Lowry reported that the property tax rate for the levy for 1996/97 of $7.9 million dollars increased over last year by .46/$1000 due to the tax base increase approved by voters in 1994. He said that the estimated tax rate was $2.86/$1000 which was lower than anticipated because of higher assessed values. He said that the assessed value they used to estimate the tax base was $2.9 billion dollars (this included $100 million in new construction and a 4.5% increase in existing property values). Mr. Lowry stated that the operating budget of $18,590,000 was a 5% increase over last year, with the largest increase in the Community Development Department staffing levels. Mr. Lowry reviewed the changes made by the Budget Committee to general fund projects. These included decreasing the annual $100,000 contribution to the future facility improvements funds by $35,000 to fund the proposed police station improvement, increasing the amount for the Cook Park irrigation system, putting back in funds for the feed store improvements that didn't happen last year, and appropriating funds for the City Hall roof project. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 8 • Mr. Lowry reviewed the staff recommended changes in Option 2. These included decreasing the $83,000 allocated for the visioning project to the revised $55,900, increasing the general fund by $55,000 for the feed store improvements, and increasing the capital projects funded by the state gas tax revenues. Mr. Lowry pointed out that the Council was limited to a 10% increase of appropriations in any one fund. He stated that the changes to the state gas tax fund put the Council over the 10% limit, and therefore, he has drafted a substitute resolution that took the state gas tax up to the 10% limit. He recommended using a supplemental budget during the next fiscal year (July) to allocate the remaining $118,000. Councilor Rohlf asked if using a supplemental budget would use up the 10% limit for next year. Mr. Lowry said no. (Mayor Nicoli left the meeting and returned during the discussion on Agenda Item No. 6). d. Public Testimony: None e. Recommendation by Finance Director: Mr. Lowry recommended that the Council adopt the corrected Option 2 budget resolution. f. Public hearing was closed. h. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 96-39 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Res. No. 96-39, as corrected, Option 2. RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD APPROVING THE BUDGET, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS, DECLARING THE AD VALOREM TAX LEVY AND CLASSIFYING THE LEVY AS PROVIDED BY ORS 310.060(2) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. Motion carried by a majority vote (3 to 1) of the Council present. (Council President Hunt, Councilors Moore and Rohlf voted "yes;" Councilor Scheckla voted "no.") Councilor Scheckla stated that he voted no because he felt that the money for the visioning project could be better used elsewhere. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 9 • 6. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) PRIORITY LIST a. Staff Report Gary Alfson, Acting City Engineer, presented the staff report. He requested that the Council adopt the CIP update and approve the 1996/97 projects as proposed. He said that the CIP was approved by the Planning Commission on May 3, and that no opposition was received from the CITs following the presentations made to them. He noted that Appendix A contained the actual staff recommendations for projects while Appendix C was the backlog of projects. Mr. Alfson explained that the CIP consisted of streets, storm drainage, sanitary sewer (all managed by Engineering Department), water (Public Works), and parks (Engineering and Planning). Mr. Alfson reviewed the process used to develop the CIP list, including involvement by the CITs. He noted where there were funding limitations. He said that they took out the projects approved in 1995/96 that weren't completed yet to reserve the already allocated funds for those projects. Mr. Alfson reviewed the projects proposed for streets. He reviewed the traffic impact fees (TIF) as a revenue source, noting the that 50% of those funds had to be spent on arterial streets. He said that the City has spent its 50% on major collector streets and was holding the remaining 50% in reserve for future projects. He explained the TIF Transit Reserve fund required by the TIF program. These were monies reserved for transit improvements in Tigard; staff would begin discussions with Tri-Met in the next year or so on how to best spend this money on transit improvements in Tigard. Mr. Alfson noted other TIF projects - right-of-way acquisitions at Walnut/Tiedeman and along the cemetery on Greenburg Road, the Greenburg/Maple Leaf intersection, and Highway 217 on/off ramp improvements at Greenburg. Mr. Alfson reviewed the projects proposed for gas tax funding. These included overlaying two gravel streets (Alfred and 74th) to alleviate future maintenance costs, Main Street pavement reconstruction, widening Commercial Street and installing sidewalks on both sides, the Durham traffic signal, and the speed hump program. Mr. Alfson explained that the funding for the City's half of the cost for the Durham traffic signal came from the gas tax ($6000). He stated that staff received a letter from the school district agreeing to contribute 50% of the cost of the traffic signal. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 10 _ r • • Mr. Alfson reviewed the Parks CIP projects, noting that major revisions occurred reflecting the new funding received from Metro Greenspaces and the new parks SDCs. Projects included five natural areas, trailway land acquisitions, expansion of Cook Park, and new neighborhood parks in the Greenburg and Canterbury areas. He stated that a major unknown in drafting the parks CIP was the extent, cost and timing of the Cook Park expansion. He said that the master plan would be completed later this year. Mr. Alfson explained that the park system funding was being reviewed to determine projects for the next several years to use the Metro and new SDC funding. He reviewed the Metro Greenspaces project list adopted by Council. Mr. Alfson explained that the sanitary sewer CIP was funded from three different sources. He stated that the maintenance fund was used for unexpected repairs needed during the year while the main fund was used for the neighborhood sewer extension program. Mr. Alfson reviewed the storm drain CIP projects which were funded from the old and new SDCs. These included drainage improvements to Main Street and Commercial Street. He noted the restrictions on projects using the new SDC funds; they had to be approved by USA and part of USA's master plan. However, he master plan hasn't been completed yet. Mr. Alfson noted that the project list for the Water System CIP was developed by the Public Works Department and the Intergovernmental Water Board to maintain the current level of service to Tigard. He said that it has already been approved by Intergovernmental Water Board. Mr. Alfson mentioned several projects in the backlog that staff saw as having a higher priority. These included pedestrian improvements, traffic studies, and improvements to Tigard Street. b. Open Public Comment Sally Christensen, 15685 SW 16th, stated that she supported the CIP budget as presented but noted that she had been given different figures for the Durham traffic signal than what she heard tonight. Mr. Alfson explained that he had told the CITs that $50,000 would come out of the TIF fund because at that time did not know if the school district would be able to pay for half of the cost. He said that now that the school district has stated that they will pay for half of the signal's cost, the TIF funds would not be used. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 11 • Ms. Christensen expressed concern that the $100,000 budget for the signal was less than the estimated cost of the signal (up to $145,000). Mr. Alfson mentioned some work completed that would lessen the cost of the signal. Mayor Nicoli explained that if the bids came back higher than the estimated cost, Council would find the money to make up the shortfall somewhere in the budget. He reassured Ms. Christensen that the signal would be built. Mike Marr, 12420 SW Main Street, member of the Tigard Downtown Business Association, expressed the appreciation of the merchants, business and property owners for the improvements made last year to Main Street, and for those proposed for this year, including Commercial Street. Mr. Marr said that they were still looking for signalization at Burnham and Main. He noted a petition recently circulated (not by the Merchants' Association) commenting about the speeding, the crosswalk and other traffic problems. He urged the City Council to signalize that intersection prior to 1998/99. Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, commented on the loss of two good City Engineers by the City recently. He stated that the West Central CIT was concerned about the intersection at 121st and Walnut; they understood from the County that it was included in the MSTIP program for 2002. He concurred with the need to purchase right of way at the Tiedeman/Walnut intersection. Mr. Bledsoe noted that neither of these intersections were actually in the City of Tigard though both were more than a mile inside the city limits and heavily used by Tigard citizens. He said Tigard should do something to improve those intersections. He stated that overall the CIP showed good balance. c. Close Public Comment Mayor Nicoli closed the public comment. d. Council Discussion Councilor Hunt expressed concern that they were reducing the major maintenance programs by 25%. As a comparison, Mr. Alfson estimated that the amount of the reduction would probably be enough to overlay a length of street of about 3-4 blocks. Councilor Hunt asked for clarification on the funding for the Durham/79th signal. Mr. Alfson said that they had $43,289 from last year plus $6000 for this year which totalled close to $50,000. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 12 • • In response to Council questions, Mr. Alfson pointed out that the paving of Alfred and 74th was a type of maintenance because it would reduce the maintenance costs in the future. He said that staff selected Alfred and 74th purely from a maintenance viewpoint; this street currently carries more traffic than a gravel road should. Councilor Hunt said that he would like to see some consideration of reducing the reserves on this. Mr. Alfson said that there were no reserves in the gas tax, only in TIF. In response to Council comments, Mr. Alfson pointed out that the longer they waited to maintain a road through overlay, the greater the chances were that the road would require reconstruction, a more expensive option. He said that a four- year delay would mean major costs. Councilor Hunt asked about the accuracy of the estimates given for the projects. Mr. Alfson said that the right-of-way acquisition numbers were rough estimates while the Greenburg/Maple Leaf intersection was a "tight" number. Councilor Hunt reiterated that he still was not in favor of reducing the City's maintenance program. Councilor Moore expressed concern also that this was stepping backwards. Councilor Rohlf questioned paving Alfred and 74th if it took 8 years to get a payback. Mr. Alfson commented that they have already put a major effort into Alfred Street to get it to drain properly. He said that a 7-8 year payback on an overlay was good. Mayor Nicoli commented that another way of looking at this was to say that they were reducing the $300,000 but at the same time investing a substantial sum of money on these projects that would save the City money later. Mr. Alfson concurred that it was better to spend the money improving 74th and Alfred; gravel roads quickly deteriorate whereas an asphalt road would last longer. Councilor Scheckla stated that overall he thought it was a fine list because it did something in all areas of the City, allowing citizens to see the City at work. Councilor Hunt suggested moving up the 79th/Durham signal and using contingency money to pay for it this year. Mr. Monahan said that it used gas tax money also. Mr. Alfson commented that they needed to revisit the discussion on the signal to see what the parameters were now. He pointed out that a signal had to be warranted at an intersection or it could cause more problems than currently existed. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • Councilor Hunt stated that he found Mr. Alfson's explanation regarding the major maintenance fund satisfactory and withdrew his objection. Councilor Rohlf asked if the two projects proposed over the next few years for the North Dakota Bridge and the project proposed for Tiedeman down to the bridge could be combined. Mr. Alfson said that it was difficult to gauge what they might do in any given year, especially with the amount of backlog that they had. He said that those three projects would probably cost at least $2 million. Councilor Moore asked where the money came for the Grant/Tiedeman project. Mr. Alfson stated that it came through the Highway Bridge Reconstruction/Highway Rehabilitation Program, in which the federal government provided 80% of the funds and the state and the City each provided 10%. He said that the North Dakota Bridge received a little too high of a rating in the state biannual evaluation of bridge structural capacity and deterioration to make the list for the federal program. Councilor Rohlf asked if the City had an intergovernmental agreement with the school district regarding the 50% funds the district was to provide for the traffic signal. Mr. Monahan said that staff has received a letter from the district committing $50,000 from the bond; they could look into an IGA. Councilor Rohlf commented that previously the district hadn't come through with funds on a project, and that he did not want to see the neighborhood disappointed. e. Council Consideration: Determine, by Council motion, the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1996-97: Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt the annual capital improvement program. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ABECO/Cox) - CPA 96-0003/ZOA 96-0005 REQUEST: Amend the text of the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan by amending existing policy as follows: 6.1.1, Implementation Strategy 3 - modify policy to include wetlands in the list of sensitive lands from which residential density can be transferred, and to remove the language which allows no more than 25% residential density transfer from all sensitive land areas. The application also proposes an amendment to Tigard Community Development Code 18.92.030 to allow 100 percent density transfer from all sensitive land areas. LOCATION: Citywide. APPLICABLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 14 • REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 3.1.1, 3.2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 9.1.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapters 18.3, 18.84 and 18.90. ZONE: N/A a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Nels Mickaelson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reviewed the specifics of the proposal. He stated that currently the Tigard Community Development Code did not;allow density transfers for wetland areas, though it allowed 25% on site residential density transfer for flood plains, steep slopes, and drainage ways. He noted that this proposal had city wide application because it would apply to all wetlands zoned R-12, R-25 and R-40. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the applicant's wetlands study found 1.9 acres of wetlands on this R-12 property. The applicant was requesting an amendment to allow transfer of 100% of the residential units from the wetlands area to the buildable portion of the site. Mr. Mickaelson stated that while the proposal met all the statewide planning goals, staff did not feel that it satisfied Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1 (c) which required that the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. He said that staff did not believe that the applicant had submitted compelling evidence that the policy should be amended to afford wetlands a higher density transfer than other physically constrained lands. , Mr. Mickaelson stated that they provided notice to the appropriate groups. Neither Metro nor DSL had comments but the South CIT had concerns about the effect of this proposal on existing neighborhoods. He stated that the applicant modified his proposal to include only lands zoned for multi family. The West • and Central CITs questioned revisions which would allow more density transfer from wetlands than other physically constrained sites while the East CIT supported the concept but felt that applications should be evaluated on a case-by- case basis and that there should be no guarantee of 100% transfer. Mr. Mickaelson stated that the Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial though they agreed that wetlands should be allowed a 25% transfer of residential density. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 15 • • Mr. Mickaelson recommended that the Council deny this application as proposed because the applicant has not met all the applicable criteria and has not made a convincing argument that this change would be beneficial to the City. He also recommended that changes be made to the Comprehensive Plan and Code to allow 25% residential density transfer from wetlands on all residential land, not just lands zoned for multifamily. d. Public Testimony William C. Cox, attorney for ABECO, 0244 SW California Street, Portland, reviewed the history of the application. He said that the applicant came in with a proposal for a density of 12 units per acre and was told that he needed to subtract the wetlands from the net figure. He stated that that requirement was not in the Code and that the staff did not know where that interpretation came from. He said that staff also did not know where the 25% figure came from. He argued that it was an arbitrary number and that density transfer should be based on the design and nature of the land, not an artificial number. Mr. Cox stated that the requirement put on the applicant to explain why his application should be different from other sensitive lands put him in an untenable position. He reiterated that they didn't know why 25% was used. • Mr. Cox stated that this proposal benefitted the City in increasing the density as required by Metro. He cited the North Plains case in which LUBA denied an amendment to the UGB because the jurisdiction had not done everything it could to increase the density within its current UGB. Mr. Cox pointed out the responsiveness of the applicant to the neighbors' concerns. The neighbors asked the applicant not to transfer density off all residential lands but to limit it to multi family only. He noted the East C1T's proposal to review applications on a case-by-case basis with no guarantees of 100% transfer. Mr. Cox explained that they used the term "100%" to allow them to transfer the amount that they would normally be able to build on; 100% might not be accurate. He said that he doubted they could get 100% because they were still limited by the other building requirements which would bring down the total transfer. He said that it was really based on the character of the land itself. Mr. Cox stated that he thought that the East CIT's position should be adopted here. He said that they felt it was a fair and equitable thing for the City to do because it allowed an increase in density in the City while still protecting single family residential. He said that staff's proposal did what the CIT asked the applicant not to do: transfer density off all residential, including single family. He said that was why staff's proposal increased the number of units allowed on buildable land to 389 units. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 16 • Mr. Cox stated that their proposal was "a modest proposal." It did not conflict with the community's desire to be oriented towards single family homes. He said that their proposal was not negative. He contended that if the 25% parity was necessary, then they should find out why the 25% existed in the first place. He suggested striking out "100%" and simply saying "density transfers from wetlands should be on a design ability basis", as suggested by the more knowledgeable people at the CITs. The character of the land determined what could be built on it or not built. Mr. Cox contended that to require an arbitrary 25% without characterizing the land in any manner was not justifiable or supportable. Mr. Cox said that he did not like the staff's proposal because it did what the neighborhoods did not want done (transferring density on single-family land). The 25% was not justifiable. Staff tried to push the burden onto the applicant by asking him to justify why they had to be different from flood plains and slopes. Mr. Cox said that he thought the City could pick up 307 units which should help in increasing their density and do it in such a way that it did not impact their single-family zones. Mayor Nicoli noted that staff stated in their report that the application did not satisfy the relevant review criteria. He asked why Mr. Cox felt that they have met the review criteria. Mr. Cox pointed out that the staff report stated that the application did meet all the relevant state wide planning goals; the only criteria staff said the application did not meet was the requirement that the Comprehensive Plan/Community Development Code be kept current with the needs of the community. He said that staff agreed that this amendment would promote a more efficient urban form and accommodate additional housing units. Mr. Cox cited the statement in the staff report that "the applicant has not submitted compelling evidence that the policy should be amended to afford wetlands a higher density transfer standard than other physically constrained sites." He stated that that was what he was talking about when he contended that staff placed the burden on the applicant to justify the other land types. • Mr. Cox argued that the community wanted single family residential protected. The proposal addressed the needs of the community, not only in protecting single- family land but in increasing the density as required by Metro. He reiterated that he disagreed with staff. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 17 • > Bob Bledsoe, 11800 SW Walnut, stated that he agreed with Mr. Cox and disagreed with staff. He reviewed the history of the 25% requirement, stating that it had been a compromise position reached to gain consensus from the various interest groups during the Comprehensive Plan process. He agreed with limiting the transfer to multi-family land, though 25% was negotiable. He stated that he was not comfortable with 100%. > Steven Topp, 12566 SW Bridgeview Court, stated that he was a land developer with property that would be affected by this decision, a planner specializing in development regulations, and a property owner in Tigard concerned about lawsuits. He said that the concept to take density from wetlands and transfer it to the remainder of the site was good, as was the staff's idea to apply it to all zoning districts; however the 25% was a bad idea. He contended that 25% virtually eliminated all small development. He presented copies of the Clark County Code, adopted six months ago, which dealt with the smaller pieces of land in the residential single-family district. Mr. Topp noted a discrepancy between the Tigard and USA regulations. He said that USA required wetlands or a drainage place to be put in a separate tract of land at the time of a development application. But the City said that separate tracts of land couldn't be counted in the lot area. He contended that this would preclude development of buildable lands with wetlands on the property because there were so many regulations there was barely enough land left on which to build a house. He stated that without an incentive to buy these lands, the wetlands were not protected. He suggested that the Council not adopt the staff recommendation and require further review. > Mr. Cox noted that the testimony all supported the application. He stated that Beaverton had full transfer rights from wetlands and that Mr. Hendryx, who had worked for Beaverton, told him that he was not aware of any problems Beaverton has had with that type of transfer. He said that most cities in the area did allow the transfer. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Mickaelson recommended denial of the application and changing the Comprehensive Plan and Code to allow 25% residential density transfer from wetlands on all residential lands. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff did not simply say to the applicant that they did not know where the standard came from. He said that they evaluated the record, though it was limited. He noted that the Plan was developed in 1983 and it was difficult to know the reasoning behind the decisions. He said that staff did try to provide the applicant with as much background information as possible. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 18 • • f. Council Questions or Comments Mayor Nicoli commented that it sounded like everyone was in favor of portions of this application. He said that he understood that staff thought all residential property should be considered but asked for clarification on staff's position on the 25%. Mr. Mickaelson said that the staff position was to stay with the 25% density transfer because it must have been justifiable to the community if consensus was reached on it at the time of the draft Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. He said that he was not aware that anything has changed since then, with the exception of the population increase. Mr. Monahan commented that in 1982/83 the Task Force was only trying to attain the goal of 10 units per acre. He said that staff and all the interest groups came to the conclusion that 25% made sense; it did not add a large burden to the neighborhood and it wouldn't push up the actual density on a property to the extent that it dominated an adjoining property. He agreed that it was a compromise. He said that he didn't recall why wetlands were not included but he did remember that flood plains were the hot issue at the time. Mayor Nicoli asked if wetlands were recognizable in 1982, noting that the definitions have changed since then. Ms. Newton concurred with the Mayor, stating that very few wetlands were identified in 1982/83; flood plains were the community issue. In response to a question from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Hendryx stated that they still had the same standard of an average of 10 units per acre. Mayor Nicoli asked if Council was allowed to make changes to the application without it having to go back through the process. Mr. Hendryx stated that there were noticing problems if they made a substantial change to the requested amount of density transfer, although they could approve something less than what was requested. Councilor Hunt asked if the staff made its decision because it was trying to comply with the current rules and regulations, though that might not necessarily be what staff wanted to do. Mr. Mickaelson said that he thought it was more staying within the Comprehensive Plan; there was no regulation that said 25% was the magic number. Mr. Hendryx commented that it was also a consideration of equity. They had a standard that was applied to several different resources, and staff questioned one resource using a different number. He confirmed that there was no reason that the other resources couldn't be changed also. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 19 • • • Mr. Monahan commented that it would be a more equitable review to consider all the sensitive land types at once if they wanted to change the 25% agreed upon in 1983. Councilor Hunt cited Mr. Cox' statement of using a design availability basis rather than a percentage. Mr. Monahan said that staff could look at design availability basis since it would be some kind of a performance-based standard. Staff could try to develop criteria but they needed a definition for staff to work with. Mr. Hendryx commented that the concept was that parking, landscaping and setbacks had to be accommodated on any given site. The higher the density, the more physically constrained the site became. Councilor Scheckla commented that if they kept building in wetland areas, soon there wouldn't be any wetlands. He stated that wetlands should be protected (as was decided on in 1983) and that developers shouldn't be allowed to build on them. Councilor Hunt asked if this would make any difference in protecting wetlands. Mr. Hendryx stated "the jury was still out" regarding the impacts of development next to wetlands; the national studies were not conclusive. g. Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council: Motion to Direct staff Mayor Nicoli stated that he was in favor of the applicant's proposal. He said that if the Council approved this, they needed to review the other three categories. He said that raising the 25% to 100% didn't bother him. He commented that over the last 10 years the federal government has taken much land from private property owners by changing the definition of wetlands and declaring property unbuildable. He held that this would put some equity back into the equation. Mayor Nicoli commented that everything done in the past 5 years has been to increase densities and that this would contribute to that effort in a small way. He stated that building near a wetlands still allowed a good quality open space around a development. He said that allowing a higher density in this type of situation was alleviated somewhat by the large open area. Councilor Hunt concurred with the Mayor's comments. He said that he would like not to take any action tonight and to have staff to go back and change the other three categories for consistency. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 20 • • Councilor Rohlf commented that he rarely found himself in complete disagreement with staff. He noted the list of goals and criteria met by this application, citing that as important. He mentioned the responsiveness of the applicant to the CIT concerns. He agreed that it would be important to change all the categories to be consistent but held that there was nothing "magical" about the decision made in 1983; the Comprehensive Plan constantly underwent revisions. Councilor Rohlf stated that this would help them meet some of their density goals. He said that he preferred the applicant's approach of limiting the transfer to multi family land as opposed to going into single-family areas, citing the strong feeling from citizens to preserve single-family residential neighborhoods. He said that he liked the idea that this would help them protect the wetlands better than the current regulations, and that they could help the property owner get better use of his property. Councilor Moore stated that he agreed with the basics of the prior statements. He noted that the question was what density transfer to allow. He said that he favored denying the application and directing staff to research the options, including what was done by other cities. He said that he agreed that there should be some type of density transfer. Councilor Moore cited the comments made about restraints on the development of property limiting how many units could be actually put on it, based on the size of the property. He said that the Code should not allow 8-9 stories for multi-family units. He noted Councilor Rohlf's concerns about preserving single-family residential. • Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Moore. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ramis if they could legally make adjustments to the flood plain, slopes or drainage ways since the applicant did not ask for an adjustment to those land types. Mr. Ramis said that he thought that would require separate notice and application. He said that Council could adopt the proposal from the applicant and direct staff to come back with a range of options. Mr. Monahan commented that another option was to allow the applicant to withdraw his application and have either he or the City initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to look at the issues collectively. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that the City's lengthy process would impact the applicant's ability to use the property. Mr. Monahan cautioned the Council that they were not supposed to look at Comprehensive Plan amendments with a particular application in mind because it CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 21 • • could come up to them on appeal. Mr. Ramis concurred but said that Mr. Cox could speak in general terms of policy. Mayor Nicoli noted that the staff report included several comments referring to a specific property. He questioned whether or not that was proper procedure. Mr. Ramis said that the way to resolve this was to understand that they were addressing a policy question. There was nothing wrong with using specific examples from the City to see how the policy applied. What was really critical was the Council's policy judgment on a city-wide basis. The Council agreed by consensus to reopen the public hearing. Mayor Nicoli reopened the public hearing. Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Rohlf's concern about holding up the project while the City reconsidered the standard. He asked what their alternatives were. Mr. Ramis explained that in order to approve a percentage transfer on this property, they had to amend the Code that dealt with wetlands, and then process the request under the amended Code. He said that they could then come back through a second process and reconsider the standard along with the other land types. Mr. Cox stated that he concurred with Mr. Ramis that this was a policy question that should not be focused on one piece of property at this time. He suggested a short continuance to work with staff to find something that would work more on a site basis than on a percentage basis, and that allowed a design characteristic of the land to come into effect. He agreed with the concern that it would take too long to go through the process, and do his client a disservice. He said that the Council could implement on its own motion a study of the other types of sensitive lands and change the Comprehensive Plan within their process. Councilor Moore asked if they could grant a variance in this instance. Mr. Ramis said that they could not grant a variance to something that was not allowed by Code. Mr. Monahan stated that the City has never allowed variances to density, and that this application did not come under any of the exceptions. Mayor Nicoli asked if staff felt that they could reach an alternative solution with the applicant, in the event of a continuance. Mr. Hendryx said that staff could discuss different options with the applicant. He agreed with addressing this application separately and giving staff direction to evaluate the broader issues, as it potentially would not hold up the application. Councilor Rohlf asked if there was something fundamentally wrong with the concept of a design basis. Mr. Hendryx said that his concern was achieving clear and objective standards and how to apply them on a case-by-case basis. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 22 • • Mr. Cox cited the standard mentioned in the application, noting that they didn't actually use the term "100%." Mr. Ramis asked for an example where the standard would yield a different result than a 100% standard. Mr. Cox cited an example that yielded 80% of the whole site. Mr. Ramis stated that he thought that they could come up with an alternative if given time. He said that it would take some work with staff to make sure that it worked and gave the City some ability to regulate transfers in the future. Mr. Topp commented that 100% was a simple number; any other number required a defense. If they decided to go with something less than 100%, they needed to have a reason behind it. He stated that the 80% figure mentioned by Mr. Cox has some background to it. He stated that if they adopted different standards for multi family and single family, then they needed to show why they were different; that would be difficult to do. Mr. Bledsoe stated that he disagreed with Mr. Topp. He said that he thought it should be applied to multi family. Mr. Ramis stated that those were policy judgments for the Council to make. If they decided to go with different standards, his office would work with staff to develop the record to support their decision. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to continue the hearing until July 9, 1996 to give the staff time to develop a new recommendation. Motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohif and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8. CONTINUATION (FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 21, 1996) OF PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96- 0003- DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. a. Public Hearing Opened Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 23 • • b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Dick Bewersdorff, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the attached order included only those provisions recommended by the Planning Commission that were also acceptable to the City Council, based on comments at • the last hearing. d. Public Testimony: None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended approval as written. f. Council Questions or Comments: None g. Public Hearing Closed Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. h. Consideration by Council: Ordinance No. 96-23 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinance No. 96-23. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 96-23, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED SECTIONS 18.32.050(b)(5), 18.32.250(e)(2) TO ADD DEDICATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Motion approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS > •Mr. Monahan presented a resolution recognizing the efforts of Gene Seibel in helping the Water District resolve some of its water needs. He said that Mr. Seibel was the director of the Tualatin Valley Water District and was retiring at the end of this month. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to adopt Resolution No. 96-40. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 24 • The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HONORING GENE SEIBEL OF THE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") > Mr. Monahan presented an update on the sewer problem that developed Sunday evening in the Ventura Court area. He said that sewage backed up into a local stream because vandals dropped a 12-inch diameter boulder down a manhole. Although DEQ appeared to be satisfied with the City's clean up efforts, they questioned the response time. The City crews began clean-up efforts on Monday morning. Staff waited because they did not feel that people would access the stream at 10:30 p.m. (when the problem was discovered). The stream has been posted with notices warning people that the water was not safe. Ms. Newton added that the primary reason City crews did not respond on Sunday evening was because the manhole was located on forested property off Barbara Lane. The crews had to dig through the brush to get to it and that would have been difficult to do in the dark. The City was periodically testing the water and will removed the posted waters when it is again safe. Councilor Hunt commented that based on the articles and TV report, he had gotten the impression that the City had exposed sewer at that location, not that a rock had been dropped down a manhole. Mr. Monahan suggested issuing a press release explaining the remedial measures the City was taking. He said that there were ways to lock down manhole covers and staff was discussing that as a future option. He stated that he understood from staff that this was not an isolated incident but that similar vandalism has occurred elsewhere in the Metro area. > Mr. Monahan said that they would reschedule the election training. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 25 • 10. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Air or, City of Tigard Date: 7 /C/ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 11, 1996 - PAGE 26 Agenda Item No; 3__ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of (121 N ig(p WORKSHOP MEETING MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 1. WORKSHOP,MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Meeting was called to order at 6:42 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Scheckla, Paul Hunt, and Brian Moore. 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 advised that he had an update on discussions with the owners of the Amber Food property. > Jack Polans, 16000 SW Queen Victoria Place, King City, asked what the status was on the contract between the Chamber of Commerce and the City on the Tigard Feed and Seed Store. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had not wanted to take any responsibility for the building and left it to the Chamber to deal with. Mr. Monahan explained that the City was involved solely in purchasing the back two-thirds of the property; the Chamber was purchasing the front one-third and discussing with the Johnsons acquisition of the building. He reviewed the contract provisions stating that the Chamber had the responsibility to remove or renovate the building, and that if the Chamber chose not to build on the property, the City had the right of first refusal to acquire the Chamber's land. He said that they could provide a copy of the contract to Mr. Polans. Mr. Polans asked for clarification on the document reporting the discussion at Council regarding Planning Commission and CIT responsibilities. Mayor Nicoli explained that the document was the staff report requested by Council stating the areas where the Council, the Planning Commission, the CITs, and staff agreed. Mr. Polans asked for clarification on the agenda item regarding $30 million dollars that King City and Durham have elected not to participate in. Mayor Nicoli explained that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • was the proposed County levy to remodel or add on to all the libraries in the County. Mr. Monahan explained that the document in the agenda packet was simply a draft because the Cooperative Library group has not made a decision yet on whether or not to propose a capital levy; that would be discussed at the meeting next week. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City had any obligation to pay for moving the Feed & Seed building. Mr. Monahan said no, that the City had no obligation on the building. 2. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: APPROVE OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION (OPEU) CONTRACT Mr. Monahan reported that the Union has advised staff that the membership has ratified the agreement which Council accepted last week. Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to authorize the City Manager to sign the OPEU contract. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes.") 3. COMMUNICATIONS: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Dan Gott, South CIT Facilitator, reported that, following the staff presentation on Metro 2040, many citizens expressed interest in followup discussions on exactly what it meant. He said that some were asking if some of the 2040 goals were really pertinent to what the City wanted for the community. He noted questions regarding whether the plan was really planning or simply giving names to things that already existed (i.e., Barbur Blvd was already a main corridor). Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, said that staff would follow up with the four CITs at their June meetings. Councilor Moore stated that hearing the CITs' concerns gave him a better sense of what the community felt about Metro 2040 in general. He noted that the results of the Metro open house showed him that citizens either strongly agreed or disagreed on the issues; there was no middle of the road. Mayor Nicoli noted that one of the problems with the 2040 documents was the lack of defined statements; no one knew what the terms meant. Mr. Gott reported that another area of interest in the South CIT was continuing the CIP financing to connect the trail at the end of Ash Street to the Fanno Creek trail. Mr. Hendryx reported that staff would tabulate the results for the CIT questionnaire and bring a report to Council. 4. DISCUSSION: SPEED HUMP POLICY Gary Alfson, Engineering Consultant, reviewed the speed hump program implemented last year on three streets. He said that staff now had 45 requests for speed humps throughout CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • the city. He reviewed the methods used by staff to determine the effectiveness of.the program, including speed checks before and after and feedback from the adjacent property owners (74% of whom supported the speed humps). He emphasized that while speed humps did reduce speed, they had no documented effect on traffic volumes. Councilor Scheckla asked if they could track a reduction in accidents. Mr. Alfson stated that these streets didn't have many accidents. He noted that the City of Portland didn't even look at accident data when deciding where to install speed humps because they were not an accident prevention device; they were intended to reduce speeds on long straight of ways. Mayor Nicoli asked by how much were the speeds reduced. Mr. Alfson said that speed humps reduced speeds down to the effective speed limit which was 25 mph. Mr. Alfson pointed out the primarily positive comments received from the neighborhood survey asking for feedback on the speed humps (Appendix B, first page). He reviewed the comments received from the police chief and fire marshall; though the police chief was strongly supportive, he did want the City to make sure not to install speed humps before the neighborhood has gone through the police process first (neighborhood radar program). The fire marshall noted that speed humps did slow down response times and recommended limiting them to minor collectors and local streets, which was staff's policy anyway. Mr. Alfson reviewed Randy Wooley's memo listing the eligibility criteria for determining where to put speed humps and recommended staying with them. He noted that they have changed the signing from one sign per hump to one sign at the beginning and end of a series of humps. Mr. Alfson stated that staff would take traffic counts on each of the 45 locations requested for a speed hump. He noted that some streets wouldn't qualify because of low traffic volumes, even if they had high speeds. He said that they would rank the streets in priority order after gathering the data. - Mr. Alfson said that they would continue to solicit neighborhood opinion on whether or not to install a speed hump, citing the Summerfield neighborhood's preference not to have a speed hump as the reason why staff didn't install the proposed one last year. Mayor Nicoli commented that the City had agreed to install speed humps as part of the negotiated settlement with the Summerlake neighborhood. He asked if they could use funds from parks & recreation to fund speed humps on roads that ran through parks. Mr. Alfson noted that he compiled the list to indicate traffic counts; it was not a prioritization of projects. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that speeds be measured at the most appropriate point on the street. He suggested that staff solicit neighborhood input on where cars were speeding. He cited the location of a measurement device in front of one of the islands on North Dakota as an example of an inappropriate location to take speeding data because one could not speed at that location. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 3 • Councilor Rohlf suggested that the evaluation criteria include weighting for volumes that were higher than what the street was designed for and for the percentage of non- neighborhood traffic using the road. Mr. Alfson commented that soliciting neighborhood input would add a lot of staff time. Councilor Rohlf said that when making a decision on a capital expenditure, it was worth more time to get it done right and to find out.why the neighborhood was requesting speed humps in the first place. Mr. Alfson stated that he wasn't aware of any streets with overloaded traffic volumes. Councilor Rohlf said that he was more interested in a weighting factor for non-neighborhood traffic. He noted that if the problem was neighborhood traffic, the neighborhood could deal with it but they wouldn't be able to do anything about non-neighborhood traffic. Mr. Alfson reiterated that speed humps simply reduced speed, they did not divert traffic. Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not think that North Dakota would qualify under this program. He contended that it should because it was supposed to be a neighborhood street but the commercial area on one end precluded that. Mr. Monahan suggested adding a fifth priority rating for streets used for cut-through purposes, rather than making it a weighting factor. Councilor Rohlf reiterated that streets should be used for what they were designed for; if it was being used as something else, then that should be taken into consideration. He said that he was surprised that speed humps did not divert traffic because most people used cut- throughs to save time and speed humps slowed them down. Councilor Moore suggested having Mr. Alfson research this question. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that the situation on North Dakota might exist on other streets. Mayor Nicoli noted that North Dakota was a relatively unique street configuration in the city. Mr. Monahan commented that North Dakota traversed a short distance between two major roads; perhaps they needed a definition based on length. Councilor Moore suggested defining North Dakota as a short cut. Mr. Alfson asked how much weight should be given to the factor of a minor collector that served as a connection between two major roads. He briefly explained the rating system as currently set up. Mr. Monahan suggested that Mr. Alfson review the rating system in detail and make a recommendation for a fifth category. Mr. Polans asked if the City could be sued if an ambulance was delayed due to speed humps. Mayor Nicoli said that they have received input from the fire marshall. Mr. Alfson reviewed the budget for the program, noting that the funding source was the gas tax. He said that staff proposed a two phase project. The highest ranked projects would receive 100% City funding while the lower ranked projects would receive 50% City funding with the neighborhoods making up the lack. He said that based on the preliminary numbers he received from the Finance Director, they could provide $45,000 for the 100% projects (15-22 locations a year) and $15,000 for the 50% projects (12-15 locations a year). He noted that the revised numbers he received from Mr. Lowry were quite a bit lower. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Mr. Alfson noted that neighborhoods with such a low ranking that it would take years to get a speed hump, and who met the eligibility requirements, could volunteer to provide 100% of the funding themselves. He said that the City would oversee installation of any speed humps in order to maintain the standards for an improvement to a public right of way. Mr. Alfson said that the average cost for a single speed hump and signage was $2500, though they could get it reduced to $2000 if they did more of them. He said that the City would contract with a company rather than using city crews to construct the speed humps. Councilor Rohlf asked what the average cost was to do a street. Mr. Alfson said that they spent $30,000 on three streets last year for an average of$10,000 per street. However, the cost varied tremendously based on the length of the street and the topography. Mr. Alfson said that one criteria for 50/50 funding was interest by the neighborhood. Staff would ask the neighborhood to put up half of their share of the funding prior to the bid and to pay the rest prior to construction. An audience member asked if the speed hump policy was designed for residential areas only. Mr. Alfson said that it was specifically designed for residential minor-collector streets with a 25 mph speed limit. He reviewed the additional criteria for speed humps. The gentleman asked about Main Street as a possible location. Mr. Alfson stated that Main Street was a primary response fire route and not eligible; he noted problems with the street width also. Councilor Moore asked how the list of 45 streets was developed. Mr. Alfson said that they went through the CITs who nominated streets. He said that staff would expand any specific requests if they determined that was necessary. Councilor Moore asked if the citizens would be required to use a city approved contractor or hire a licensed and bonded contractor themselves. Mr. Alfson stated that the City would hire the contractor in order to keep control of the project and to make sure that the project met the eligibility requirements. Mr. Monahan said that Mr. Alfson would bring back a revised draft next week with possible Council action on June 11. 5. UPDATE: TIGARD FEED AND SEED STORE PROPERTY John L. Cook, Chamber of Commerce, presented the update to Council on this matter. He reviewed the agreement between the City and the Chamber. The City will to purchase the back two-thirds of the property to turn it into a parking lot, and the Chamber will purchase the front one-third for a Chamber Office building. He reported that the Tigard Area Historic Preservation Association (TAHPA) (to whom the Johnson were going to donate the building in order to get a tax break) backed out of the agreement on October 30, 1995. Mr. Cook reviewed the changes the Chamber wanted to make to the agreement now that TAHPA has backed out. He said that the Chamber felt that it had a verbal contract with the City and the citizens to create a building on the property that looked like a feed store, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • even though it probably would no longer be the original building. He asked that the clause speaking to the Chamber "renovating" the building be modified to read "renovate or remove the building." He asked that all references to TAHPA be removed from the agreement. Mr. Cook said that the Chamber intended to stand by all the agreements, including the City not taking any financial responsibility for removing the building from the site. The Chamber would still like to allow TAHPA the opportunity to remove the building and bear the removal costs for $1. He referred to the letters received from three contractors recommending that the building be removed and a new one built, now that the severe winter damage to the vacant and unmaintained building made it more expensive to renovate than to build a new building. Mr. Cook noted the Chamber's concern that neither of the parties that owned the land owned the building. He said that today the Chamber received a letter from the Johnson giving the Chamber the right to do whatever they wanted to do with the building; the Johnson realized that they would not get the tax break they would have gotten with donating the building to TAHPA but were willing to settle for saving themselves between $14,000 to $21,000 (the cost of removing the building). He noted that the Johnson were unhappy with having spent over $2000 to get the appraisal required to receive a tax break that they were not going to get now. He said that they had some hard feelings about how they were informed and brought into the agreement in the first place. Mr. Cook explained that the appraiser set a value of $14,000 to $18,000 on the building because the Chamber had intended originally to renovate the building; he doubted that it would be valued at that price now they were going to tear it down. Councilor Rohif commented that he did not see any reason why the Chamber had to make the new office building look like a feed store. Mr. Cook said that the reason the Chamber was considering doing so was because of the expressed citizen interest in keeping a feed store building at that location. Councilor Rohif stated that he did not think that Council should restrict the Chamber to any particular architectural design. Councilor Scheckla asked if they could document whether or not this building had any historical value (# 4 on the last page). Mr. Cook said that the'building was listed on the City's historic register but not on the state or national registers. Mr. Monahan reviewed the land use application process needed to alter or destroy an historic property. Councilor Scheckla asked if another interested party could volunteer to move the building elsewhere. Mr. Cook said that was desirable, noting that it would cost the Chamber between $8000 to $10,000 to tear it down. Councilor Scheckla noted that the property was located in an area not populated at night and asked if the Chamber had given any consideration to security. Mr. Cook stated that one of the contractors had noted that the location by a railroad and under a viaduct could pose a security problem. The contractor suggested making the building as vandal proof as possible. Councilor Scheckla pointed out previous discussions on widening Tigard Street and asked if that posed any problem. Mr. Cook said that it could but that he understood that the idea of widening Tigard Street was a dead issue now. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • Mr. Monahan commented that the only reference to TAHPA in the agreement was where TAHPA had the right of first refusal to the building if the City chose to buy out the Chamber and dispose of the building. He said that leaving TAHPA in the document was not a major problem but that TAHPA had no standing and could be deleted. Mr. Cook reviewed the timeline of events. The Chamber planned to move the structure within six months and to put up a fence at the edge of the railroad right of way. He said that they would go into a fundraising effort in the next 18 months. Mr. Cook noted the considerations of working with the City on the timing of the half street improvements. In response to questions from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan stated that the deeds were received by the City Attorney's office last Friday; now that the Johnsons have determined who owns the building, the City could proceed with closing the sale and activate the agreement clause allowing 180 days to remove the building. Mr. Cook stated that it was the desire of the Chamber to proceed with closing the sale as - long as their requested changes to the agreement were made. Mr. Monahan confirmed for Councilor Rohlf that there was nothing in the agreement that forced the Chamber to a particular design standard. He said that staff would closely examine the language of the agreement to insure that it was consistent throughout the document. He said that staff preferred to have the contract signed prior to closing the sale. Don Meyers, New Shoes, stated that he had an interest in purchasing the property for his Main Street business. He asked that the Chamber make a commitment to move in a timely fashion to develop the property, pointing out that Mr. Cook said they needed to raise funds to build a building. Mr. Cook said that they had funds available to purchase the property and remove the building but not money to build a new building. Mr. Monahan asked Council if they wanted to include a time limit on how long the Chamber had to build a new building on the property prior to the City exercising its option to purchase, since Council's intent was to have a building on the front portion of the property. Councilor Hunt stated that he saw nothing wrong with putting a time limit of three to five years for completion of the building. He said he had understood that the sale needed to be completed just as fast as possible because the Chamber wanted to move onto the property as quickly as possible. Mr. Cook clarified that the reason for moving so quickly was Burlington Northern's desire to dispose of the property prior to merger discussions. Mr. Monahan confirmed that was the reason for the fast track on this purchase. He reviewed the time constraints on the purchase. Mr. Meyers asked if the vacant space could be utilized as a paved parking lot during the three to five year period. Councilor Rohlf asked who would pay for the paving. Mr. Monahan noted that the City would not own that land and that if the Chamber wanted to improve it, they would have to meet the City standards. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • Councilor Rohif raised the issue of the Chamber's perception that it had to have a feed and seed store at that location. He reiterated that he saw no need for the Chamber to do so. Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Rohlf s comments. Mr. Cook said that taking out the language about making it look like a feed and seed store was fine with the Chamber. Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to take the position that the Council was not requiring any particular design standards to be met by the Chamber. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohif, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes.") Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to direct the City Administrator to rewrite the agreement with the Chamber and to move into closing the sale, without coming back to Council. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohif, Scheckla and Hunt voted "yes.") The Council discussed including a cap of five years at which time the City could exercise its right of first refusal. • At this time the Council listened to the report from Dan Gott, South CIT facilitator. (See Item No. 3) > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 8:30 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 6. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE . ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003- DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. a. Council Discussion (hearing continued from May 14, 1996) Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, reviewed the options available to Council in making this policy decision. They included to affirm the City's existing approach, to use the regulations to take a more aggressive approach, or to back off even further. He said that it was a philosophical question on how aggressive to be with the regulations. He said that the specific context of the decision was using regulations to protect areas that the City might use in the future for utilities, pathways, greenspaces, etc. Mr. Ramis reviewed the "automatic mandatory dedication" still used by some cities. This was the most aggressive approach and the most subject to constitutional scrutiny in light of the Dolan case. He noted the least aggressive approach in which a city CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 8 • • identified where it wanted easements but did not require developers to dedicate land or implement setbacks to protect the City's right to use the land. Mr. Ramis reviewed the proposed amendments to 18.96.010 and 18.96.0100 presented in the packet. He explained that they were based on the City of Ashland's aggressive policy to protect these areas without running the risk of constitutional violation by requiring dedication; this policy used setbacks imposed on a case by case basis. He noted that Section 18.32.250 authorized both what kind of conditions the City could impose and larger setbacks. He said that he was not advocating any particular approach but that the Council could adopt only page 1 if they did not want to use the Ashland approach. Mayor Nicoli expressed concern that the language placed the burden of funding the findings on the applicant. He contended that the Supreme Court made it the responsibility of the City to pay for the determination of rough proportionality. Mr. Ramis stated that though the City did the finding, the applicant was responsible for providing the raw data (the impact analysis) on which the City based its finding. The City did not have to prove for an applicant whether or not the applicant met the City's discretional criteria. Mayor Nicoli said that the cost of an impact study was prohibitive for most small property owners along Fanno Creek. He said that asking an applicant to pay $10,000 to $20,000 to counter the City's finding was in effect "a taking" because the applicant would simply dedicate the land to avoid the expense. Mr. Ramis stated that he did not disagree that there was a financial burden but that the source of the burden was not this amendment. He said that this amendment simply clarified the existing practice in the City. He said that the source of the burden was the abandonment of the "outright permitted use approach" in land use planning in Oregon and the adoption of discretionary criteria; property owners had to prove that they met the criteria in order to use their land, and that placed an expensive burden on the property owner. Councilor Rohlf commented that the amendments protected their way of life in the city, citing the lack of planning in small towns in Washington state as an example. He said that to relieve this burden for small property owners would also relieve it for large developers who were having a significant impact on the infrastructure, citing potential development in the Triangle as an example. He stated that while he had no problems with the first page, he did have problems with the second page. Mayor Nicoli commented that his concern centered not around the "traditional utilities" but around bikeways and the wetland area along Fanno Creek. He noted that more residential property owners owned land along the Creek than industrial owners. He said that addressing the question of what type of property owners triggered the requirement might dilute some of his concern. Councilor Hunt commented that the Ashland proposal treated everyone the same, stating that the Dolan case claimed that the City had not been consistent in its treatment of applicants. He said that he did not think that they should treat this issue on a case-by-case basis but have a set of requirements applicable to everyone. He CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 9 • expressed concern that Mr. Ramis did not make a recommendation on which course caused the least amount of legal problems and was the most defensible. Councilor Rohlf noted that Mr. Ramis had made a recommendation at the previous meeting but that the discussion made it clear that Council was uncomfortable with the staff recommendation. He noted that the language in the amendments pushed the constitutional limits, something that he wasn't comfortable with. He said that he did not think it was right to force the landowner to restrict building on his property to accommodate City speculation that one day it might want to use the land. Mr. Ramis addressed the Mayor's concern about the adequacy of public facilities. He stated that this was already a policy in the Comprehensive Plan and Code; it was driven by the state requirement that a jurisdiction insure that development be accompanied by an adequate level of facilities. The language simply made explicit what was already implicit in Tigard's Code. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that he understood from the Dolan decision by the Supreme Court that it was the City' responsibility to show rough proportionality. He said that the property owners should be able to look at the City's fmdings first and say whether or not they agreed with it; if they did not, then they would do the impact study to counter the City's fmdings. Councilor Rohlf disagreed. He said that the applicant would end up doing studies on their own anyway. He stated that he did not see this as that big of a change to the current procedures. Mr. Hendryx noted that the language did broaden the requirement to include items defined but not specifically required currently. He said that the language was much more specific as a result of the Dolan case. Mr. Ramis commented that the Supreme Court said that the government had the burden of proof if requiring dedication, not that the government had the financial responsibility to develop the evidence. He reviewed the three ways to pay for the evidence: the government paid for it out of general fund revenues; the government paid for it out of fees generated; or the government asked the applicants to submit the evidence. He reiterated that this language said that the staff would continue the practice used in the past in which the applicant supplied the fundamental data with which the staff worked. Mayor Nicoli asked if this requirement was applied to all applications received. Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, stated,that it applied to all applications received by the City. Councilor Moore asked how this differed from the current process. Mr. Hendryx said that it was more specific about the kind of response the City wanted from the applicant. Mayor Nicoli noted that the language allowed the staff to add more requirements than the minimum specified. Mr. Ramis reiterated that the staff could do that now based upon the Code. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • Mayor Nicoli spoke for the City taking responsibility to develop a trade off for the properties along Fanno Creek or other creeks. He said that he thought it was appropriate for the community to pay for bikeways along a creek if that was what the community wanted. He said that he separated the traditional utilities from the pathways. He said that he thought people got nervous when they perceived the City as taking land for parks. Mr. Monahan commented that the Mayor saw a philosophical distinction between public facilities as a way of conserving the commercial/industrial development and their use by residential citizens. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not feel that parks, bikeways or footpaths were for the commercial/industrial user. He said that • residential developers tended not to have a problem with bike paths running through their developments. He contended that taking property for a path or easement on commercial/industrial land was "crossing the line." Councilor Moore stated that he felt that pathways were as important to industrial areas as they were to residential areas. He commented that he could not get from - one side of Tigard to the other on his bike because the bike paths didn't run all the way through the city. Councilor Rohlf noted that the bike path on the Dolan property had been a negotiated tradeoff to other things that they hadn't wanted to do. He said that he didn't think that the public was well informed on the Dolan case. Mayor Nicoli asked how much an impact study would cost the property owner. Mr. Bewersdorff said that it depended on the applicant's plan. He said that if the City's pathway plan showed a proposed path located on the applicant's property, then staff would expect the applicant to provide an analysis of the dollar value of the pathway area versus the impact on the development. He pointed out that staff usually put a time limit on the City's option to purchase land that they wanted for a pathway; if the City didn't move on it within a year, then the City lost the easement. Councilor Scheckla stated that he had no problem with Exhibit A, page 1. Councilors Moore, Hunt and Rohlf concurred. Mr. Ramis stated that the second page was a departure and pushed the regulatory process beyond the current limits. Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought it was unfair and that he would pull the whole page. Councilor Moore stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission in having a philosophical problem with page 2. Councilor Scheckla asked if page 2 could be modified. Mr. Ramis stated that the fall back position was not to adopt page 2, and to rely on existing Code language for more setbacks. Councilor Moore asked if that was a bad position or simply a softer position. Mr. Ramis stated that he thought it ran the risk of inconsistency, though if they were careful they would be consistent. He said that it was fair to look at the issues on a case by case basis. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 11 • . Councilor Hunt asked which language created the most work for staff. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the new language would give staff another tool to require wider setbacks. He noted that the Planning Commission had been concerned about the loss of the reserved land to the developers. Mr. Hendryx commented that using setbacks as reservation lines was not an uncommon practice in the Metro area, though it did have an impact on the buildable portion of the land. Councilor Moore said that he had a philosophical problem with tying up buildable land that the City might or might not use. Councilor Hunt said that if they were trying to build a system of paths through the area, then they should protect the available land to avoid having to buy the land back at a higher price later on. He said that he would favor the new language. Mayor Nicoli said that he would oppose the new language. • Councilor Rohif said that if the City knew that they wanted the land in the future, then they should give the owner something for the land now; the City ought to be buying the property in these cases. Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Rohlf's comments. Councilor Moore noted the sentence about the City reserving the right to negotiate a strip of land along the flood plain for city use. He questioned whether the word "negotiate" left it too wide open to interpretation. The Council discussed ways to notify the property owner prior to application that the City was interested in putting a pathway through their property. Councilor Rohlf commented that he did not intend that the City would have to buy the land every time; if they could work a deal with the property owner to dedicate the land as part of a trade off, that was fine. Mr. Ramis commented that a property owner who offered to dedicate land at the time of his application received a tax break for that donated land; he lost the tax break if he had to dedicate as the result of an imposed condition. It was helpful for property owners to know in advance of their application if the City wanted some of the land for parks or paths. Mayor Nicoli suggested identifying the areas of interest around the city. He said that he would modify his opposition if a plan map showed where the areas of interest to the City were located so that property owners could know in advance if their property was affected. Mr. Bewersdorff said that a consultant was finishing up a map of the overall transportation system showing all the proposed parks and pathways as part of the transportation system update. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 12 • • The Council discussed language for page 2 that would clarify the Council's intent. Mr. Hendryx suggested pulling this out and treating it as a separate document when the map was completed. It would be a softer position. Councilor Rohlf commented that a position either to buy the land or trade with the developer was completely different than a position of holding the developer up on using his land. The Council agreed by consensus to pull page 2 and modify the language. Mayor Nicoli continued the hearing to June 11. 7. UPDATE: METRO 2040 Mr. Monahan announced that Mike Burton and John Fregonese of Metro were coming to next week's meeting to discuss the framework plan. Mr. Hendryx stated that staff was in the process of reviewing the "frozen" draft of the 2040 Urban and Growth Management Functional Plan, the implementing arm of Metro 2040. He reviewed the Metro timeline of an MPAC public hearing on the draft on May 29 with action scheduled for June 12 and adoption by the Metro Council in September. Mr. Hendryx reviewed Nadine Smith's memo listing issues for the Council to consider. He distributed to the Council the questionnaire given to the CITs last month. He said that it was a good exercise that generated a lot of dialogue. He noted the comments made by the Council and community listed in the letter. Mr. Hendryx asked for Council direction to staff to prepare a letter based on those comments to present at the MPAC meeting next week. Mr. Hendryx noted the issues of concern in the memo: governance and local control, Metro setting the population and employment numbers that local jurisdictions had to use to revise their codes to Metro's standards, only one representative on MPAC for all the small cities in the area, lifestyle densities, and housing types. Mayor Nicoli commented that the densities in the older neighborhoods in Portland would not change much; the rural areas were proposed to take the big density changes. Mr. Hendryx concurred. He noted that currently Tigard had a maximum density requirement but no minimum density requirement which meant that developers could build as few houses as they chose to on land zoned for a much higher density. Mayor Nicoli asked how the densities Metro was asking Tigard to take compared with neighborhoods in Portland. Mr. Hendryx said that the densities were probably similar because they were talking about 5000 square foot lots. Mayor Nicoli commented that Metro defined "quality of life" solely on the basis of delivering utility services to people (including a connected road system). He questioned that as the definition of "quality of life" for Tigard. He noted the greater security in the Tigard from violent crime as opposed to the situation in Portland where people were not safe. He contended that what Portland had was not better than what Tigard had and that Tigard did not want the problems that came with the higher densities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • Mr. Hendryx said that he would not defend the plan. He stated that Metro was trying to balance a variety of issues, including meeting RUGGOs standards, .maintaining the UGB, making transit work, and stopping suburb sprawl. Mayor Nicoli commented that people moved to the outlying communities for something that Portland could not offer them. He asked if they were not missing the point by not addressing the issues that quantified their quality of life. Councilor Rohif stated that he thought that cities addressed maintaining quality of life while complying with Metro's plan at the implementation phase of 2040. Mayor Nicoli asked what happened if Metro's plan came into direct conflict with the items citizens felt they needed to maintain their quality of life. Councilor Rohlf commented that they had better be ready to go to court. Councilor Scheckla asked how they knew if Metro's way was the right way. Councilor Rohif stated that it didn't matter; Metro's way would be the legal way. He said that he was interested in the Visioning project as a way to react to 2040. He disagreed with Councilor Scheckla that by the time they got through the visioning process, Metro 2040 would be a done deal. Mayor Nicoli commented that it could be a done deal but that the visioning would help them ask for exceptions to the rule. Councilor Rohlf commented that Metro put together their goals and plans for the future based on input from a public that had been no better informed than Tigard citizens were today. He said that only now that they were heading into the implementation phase was the public getting informed on what was really going on. Mr. Ramis reviewed the process used by Metro to determine the density targets. He said that local jurisdictions would have two years to meet those targets. He said that he viewed the exception as a very narrow process. that was not designed to create flexibility. He advised adjusting densities now rather than later. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on requiring a minimum density. Mr. Hendryx stated that Tigard was 650 units short of the target, a nominal amount. He said that they had to build to. within 80% of the allowed density for a development. Mayor Nicoli commented that a lot of their future growth would come from Bull Mountain where unfortunately the county has allowed sprawl to occur. He noted that there was a lot of land there that would qualify as sensitive, unbuildable lands. He postulated a development of 40 acres, of which 10 acres were unbuildable and asked if they had to meet the density requirements for the 40 acres or for the 30 acres of buildable land? Mr. Hendryx stated that he would have to check with Nels who had done the work on this; he could report back next week. Mr. Hendryx noted the discussion on page 2 under "lifestyle opportunities." He explained that the Growth committee was reexamining the assumptions that went into the population CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 14 • • and employment numbers and tweaking the numbers; consequently the numbers jurisdictions were responsible for could change. Mr. Ramis pointed out that there was no process for another round of examination by the jurisdictions of these numbers that changed because the assumptions changed. He cited the struggle over whether to expand the UGB by some 12,000 to 15,000 acres to accommodate projected densities or to maintain the UGB (adding only 4000 acres) because the cities said they could accommodate the densities. He stated that there has been no recomputation by the cities of what they thought they could do based upon the new assumptions. He said that the City could ask that no use be made of the numbers until staff has reviewed the assumptions. Mr. Hendryx said that because they haven't seen the numbers or the assumptions, they couldn't interpret it for the Council. Councilor Rohlf commented that a practical impact on the planning process of meeting the currently zoned densities was a narrower granting of variances to the zoning requirements in the future. In response to a comment from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Hendryx stated that the unfunded mandates issue was starting to be addressed in this plan but that it was still unclear as to what it meant. Mayor Nicoli commented that he had projected a cost of$200,000 a year during an earlier discussion. He said that he has since learned that Beaverton projected $1.5 to $2 million dollars a year for the next two years. Mr. Hendryx commented that Beaverton was undergoing periodic review and might not be able to separate out those costs from Metro. Mayor Nicoli commented that the amount of staff work generated by the Metro mandates had to be paid for out of the general fund; the cost would not be offset by developer fees. He said that he thought Metro should be asked the question of where they would find the money to pay the cities to implement their regulations. Mr. Hendryx noted that the transportation issues and standards were in flux. Metro relied heavily on transit and the suburbs didn't have much transit. He noted a conflict between ODOT and Metro designs, citing ODOT's identification of 99W as a six lane facility and Metro's designation of the same road as a four lane facility. He noted the lack of a funding mechanism for the final design. Mr. Hendryx said that he would have Ms. Smith revise the memo based on Council's comments this evening, specifically noting that new assumptions needed to be calculated in and the need for an estimate of the amount of money for unfunded mandates. Mr. Ramis commented that the process was so far along that making generalized comments about issues would not have much impact. He suggested focusing concerns on a specific request and requesting an amendment through a letter and then recruiting support from other jurisdictions. Mr. Monahan noted that the new draft Metro sent out (which would be based on the comments received on the frozen draft) would have undefined terms filling in a lot of the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 15 • • plans. He suggested getting a commitment from Metro that jurisdictions would have time to respond to the changes. Mayor Nicoli concurred, noting that he did not think Metro has worked any reworking of the draft based on public comment into their schedule. Mr. Ramis reiterated that Council needed to ask for specific requests. Mayor Nicoli commented that there were many undefined terms and statements in the document that they could make specific requests on. Mayor Nicoli noted that another issue was the "big box problem." Metro did not want retailers with more than 50,000 square feet; most of the grocery stores built in Tigard over the past five years would be designated as "non-conforming uses." Mr. Hendryx clarified that the big box only applied to mixed use employment areas such as existed along 1-5 and in the Triangle. Councilor Rohlf asked if the argument was over the size of building Metro was specifying or over Metro regulating the type of building the City could allow. Mayor Nicoli commented that in the suburbs they put a lot of different uses under one roof rather than following the urban pattern of smaller buildings with fewer uses. He said that suddenly designating so many stores as "non-conforming" rubbed him the wrong way because that designation would create problems for the owners when they wanted to make changes. Mr. Ramis commented that they had found it odd that the documents claimed to provide for flexibility but in reality specified exactly how to design a retail building. Mr. Hendryx stated that it was difficult to understand what the specific standards actually meant. Councilor Rohlf said that he thought that local jurisdictions should have the right to tell people what they could or could not build. Councilor Hunt concurred. Mr. Hendryx said that staff would come up with specific amendments to address the concerns Council expressed and present them next week. 8. DISCUSSION: ROLES OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAMS This item was continued to the next meeting. 9. UPDATE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - EMPLOYEE COMMUTE OPTION PROGRAM This item was continued to the next meeting. 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS > - Amber Foods property CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 16 • • Mr. Monahan reported on his discussions with the buyer of the Amber Foods property and Greg Harrold, the real estate broker. He stated that the buyer was very interested in working with the City. He reviewed the buyer's situation in needing to purchase land for tax reasons. He stated that the buyer had included in his lease agreement with a potential tenant a buyout clause for $20,000 if the City wanted to buy or lease the property. He reviewed options available to the City to use the land or the building. He stated that the City did want to move fast on this and give an answer to the buyer within a month. Mr. Monahan informed the Council that staff would brainstorm ideas on the options available to the City. He said that after the WCCLS discussion next week, staff would have a better sense on a cooperative county bond versus an independent city bond for the library. The Council discussed options in this situation, including an option to buy and fill the wetlands in order to gain another five acres of valuable buildable land and offering to pay the mitigation costs for USA and Metro on the park land they have set aside for mitigation. Mr. Monahan noted that the staff needed to develop options because of risks from some of the ballot initiatives that could affect their ability to do this. > In response to a question from Councilor Hunt, Mr. Monahan said that he and Kathy Davis, City Librarian, have discussed the WCCLS bond situation and different ways they might be able to compromise with Beaverton. > In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Mr. Monahan reported that the County has indicated an interest in paying half the cost of acquiring the land at Walnut, Tiedeman and Fonner. > Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the letter regarding the hot air balloon festival. Mayor Nicoli explained that he had written a letter of concern at the request of the Festival because next year the Portland Rose Festival Association was considering moving the Airshow to a different weekend. If they did that, then Tigard would likely lose the balloon festival because they would have to move it to a different weekend to avoid holding two major Rose Festival events on the same weekend; the balloons were on a circuit and could only come to Tigard on the scheduled weekend. > Mr. Hendryx reported that the RFP for the Cook Park Master Plan has gone out. Staff would hold a meeting on Thursday where consultants could get an update on what the Task Force members expected in the Plan. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 10:39 p.m. (1 -, Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder •1 Moor, City o Tigard Date: 6 J I q q tt f:\recorder\ccm\ccm052 . 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 17 • Agenda Item No 3, I , Meeting of (v till rilo TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Ken Scheckla, and Bob Rohif (arrived at 6:55 p.m.) > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Property Manager John Acker; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow; Administrative Analyst Loreen Mills; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Finance Director Wayne Lowry; and Legal Counsel Tim Ramis. > Others Present: Richard Ragland, Architect. > Report on City Hall Roof City Administrator Bill Monahan introduced Richard Ragland, architect. Mr. Ragland reviewed the summary of work proposed for the City Hall Roof. He explained the current situation and the three options given, using a graphic to illustrate the specifics of each option. He stated that his structural engineer has informed him that the roof was built flat and the building designed to carry a second story. Mr. Ragland said that the first option was to cover completely the entire roof system with a metal roofing system utilizing a low pitch. He reviewed how they would roof and ventilate the mechanical well and provide for a fire sprinkling system and natural lighting in the attic they created. Mr. Ragland said that the second option was a single ply membrane roofing system utilizing a low pitch. He distributed samples of the membrane sheet, comparing it to a pool liner. He said that the mechanical well would be roofed in a manner similar to the first option's method; this system also created an attic that needed a fire sprinkling system. In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla on the mechanical well, Mr. Ragland said that they were putting a door in the north wall for access but they were closing off the rest of it to keep it weather tight; if they raised the roof, then they needed to start building walls to keep the water out. He said that there would be louvers at each end for air circulation. He stated that the building was sized with plenty of capacity to take the weight of the mechanicals on the roof. Councilor Rohif pointed out that the mechanicals included the HVAC system for the entire building which could only be removed by a crane. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 1 • • • Councilor Scheckla asked if there were other buildings in the area that used the metal roofing system. Mr. Ragland said yes, it was a common roofing system for industrial buildings. He stated that either of these roofing systems was water tight. Mr. Ragland said that the third option was not to provide any positive slope to the roofing system but to leave it flat and cover it with a ribber sheet. He stated that this could be warranted by the manufacturer and could save $20,000 over the building tapered system. He noted that with a tapered system they had to fill any voids with insulation to meet the code; the sleeper system needed to do that would cost $20,000. Mr. Ragland said that Option 1 cost $106,000, Option 2 cost $95,000, and Option 3 cost $70,000. Mayor Nicoli asked about the warranties on the membrane. Mr. Ragland said that they could get either a 10 year or 15 year warranty, depending on how much they were willing to pay for protection, though the cost of the construction process itself did not change. He presented a schedule of the warranty rates. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Ragland reiterated that both systems were completely leak proof if constructed properly and would be warranteed. The Council discussed the fastest way to find a roof leak. Mayor Nicoli commented that he thought their current leaks were due to bad flashing. Mr. Ragland said that he thought lock joint was a better method in preventing leaks. Councilor Moore pointed out that the bottom line was to prevent leaks. He asked what distinguished one plan as better than another for the $36,000 cost differential when all claimed that they would prevent leaks. Mr. Ragland said that he recommended Option 2 because he felt more comfortable with a positive slope. He said that if the Council did decide to put a second story up in the future, then there was no point in spending the high amount but if they wanted a permanent system, then the positive slope draining the water away was the better choice. Councilor Moore asked what the chances were that they would ever build a second story. Mr. Monahan said that they wanted to keep their options open and directed Council to a memo written by David Scott. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, explained that Mr. Scott was concerned about the strength of the building because of his observations of subcontractors not building to standard during its construction. He noted that the building probably wouldn't meet the new codes in any case. Mayor Nicoli noted that the Option 2 roof had a life expectancy of 10-15 years. Mr. Ragland said that the Option 1 roof's life expectancy was 20-25 years. Mayor Nicoli commented that the cost per year of life expectancy for each system was about the same, and that when they did have to replace the roof, they wouldn't have to repeat a lot of the work; therefore the price to upgrade the roof would be more reasonable. Mayor Nicoli stated that he was comfortable with Option 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 2 • • Councilor Moore said that he supported Option 2 also, since they have already set the money aside. Councilor Rohlf agreed with Option 2 also. Councilor Scheckla said that he could support either option, as long as they had as many guarantees on the work as they could get. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Ragland to provide information on the warranties to the City Attorney. Mr. Wegner said that staff would proceed with plans and specs for Option 2. Mayor Nicoli asked that staff verify that the flashing installed earlier this year was in fact working to prevent leakage. > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. > Sprint Proposed Contract Update Mr. Monahan explained that he had signed the Sprint contract at a rate of $900 a month with five-year terms and an option for the City to terminate the contract after the second renewal (15 years). He said that Sprint did not sign the contract because of the following concerns. The City had negotiated a provision allowing the City and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) to co-locate on the pole; they were told by the negotiator that there was no cost. However Sprint said that there was a cost since they would have to put up a more substantial pole. Mr. Monahan said that Sprint said that they would allow the co-location in exchange for an agreement not to terminate within in the 25 years. He said that he told them that was not acceptable but that he would take a compromise position to Council. The compromise they suggested was the larger pole and another $50 per month in exchange for an agreement not to terminate until after 20 years. In response to a concern from Mayor Nicoli, Mr. Monahan said that they had a provision stated that as long as the installation did not interfere with SSLP's operation and use of the site, the City & TVF&R could co-locate on the pole. He said that with the 20% automatic escalator clause at the end of five years, the $950 a month totaled $460,000 over 25 years. He stated that $950 a month was a good rate. He pointed out that Sprint was siting the pole in such a way as to leave enough room for someone else to rent property. > Discussion on Budget Committee Vacancy Applications Mr. Monahan said that staff needed direction on how the Council wanted to give input on both the Budget Committee and Planning Commission applications. Mayor Nicoli said that he and Councilor Rohlf would review the applications and bring back a recommendation to Council. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 3 • • > Election Information Training This item was deferred till a later meeting. > Discussion on Ballot Measure 31 Mayor Nicoli explained that Ballot Measure 31 was intended to amend the Oregon Constitution to bring it more in line with the US Constitution and other state constitutions with regard to child pornography laws. He said that the legal people felt that this was the best chance to attack pornography operations, given how many cases have been kicked out of court. Mayor Nicoli said that the group supporting the measure have asked the mayors in the region to endorse it. He stated that he would personally endorse the measure and asked the Council if they wished to endorse it as a body. He pointed out that if they did endorse it, they could not use the staff to support it in any way. Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel, stated that the fundamental legal problem for City Attorneys in Oregon was the slightly different language in the Oregon Constitution from the US Constitution which the courts have consistently interpreted to provide a higher level of protection of First Amendment rights than the US Constitution. • The Council agreed by consensus to endorse Ballot Measure 31. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the regular meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Brian Moore, Ken Scheckla, and Bob Rohlf. Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Acker; Human Resources Director Sandy Zodrow; Analyst Loreen Mills; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz Newton; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; and Legal Counsel Tim Ramis. 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 added the proclamation designating May 19-25, 1996 as Emergency Medical Services Week. Mayor Nicoli added a discussion of architectural services for the proposed addition to City Hall. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 4 • • Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the Tigard Feed & Seed building. Mr. Monahan said that next week the Chamber was scheduled to report on the status of the building. He said that staff was still awaiting the land deeds from Burlington Northern; they have eliminated their Property Management Division and were now contracting with a private property management company. He said that due to confusion with the transfer, new deeds were needed and that the situation would be resolved. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Steve Shupe, Metro West Ambulance, expressed their appreciation for the City's willingness to designate May 19-25 as Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week. He expressed their pride in the EMS system in Washington County and saluted all their partners, including the 911 system and medical and fire department personnel. He acknowledged their partnership with TVF&R. He invited the Council to participate in their VIP ride along program and to attend a family barbecue on Monday, May 20. Mr. Shupe presented Mayor Nicoli with a placque commemorating their EMS partnership. Mayor Nicoli signed the proclamation. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Scheckla, to adopt the consent agenda. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes".) 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: April 9, 16, and 23, 1996 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda 3.3 Appoint M. JoAnn Hayes as Deputy City Recorder - Res. No. 96-29 3.4 Adopt Fee Schedule for Land Use Application - Res. No. 96-30 3.5 Approve Purchase of Ross Street Right of Way • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion - None 4. REPORT ON OREGON FLOOD SUPPORT SERVICES OF WASHINGTON COUNTY Ron Carl, OFSS Washington County Coordinator, reported that well over 60 families and businesses in Tigard have applied for federal flood relief from FEMA with many more afflicted. He said that they primarily provided disaster counseling, dealing with post traumatic stress in families and individuals. He said that their service utilized professional licensed counselors and was free of charge. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 5 • • Mayor Nicoli asked if the organization was private non-profit or an arm of a county agency. Mr. Carl said that their funding trickled down from FEMA through the state and the county with additional funding from St. Vincent's Hospital. He said that the counseling would be available for the next 10 months; after that counseling would be available through the County Crisis Services. 5. DISCUSSION OF VISIONING PROJECT Loreen Mills, Administrative Analyst, reviewed the revised schedule prepared by staff(see Council Packet), noting that the process was split into six phases. She said that the first phase (Summer '96) was the announcement phase in which they informed the community of what they were doing and garnered broad base community wide involvement. She said that the second phase was split between conducting the community survey from mid-October to mid-November and presenting the results in town hall meetings and at service clubs, etc. in January and February. She stated that they were deliberately avoiding the holiday period. Ms. Mills said that the third phase began with the selection of 30 citizens to serve on the Steering Committee to work with staff to identify the areas of interest that came out of the survey and citizen meetings (March - May '97). Next the Steering Committee would split up into smaller groups to work with City staff to develop strategies to address the identified issues. In the next phase (August - October '97) staff would develop measurements to show the citizenry that the City was implementing the strategies identified during the visioning process. Ms. Mills said that in January 1998 they would present the first annual report to the citizenry to tell them what the City has actually accomplished in addressing the identified citizen concerns. She said that they proposed an annual report as the follow up process with periodic testing of the survey results to make sure that they were still current. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Administrator, reviewed the revised budget. She stated that she contacted PSU and Lewis & Clark regarding the possibility of using interns to do the work; the professors felt confident that they could find interns interested in the project, probably second year graduate students. Ms. Newton reported that she also contacted the Tigard public schools because staff wanted to include them in the process. All the schools were interested so now staff would target a couple of schools to participate. She said that she would also contact the private schools and those who lived in Tigard but attended Beaverton schools to see if they were interested in participating. Ms. Newton said that they were looking at getting businesses to sponsor the "End of Phase" celebrations. Taking a closer look at advertising costs and consultant costs also helped to reduce the budget. She pointed out that the budget did rely on interns doing the work but reiterated that the professors had been very confident that they could get them. She noted the sections that gave greater detail on what she, Mr. Monahan and Ms. Mills would be doing in the process, and that listed how much and at which phase they would be spending funds for consultants. Ms. Newton reviewed the visioning process for the TV audience. She said that it was a 16- month process to involve the citizens of Tigard in helping staff identify a direction for the • CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 6 • • community. She emphasized the importance of citizen involvement up front, pointing out the community survey and the citizen Steering Committee. She cited the successful experiences of Scottsdale, Arizona, and Milwaukie, Oregon, in acquiring money from grant or other sources as a direct result of this process. Ms. Newton said that she has also contacted Metro about getting money for the Visioning process. She said that she has been encouraged to pursue funding because their process could serve as a model for how other citizens might want to integrate the 2040 issues into a city's future planning. Ms. Mills commented that they have heard from the other cities involved in this process that their relationships with other entities within the city (i.e., fire district, etc.) have improved because they were all working from the same game plan and could make mutually supportive decisions. Mayor Nicoli asked if the proposed budget was included in next year's budget. Ms. Mills said that it was but explained that the presentation at the Budget Committee meeting had been based on the first budget. She said that if Council approved this, the revised budget would be discussed at the June budget review. Ms. Newton noted that Councilor Hunt has not yet seen the revisions since he was out of town. Mr. Monahan stated that staff could bring this back on the May 28th agenda for Council action. He said that staff hoped for unanimous approval because of the considerable effort and commitment on the part of staff and the Council to make it work. Mayor Nicoli stated that he supported the process. Councilor Scheckla expressed his reservations regarding the process. He stated that he did not think he could support it. He said that he thought that they had enough volunteer people telling the City where to go in the future without adding another survey, and that he disagreed with Ms. Newton and Mr. Monahan taking time away from their job duties to do this. Councilor Rohlf stated that he strongly supported the process. He said that he didn't know how anyone achieved goals without laying them out and working in a proper direction. Councilor Moore stated that he agreed with Councilor Rohlf. He said that this was a good time to be proactive and develop a road map to give them direction before events overtook them. Councilor Rohlf said that he would be willing to wait to vote on this matter until Councilor Hunt returned. 6. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI JUDICIAL) ALBERTSONS' INC.IDUNCOMBE Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand - Comprehensive Plan Amendment(CPA)93-0009/Zone Change(ZON)93-0003; Site Development Review(SDR) 93-0014/Minor Land Partition (MLP) 93-0013 a. Continue Public Hearing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 7 • • Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on whether or not the hearing had been closed, allowing only the applicant to provide rebuttal of written information. Mr. Monahan introduced Terry Mahr, the City Attorney for the City of Newberg, who was filling in for their City Attorney because of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Mahr confirmed that the hearing was in fact closed at the last meeting; the applicant was allowed seven days to submit his rebuttal statement, and the record was now closed. He noted a request from Mr. Kleinman (opponents' representative) to give a four- to five-minute rebuttal; Mr. Shonkwiler objected to reopening the record to allow that. Mr. Mahr advised the Council that they did have the discretion to reopen the record but noted that they would have to allow the applicant another seven days to submit rebuttal unless he waived that right. He said that the Council could make a decision tonight since the record was closed. He stated that both Mr. Kleinman and Mr. Shonkwiler wanted to make additional arguments, should the Council reopen the record. Councilor Scheckla asked if a decision to allow additional testimony could be appealed. Mr. Mahr stated that any decision made by the Council could be appealed to LUBA, then to the Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. Councilor Rohlf stated that he was not inclined to reopen the record. Councilor Moore and Mayor Nicoli concurred. Councilor Scheckla stated that he could go either way. b. Mayor Nicoli stated that they would not reopen the record. The public hearing was closed. c. Council Consideration - Ordinance No. 96-20 Councilor Rohlf stated that he was comfortable with the findings except for the language on page 8, TCP 8.1.3 (h). He said that he thought they had changed the language to state that this policy did not apply in this situation because the property was not near a bike path. Councilor Rohlf asked staff whether or not the language in 8.4.1 was typical of the language commonly used in findings . Mr. Bewersdorff stated that it was lengthy but served the purpose and did not overstate the case. Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance 96-20 as amended by Councilor Rohlf. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. Ordinance No. 96-20, an ordinance adopting findings and conclusions to approve a comprehensive plan map amendment and zoning map amendment requested by Albertson's Inc., CPA 93-09 and ZON 93-03. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 8 • • Councilor Rohlf expressed his distress that this application has taken so long to go through the process. Councilor Moore concurred. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, and Moore voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003-DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS - The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections • 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. He said that this ordinance was before the Council as a result of the Supreme Court decision on Dolan v. Tigard. He explained that these amendments drafted by the City Attorney's office required an impact study to quantify the effect of each development on public facilities and services. In the case where dedication was required, the applicant would be required to comply with the requirements or to provide evidence to support the conclusion that the requirements were not roughly proportional. Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the amendment language also included language to permit the reservation of park land, utility, greenway, and storm drain management areas with setbacks from the reservation area rather than from the property line . He explained that this would protect the City's ability to construct trails and to manage drains. Mr. Bewersdorff noted the public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 8 at which the Commission voted 4-3 to recommend that the Council adopt the portions of the amendments requiring the impact study and the findings on rough proportionality. He informed the Council that the majority of the Commission were philosophically opposed to the new language under 18.96.010 and 18.96.100 regarding the reservation of land for future acquisitions; the other three members felt exactly the opposite. d. Public Testimony Proponents: None Opponents: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 9 • • Carl Johnson, 8965 SW Burnham Street, stated that he thought the language in the amendments to permit reservation of land to protect the ability to construct trails was unnecessary. He pointed out that the Tualatin flood occurred after Fanno Creek subsided. He suggested that some of the money property owners paid for water treatment should be devoted to cleaning out the channel of Fanno Creek. He spoke for a bike path along the creek rather than meandering through private property, keeping trails as far away from business and residential areas as possible. Mr. Johnson stated that he understood from recent cases that the Supreme Court has taken a new direction and emphasized private property rights as equal to civil rights. He cited the Nolan V. California Coastal Commission case and the Lucas case in Florida. He stated that people had the right to use their property in accordance with the law. He said that he thought that there was strong legal ground for turning down the language in 18.96.010 and 18.96.100. Councilor Rohlf asked if Mr. Johnson saw a distinction between this kind of_ condition applied to a developer as opposed to a landowner. Mr. Johnson said no, that the burden should be on the general public for the general good. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m for a ten minute break. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Bewersdorff recommended that the Council adopt the draft as prepared by the City Attorney. He said that the Planning Commission had a concern that if this was not handled properly, there would be some effect on private property owners over the reservations. He said that if they were not careful the provision could be abused but that he didn't see the City doing that. Mr. Ramis stated that the language as it was written was a reminder to decision makers that the way to avoid a taking was to address their purposes and goals through setbacks rather than through taking land through dedication. He said that this invited a less aggressive approach than some used currently. Mr. Ramis said that he thought it was legitimate to raise the possibility of abuse of setbacks or reservation; that was why they had an administrative appeal process. He stated that ultimately the Council was the watchdog to prevent abuse. f. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if adopting this would reflect back on any cases pending now. Mr. Ramis said no, that it was forward looking rather than backward looking. Councilor Scheckla asked if each situation would be looked at on its own merits. Mr. Ramis said yes, that they would apply the same law but that the facts would change for each situation, and staff would have to address those facts. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 10 • • Mr. Bewersdorff said that this would give staff a better handle on developing findings. He said that this would also enable them to find out early in the process if there were any disagreement on rough proportionality if staff suggested dedication. Mayor Nicoli stated that he was uncomfortable with the wording. He cited Section 18.31.050, commenting that he was bothered by the phrase "... code requires dedication of property interests." He said that he didn't think that the Code should require dedication, that doing so was a violation of the Constitution. He stated that this language in the Comprehensive Plan had bothered him during the Dolan case also. He said that he felt more comfortable if the City told a developer that the City thought dedication of land was the best solution to the problem the developer was creating through his development, not that the City required dedication. Mayor Nicoli raised the issue of the 100-year flood plain and reservation of areas (18.96.100). He pointed out that the Dolan case was unique in that there were no wetlands immediately adjacent to Fanno Creek at that location (99% of Fanno Creek in Tigard did have wetlands). Therefore the property at the top of the bank on which the City wanted to put a pathway was useable commercial property. Mayor Nicoli said that he was nervous with the concept, stating that he thought that the intent was to keep the path adjacent to the creek, not to keep it out of the wetlands. He said that he thought that a lot of the current pathway was in wetlands or unbuildable flood plain and that the City did not need to take good land except in isolated cases like Dolan where they didn't have wetland or floodplain. He said that he wanted to read the report again and think about it some more. Mr. Ramis commented that he has not read in the current plans anything to the effect that they had to locate the path in wetlands or flood plain area. He said that he thought it authorized the City to meander the trail and put it in different places. He said that Council might want to revisit that policy in the future but that this language was not intended to change the underlying plans. Mayor Nicoli asked if the wording in the current Comprehensive Plan stating that the City required dedication would be removed as a result of this ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff said no but that staff did not apply that provision because of the Dolan case. Mr. Ramis commented that was a good point and that an ordinance making the Code mean what the City said could be looked at as a companion to this ordinance. Mayor Nicoli said that the portions dealing with utilities, etc., didn't bother him, only those dealing with the pathway. He noted that while the business in the Dolan case generated foot traffic in a commercial area, the area Fanno Creek flowed through from Hall Blvd to Durham Street was all light industrial; he did not think that they could apply a decision made for Main Street to that area along Fanno Creek because the circumstances were different, especially where Fanno Creek flowed at the rear of a property. Mr. Ramis stated that the correct process by the City should be to evaluate each application on its own merits to see if there were the kind of impacts requiring improvements to the transportation system, and then to see if dedication would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 11 • • mitigate those impacts. He said that it was possible that a light industry would not have enough employees per acre to have an real impact. He said that they needed to take a look at the Code to make sure it told them to make a case-by-case determination rather than automatically requiring dedication. Mayor Nicoli declared a conflict of interest. He said that he had a client who had an application currently before the Planning Commission. However since his client has already agreed to give the property to the City, the conflict was resolved and he would vote on this issue. Councilor Rohif asked what the effect would be on the ordinance if they removed the new language in Sections 18.96.010 and 18.96.100. Mr. Ramis reviewed the language in each section, explaining what the effect of removing the new language would be. He said that removing the first sentence under 100 (a) would mean that measurements of setbacks could include the 100-year flood plain; this was a planning issue, not a legal issue. He recommended retaining the second sentence because it suggested an important option short of dedication - the reservation of land free of structures with the only exception being the sensitive land process. He said that taking that out would leave a certain level of ambiguity in the Code about the restrictions. Mayor Nicoli asked for clarification on the legal differences between reservation, easement and dedication. Mr. Ramis explained that the most legally defensible position was the reservation because it used setbacks and the courts have historically always recognized cities' ability to determine setbacks (which were not considered to be takings). Therefore it was the least intrusive mechanism to leave property open; dedication was the most intrusive. He said that reservation was not an easement and did not give the City any easement rights to cross over the land; the owner could make any use of it he chose, short of building a structure (unless he went through the sensitive land process). In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Ramis stated that they viewed the language as trying to make the City's authority clear and to give staff some direction. Mayor Nicoli commented that Council needed to decide whether or not to allow staff to reserve areas outside of the 100-year flood plain. He asked if the language restricted reservation of land only to within the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Ramis said that section (a) dealt only with the 100-year flood plain. He explained that (b) included a second category that dealt with infrastructure and gave separate authority to allow reservation. He said that language covered the case where the City allowed a person to use the balance of his property to avoid a taking but was contemplating a utility improvement and needed to adjust the location of the buildings to reserve the opportunity to come in later and buy the easement if needed. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that they could put a pathway in a flood plain but not in wetlands. He said that USA requirements precluded putting those kinds of improvements in wetlands. The City would need to have land outside a wetlands to put a pathway in. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 12 • • Mayor Nicoli commented that there were areas in the city where wetlands and flood plain might run 200 feet wide along Fanno Creek. He raised the issue of fill in a flood plain. Mr. Bewersdorff said that according to their Code, they could only fill in floodplain in industrial areas. Mayor Nicoli questioned whether or not they wanted to reserve that much of somebody's land. He suggested a restriction to the first 100 feet. Mr. Ramis stated that the process for resolving those issues was the sensitive land permit process. Councilor Rohlf said that he read this as putting the landowners at the mercy of whatever the City might or might not decide to do in the future. He spoke for stronger orientation to property rights and for the City buying property that it might want to use and selling it back later if they didn't use it. Mr. Ramis said that was a policy choice for the Council. He explained that staff drafted language to allow them to go as far as the Constitution allowed them to go in protecting the interests of the City and reserving its opportunity to purchase land in the future. He stated that the Council could decide on a less aggressive policy. Councilor Rohlf reiterated his concern about tieing up the use of someone's property today for something the City might or might not do in 10 years. Councilor Moore concurred with the Planning Commission's concerns that reservation was an unfair restriction on property owner development rights. Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought that they needed to take into consideration landowners' rights and find alternative language for the last few sections. He concurred that they needed protective language to give the Council guidance to deal with situations that were near takings but felt that they did not need to push the Constitution to get as much as legally possible. He said that he would be supportive of language that was more neutral and balanced. He stated that he thought it was incumbent on the City to purchase land or work a deal with the landowner for land they were seriously interested in developing. Councilor Moore asked if the burden would be on the City to prove that it really needed to reserve a portion of a developer's property. Mr. Bewersdorff said that staff had to be very sensitive to that issue because they did not want to preclude the right of development. He said that often staff would ask for an easement for a pathway and include a limitation that if they didn't come back with a location within a year, then the right to the easement expired. Councilor Moore said that they hadn't heard this language limiting the City to a reasonable amount of time. Councilor Rohlf said that he was opposed to the language because it did not seem fair to the landowner. - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 13 • • Councilor Scheckla asked if the Council had to take action on this tonight. Mr. Ramis said no, staff brought this forward to start the discussion. Mr. Monahan said that they could put this on the May 28th agenda. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET To discuss a proposed supplemental budget for 1995/96. a. Open Public Hearing Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges: None c. Staff Report Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He directed the Council to the supplemental budget for the current fiscal year contained in the packet. He said that the proposal was advertised as required with no concerns raised at the Budget Committee. Councilor Rohlf asked about the Tupling gift and whether or not there would be a sign designating the donor. Mr. Monahan said that they have not yet decided on how to use the money, though he and the Mayor have met with Mr. Tupling to discuss potential uses of the funds, and would meet with him again when staff had some ideas. He said that he thought Mr. Tupling's recommendation was not to have a sign, though he might change his mind based on the project. Councilor Rohlf asked about the time frame for proposing a project. Mayor Nicoli said that he thought it would be better to wait until they had identified all the land they were purchasing. He noted that Mrs. Tupling had been very interested in wildflowers and that possibly they could use the money to put a pathway through a natural area. d. Public Testimony - None e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Lowry recommended that the Council adopt the resolution adopting the supplemental budget for 1995/96. f. Council Questions g. Public Hearing was closed Mayor Nicoli closed the hearing. h. Council Consideration - Res. No. 96-31 Moved by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 96-31. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 14 • • The City Recorder read the resolution by number and title. Resolution No. 96-31, a resolution creating the FEMA disaster fund and approving a supplemental budget for 95/96. The motion was 'approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes".) • 9. CONSIDER WETLANDS MITIGATION ON CITY PROPERTY - BOWEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY a. Staff report Mr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He directed attention to the staff memo distributed at the April work session which explained this request from the Bowen Development Company to use City property for wetlands mitigation. He reviewed the situation. In 1988, a development company dedicated the wetlands portion of its property to the City for a development that never happened. Now the Bowen company wanted to develop the remainder of that property only to find that the wetlands have moved onto their property. They were asking to fill in .17 acres of wetland with an offset of .618 acres of mitigation. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that this was an isolated case, and that the City might not be able to get a similar dedication of wetlands today. He said that he thought this would be good for the City. Mr. Bewersdorff pointed out the attached draft policy relative to wetlands mitigation. Mr. Monahan reiterated that this was a unique case with some obligation on the part of the City to assist in allowing mitigation on City property because the particular City property under discussion originally came from the land owned by Bowen. He • said that the draft policies would protect the City in the event of future requests; staff has already turned down one request to allow mitigation on other City land for a development outside the city. b. Council Discussion/Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if a bike path was planned for the area. Mr. Bewersdorff said that the development north of the werecluded a-pathway. He reported that staff did consider asking for a pathway but that the_developer of the apartment complex did not want to dedicate the area and staff would have a difficult time proving rough proportionality. Councilor Scheckla asked if they would be opening themselves up in the future to other similar requests. Mr. Bewersdorff said that to prevent similar requests was the purpose of the draft policy. It could be used to guide the Council regarding future cases of wetlands mitigation. Councilor Scheckla asked if legally they could make this a one time instance. Mr. Ramis said that he thought they could, given the unique set of facts. He said that CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 15 • • Councilor Scheckla asked if legally they could make this a one time instance. Mr. Ramis said that he thought they could, given the unique set of facts. He said that they could emphasize its uniqueness in their decision and then develop a policy to preclude this sort of thing. Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that moving the wetlands could create more problems. Mr. Ramis commented that they could not draft a law to protect themselves from Mother Nature. However they could make sure that they had policies that required improvements of wetlands. Mr. Bewersdorff pointed out that enhanced wetlands were a better storage for flooding and a benefit to the City. c. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-32 Mayor Nicoli said that he didn't have any problem with this resolution. He concurred that the City owed it to a property owner to work with them when the owner had dedicated land for wetlands in the past only to have a hardship created • because of natural changes. He noted that this was a gift to the City that they probably couldn't get today. Councilor Scheckla stated that he did not see this as a gift to the City because they did it in order to get what they wanted. Mayor Nicoli noted that they could no longer place a condition on a developer to give them land because of Dolan. He reiterated that he was comfortable with working with the owners on this. Mr. Monahan pointed out that usually land was not dedicated until construction of a project began; the applicant in 1988 dedicated the land and then decided not to develop. He suggested an amendment to the resolution to add a third "whereas" to read "Whereas the City owned land was dedicated in conjunction with the 1988 site development review that was not developed on the same property as shown Fir Road LLC" and to add under "Resolved" a statement "that the City finds that the unique circumstances of this application make it appropriate to grant the mitigation in recognition of the 1988 dedication." He said that this would record that this was a very unique situation. Councilor Scheckla stated that he liked the amendment. Councilor Rohlf concurred with confining this unique circumstances. He also agreed with the staff recommendation to develop a policy to deal with this issue, citing the trend towards more infill. Mr. Monahan reviewed the six items listed in the staff draft policy: benefit, physical enhancement of existing wetland, compensation to the City, no additional costs to the City for maintenance, location of developed property within the UGB, and no potential onsite mitigation possible. Mayor Nicoli suggested setting over the discussion on the policy to a future agenda and dealing tonight with the resolution. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 16 • • • Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Resolution No. 96-32 as amended. The City Recorder read the resolution by title and number. Resolution No. 96-32, a resolution to allow Scholls Ferry Road LLC and/or affiliates to create and/or enhance wetlands on city owned greenway, TIS, R1W, East 1/2 of Section 23, Tigard, Oregon. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla voted "yes".) 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS > Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to give staff direction to proceed with developing a recommendation on how they wanted to proceed with architect services on the addition to City Hall. He noted that the process would take anywhere from 4 - 8 weeks but that getting an early start would allow staff to begin as soon as possible after the July 1 budget began. Mr. Monahan noted that it was a lengthy process with the new purchasing rules. He said that they would not be back with a recommendation before July 1 but that they could do a lot of the up front work and hopefully get better prices and a quicker beginning to the process. The Council agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed as discussed. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 9:32 p.m. (/°4Q-I. Ltt Attest: / atherine Wheatley, City Recorder r, Ci of Tigard nn Date: l4./.1A--F I I IOC?(4) fArecorde6carAccm0514.96 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 14, 1996 - PAGE 17 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE(503)684-0360 . Notice TT '8 4 3 4 BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice < F is E i v E F 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ITigard ,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit o • fry ,Ili9 'Accounts Payable—Terry • :31Y OF TIGARD AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION __<.a._._...._.. STATE OF OREGON, ) The following will be considered by the Tigard Planning Commission on COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. Monday.April 8. 1996,at 7:30 P.M.,at the Tigard Civic Center—lbwn Hall, 13125 S.W.Hall BoulevardiTigard,Oregon.Both public oral and I, Kathy Snyder written testimony is invited. The,pu public hearing on this matter will be. . being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising conducted in accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard—Tualatin dimes Municipal Code,and rules and procedures of the Planning Commission. a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the and 193.020; published at Tigard in the close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to aforesaid county and state; that the allow the hearings authority an all the parties to respond on the request; Comm.Dev.Code/Cascade Comm.Center precludes an appeal, and failurd to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the comment is directed precludes an appeal based on that criterion.Further entire issue of said newspaper for ONF successive and information may be obtained from the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. consecutive in the following issues: Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223,or by calling 639-4171. March 2 8 ,1 9 96 PUBLIC HEARINGS . ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT(ZOA)96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS I 0 � The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development - .'V'-, • • Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A.and 18.96.100' 4 1 A.and B.to require impact study,reservation and dedication requirements Subscribed and sworn to%:fore me this 2Rfh day of March,1 • for public facilities and services.LOCATION:Citywide.ZONE:N/A. e:ter, APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1,2, -?,.. 11 and 12;Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a,2.1.1,2:1.3,3,7 J` "�' ""'/ and 8;Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Notary ,'blic for Oregon N; My Commission Expires: i,......, .' SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(SDR)96-0005 • PINNACLE INVESTORS/MCM ARCHITECTS ____ AFFIDAVIT_,_�_...,.. .�.m.-.....,.. •._._. . CASCADE COMMERCIAL CENTER • '”,^ The Director has approved, subject to conditions, a request for Site . :�:1`', Development Review approval to allow the construction of two,one-story ' :: ;.'l ,4 commercial retail buildings totaling approximately 100,000 square feet. ligt; LOCATION: 10385 S.W.Cascade Boulevard(WCTM 1S1 35BB,tax lot t t 500).West side of S.W.Cascade Boulevard,south of S.W,Scholis Ferry � _, Road, and north of S.W. Greenburg Road. ZONE: C-G (General q:.: 5:r-' Commercial).The General Commercial zone allows public x l agency and ° e rI administrative services, public su pp ort faciliti es, professional and•,fi ;a1;,i, ::i administrative services,financial,insurance,and real estate services, tro'!j� business support services, general retail sales, eating and drinking, . i:,:,11, , establishments, among other uses. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community,Development Code Chapters 18.62,•18.100,".:414, ,i.s `,°r 18.102, 18.106, 18.108, 18114, 18.116,.18.120,and 18.164. . . , ,,„. . ,.,,,,,-,, �'it s i , . —.. . \—\_,:i, :.„. i .., „„,,,,., .=4: K' i —Li r' I �• ■ ="'-;'*i l Q . 4 .14 \ Aki,..1: . ` gill .'-: ' , , iii,. -?_,.. 1 ,,.,its;:, • IL. '.., 1 -- :. Ia1 \ , 4 .,x;:,, ;. ..4 __we :.i, . _o_ , .:,,, PI ,,,,,,,e3 —Th 71 ( / . ., . • . . .q- . . ,,, d nalt The adopted finding of facts,decision,and statement of conditions can be ''` obtained from the Planning DDeeppartment,Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.,Tigard,Oregon 97223.The decision shall be final on April 10, 1996.Any party to the decision may appeal this decision in accordance ` k with Section 18.32.290(A)and Section 18.32.370 of the Community' l'ib Development Code, which provides that a written appeal may be filed : . '•: within 10 days after notice is given and sent.The deadline for filing an ., 14' appeal is 3:30 P.M.,April 10.1996. `x` 4I ,Tf8434—Publish March 28, 1996. •,;;-. 1, 1,0 Uj1si ;. •I•' • AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 1/111I"NU 11011$1 . APRIL 8, 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 96-0002 AKA BUSINESS SERVICES REQUEST: Amend the text of policy 12.2.1(2)(1a) of the Comprehensive Plan to modify the spacing and locational criteria for General Commercial land uses. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 1.1.1(a), 1.1.1(c), 2.1.1, 5.4, 6.1.1, 8.1.1 and 12.2.2; Tigard Community Development Code chapter 18.30; and Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 12. 5.2 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. 5.3 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND . IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE.REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT • Hearing Datopril 8,1996 Time: 7:30 PM 4111* • STAFF REPORT CITY of TIGARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: • FILE NAME: DEDICATION. RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 96-0003 PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. 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, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a. and c.. 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance program according to the findings found in Section IV of this report. Staff Report City of TigardiDedication, Reservation and Impact Study Requirements Page 1 III. BACKGROUND•FORMATION • In 1994 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Dolan v. City of Tigard. At issue in that case was whether the City had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United • States Constitution by requiring a developer to dedicate land to the City for bikepath and storm drainage easement purposes. The Supreme Court developed a new test by which the City's action would be judged and sent the case back to the City to apply this new test to the facts of the case. The condition which the City originally imposed upon the approval of a reconstruction and expansion of an existing retail commercial store required the owner to dedicate a portion of their property adjacent to the Fanno Creek drainage way for bikepath purposes and to also dedicate that portion of their property within the Fanno Creek drainage for storm drainage and recreation purposes. The Supreme Court told the City that when it seeks to obtain a transfer of a real property interest as a condition of a development approval, it must determine that the interest it seeks advances some legitimate public policy interest of the City and that the impact of the transfer on the developer is roughly proportional to the impact the development will have upon the public. The City Council reconsidered the development application during the summer of 1995. It modified the original condition challenged by the developer to make clear that the • easement being taken over the Fanno Creek drainage way would be limited only to stormwater system management purposes and would not allow the general public access to that drainage way. The condition requiring the fifteen foot pedestrian bikeway along the edge of the Fanno Creek drainage was not materially changed. The Council analyzed the impact of the conditions on the developer and the impact of the development on the public. The Council did this by quantifying the impacts the development would have on the stormwater and transportation system, and then attaching a dollar value to those impacts. The Council then determined the dollar value of the property interests being taken for the pedestrian bikeway easement and the stormwater management easement. The Council's conclusion was that the interests being taken by the conditions were roughly proportional to the impact other development would have on the public. The City Council's decision was not challenged by the developer. The Dolan case requires the City to go through this analytical process each time it seeks to require a developer to transfer an interest in real property to the City as a result of the impacts the development will have on the public. The Court has required this analysis to be "an individualized determination". That requirement means that each situation must be judged on its own merits and there is not blanket conclusion that can be reached about whether the Dolan case allows or prevents the City from imposing a condition. The City may, in the future, go through this analytical process when it requires a developer to make public improvements which are considered necessary to mitigate the impacts of a development. This appears to be the way the courts are heading. Staff Report City of Tigard/Dedication, Reservation and Impact Study Requirements Page 2 The attached "Exhibit Anguage has been drafted by thiffity Attorney's office to respond to the "Dolan" is ues. Included is language that re Tres an impact study, a provision that requires adoption of findings to support real property transfers; added language to permit reservation of land for park, utility, greenway, and storm management; and provisions to measure setbacks from greenway/floodplain reservation areas in order to protect the ability to construct trails, and manage drainage and open spaces without difficulty related to structure. IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing. Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12 Transportation, are met because the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of public facilities and services, and transportation facilities in a more timely, orderly and efficient manner to provide defined levels of service improvements determined to be necessary by studies showing specific facts and findings for each development to be consistent and "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent case law. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. Staff Report City of Tigard/Dedication, Reservation and Impact Study Requirements Page 3 3. The proposed chases are consistent with the provision Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these policies call for development control of floodplains and greenway areas and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and need for improvements, reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. • 4. The proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 8, Transportation which call for ensuring that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City standards. The proposed changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. 5. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Department, Police Department, and Building Division have reviewed the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. VI. AGENCY AND CIT COMMENTS GTE, NW Natural Gas Co., Cablevision, PGE, Metro Area Communications, US West Communications, Tri-Met Transit Development, Washington County Dept. of Land Use & Transportation, Metro Area Boundary Commission, Oregon DLCD, ODOT and members of the Citizen Involvement Teams have all had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no comments or objections. No other comments have been received. 3/28/96 PREPARED BY: Richard Bewersdorff DATE Senior Planner Staff Report City of Tigard/Dedication, Reservation and Impact Study Requirements Page 4 • • EXHIBIT A DEDICATION, RESERVATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underlined. 18.32.050 Application Submittal Requirements: Refusal of an Application B.5. Include an impact study. The impact study shall quantify the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, the sewer system and the noise impacts of the development. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. 13.32.250 E.2 Conditions may include, but are not limited to; a. Minimum lot sizes; b. Larger setbacks: c. Preservation of significant natural features; and d. Dedication of easements When a condition of approval requires the transfer to the public of an interest in real property, the approval authority shall adopt findings which support the conclusion that the interest in real property to be transferred is roughly proportional to the impact the proposed development will have on the public. EXHIBIT A-PAGE 1 DEDICATION,RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE(ZOA96-0003) • • EXHIBIT A (cont'd.) • DEDICATION, RESERVATION, AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Language proposed to be added is underlined. 18.96.010 Purpose A. The purpose of this chapter is to permit or afford better light, air and vision clearance on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to make the location of structures compatible with the need for the eventual widening of streets by providing for additional yard setback distances, to ensure there is adequate distance between buildings on the site and to provide standards for projections into yard areas and to permit the reservation of land planned for acquisition for park. utility. greenway,and/or storm drainage management purposes. 18.96.100 Zoning_District Setbacks from Floodplain/Greenways and Reservation Areas. A. Zoning district setback areas shall be measured from the boundary of the 100 year floodplain/greenwav area rather than from the property line. The land within the 100 year floodplain/greenwav area shall be reserved and may be used only as allowed by the Community Development Code Chapter 18.84. Sensitive Lands. B. Land projected for future acquisition by the City for addition to the City parks system, or utility system, shall be reserved free of structures for future acquisition by the City. The zoning district setback area shall be measured form the edge of the reservation area. EXHIBIT A-PAGE 2 DEDICATION.RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE(ZOA 96-0003) idesbr- / CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON rI AFT ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTING REVISED SECTIONS 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. AND 18.96.100 A. & B. TO ADD DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a June 24, 1994 decision concerning uncompensated takings and the need to justify dedication conditions by showing a "rough proportionality" to the impact of development; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed proposals for revising the above Code Sections at a public hearing on ,1996; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend the revised Code, Sections as shown in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on ,1996 to consider the proposed amendments. NOW,THEREFORE; THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The proposal is consistent with all relevant criteria as noted below: The relevant criteria in this case are Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1.a. and c., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; and Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. The proposal is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals based on the following findings: • 1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met because the City has followed its adopted citizen involvement program which involved review by its Citizen Involvement Team structure, and public hearings as listed above. The City's Citizen Involvement Policies in the Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged to be in compliance with Goal 1. Notice for all hearings was provided in the Tigard Times which summarized and outlined the amendments being made to existing code provisions and was done so for each public hearing: Copies of the ordinance drafts have been available at least seven days prior to the hearings which follows Community Development Code Procedure. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 1 • • • 2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, is met because the City applied all relevant Statewide Planning Goals, City Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code requirements in review of this proposal. 3. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services and Goal 12 Transportation, are met because the proposed measures assist in implementing the provision of public facilities and services, and transportation facilities in a more timely, orderly and efficient manner to provide defined levels of service improvements determined to be necessary by studies showing specific facts and findings for each development to be consistent and "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. The proposal is consistent with the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: 1. Policies 1.1.1.a. and c. are satisfied because the proposed code changes are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals as indicated above and the changes help to keep the development code current with local needs and recent case law. 2. Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are satisfied because the proposal has been reviewed at public hearings and through the City's Public Involvement process. 3. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 3, Natural Features and Open Space, because these policies call for development control of floodplains and greenway areas and these provisions provide a tool consistent with recent case law to assess the impact and need for improvements, reservations and dedication that is roughly proportional to the impact of the development. 4. The Council finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Policies 7, Public Facilities and Services and 8, Transportation which call for ensuring that as a precondition to development, developments coincide with the availability of adequate services and that development is to provide streets and right-of-way consistent with City standards. The proposed changes provide an implementation tool that specifically measures impacts to determine whether development requirements are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of those developments. 5. Community Development Code Section 18.30 which establishes procedures for legislative code changes is satisfied according to the above findings. SECTION 2: Community Development Code Chapter 18.32 and 18.96 shall be revised as shown in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 2 PASSED: By vote of all Council mem• 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 i:\citvwidelord\zoa96-03.ord ORDINANCE No. 96- Page 3 w co P 431 - 238 676 (---, o 2 - Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided s4 TM 01 LIMED W ss Do not use for International Mail .v a (See Reverse) Ix Sent Al REGON DLCD 0 5 stie1 6,�IV COURT STREET, N.E. • .mi (Ti aJ P.O.,State and ZIP Cod nj• u SALEM OR 987310-0590 r fa Postage ' O /1 0 04 Q• H Certified Fee 1, ' \3 v ra Special Delivery Fee O• W CFA Restricted Delivery Fee 1. k0/3 Return Receipt Showing ' t \ 0 1 010.)0) to Whom&Date Delivered `y1 e11 o� Return Receipt Showing to Whom, OO 7 Date,and Addressee's Address TOTAL Posta e k t(] $ 0-1 \ • •(]I� &Fees �d i.,z1A\d vc�r o[ WH° Postmar �D to 'NP) vep 1 sa 04:i is WE rv, Az rxau LL � 0 J� rri ,,a rror C902 �'• SENDER: C 'a_2 •Complete items-tand/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the 1 m •■Complete items 3,4a;'and 4b. ` e •Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this following services(for an F.4 card,to you. extra fee): t ■Attach this form to the front of the mailptece,or on the back if space does not c°i l permit. a,., 1. El Address rr ■he Return Receipt Receipt show to whom the articl eewas below and the ate article number. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery N k delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. a 0 v 3.Article Addressed to: 4a.Article Number 0 0 IV OREGON DLCD P 431 238 676 0 °' 1175 COURT STREET, N.E. I- Ea 4b.Service Type SALEM OR 97310-0590 ❑ Registered ¢ Cl) g 1 Certified cc • ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured a 0 ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD = a >.; 7D ate• 7De ite y w . mZ ern i 91940 T 5.Received By: (Print Name) 8.Addressee's Address(Only if requested -'0 w and fee is paid) m te r g 6.Signature: (Addressee or Agent) •t- o X �i° - I T w PS Form 384 December 1994 I Domestic Return Receipt l _ t • NOTICE #' PROPOSED AMENDMENT This form must be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the final hearing ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 18 See reverse side for submittal requirements Jurisdiction City of Tigard Date of Final Hearing May 14. 1996 Local File# ZOA 96-0003 Has this proposal been previously submitted to DLCD? . Yes X No Date Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment _ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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." Amendments to the Community Development Code requiring impact analysis to ensure dedications roughly proportional. Also. adds requirement for findings showing rough proportionality, language to permit reservation of land for park. utility. greenway and storm management: adds requirements to measure setbacks from reservation areas rather than property lines. Plan Map Change From to Zone Map Change From to Location: City Wide Acres Involved: Specified change in Density: Current Density Proposed Density Applicable Goals: 1. 2. 11 and 12 Is an Exception proposed? _ Yes _ No Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Metro Local Contact: Richard Bewersdorff. Planning Manager Phone: (503) 639-4171 Address: 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard. OR 97223 DLCD File# Date Rec'd #Days Notice A,A CI4141."2":3117:11-1 GAJ RD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28. 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: (please provide the fo ng info tiDn) Name of Person(s) Commenting: /ate Phone Number(s): I 31/ ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAL/REQUEST FOR COMMENTS • • v 21(7 X1111*11�� __ CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28, 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: (T&ase provide the foffowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenti •: ,' < I Phone Number(s): � zEZ) r I ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS • RECEIVED PLANNING • MAR 21199 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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:—Thursday --March-28,-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: • P ase provide thefodowing tnfon nation) Name of Person(s) Commenting: ---t ►1 IPhone Number(s): , ��' V71--c/(o ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS RECEIVED.PLANING MAR 2 51996 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 1996 TO: Nadine Smith. Planning 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28, 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: (cplease provide the foaming information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS' r • • CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services.` LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28. 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: • 4 (Please pram&tkefofawing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: IPhone Number(s): I ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS irf, /%,1 Iry J�� RECEIVED PLAN .�_:�.�1 CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS APR 68 199 DATE: March.18. 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) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28, 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: VWe 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: • (Jlease provide thefor(awing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: - IPhone Number(s): (�3q 'f/7/ )C 3 a- )' ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS • IDECEIVED PLANNING (t - APR 0 81996 rte CITY OF TIGARD REQUEST FOR COMMENTS DATE: March 18. 1996 TO: Brian Rager. Development Review Engineer FROM: City of Tigard Planning Department STAFF CONT' T: Richard Bewersdorff (x316) Phone: (503)639 1 Fax: (503)684-7297 RE: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0003 DEDICATION, RESERVATION AND IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS The City of Tigard proposes amendments to the Community Development Code Sections 18.32.050 B.5, 18.32.250 E.2, 18.96.010 A. and 18.96.100 A. and B. to require impact study, reservation and dedication requirements for public facilities and services. LOCATION: City Wide. ZONE: N/A. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, 11 and 12; Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1 a., 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 3, 7 and 8; Community Development Code Chapter 18.30. Attached are the Proposed Ordinance Amendments 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: Thursday - March 28, 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 thefoffowing information) Name of Person(s) Commenting: _ IPhone Number(s): K ( I ZOA 96-0003 DEDICATION,RESERVATION,IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS PROPOSAUREQUEST FOR COMMENTS