City Council Packet - 08/02/1976 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
AUGUST 2, 1976, 7:30 P.M.
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LECTURE ROOM
AGENDA:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3, COUNCIL REVIEW OF SITE PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
BY ATLAS LAND COMPANY, 9380 S.W. TIG_.ARD AVENUE.
(Request by Councilman Cook and Staff)
a
4. PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGES - Discussion
i
5. PARK BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS - Distribution to Council
6. NOISE ORDINANCE - Discussion on Effectiveness
yI'
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
�.._ Study Session Minutes August 2 , 1976, 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: . , Mayor Wilbur A. Bishop; Councilmen John
E. Cook, Alan W. Mickelson, Robert C. Moore, Lynn
R. Wakem; Lieutenant Donald L. Rea, Police Department;
J.D. Bailey, Legal Counsel; Richard Bolen, Planning
Director; Rick Daniels, Associate Planner; Bruce P.
Clark, City Administrator) Doris Hartig, City Recorder;
Arline O'Leary, Administrative Assistant
2. COUNCIL REVIDT OF SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEVI APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
BY ATLAS LAND COMPANY, 9380 S.1-1. TIGARD AVE.
(a) City Administrator pointed out the specific situation with
Atlas Land Company brings attention to the need for Council
to clarify and set policies in regards to the delegation of
responsibility and authority of the Planning Commission and
the Design Review Board.
Administrator further stated policy should also be set by the
City in the area of what conditions shall be required in new
development.
Legal Counsel stated the City did not have an ordinance clearly
stipulating where the powers lie or what conditions can actually
be applied to new development. Legal Counsel further stated,
if directed by Council, he would work with Planning staff on
developing the ordinances needed.
Lengthy discussion followed by Council, Legal Counsel and
staff with regards to Greenway dedications, right-of-way
dedications and/or easements and clarifying authority and powers
of Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
(b) Associate Planner Daniels stated the Design Review Board had
approved SDR 22-76 (Atlas Land Company) subject to all staff
recommendations with the exception of item 2 and 3 and adding
Design Review Board approval to item S.
Daniels further stated the Design Review Board requested a
meeting with Council to clarify their responsibility and
authority.
Discussion followed and Council questioned if City had authority
to require participation in future street improvements and
dedication of right-of-way for future improvements.
Legal Counsel stated City did have the authority and City
Administrator recommended Council take jurisdiction of SDR22-76.
(c) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded
by Councilman Wakem, to place SDR 22-76 in Council jurisdiction
( and set Public Hearing for August 23, 1976 commencing at 8:00
P.M. at Fowler Jr. High Lecture Room.
Discussion followed.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council.
3. PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGES
(a) Council and staff reviewed the proposed name changes.
(b) Council concurred and directed staff to prepare ordinance and
resolution and legal descriptions for Council approval at
August 9th meetir.,;.
4. PARK BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS
(a) City Administrator and Council discussed Park Rules.
Administrator reported the rules would be posted at all parks
later in the year and that the Explorers were handing out copies
to people living in the vicinity of Jack and Woodard Parks.
5. NOISE ORDINANCE
(a) City Administrator reported the City had received two noise
complaints, one residential and one industrial. Administrator
stated he had requested assistance in monitoring the sites
from DEQ and, after considerable time lapse, DEQ monitored the
industrial site and notified the City they would not monitor
the residential site.
Administrator reported contact had been made, with the EPA
office in Seattle to borrow a meter. Administrator further
stated to effectively carry out the noise ordinance the
City would probably need to purchase a noise meter.
Council and staff discussed need to purchase noise meter in
the near future.
6. OTHER:
(a) TIGARD COMP-IUNITY YOUGH SERVICES - City Administrator reported
TCYS had requested a $1,000 advance from the City.
Discussion by Council and staff followed.
Council concurred to advance $1,000 to TCYS.
PAGE 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 2 , 1976
r .
M City Administrator stated the new Public 7.1orks Director had
r` not started work yet but would be in contact with him by
Jednesday.
(c) City Administrator stated he had received a communication
from the State of Oregon notifying the public they would
be laying off 200 engineering positions.
(d) City Administrator stated Planning Commission had requested
a study session with Planning staff in retards to LCDC ,:or':
and staff's position. Administrator further suggested some of
the Council members might want to attend.
(e) Council concurred to meet with Planning Commission when
reviewing policy to be developed by Leval Counsel and
Planning Department.
(f) City Administrator advised Council the following additional
item would be heard at August 9th Public Hearing:
ZC 4-73 (Farmer's Ins. ) Review of silninC proEram of
PD approved September 9, 1974.
(g) City Administrator reminded Council of Budget -ieetin,.; 1,ucsday
Aurr-ust 3rd at 7:30 P-11. in -the General Telephone Duiluin`.
(h) Council questioned appointment, of members on the CCI point-
ing out a nes:: chairman had been appointed to i1POr 5.
City Administrator stated tie change should be note: by
Resolution eventually but y�lia-t the changed chairmans?lip was
legal and should be recognized as such.
7. ADJOUFU i•EM, QT 9:25 P.M.
t]tty Recorder
i,
ATTEST:
i-1AYOR
PAGE 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 2 , 1976
i
July 29, 19/6
1-E)`WANDIJ'M
' To: City Council
From: City Administrator
Subject: City ilolicy regarding dedications and ii?`)iJFE'.IeI1LJ in conjunction
with development proposals.
It appears to be timely for City Council to address itself to clarification
of City policy relating to conditional approvals of deelop:%,cat Proposals.
Recently the following i::c iuc"pts }lave occurred which should be ar?dressed by
Council:
a. COuilcilT:lan tdoore has questioned the appropriateness of 1-cr,11iring
dedications and improvements in conjunction with ::one ch n;cs and odic r
land use approvals;
b. Attorney Bailey 1--is indicated that !uch conditions may nut be
best imposed at the zone cha 16C steP;
C. COt•ilcil h:,s indicated its intention to rc—et 7:ith
't:1Td.3 ft Co-!:!1i'"Sions to provide TneLter dire!• n Oa 015c)- iCi3;
d. The Desi;;n Re
v=tw 1-oard has in(}icat•=d a .,c ;irc: fori,,- 'Lfic
policy direction in this arca;
P_. A T2ClIrrC.-.nL !]U�'<ti is }':35 L.ci un IIS to 1:}l�f}7 ?iPal•d �}%1iln:liilg
roii'.mission or Dcsi:w17 }i c:\'icw r�On'Cd, or both) 61tould bL 1C•�t!:Tiil€,
dr•_dications, etc. this is f!:rthc"r c^.:sPiicetcd l"y the fact t'llat not all
det-el.opment proposals �;o befure t?',e Plc: zr.in Vic. ,, .=s un;
f. On Tuesday, July 27, the De-si-n review ?lo.:.r'd _;:prc��cr,3 ro icc;rr.
over tl'.c_ir AP.thority to require dedications and fu: a
IiL-ard Street prc'porty which did not need prior acti',n b; tale
l;.Till in Cor.-ni-sP'_.an t-td fu Lller vot,;: ar
d to ppove '.tie 1,cv r'l"i• ..I2t Y� nS
741�hi�lJt Trs!lU_r:ng sttcct dFdi.catic-n, sillcv-alk CJ::.>t:'itctioil, 1-
-remonstrance for fut.uIe sticrt C:nd a z
dedication.
Other properties located on Ti;;ard Streit have fc-cenLly t%fC':1 Tir>>!i 4d
to meet these same conditions of approval;
g. Staff has a copy of a mcriora.ndum to the subject property o„ner from
his attorney effectively stating that the City :,ay not require dedications
-A 47-.provc3nents.
A staff meeting kith Attorney Bail.cy resoltcd in a c"nc>nsus that the ability
to require improve-ments and drrdicatlU^s %;a5 T7C.GC.'SArti for the City to
eJ'feC` �ttide grouth, !-',,;%tiic-th i}1C' .'lap^_':S CO[.:%i:s'on .and 1-1;:s-117nt:;7'i_..
Boards'.:o.:ld b2YE Lhe cUthority to makc such :c:C,U:r C"'.!=rtLa; tl'at it. "'ppeared
that legislative action could clear ::p any poSsi Ic �::'Jiollitics in Lm)e Co6e,
and Chat Council El 01,11d ,:se tllis case is a . cc,:�.:m to (1) test the
existing code provisions and (2) provide specific policy direction to the
Design Review Board and Planning Co-,%mission.
pa;,e 2
July 29, 1976
Memo
From: C.A.
Councilman Cook has requested Council review of the Tigard Street development
proposal. There are t�:o areas of concern. The first related to how the
City will treat this property the relations
glueptionhof�;chather sCit}apolicyciseand
developments. The second is precise.
recise.
how to achieve it if our present actio::s and Code are riot
i
7
'r u
_ _ S
City of Tigard
PARK RULES
The below listed proposed rules to be posted in all the City Parks, reflect
a composite of regulations extracted from Title 7 of the Tigard Municipal Code,
Chapter 7.52 Public Property Use. The City Administrator has been delegated
the authority by the City Council, to post these rules and regulations in
"conspicuous places in the parks for the guidance of the general public and
individual users".
The Tigard City Council finds that it is in the public interest and necessary
for the peace, health and safety of the general public that the rules and
regulations set forth below be enforced:
A. 1. No person shall ride, drive or walk on sLch parts or portions of
the parks or pavements as may be closed to public travel.
i
2. No one shall use loud, boisterous, abusive, or indecent language,
or behave in a disorderly manner.
i
3. It is unlawful for any person to take into any park any intoxicating
liquor, for other than his own use.
4. The sale or dispensing of malt beverages shall be allowed only after
obtaining a permit to do so from the city administrator subject to
approval of the City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
5. It is unlawful for any person to remove, destroy, break, injure,
mutilate, or deface in any way any structure, turf, plantings or
other property or improvements in any park.
6. It is unlawful for any person to place or discard any rubbish, or
.refuse or debris in or upon any park.
7. It is unlawful for any person to use firearms, firecrackers, fireworks,
or explosives of any kind in any park.
y
8. It is unlawful for any person to solicit the acquaintance of another
in any park, or annoy or follow children, or distribute obscene
literature.
9. It is unlawful for any person to fish, wade, swim or bathe in any of
the parks except in the places designated by regulation for such purposes.
10. It is unlawful for the owner, possessor or keeper of any animal to permit
such animal to roam at large in any park.
11. No one shall enter or remain in the parks after the hours fixed by
regulation to be posted at the entrance to the parks.
E
12. Use of the public areas herein described for organized group picnics,
political or religious gatherings, or groups consisting of more than
fifty adults in attendance at any one time, is unlawful unless a written
permit has been issued with the approval of the City Administrator or
City Recorder.
13. It is unlawful for any person to loiter about or to interfere with any
park attendant in the discharge of his or her duties, or to cut, deface,
mar, destroy, break, remove or write on any wall, floor, ceiling,
partition, fixture or furniture in any public convenience station.
14. No one shall ride or drive any bicycle, . motorcycle, motor vehicle,
truck, horse, or any vehicle or animal in any part of the parks except
on the regular drives designated therefor.
15. It is unlawful for any person to park any motor vehicle on any park or
playground area, except in regularly designated parking areas.
B. 1. All other conduct or activities expressly prohibited by state Law .
and city ordinances not mentioned above, shall be in full force; and
violation of such state law and city ordinance will be prosecuted;
to include any and all felony and misdemeanor drug violations.
Any person violating any provision stated above, upon conviction shall be punished
by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the city
or county jail for not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(ordinance 71-12 §4, 1971)