Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/05/1980 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LECTURE ROOM MAY 5, 1980, 7:30 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROGRESS REPORT - Senior Citizen Center Bill. Brunner & John Kyle Architects 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 5. RESOLUTION: VENTURA COURT ANNEXATION - Planning Director 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF INTERESTED PARTIES ON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - Planning Director 7. OTHER 8. ADJOURNMENT T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L STUDY SESSION MINUTES, MAY 5, 1980, 7:30 P. M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian, John E. Cook, Kenneth W. Scheckla; Councilwoman Nancie Stimler; City Administrator, Raeldon R. Barker; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Planning Director, Aldace Howard; Director of Public Works, Frank Currie; City Recorder/ Finance Director, Doris Hartig; Research & Development Assistant, Martha McLennan, 2. PROGRESS REPORT SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER (a) John Kyle and William Bruner, Architects, presented a scaled model of the proposed Senior Citizen Center and described various special features of the design. Mr. Kyle explained the solar features, the outdoor amphitheater, the rural appearance of the facade, and the possibilities for phasing _ development and future expansion. Iie described in detail the geological problems of the site (an old landfill) and stated that several of the special features had in fact been necessary to compensate for the instability of the land. (b) Council examined the model of the site and reviewed several measured draw- ings. They discussed several features, and asked if final_ exterior materials had been selected. (c) Councilwoman Stimler stated that the exterior finishes would be discussed at the meeting on May 13th which was the last meeting for public comment on the project. 3: GENERAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION (a) Frank Tepedino, Chairman of the: Planning Commission, described previous conflicting decisions by the two bodies and explained that the Planning Commission requestedclarification ofpolicy regarding several planning ' issues. He suggested that the subjects be dealt with one by one and that all Planning'Commission and City Council members be allowed to comment on each. (b) NPO PLANS & GUIDELINES: Commissioners Bonn, Speaker, _Kolleas, Funk, and Helmer expressed the feeling that the NPO plans should be viewed as guide- limes only and`must"be flexible to meet the changing needs--for instance the new housing style of 'single family attached dwellings. Commissioner Popp felt that the,NPO plans should be adhered tows much as possible and only be changed with strong justification of a need to seek a balance of interests. Councilwoman Stimler and'Councilman Brian expressed their support for the NPO plans and 'felt that they should beadhered, to. Mayor felt that the NPO plans should be viewed as advisory, noting that final responsibility for any action lies with the Council. Councilman Scheckla felt that the NPO plans should be adhered to and pointed out that they are not currently being adhered to. Councilwoman Stimler referring to`a particular incident stated that single family attached dwellings should be used as buffers for established residential neighborhoods and should not be 'placed in such a way to alter the character of the neighborhoods. Council man Brian suggested that the comprehensive planning process should be ongo- ing so that new developments in building can be addressed by both the public and the public officials. i >I i i a (c) TRANSPORTATION PLAN: City Administrator expressed his feeling that a comprehensive transportation plan was needed, particularly in the down- town area. lie also pointed out that Tigard is no longer a rural community and must plan to meet the growing needs regarding transportation. Public Works Director felt that in part the transportation problems related back to the NPOs and noted that there were several interface problems. Commissioner Popp stated that interfacing had been addressed--if not completely successfully. He also expressed the feeling that the extention of Ash Street was necessary to the wellbeing of the downtown area. Commissioner Helmer asked when a comprehensive street inventory and plan would be complete. Public Works Directorindicatedthat it should be released before July. (d) APARTMENTS & CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS: City Administrator: reported that initial study was being conducted regarding these situations. Commissioner Speaker suggested that a conversion should be looked at as a zone change to provide some input and review by the City of these conversions. After much discussion by Council and Planning Commission consensus was that it was too early to develop policy or, strategy regarding conversions and that further study should be pursued. (e) ISLAND ANNEXATIONS: Chairman Tepedino stated that all of the major planning issues (floodplain development, density and transportation planning) cross jurisdictional boundaries, and with the current jigsaw boundaries of the City these problems are increased. Councilman Scheckla reiterated his con- tinuing policy against forced island annexation and explained his personal involvement in being annexed to this City. Councilmen Cook and Brian reiterated their support of forced island annexation policy. Mayor stated that he supported forced island annexation, but only at the time that the necessary services could be provided to the newly annexed areas. (f) FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT: Chairman Tepedino, noting a recent change in the floodplain ordinance, requested clarification of Council policy. Council- man Scheckla expressed the need to review each proposal on an individual basis. Councilman Brian felt that the policy should allow the potential for development in the floodplain but on a controlled basis. (g) DENSITY CALCULATIONS IN :PUD'S: Planning Director explained that in some cases trade'offs for open space, sensitive lands, floodplain acreage, dedications and easements have resulted in very reduced actual lot size. He explainedthe process he uses to calculate` density. Councilman Popp expressed a 'concern that everyone was using a'different °formula, and ` requested clarification. (h) STREET STANDARDS:; Planning Director reported that current regulations specified 34' paved as the minimum. Commissioner Smith stated that the NPO plans should be amended to conform to the 34' regulation. Chief of Police`expressed enforcement'concerns regarding private streets and emergency access problems with narrow streets. Councilwoman Stimler stated that' there:was a problem in situations where trade-offs (of sensitive lands etc.) resulted in,both higher density and narrower streets, as then both the need for patrol and enforcement go up but emergency access is more limited. Planning Director pointed`out the inequity in requiring new developers to put in both large lots and 'fully improved streets, when the neighborhood previously had had large lots but not full improvements. PAGE.2 - Study Session'Council Minutes May 5,' 1980 { s 1 M APPEALS PROCESS: Commissioner Speaker requested information on the review process Council uses to determine the method by which they will hear an appeal (appeal on the record only or acceptance of further testimony)? Consensus of Council was that summation testimony would be allowed in all appeals. Meeting was recessed from 10:25 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. 4. VENTURA COURT ANNEXATION (a) Planning Director reported that as the result of an extensive resurveying of this property it was discovered that it was not an island (by 7'). And even with the most rapid annexation the City would not gain substantial control over the character of the development. He reported further that the developer had agreed to dedicate the land in the floodplain and recom- mended that the City accept the development and hope for concessions. (b) On another matter, Planning Director -reported that an annexation of land near O'Mara & Hall would be coming up soon. 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION OF INTERESTED PARTIES ON DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT (a) Planning Director reported that a very successful and productive meeting had been held on April 30th regarding the future development of the down- town area. He stated that many civic and special interest groups had been present, and strong support was shown for a new Library/Civic Center as well as a need to address the downtown parking problems. He asked that Council give direction to staff regarding pursuit at this time of the Civic Centerconcept. (b) General consensus of Council was that staff should proceed with the Civic Center concept and return to Council again after preliminary plans could be developed. Councilman Scheckl'a opposed the Civic Center concept stat ing that it was not a good time to approach the citizens for necessary funds, and further that he did not believe that new physical facilities were needed to house City staff. 6 OTHER (a) Public Works Director reported old sewer plant digesters;have been demolished. (b) Public Works Director reported that a petition had been received for a sewer LID on a small portion of Walnut Street'. (c) < Public [,forks Director requested that Council accept the public improvements regarding Gaarde Park, and requested that Council take formal action at this time. RESOLUTION No. 80-37 RESOLUTION OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IIIPROVEMENTS_CONSTRUCTED WITHIN GAARDE PARK SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION SUBJECT TO HEREIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS PAGE 3 Study Session Council Meeting May 5, 1980 1 Motion by Couacilwoman Stimler, seconded by Councilman Brian to approve. Approved by 4 to 1 vote of Council. Councilman Scheckla voting nay. (d) Research & Development Assistant, requested response to her memo to Council regarding a salary adjustment. Mayor suggested Council would consider in executive session next Monday night. Martha McLennan responded by requesting the matter be discussed in open meeting. Concensus of Council was that the salary is adequate and they will not consider mak- ing an adjustment. (e) J.B. Bishop requested status of his appeal to Council regarding the G.I. Joe's proposed development on Main Street. City Administrator responded staff recommended Bishop not appeal but that the City was waiting for a decision from the City Attorney. (f) Meeting adjourned 11:25 P.M. City Recorder ATTEST: Mayor 8, PAGE 4 - Study Session Council Minutes May 5, 1980 M' 2: 1 _ April 9 1980 9655 S. W. North Dakota Ave. , Tigard, Oregon 97223 The Honorable Alan Mickelson Mayor City of Tigard _ 12420 S. W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Mayor: In re: Meeting Between Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Planning Commission A number of recent discussions have been held regarding the benefits of having a meeting between the Tigard City Council and the Tigard City Planning Commission. _ We would like to request such a meeting at a mutually convenient 'date ;for ' all parties concerned and suggest such a meeting be planned sometime early in the month of May, 1980. We would suggest that a number of subjects are timely for discussion between the two bodies. We would suggest the agenda for such ameeting include the following subjects : N.P.O. plans and guidelines City of Tigard transportation plans and modifications thereto Density calculations for multi-family and P.D. 's and N.'P.O. ,plan guidelines P.D. designation and densities Apartment dwelling units and condominium conversions Annexation of "islands" presently under the jurisdiction of Washington County, but 'within the general boundaries of the city Street standards under P.D. and the Fire Department and City Council's interests The attitude which has recently been characterized as "snob zoning" in residential= areas 1 { April 9, 1980 Page .2. Concepts and application of the new flood plain and flood zone policies Perhaps there are other issues which the City Council would also like to raise in addition to those mentioned above and we would be delighted to discus ose a • ,ell. Yours�t -L Francis J. Tepedino President - Tigard City Planning Commission FJT/bj g cc: Raeldon Barker, City Administrator Members of the Planning Commission Members of the City Council S t Tigard-Tualatin-King City-Sher"Od-Metzger-Washington Square TITARDAREKCHAMBER OFCOMMERCE May 15, 1980 i Mayor and Council City of Tigard 1 12420 SW Main Street j Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Council Mewibers: The Tigard Area Chamber Board of Directors respectfully asks T g { il to focus attention on a matter of vital the City Counc importance to the business community and to all citizens } of Tigard. We feel that planning for the downtown area -- particularly with regard to the development of safeand effid acriticalrstage. and transportation facilities -- has Please consider the following points: 1. A majority of downtown business people believe the present H system is not adequate to handle commercial traffic. city street. (See enclosed survey) . pending and in progress, will place an 2. New developments, arking demands an city facilities. added burden of traffic and p currently has the answers 3. Neither the Chamber nor the City range transportation j to the myriad inquiries regarding long- has an adopted j` plans for the `downtown area. Although the City town, °` it is clear Plan for Ash Avenue Down downtown plan, "A re amplification or that certain aspects of the plan will requa. whichncern revision in order to address specific points ofan3ation (NPO l) have arisen since the Neighborhood Planning Org 1 completed its work in 1974. I < E 4. in the process of updating the 1974 plan, NPO 1 members -city planning staff are at odds on a number of crucial and .f transportation issues. There seems to be a lack of shared objectives, or clear direction, arising from this plan ning i the diligent work o NPO 1. g effort notwithstanding g i 5� This lack of direction could be .resolved at the City Council level, where the authority ts ,e 1iswlare ; community objectives is rightfully vested. 490 S.W. MAIN STREETO TIGAI��,�7F�ECa®�! 97223 0' PHONE 639-1656 Page fm uncertain as to the level of Council support for either: the public°s expressed interest in planning a more safe and efficent transportation system; or, the specific downtown development objectives publicly espoused by your planning department. 6. in the absence of council direction and goal-setting, it is difficult for any segment or the community to formulate responses to specific proposals and issues affecting the downtown The absence of concrete objectives places an additional area. burden. upon property owners who are unable to plan for the eventual disposition of their investments. (Witness the frustration of Ash Street homeowners, potential downtown= developers, and owners of existing businesse ) . 7. Public interest in downtown planning has been aroused by recent events -- the meetings of NPO 1, the release of plans for a greenway park and civic center, the GI Joees development proposal, and Tri--Metes interest in siting a gard transit downtown center. Through a timely expression of support planning, 5'.he Council could take advantage of this heightened level of ci,::izen interest in local government. Based upon the above points, the Chamber of commerce asks the City Council to take an immediate, active role in addressing downtown problems and resolving planning co high city priority; We suggest that you:. designate downtown planning as a high c tizens, business people and city staff appoint a committee of ci to formulate recommendations on major 'issues and concerns surrounding downtown transportation planning; and adopt a set of concrete objectives with regard to these major issues which significantly affect the livability and livelihood of our community. Sincerely, Cheryl A Beshears Manager 4 j DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SURVEY Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce �. April, 1980 1, W11at do you see as the major problems confronting business in downtown Tigard? 83/0 - Inadequate parking 67/ - poor traffic circulation public 33/ - Lack of exposure to buying p 5% - Inadequate long-range planning 5% - Strict sign code 5`/0 - Poor traffic control on Mai ri Street 5% -- Lack of small specialty shops 5% - No major problems 2. Do you feel that the present city street system is adequate to accommodate downtown commercial traffic? 56% - No 28/0 - Yes 115,. - Qualified no 5% - No opinion. 3. Do you feel that the street system will continue to be workable if development continues and improvements are not made? 79/. - No 11% Qualified yes 5% - Yes 5% - No opinion downtown parking problems should [fie Do you feel that Tigard's N be addressed and resolved by: 50% - The `city`and the business community 17/ - The city; of Tigard 17% Downtown business people �1%,_ A group of citizens, business people and city representatives 5% -- No `opinion i Downtown business survey -- page 2 sources of funding, if any, should be explored to provide 5. What the dsourcos area with improved streets or additional parking, or both: Tigard General Fund revenues 22% - City of Tig supported by business 11% - A Local Improzram�nt District {LID) , P�p y 11% - City of Tigard systems development revenues 11% - General fund and systems development revenues 11% - LID and systems development revenues 11% - General fund revenues and federal grants 5% - LID and General Fund revenues 18% - No opinion 6. Do you feel that additional Main Street dcv::�lopm^nt will be a benefit or a detriment to your particular business? 61% - Benefit 5% - Detriment 17% -- No effect 17% - No opinion Additional comments: 1. I would like to see more information on the possibilities of an urban renewal project. 2. Additional development is needed to provide more exposure to downtown business. 3. Streets leading into Main Street should be widened and have sidewalks and underground utilities. 4. The development of additionaldowntown business will be a benefit if each one provides off-street parking and if we have additional public parking. 5. The Bancroft Plan was used to redevelop Main Street and I . believe it would be only fair if future street improvements were "made in a similar way. 6. Main Street is `adequate to handle ,present downtown traffic, Burnham and Commercial are not. 7. With regard to the impact of additional Main Street development, have yet to see any business suffer from increased exposure to the public. Downto,an basiness survey p,icja 3 t 8. The City of Tigard suffers from inadegoai _ long range planning in almost all areas, caused primarily by short-sighted city politicians abdicating their responsibilities to inexperienced and unqualified city managers. 9. Tigard has two parking problems: Main Street customers and Park & Ride bus riders. 10. Additional traffic would benefit existing downtown business, but only if traffic can flow smoothly without long waits. 11. There would be no parking problems if the laws were enforced. 12. Increased parking would make this a viable commercial area for people to do business. 13. Traffic is allowed to travel at a speed much greater than the limits. 14. Additional Main Street development will be a detriment if it occurs as it has in the past. 15. Whether additional development would be a benefit or a detriment depends on the type of development. 16 I consider ,the completion of Ash Street to Commercial Street to be of prime importance in the downtown area. l; Additional Main Street development would be an improvement over what is presently there=-marginal businesses. 18 The street system will continue to be workable if the Main Street bridge is made wider and proper traffic lanes are installed at the southwest end. 19 Additional Main Street development would be beneficial in providing additional public 'exposure, but detrimental due to lack of parking and potential traffic congestion. 20. The extension of Johnson Street east to Ash Street, the realignment of Main Street at its southern intersection with Pacific Highway, and the extension of Ash Street to Commercial all stink. Realignment of Main would further slow traffic f exiting Main Street, would create two stop lights within a few hundred 'feet of each other, as well as put additional traffic on Main Street. Extension of Johnson would create a confusing intersection if Main is left as is, and would put ; business traffic on Ash through a residential area. Downtown business survey -- page 4 21. Extension of Ash to commercial_ is not enough. Ash should be extended all the way to Hall Boulevard, or possibly to Scoffins, with I3unziker realigned through vacant field for intersection with Scoffins at hall. A light would be needed at that point. 22 . We now need lights at commercial and Burnham intersections on Main, possibly operating afternoon hours only. 23. As long as they don't mess with Main Street, new development will not be a detriment. 24. We are totally opposed to any idea concerning one-way on Affair.... 25. There are not enough small specialty shops to encourage shoppers to window shop, such as in the Seliwood and Multnomah areas. Shoppers on Main Street come here for one-stop trips, e.g.; to the title company, and that is the only business they carry out. We don't need another big complex to cause shoppers to pass through town. Too many people now travel on Main Street to get to McDonald's or PayLess and then leave the Main Street area. 27. ' Parking on Main Street is adequate now and would be better if parking regulations were strictly enforced. People who frequent the bars, and even one businessman, often leave cars parked on the street for more than two hours. 28. Business will improve only if small specialty shops ;are . brought into the area. A shopping complex on the other end of Main Street from PayLess/Albertson's will only increase the number of 'cars passing through, not the number of shoppers. 28. The ;business community has tried to do some things and after spending time and money just turned around and 'toreup the '' nd mine. I see the city projects, hence wasting -their money a as a group of civil servants, working` diligently to make themselves important and building job security at the expense of the local taxpayer. furthermore, the police department is nothing more than a traffic patrol, doing state patrol work instead of working for the betterment of the community. 29. We provide parking for our customers but find others use the spares in our lot---even when not dealing with us. Additional business on Main Street will only make the situation much worse. Traffic in downtownTigard is almost as bad as Beaverton. It's a mess.