City Council Packet - 06/09/1992
AGENDA
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
PUBLIC !NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an
agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up
sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be
recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that
agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be
two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for
a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or
the City Administrator.
Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by
7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any
order after 7:30 p.m.
6:30
• STUDY SESSION! (6:30 PM)
7:30
1. BUSINESS MEETING (7:30 PM)
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
7:35
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please)
7:45
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one
motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion
for discussion and separate action. Motion to:
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 12 and 26, 1992
3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.3 Approve Fiscal Year 1992-93 Streets Capital Improvement Projects Program
Recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee
3.4 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Pavement Major Maintenance Program
b. Authorize Advertisement for bids for Alfred Street
3.5 Approve Reimbursement District - Edith Johnson Sanitary Sewer - Resolution No. 92- ZI
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 9, 1992 - PAGE 1
7:55
4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0002 ANDERSON
(NPO 3). A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment approval to redesignate a 7.73 acre
site from Professional Commercial and Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density
C Residential. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide Planning
& 13, Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2,,9.1..1,, 9.1 3,, and
12.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter 18.22. LOCATION: South side of Bull Mountain
Road, between 500 and 1100 feet west of Pacific Highway. (WCTM 2S1 10AC, tax lots 1300 and
1400, and 2S1 1013D, tax lots 1600 and 2100) ZONE: Washington County's R-6 Zone
(Residential, 6 units/acre)
Staff Recommends Setting Over the Hearing to a Date Certain (July 14, 1992) per
Applicant's Request of 6/1/92.
8:00
5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON S.W. FIR STREET
• Staff Report - Engineering Department
• Council Consideration
8:15
6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-004; RAMLER (NPO 3)
A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.50 acres to the City of Tigard and to change the
zone from Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5 (Residential
4.5 units/acre). The applicant is requesting the annexation for partitioning the parcel and
connecting the lots to city sewer. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive Plan
Policies: 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2; Community Development
Code Sections 18.32.020,18.,0,2.040,18.:32.13C), 18.136,18-138,18.138.020 (A) (B). LOCATION:
11370 SW Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1, 10AB, Tax Lot 1500) ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential 4.5
units/acre). The R-4.5 zone allows single family residential units, public support facilities,
residential treatment homes, farming, manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations,
temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory structures.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony:
• NPO 3
• Proponents (Favoring Annexation)
• Opponents (Opposing Annexation)
• Rebuttal Opportunity
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Public Hearing Closed
g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 92-2a; Ordinance No. 92-
H
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 9, 1992 - PAGE 2
8:45
7. PUBLIC HEARING - 1992-93 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING
• Public Hearing Opened
Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Budget Officer
. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Cross Examination
. Recommendation by Budget
Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council:
a. RESOLUTION NO. 92- 2q A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY OF TIGARD
PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING AN REVENUES
b. ORDINANCE NO. 92 I ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
8:55
8. PUBLIC HEARING - 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
• Public Hearing Opened
Declarations or Challenges
• Summation by Budget Officer
• Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents
Recommendation by Budget Officer
• Council Questions or Comments
• Public Hearing Closed
• Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 92-30
9:20
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-01 A proposal to consider ~
amending the Community Development 'Code pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100);
Balloons (Ch. 18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.080); and Definitions (Ch. 18.114.015).
The proposal amendments will limit the number of temporary signs per business to one with a
maximum of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign
permits to be issued for periods no longer than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per
calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid,. wall) to be within the same
classification. Provide for real estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary real
estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify that temporary political signs shall be
removed ten days after the election to which they pertain.
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony:
. Proponents (Favoring Amendment)
• Opponents (Opposing Amendment)
e. Council Questions/Comments
f. Public Hearing Closed
g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 92-?0
C
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 9, 1992 - PAGE 3
9:40
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
9:50
11. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW/UPDATE
City Administrator
10:00
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
10:15
13. ADJOURNMENT
,r
COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 9, 1992 - PAGE 4
Council Agenda Item 3,1
T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L
MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992
• Meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Mayor Edwards.
1. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Judy
Fessler, Valerie Johnson, and John Schwartz. Staff Present:
Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; John Acker, Associate
Planner, Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Elizabeth Hadley,
City Intern; Wayne Lowry, Finance Director; Ed Murphy,
Community Development Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel;
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Randy Wooley, City
Engineer.
STUDY SESSION
Pathway (Pathfinder/107th - Genesis Neighborhood Connection
Associate Planner Acker reviewed the background on a proposed
pathway for the above-referenced area. Council heard from
representatives of the neighborhoods. Two viewpoints were
considered:
1) A request for a pathway connection utilizing a to-be-
acquired easement across one lot and then to an existing
sidewalk, and
2) A request to construct the path in the greenway area.
Petitions had been reviewed earlier by the City requesting that the
Pathway connection be across an easement and then to an existing
sidewalk. Concerns cited from the neighbors who were opposed to
the greenway paths were that of security, vandalism, and liability
issues for the City. Barbara Kelley was spokesperson for the
neighbors who were opposed to the greenway easement. She noted
that in a Park Board meeting in 1987 or 1988 Daniel Graham,
Chairperson of the Park Board, had committed to a connection to the
existing sidewalks. She also stated a concern about disturbing
wildlife in the greenway.
Peter Willging, who was a spokesperson for those neighbors who were
in favor of the greenway path system, cited reasons why he
discounted the concerns of the opposing position. He said that he
felt that this greenway path system should have been implemented
last year. He noted safety was not a problem, in fact, it is now
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE i
an attractive nuisance and a well-traveled path would reduce
vandalism. . He referred to the now-present piling of building
materials and compost bins along the back of some property as
rebuttal to the argument that the creek would become a dumping
area. He said the greenway should be available for public use.
Lengthy discussion followed. Listed below are some of the comments
by Council:
Mayor Edwards advised that he agreed with the greenway system
as proposed. He understood the concerns with potential
vandalism noting that he, too, lives along a greenway system.
He advised that he was not convinced that wildlife would be
disturbed because of a pathway. He was concerned about a
commitment that may have been made by a committee or staff
person several years ago. City Council would have to have
had knowledge and agreed to this commitment; he noted concern
with damage done to the relationship between the neighbors and
city over this issue and expressed regret over a
misunderstanding.
• Councilor Schwartz was concerned with precedent in connecting
pathways to sidewalks when the neighbors do not want paths in
the greenway behind their homes. He noted this would result
in a checkerboard type of path system. He advised he thought
police services could be rendered more easily using an eight-
foot asphalt pathway than if there was no path.
Councilor Fessler also was concerned for the people who were
under the impression that the pathway would be coming out to
the sidewalk. She asked questions concerning the cost
differential between building the pathway to the sidewalk
rather than through the greenway. She agreed with Mr.
Willging's concern about creating a crosswalk at the
intersection where the pathway will come out to the street and
noted that a 4-way stop sign should also be considered.
Councilor Johnson noted that the arguments against the
greenway path system were concerns connected with all
pathways, i.e.: safety, littering, and security. It becomes
a "bigger-picture" question; the Council is charged with
making decisions for the entire community. She noted that the
community supports the overall creation of a greenway path
system. She expressed regret with the misunderstanding of
past discussions but advised that she supported the Park Board
recommendation that the path be placed in the greenway. She
agreed that the intersection should be looked at for safety as
well.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING {MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 2
• Mayor Edwards asked City Legal Counsel about the legal
liabilities of such a path system. Legal Counsel Ramis
responded that the city cannot act continuously in a mode of
protecting themselves from claims; however, they can do
everything possible to build safely.
• Council agreed that the greenway area should be used for the
pathway.
AGENDA REVIEW
Councilor Fessler noted that a visitor may have questions on items
3.3 and 3.4a of the Consent Agenda.
City Administrator Reilly said he anticipated that representatives
from Harmony House would be requesting council reconsider the
Budget Committee's recommendation that no contribution be made to
this organization in the next fiscal year.
BUSINESS MEETING
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA - No visitors.
3. CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilor Fessler requested that item 3.3 and item 3.4a be
removed for separate consideration.
Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Schwartz,
to approve Consent Agenda items 3.1, 3.2, 3.4b, and 3.5.
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: May 12 and 26, 1992
3.2 Receive and File: Council Calendar
3.4 Local Contract Review Board:
b. Authorize Advertisement for bids for Alfred Street
3.5 Approve Reimbursement District - Edith Johnson Sanitary
Sewer - Resolution No. 92-27
Consent Agenda was approved as listed above by a unanimous
vote of Council present.
Council then considered the following:
3.3 Approve Fiscal Year 1992-93 Streets Capital Improvement
Projects Program Recommended by the Transportation
Advisory Committee
3.4 Local Contract Review Board:
a. Authorize Advertisement for Bids for Pavement Major
Maintenance Program
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 3
C Councilor Fessler noted that the Main Street pavement
reconstruction project was for the area located between
Scoffins Street and the intersection with 99W and Greenburg
Road. She said she had been approached by those who had
concerns about when the remainder of Main Street would be
reconstructed. She had been asked if additional work could
be accomplished by using Tri-Met taxes.
City Engineer Wooley responded that Tri-Met dollars could not
be used for a project of this type. He advised that the gas
tax is the primary source of funding for projects of this
type. The section of Main Street which was being recommended
to be reconstructed was prioritized to be in need of repair
first. Additional work on Main Street would be reviewed as
funding becomes available.
C_
Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor Schwartz,
to approve Consent Agenda items 3.3 and 3.4a.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 92-0002
ANDERSON (NPO 3). A request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
approval to redesignate a 7.73 acre site from Professional
Commercial and Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: Statewide
Planning Goals 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, &c 13; Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.2, 2.1.1, 6.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.6.1, 8.1.1, 8.2.2,
9.1.1, 9.1.3, and 12.1.1; Community Development Code Chapter
18.22. LOCATION: South side of Bull Mountain Road, between
500 and 1100 feet west of Pacific Highway. (WCTM 2S1 10AC,
tax lots 1300 and 1400, and 2S1 10BD, tax lots 1600 and 2100)
ZONE: Washington County's R-6 Zone (Residential, 6
units/acre)
• Hearing was continued to July 14, 1992 per Applicant's
Request of 6/1/92.
5. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON S.W. FIR
STREET
a. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the Staff Report and
proposed ordinance.
b. Mayor Edwards noted that comments were received from the
Police Department and emergency services supporting the
proposed parking restriction.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 4
C
C. Mr. Jim Walker, 7424 SW Fir, noted the safety hazard with
the current parking situation. He supported the proposed
ordinance. He noted problems with the entrance to nearby
apartments and advised that better signage directing
people to the apartment entrance would be helpful. He
also noted that there had been problems in the area
(trespassing, littering) and requested more frequent
police patrols.
Mayor Edwards requested that staff contact the property
owners of the apartments for the entrance signage and
also to convey to the Police Department the request for
frequent patrol in this area.
d. ORDINANCE NO. 92-17 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC
10.28.130 TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON A PORTION OF SW FIR
STREET.
e. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to approve Ordinance 92-17.
Councilor Schwartz commented that he was normally
hesitant to approve restricted parking; however, he
believes that this situation deserves special
consideration. He expressed his desire that a dead end
sign be posted on the street as well, along with
increased neighborhood patrol.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council
present.
f. City Engineer Wooley noted it would be two to three weeks
before the signs would installed for the No Parking.
6. PUBLIC E[EARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 92-004; RA IjER
(NPO 3)
A request to annex one parcel consisting of 0.50 acres to the
City of Tigard and to change the zone from Washington County
R-6 (Residential, 6 units/acre) to City of Tigard R-4.5
(Residential 4.5 units/acre). The applicant is requesting the
annexation for partitioning the parcel and connecting the lots
to city sewer. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Comprehensive
Plan Policies: 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.2.2,
10.2.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2; Community Development Code Sections
18.32.020, 18.32.040, 18.32.130, 18.136, 18.138, 18.138.020
(A) (B). LOCATION: 11370 SW Gaarde Street (WCTM 2S1, 10AB,
Tax Lot 1500) ZONE: R-4.5 (Residential 4.5 units/acre). The
R-4.5 zone allows single family residential units, public
support facilities, residential treatment homes, farming,
manufactured homes, family day care, home occupations,
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 5
/ temporary uses, residential fuel tanks, and accessory
l structures.
a.
Public Hearing was opened.
b.
There were no declarations or challenges.
C.
Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the Staff Report.
There is one property owner affected; the request to
annex was made in order to be able to connect to sewer.
One property owner would not grant an easement; however,
a sewer can be accessed through another route.
Staff received word that the deed to the subject property
was transferred today; Mr. Dennis S. Wittenberg was the
new property owner.
d.
Public testimony:
• Eldon Hodapp, 11460 SW Gaarde Street, Tigard,
Oregon, testified that he was concerned the affect
this annexation would have on adjacent neighbors
who do not want to be annexed.
Mayor Edwards responded that Council had discussed
the City annexation policy recently. Although the
posture on annexation was being changed, the
criteria for the new policy was still being
developed. This particular annexation would not
affect adjacent properties at this time.
Councilor Johnson noted that this action would
bring the full length of Gaarde Street into the
City; City Police would be responsible to protect
the length of Gaarde Street.
e.
Public hearing was closed.
f.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-28 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION
TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN
EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED. (ZCA
92-04) (RAMLER)
g.
Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, to adopt Resolution No. 92-28 with "Ramler" to
be changed "Wittenberg" as noted by staff.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 6
h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-18 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 92-04)
(WITTENBERG) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
i. Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-18.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - 1992-93 USES OF STATE REVENUE SHARING
a. The Public Hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. Finance Director Lowry summarized the staff report.
d. Public testimony:
• Andrew Spiak, 9825 SW O'Mara, Tigard, Oregon and
Frank Smith, 10362 SW McDonald Street, Tigard,
Oregon testified. These gentlemen represented the
Harmony House and advised that they had approached
the Budget Committee for a $19,000 contribution
from the City of Tigard. Their organization
assists people with alcohol and drug dependencies.
Mr. Spiak advised that the city receives
approximately $190,000 in liquor tax revenue. He
thought it would be appropriate for Tigard to fund
a portion of this "windfall" to assist with the
problems created by alcohol.
Councilor Johnson advised that she was present
during the Harmony House presentation to the Budget
Committee. She agreed it was a logical connection
for liquor tax 'revenues to be used for this
purpose. However, she recalled the concern of the
Budget Committee was because of Harmony House's
testimony that their overall funding was in
jeopardy. She advised that she was not persuaded
to go against the Budget Committee's
recommendation. She encouraged the representatives
to be persistent and apply again next year.
Councilor Fessler also recalled that the Budget
Committee had inquired as to what kind of dollars
were available and being used specifically in the
Tigard community.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 7
In response to a question from Councilor Schwartz,
Mr. Smith reviewed the program provided by the
Harmony House. Councilor Schwartz asked what
percentage of the people who use the services were
Tigard residents. Mr. Smith responded that the
services were available to all people in Washington
County, but noted that because of his easy access,
it was especially a good factor for Tigard
residents. He did not give a number with regard to
usage by Tigard residents.
Mayor Edwards questioned whether all cities in
Washington County were being solicited for
contributions. For example, were Beaverton,
Tualatin, Sherwood, and King City also contributing
to the Harmony House.
After discussion, city council consensus was not to
entertain an amendment to the Budget for a Harmony
House contribution. Mayor Edwards advised that
criteria was being developed for requests from
service agencies to the City. He encouraged the
Harmony House representatives to apply again next
year. At that time, the list of criteria would be
available to help them know what kind of
information the was needed to help the City make
`L their decision.
e. Public Hearing was closed.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 92-29.- A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CITY
OF TIGARD PROVIDES SERVICES QUALIFYING FOR STATE SHARED
REVENUES
g. ?Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Fessler, to approve Resolution No. 92-29.
The Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council
present.
h. ORDINANCE NO. 92-19 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S
ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
i. Motion by Councilor Schwartz, seconded by Councilor
Fessler to approve Ordinance No. 92-19.
The Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council
present.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 8
C
C
C.
8.
PUBLIC HEARING - 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
a. The Public Hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C. City Administrator Reilly summarized the Budget message.
He noted that the proposed Budget was a maintenance
budget. He advised of constraints and the unknowns
associated with the implementation of Ballot Measure 5;
impacts are being felt at other levels of government.
The City budget was prepared with the goal of continuing
to improve the quality of life within the financial
structure.
(A copy of the City Administrator's budget message has
been filed with the Council Packet material)
d. Finance Director Lowry advised that the proposed Budget
resolution reflects the Budget Committee's
recommendation. He noted Council has the authority to
increase the budget up to 10% over what the Budget
Committee recommended. He advised that Staff was
recommending no changes in the Budget.
e. Public hearing closed.
f . RESOLUTION NO. 92-30 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BUDGET,
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS AND DECLARING THE AD VALOREM TAX
LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93.
g. Motion by Councilor Johnson, ssconded by Councilor
Schwartz, to approve Resolution No. 92-30.
The Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council
present.
Congratulatory remarks were made by Council to the
Finance Director and support staff for making the budget
process a smooth one. The City of Tigard has received
several awards for the budget.
9. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA 92-01 A
proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code
pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch.
18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.060); and Definitions
(Ch. 18.114.015). The proposal amendments will limit the
number of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum
of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary
signs; limit temporary sign permits to be issued for periods
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 9
R
r
no longer than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per
calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid,
wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real
estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary
real estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify
that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after i
the election to which they pertain. 4
a. Public Hearing was opened.
b. Councilor Fessler declared that she had been serving on
the Planning Commission when this item had been reviewed
before that body. She advised she felt that she could
make an impartial decision on this issue.
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff summarized the Staff Report.
d. Public Testimony
• Bill Gross, testified on behalf of NPO #7; he noted
that the NPO endorsed the amendments with the
intent of the Temporary Sign Code to limit and
control temporary signs and make enforcement
practical. He advised that a quorum had been
present and that the endorsement was done through a
unanimous vote of the NPO members present.
e.
Council questions and comments followed. Several
councilors stated concerns over the permit process. At
the end of discussion, Council requested that Staff make
every effort to have the permit process be as easy as
possible. Mayor Edwards acknowledged the City Attorney's
efforts and thanked him with regard to researching the
Constitutional issues on this item.
f.
Public Hearing was closed.
g.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-20 - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REPEAL
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS (CH. 18.114.100); BALLOONS
(CH. 18.114.090); SIGN EXEMPTIONS (CH. 18.114.060); AND
DEFINITIONS (CH. 18.114.015).
h.
Motion by Councilor Fessler, seconded by Councilor
Johnson, to adopt Ordinance No. 92-20.
The Ordinance was adopted by unanimous vote of Council
present.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 10
e
5
a
f
e
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None
C.
13-• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into
Executive Session 9:02 to 9:50 p.m. under the provisions of
ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations,
real property transactions, current and pending litigation
issues.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m.
At e t . D j
jdtherine Wheatley, City
-mayor, Tigard
Date! ~P/a3 /'rl~
h:\recorder\ccrn\ccm0609.92
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - June 9, 1992 - PAGE 11
C
Cl
00
N
r
H
H
'S
JZ
6
z
co
cc
CL
ca
Z
z
0
a
n
Z~
a0
CD
w
d
O
2
O
w
aw
W
om
co
n
O
m
0
a
5.:.•~', - _ .;moo ~ ~a'`~'
Cd Z,
R~y ° (a te W e. O a
p• as , .En~- ,ai'~ ~ ~ ; G ' c iftU' Q E c+ •~9 ca 'C7' a p
ra~~c
M ^ Y7
0 CO.)
C4 -
n ie, o p e5v~ea opr.oQ~•nC7 j ~ -t'
rmu., >
~c c~rcaA
3 H G.
ea C,4 to
c' i a ca ~ g - W.2 rn eel;
m t~ F? o
rn
Co m m
C t w
co CL c c
4? 1-m O Iii Oc c CO f -D
ri m h a
V
Q
d
C13
❑ ❑
M
N
N
r-
M
ro r.
$4 0
CYN
H M O
N
44
O 6C b
>1 fq td
41 r
O •
V a E-+
Z
O
Q
U
J
m
a
LL
U
F_-
Q
LL
LL
Q
Z
Q
t7
O=
wa
Q
OLL
LL O~
~z
NU
` ^ -
r- En
W T
aP ♦OC
m
w
ra c
cc a
m
c
m
w H vm
q~
T C05-4
q,C c~ m
c SH L.'
a0cRE~ W
(D0 2
m U U ft!
~ q
~-O CL :3
o c m N c
a3iacm-m
q O C LE
y O w CL CM
D) V q 0) N
T m
cD ID
m r- c 0
-a0mcc w
•o
m q
Z q
q m
U
~ U
O. q
V)
3
a ~
mo
c
c
cc (!1
Y
CD
m
mo CL c
s $ _o
U CD
O
$ ~ w
O m
O q•c~,
CL o
U
co
7
m W U
CD
CL e o
as m U
44
O
ro
4
4J
•V"
q
.C
m
E
m
A
q
•o
c
O
'C9
m
.f]
q
a
O
V\~
W
c
0
E
O
U
Q
C
ON
r -
C14
r-
tS
r O
JZ
R
R
CC g
®1
~ C
~ N
ZO V
a CCD
O 0
w
UJ z
ui z
8 5
orj co
J
O
co
a
~ ~ ~~•.~~y ~tj yy~~rv W,.;4~i ~,.,4 ~ CV d0'~.I'i~'p~1 6R.':
A
.,a, ets
041,
c ~U~~ a oaf o ~t pp'Q
c OCJ ~
~
b V O
as Z, yr cn Lev
Ila.
wal,
.a
O.~ ~i r.OGO.-±~ i
o
Z Q
S m
10
U m C
O ai ~
Fq D t 0) c
❑ ❑ > T P4
0 0 0
M
N
CV
M
N O
k
o ca 10
V a H
® 0
0
Z
0
EL
Q
U
J
LLD
m
n.
U. f° O
Q ~
Ln
U. 2ft
U. 0
L
OD
U-
Or
W Z
~V
O 4
c p
0' ® N
ON
FCC
a
a,
Co (D
C(
r O
O
Eom +r
to ~ o'
N
O m ~
mZaW~a
W
~•p ct~~
OCm~~~
$ 'C
M C1 -
.2~y0CLCa
Z t; e;
to CL CV C
O CO p -or
b- O !A p y,L
C O Wr
~oa~ro
N CD
U
~ U
o 0)
CL 0)
ca
W
3
mo
c
c
~ CO
m
t a o,
m n. e
R E
V e o
$ `
m
r
~
Cc,
o w
a O C
I U >
1 .fl W
C9 A O
f q
a
q e U
'o
a,.
rr._
~o
L/1 1
I
c~v
C
W
m
Q
.A
03
m
w
c
O
EQq
C7 L6
Q
C
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
Tr 7282
e City of tigard
P.O. Box 23397
e Tigard, OR 97223
e
Legal Notice Advertising
e ❑ Tearsheet
❑ Duplicate
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as'
I, Judith Koehler
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of thaTigard Times
a newspaper of general cir latio as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at NOM in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
Nor4 ~A „ g Pill-NI,ir Hearing BWget
a printed copy of which is hsreto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for one successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
May 28, 1992
Subscribed and sworn before me this' 28 flay of Mar, 1,99
i
V Notary Public for Oregon
My Commission xpires:
AFFID"IT
ltl C7
C- .
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
In the Matter of the Proposed
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington )SS
City of Tigard )
begin first duly sworn, on oath,
I,
depose an say:
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance
Number (s) G a.-\-1 !a \QA a° k (A `-b
which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated
copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and reference made a part hereof,
on the 1% day of 4 kA_X\_~ , 19a a-:
1. Tigard Civic Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
2. Washington Federal Savings Bank, 12260 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon
3. Safeway Store, Tigard Plaza, SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon
4. Albertson's Store, Comer of Pacific Hwy. (State Hwy. 99) and SW Durham
Road, Tigard, Oregon
Pk r* M
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ar , 19 9a
OFFICIAL SEAL
M. JOAP414 HAYES
NOTARYPUBLIC•OREGON Notary P lic for Oregon
COMMISSION NO.006513
MY G~JMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 My Commission Expires: :S %q q cj---
C
1oginyo\cwpost
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 1-7
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TMC 10.28.130 TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON A PORTION OF
SW FIR STREET.
WHEREAS, TMC 10.28.130 prohibits parking at any time on portions of
certain public streets in Tigard; and,
WHEREAS, the Council has received a request for prohibition of parking
on a portion of SW Fir Street in order to improve safety and provide for
emergency vehicle access; and,
WHEREAS, it appears to the Council that the requested parking
prohibition will enhance public safety.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: TMC 10.28.130, designating the streets or portions
thereof where parking is prohibited at all times, is
hereby amended by adding the following:
11(79) Along portions of SW Fir Street between SW 72nd
Avenue and the street terminus west of 74th Avenue, as
follows: along the entire south side of the street;
along the north side of the street within 60 feet of the
west curbline of SW 72nd Avenue; and along the north side
of the street west of a point which is 60 feet west of
the centerline of SW 74th Avenue."
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its
passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and
posting by the City Recorder.
PASSED: By U n Cc.n.i m ous vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only, this
G1n day of 1992.
ZGer '7eatley, City Rrder
APPROVED: This day 1992.
. Edwards, M ayor
Approved as to fo m~
r`' C js--,1 1 f
Cily/ Attorney'
~ I I /~Z-
Date
rH/flr-ord
ORDINANCE No. 92- I
Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92- IS
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE (ZCA 92-
04) (RR19~) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has received a request for annexation signed by Wallace and Eva
Sweeney, who are the owner of the subject parcel; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on June 9, 1992 to consider the
annexation request and to consider zoning designations for the property; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992 the City Council approved a resolution forwarding the
annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation as set forth in Section 1 below is that
which most closely conforms to the Washington County zoning designation as
provided in the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The recommendation of the planning staff as set forth below is
consistent with policy 10.1.2 and 10.1.3 of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Tax Mao/Lot Number Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
2S1 10AB/1500 Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-4.5
Section 2: The property meets the definition for an established area as
defined in Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code and
shall be designated as such on the development standards area
map.
Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the
annexation final order with the office of the Secretary of State.
PASSED: By vote of all Council members pese,nt after
C being read by number and title only, this day of
Catherine Wheatley, City Record
APPROVED: This f~ day of , 1992.
Gerald R, Edwards, Mayor
Appr v d as to
` c-
City torne
~
Date
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREG/O~~N
ORDINANCE NO. 92- ~`7
AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City hereby elects to receive state
revenues for fiscal year 1992-93.
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By u ~ZC~i~1-~yUS vote of all Council embers present fter
being read by number and title only, this C) -L4A _ day of tl►
1992.
C t erine Wheatley, City Recc£fder
APPROVED: This Cl-~► day of . 1"2,,---'
✓Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
App oved as to form:
C \Ir i-
Y
Cit ttorney
C9- L Q R 2
Date
I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held April 27,
1992 and May 4, 1992, and a public hearing before the City council was held on
June 9, 1992, giving citizens an opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue
Sharing.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Da
ORDINANCE No. 92- /q
Page 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. 92- O
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REPEAL VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS (CH.
18.114.100); BALLOONS (CH. 18.114.090); SIGN EXEMPTIONS (CH.
18.114.060); AND DEFINITIONS 18.114.015.
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise its
Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation
and implementation of the Code; and
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard desires to eliminate unclear and
conflicting provisions relative to temporary signs;
WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff
recommendation at a public hearing on February 3, 1992 and voted to
recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 1992
and on May 26, 1992 to consider the amendment.
THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Community Development Code shall be amended as
shown in Exhibit "A". Language to be added in
UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted is shown in
[Brackets].
This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by
the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City
Recorder.
PASSED: By U 0 LL n', `^n OUS vote of all Council members
present after being read by number and title only,
this G{~~ day of 1992.
Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder
APPROVED: This u` da o u ` , 1991:
~Zti%G
Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Clj~j Attorney---'
(9 ( CL
Date
ORDINANCE No. 97- 0
Page 1
ii. ) bi ` A
18.114.015 Definitions
52. Temporary sign - any sign, "A" board frame, banner, lawn sign,.
or balloon which is not permanently erected or permanently
affixed to any sign structure, sign tower, the ground or
building_ [ and which is not an electrical sign or an
internally illuminated sign or one with changeable message
characteristics:]
[a. Temporary Rigid Sign - a temporary sign, other than a
lawn sign, made of rigid materials such as wood, plywood,
plastic. See Subsection 18.114.100.0;]
[b.]a. Balloon - an inflatable, stationary temporary sign
anchored by some means to a structure or the
ground. includes simple children' balloons, hot
and cold air balloons, blimps and other dirigibles.
See Subsection 18.114.090.C;
[c.]b. Banner - a sign made of fabric or other nonrigid
material with no enclosing framework. [See
Subsection 18.114.100.C.5; and]
[d.]c_. Lawn Sign - a freestanding sign in residential
zones which is exempt from sign permit requirements
provided the size requirements in Subsection
18.:114.060.8.2 can be met.
S
0
1
7
i
i
18.114.060 Sign Exemptions
A. The following signs and operations shall not require a
sign permit but shall conform to all other applicable
regulations of this chapter and the provision of
Subsection (B) below:
[1. Signs of a temporary nature which meet all of the
following criteria:
[a. There is no more than one temporary sign on
the premises; for each temporary sign in
excess of the one exempted sign a temporary
sign permit shall be required as provided in
Section 18.114.100;]
[b. Wall signs or wall banners which do not exceed
a total of 30 square feet in area in
commercial or industrial zones, or]
1. a. Lawn signs which do not exceed the maximum
allowable area on one premise regardless of
the number of signs as follows:
(i) a total of 12 square feet in single
family residential zones;
(ii) a total of 24 square feet in multi-family
residential zones. [and;]
[c.' The temporary sign will be erected for a
period no longer than 60 days;]
2. Signs not oriented or intended to be legible from a
right-of-way, other property, or from the air;
3. Signs inside,a building, except for strobe lights
visible from a right-of-way, other property or from
the air;
4. Painted wall decorations;
5. Painted wall highlights;
[6. Lawn signs;]
6. [7.] Signs affected by stipulated judgments to
which the City is a party, entered by
courts of competent jurisdiction;
7.[8.] Directional signs;
8-[9.] Interior window signs;
r
B.
10.[11.] Nothing in this title shall prevent the
erection, location or construction of
signs on private property where such
erection, construction or location is
required by any law or ordinance, nor
shall any public agency or utility be
prohibited from erecting signs on private
property when otherwise permitted. No
sign permit or fee shall be required for
such signs.
x[10.] Nothing in this title shall prevent the
erection, location or construction of
directional signs on private property
when such signs are solely designed to
direct pedestrians or vehicular traffic
while on the parcel of real property on
which the signs are located. No sign
permit or fee shall be required for such
signs; and
All signs exempt from permit requirements under
subsection A above shall meet the following requirements:
1. The sign shall be erected on private property with
the consent of the lawful possessor of the property
and shall not be placed on utility poles or in the
public right-of-way; and
2. At least one sign shall be permitted per parcel of
land; additional signs on such parcel shall be
spaced at least 50 feet apart in residential zoning
districts and 30 feet apart in nonresidential
zoning districts.
C.[D]. The sign permit provisions of this section shall
not apply to'repair, maintenance, or change of copy
on the same sign (including, but not limited to the
changing of a message on a sign specifically
designed and permitted for the use of changeable
copy), or unlawfully erected or maintained signs.
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)
18.114.090
C. Balloons
1. One inflatable stationary balloon or one cluster of
childrens° balloons firmly [tied down] secured
shall be allowed only if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:
a. A City of Tigard sign permit is obtained for
each;
b. Each owner or legal occupant of property or a
building shall be allowed one balloon per
year;
C. A balloon sign shall be allowed to remain up
for a period of no longer than 10 days per
year;
d. A Permit issued for a balloon will serve as
one of the three sign permits allowed per
business in a calendar year.
[d.]e. Balloons may be permitted as roof signs
with a city sign permit.
[e.]f. The size of a balloon shall not exceed 25
feet in height; and
[f.]q- The balloon shall be [tied or mounted]
secured to a structure on the ground and
shall not be allowed to float in the air
higher than 25 feet above the nearest
building roof line.
C
18.114.100 Temporary Signs
A. Authorization
1. The Director shall be empowered to authorize
temporary signs not exempted by Section 18.114.060.
The Director shall attach such conditions to the
issuance of a permit for a temporary sign as may be
necessary to ensure discontinuance of the use of
the sign in accordance with-the terms of the
authorization, and to ensure substantial compliance
with the purpose of this title.
C
B. Issuance Authority
1. The Director may issue temporary sign permits which
shall terminate within [60] 30 days from the date
of issuance; and
2. No permit shall be issued for a period longer than
[60] 30 days, but a permit may be [renewed]
reissued by the Director [upon a showing of good
cause for the continuation of the temporary
permit.] for two additional hermit periods (30 days
each) per calendar year.
C. Types and locations of temporary signs shall be as
follows:
1. The total number of temporary signs shall not
exceed [four] one for any [one] use at any one
period of time; such,sicros are not permitted for
2. The total area of a [freestanding temporary rigid
signs] temporary sicm [on one premise] shall not
exceed 24 square feet and no more than 12 square
exceed 24 square feet.
[a. 32 square feet in residential zones; and
b. 70 square feet in all other zones;]
3. See Subsection 18.114.015.0.52, Temporary Signs,
for types approved.
4.
Manager's desicmee.
[4. Temporary wall signs shall not exceed 30 square
feet in area;]
[5. Banners:
a. Banners may be allowed as temporary signs
provided they meet the dimensional
requirements for temporary wall signs (30
square feet maximum area) and a sign permit
has been granted where required; and]
[6.]4. A balloon as provided in Subsection
18.114.090.C.
D.
Location shall be as approved by the Director.
E.
Attachment:
1. Temporary signs may not be permanently attached to
the ground, buildings or other structures.
[F.
Temporary Sign Summary:
LAWN SIGNAGE * TEMPORARY RIGID SIGNS
(exempted) * (with permit)
T
otal Area Number Spacing * Total Area Number Spacing
Single
*
12 sq ft No limit 50 ft * 32 sq ft Up to 4 N/A
family
Multi-
*
24 sq ft No limit 50 feet* 32 sq ft Up to 4 N/A
Other
*
N/A N/A N/A * 70 sq ft Up to 4 N/A]
(Ord. 89-06; Ord. 88-20)]
db/Tempsign
AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE:
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on
other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff.
Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF
NAME & ADDRESS TOPIC CONTACTED
Lisitora.s
C
AGENDA ITEM 5
IR Ste;
C
Name
Name
Address
~FZY
R►2 s7`.
dress
Name
e
ress
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Address
Address
Name
t
Name
Address
ress
e
,.Address
Address
Name
Address
r
rasa
dnems
Name
dress
Address
h:\Iog(n\lo\tes*
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
{
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Pro ve t. S es k~ct p rbr o tae
PLEASE PRINT
C
DATE fR
Qppane ty (Spealei
W-Ag hbtb , ' e
Name
Name,
*d"W~
Address
Address
I// C)
Name
Name
Address
dress
ame
ame
Address
Address
Name
ame
ress
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
x
{{f}t
J
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
g4TE ; June 9, 1992
PLEASE PRINT
1992-133 Opponent = (~peak9ng Against 1992-1993 Uses
Propiohbnt cing r9 Favor of _
Uses of State .Revenue Shannt~j 7 of State Ravenua'.Sharcng)
Name
`1~rG~~
S l I ~ l
Name
Tess
GC Z
W O V'--, v-,c
Kddre
ame
~ ~
Name
AkIdress
p 3 2
S. w• C
Address
Na o
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Ad Tess
ame
Name
-Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
- -
Name
dress
d
Name
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Written comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 ' ~Y---
C
p v'
DATE' Juna.9, 1992
PLEASE PRINT
Proponent (SPeaking 1n, FaVor.of 1992-1993 Opponent - {Speaking Against. 1662-1993 Fiswal. .
ame
Name
Tess
ress
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
Name
Address
Address
Name
ame
ress
Address
Name
Name
Address
rasa
Name
e
[LAddress.
Address
Name
ama
Address
Address
Name
Name
'Address
Address
Name
Nama
Depending on the number of person wishing to testify, the Chair of the Council may limit the amount
of time each person has to speak. We ask you to limit your oral comments to 3 - 5 minutes. The Chair
may further limit time if necessary. Wr'Men comments are always appreciated by the Council to
supplement oral testimony.
Please sign in to testify on the following:
eAGEND/A ITEM N®. 9 3
C.
DATE: June % ,:1992
PLEASE PRINT
C,
Peter Willging
10560 S.W. Pathfinder Way
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Tigard City Council
City Hall
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Dear Councilmembers,
JUN 01 1992 t
i
I am somewhat dismayed over the sudden opposition that has
developed to the proposed connection of the Genisis neighborhood
pathway system to the Pathfinder/107th neighborhoods. After years
of planning, a public vote of approval and final approval by the
ark board the project is being jeopardized by a few people with
very narrow interests, but who also may be the most affected by
the project.
Since 1988 I have been interested in the construction of the
pathway system for a number of reasons. First it will give
children going from the Genisis neighborhood to Fowler and C.F.
Tigard schools a safe means of walking to and from school without
dodging automobile traffic on Fonner. Also, it will offer a
pleasant access between neighborhoods for commuting by foot or
bicycle and for other legitimate recreation. Ultimately all of the
city parks should be connected via the greenway system to enable
greater access and enjoyment by everyone.
After four years of waiting, the project was about to enter the
final planning and construction phase this summer, so it would be
available by the next school year. Suddenly a ferocious opposition
appeared that could postpone the project indefinitely. It is
supported by two main arguments from two sectors.
The first is the safety issue. This comes from the not in my back
yard coalition. They feel that the installation of a walking path
will attract drug dealers, muggers and other unsavory characters
from all over the region. They discount the fact that none of
these paranoias are substantiated by the experiences of other
neighborhoods that have walking trails. They are also not
interested in the possibility that when the area becomes easily
accessible to people who wish to use it for legitimate purposes it
will become less attractive for the juveniles who currently use it
as a sanctuary due to its relative inaccessibility. It is not
surprising that this group is mainly comprised of the dozen or so
families that have property adjoining the greenway. I sympathize
with the situation that they will lose their exclusive access to
their private park. ( and I might add, private dump for yard
debris) I cannot agree with the safety concern because the most
effective method of deterring local crime is citizen involvement
and cooperation with the police. If crime is such a predominant
issue in our neighborhood, why has a neighborhood watch never been
organized ?
A new concern that has recently arisen is that if a connecting path
goes in between Genisis and Pathfinder, school bus service may be
discontinued to Genisis and beyond. This comes from the group that
I affectionately call the free riders. Whatever happens in the
neighborhoods is of little concern so long as they feel that their
child's free ride to school everyday is not threatened. The
theory must be that as long as the only way for Genisis kids to
walk to school everyday is to face the hazards of walking down
Fonner,. The school board will never discontinue bus service to
the area. If we have to risk a few that go in early or stay late,
it must be an acceptable price to pay so that our precious angels
don't have to walk , just keep them out of extracurricular
activities at school. In fact, the existence of a path will
probably make no difference in determining whether or not bus
service will be available.
The sad truth probably is that crime may very well get worse and we
could lose school bus service. However, it will or will not happen
irregardless of whether a strip of asphalt is laid down between
Genisis and Pathfinder. What will get us all in the end is the
prevailing tendency to oppose any community enhancement that might
conceivably diminish our personal privileges. Not only do we
oppose any real personal sacrifice but we are inclined to
vehemently oppose anything that we even perceive as a possible
threat to our personal sense of security. I am happy to see that
in this age of enlightenment we still determine the value of
anything based primarily upon what is best for our personal
situation. Then we quickly scramble for any evidence to support
that conclusion without blatantly exhibiting how we arrived at it.
Ultimately a few of us will be much better off if we abandon any
effort at improving our collective assets in favor of fortifying
our private security. However, the community will ultimately
deteriorate. I originally supported this connection because I had
the illusion that unencumbered access throughout the area would
enhance the sense of a cohesive community. I don't reserve that
illusion any more. There is no community. Just a bunch of houses
defined by a common boundary. It is not the juveniles that we need
to be afraid of, it's us. We have been preaching value oriented
garbage for a decade now and the only value that I see is a vague
definition based on superficial appearances, substance is
irrelevant. What we are really teaching our children is that the
primary consideration in any issue is what benefits "me"
personally. Then we fabricate a bunch of token issues to support
that pre-conclusion.
Sincer
ter Wi lxg~3fg
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Reilly, City Administrator
DATE: May 29, 1992
SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, June - August 192
C
Official Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally
OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council
Calendars.
June °92
9 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
16 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
23 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
July 92
3 Fri 4th of July Holiday falls on Saturday; City Hall Offices
closed July 3
14 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
21 Tue Council Study Meeting
28 Tue Board and Committee Interviews (5:30)
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
Aucaust "92
11 Tue Council Meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
18 Tue Council Study Meeting (6:30)
25 Tue council meeting
Council Study Session (6:30)
Council Business Meeting (7:30)
h:\login\caxhy\cccal
}r
't
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.3
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Approval of PREVIOUS ACTION:
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
PREPARED BY: City Engineer
REQUESTED BY:
Approval of street projects to be fun ed from the Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) budget for Fiscal Year 1992-93.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of projects as recommended by the Transportation Advisory Committee.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 1992-93 includes funds for capital
improvements to the street system. The Transportation Advisory Committee has
recommended that the funds be used for the following projects:
TIF: The proposed budget for projects to be funded from Traffic Impact Fees
(TIF) are shown on the attached sheet. No new projects are shown on the
sheet. All additional revenues are to be used to complete existing projects.
The project budget includes construction funding for two projects previously
funded only for design and right-of-way acquisition; the two projects are
the 72nd/99W intersection improvements and the extension of 109th Avenue.
Gas Tax: Some funds will be needed to complete current committed projects.
It is recommended that all remaining gas tax funds be used for major pavement
maintenance projects, as follows:
Committed projects from previous years $174,000
Major maintenance (overlays & slurry seals) 331,000
Main St. reconstruction (Scoffins to 99W) 120,000
Total Gas Tax CIP
$625,000
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the projects as recommended by the Transportation Advisory
Committee.
2. Revise the project list.
FISCAL NOTES
C rw/s-cip
M
May 5, 1992
PROPOSED F.Y. 1992-93 BUDGET FOR
T.I.F. - FUNDED PROJECTS
T.I.F. FUNDING
PROJECTS
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
TRANSIT
72nd/99W
347,000*
Dartmouth Street
30,000
Bonita/72nd Signal
50,000
Hall/Bonita Signal
120r000
109th Extension
500,000*
Cascade Blvd. R/W
75,000
Reserve for transit
133,000
467, 000
655,000 133,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED T.I.F. REVENUE THROUGH 6/30/93 = $1,255,000
*Increased from FY 1991-92 budget to provide for complete project.
Only design and right-of-way was funded in FY 1991-92 budget.
dj/RW:tif-fund.tb1
C
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3, y a-
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
(Local Contract Review Board)
AGENDA OF: June 9, 1992 DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to, PREVIOUS ACTION:
maintenance vjrQ ram.v PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFO THE COUNCIL
Authorization to advertise for bid for the pavement major maintenance
program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Contract Review Board authorize the City Engineer to advertise
for bids on the projects described below.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed FY 1992-93 capital improvement program for streets includes a
substantial budget for pavement major maintenance projects. The proposed
projects include the following:
Slurry Seal Program. This project will repair and seal pavements in 48
locations, as shown on the attached list.
Overlay Program. This project will provide repair and pavement overlay on 19
streets, as shown on the attached list.
Main Street Pavement Reconstruction. This project will reconstruct the
pavement on Main Street between Scoffins Street and the intersection with
99W/Greenburg Road.
These major pavement maintenance projects were selected based on data
generated from the City's computerized pavement maintenance system. The
slurry seals and overlays will extend the useful service life of the street
pavements, reducing long-term maintenance costs and maintaining better
surfaces for the motoring public. The third project will begin the
reconstruction of the asphalt pavement on Main Street, where the pavement
deterioration is too extensive to allow sealing or overlaying.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize advertisement for bids.
2. Withhold authorization.
FISCAL NOTES
Funding for these projects is included in the proposed FY 1992-93 budget.
aid award will require additional LCRB approval and will occur after formal
approval of the budget by the Council.
1992/93
PAVEMENT MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
LOCATION
AREA CK SEAL DIGOUT
S.Y. L.F. S.Y.
1 72nd Avenue
1,455
Spruce to Pine
2 Spruce Street
6,183
2000
78th to 71st
3 81st Avenue
3,092
900
Pfaffle to Steve
4 Steve Street
3,004
900
81st to 83rd
5 Atlanta Street
2,376
67th to 69th
6 Cherry Drive
7,610
72nd to Varns
7 Fir Street
1126
Cherry to 76th
8 Varns Street
4400
72nd to Cherry
9 76th Avenue
2065
Fir to Varns
10 109th Avenue
4,400
2500
10
Cantebury to End
11 Canterbury Lane
7,186
3600
20
99W to 103rd
12 103rd Avenue
3,900
Cantebury to McDonald
13 Elrose Street
1,000
97th to 97th P1.
14 97th Place
1200
Elrose to CdS
15 93rd Avenue
4,588
1200
100
Inez to McDonald
16 View Terrace
3100
East & West of 93rd
17 94th Court
669
View Terrace to End
18 Mountain View Lane
3,391
900
East & West of 93rd
19 Elrose Court
1,443
93rd to End
20 Hillview Street
4,259
104th to 100th
Q
C 1992/93
PAVEMENT MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
C
LOCATION
AREA CK SEAL DIGOUT
S.Y. L.F. S.Y.
21 103rd/Hillview Ave
800
Hillview to CdS
22 102nd Avenue
1,191
McDonald to Hillview
23 104th Avenue
1650
McDonald to Hillview
24 Frewing Street (STRIPING)
6,854
750
99W to O'Mara
25 Ash Drive
4,882
300
10
Ash to Ash
26 Frewing Court
1,173
100
Ash to End
27 Village Glenn Drive
4,505
700
Frewing to Ash
28 Village Glenn Court
986
Village Glenn to Cds
29 Village Glenn Circle
792
Village Glenn to Cds
30 Lake Street
751
Village Glenn to Cds
31 Hill Street
2,400
250
Ash to S/of Burnam Ct.
32 Burnham Court
939
Hill to Cds
33 Hill Court
739
Hill to Cds
34 87th Court
1,690
500
10
McDonald to Cds
35 McFarland Blvd.
7,698
200
Bull Mtn. to Wildwood
36 Wildwood Street
5,761
200
McFarland to McFarland
37 Cloud Court
1650
100
McFarland to CdS
38 Viewmount Lane
2,312
2100
115th to 114th
39 Viewmount Court
2350
1650
114th to CdS
40 114th Avenue
3,790
3200
Viewmount to Fairhaven
C
C.
1992/93
PAVEMENT
MAJOR MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
LOCATION
AREA CK
SEAL
DIGOUT
S.Y.
I
L.F. S.Y.
41
Fairhaven/112th Court
690
Fairhaven to CdS
42
Fairhaven Street
3801
950
115th to CdS
43
92nd Avenue
1
200
Center to CdS
,
15
44
Lomita Avenue
3,004
2200
90th to End
45
124th Avenue
7,580
4500
5
Walnut to Katherine
46
Brook Court
962
124th to Cds
47
Ann court
1,953
124th to CdS
48
Springwood Court
790
121st to CdS
60
TOTALS ,
c
1992/93
PAVEMENT MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
OVERLAY PROGRAM
C
LOCATION
TONAGE
INCHES
S.Y.
S.Y.
1 Thorn Street
3,472
2.25
82nd to 79th
454
2 79th Avenue
4,552
2
50
Pfaffle to Thorn
529
3 82nd Avenue
1,245
2
Steve to CdS
145
4 74th Avenue
2,958
3
Barbara to Taylors Ferry
516
5 Cedarcrest Street
557
3
74th to City Limits
97
6 Oak Street
5,230
2
1,046
25
E/of 95th to Hall
608
7 90th Avenue
2,324
2
581
10
Oak to Locust
270
8 90th Avenue
3,233
2.25
N.Dakota to Greenburg
423
9 Sandburg Street
2,550
2.25
1,913
72nd to 1st Corner
333
10 Carmen Road, EB Curblane
50
2
East of RR Tracks
6
it 100th Avenue
550
2.5.
McDonald South 200'
80
12 87th Avenue
1,760
2.5
Oak to Locust
256
13 Baylor Street
1,895
2
72nd TO 69th
220
14 Ash Avenue
880
2
220
50
Burnham to Operations
102
15 127th Avenue
3,191
2
30
128th to Karen
371
16 Beveland Street
1,157
2
72nd to 70th
135
17 115th Avenue
9,974
2
997
10
Gaarde to Fonner
1,159
18 92nd Avenue
2,165
2
Greenburg to S.End
252
19 Tangela Street
1,514
2
92nd to End
176
TOTALS 49,257 S.Y. 4,757 175
6,132 TON
c
AGENDA OF: June 9,
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. ~Jb
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
(Local Contract Review Board)
DATE SUBMITTED:
:horization to /PREVIOUS ACTION:
drainage PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY:
Authorization to advertise for bids for Alfred Street storm drainage project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Local Contract Review Board authorize the City Engineer to advertise
for bids.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The proposed project will resolve storm drainage problems in the vicinity of
the intersection of Alfred Street and 69th Avenue. There have been
occasional flooding problems in this area during major storms due to an
inadequate storm drainage system.
Originally, the project was to have been constructed by City crews. However,
-during design, extensive and unexpected conflicts with other utilities were
discovered. Because the construction is more complex than expected, use of
an outside contractor is appropriate.
Per the purchasing rules, LCRB authorization is needed prior to advertisement
for bids.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize advertisement for bids.
2. Withhold authorization.
FISCAL NOTES
Funding for the project is from Storm Drainage Capital Improvement funds,
using funds saved on the Main Street storm drainage project.
rw/alf-cip
C
AGENDA OF: June 9
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3.0
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
2 DATE SUBMITTED: May 26, 1992
mbursement PREVIOUS ACTION:
Sewer PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY:
Formation of a reimbursement districtfor sanitary sewer constructed by Edith
Johnson.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Last summer, a sanitary sewer line was extended in McDonald Street. The line
was extended west from 97th Avenue to serve a property owned by Edith
Johnson. The line provides service to the Johnson property and two other
properties on McDonald Street. All costs of design and construction were
paid by Edith Johnson, who has now requested formation of a reimbursement
district.
The engineer's report attached to the resolution provides more detail.
No public hearing is required to form a reimbursement district. However, for
a period of 60 days following adoption of a resolution, affected property
owners may petition the Council for a hearing for any objections to be heard.
The City Recorder will notify all affected property owners of the formation
of the reimbursement district and their right to petition for a hearing.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the resolution forming the district.
2. Modify the resolution.
3. Deny the request for formation of the district.
FISCAL NOTES
All costs are borne by Edith Johnson. No payment is required from other
property owners until they connect to the sewer.
rw/john-cs
Council Agenda Item No.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder
DATE: June 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - CPA 92-0002 (Anderson)
Staff recommends this hearing item be set over to July 14, 1992 per
the applicant's request of June 1, 1992.
t
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9, 1992 _ DATE SUBMITTED:
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Parkin PREVIOUS ACTION:
restrictions on SW Fir Street
PREPARED BY: City Engineer
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O REQUESTED BY:
Shall parking be restricted on porti ns of SW Fir Street?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached ordinance.
----------------------------INFORMATION SUMMARY
Fir Street west of 72nd Avenue was improved last year when an apartment
complex was constructed along the north side of the street. The improved
street is approximately 25 feet wide. Widening of the street to full
standards is not expected to occur until properties to the south are re-
developed in the future.
Residents have requested parking restrictions to assure adequate safe access
to their homes and to assure that emergency vehicles can use the street at
all times. When vehicles are parked on both sides of the street, the
remaining aisleway may be too narrow to accommodate a fire truck.
Comments have been received from the owners of all adjoining properties.
There is agreement that parking should be prohibited along the south side of
the street. Several suggested restrictions on both sides near 72nd Avenue to
assure that there is room for a vehicle to turn off of 72nd when another
vehicle is waiting on Fir to enter 72nd. In addition, the residents at the
west end of Fir asked that parking be prohibited west of 74th where the
street narrows to one lane.
Responses from the Fire District and the Police Department support the
parking restrictions proposed by the residents. These restrictions appear to
be the minimum required to assure adequate access for emergency vehicles and
safe traffic operations at the intersection with 72nd Avenue.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the attached ordinance adopting the requested restrictions.
2. Amend the ordinance.
3. Deny the request for parking restrictions.
FISCAL NOTES
If the ordinance is approved, the costs for posting of "No Parking" signs
will be approximately $400.
rw/fir-cs
r
H
J w i ~noi AVENUE
C
C
'CL
LL-
3nN3Ad PU21 M
It COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: 5/27/92
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Ramler Annex. PREVIOUS ACTION: None
ZCA 92-0004 Zone Change Annexati n ~REPARED BY: Victor Adori
DEPT HEAD O CITY ADMIN OUESTED-BY:---Ed-Murnhv-------------
1Aau~ nLi+vi~u
Should the City Council forward a request for annexation of one parcel
consisting of approximately 0.50 acre located at 11370 SW Gaarde Street to the
Metropolitan Area-Local-Government-Boundary-Commission?---------------------
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to the
Boundary Commission and to assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the
property. Direct staff to prepare a revised legal description "B Suppl." to
include right-of-way of S.W. Gaarde Street, and S.W. 114th Avenue.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
This annexation request consists of one parcel totaling 0.50 acre that is
contiguous to the City of Tigard on SW Gaarde Street. The owner of the
property requested annexation in order to partition the parcel and obtain
sanitary sewer service. The applicant requests annexation of his property via
the "expedited method". The "expedited method requires no public hearing by
the Boundary Commission, and will allow annexation approval within 28 days,
instead of the customary 45 days. Letters were sent to all neighboring
property owners (See Exhibit "A"). To date, there has been no response.
Staff is suggesting that the street right-of-way including approximately 650
feet of the southern portion of S.W. Gaarde Street, and a 510 foot portion of
S.W. 114th Avenue as shown on exhibit "A Suppl." be included in the annexation.
A revised Legal description "B Suppl." will be prepared by the Engineering
Department if the right-of-way is added to the annexation by council.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to forward the annexation to
the Boundary Commission including the right-of-way of S.W. Gaarde Street
and S.W. 114th Avenue, and assign a zoning designation of R-4.5 to the
property.
2. Adopt the attached resolution and ordinance to include only the 0.50 acre
parcel.
3. Deny the proposal.
FISCAL NOTES
The City of Tigard will pay the Boundary Commission fee of $140 for annexation.
The current tax assessment is $48,910 The City could increase its tax base by
approximately $91. (Assessed value multiplied by City tax base portion of tax
rate of $1.87/1000 as of 1/1/90 = $91.46).
C
va/ZCA92-04.Sum
STAFF REPORT
June 9, 1992
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
A. CASE: Zone Change Annexation 92-04
REQUEST: To annex one parcel consisting of 0.50 acre of unincorporated
Washington County into the City of Tigard, and for zone change from
Washington County R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre) to City of Tigard R-
4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre). The applicant requests that the
expedited process be used.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Washington County Residential, 6
units per acre.
ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-6 (Residential, 5 units per
acre).
APPLICANT: Eugene C. Ramler
c/o Dennis Wittenberg
11370 SW Gaarde Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
OWNER(S): Eugene C. Ramler
11370 SW Gaarde Street
Tigard, Oregon 97223
LOCATION: 11370 SW Gaarde Street. (WCTM 2S1 10AB, Tax Lot 1500)
2. Background Information
No previous applications have been reviewed by the City relating to
this property.
3. Vicinity Information
Property to the north of the site is in the City of Tigard and is
zoned for single family residential development. Three of the
parcels to the east are in Washington County and zoned R-6
(Residential, 6 units per acre). All other properties to the east
are zoned R-4.5 (Residential, 4.5 units per acre) and are in the
City of Tigard. All properties to the west are single family lots
in Washington County. Four of the properties to the south are in
Washington County and are developed as single family residential
homes and are zoned R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). All other
properties to the south are in the City of Tigard and are zoned R-2
(Residential, 2 units per acre)
4. Site Information and Proposal Description
The property to be annexed has one single family residence with the
remainder of the property undeveloped. The property is primarily
covered with some trees.
( ZCA 92-04 Staff Report 1
The applicant requested that his parcel be annexed into the City of
Tigard in order to partition the parcel and connect
sewer line. An existing sewer line is located east of the parcelato
be annexed, and southeast corner of Gaarde Street.
5. Aaencv and-MR-0 Comments
Tigard Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire District, Washington
ElectCountyonicsLand
Use and al Gasr,s Tigard School General
ict 23J, Portland
General Electric, and Metro Area Communications have reviewed the
proposal and have offered no objections or comments.
6. Police Department Consideration
The Police Department has reviewed the proposal and have offered
the following comments.
The Police Department has no objection to this
annexation, although it would be nice if the City can
square off that whole area with the annexation of
surrounding properties. The City should also consider
taking Gaarde Street to the north of the property,to be
annexed.
Tigard Engineering Department consideration
The Engineering Department suggests that a 650 foot
strip of the southern portion of S.W Gaarde Street, and
a 510 foot strip of the northern portion of S.W. 114th
Avenue be included with this annexation.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies
2.1.1, Citizen Involvement; 6.3.1, Established Areas; 10.1.1, Service
Delivery Capacity; and 10.1.2, Boundary Criteria and chapters 18.136,
- - Annexations;- and 18.138,_Established/Developing Area Claesification of the
Tigard Community Development Code. The planning staff has determined that
the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Tigard
Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below:
1. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning
Organization and Community Planning organization as well as
surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an
opportunity to comment on the request.
2. Plan Policy 6.3.1 is satisfied because the annexation will be
designated as an established area on the development standards
map.
3. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because the City has conducted the
Washington County Island Urban Services Study which includes the
subject property. This study indicates that adequate services are
available in the vicinity and may be extsnded to accommodate the
subject property.
4. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the annexation will not
create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police
in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within
C ZCA 92-04 Staff Report
2
Y
or outside the City. The land is located within Tigard's Area of
Interest, and adequate service capacities can be made available to
C_ accommodate the eventual development of the property as noted above.
Inclusion of the street right-of-way on S.W. Gaarde and S.W. 114th
will make police patrol more efficient and effective.
The planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the
relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon the
findings noted below:
1. Section 18.136.030 of the Code is met because all facilities and
services can be made available, the applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies discussed above have been satisfied and the property has
been determined to be an Established area in accordance with the
criteria in Chapter 18.138 of the Code.
The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and Washington
County requires that when annexing land within the City's area of
interest, the City adopt a zone designation which most closely
resembles the County plan and zone designation. In this case, the
property is designated in Washington County for single family
residential use with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a
maximum density of 6 units per acre. The City of Tigard Low Density
Residential plan designation and R-4.5 zone with a minimum lot size
requirement of 7,500 square feet and maximum density of 4.5 units
per acre are the most comparable to the present County designation.
2. Chapter 18.138 of the Code is satisfied because the property meets
the definition for an Established area and shall be designated as
such on the development standards area map.
C. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the findings noted above, the planning staff recommends
approval of ZCA 92-04, including a 650 foot strip of the southern portion
of S.W. Gaarde Street, and a 510 foot strip of the northern portion of
S.W. 114th Avenue.
PREPARED BY:
i
Victor Adonri, Assistant Planner
C ZCA 92-04 Staff Report 3
I .s 1 `~5Z-)
RECEIVED
APR 21199?
MMMO aITY DEVELOPMENT
son
A
`
- -D-/,S -l t 26 Ed,
~,c9
'
.I
Z l~ I S~ti Q,~c~, }O_C I QC U< < _
j) F
tG To 509 3 - 17
l
C COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9 1992 DATE SUBMITTED: Mav 28. 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
Certification to Receive State Shared A,
DEPT HEAD OK ITY ADMIN
PREPARED BY: Wavne Lowry
REQUESTED BY:
In order to receive state shared revenues, the Council must pass a resolution certifying that the City
provides certain services. State revenues include cigarette, liquor, and highway taxes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve attached resolution.
INFORMATION
( SUMMARY
To receive state shared revenues, the Cit
" 1) Police Protection y must provide four or more of the following services:
2) Fire Protection
3) Street Construction, Maintenance, Lighting
* 4) Sanitary Sewers
5) Storm Sewers
6) Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision Control
7) One or More Utility Services
Services marked with an asterick are provided by the City.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve attached resolution.
2. Do nothing.
FISCAL NOTES
1. Secures state revenues of over $1,673,700 anticipated in approved budgef.
( 2. Loss of $1,673,700
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM -7 b
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9. 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE:
Election to Receive State Revenue
Sharin
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
DATE SUBMIT T ED: May 28, 1992
PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A
PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry
REQUESTED BY:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
In order to be eligible to receive state revenue sharing funds, the City must hold hearings before the
Budget Committee and before the City Council, and must elect to receive such funds by Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends passage of attached Ordinance.
C_ INFORMATION SUMMARY
To receive revenue sharing from the State, the City must hold hearings before the Budget Committee
and the City Council giving citizens an opportunity to comment on the use of such revenues. The
hearing before the Budget Committee was held on April 27, 1992 and May 4, 1992. The hearing before
City Council is to be held June 9, 1992. After meeting the hearing requirement, the City Council must
elect to receive s!jch revenues by passing an appropriate Ordinance.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve attached Ordinance.
2. Do nothing.
FISCAL NOTES
1. Secures $175,000 estimated revenue in 1992/93 budget.
2. Loss of estimated $175,000 in General Fund.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM g
C
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
AGENDA OF: June 9, 1992 AI DATE SUBMITTED: May 28, 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of PREVIOUS ACTION: Budget Committee
1992/93 Bud et recommendation - May 11, 1992
PREPARED BY: Wayne Lowry
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: Budget Committee
POLICY ISSUE
Local budget law requires that a budget for the ensuing fiscal year be adopted by the
governing body, after approval by the Budget Committee and after a public hearing has been
held before the City Council.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard Budget Committee reviewed the 1992/93 Proposed Budget as submitted by the
Budget Officer. The Budget Committee completed their review on May 11, 1992 with approval
of the budget as amended by the committee, in the amount of $21,547,491. The committee's
recommended budget is reflected in the attached Resolution.
Local budget law gives the governing body the authority to make certain changes to the Budget
Committee recommendation prior to adoption of the budget. The Council may adjust budget
resources up or down and may increase or decrease expenditures. Increases in expenditures
are limited to 10% of the published total in each fund.
No changes to the Budget approved by the Budget Committee are being proposed; however, the
Council may initiate changes as specified above.
The Budget Committee recommended 1992/93 budget is reflected in the attached resolution.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Adopt Resolution per Budget Committee recommendation.
2. Make changes within City Council's authority, then adopt Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. Provides appropriations of $21,547,491.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of Resolution per Budget Committee recommendation.
n:\word\linance\wlbudrez
'.1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
4:00 P.M. May 11, 1992
George Burgess, Judy Christensen, Judy
MEMBERS PRESENT: Phil Westover,
Fessler, Gerry Edwards, Floyd Bergmann, Deborah Hinton,
Valerie Johnson
The meeting began at 4:00 p.m
of the May 4, 1992 meeting were approved by unanimous vote of all
The minutes
present. After discussion and comment by
The Committee discussed Social Service funding. be approved at 1991192 levels
several members, Gerry Edwards motioned that funding his concerns
encies funded in 91/92. Gerry also explained that for now,
for those ag
ice from Community youth services had been dealt with. Service fund nglwas approved
about serv osed. Social
the motion. Seven voted in favor, one opp
as follows:
Community Youth Services $27,500
000
Tigard Seniors/Loaves & Fishes 155, 500
WCCAO/Neighborshare
TOTAL $50,00
mittee discussed the funding of Chamber of Commerce brochures in the amount
The Com
00. After some discussion it was decided thetChamber'ssdes g
of $3 .
brochures and have them printed the
rather than funding h motioned that $3,000 remain in the budget for brochu
all nr s but that they be
desigDeboraned and printed by the City. George seconded. Vote: favor.
discus ommittee discussed the 4th of July request. Cher $3 000 w th sion Dh orah
which
The C
motioned to approve funding consistent with 91/92
Ilar for rivate donations received over $3,000 to a maximum of $4,000. Floyd
for do p
seconded the motion. Vote: all in favor.
Ron Goodpaster, Police Chief, shared information with the Committee members about
department automation, community policing and civilian officers. Ron explained how
mobile data computers will be used in each patrol car to transmit data and to transfer
data directly into the Records system bypassing current manual data entry.
Ron explained the concept of community policing and how this philosophical change will
affect the department and services to the community. Ron pointed out that the cap. on
FTE has driven this issue.
Ron also explained the idea of designing a community services officer as a future position
in the department. It would be non-sworn and would take much of the administrative and
report type work away from patrol officers to free them up for other duties.
Ron then answered some questions about police capital requests.
Cliff Scott, Operations supervisor, was present along with John Roy, Wastewater
Supervisor, and Bob White, Streets Supervisor, to answer questions about Operations
budget requests.
Questions were asked about the request of a backhoe. Cliff and John explained that the
new hoe would replace an older one and that it was needed for safety reasons in lifting
the shoring shield. The idea of renting and contracting work out was discussed but did
not appear to be practical.
The request for a 10-year dump truck was discussed. Cliff explained that 3 trucks are
needed and that this request is for a replacement of a 1968 truck that is in poor condition.
The request for a used road grader was discussed. Bob White explained that it will be
used for 2.5 miles of rock road and 32 miles of roads with no curbs. The grader is used
for shoulder maintenance.
Shops equipment and the Building Maintenance van were also discussed.
Phil made the comment that he felt that staff was not treated as well as they should have
been during questioning by the Committee. He pointed out that the City Administrator
should be grilled but not the staff.
Wayne discussed staff recommended carryover appropriations that should be included
in the proposed budget. For details see attached adjustment list.
After further discussion the following motion was made:
Motion to approve the 1992/93 proposed budget as amended by the Budget
Committee in the amount of $21,547,491. Motion made by Phil, seconded by
George. Vote: all in favor.
2. Motion to approve the 1992/93 property tax levies as follows:
C._
Amount Estimated Rates
Tax Base
$3,795,275
1.94
G/O Debt Service
249,925
.13
Road Bond Debt
1,150,485
.59
Park Serial Levy
350,000
.18
$5,545,685
2.84
Motion by Valerie, seconded by Deb. Vote: all in favor.
Proposed Budget: $21,479,314
Staff Adjustments - carryovers 83,413
- police forfeitures 13.764
Sub-Total: $21,576,491
Committee Adjustments -
Social Agencies - reduce to last year ($50,000) (29,000)
$21,547,491
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Adjustments to 1992/93 Proposed Budget
iposed Adjustments
Operations Yard Improvements
Area A paving 16,935
Area B Paving 16,678
Covered Equipment Storage 32,300
Total Operations Yard Improvements 65,913
Modular Covered Walkway 7,500
TEI 1/2 Street Improvement 10,000
Police Special Forfeiture 13,764
Total Proposed Adjustments 97,177
Resources
inning Fund Balance
C
Expenditures
General Capital Projects
Yard Improvements
Covered Walkway
1/2 Street Improvement
Gen Capital Projects Total
Community Services
Police
9492 14105 12655 29661 65,913
7500 7,500
10000 10,000
16992 14105 12655 39661 0 83,413
Total Adjustments
LA 112 CITY
9 COUNCIL
AGENDA OF : _ Mav-:96-. 1992
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zonina Ord
DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN O
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
OF TIGARD, OREGON
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
DATE SUBMITTED: May 13, 1992
a d PREVIOUS ACTION: Planning commission
recommendation Feb. 3 1992
PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff
K REQUESTED BY: Ed Murphy
-
Should the City revise its temporary Aign requirements to redefine the limits
on temporary signs?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The public hearing on the proposed ordinance was set over first to April 28
and then to May 26 to allow time for more input from the City Attorney
regarding constitutional issues and more input from the NPO's and others.
The City receives numerous complaints regarding the tendency for temporary
signs to proliferate in various commercial areas of the city. The City's
temporary sign regulations tend to be difficult to enforce equitably because
they are poorly defined, unclear and conflicting. Uncontrolled and
unenforced temporary signs create a visual blight on the community. As a
result, amendments are being proposed to the temporary sign provisions of
the Development Code (Ch. 18.114.100). The amendments should assist in
providing equal opportunity for each business to utilize temporary signs (one
business in a shopping center can effectively monopolize all of the 70 square
feet now allowed), eliminate some of the clutter caused by the uncontrolled
use of temporary signs, clarify the rules, eliminate administrative cost and
simplify enforcement.
The originally proposed changes included: limiting temporary signs to a
period of 30 days (now 60 with continuous renewal) three times per calendar
year; allowing one temporary sign per business rather than the four now
allowed; limiting the area of temporary signs to 24 square feet (now 70
square feet for rigid signs and 30 square feet for each banner and wall
sign); requiring a permit for each temporary sign to allow for better
tracking and efficient enforcement instead of having the first sign
permitted without a permit; eliminating the distinction of a temporary,
rigid, freestanding sign by classifying all temporary signs together;
eliminating the duplication of lawn signs listed twice under 18.114.060;
providing for real estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; providing for
an exemption for temporary real estate lawn signs from the 10 day removal
period; and specifying that temporary signs be removed 10 days after the
election to which they pertain.
C Copies of the originally proposed changes were sent to a 'subcommittee of the
Chamber of Commerce's Public Affairs Committee. The one response received
was positive. NPO 1&2 offered no objection and suggested that the proposal
might help clean up Tigard. The other NPO's supported the amendments subject
to comments that are addressed by changes made in response to the City
Attorney's comments. The NPO minutes are attached.
The Planning Commission recommended the originally proposed ordinance. The
only change the Commission made from the staff recommendation to them
(attached) was to reduce the size of temporary signs permitted from 32 square
feet to 24 square feet. Staff concurs.
Based on the City Attorney's advice relative to the interpretation of the
free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution regarding signs, anything
related to content must be eliminated from sign regulations. The City
Attorney's comments are attached. As a result, the proposed ordinance was
changed in the following manner:
Section 18.114.060 C. regarding a ten day limit for exempted signs has been
removed. This is to ensure real estate and political signs would not have to
be removed within 10 days as is now implies by the present code. It would
appear that other exempted signs listed such as directional signs, interior
window signs, painted wall decorations etc. do not a removal period and,
therefore, the section is not needed.
Section 18.114.100 B.3. has been removed. It allowed temporary real estate
signs to be limited to 32 square feet. Under the attached and revised
proposal, all real estate signs would now be limited to the size and time
requirements of other temporary signs.
'Section 18.114.100 C.4. has been changed to remove the word non profit from
reference to special event banners.
-
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
1. Change the Development Code as summarized above.
2. Retain the Code as is and require permits for all temporary signs.
3. Changei the Code to eliminate regulation of temporary signs.
4. Change the Code to prohibit temporary signs.
5. Retain the Code as is except for limiting the square footage of
temporary, rigid, freestanding signs per business rather than per
premise.
6. Make other selected changes to the temporary sign requirements.
FISCAL NOTES
There is some potential for minor increased revenue because of the number of
temporary signs without a permit. (Temporary sign fee is now $10 per sign.)
cb/Temsi.Sun
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Division
DATE: January 22, 1992
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to Development Code Pertaining to
Temporary Signs
OVERVIEW
Summary: The City receives numerous complaints regarding the
tendency for temporary signs to proliferate in various commercial
areas in the city. The City's temporary sign regulations tend to
be difficult to enforce equitably because they are poorly defined,
unclear and conflicting. Uncontrolled and unenforced temporary
signs create a visual blight on the community. As a result,
amendments are being proposed to the temporary sign provisions of
the Development Code (Cry. 18.114.100). The amendments will assist
in providing equal opportunity for each business to utilize
temporary signs, eliminate some of the clutter caused the
uncontrolled use of temporary signs, eliminate competition for the
70 square feet of temporary, rigid, freestanding shopping center
signage now allowed, clarify the rules, eliminate administrative
cost and simplify-enforcement.
Policy Implications: Should the City revise its temporary sign
requirements to redefine the limits on temporary signs?
Financial Impact: There is some minor potential for increased
revenue because of the number of uncontrolled, temporary signs with
no permit. (Temporary sign fee is now $10 per sign.) There should
also be a savings due to an increase in the effectiveness of
enforcement.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Development Code
Chapter 18.114.100 be amended to: limit the number of temporary
signs per business to one with a maximum of 32 square feet of area;
require a permit for all temporary signs; limit temporary sign.
permits to be issued for periods no longer than-".30 days and for a-
maximum of three periods per calendar year; include all temporary.
signs (banners, rigid, wall) to be within the same classification.
C ANALYSIS
Background
The City continually * receives complaints regarding the
proliferation of temporary signs as well as its attempts to
equitably enforce the existing regulatiors.
The code now allows four temporary signs per business, but only 70
square feet of temporary, rigid, freestanding sign space per
premise (shopping centers and multiple business locations). The
first of the four temporary signs is allowed without a permit. All
others are required to apply for a permit. Since temporary signs
can be renewed after 60 days, they become almost "permanent". In
shopping centers and multiple business locations, one business can
monopolize the allowed temporary, rigid, freestanding sign space
(70 square feet allowed) by continually renewing an existing
permit. They can effectively freeze out other businesses in the
same location from having a temporary rigid sign. This has created
considerable discontent among businesses in the same center when
the city attempts to enforce the temporary rigid sign limitation.
In sign code enforcement, where there are a number of temporary
rigid signs, the City cannot determine whose sign is the first
"free" temporary sign to be allowed versus those that must be
removed. Enforcement requires clearly defined provisions and
administrative efficiency to be effective.
Summary of Proposed Changes
o Limit temporary sign permits to a period of 30 days (now
60) three times per calendar year
o Allow one temporary sign-per business rather than the
four now allowed and the 70 square feet of rigid sign per
premise
o Limit the area of temporary signs to 32 square feet (one-
half a standard 4x8 plywood sheet per face now 70
square feet for rigid signs and 30 square feet for each
banner and wall sign)
o Require a permit for each temporary sign to allow for
better tracking and efficient enforcement instead of
having one sign permitted without a permit
o Eliminate the distinction of a temporary, rigid,
freestanding sign by classifying all temporary signs
together; banners continue to be included
o eliminate the duplication of lawn signs listed
twice under 18.114.060 (Sign Exemptions)
o provide for real estate signs not classified as a lawn
sign
C o provide for an exemption for temporary real estate
signs from the 10 day removal period lawn
o specify that temporary political signs shall be removed
ten days after the election to which they pertain
Alternatives
1. Change the Development Code as summarized above. This
will increase accountability, simplify the process, limit
temporary signs, and provide an equitable opportunity for s
each business to utilize temporary signs.
2. Retain the Code as is and require permits for all
temporary signs. This will improve tracking but will not
eradicate conflict in shopping centers and multiple
business locations. a
3. Change the Code to not regulate temporary signs. This
will eliminate enforcement problems but would appear to
be counter to the City's efforts to improve aesthetics.
4. Change the Code to not allow temporary signs. This would
be simple to enforce but may prove difficult for
business.
5. Retain the Code as is except for limiting the square
footage of temporary, rigid, freestanding signs per
business not premises. This would add to the
proliferation of temporary signs and aesthetic problems.
9
OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW & CORRIGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HALLOW & WRIGHT BUILDING
1727 N.W. Hoyt Street
Portland, Oregon 97209
TELEPHONE: (503) 222.4402
FAX: (503) 243-2944
RECEIVED PLA%%i%G
MAY 111992.
DATE: May 9, 1992
TO: Dick Bewersdorff, City Planner
FROM: Michael C. Robinson, City Attorney°s Office
RE: Amendments to Sign Code, TDC Chapter 18.114
You have proposed several amendments to the provisions regulating
temporary signs. I have reviewed these changes for conformance
with the Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8. The
Constitution prohibits the enactment of laws restricting the right
to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever. The
Oregon Supreme Court has held that a sign ordinance regulating one
kind of speech and not another based on the difference in content
violates Article I, Section 8. Ackerly Communications v. Multnomah
County, 72 Or App 617, 696 P2d 1140 (1985). Several of the
proposed changes run afoul of this prohibition.
Proposed Section 18.114.060.7 exempts "directional" signs from the
sign permit requirements. As long as directional signs do not
contain a message, you may regulate them differently from other
types of signs. However, if a directional sign is content based,
it may not be differentiated from other types of temporary signs.
Therefore, you must allow all types of directional signs without
respect to the message content.
Section 18.114.060(0) provides that real estate signs do not have
to be removed within ten days of their initial display. Temporary
political signs are required to be removed within ten days after
the election of which they pertained. Both of there regulations
are unconstitutional because they are based on content of the
message.
Section 18.114.100.B.3 distinguishes temporary real estate signs
from other types of signs. This is also unconstitutional.
Finally, Section 18.114.100.C.4 authorizes "non-profit special
event banners". You may authorize special event banners but they
may not be authorized only for non-profit events. Ackery
Communication v. the City of Salem, _ Or , P2d (
There are at least two suggestions for dealing with the above
changes. First, you could ban all temporary signs if you wish.
You may also allow all temporary signs below a certain size; for
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b' CORRIGAN
Memo re: Amendments to Sign Code
May 9, 1992
Page 2
example, establish a size that is the typical size of a
directional, real estate or political sign and exempt them from
regulation. Thus, you are not regulating based on content but on
reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are
permissible.
i would be happy to review this memorandum with you.
MCR/bjd
Ma\rMPrd\BeweMorff met
cc: Timothy v. Ramis, Esq.
C_
NPO 1/2 Meeting Minutes
April 8, 1992
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll: Githens, Gott, Duffield, White present. (Quorum met)
1. Minutes of March 11, 1992 approved, and seconded.
2. ZOA 92-0002 Korean Baptist Church. We don't see why the amendment is
necessary at this time. We thought this as too broad a zone amendment without
site discussion.
3. ZOA 92-0003 Planning Department, City of Tigard. Allows and recognizes gravel
areas for overflow parking, and how this goes with handicapped. parking standards.
NPO has no objections.
4. Temporary Sign Requirements. ZOA 92-0001. The NPO has no objections to
changing the Sign Code. The NPO feels it migNt even ti°Ip clean up the. looks of
Tigard.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan Gott
APR 02 '92 16:55 HOUSING IND. TEAM220-1081
-D it- b
NPO #3 MINUTES
April 1, 1992
1. Meeting called to order at 7:09 p.m.
2. Present: Bishop, 1='roudc, Garner, Helm, Mortensen, Porter.
Absent: Hansen.
3. Minutes from March 4, 1992 were discussed and approved.
4. ZOA 924002 - Korean Baptist Church request to allow religious assembly as a
condtional use in the Professional Commercial zoning districts.
a. In today's code, churches are only allowed in residential zones.
Lt. Al this request is granted, each conditional requested will be heard.
c. MOTION - It was moved and seconded to approve the request for conditional use
of Professional Commercial zoned sites for religious assembly on a case by case
basis. Passed unanimously.
5. ZOA 92-Q411D3 - Planning Department, City of Tigard amendment to the Tigard
Community Development Code to revise handicapped parldng standards and to allow
gravel parldng areas in certain situations.
a. MOTION - It was moved and seconded that NPO 3 take no position on this
request, because the information presented was confusing and unclear. Only one
member of the group received double sided copies of the memorandum from Jerry
Offer, others were missing pages 2 & 4. Passed unanimously.
C 6. Proposed Amendments to the Temporary Sign Requirements. -
a. MOTION - It was moved and seconded to approve the request for changes in the
commercial area, but not to approve the changes in the residential area due to
confusing information and the limit of a 10 day use seems unduly restrictive. We are
also unaware of problems in the residential areas. Passed unanimously.
7. Other business -
a: Discussed memo from Randy Wooley regarding our request for information on the
status of the Gaarde St. extension.
b. Anderson property proposal and Traffic Anaylsis.
1. MOTION - It was moved and seconded that NPO 3 is opposed to increasing
any residential density unless there are overriding reasons. Traffic is already
congested on Bull Mtn. Rd. and Pacific Hy., so increasing the residential density will
only exacerbate the problem. Passed unanimously.
8. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lila Garner
TO: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
FROM: Irving L. Larson
SUBJECT: MINUTES Or NPO # 4
'MEETING DATE: APRIL 8, 1992
# -x -x a~ #
STARTING TIME: 7:30 1-M. PLACE: TIGARD CIVIC CENTER
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Johnson, Chairman
Irv Larson, David Peterson,
Ken Rosenfeld, Alan Roth
STAFF: John Acker
GUEST: Jennie Larson, Mrs Alan Roth
Carl Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
A quorum was present. Due notice of the meeting had been given.
Minutes of the March 11, 1992 meeting were approved.
Alan Roth moved that the NPO #4 recommend to the Tigard City Council
that the current zoning of_ the Tigard Triangle not be changed "for now"
to the zoning presented in TIGARD MASTER PLAN Alternative D recently
prepared by The Benkendorf Associates. Irv Larson seconded the motion.
Three "Yes" and two abstain..
Re: ZOA 92-0002 KOREAN FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH (City University Prop)
Amend Section 18.64.040(A) of Tigard Community Dev. Code to allow
religious assembly as a conditional use in PC zoning district.
David Peterson moved that NPO #4 recommend the approval of the request
as submitted. Carl Johnson seconded the motion. Passed unanimously.
Re: ZOA 92-0003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - CITY OF TIGARD Applicant re uests
amendment to City of Tigard Conuaunity Development Code to revise q
handicapped parking standards and to allow gravel parking areas in
certain situations Chap. 18.22.040, 18.106. Ken Rosenfeld moved
that NPO #4 approve the amendment. David Peterson seconded the
motion. Passed unanimously.
Re: ZOA 92-0001 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TEMPQRARY SIGN REQUIREMENTS
Council Agenda Item 8 March 24, 1992 Irv Larson moved that NPO #4
go along with Ed Murphy's request. Carl Johnson seconded the motion.
Passed unanimously.
David Peterson moved that NPO ;#4 request the City of Tigard to
immediately give consideration to construction of sidewalk or a
minimum of 3 foot wide blacktop path on the west side of S.W. 72nd Ave.
between Highway 99tiJ and Phil Lewis School. The -notion was seconded
by Alan Roth. Passed Unanimously.
The idea of barricading S.W. 72nd Avenue was suggested to save lives
and/or serious injuries but o '.taken at this meeting.
%ction
John Acker announced a joint meeting of nPO #4 and the TIGARD PLANNING
Committee 5:30 P.M. Monday, April 20, 1992 TIGARD CIVIC CENTER.
The next regular :meeting of the NPO #4 will be Wednesday May 13, 1992
7:30 P.M. TIGARD CIVIC CENTER.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:30 1-M.
C VO101 TEr,R HOURS : 20
v
Irving L. -Larson, Secretary
Attest; -1arl Johnson, Chairnan
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING ORGANIZATION 05
APRIL 15, 1992
CITY HALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m, by chair Craig
Hopkins. Members present were Orm Doty, Bill Hawley, Joan Pasley
and Sharon-Takahashi. Bill Bieker was excused.
The minutes of the March 18, 1992 meeting were approved as
mailed.
Agenda items:
1. ZOA 92-0002: Korean First Baptist Church (Applicant requests
amendment to section 18.64.040 (A) of the City
Development Code to allow religious assembly asoa conditional
use in the Professional Commercial zoning district.
We have no objection if this is in a commercial zone, but
it is not a specific issue but a request for a zone change.
We feel that this could be better treated with a request for
a variance as the occasion arose.
2. ZOA .9-2-0003: Planning Department, City of Tigard (Applicant
requests amendment to City of Tigard Development Code to
revise handicapped parking standards and to allow gravel
parking areas in certain situations.
We felt this would be a positive factor in erosion control
and also an environmental plus. However, we need to define
the graveling process for uniformity. This should be a
positive factor in standing water elimination. The only
negative might be the dust factor in dry,weather.
3. Sign Requirements: The presentation of the changes were
adequate. We have a few questions but feel that the city
planners and its attorney can address these as the
4. SDR 92-009: Pacific Realty/MacKeAzie/Saito (A y arise.
pplcant
requests site development review a construe
tilt-up flex space buildings of 31,872,ra22,485and8,995
square feet. No objection was noted.
5. Final decisions:
a. Sign code exception hearing held on 4/13
b. SDR 92-007 approved: No answer was given on the traffic
control device.
C. Hall Blvd subdivision: 30' for common access for four
houses approved. 45' half-street improvement understood
upon further development.
b. Home Occupation Permits: Steve Tom Nitsos, 8465 SW Hunziker,
cabinet shop. No objection.
7. Lot line adjustment in Ashford Oaks to create
sizes than originally platted. No objection. different lot
8. Mostul: Artistic Autobody (Parking adustme
C building (first on right ascending tojHall)nt for Hunziker
Our compliments to the engineer for presenting, all informa-
tion _n well nac•r.a,~d farm. Nc. pretest noted.
NPO 0-Olnt meeting with 114 wi l l -Lk - p
20th.
a ace or. Monday. ?~l j ll
C
With no further business. we adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
-Respectfully submitted.
Sharon Takahashi. Secretary
i.
t
C~
NPO #7 Meeting Minutes
April 1, 1992
1. Meeting called to order: 7:05 p.m.
2. Roll Call: Present: Woolery, Blanchard, Dorsett, Howden, McGlinchy, Gross
Absent: Cunningham
3. Approved Minutes of March 4, 1992. Minutes stand as read.
4. ZOA 92-0002 - Korean First Baptist. Church. Applicant requests amendment to Section
18.64.040(A) of the City of Tgard Community Development Code. Discussion.
Motion by: Larry McGlinchy, to approve the request to allow amendment request made
by Korean First Baptist Church to allow religious assembly as a conditional use in
Professional Commercial zoning district.
Seconded: Ed Howden - In favor: 6 Against: 0
5. ZOA 92-0003 - Planning Department - City of Tigard, applicant request amendment to City
of Tigard Community Development Code to revise handicapped parking standards and to
allow gravel parking areas in certain situations. Discussion.
Motion by: Bill Gross, to approve this request to amend the Code with the conditions that
staff rewrite the language with respect to gravel parking and Section 18.106.020 A.2.
Seconded: Larry McGlinchy - In favor: 6 Against: 0
6. Proposed amendments to Temporary Sign Requirements. Discussion.
Motion by: Bill Gross, to approve staff recommendation that the City Council approve
Staffs revised ordinance, ZOA 92-0001.
Seconded: Ed Howden In favor: 6 Against: 0
7. Notices of Decision received review.
8. Other business - discussion on elections.
Motion by: Ed Howden, to elect officers.
Seconded: Bill Gross In favor: 5 Against: 0
In. favor Against Abstain Nomination of:
Ntade by: Nom, to close: Seconded:
6 o Cal Woolery for President Ed Howden
Jim B. Bill G.
2 1 Larry McGlinchy for V.P. Jim Blanchard
Jim Blanchard Ed Howden
3 Katy Dorsett for V.P. Bill Gross
Ed Howden Larry
McGlinchy
Unanimous vote for Katy Dorsett
6 Bill Gross for Secreta
E--u- ~
ry Ed Howden Cal W. K. Dorsett
9. Motion by: Bill Gross, to request Staff to revise NPO #7's community roster to reflect our
current officers and members.
Seconded: Katy Dorsett - In favor: 6 Against: 0
10. Meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
Respecuully submitted:
Katy Dorsett
bgkffZV"7MkL492
C. _
forward with initiation of a street vacation. At
that time, It was important to move forward on this
request as quickly as possible because of timing of
financing. If the vacation does not become
effective before March 31, then refinancing of the
project becomes necessary which would mean
considerable expense to Progress Graphics.
Therefore, Air. Blackmore requesting Council
approval of the vacation on an emergency basis.
In response to a question from Councilor Schwab,
City Attorney Ramis advised that it was within
Council°s authority to approve the vacation on an
emergency basis.
e. Public hearing was closed.
f. ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON A PORTION OF SW CORAL STREET, IN
THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
g. Notion by Councilor Kasten, seconded by Councilor Schwab,
to adopt Ordinance No. 92-09 and to declare an emergency.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council
present.
8. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE ORDINANCE Al~NDMEA T - ZOA 91-0004 A
proposal to consider amending the Community Development Code
pertaining to Temporary Signs (Ch. 18.114.100); Balloons (Ch.
18.114.090); Sign Exemptions (Ch. 18.114.060); and Definitions
(Ch. 18,114. 015). The proposal amendments will limit the
number of temporary signs per business to one with a maximum
of 24 square feet of area; require a permit for all temporary
signs; limit temporary sigxi permits to be. issued for periods
no longer than 30 days and for a maximum of three periods per
calendar year and include all temporary signs (banners, rigid,
wall) to be within the same classification. Provide for real
estate signs not classified as a lawn sign; exempt temporary
real estate signs from the 10 day removal period and specify
that temporary political signs shall be removed ten days after
the election to which they pertain.
a. Public hearing was opened.
b. There were no declarations or challenges.
C CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - PAGE 4
C. Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the staff report as
submitted in the Council meeting packet.
Enforcement of the provisions of the proposed ordinance
would not require additional staff.
d. Council, during discussion on this item, noted their
uneasiness with the fact that there was no one from the
business community present to testify on these
provisions. Council consensus was to continue the
hearing-to April 28, 1992 to allow additional time for
interested parties to prepare testimony on this item.
Council requested staff make additional efforts to get
word out to the community on this issue.
9. ORDINANCE CONSIDERATION - PARKING PROHIBITION ON SW 108TH
AVENUE
a. City Engineer Wooley reviewed the Staff Report as
submitted in the Council meeting packet.
b. Council asked several questions to determine if there had
been an inordinate amount of problems due to the parking
in the subject area. Each Councilor present expressed
reservations and concerns about setting a precedent for
C establishing "No Parking" areas throughout the City.
After discussion, consensus of Council present was to set
this item over to April 14, 1992, in order to allow Mayor
Edwards and Councilor Johnson an opportunity to comment
on this issue. Council also expressed interest in
receiving comment from the proponents.
10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:14 p.m.
Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r
Date: L1/111 1112.
=0324.92
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - PAGE 5