Loading...
City Council Packet - 02/28/1995_ Revised 2/24/95 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON E J F I PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropdate 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 contracting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. 7 Times noted are estim led: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7.15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. ~ aGenda . r hea in -raer r 7: rs rn. Assistive Listening devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be schaduled for Ccuni~,il meetings by noon on the Monday pi-ior to the Council Meeting. Please call 639-q-171, Be,. 369 (vo;ce) or 684-20 2 !TCt3 - Tele^ornmunications Devices for the Dead. Upon request, the Ciiy Will also endeavor to arrange for the follot4fing services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons _ with speech or hearing impairments; end Oualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be schedule d with outside service providers, it is important to allow as inuch lead time as possibl®. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listen above: 639-4171, Et. 3e09 (voice) or 684-2772 (7DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dear). :y COUNCIL AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23, 1995 - PAGE 1 AGE DA - FEBRUARY 28, 1 5 AGENDA o STUDY MEETING 115:30 PM) Review: > Speed Bump Policies - Engineering Department a > Undergrounding of Utilities Policies - Engineering Department > Fans of Fanno Creep - Request for Contribution of $5,000 for Tree t Planting Activities > Magno Humpheries - Public Facilities Requirement > Agenda _j 1. BUSINESS MEETING (3:30 PM) 1.1 Call to Order • City Council & Local Contract Review Board I 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3:40 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 1 3:50 p.m. 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: a 3.1 Approve Council Minutes. January 24, 1995 3.2 Local Contract Review Board - Award of Construction Contract $or the Cook 1 nark Picnic Shelter 3.3 Support Master Streets transportation Improvement Plan (G.PSTIP) 3 Program and Call for a Sias-Fear Seriai Levy to he Submitted to the Voters - ' Resolution No. 95--10 o c 3.4 Agree to Pay for Tigard's Share of Costs Associated with Development of the Master Streets Transportation Improvement Plan (MSTIP) 3 Program if ~ R Does Not Receive Voter Approval - Resolution No. 95-j~---'r°ra ~ 3.5 Receive and File: Council Calais - 1995 p Gong A~ a fems Removed for Senarcite fJ® n AYT ilams rear to be removed 11mm the CGnsent Agenda I& ` separate discuss. an vft1l Immadiately after Via Council f,as vcftd on ~;o^e items wh, r h db not need discussion. COUi`101- AGENDA - FEBRUARY 23, 1995 - PACE 2 - 7:55 p.m. f 4. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of SW Scholls Ferry Road, east of the Bonneville Power Administration i easement, north of SW Hillshire Drive and wrest of SW 135th Avenue. (WCTM 2S1 4, tax lot 800; 2S1 4SC, tat lots 900 and 1400; and 2S1 41313, tax lot 1700). To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Washington County R-6 to Medium vueay 97031U euw. ^MPLlCABLE RE-VIEW CRITERIA: Cor7iprehensive Plan f Chapters 2, 8, 10 and 12; Community Development Cone Chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and the Urban Planning Area Agreement between Washington County and - igwd. ZONE: Currently Washington County R-6. 7:55 a. Open Public Hearing 8:00 b. Declarations or Challenges t ' 8:05 C. Staff Report: Community Development Staff d. Public Testimony 8:15 Applicant (10 minutes) a 8:30 Opponents (10 minutes) r 8:40 • Proponents (10 minutes) 8:50 Rebuttal (10 minutes) 9:00 e. Council Questions 9:10 f. Close Public Hearing I 9:12 g. Staff Recommendation 3 9:15 h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 95-_ { 9:25 p.m. 5. `CsOW" oa-11- VIESCU+ C?EO~l AND C EV"E'11"j: DMTrUC FOUCRES - { Engineering Department i 10:00 6. CCU~SC ~yp~ gp~I DISC U~d gS~f Eav aJS50'] 1 AND, FUE-3~y~ iEIVJ: p~ ~+9~w'I' KS~ Z~ ~ DEVELOPMENT 'DC) r SPORT 5 Community Development Department 10:10 7. . `6®OUNI IL DISC l S 7$iN Ad~~,'IS I dE~'J o y S . dB'ddGNSg~a:a~`E, °'1B'~SB k ~'L St~`.~G B V 6" u,N p ~ a ~ ^ ^ 0~ rVivuaE ,7911AJZNI3 ~ /2-0 A CHANGE ~rL 3f~i5- i TgPJmELI~~ Community Development Department ! .10:30 S W COUNCIL AV EkIDA FEe= PUAR 28, 1995 - PACE 3 a F< 10:40 9. ECUTI SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.6601 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, currant and pending litigation issues. 11:0 C 10. ADJOURNMENT I l i i r ~ I 1 4 i 4 COUiNCiL AGENDA - FEa9UARY 28, 1995 - PAGE 4 k. I i E, k r,if : J -3 t,_ COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, I NC. i P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) W-0360 Legal R F t4~ipo T T 081114 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 FEE 2 l 9 ~a Legal Notice Advertising , City of Tigard 0 0 Tearsheet Notice CITY OF 13125 SW Hall Blvd. f Affidavit tigard,Oregon 97223 0 13 Duplicate `f AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. ~b f le Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and sa that I am the Advertising d-T r -t7 i l i ' a aar a n m mes Director, or his principal clerk, of the ' 0 - a newspaper of genera! circuiatiop as "defined in ORS 193.01 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aloreseid county qnd state; that the i (it_y >Council Business -Mta a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ontire issue of said newspaper for___DP7E successive and eonsarutiva in the following issues: February 23,1995 i Subscribed and sworn to ore m$ this 23rd `day of February-,19_.95 f t CIAL SEAL r Qht,~ P E,t G1CrSs t!011 Y p J' 'C - OAEGCN ..O 014532 " PJotary P C for Oregon C c r~ Nl.ti Commission Expires: i r 3 1 I F: nG3 J 7' 1 k i_ ,ty' WJ=t? ~I-,^ i 311t.TlvS i.f L~i ~ilS+1'.JC l~'T C'.T'_TINC rr I1 ti_I S ?8, ~S3) MALL b s ~ t kr) lG F : ©e'>_~Cr~3rd z:9➢23 q _W ILA LL aRi dy ? ~P r.>; (~•~d ~~r~ ? ur+ference Room fartrerly r_T~c rril 'IS f~s::'at,a41 C rlf, ,cnc~ ~~~r3r^e Ln:30_n.1 4 QroLn,r3i Dis4;;vi1,'C)n: _ r„lfh rTCr~d-tZ 1C3~,, (tf t?tll9j ic3 m 1,,, rc ray Tg (Towjj Liaii) ( .3Ct p.r;i.) f Public "caring: Cnrfar~retse;rsiv~, i'Tart Ite~tencEtntni CPA 4•0006 SIERRA C_-PIC DEVELOPNIEN .LOCA'C'10~I: SOuth Gs k. s ~;n'. ct::rtls F'tir t~0ai G t of ',hC ~o+rrevi3le Povi r Ail- rnlnistrat:ort -"~cnz nt, r jvr h of N, VI. Hillshire, Div,_ and ~.ectiaf,S / I3 th ire uc ''o ,f;~ez 3 iheon~Iren rsiuo P, "In bl ap 4r.;ma_„iis;vt ll f QUf, to °:4 lit~m L cst,tty esi entictl. Ell. i I Ccanci€ Diswussitr: cTn~ ars T ~Tl Di Mcts earlsSy,. r,T;acv tcYinentCharges i I-OC-21 Cca~ ,ia Review Boa:d i E ut€s~ ~ ~ssian: 1'he Tisafd city Cour!Cil may go inim Executive Sc sf<ti.. U-w ~ 1. xovisiQrs w ORS 192.660 (I) (d), Viz), (n) to d cuss l&:.~~`3 f,- la i10 S, teal proper t" varis ,,,lions, Cm ferl "I?d P ` ° ' 1? 11A 23, i:r`.35'- i _z i 4PERS, M_ NEWSP Le l 1 ga - _ Notice TT 8109 cr, -e.0. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 bx, f BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notico Advertising i i r eCity of Tigard d 13 Tearsheet Notice E 13125 SW Hall Blvd. ®Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 0 13 Duplicate Affidavit *Attn:Accts Pavble-merry ® - E- `j AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, 'ss. j Kathy Snyder I 3 . , being first duly sworn, depose and sat{ I am the Advertising = j , -°Ttsin m; mes Director, or his principal clerk, of theT, a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tic and in the sJoresa(d ea corings - Y un.16pAd Wj a*t00 h~t6 hSierra Pacific a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE -successive and - j consecutive in the following issues: 3 February 16,1995 1 Sts'Uscribad and sworn t. u fore roe thi~~6t day of ebruary 1 ~ L~_„ t 0"EGOi4 Clot}ary K'Vc for Oregon My CorrimisGion Expirow. F i'1° a J r 749 i7e tC r is+;' ey €i1 f1'@" 7b 1 € I M1 at Ti i~ard Ci%a Crater, '?bvvn Hall Rocim 13125 S,'VJ. Flail Bou"evard, Tigard, Oregon. Furiher information may be fair from Lie Community Development DM ctor or City Recorder at. tlae s.. ne Ii-cation or by calhng 634-4171. You are inviied to submit wrine: t= ',tirnoa;,y <n adva ncc of the public bearing; written and oral testimony E'lilt ?ae cons;&- d at thz~ h? :Tina. Tho public he; sing will b. conductc j in as ,~zda Le with Cite applicable Chaptor 19.32 of the Tig',ud Municipal and any rulos of procedrae adepted by the Cotrracil and avaiiabie at 4 ;itr 3131E C PU'3s.IC ti`ELAR.U-IGS f < =1i'ttl 't_iE i±S ;IF ~f 'd Iva '1~Ps ,i iT CPA yCt'.iy r L Os AT ION So h of S.W. S(holl ; Perry ;Road, east of the Bonne vi170 Adm-nis-,<-'ion casernent, m)rh of SM. llillshire Draae anti wt _-t of 'a ,7 1350h Avenue- (WC NT 2S1 4, tax. lo, 800; 2SI 455, taA rot., 900, - 3e . s vi' ,-S i 4P-D, t tx lot 170). To a vend ih~3 Comprehz ,ivf Man 17w_, from Vra'lwmrt County P-6 to r id iua27 DLssity Residcnt.iI. AP- CA.BZ 3✓ l l'ERl'. rah: CLmprchcrv4iv- Plan 12; Co Eino ~a;,° Dovdopmcra Code C:ha ,uer~j 13.22 and V,02; ~"d a. Uibmi Pl-annt n g Area A.grcr_rnent betvvt,c n 1,11ashingion County and ZO?,Tf^,: CCs rrca uy 7 siaington County iC 6. a f; ` Council Agenda Item 1 I G A R D C T Y C O -U N L I L MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 ; Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. RQUTO CA;'.. , Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors wendi Conover i " i Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff Present: Mill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, d~ senior Planner; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; i Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; j and Randy wooley, City Engineer. i yy i STUDY SESSION' l Study Session: f. 4 • Fans of Fanno Creek submitted a request for $5,0oo donation from the City of Tigard. "Fans" representative John LeCavalier was present. After discussion, it was fX71N decided to ask Air. LeCavalier to present his request to k' star for consideration during budget review. Speed Bumps. F Council decided to ask t'ie CIy'0s decide where to test speed bumps. If funding is possible, each CIT frill be 1 able to choose a street in their area. a Undergrounding of utilities City Engineer Waoley reviewed current policy for u-ndergrounding of utilities along the frontage of new development. Mayor questioned whether undergrounding-should be required in older areas or does such a requirement pose a disincentive for redevelopment. Council would like to have a map prepared showing where fees have been collected (,in lieu of actually doing the undergrounding work). They also want to know the amounts collected at each of the locations. There was concern expressed that it would not make sense to continue to collect dollars, if a reasonable timeline for implementation could not he mete -This spatter is : to be discussed again; staff will prepare a proposal for Couyicil consideration. r CITY COL'TICIL MEETING MIiJiJTES ~ FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGr I Reports: Tree Task Force progress to data by i Senior Planner Landsman outlined the the Tree Task Force. She submitted a memorandum to the Tigard City Council from the Tree Task Force dated February 28, 1995 (said letter is on file with the Council Packet material). z Councilor Hawley asked Tree Task Force representatives to update Council on the work done by the Task Force. The Task Force developed a tree protection program that differs in approach from the original proposed ordinance. This approach deals with five areas: 1. Sensitive lands i 2. Significant tree study 3. Require tree plan during development 4. Protect wildlife corridors, forests and natural lands (through Goal 5 Comprehensive Plan process) 5. Explore obtaining a significant Tree City USA, designation. The five Task Force representatives present, agreed with the outcomes reached by the group in general. Most cited areas where additional work is needed. Comments from ` Task Force members included the following: Bob Gilmore noted that he had private property concerns. He advised he felt any proposed j ordinance should state an existing developed lot would have no tree regulations, F;: th the eNemptian of sensitive lands. ` i Dave elobke, :ras also concerned with praperty rights. Bob O'Dell supported the work of the Task Force and the information contained in the document presented ' to Council. He noted, however, that there was a 1 t f k t t b d th ' tt' 'I i i a s wor ye a e one on a comma ee. Sally Christensen agreed that this was a good starting paint. She noted the issue was for quality of "life and agreed that trees contribute significantly. She said she still had concerns with property rights, even with regard to regulating "significant" trees. Christy Herr advised she enjoyed working on 'the CITE' COUNCIL MEETING VITHUTFS e FEBRUARY 28, 1995 2AGF 2 Task Force. She noted that there was a lot more to be resolved. She said there were times when private property rights should not override the environmental concern in the urban growth boundary area. She referred to issue with regard to Commercial Forestry. Doug Smithey submitted a letter to the City Council. He noted the Task Force had agreed to the framework for an effective compromise; however, all details were not worked out. He requested that the Tree Task Force have the opportunity for a more detailed dialogue with City Council at the next available Council Study Session. Mr. Smithey noted concerns with environmental issues. (A copy of Mr. Smithey's letter is on file with the Council Packet material.) Councilor Hawley suggested that Council allots the Task Force to continue to work. Two issues identified included defining "significant trees" and assisting with determining a budget proposal to conduct a tree inventoz y . S-5/217 Stud The Task Force will continue to work and come back with a follow-up report on April 18, 1995. Mayor N]Lcoli noted that the 1-5,/217 study process will be on a future Study Session for ; an update. to the City council. Council Groundrul_e_s Mayor Nicoli extended an apology to Coumcilor Scheckla with regard to a, disagreement over a. matter during the February 21, 1995 Council:Neeting. Mayor'Nicoli said it was not his intention to embarrass Councilor Scheckla and offered his apology. Mayor Nicoli added that to avoid a recurrence of the situation,; he would like the Council Groundrules to be considered ' by City Council on an upcoming Study Session Agenda. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA : Jack Poaans, 16000 S.W. Queers Victoria, King City, Oregon, began to raise issues with a proposed Safeway Shopping Center. Mayor Nicoli cautioned against offering testimony with regard 'to a development (i.e., ex parte contact issues). Aar. Polans said he would submit a letter. i Sally Christersan, 15685 S.W. 76th, Tigard, Oregan CITY COUNCIL PIEE SING N11MTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PAGE 3 - _ r t testified about concerns with children's safety while crossing Durham Road to Durham School. Mayor advised Council has asked the County to consider a crosswalk. Additionally, this will be a topic of conversation at the f, joint City of Tigard/School Board meeting on March 7. • Darlene Wozniak, 1150 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Tigard, Oregon, testified with regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment i and zone changes to the Tigard Triangle. She proposed working toward these changes prior to the transportation E study. Senior Planner bandsman noted the transportation study was required by state law and must be done first. Mayor noted that discussion on the timeline for.Tigard Triangle changes would be held later on the agenda. Dayle Beach, 11530 S.W. 72nd, Tigard, Oregon - said he wanted to take the City "to task" for not ;moving more ~ quickly on the Triangle Plan decision. Councilors explained the process. Councilor Rohlf noted he came into the process as a new Councilor; the extra time was s j needed so he could become educated on the matter before making a decision. Councilor Scheckla reminded everyone that one property owner held up development through legal-action activities for over 10 years. 3 CONSENT AGENDA: 1 During brief discussion, it was determined that Consent Agenda Items 3.3 through 3.5 would be pulled for separate discussion. Consent Agenda e The Following Were Approved: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes: January 24, 1995 1 3.2 Local Contract Review Board - Award of Construction Contract for the Cook Park Picnic Shelter Motion by Councilor Ha-uley, seconded by Councilor Schecckla, to us~prove Consent Agenda items 3.1 and 3.2. j a Motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and. Scheckla voted "yes.") 3.3 Support Master Streets Transportation Improvement Plan (IMSTIP) 3 Program and Call for a Six-Year Serial Levy to f be Submitted to the Voters Resolution No. 95--10 In response to a question from Councilor Bunt, City Engineer Wooley advised that the City can give input on projects. Generally, the County takes the lead on projects. Cities' involvement generally depends on how much interest the City shows and the issues involved. with regard to a question from Councilor Roh1f, City CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINTJTFS - FEBRUARY 28, 1=395 - 'AGE 4 i i 1 ~ Administrator Monahan advised that the City participates E :a at the technical level on projects. With regard to cost controls, the City has the ability to monitor costs. In addition, the City has made some of the preliminary cost estimates on projects within the city's area. _i Senior Planner Landsman advised that Tigard receives roughly their per capita share of dollars for the MSTIP Program. She noted that an additional project (five to 1 six blocks of pedestrian improvements on Oak Street.) was j added to those already elated for the Tigard area. s a j Motion by Councilor Hawley, seconded by Councilor Rohlf . to adopt Resolution No. 95-10. RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 - A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A SIX YEAR SERIAL LEVY FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY ROADS To HE SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS. ~ j i The Motion was approved by a majority vote of Council E " present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley and Rohlf 1 voted "yes"; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla "abstained.") j 3.4 Agree to Pay for Tigard's Share of Costs Associated with j Development of the Master. Streets Transportation Improvement Plan (MSTIP) 3 Program if it Does Not Receive Voter Approval Resolution No. 95-11. Staff responded to Council questions with regard to the request by the County for reimbursement of a ;hare of the ousts if the voters do not approve the MSTIP 3Program. City Administrator Monahan explained that. in the past the County has taken all of the risk and fronted all of the costs for the MSTIP Programs. This time the'County has asked all Cities within the County to sharethe risk. The County will pay 50% of the total -costs and is _asking the Cities to pay the remaining amount of cost. Approval of the resolution would commit Tigard to pay Washington County $18,744 if the MSTIP 3 vote fails.' In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Senior Planner Landsman advised that Washington County has spent a total: of ,$198,500 on MSTIP 3 Program Development. The County will pay ;for half of the cost. The cities are being asked to pay the remaining half per a formula based on their population. m'otian by Councilor Hac,1ey, seccndt3.*d by Councilor Hunt to approve Resolution No. 95-11. 1 RESOLUTION DEVELOPING CITY COUNCIL KEETING l 1 95-11 - A RESOLUTION TO ALLOCATE THE COST OF THE TA.IOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION 1714Pt` OVETMMNT MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - PAGE 5 1 4 _ } t PROGRAM. Council added to the motion that approval of the resolution would be with the condition that a letter f be sent asking that potential partnership proposals, in the future, to submitted in advance. The:.. motion was approved by a u-nanimous vote of Colwlncii resent. p (Mayor Nicoli Councilors, Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf i'. and Scheckla voted "yes.'o) 3.5 Receive and File: Council Goals 1995 Councilor Rohlf advised that he wanted to discuss, at a future Council Meeting, the possibility of adding the Goal to complete the Tigard Triangle Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendments by December 31, 1995. Mayor Nicoli added that he would also like Council to consider service standards. It was decided that this issue would be reviewed at the March 14, 1995 Study Session. 4. P 13LIC F[EARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - CO BMWSIVE PLAN AMENUMWT CPS?. 94-0006 SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: South of SCI Scholls Ferry Road, east of the Bonneville Power Administration easement, north of SW Hillshire Drive and west j of SW 135th Avenue. After discussion Council approved request - ordinance x#95-05. a. Public hearing was open c. Declarations or challenges: Mayor Nicoli`asked if. any members wisha3 to make any ex parte contact or report information gained outside the hearing, including any site visits. No ex parts contacts were reported. Kei nbers of Counc'iI indicated that they had famil:carize themselves with the application. There were no challenges from the audience pertaining to the Courac:il°;z jurisdiction to hear this matter, nor was there a challenge on the part of any member of Council. Associate Planner Ray 'Malone reviewed the staff report which is on file with the. Council: Packet. Mr. Malone identified the properties on a map, a copy of which Council had for review in their 'packet. Planning commission recommended approval of CPA94-0006 at its hearing on January 30, 1995. Staff recommended that the City Council approve the request. in response to a 1eatio from Council Hiaw ice. j CITY COMiCIL PI -°:T'r1G MINUTES FFBaR.U RY 28, 1995 - PAGE 6 Valone advised that this property was in Tigard ° s Area of a Interest. C. Public Testimony: Mayor Nicoli advised that "for all those wishing to testify please be aware that failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and, parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria the staff will describe or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation, which you believe applies to the decision." Mark Dane, Alpha Engineering, 9600 S.W. Oak, Suite 238, Portland, Oregon, 97223 advised that he was representing the applicant and he was in agreement with staff's recommendations. He noted that in accordance with - Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.1 for safe streets, the developer will provide an off-site road connection to Scholls Ferry Road. Mr. Dane referred to a asap and pointed out where the Scholls Ferry connection will be. M.;.. Scheckla noted that often times wetlands exist where Bonneville Power utilities are placed. He was concerned if that was the case in this instance that the wetlands be protected. Brief discussion followed. d. Public Hearing was closed. c. Council Con,.ideration- Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Colancilor Hunt to approve Ordinance No. 95-- 04. ORDINANCE No.. 94-04 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 'CO APPROVE A `PIGARD COMPREHENSIVT PIM,1 AME=14EYT REQUESTED BY SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPME-NI` (CPA 94-0006). motion was approved by a unanimous gate of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") Councilor Scheckla advised that he would have no problems with the approval of the ordinance as long as wetland and bike path issues are noted. Mayor Nicoli noted that such wetland issues are protected under Federal, Law. City Attorney Ramis also advised that these issues can -be addressed through the development process. A-11"-" I- CITY COUNCIL MEETIUG N 11MTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - PAGE 7 7. COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND REVIEE a': TRXA14GLE - COKPR S PLAN y PLO CR NGE DRAFT TIKELINE. Senior Planner Landsman Reviewed the timeline with Council. (The timeline is on file wkth the City Council -Meeting Packet material). Council accepted the timeline and acknowledged that this was the type of information they had requested. The timeline proposed joint hearings before the Planning Commission and Council in order to save some time. Senior Planner Landsman reported that Metro appears to be willing to help Tigard by matching funds with Metro staff assistance with computer modeling techniques. Mr. Tony Cargill, 13150 S.E. Winston Rd., Boring, Oregon t 97009, distributed to City Council four petition pages signed by citizens within the Triangle. (Copies of the petitions are on file with the Council meeting packet material.) ( City Recorder note: Copies of this information was forwarded to City Council with Council newsletter dated March 3, 1995.) Mr. Cargill referred to language on, the petition. He noted that the majority of property owners would like the Comprehensive Playa Amendment initiated immediately; he did not want to wait for a traffic study. ?sic. Dayle Beach suggested that the City Council have a -monthly progress report at their meetings. Mr. John Wozniak, 11550 S. T. 72nd, Tigard, Oregon, addressed City Council. He had suggested that the road that travels by -,the"Cinema is used by many as a public: road; traffic on this street 'should be monitored also. (Mr. Wozniak submitted to the City Recorder during the Council Meeting break a copy of a letter dated as "received on 'February 2$, 1995.0 This letter was forwarded to the City council in their Council Mail of March 3, 1995.) Mavor Nicol- advised he believed staff adequately addressed concerns with regard to the 'timeline. He noted that he would like to keep people informed and suggested a mailing to businesses and residences at least once a month. .es=ter brief discussion, motion by Councilor Hawley, nn and e!:~ by Councilor Rrpii7 ~ _ to authorize 'staff to CITY COUIiCIL PEE TING IIII UTES - FEBR.UPURY 28, 1995 - PAGE ` 8 i request money and staff assistance from Metro for the planning effort in the Tigard Triangle. Motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council Present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors, Hawley, Hunt, Rohlf and Scheckla voted "yes.") I_I u_nail r~anuested that staff advise immediately of anv problems which might slow down progress. Councilor Fawley addressed the issue by people who F. complained that this planning process taking too long. f She advised that Council must consider the issue thoroughly; the benefits of doing it right outweighs problems of taking too long. 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND REVIEW: REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT POLICIES City Engineer Wooley gave a brief review of history on this issue (see memorandum dated February 8, 1995 from City Engineer to City Administrator on file with the Council Packet material). During discussion council noted the following: • Need for consistency - proof of costs. Amount for district should be actual construction cost and possibly a fixed percent (for items such as administration costs and legal fees). Amount eligible for reimbursement based that portion of an improvement which was not needed by the developer. Request/justification for reimbursement should be done, in advance of construction of the improvements. Changes on costs can be done through pother wearing and/or justification to the neighbors. The same rules would apply to City initiated eimbursement districts. • No exemptions would be specif ied for any properties . e. 2 points over Federal discount rate) interest would remain the same throucshout"the term of the reimbursement district. 6. COUNCIL DISM SSIO 10TID 1REVII-XI: PAIM SYSTiHNS DEVELOP ,'2~1M= (SDC) REPORT Senior Planner Landsman reviewed the staff report. (See Memorandum dated February 10, `1995 to Carol Landsman frons Duane Roberts contained in the `Council Packet Material) After discussion with staff Council directed staff to prepare information for review and asked for comments from groups ` such as the'homebuilders and other interested parties. There was a suggestion to determine if some kind of phase-in of increased fees could be formulated. Another suggestion,'from Council was that fees should be reviewed more often. There were some comiments of concern with regard to the ' amount of CITY COUNCIL HEETING MIIRJTES - FEBRUARY 2$, 1995 - PAGE 9 1 increase. SDC frees can be used for maintaining current standards. These fees cannot be used for operation or ' maintenance. This issue will be scheduled for more discussion on a future agenda. a. HON-AGEt4DA ITEM • City Engineer Wooley updated on status of the Grant j Street sidewalk project reviewed by City Council on February 21, 1995. The Project may need to be reviewed again by CDBG Board because it was modified. This item, will be discussed further Larch 14, 1995. I Summerlake Park vandalism has been a recurring problem. Staff is working on ways to contain, i.e., neighborhood _i watch, and/or assistance from the Police Reserve Officers. Magno Humpheries public facilities - Mayor Nicoli reviewed history of issue at this site with regard to required improvements and a series of non-remonstrance agreements. Mayor Nicoli suggested a possible County TIF credit in this instance. Council comments were supportive if dollar figures were documented and it could be shown that this property owner was not receiving special treatment. 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 11:31 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, Catherine Wheatley, City l~~c°r~~dex Attest, Mayor, Q fXy of Ti✓a-ard lf~~~~ Date: Cal F- CITY CC3LT11C:ZL 111EETI:dG MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1995 - PACE 10 AGENDA ITEM For Ag nda of February 21- 1994 i- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA. ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Speed Bump Policies PREPARED BY: R~ ~Tocaley DEFT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK di _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL i Review of City policies related to the use of speed bumps on City streets. tr STAFF RECOMIENDATION 1. Approve the attached Speed Bump Policy. 2.. Approve the attached criteria for selection of speed bump priorities. 3. Approve funding of $20,000 from the gas tax fund for installation of speed bumps on three streets. INFORMATION SUMMARY on October 18, 1994, the Council discussed city policies on speed bumps. Council determined that the city should try speed bumps similar to those being used in Portland. The idea was to install the bumps in at least two In-cations on a :trial` basis. Installation would be in the spring of 1995. Council directed staff to return at a later elate with specific recomrnend.ations on the locations and funding source for the trial project. ittached is the staff response. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES f WIbLY ;O-SlSil E jt IPe,, MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, Citv Administrator t. FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer i DATE: February 5, 1995 E SUBJECT: Speed Bump Policies i a- In October the Council determined that the City should try the new "speed hump" design in at least two locations to reduce speeding problems. As a result, I have prepared the attached Proposed Speed Bump Policy., a Desian c i' I recommend that Tigard use the speed bump designs developed by the City of Portland. Portland has already done the research and refined their design based on actual trials of various designs. The Portland design is similar to the designs being used by a number of cities around the countrv. By us:inca the Portland design for the bumps and they warning markings, we will be using a standard familiar to many drivers in the area. i i ualiflcatior_s The proposed criteria for qualifying streets are based on the recommendations of Portland and the ;Institute of Transportation Engineers. Most references suggest similar criteria. The criteria prohibit speed bumps on streets with grades over 80. This eliminates a number of Tigard streets. I am recommending that we adopt this restriction initially "because most references i strongly recommend that the bumps not be used on steep streets. However, I am not able to find any evidence of field testing to support this restriction. In fact, the City of Thousand Oaks, California, reports that they have successfully used speed bumps on streets with grades of up to 14% and experienced no problems as long as the "bumps are not near curves. After' a year or two of trial, if the speed bump program proves satisfactory on the flatter streets, I suggest that we reconsider the steep street restriction I, eiahbo.r_hood A-onroval Based on experiences of other cities and some local discussions, it is very important that we have substantial agreement from the f 'i f neighborhood before installing speed bumps. Some residents who are i j L ) initially in favor of the bumps change their minds after they learn f about the proposed locations of the bumps, potential noise concerns j and the number of bumps and signs required, Priorities Attached is the rating system that we used in establishing the { speed bump priorities. This is a rating system that I developed based on the types of requests and concerns that I am hearing from citizens. Attached is an updated list of all the streets where we have received citizen requests for speed bumps. The Bast CIT added t several streets to this list during their discussions in December and January. f i E. ' We are preparing a list of qualifying streets arranged in order of their priority rating. The list will be available at the February 21st Council meeting. Because the list of potential streets has E grown, we are still checking speed and volume data in several locations. E. Recommendation" I recommend that we select the top priority locations and proceed as follows: j 1. Confirm that the street is not a primary fire response route. 2. Prepare a preliminary layout of the speed bumps and signing. 3. By mail, inform each `resident along; the street of the proposed design, the expected advantages (speed reduction)_ and the expected disadvantages (appearance,` noise, etc.). Provide an opportunity for the residents to indicate their preference on whether to proceed with the project. If necessary, hold a neighborhood meeting to explain the project. 4. If the neighborhood rejects the speed bumps, move to the next project on the priority list. 5. Construct the speed bumps when weather is suitable. The total number of locations would depend on the funding available. If the program proves successful, funding of additional locations can be considered during the 1995 CIP update. rundin Un January 24th the Council authorized staff to request USA to make the Grant Avenue Bridge Replacement project eligible for partial funding from surface water development charge funds. I anticipate that USA will approve this request. If 'so, $140,000 of gas' tax funds in the current capital improvement program will be freed up for use on other projects 1 I recommend that $20,000 of this gas tam funding be used for the k speed bump program. The remaining $140,000 can be re-programmed i; A through the CIP update this spring. t; °i The recommended $20,000 is expected to fund speed bumps on three streets. F- s rwlbumps-rep 4- i f j 1 G i a j PROPOSED SPEED BUMP POLICY February 21, 1995 ,t QUALIFYING STREETS :s To be considered for the speed bump program in Tigard, a street must meet all of the following criteria: Speed: - j The posted speed shall be 30 mph or less. The measured actual speed of vehicles using the street shall show an 85th percentile speed at least 5 mph over the posted speed. { Classification.: Speed bumps will be considered only on minor collector or local streets. The abutting land uses shall be primarily residential. The street shall not be a primary fire response route. The street shall have no more than one lane in each direction for through traffic. Alignraent : i Bumps shall not be installed in locations with grades greater than 3%. Bumps shall not be installed in locations with horizontal curves with radius less than, 300 feet. i Diversion: Bumps shall not be used if they are likely to cause a significant increase in the traffic volume on another street. Exceptions will be made if it can be shown that the diversion is a'desirable impact (for example, diverting through traffic from a local street to an arterial). DESIGN STANDARDS Speed bumps; shall be shaped in accordance with the standards developed by the City of , Portland (attached) The 14-foot bump , shall be used on streets with posted speeds of 25 mph or less and average traffic volumes less than 1,500 vehicles per day. The 22- foot bump shall be used on streets with higher posted speeds or higher traffic volumes and on streets de Speed bumps shall be spaced at interva Speed bumps shall be located drainage and utility access. dequate P ..ac3yanrg ei rrni n- a NEIGHBORHOOD ~'...`..7 . NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVAL 'i 'i 1 { y rw/bump -poi t Prior to approving the installation of s receive evidence that at least 60% of street support the installation of speed determined by a mail ballot conducted by After the bumps have been completed and in months, the residents may petition for removal. removed if at least 50% of the households along the removal. to avoid conflicts Speed bumps shall be 4 signated as transit routes. E Is of 300 to 500 feet. use for at least 3 with driveways, located to allow t; i c E peed bumps, the City must ' the households along the bumps. Support shall be F the City. The bumps will be F the street support I_. ' 100' D•uauuble bi 12' Cold Plastic W2450 AL_ A9' 7' Center of Trcm Cane Centw of Travel La Cold Pla44ic ~A Street P'-- Cent®rllnm a W260 Ate- 100' Desirable o t®p4ianai . Section A-A T_ Qv9 ,aa 8 ~ -ma Fsa r`.,.J i3 L9 li (4^lEDT[' ,s D mLt or C= C mSc FA.CS VAR MS) C TACK COAT Curb Derail DISnr-*, u OP TPAFFIC MAp+ll GFMENT WILE OF STAN ~ PM LOS HUMP FOR IMPROVED STREETS P. 172__V_I~cJ I .*,PraecrvQo - CriY OF P'0iii1 %ND,CI'.i: ,7*I t P~ '.9 i l i Speed Bump Opffo1 (typical) ----f-- ion' DwIrable <I> ti vazao Confer .1 Trawl tlw+s l 12' WWtv ~ Al ~A Strom ConterUno s r<• w• n art T n e• o f s• s Confer of Travel Lana (3 W 60 Section A PALO OUC-o, FLAT ~a j• e I +m C2~ 5 e ~n L' d @s~ nq l'I L~ r- PARABOUC 3a d b' ~ ai a r r r r r ae PARMOUC SF-Cnom 2',4AM - as°-~ CUB ~C'MDTH TAPER City ~Pcta~ men tern YeLR€ U mix o7 Cam.: C rn.L: FAKE Cris Curb ~05~~ ~ TALC COAT AW6t AU OF ?ZA rTgC Pa'1s1€-44NGEME€vA TiTW O STAND ?""I ARTERIAL BUMP HDR IMPROVED STREETS A"It M V y r. . a 4 i.. r F j F. t 4 = 1995 SPEED BUDW PRIORITIES February 21, 1995 Streets that were considered are those qualifying streets where one or more residents have requested consideration of speed bumps. A priority rating was assigned as shown below. The location with the highest rating number is assigned the highest priority. The priority rating number is the sum of the following: 1. Speed: Enter the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the posted speed. -2. Traffic volume: Enter the average weekday traffic divided by j 1000. r, 3. Accidents: Enter the average annual number of reported i accidents. G . 4. Sidewalks: Enter one point if the street has no sidewalk nor ` F=; paved shoulder for pedestrians. j Total 1 through 4 above to determine the priority rating. . t" I E; I i i rwlbump-pri t F f 1 i L.. i i. F. j LOCATIONS WHER-P SPEED HUMPS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED (In alphabetical order; no priorities assigned) (Some locations may not qualify for speed humps) As h .i-avenue between F ewing St and Fanno Creek. Baylor Street between 69th and 72nd. Benchview Terrace between 132nd and Bull Mountain Road. Cherry Drive/yarns Street west of 72nd. Fanno Creek Drive between Bonita Road and Hall. Grant Avenue between Johnson and Walnut. Hill'shire Drive between Westridge and Mistletoe. North Dakota Street between 121st and Springwood. Locust Street between Greenburg and Hall. i Oak Street between Hall and Greenburg. - `i K Springwood Drive between 121st and Scholls Ferry Road. ti Springwood Drive between North Dakota and Summerlake. Spruce Street between 71st and 78th. Summer?'ield Drive between 98t.h and Durbam Road. Sunti^.Zerlake Drive south of Scholls Ferry Road. Ti.edeman Avenue between Walnut and Tigard Street. - 1 Ventura Drive and Ventura Court. l Walnut Street between 135th and 139th. Watkins Avenue between 99W and Walnut. Winterlake Drive west of 128th. I 78th Avenue between Spruce and Pfaffle. >i 87th Avenue between Oak and Locust. 90th Avenue between Greenburg and North Dakota. 98th Avenue between Sattler and Summerfield. 7 i _l i 1 i j ` ':J 1 4i,~ I r r i k E i i r I b1. vvl-n ravenue 11.2 78th Avenue 10.5 Baylor Street 9.9 Springwood Drive 9.9 Summerfield Drive 9.7 9.0 8.2 7.7 7.7 6.0 6.8 6.7 ureenourg to North Dakota v tft5T- C,;L,7- Pfaffle to Spruce SST- CT T- 69th to 72nd Scholls Ferry Road to 121st 98th to 119th Sou- n_g C"TT-- Watkins Avenue Walnut Street to Fairhaven Grant Avenue Walnut to Johnson Ventura Drive/Court 72nd to Alfred 106th venue North Dakota to Black Diamond 124th Avenue Walnut to Winter.Iane Ash Avenue Frewing to Fanno Creek Cherrv Drive/yarns West of 72nd Spruce Street 74th to 784L-.h rw/bump-rate (betiiAj d/mil MEMORANDUM E CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Bill Monahan, City Administrator a FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer . DATE: February 8, 1995 ' SUBJECT: Utility Undergrounding Policy j On October 18, 1994, the Council discussed the requirements for { undergrounding of utilities along the frontage of new development. f At that time, there was general agreement that new development should be required to place utilities (including existing overhead utilities) underground. However, there were some questions about ;i whether small developments should be exempted from the' requirement or required to pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding. Attached is a copy of the staff report for the October meeting. After considerable discussion, the Council requested staff to provide additional information. Here is our response. ' E ~ il~elat2 Since October, additional fees in lieu of undergrounding have been paid. The total. fees to date are $86,324.14. Bevelo2allle uiLo-erty We were asked to provide an inventory of developable property that might qualify for the fees in lieu (small frontage properties). f However, we are unable to do this inventory with any accuracy because we cannot predict how existing parcels will be combined for development. For example, much of the Tigard Triangle currently is made up of many small parcels. Under the existing,zoning,'each parcel could be developed as a'small office. However, it is likely that many of the parcels will be combined into larger office, sites. r So, we took a different approach. We reviewed the existing development proposals to see what the potential additional' fees in lieu are if all of the currently-approved developments proceed to construction. Using this basis for an estimate, it appears that the total fees collected might increase to around $150,000 by the end of 1995, with the totals in the individual districts ranging from around $10,000 tc$50,000. If the City were to require all development (both sides of the street) to either underground or pay the fee, we estimate .hat the new revenues would increase approximately 75°x. i Cost sharina/PUC regulations The, attached memo from City Attorney's office provides information on the PUC regulations related to undergrounding. Basically, if the City requires the utilities to place existing lines underground, the City or the ratepayers of the City must pay the costs. Minimum frontage The current policy on fees in lieu was developed in 1992 following discussion with the Council and the utilities. (See attached Policy dated March 11, 1992.) This established minimum frontages for undergrounding projects based on practical and technical limits presented by PGE. ISSUES I believe the questions before the Council are: 1. Should the City continue to require undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along the frontage of each new development? 2. If so, should developments with small frontages be exempted or required to pay the fee in lieu of undergrounding? 3.: If the fee is collected, should it be required from all development (both sides of the street) or only, from developments with existing overhead lines along their frontage? Based on Counci1 direction, we can work with the City Attorney's office to prepare the appropriate Cod-o revisions for Council consideration. AGENDA ITEM # y FOR AGENDA OF 10 i 1h1Q- - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator FROM: Randy wooley, City Engineer,11/7 DATE: October 7, 1994 3 SUBJECT: Utility Undergrounding Section 18.164.120 of the Community Development Code requires new development to place all utilities underground. This has been interpreted to include existing utilities along the frontage of the development. If a project has only a short frontage on a public street, it is sometimes not practical to place the utilities underground on only the project frontage. Since March of 1992, the City has accepted the payment of fees in lieu of undergrounding for certain projects with short -frontage. Currently, the undergrounding requirement applies only to those developments with power and telephone lines on their side of the street At the meeting of July 19, 1994, the Council discussed whether the fee should be required of all developments. There was a proposal to charge the fee on all developments, with a credit for those that actually complete the undergrounding. The Council also received an alternative request to eliminate the undergrounding requirement except for new streets. After discussion, the Council asked for more information on three questions: . 1. glow much has been collected to date as fees in lieu of undergrounding? 2. Are the fees generating enough revenue to potentially fund some projects? 3. How much more would be collected if the fees were charged to all development (i.e., to both sides of the street)? How much collected?_ FromMarch 1992 through September 1994, _$71,922.38 has been collected as fees in lieu of undergrounding. For accounting purposes, the City has been divided into six' districts to keep track of where the fees are collected. The fees collected by district range from zero in District 5 (the Bull Mountain area) tc $43,261.88 in District 3 (the area south of Highway 217 and east of Hall.Boulevard). Potential for pro ects, In most areas, we would probably need about $100,000 to fund a practical undergrounding project. So, the fund balances are not yet 'sufficient to fund an independent project in any of the accounting districts. There may be other potential uses of the funds in conjunction with development that is required to underground. The funds could be used to extend a developer's undergrounding project or to provide a credit to a development that provided more than its share of undergrounding. At least three of the districts have sufficient funds to explore this option, if desired. If fee collected from all development's If the fees are collected from all development, we estimate that the revenue will be increased by approximately 75%. Questions Additional Council discussion and direction will be required before the appropriate ordinances can be prepared. The questions before the Council are: 1. Should the City continue to require undergrounding of existing overhead utilities, along the frontage of each new de eionment? 2. if so, should the City continue to allow the ;o_aymert or a see in lieu of .inder_grounding for developments with short street frontages? 3. Should the City require the fee to be paid by all developments? If the Council decision is to keep the existing undergrounding requirement, men I recommend that the fee be continued and be charged to all development. If this is Council direction, then we will work with the attorneys to prepare the necessary ordinances. is rw/ug O'D®r: NELL RAMIE CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH KrMRNE'YS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street Portland, Oregon 97209- TELEPHONE: (S03) 222-4402 FAX: (503) 243.2944 February 10, 1995 ~ t V:3 1 C 1995 C1 y -Y OF TIGARD y E_ 11 Ems.. Randy Wooley Public Forks Director Pamela J. Beery - City Attorney's office Undergrounding of Utilities if a city requires a utility to underground its facilities, who pays for such a conversion? SHORT ANSWER:" There are a number of options available: er` 1) The city directs the utility to convert to underground at the utility's expense and the cost of conversion will be passed on to the utility's customers within the city or a part oZ the city. 2) The city worms an assessment district by ordinance and charges the cost of undergrounding to property owners benef fitted by the conversion. 3) The city pays, for all or part of the conversion. DISCUSSION it is our understanding that the city is interested in the various options available for funding the expense of converting existing aboveground electric and communication facilities to underground facilities. This is,a different issue than requiring the utilities to relocate; due: to a public works project. If that were the cage, the utility; would be -'forced to relocate at its aeon expense under both ` common law and - the terms of the franchise. See x rtinwest Natural Gas Co. v. - City of Portland, 300 or 291, 711 P2d 119 (1985) However, azndergrounding is a different issue. Most of the utilities' current franchises and'the Tigard Community Development Code (§18.164.120) require that all wires and equipment must be E,L3 nlaced underground. Thus, it aopears that all new wires and Memo re: Undergrounding of Utilities February 10, 1995 c q, page 2 T 4 equipment must be placed underground. The city is then confronted with the undergrounding of existing wires and equipment not covered } by the franchises or code. We believe the following options are available to the city: i option 1 r OAR 860-22°-046 controls "forced" conversion of electric and communication facilities. In general, the rule says that when. a i= local government requires a utility company to convert its system from overhead to underground at the utility's expense, "the utility company shall collect conversion costs from customers located a within the boundaries of the local government." The local government has the option of directing the utility to collect from only a portion of its customers within the local government's boundaries Option `2 ORS 758.210 to 758.270 provides a process for conversion of existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground facilities by, means of an underground assessment district. The process is very similar to establishing a local improvement district and the city may assess > all or part of -hc- cost of conversion' against the real property benefitted by the ti conversion. Option 3 i The city may pay,for all or part of the conversion through the use of general funds, a serial levy, a 'development fee such. as a fee in lieu of undergroundi.ng, or possibly through the issuance of general obligation bonds. The use of franchise fees or a; privilege j tax may also be a possibility depending upon what is already t imposed upon the utilities. If you have any questions: or if you would like us to do further j research on any or all of these options, please let me know. cc: Bill Monahan, City Administrator i I. Section 18.169:.120 of the Community Development Code applies to all developments and is considered to be a part of `he street improvements required under 18.159.030. All new utilities must be l placed underground. 'except as provided in 18.169.120. Along the frontage of each development, all existing overhead utilities must be placed underground except as provided in 18.169.120. 2. All service lines to new structures shall be placed underground. Service lines are those lines which run across private property to connect individual properties to the utility system j 3. 'The City Engineer may accept a fee in lieu of conversion of existing overhead utilities to underground installation if: a) the frontage of the development includes an existing overhead electrical primary main line and the total frontage of the development is less than 1500 feet; or (b) the frontage of the development includes an existing 1 overhead electrical primary tap line and the total frontage of w~ the development is less than 500 feet, Primary main _line means a large capacity substation protected conductor as defined by the electrical utility. Primary tap line means a .low to mediura capacity line protected conductor as defined by the electrical utility. Were a fee is collected in lieu of conversion, the fee shall be calculated at the rate of $27.50 per foot of frontage of the development, measured along the right-of-way line abutting the development. The fee shall be used by the City to fund the conversion of overhead utilities to underground utilities. Each qualifying applicant shall be given the choice of converting the existing overhead utilities to underground or paying the fee in lieu of conversion. ADOPTED AS POLICY INTERPRETATION ON MARCH 11, 1992: lee Z~~ By: City Engineer TO; Honorable Mayor A City r'ra incil FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder j f DATE: February 24, 1995 1 SUBJECT: Council Meeting - February 28, 1995 l Attached is a revised agenda reflecting changes since last Tuesday. These changes include the following: • Study Meeting The following items were added > Fans of Fanno Creek - Request for Contribution of $5,000 for Tree f i Planting Activities (yet over from the February 21, 1995 meeting.) l > Magno i 1umpheries - Review of Public Facilities Requirement a Consent Arganda - Per Councilor Hunt's request at the last meeting, tiie folio:ding vmraing was added to the end of tho listing of Consent Agenda items: sit ~ "cfiso$ts~st~s~ a;.°If ~ sd ae~t d m'et' ~a~~ C~as~ar:~3 Business Meeting - Uie following item was added: No. 7: Council Discussion and Review: Triangle - Comprehensive Dian Amendment/Zone Change Draft Timeline (The timeline will be submitted to Council at the 2/23/95 rneeting.) f 1- i a j a AGENDA ITEM # r~ L e-S-51 ~r1 For Agenda of CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY mrt, vat are4 i n~ ant i yi i- i ac of irhp Fans of Fanno IS VT7.a IAL~A1TA fRT/1Y Funding VE/ {'iVT1:J1Y 1./.C'J. 1 i 111L't u f ~.+-u.. ~.r.. _ = Creek. j :j PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK - ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Does the Council want to contribute $5,000 to the tree planting activities of j the Fans of Fanno Creek as requested? STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~ INFORMATION SUMMARY The Fans of Fanno Creek have requested that the City of Tigard contribute $5,000 for the support of the tree planting activities of the organization. 'i Funds for this purpose were not anticipated in the 1994/95 budget however, ,O----the council may by resolution approve the appropriation of contingency in the general fund for this purpose. CTHE`r'._ALTERNATI17ES CONSIDERED Fund the Request, Do not fund Request Fund at some other amount. FISCAL NOTES The General fund contingency is currently at $295,000. Council action to approve the funding request will have a negligible impact on the general fund for the remainder of 1994/95 and its future. ~a CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING CONTINGENCY IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR CITY'S l CONTRIBUTION TO FANS OF FANNO CREEL{ TO SUPPORT TREE PLANTING EFFORTS. 5 WHEREAS, the Fans of Fanno Creek have submitted a request for funding for the support of tree planting efforts in the amount of $5,000, and WHEREAS, The Tigard City council has considered the request and desires to contribute $5,000 to for this purpose, and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: Contingency is appropriated in the general fund in the amount of $5,000 in the Community Services program. T i S PASSED: i ATTEST: ,i Day of 1995 Mayor City of Tigard "a City Recorder - City of Tigard i i ~')RESOLUTION NO. 95-- Page 1 ` l -G LL f c L lai Y~ tea. ---1rbY- .:f<:.,:P.. a _ Peas of anno r .4 Wahantaais dedicote 1 to the restoraflon an:'^i nr. +tecN^ .A. I ~A;1^^.'" ;awn v.+`~ Hsi i~ivvi~+3a February 3, 1995 -I FEB G U Mayor Jim Nicoli and City Council City of Tigard i 13125 SW Hall Blvd j Tigard, OR 97223 Bear Mr. Nicoli and City Councilors: On March 4, 1995, FANS of Franno Creek will be sponsorii g the Fourth. Annual Tree Planting Festival. Volunteers from throughout the Fanno Creek watershed will be planting 5000 native trees and shrubs in Beaverton and Tigard along the Fanno Creek Greenway, Englewood Park, and Fanno Creek Park behind Tigard City Fall. I would like to invite you to participate actively in this event. In the past Tigard City, has been helpful and, supportive of this event -especially Floyd Peoples and his staff who have actively worked with the volunteers to help restore and improve the riparian habitats along the reek and its tributi;ries. On August 2, 1994, at a Council Study Session regardirfg the proposed tree ordinance, the Planning Commission Director, Mr. Frye, suggested the Council should contribute $5000 ;to support the tree planting efforts. We could use this money to upgrade and improve our native plantingstocks, develop and disseminate educational materials to improve the quaiirl of the plantings, and to protect and monitor the new plantings to improve survival fates. j Is this contribution still a possibility? We have in the past received contributions from USA, Cky of Portland, and the Oregon Coe: muinity Foundation as well as a number of private businesses. Your funding would help us make this annual event even better than years past. i This is our most public event and draws over 500 volunteers including boy and girl scouts, church, school, and corporate groups. T'hanlI you for your past support and for your considembon of this and fature year's e ~ ents. Sincerely, /A E John LeCavalier, pressidclat Fc r, of Fmna Crvs% P.C. Z*x 25 Fol~md• CQ 97225 A noa-W- aN 501 (rii3a ^'~a 1 n 4 1 w o { 8= CIO . Nb a oxa; w b O . .e . E y u G o c :cA~ry~ ai C, y -•:o c c a, ~ m ooa C1 •owo n b~ ~ ~ q :3 ~ ~ ~o ! • ~ r e a,W W. CtJ L ~ b W rQ 0 L~ Oa C8 to O 0 . a)r O O LA O O 7.. C.O rfA •O `~~o. .G w (11 Fo < ~oLa~ y a ~E ` ~ 3 ua , mo a ~ cc w:• o R M C L COA y "G .C t4 ~'O ~'Cf 'i: y Rf G .p • E . 3 .S' RS •d to .LI ~ fA 9} y y VI 9 O C aD Qa O .W R. RS to ie tq a1 5 O C S . ~ . L t f ~.~1C., v ~a 3c0 eaoia~a~o>~a O 9 D ca j E :S: p p v ^ O y y t y y { "6 x n,>~, ° s ~ C) . o xcncrny r c c~ E~ ° F in s.. a o a cs'0 0 r c', N GL O E ~ V O ' ~ 0 O . . . co ..O O. . C D . . 9 a i F . 01 74 -,..,P x•' ca G.y. ate,,,, ° ?...^...co ° C fs, to , t C. E O -a y y. q1 d 0 : c d :s ~ U `T.-'--~~ , c o G ~ t~i7 G O,p~,.O~ °O N °t hA •C p C; K CIS too yyd Q z - 1 ! I K J^ - y~ y y •O L C S ti ~ U I I 1 I 1 i ~ ll ~f R/ I ~ 3z c E C J, G ffi d b cl c. a, y .ar O M ' ' r,_.. ~W CD - = 5 u4° hoc o • 2 p.. OW-~ 0'c6 O.:~.OOO ..C O. 5~-.~.~_ . 0 ce to -fa= 0 ca cd °'~.-~'i •L7 W Le i8 tU Cn' ~.f~ •e~N:. •.9 y y,~ . 0.0 L-0 > O al .~`..C 2 •tlD^° b •O N "N O •p.. ~ a> r :R ;w i . ~ ~F~ .f~.= AO 'O ~ C°a 3b.. .C A,. aaa CC'O 60 G pOR3 3 , 5D ry (,a <6 0.` O Y CO NO_r al. 1:5 C03 '~"..?"~Q O. I . a 9y Ew •a.5"~ o u CpOp aGy':.7 C ~ ~ bum ~ I c..~a.e..C - i j . c Mayor and City Council j City of Tigard _ 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 >i Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council: The Tree Task Force, in my opinion, has agreed to the framework of an t effective compromise. All details are not worked out. I would request that the Tree Task Force have the opportunity for a more detailed dialog with you z-, at the next available council study session. The framework for agreement includes protecting the public resources including air, water and wildlife. Concern over erosion is a special emphasis. Sensitive lands and commercial forestry should be strongly regulated. A clear r distinction needs to be made between landscaping and commercial forestry to avoid micromanagement of property. The code should remove the opportunity for trees to be logged off first and development to happen later without tree protection. Significant trees should be inventoried. ILK MMEMOR-k"UM Y OF TIGARD, OREGON .7 `s 0: Asgard City Council i03a; Tree i'a F orce i DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Tree Protection Program i, p used on our discussions ,the 't`ree Task Force has developed a tree protection program that differs in approach from the original proposed ordinance. We have developed o approach by identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve more weight than private property interests r and vice-versa. ) } O SENS'1•:' Al L Dq (which vould include steep slopes, lands within a s"vreLinn. cosxidr or lands within the b~l~r ai: ei area ci'« ~;eiundo) trj.e City Ei.11 i x t t 4 7 s m f rr: a trec es. p rfaiL. The applicant nag 5i "gave ~s~, re ~t ~Z of the tree or _ removal ~,md Paitigation "will not decrease the laves of erosion control or vvatar i quality protection, the tree provided.. The City will produce a Map sho--A9 t i~2c€s areas are 2-flibcted. othaer 2) The City wili cmduct a SIGN Ia A T TREE study includivg re,.deqtr of cora=mifies' work, definition, identification and "inventory. This inforMation krillhe used cliSerently during the davelopaient process than it will he when development is not occu-> -ing. In the later category, the City will iiot prevent the ramoval of dhe tree but will offer incentives such as raamtenance services and recognition, During development, the City may not allow removal of a significant tree, but wM provide incentives such as those proposed in the e,-i3tinlr d-aft trey ordin=ee. T''nis study ~,vffl also include art evaluation of whan and where the Cit~c° should apply commercial forestry practices. Wit} ILYUTRI G DEVELOPMENT, the Ciwy should requi e a trot, plan which wrill unclude an azborist an dysls o e~dsting trees, strztegncs for sa-4mg a-ustin.g treas or mdtiaatin~g tree removal for a. goal of no net tree less. SigrU-i cant trees and trees in sei zitive lands would be protected. The City offer incentives _ yy, ruJs.3ch 9 the tesb?3',1ng of ot lher dPveif)ply1ent restrictions, 'air appd ®.pria4re i 13125 SW Fall Blvd., Girard, OR 97223 (5031) 639-4171 TDD (573) 684-2772 - ~ r E_ "y~~.TWL11 E CORW RS, FORESTS, NATURAL LANDS will be protected AI) ; k through the goal 5 comprehensive plan process and through the 'city land i acquisition program (which has begun with attempts to purchase the reel cedar forest in the Metzger area). 1 t s ~ "onrA ahmild a lnr@ n_b4_t.ffl»tnfl a Tree City USA designation. This program requires adoption of ordinance provisions that. ~ v cover the planting, maintenance of trees on city property development of an urban forestry plan which would include 1 a street tree inventory, educational projects, planting programs and bee, utification establishment of a tree commission, and development of arboricultural specifications, all in concert with a city arborist. ? AGENDA ITEM # 3,a For Agenda of February 28 1995___ ; CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ' i COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Construction Contract for the Cook Park Picnic Sheltgx - - VDEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK F PREPARED BY: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL t Should the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for construction of f the Cook Park Picnic Shelter? =Y___.... STAFF. RECOMMENDATION`- - - - - That the Local Contract Review Board; by motion, award the contract including optional bid items, to Michael-Mark Ltd. ; INFORMATION SUMMARY On February 14, 1995, bids were opened as follows: Michael-Mark Ltd, Tigard, OR . . . . . . . . $ 44,000 E Roof $ 5,000 Sidewalk $ 5,295 Scarpelli Const., Ridgefield, WA . . . • . $ 45,000 .1 Roof $ 3,500 6 Sidewalk $ 9,700 F° LZN Excavating, Portland, OR . . . . . . . $ 53,448 Roof $ 3, 978 Sidewalk $12,590 Engineer' s k;stisuato o $ 346000 Reference checks show that contractor has successfully completed similar projects. T'ie purpose of this project is to replace the e~,isting picnic shelter. Removal of the existing shelter will be by the City. Reservations for the shelter will resume April 16, 1995. 1 isc included in t-iis contract are optional bid items for concrete _paths ,from 3 parking areas to the shelter and nearby ball fields as well as replacement of the roof of the concession' building with a roof -matching the shelter and nearby restrooms. The contract documents provide that the low bidder will be determined based on the amount bid for the shelter.; The contract documents further provide that the walkway; and roof replacement optional bid items may or may not be awarded as part of this contract. The amount bid for these optional bid items by the low bidder of the shelter appear competitive and inclusion in the contract is recommended. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED _-___--_----------------------=====FISCAL NOTES: The shelter is funded in the 1994--95 Capital Improvement Program.- The walkwav an(! roof replacement are funded by the Property Management Contractual Services fund. i cook.as a i AGENDA ITEM # 3.3 For Agenda of Q4 I~5- CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMIAM1.Y ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Support for MSTIP 3 - PREPARED BY: Carol A. Landsman DEFT HEAD OK A° CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the council adopt a resolution: supporting the major roads transportation improvement program (MSTIP 3) and calling for a sir year serial levy to be submitted to voters? 7_. f f- STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council should adopt resolution. INFORMATION SUMIV AR'Y' as 1986 and again in 1989, the council endorsed three-year ($27 million) and six-year (x;60 million) county-wide serial levies to carry out critical road inaprovernents throughout Washington County. The current levy will expire in 1996. The Washington County Coordinating Committee recommends that the county submit to the voters on May 16, a six-year $130 million special levy to construct 24 major road improvements that have county-wide, as well as city benefits. ` Three projects are particularly important to Tigard: improvements to Hall/99W intersection, Walnut street between 121st and 135th and Beef Bend/Elsner Road. An estimated tax rate of 92 cents per $1,000 assessed value, declining to 58 cents in the sixth year, compares favorably with the 93 cents per year tax rate under MSTIP 1 declining to any estimated rate under MSTII' 2 for 1995 of 45 cents. Approval of MSTIP'3 would, in effict, continue the level of local property tax support that has been and is now being paid. This is a resolution of support. Washington County makes the decision :bout the vote. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not support submitting the program to the vo~-_z-s. P FISCAL NOTES i s ,y - r. i f . f AGENDA ITEM ##i For Agenda of a 1 aV5 ; i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCrr. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reimbursement of MSTIP Three (3) Development Costs PREPARED BY: Carol A. Landsman DEPT HEAD OI 't-""CITY ADMI N OTC -ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the council adopt a resolution promising to reimburse Washington County for Tigard's share of the costs associated with development of the MSTIP 3 program if 4 j it does not win voter approval? E.' STAFF RECOMMENDATION E ' Adopt the resolution. I IPORMATION SUMMARY ~ k Washington County has spent a total of $138,500 on MSTIP 3 program development. This includes $40,000 for staff time and, project review, exclusive of time for development of county projects, $50,000 for election' costs and about ,$100,000 for i public information. The county is requesting, that if voters do not approve the levy, each jurisdiction involved pay a share of those costs based on population. `The Tigard share is $18,744. This is the first time Washington' County has asked jurisdictions to share costs should the measure fail. i OTHER ALTERNATWES CONSIDERED Not support resolution. - FISCAL NOTES This resolution commits Tigard to pay Washington County $18,744 if the MSTIP 3 vote fails. r- ` 04 - Council Agenda Item No. 3.5 Council Meeting of 2/28/95 RVISED IL 9°TAT OF PRIORITIES 1994-1995 6 1. water secure o Iona-term seater supol y for the ci ti mnspa f the Interoover ntal Water Agency. Continue to pursue two water purveyors for the City of Tigard for the supply of water to the citizens of the Intergovernmental Water Agency. Study the financing options to determine how to pay for the, long-term water supply. Begin to educate water users i that water costs will increase. Water costs will increase regardless . whether the City and Intergovernmental Water Agency members buy water from j ' a water purveyor or own and control the system. 2. Develop a Iona-term financial plan. with a greater emphasis on infrastructure needs tough the imDlementation of a long=Lerm caoito E roy nt pr cr . The long-term capital improvement program includes sewer extensions, pedestrian/bikeway needs, strGet improvements, and long- € term water supply. ' 3. ImpCgye the effectiveness of the Citizen Involvement Teams (CITsl. Encourage CIT input on a regular basis on City-hide issues. Request that CITs place major city-wide items on CIT agendas with a note that Council requests comment on those items. i 4. Clete a transportation study with a focus on implementation. Complete Tigard Triangle transportation study by July 1995. 5. 1 Part, c;zaa1e i€~ 7 Subar%a plan An 9!L_ , 3-,1a1V'_ !1. 6. k C , ctro Lgry of GoPI 5 t^escurces and review; options: for gr rggr _ P~ eatecti n. corlpl ote the tree study and natural resource policy fol l €aud ng are ostabl i shed ti-m3tbl S. Actively promote the as ty of Tigard as planned Economic Activity Center within the 2040-Plan.- 'cork to assure that infrastructure is in place to coordinate with the establishment of the Activity Center. Develop a close E relationship with Metro to maximize City benefits frays vmrking with eletro. Increase our effectiveness with JPACT. 9. Lit h. Council will cantirrewa to loofa for gays to address creed's of Tigard's youth. 10. q. Continue- to supprt the ftmntoi revitalization offorts of the j uic`3 74c.+~ t~ Nar ca} ant- Group. i ~ h:\logi i I ...e-,. n\cathy\ccnoal z.D~ ~ ~ h I I 77~7 . . ....--^-rte T.--..- m ~..R AGENDA ITEM # 4 j t ' For Agenda of Februar 28. 1995 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY -.l aSSUR/AGEN'DA TITLE Comprehensive Flan Amendment CPA 94-0006 PREPARED BY: flay Valone DEPT HEAD OR CITY ADMIN OK s ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council approve a comprehensive plan map amendment from f Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential? S'T'AFF RECO14M NDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 'i 94-0006. _ INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed amendment concerns four parcels of land located south of SCI Scholls Ferry Road, east of the Bonneville Power Administration easement, north of SW Hillshire Drive and west of SW 135th Avenue. The applicant, Sierra Pacific Development, has annexed the land into the city and is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to apply a Tigard land use designation to the land. The company intends to develop the land and was given conditional approval by the Planning' Commission on January 9, 1995, for a 101 lot subdivision. However, the land mist first be given a comprehensive plan designation before any permit approval. The Plannina Commission recommended approval of CPA 94-0006 at its hearing of January 30, 1995. The proposed ordinance final order and vicinity map for CPA 94-0006 are attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment FISCAL NOTES No direct fiscal ianpact to the city. i i i PropDsed change from WASH C('P-D :o Tigard Medium Density Within Tigard City Limits I NORTH C 500 I :A -,C, 4D\DRAW\SECTIONS\RAYVI j 1"/21 rev, 01/10/95 NOTE: Letters on map indicate parcels referred to in repo-CL. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 l TO: Bill Monahan, City Administrator z` " FROM: Randy Wooley, City Engineer tJ DATE: February 8,, 1995 SUBJECT: Reimbursement Districts ' The Council asked that a discussion of reimbursement district policies be scheduled for early 1995. That discussion is now f scheduled for the February 21st meeting. Following the discussion, the Council may wish to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to revise the existing TMC 13.09. ISSUES E k I believe that the issues for discussion include the following; i 1. What is the intended purpose for reimbursement districts? 2. Is the public benefit sufficient to justify continued use of reimbursement districts? 3. if so, what types of development should be allowed to use the reimbursement process? How would restrictions apply to City F projects? v' 4. What types of properties, if any, should be exempt from the reimbursement fees? 5. Should the City require that a hearing be held prior to the start of construction on all projects? 6. Should there be restrictions on the development costs that are eligible for reimbursement? For example, should the reimbursement fee be based only on construction costs or should it also include engineering, permit tees, land costs, financing costs, etc.? 7. Should the provision for annual fee adjustment be eliminated? 8. If the reimbursement process is changed, how should we treat those projects that have already begun constructionunder the old ordinances? OPINION Reimbursement districts cause some extra work for staff. Because r each one is slightly different and because they apply only to a few lots, it takes careful attention to make sure that the fees are properly collected and reimbursed. They seem to be difficult to f explain to the public. The annual fee adjustment seems to be especially difficult for both, staff and the public. So, in some ways, I would be delighted to see them eliminated. j However, I think that they have a purpose. Their biggest advantage, I think, is to more equitably distribute improvement costs. Neither developers nor residents have to bear the entire" cost of extending facilities. [ They also encourage development to be designed to benefit the entire neighborhood rather than just one property. Especially, they encourage someone to extend sewer system to a neighborhood where it might otherwise not occur for many years. So, I recommend that the concept of reimbursement districts be [ retained. However, it may be appropriate to limit the costs that can be considered as eligible for reimbursement. Especially, if all financing costs are eliminated, I believe it would make the i i reimbursement easier for citizens to understand and accept.. 1 EXHIBIT "A" %---1 o • , e - - REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICTS t 4 13.05.010 Definitions (1) °"CiLy Engineer" or "Engineer" means the person $ holding the position of City Engineer or any officer or employee designated by that person to perform duties stated within this chapter. E (2) "City" means the City of Tigard. f (3) "person" means a natural person, the person's heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; a firm, partnership, corporation, association or legal entity, its or their successors or assigns; and any agent employee or any representative thereof. E r; (4) "Applicant" means a person, as defined in subsection (3), who is required or chooses to finance some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement which is available to provide service to property,- other than property owned by the person, and who applies to the City for reimbursement for, the expense of the improvement- The "applicantO may be the City. (S) "Street Improvement" means a street or street improvement. conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development' Code and including but not limited to streets, storm drains, curbs`, gutters, sidewalks/ bike paths, traffic control devices, street trees, lights and signs and public right--of-way. (6) ".dater Improvement" means 'a` water or water line improvement conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development Code, and including but not limited to extending a water line to property, other than property owned by the applicant, so that water service can be provided for such other property without further extension of the line. (7) "Sewer Improvement" means a sewer or sewer line improvement conforming with standards in the Tigard Community Development Code and including but not limited to extending a sewer line to property, other than property owned by the, applicant, so that sewer service can be provided for_such`other property without farther ©rdinarxce No. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 9 ) extension of the line. j (8) "Reimbursement District" means the area which is determined by the City Council to derive a benefit from the construction of street, water or sewer improvements, financed in whole or in part by the applicant and includes property which has the opportunity l to tit' i 1 i 7a o..^Y." an improvement. (9) "Reimbursement Feel' means the fee required to j be paid by a resolution of the City Council and the reimbursement agreement. The City Council resolution and reimbursement agreement shall determine the boundaries of the reimbursement district and shall determine the methodology for imposing a fee which considers the cost of reimbursing the applicant for financing the construction of a street, water or sewer improvement i within the reimbursement district. 13,®9.020 Aorslication for a Reimbursement District (1) Any person who is required to or chooses to finance some or all of the cost of 'a street,, water or sewer improvement which is available to provide service to property, other than property owned by the person, may, by written application filed with the City Engineer, request that the City establish a reimbursement district. tr r w ( 9 The s eet, wate and se er improvements must include improvements. in addition to or in a size greater than j those which. would otherwise ordinarily be required in connection with an application for permit approval or must be available to provide service to :property other than property owned by the 'applicant. Examples include but shall not be limited to full street improvements instead of half street improvements, off site sidewalks, connection of street sections for continuity,, extension of water lines and extension of sewer lines. The City may also initiate formation of a reimbursement district. The application shall be accompanied by a fee, as established by resolution, sufficient to cover the cost of administrative review and notice pursuant' to this Chapter. (2) The application shall include the following: (a) A description of the location, type, size and cost of the public improvement . to be eligible for reimbursement. (b) A nap showing the properties to be Ordinance No. j , : Exhibit "cif Page 2 of 9 ~ a included in the proposed reimbursement district; the zoning district for the properties; the front footage or square footage of said properties, or similar data necessary for calculating the apportionment of the cost; and the property or properties owned 3 by the applicant. r (c) Post-construction: The actual cost of the improvements as evidenced by receipts, 3 invoices or other similar documents. Pre- f construction: The estimated cost of the improvements as evidenced by bids, projections ? of the cost of labor and materials, or other f j evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer. k"- i (d) Post-construction: The date the City 1 accepted the public improvements. Pre- r' construction: The estimated date of E-> completion of the public improvements. (3) Application for formation. of a reimbursement district may be made at any time but shall be made no later than three months after completion and acceptance of the, street, water or sewer improvements. However, the City Engineer may waive this requirement upon the showing by the applicant of good cause for the delay, that the delay was not created by the applicant, and that the delay was unavoidable due to unanticipated or unforseen circumstances. 13_._09_.030_ City Encts.neer's Report The City Engineer shall review the application for the establishment of a reimbursement district and evaluate whether 'a district should be established. The Engineer may request the submittal of =other relevant information from the applicant in order to assist in the evaluation. The Engineer shall prepare a'written report for the City Council, considering and making recommendations concerning the following factors: (a) whether the applicant will finance or has financed some or all of the cost of a street, water or sewer improvement, thereby making service available to property, other than property ot,ned by the applicant (b) the area to be included in the ' reimbursement district; Ordinance No. Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 9 L_ t (c) the actual or estimated cost of the street, water or serer improvements within the area of the proposed reimbursement district 3 and the portion of the cost for :which the applicant should be reimbursed r-. (d) a methodology for spreading the cost: among the parcels within the reimbursement k' district and where appropriate defining a "unit" for applying the reimbursement fee to 1 property which may, with -ity approval, be partitioned, altered, modified, or subdivided at some future date. The methodology should include consideration of the cost of the improvements, prior contributions by property owners, the value of the unused capacity, rate-making principles employed to finance public improvements, and other factors deemed relevant by the City Engineer. prior G^..n ri.butions by property owners will only be t considered _ - t'^e conic-, i_ution was for the sane type of improvement ana t_^_e same q location €e::amPIe . a sewer-related j contribution in. the same location a a serer improvement would be considered, a water- re? ted con tri.butior. in the same location as a sewer -imorovement would not be considered) ; le) the Rfee beginning can the first anniversary of the date of the reimbursement agreement as a return on the j investment for the person or the City. The annual fee adjustment shall be fixed and determined by the Council and computed against the reimbursement fee as simple interest and will not compound. The City Engineer may take into account t -li cost of any financing, including prepayment points, prepayment penalties, loan feesthe -actual percentage rate of interest being paid by the applicant. when recommending the annual fee adjustment to the City Council; (f) the amount to be charged by the City for administration of the agree.^-ent by, the City. The admInlstration fee shall be .red by the Council and will be included --n the resolution an nrov-- no an d FO2fi11 aag ^e r es =Cbu rse:rfent Ordinance No. Exhibit "All ` Page 4 of 9 17 .16 F 13.09.04Q Amount to be Reimbursed (1) The cost to be reimbursed to the applicant shall be limited to the cost of construction, including the acquisition and condemnation costs of acquiring additional right-of-way, the cost of permits, engineering and legal expenses, and the annual fee adjustment fixed and determined by the Council. 'iistrict. Vie ail-a-inistra-1-ion fee is due and pi3s; ble to the City the time the agreement in Sect-ion 13.09.070(2) ,a signed. fi(g) the period of time that the right to reimbursement exists if the period is less than *terr> fifteen vears. (z) A reimbursement fee shall be computed by the City for all properties which have the opportunity to utilize the improvements, including the property of the applicant for formation of a reimbursement district. The applicant for. formation of. the reimbursement district shall not be reimbursed for the portion of the reimbursement fee computed for the property of the applicant. 13.09.050 Public Hearing (1) Within a reasonable. time after` the City Engineer has completed the report required in Section 13.09.030, the City Council shall hold an informational public hearing in which any ; person shall be given the opportun ty to comment on the proposed reimbursement: district. Because formation of the reimbursement district does not result in an assessment against property or lien against property, the public hearing is for 'informational purposes only and is not subject to mandatory termination because of remonstrances. The City Council has the sole' discretion after the public hearing to decide whether a resolution approving and forming the reimbursement district shall be adopted. (2) if a reimbursement district is formed prior to construction of the improvement(s), a second< public hearing shall be held after the improvement has been accepted by the City. At that time, the City Council, may modify the resolution to reflect the actual cost of the improvement (s) . 131..09.0060 Notice of Public Hea.riris. E E r 4 ' ; Not less than 10 nor more than 30 days prior to any 6- public hearing held pursuant to this Chapter, the i applicant and all owners of property within the proposed . district shall be notified of such hearing and the E 3 purpose thereof.. Such notification shall be accomplished by 'either regular mail or personal service. if notification is accomplished by mail, notice shall be j ' mailed not less than 13 days prior to the hearing. ~ Not, ce shall be deemed effective on the date that the ~ letter of notification is mailed. Failure of the ' applicant or any affected property owner to be so notified shall not invalidate or otherwise affect any E' reimbursement district resolution or the City Council's action to approve the same. 13,09.070 City Council .Action - (1) After the public hearing held pursuant to Section 13.09.050(1), the City Council shall approve, reject or modify the recommendations contained in the E City Engineer's report. The City Council's decision shall be embodied in a resolution. If a reimbursement district is established, the resolution shall include the City Engineer's report as approved or modified, and t ` specify that payment of the reimbursement fee, as designated for each parcel, is a precondition of receiving City permits applicable to development of that parcel as provided for in section 13.09.110: (2) When the applicant s other than the City, the - j resolution shall instruct the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with the applicant pertaining to the reimbursement district improvements. If the agreement is entered into prior to construction, the agreement shall be contingent upon the improvements being accepted by the ci t y . The agreement, at, a minimum, shall contain the following provisions (a) she. public improvement (s) shall meet all applicable City standards. (b) The total amount of potential reimbursement to the applicant. (c) The annual fee adjustment set by the City Council. (d) The applicant shall guarantee the public improvement. (s) for a period off 12 months after the date of installation. ' j Ordinance Pao. Exhibit "A" Page 6 of 9 _I 1 (e) The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all losses, claims, damage, judgments or other a costs or expense arising as a result of or related to the City's establishment of the j district. (f} The applicant shall acknowledge that the s City is not obligated to collect the reimbursement fee from affected property owners. r' The l; .l r - .v.. ~...r,...a ..,v.r._.. Wi(g) other provisions as the City Council determines necessary and proper to carry out I. the provisions of this Chapter. (3) If a reimbursement district is established by the City Council, the date of the formation of the district shall be the date that.the City Council adopts _ the resolution forming the district. 13.09.080 Notice of Adoption of Resolution The City shall notify all property owners within the district and the applicant of the adoption of u reimbursement district resolution. The notice shall include a copy of the 'resolution, the date it was adopted and a. short explanation of when the property owner is f obligated to pair the reimbursement fee and the amount o¢ the fee. j 13.09.030 Recording the Resolution f - - The City Recorder shall cause notice of the formation and nature of the reimbursement district to be filed in the office of the County..Recorder so as to provide notice to potential purchasers of property within. the district. Said recording shall not create a lien.. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the legality of the resolution or the obligation to pay the reimbursement fee.` 13.09.100 Contestina the Reimbursement District No legal action intended to contest the formation of Ordinance No. .y Exhibit "A." Page 7 of 9 the district or the reimbursement fee, including the amount of the charge designated for each parcel, shall be i filed after 60 days following adoption of a resolution establishing a reimbursement district. 13.09.110 Obligation to Pav Reimbursement Fee (1) The applicant for a permit related to property within any reimbursement district shall pay to the City, in addition to any other applicable fees and charges, the reimbursement fee established by the Council, together with the annual fee adjustment, if _ - within the Of. time specified in the 'resolution establishing the district, the person applies for and receives approval from the City for any of the following activities: (a) A building permit for a new buildings (b) Building permit (s) for any addition(s), modification (s) , repair (s) or alteration (s) of a building, which exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the building within any 12-month period. The value of the building shall be the amount shown on the most current records of the County Department of Assessment and Taxation for the building's real market value. This paragraph shall not apply to repairs inade necessary due to damage or destruction by fire or other natural disaster; 3 (c) Any alteration, modification or chax)cre in the use of real property, which increases the number of parking spaces required under the Tigard Community Development Cod; in effect at 3 the time of permit application, (d) Connection to or use Of a water ist.pxoveraent, if the reimbursement district is based, on the water improvement, o _ (e) Connection to or use Of a sewer improvement, if the reimbursement district is based on the sewer improvement; (f) Connection to or use of a street improvement, if the reimbursement district is based on the street improvement. (2) The Cityl s, determination of who shall pay the Ordinance No. Exhibit: "A" Page 8 cf 9 L_ reimbursement fee is final. Neither the City nor any ;a officer or employee of the City shall be liable for f payment of any reimbursement fee, annual fee adjustment, i` or portion thereof as a result of this determination. (3) A permit applicant whose property is subject to ~ . :r 'ent of : reieni,,,rre~mrsnt fps _receives, a benefi-t from the construction of street improvements, regardless of f whether access is taken or provided directly onto such street at any time. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to modify or limit the authority of the City to provide or require access management. j (4) No person shall be required to pay the i reimbursement fee on an application,or upon property for which the reimbursement fee has been previously paid, unless such payment was for a different type of 4. improvement. No permit shall be issued for any of the i activities listed in subsection 13.09.110(1)• unless the =j reimbursement fee,. together with" the annual fee adjustmen- has been paid in full. Where approval is j given as specified in subsection 13.09.110(1), but no i permit is requested or issued, then the requirement to i pay the reimbursement fee lapses if the underlying E' i approval lapses. (5) The_date -when -the right of reimbursement ends shall not extend' beyond *ten-> f mteen years from the district formation dat ,-i- 13 07 1 G Ad.tainie-stmt on I = (1) The right of reimbursement is assignable and transferable ar-;_er wrytten notice is delivered to the City, advising the City to whom future payments are to be made. (2) The City shall establish separate accounts for each reimbursement district. Upon receipt of a reimbursement fee, the City shall cause a record to be made of that property's ' payment and remit the fee to the person who requested establishment of the reimbursement district or their assignee'_ per ein.. (+0%) 'O-f ~~G°L CTr- €t`3~"1"s1 ~'x~ZY est~~th- -j (3) The reimbursement fee is not intended to replace or limit, and is - in acidition to, any other o ~ Fees Jib d~ec~ect by c2 eY j 3 v F r f J j„ j. i i i' - t . j ax~aig ce Ns i i ii CITY OF TIGAFti D, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING { In the Matter of the Proposed i STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. j City of Tigard ) A begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose an say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) 15,6 q which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated Q.1-1 copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being hereto attache and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of i I. Tigard Civic, Center, '13125 SW Hall Blvd., -fligard, Oregon 2. West One Bank, 92233 SW Main Street, Tigard, Oregon a { 3. Safeway Store,Tigard Plaza, 3W Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Abertson's More, Ccrner of PaciP'LHwy. (Stye Hwy. 99) and SW Durham; Road, Tigard, Oregon i i Ml- j Subscribed and sworn to before me t$1; 19 q 5_ -oP CIAL SEAL 9 i Notary I lic for Oregon rs+ : M JOANN 14AYES NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON } 1S3fO NIEXPIR AY 5. 1 R ~ MY COh1P.91~Sft?N EXPIRES MAY 5, 1995 My Commission n Expires: b 11 °-~-e~--y----- 7 r': CITY OF TIGARD, t`lRB3tON OnnI CE NO. 95- 0t,- AN O I I CE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A TIGARD C SIVB PLAN AMEMMENT REQUESTED BY SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT (CPA 94-0006), WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign a City of Tigard Medium Density Residential land use designation to four parcels of land, consisting of 47.04 acres, which were annexed to the city from Washington County. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendment at its meeting of January 30, 1995, and recommends approval of CPA 94°0006. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1: The proposed amendment is consistent with all relevant criteria based upon the facts, findings and conclusions noted in the attached final order (Exhibit A); SECTION 2: The City Council concurs with the Planning commission and staff recommendations and approves the request to designate the parcels illustrated on the attached map (Exhibit B). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after: its passage by the council, signature by the >Mayor, and r posting by the city Recordar. G PASSED: By LtI1C.e(1In-AO L-S vote of all. Council members or_esent often being 'read by number and title on1.y, this tiny ~C~r°tit of Catherine Wheatley, City Re rder City Attorney Date ~ - OR-T)INPI,TCE No. 95-° p age I. EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIGA.RD CITY COUNCIL i PIIv'A:L ORDER A FIBS ORDER INCLUDING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR A COQ SIVE PLAN AKE24DHENT REQUESTED By SIERRA i PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT. The Tigard City Council reviewed the application below-at a public hearing on February 28, 1995. Based on the facts, findings and conclusions noted below, the City Council approves the:request. A. PACTS 1. General nformation CASE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 94-0006 REQUEST: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from Washington County R-6 to Tigard Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT: Sierra Pacific Development P.O. Box 1754 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Ica OWNERS: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Hark Plane - Alpha Engineering 9600 SW Oak, Suite 230 Portland, OR 97223 LOCATION: South of Sid Scholls Ferry Road, east of the Bonneville Power Administration easement, north of SW Hillshire `Drive and west of SW i 135th Avenue (WCTM 2S1 4, lot 800; 2S1 4BC, lots 900 and 1400; and 2S1 4BD, lot 1700). 2. Vicinity Information The four affected parcels, containing 47.04 acres,, are located along the western edge of the City adjacent to Fern 'Street (see map).The surrounding properties to the north, east and south` are designated as single family with 'a zoning of R-6 ' (Washington County) and R-7 (Tigard), both of which require `a j minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet To the west is the Bonneville 'Power -Administration easement. Parcels B, C and D have direct access to Fern Street." Parcel A to the south i:; contiguous with the'Hillshire Estates subdivision. { ~N Bac~ccrrounc3 zn¢csrmation f The applicant annexed the properties to the city, effective November 9, 1994, through a direct actions with the Portland Metropolitan Local Government Boundary Commission. The Planning Commission approved with conditions an application (SUB 94-0003) for a 101 lot subdivision on January 9, 1995. As part of this action, the Commission approved a zone change t, 3 to R-7(PD) subject to approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment assigning a city designation to the properties. Approval of SUB 94-0003, which affects parcels A, B and C only, includes two conditions of approval relevant to this application. Condition 2-5 stater, that the final subdivision plat shall riot be recorded until the city has received assurance of construction of an gaff-site roadway connection between the proposed subdivision and SW Scholls Ferry Road. Condition 20.D states that prior to recordation of the preliminary plat, the applicant shall-obtain approval for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment through the Planning Commission and City Council in order to apply the city's Comprehensive Plan designation to the subject properties. The Planning Commission held a hearing on this proposal (CPA 94-0006) on January 30, 1995, and recommends approval. 4. Pr2posal This proposal is to amend the comprehensive Plan Map to apply a Tigard land use designation to parcels A, B, C and D. Upon annexation to the city, a Comprehensive Plan Map designation Must be assigned to the annexed land. Pending approval of this application, the affected parcels will be zoned R-7(PD) J pursuant to the Commission's action of January 9. The proposal would designate the following properties from ~fashington County R-6 to Tigard Medium Density Residential: i 0 Parcel A. WCTIA 2S1 4, lot 800 (36.97 acres) e Parcel S: WC'I'H 281 4SC, lot 1400 (2.50 acres) © Parcel C. WC'1M 2S1 4BC, lot 900 (4.94 acres) S ® Parcel D: WC` IL 2SJ. ALM, lot 1700 (2.63 acres) 5. a__qQncy Comments No coxcments were received when this report was written. The relevant criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, 8.1.1, 10.1.3 and 12.1.2,; Community Developme.at Cade chapters 18.22 and 18.32; and the Urban Planning Area yreement '(UP-AA) between the city and Washington a County. 2 1. Policy 2.1.1 states that the city shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that j citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The policy is satisfied because the surrounding property owners were given notice of all public hearings to date related to the proposal and given the opportunity to comment on the -ro-osa1 T- he notices of hearings were also posted at c Tigard City Mall and advertised in a local newpaper. in a addition, the applicant provided notice of and conducted j a meeting on July 29, 1994, for interested property owners within a 250-foot radius of the affected properties. ; 2. 3 'i Policy 8.1.1 states that the city shall plan for a safe and efficient street and roadway system that meets current needs and anticipated future growth and development. The policy is satisfied upon the city receiving assurance from the applicant, through condition 2-B of SUS 94-0003, of construction of an off-site roadway connection from the annexed land to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a designated arterial. As indicated by the Engineering Department during its review of the subdivision, this connection will prevent traffic-related impacts from occurring on the existing local streets in the area. Fern Street is very narrow and cannot accommodate substantial increases- in traff is without :widening. SW Windscng Court is designed for very ?ow traffic volumes due to its 1°doglegt° design. 3. Policy 10.1.3 requi-es that the city shall, upon annexation of land to the city, assign 'the zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the Washington County designation. The policy is satisfied through application ZON 94-0010, conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on January 9, which would designate the properties R-7,(PD). The R--7 designation is the city's closest zoning designation to the County's current R-6 designation. Both designations require a minimum lot size of 5,000 square `feet ; per unit. This proposal would amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the ;properties as Medium Density Residential, which includes the R-7 zoning designation. 4. Policy 12.1.2 lists the locational criteria for designating land as medium density on the plan map. The locational: criteria can be construed in a flexible manner in the interest of accommodating 'proposals which are found to be in the _public <interest and capable of integration into the community. The burden of proving conformance with the criteria varies with the degree of change and impact on the community. The applicable 3 i z } i 3 a I _i 'i 1 6. 1 i locational, criteria with findings are as follows: a. Areas which are not committed to low density development. Tigard's policy is to designate the land in this area as Medium Density residential as it is annexed to the city. This policy has been carried out and the parcels adjacent to the proposed properties reflect this designation, This criterion is satisfied, therefore, because the area is not committed to low density development. b. Areas which have direct access from collector or arterial streets. Potential development under the Medium Density Residential designation varies from six units to twelve units per acre. At these densities, noise and traffic disturbances will occur in the surrounding local residential areas. Access from a collector or arterial is justified, therefore, to ensure a safe and efficient traffic flow to and from the affected properties. This criterion satisfied, therefore, upon the city receiving assurance from the applicant of construction of an off-site roadway connection from the annexed land to SW Scholls Ferry Road, a designated arterial. C. Areas within one-half mile of public transportation. Public transportation is provided at the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry Road and Murray Boulevard. The affected properties will have direct access to SW Scholls'Ferry 'Road, which is within one half mile of the property, with the addition of the connector road. d.. Areas which can be buffered from low' density residential areas in order to maximize the nrivacv of `established low density residential areas. The affected area is surrounded by medium 'density residential areas and thus' buffered from low density residential areas due to the distance. Section 18.22.040 (A) of the Community Development Code requires that decisions on quasi-judicial amendments be based on evidence of change in the neighborhood `or community or a -mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or zoning map. This policy is satisfied due to the changed circumstance of the properties having been annexed to the City. Section 18.32, setting forth the procedural requirements for consideration of quasi-judicial plan amendments, is satisfied for the following reasons: The application has 4 been processed in accordance with the Development Code (18.32.020, 18.32.050 and 18.32.060); the planning Commission and City Council have conducted hearings in the prescribed manner (18.32.090 (D); and the requirements for notification of the hearings have been met (18.32.130 and 18.32.140). 7. The iJYl3A between the ` e V.14 y and C° --shi::^~-on County requires 'aa.w that upon annexation of land within the Area of Interest, the City convert County plan designations to City plan designations which most closely approximate the density, use provisions and standards of County designations. These properties are within Tigard's Area of Interest and, as such, will be designated as Medium Density i Residential. This designation is the closest comparable l' one to the present Washington County designation of R-6. C ® DECISIOU The City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate the following properties as Medium Density Residential on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Map: Washington County Tax Map 2S1 4, lot 800; 2S1 4BC, lot 900 and 1400; and 2S1 4BD, lot 1700. The Council finds that the change complies with the relevant criteria for designating land annexed to the city as Medium Density Residential.. L-_ i`. y 4 EXHIBIT S e .A. 02 •i s :l• 1i(L AW. .r. i- S~ r g - ° tti t 1.'.. .q • • • f: ' • : r. r: •:i: c~..- .r. r. . r :.t::' T t 1 ...y CITY OF TiGARD PROPOSED COMP. PLAN AA!MENDMI-ENT ,hence tram WASH, CO. R_e to ucr, Medium hens .y LZ pG Wt"A y~ i ';riihin Ord ,v ~ r-~ia UNTZ4 RD, n ~ ~I uCR'r i _ '?'i. NUE Letters on mad; indicate parcels ve fenced to in report i y { . i J MEMORANDUM r F CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Carol Landsman FROM: Duane Roberts p DATE: February 10, 1995 SUBJECT: Parks SDC Report Attached is an analysis of the city park system development charge study conducted by Economic Resource Associates. Staff recommends the city adopt the fees shown in the table on page four under "City Residential and Non-Residential Development". The adoption of these or any other new fees would need to be done though a public hearing. The charges currently in effect have not been adjusted since 1987 even though costs associated with the acquisition, development, and expansion of park and recreation facilities have increased. Under the reCOmmended fee schedule, the charge for a single family house would increase front $500 to `$1,050. The charge against apartments would increase fs°om $300 per unit to $560. A charge an non-residential development of $49 per ernployee would be hmposed for the first tine. A survey of neighboring cities indicates that ;Tigard's cm Tent park SDCs are the lowest of any city in the area. Revising the fees to the levels recommended would place the city's charges in the raid-range of other cities. Staff also recommends council begin discussions with the Washington County Cona-missioners on the implementation of as: j.Vea of Interest park SDC. 1 PARK SDC REPORT r r_ In mid-1994 Council authorized hiring a consultant to conduct a city park system i development charge (SDC) study. The study inclt.ded: a review of the city's present SDC ordinance and fee structure, with F greenways included as a component of the existing service standard; a the development of a SDC for non-residential development; E i an analysis of the legal and administrative feasibility of imposing a city park SDC on new development occurring in the city's Area of Interest; and I I ® development of a methodology for automatically adjusting the SDC based on changes in land and construction costs. Recommendations Based on <i ; e A.ew of the SDIG study conducted by Economic Resource Associates and JC Dragoo and :associates, staff recommends the City: update the fee structure to assure that new development }days a proportionate sham ~afthe cost of providing additional park facilities at current levels of service; revise the method for calculating city SDC charges to include greenways and trails; ® expand the. park SDC to include non-residential L development; and initiate discussions with the Washington County Connnlissioner's to implement an Area of interest SDC. DaclaoLind Oregon statutes provide local governments the authority to assess SDCs on new development. The purpose of these fees is to impose an equitable share of the cost I of capital facilities upon those developments that create the need for or increase the usage of these facilities. The amount of the fees are based on formally adopted standards of service that clarify the amount of capital investment required. I- 77-7777-177 7 7-V j { One of the categories of capital facilities for which SDCs may be assessed is parks and recreation. Tigard has charged an SDC of this kind since 1977. The charges currently in effect are $500 for a single family development, $300 per unit for multi- family development, and $250 for mobile homes. These charges are based on fee rhoo 4 C~G'ilWayti ii.Tl~ calculations that i.»;~'ud ~-r a d Agllgi xavcJU IM slut, 3aV E' ,i °v a.`v.udna..aiaxauy QlaQa aae trails. The fees were last adjusted in 1987 and are the lowest of any city with a park SDC in the metropolitan area (see chart on the last page of this memo). No fee currently is assessed against commercial or industrial development inside the city or j against new development in the area of Interest. Existing Standards j To determine the current impact of new residential development on the park system, . the study computed park standards for the city based on existing park acreage and 1 population. As stated, greenways were included as part of these new calculations. E_ The standard derived from dividing the city's 242 park and greenway acres by the 1993 official population of 32,145 was ,7.6 acres per thousand population. This compares with the 1987 standard of 4.0 acres per thousand calculated on active park acreage exclusively. The rationale for expanding the park standard to include greenways is to provide a f funding base for this system. In the past, dedications have been the primary means of acquiring greenway. Linder the new rules arising from the Bolan case, the city is i required to demonstrate rough proportionality between the 'd'edications imposed and the project impacts. This requirement is expected to limit the city's authority to require greenway dedications as a,condition of development. Including greenways as a component of the parks standard would meet this problem by providing an alternate method for acquiring new greenway. i :['don-residential Deve"=.apient As pointed out in the study, businesses also use city park facilities and should contribute to the provision of those facilities.: For example, reservation data from 1994 indicate that 17% of the use of group picnic areas in Cook and Summerlake l=arks was by Tigard-based businesses. Factoring in group size, the proportion of business sector use was 28%. If group size figures for non-Tigard.-based businesses are added to this total, the proportion of business sector use was 51%. f Using a methcd similar to ones applied by communities it Washington and Vermont, the study deter cried that apiiF-oximately 8% of the total recreation use of community, parks is assign: ble to Tigard-rased employees as distinguished' from resident i population use. M In addi; on to can+tzrnig the immpact of new businesses on parrs, the advantage of a f . non-residentcial SIC is that it would reduce the burden on residential development. i _ - -"!r- _ - - - r - 7, 7 7 Area of Interest Tigard's Area of Interest is defined in an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County and reflects lands that are likely to annex: v- Mlle vary withi . the foreseeable future. In setting the charges for a proposed Area of Interest SDC, t hC study presents two options for defining level of service: use of a separate, Area of Interest-only standard, or use of a combined City and Area of Interest standard. Based on current park acreage and population, the standard for the Area of Interest as a separate service area is 1.3 acres per thousand population. Combining the city and Area of Interest into a single service area results in a standard of 6.6 acres per thousand. The option recommended by the study and concurred with by staff is use of the combined standard. Given their proximity, the city and Interest Area are a logical service area in which all residents use the parks and have a common responsibility for park acquisition and development. The use of a separate service area would only perpetuate the present low ratio of park space to population currently found in the Area of Interest. The disadvantage of a combined standard is that it would lower the current city standard by one acre per thousand population. To deal with the city's lack of authority to impose a park SDC outside its boundaries, the study proposes -a city-county cooperative agreement. This proposed agreement would call for the city to adopt a park SDC and park master plan for the Area of Interest. The county would assure responsibility for collecting the SDC and for acquiring or developing the park properties identified in the master plan when sufficient- SDC funds were available. When the park became contiguous to the city through the outward expansion of the city boundary, the county would transfer responsibility for the park to the city. i A better outlining this proposal was sent to county staff for eoma;,ent. At the direction of the county administrator, staff responded that they lacked any guidelines by which to comment on the proposal and referred the city to the county commissioners. f Impact Fee Amounts E The maximum park SDCs that could be levied by the city under the various options + discussed in the report; are shown in Table 1. These charges are based on the updated standards arrived at by the study, the current cost of park improvements, and the average number of people who live in various types of housing. Depending i on the method chosen and the area for which the SDC is to be charged, it costs the city between $1,150 and $1,050 for each single family unit to provide for parks and recreation. The cost of new facility capacity for each employee is $49. ~ i 1 ~ f 7 i Table 1 Systems Development Charges for Maintaining Current Standards Type of Development Existing Proposed SDC Piss -*',DC* Proposed City! Areal of Interest SDC** Proposed City Resi i Non.-Res SDC*** i Single ]Family Units $500 $1,150 $1,070 $1,050 Attached Single Family Units 500 730 670 660 Apartments 300 6600 560 540 Mobile Homes 250 810 750 740 i Commercial - Per Employee 0 0 0 49J a development oceurnng inside the city * indicates SDC on new residential • indicates identical SDC on new residential development occurring in the city or the Area of Interest indicates SDC on new residential and non-residential development occurring inside the city Implementation Process i According to the city attorney, the following steps would be needed to implement a revised parks and recreation SDC on new development: o adopt revisions to t'_ne comprehensive and park glans to recon ile differences between the park `system. Classifications and acreage standards used in these documents and those: used in the SDC study; adopt an updated SDC ordinance previously prepared by the city i attorney; f i adopt by resolution a new SDC fee schedule together with tl.e methodological portions of the SDC report pertaining to the tyre of fees i to be imposed; and 1 attach the hark section of the city's five-year CIP to the portions of the l SDC report referred to above The first step to-via-rd the implementation an Area of Interest SDC would be for the Councii to initiate discussions with the county commissioners. Note: Copies of Park and ]Recreation Facilities System. Development Charges City j r~f2`i by Fcononnic Resources Associates, i ne. andJC Draggoo and Associates are avai?ab;e in the city recorder's office. Single Multi- West Linn $ 1,809 $ 1,194 none 2.075 Active t '47n Shonvoo€f 841 Hillsboro 786 590 in PUD Planning Area 1,400 1,164 (1,050 detached) (660 attached) 983 1,965 (6/1/95) 950 1,400 818 (540) 747 1,494 (6/1/95) 620 841 786 none none (manufactured homes: $740/unit in a park; $1,0250/unit on a single tax lot non-residential $49/employee) non-residential: $26/employee; $51/employee (6/1/95) manufactured homes: $600/unit in a park; $950/unit on a single tax lot none non-residentiai: $131/parking space for commercial and industrial $98/parking space for commercial and industrial in PUD ' Oregon City 750 500 Wont. Greshatrs 030 630 none Fcrest Grovo 500 500 none 3ard (existing) 500 300 t anufactured homes: $250/unit in a park; $500/unit in a single i tax lot S2avarton (see below) i f (Votes: Beaverton does not impose a parks SDC. R i Di t :The city is wholl/ located within the boundaries of the Tualatin Hills Park and l ecreat on s rict, which is supported by an annual assessment on all (existing and new) residential development. Like Beaverton , Washington County dogs not collect a parks SDC, because it do4,s not provide park services.' Unlike 6eaverton only a reta6voly small pol?ion of the unincorporated area is served by the recreation which is the only ons of its kind in the county. WLOC, -;7 rUANMDQSUA 1 t i - W 1 i - , PARK SDC REPORT l . Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the city adopt the fee schedule listed in Table 1 under Proposed/ i City Residential Non-Residential SDC. According to this schedule, the park SDC for a single family house would be $1,050. The fee on apartments would be $540 per unit. Mobile homes in a park would be charged $740. Commercial and industrial development would pay $49 per employee. 1 These fees reflect the cost of providing land and facilities to new city residents and employees at current levels of service. Their adoption would ensure that the city's existing standards are maintained as development occurs. At present businesses are exempt from park SDCs. A business SDC would recognize that businesses place a burden on parks and contribute to the future need these i facilities. j Table 1 Systems Development Charges for Maintaining ("guffezst Standards i Ty p,~ of Development ~ 0" Frnpsosed Proposed -1' pooecl SI3C Res SDC' City/ City nest C] Area of Nora-lea Interest SI)C*** ~`v.._ - - SDC** Single Family Tj its _ $50J $1,150 i $1,070' v $1,050 s y Attaclaed!Single Family Units C; 730 670 v- I = C-66 f Apartments N 09 600 560 =40 - Idobile Homes ~ y X50 810 750 j Commercial - Per Employee k 0 0 0 20 indicates SDC on new residential development occurring inside the city indicates identical SDC on new residential development occurring in the city or the Area of Interest x indicates SDC on new residential and nor--residential development occurring inside the city i i f t F c PARK AND RECREATION FAQ IVIES _ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CITY OF TIGARD i' i i i i r November 18, 1994 I ECONOMIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. and JC IDRAGGOO chi ASSOCIATES } r Table of Contents Page v INTRODUCT ON 1 BASIC CONDITIONS 2 DEMOGRAPHICS 4 City 4 Interest Area 5 PARK LAND INVENTORY 7 General 7 City........ 4 Interest Area . 12 CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS (Traditional Method) 13 City Parks and Greenways 13 City Trails 14 Interest Area Parks and Grvenway Lands 14 City and Interest Area Combined Standard 14 CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS (Alternate Method) 15 PARK, GREENWAY AND TRAIL NEEDS 20 PAR.'S LAND COMPARISONS 22 . . . . . . . ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS 22 UNU COSTS 23 City 23 IA 24 IA and City Combined 25 Alternative Method 25 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT` CHARGES 26 . . . . . . . . . . FEASIBILITY OF IMPOSING SDC IN INTEREST AREA 28 UPDATING FEE` STRUCTURE 32 APPENDIX 33 The purpose of this report is to review and revise the City of Tigard's parks systems development charges. Parks systems development charges are assessed to new developments for the acquisition and development of parks, greenways and paved trails. They are based on the cost j of providing these services to new City patrons. In addition to the geographic area within the City boundaries, the report calculates sysuelmns development charges for the City's Interest area (IA). The City's IA includes the unincorporated area within its urban growth boundary. °j The city currently has a systems development charge for parks facilities. The fee is $500 for i single family development, $300 per unit for multi-family dwelling units, and $500 per duplex unit. These fees are based on a 1991 standard of 4.03 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. No fee is currently assessed for commercial or industrial development inside the City or for development on unincorporated land located adjacent to the City. SDC Law Oregon Revised Statues 223.297 through 223.314 (The Oregon Systems Development Act-O.S.D.A.), set forth specific conditions for levying systems development charges by local Oregon communities and districts for water, sewerage, parks, storm and street systems. The Act requires that specific conditions be met for systems development charges levied after .iuly 1, 1991. In this report the methods used in deriving the systems development charges for the City of Tigard parrs are thoroughly detailed and recommended levels for systems development charges are developed based on the City's existing facilities and future construction costs. The methods used are also consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Pcan and Community Developimt Code. SDC Objectives Generally, the objective of systems developracra charges is to assess the growth sectorfor a fair, proportionate sha.*e of facilities required to provide service: to new customers. Assurance is provided developers and builders that they will only be charged for capital needed to meet the additional demands placed on the system. Further, once the fee is paid, the developer and builder is relieved of further obligations to build facilities for which the charge is being collected. ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates,' Inc. ! City of Tigard - Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 2 BASIC CONDITIONS Capital Considered F acilr y Responsibility Fee Structure Spending Rest`.rictions and Funds O.S.D.A. allows establishing systems development charges for capital improvements already built and/or for capital improve- ments still to be constructed. Two methods for developing the charges are prescribed - Reimbursement, for existing capital and Improvement Fees for capital still to be constructed. Both methods are employed in the course of this study. However, because the City's current parks are fully dedicated to serving the existing community, no reimbursement fee is charged at the present time. City of Tigard- is responsible' for the replacement and maintenance of existing facilities., Cost associated with these functions are derived from general fees and charg_-s !0, -all facilities' patrons. Thus, the improvements contained , ithin this report do not include costs associated with replacing existing infrastructure. The City's policy is that one systems development cltarge apply to all areas within the City. Thus, capital improvements and facilities have not been separated for each area served. All ;properties within the City are understood to hold and develop assets in common and will participate in a proportio- nate share of the costs associated with these facilities. Monies obtained from SDCs may be spent only on facilities used to establish , the fee and/or debt service payments associated with the construction of these facilities. It is our ECONOMIC BOUNCE Associates, Inc. A two step process is used. First, cost of existing and new capital required by future developments is calculated. Next, such costs are allocated to development in proportion to ai1~.rVaJGj iii de31allW fur Service. u~ f _ t City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 3 1 L. ~ recommendation that monies collected from this charge be t placed in a special fund. The monies must be used to make principal payments on financial instruments obtained to make . _ t 7.i rta~ used (,dpl-tal purchases ta1aUa/o ..+.,w.,cL. to 1T1A.Et the COS$S a incurred for improvement projects identified in this report.' Inter-account Borrowing Because capital construction does not take place at the same pace as development and some capital systems are more likely F j to occur in large discreet chunks, SDC monies may accumulate i faster than immediately required in one SDC account while in r another capital requirements exceed available funds. We believe, it is in keeping with the new SDC law for the a t City to borrow from one of the accounts to construct other required capital. Before the City takes such actions, its I' ~ attorney should provide a written opinion on this matter. For example, it would be proper for the City to take monies and spend it on new part: obtained for gseenway acquisition j improvernen_ts on tho following conditions: The monies are spent for capita: improvements identified in this or a subsequent SIDC report, i A written contract exist between the two accounts setting forth the terms and conditions of loan, The City Council specifically approve such transactions, The monies are not required by the iending account _ during the time of borrowing, and : i The monies are returned to the lending account in the time period specified in the initial contract and with E interest which would have been eared had the money i been invested in authorized instniments. ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. f - 17: 777 { E i City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 4 i DEMOGRAPHICS City { The city of Tigard is defined in terms of its current geographic boundaries. While the City is, expected to annex properties in the future, for the purposes of this report, we are assuming the boundaries will remain constant. i `Y Table 1 City Population, Employment and Household Projections(i) City of Tigard 1994 - 2040 City Boundaries 1990 1993 2015 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Population 29,344 32,145 38,447 41,470 52,164 47,121 Households 12,084 13,328 17,741 19,136 24,070 21,743 Employment 23,415 25,6501 .1 34,434 51,898, 53,082 48,121 Pop{, msehold 2.43 2.41 2.17 2.17 2:17 2.17 Average`Annual Grov.,tii ~ Population - - 0.82% 0.54% 1.04%a 0.82% Households 1.05% 0.77% 1.27% 1.05% Employment 1.35% 1.51% 1.56% 1.35%a cs~ Projected demographic information obtained from Metro's Geo=data File. The boundaries of Tigard were' provided` to Metro. They ran their models to deternine the population, employment and households for each 'traffic zone within the' boundaries. l The city of Tigard has developed "buildout projections" using an different technique from that employed by Metro. City staff determined the amount of vacant residential land within the City. It was found a total of 713 acres are currently vacant. At allowed density, the vacant land could house an additional 16,361 people. Thus, ultimate buildout population of-'Tigard would be 48,506 (32,145 + 16,361). However, some multi-family land might not develop at its zoned density. Thus, a lower range value for ultimate build out of the City is in the range`of 44,600. Because the C:ity's estimates fall on either side of Metro's Alternative C, it was chosen as the most realistic estimate of the City's' ultimate population. E(;O1I11I1 Associates, Inc. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 5 a Interest Area T igard's Interest Area (IA) includes the area within its urban growth boundary. It comprises two large, discontinuous parcels. nese are Metzger area and an area west and contiguous iv tic City bounded on the north by Scholls Ferry road and west and south by Beef Bend Road. In addition, for the purpose of this report, the IA includes unincorporated portion of the City's ,i y Active Planning Area which includes a large area islanded by Tigard's boundaries southwest of Fowler Junior High School and a variety of small parcels along the southern boundary of the City. Population, households and employment of the IA were derived in the same manner as for the City. Table 2 Tigard IA Population, Employment and Household Projections Tigard Interest Area 1994 Estimated 2040 I Boundaries 1990 1993 2015 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Population 5,240 5,631 9,549 19,662 23,997 17,399 Households 2,220 2,403 4,535 9,336 11,394 8,262 Employanent 701 725 927 1,610 , 1,402 1,225 Pop/Household 2.36 2.35 ! 2.11 2.11 111 2.11 Average Annual Growth Population Households Employment 2.43% 2.90% 1.12% 2.68% 2.91% 1.68% 3.09% 3.32% 1.40% 2.43% 2.66% 1.12°1. A -nap of the City and the IA is shown on the following page. i r p , P" AVM - { ` 14 - T l~ WAIM o AVE ti E 1 - a jt- _ -fl~YM AY@ ~ - -80 . SYTH - - AYE _Z F. _ Gy ALL BLVD -07. J -r-- - 72ND AVE. .~U s7 x o b I m my , ®z~n ° zs m M a m >0. b 00 - m n fS y M O > CA F 7J K Fn ~ 4 m i m Z~ AYF - fi 121$ - 81N TT AYE. a 1 ~ :q V WA:FXIY AVM m4 6mmf7 e~ mm a 00T >a~ ee ® :d O m > m w v1 ~ c7 < ClmA O N (n ~ I 3 City of Tigard Park and Recreation: System Development Charges Page 7 On July 26, 1994, JC Draggoo & Associates conducted a physical inspection of all existing park sites in the city. The purpose of this task was to classify parks by type and determine the current level of development. A generally accepted park planning practice is to categorize parks by type. The purpose is to assure that the appropriate facilities are located according to function, impact and need. The five park types applicable to Tigard are defined below. Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood Parks are a combination playground and open play j areas designed for non-organized recreation activities. They are - 1 small in size (less than 7 acres) and serve a radius of appro),imately one half mile. They usually are developed but :nay also be an area of natural quality for- outdoor recreation, such as a walking, viewing, sitting, picnicking. These type of parks may be any combination of active and passive spaces depending upon: site suitability and community need. The intent of this park type into serve a neighborhood within easy walking or bicycling distances. Because their intention is to serve ra local neighborhood, facilities offered should discourage extcnsive use by visitors from outside j the area. CommunitV Parks: A community parr is primarily oriented towards active and group recreation activities. In general, they are designed for organized sports and group events. These types of parks serve a much larger area (1-2 miles) and offer more facilities than a traditional neighborhood park. They usually are developed but may also N: an area of natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picnicking. , These type of parks may any combination of active and passive spaces dependin upon site ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. i . r, E 1 i City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 8 3 - suitability and community need. They usually exceed 20 acres in j size and because of high use, setbacks or the use of natural open space should by used w separate table as:iive areas uviai udjoini- homes. In cases where a neighborhood park is not serving the area, a community park can also serve this function. Special Use Areas: Special use areas are public, recreation lands that are single purpose in nature and include a wide range of activities and facilities. Facilities that fall into this classification include special landscaped areas, a sports field complex, site of a recreation center, etc. This is often a catch-all category to place park facilities that do not meet any other definition. C Linear Darks: Linear parks are developed or partially developed parks that are elongated and follow linear features such as power lines, old railroad right of ways, creek corridors, etc. The key difference between this type of park and natural open space is that linear parks contain some maintained areas. Facilities usually contain picnic areas, paved trail systems, open` maintained grass areas, etc. In some cases, this type of park can become highly developed and appear similar to a neighborhood or community park. GreeLiv aysa Greenways in Tigard are defined as areas that are left in an undeveioped stare and where public use is limited. Creenways usually include ravines, wetlands, wildlife habitats or areas that cortain a unique plant species. Most often these are areas are subject to flooding or are environmentally sensitive to public use. ° At most, facilities consist of trails and interpretive facilities. Unlike linear parks, in general greenway development is limited i to trails and interpretive facilities. i j ~ j I ECONOMIC RESOURCE ` - .J Associates, Inc. { City j Currently, the City of Tigard has 236.29 acres of park and greenway land. Listed on the 9 following page is a breakdown of these areas by park type. { Table 3 Park and Greenway Inventory by Type CityW Tigard 1994 Park Type Park Percent Developed` Total Acres Type Totals Neighborhood Park Commercial Park 70.00% 0.75 9.51 Jack Park 100.00% 5.50 Woodard Park 100.00% 3.26 Community Park Cook Park 70.00% 51.06 74.88 Summerlake Park 60.00% 23.82 Special Use Areas Liberty Park 100.00% 0.75 1.15 Main Park 100.00% 0.25 Ye Old Windmill 100.00% 0.15 Lirscar Pmt Englewood Park 90.00% 14.971 36.771 Greenw rys Fanno Creek Parks BerkleyCreek/Cooper Creek 1 Vic' 2 45.00% 0.00% 21.8D 6.39 s 113.98 Black Bull Par!c' 0.00% 2.00 Bonita Road & Industrial Park 0.00% 7.31 - Brookway 0.00% 2.39 Capstone 0.00% 2.13 Castle At Brittany 0.00% 0.78 Clydesdale 0.00% 0.30 Colony Creek Estates 0.00% 3.08 Creekside Park 0.00% 1.00 Durham Road _ 0.00% 0.32 Dover Landing Court 1.00% 3.39 Estate Drive 0.00% -'1.70 Fairhaven St. SW 0.00% 0.06 Finley Park 0.00% 0.38 Genesis #2&3 0.00% 5.07 Gentlewoods 0.00% 1.27 Greenbur$ Road 0.00% 0.11 ECONOMIC RESOURCE f3S5UCic1t25, Inc. a .j 1 , f i i r E Table 3 Park and Greenway Inventory by Type s s_a_C TS---.8 191"A 4s1➢. Vl 1➢~'211U A.rJ'w Park Type Park Percent Developed' Total Acres Type Totals " Hollytree 0.00%n 1.30 Jack Park 0.00% 1.00 Johnson Street 0.00% 0.29 Leron #3 0.00% 5.01 Meadowglade 0.00% 4.10 Merestone 0.00% 1.25 Morningstar 0.00% 8.27 Pathfinder 0.00% 1.80 Pick's Landing 0.00% 6.40 Rebecca Park 0.00% 0.88 Renaissance Woods 0.00% 2.74 Riverview Estates 0.00% 2.82 Scheckla Park 5.00% 1.40 Shady Lane 0.00% 1.96 Summer Hills Park 0.00% 4.01 SW 135th & Scholls Ferry 0.00% 5.07 Terrace Trails 0.00% 2.50 Tigard Street & Addition 5.00% 3.31 Tippitt Place - 5.00% 0.70 Tualatin Drive 0.00% 0.42 Willowbrook Farm 0.00% 0.59 Windsor Place 5.00% 2.63 Winter Lake Drive 0.00% - 103 Ye Old Windmill 0.00% 8.53 Yolo Estates 0.00% 2.37 III 113th Place 0.00% 0.63 135th Avenue 0.00% 0.24 74th/76th Avenues 0.00% 3.14 Total City Park and Greenway Acres 236.29 f. eercent aevetopment; refers to uie portion vi uic putts wiuuu uaa Mull ucvarvpru. Jul Uac of greenways it is the area associated with trails. In die greenways of the City, the City of Tigard currently has 1.71 miles of paved trail. Listed below is a breakdown of greenway corridors that contain pathways and the approximate length of each trail. E C 0 N 0 M I C RE U1,1CE Associates, Inc. 'T'able 4 Paved Trail Inventory City of Tigard 1994 Park Type Location Arliles Paved Trails Windsor Place Greenway 0.25 Tigard Street Greenway 0.09 Pathfinder/Genesis Greenway 0.69 Tigardville Addition Greenway 0.10 Scheckla Park Greenway 0.05 Tualatin River Greenway 0.52 Total 1.71 t: In addition to park land, existing city residents have contributed directly to park purchases j through the existing parks systems development charge. Some of the monies contributed has not been spent. However, the funds must be used for the purchase and development of additional park lands. 't'hus, these funds, or the parks which could be purchased Frith them, are part of the City's existing park inventory. The City currently has $547,000 on hand. Assuming the same level of parr development as currently exists, the funds on hand are sufficient to buy 6.6 acres of parts land and develop 4.5 acres of neighborhood, community, special use and linear parks. Greenwa ys do not calif, as the existing S DC is not used to finance greenwa acquisition and development. A summary of the of the original park inventory is shown in 'gable 5. The adjusted inventory (after purchase of additional parks with accumulated SDC funds) for parks is shown below in Table 6. Table 5 Park Inventory SUM- anar y City of Tigard 1994 Park Type Units TOM Developed % Developed Neighborhood Acres 9.51 9.29 97.63% Community Acres 74.88 50.03 66.82% _ Special, Use Acres 1.15 1.15 100.00% Linear Acres 36.77 23.28 63.32%n Greenways Acres 113.98 0.43 0.38% F al 236.29 84.18 35.63% Table 6 - Adjusted Park Inventory City of Tigard 1994 Park Type Units Adjusted Developed Neighborhood Acres 10.02 9.79 Community Acres 78.91 52.73 Special Use Acres 1.21 1.21 ~ Linear Acres 38.75 24.54 Greenways t~cres 114.00 _ 0.43 Total _ 242.88 88.69 Interesd Area in addition to the City's inventory of park and greenway land. Washington County c:irrently manages one park site within the City's interest area (IA). This is Metzger park. Table 7 1A Park Inventory Tigard Interest Area 19941 _ Park Type Units Total Developed Neighborhood Acres 7.25 7,25 ECONOMIC TRESOURC,-, s.sociates, Ine. City Parks and Greenwayg The service level for park facilities is generally described in a standard of acres per 1,0410 population. Table 8 below, summarizes the existing park land standards by type. Based on the 1993 population, the City currently has a total land standard of 7.56 acres per 1,000 population. j .j Table 8 Summary of Existing Park and Greenway Standards City of Tigard 1994 Standards Units Amount Standard Neighborhood Acres 10.02 Community Acres 78.91 Special Use Acres 1.21 Linear Acres 38.75 Total Parks in City 128.90 4.01 Greenways Acres 113.98 3.55 Total Parks and Creenways in City 242.88 _ 7.56 ! Based on a 1993 population of 32,145 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 14 - i ` City Trails Below is a summary of trail facilities. Based on the 1993 population, the City has a trails a standard of 0.05 miles per 1,000 population. Table 9 Summary of Trail Standard City of Tigard 1994* Park type Unit Totalil Standard Trails Ivliles 1.71 0.05 cn ,exclude trails within existing parks Based on a 1993 population of 32,145 Interest Area Parks and Greennway Lands j Tigard's interest area has r=ot built parks to the same level as the City. The current park ' standard for th-, IA is shown below. Table 10 1A Parks and Greeanvaay Standas d ` Igard Interest Area 11994 Units Amount Strtrndard Standards F-7- Neighborhood Acres 7.2~ 1.29 City and Interest`, Area Combined Standard The City is interested in wore ng with the Washington County to extend park systems development charges to the interest area. 'Flit reason for this is that without such development changes, new housang units will not contribute to building the needed park facilities. In considering this option, the City has two alternatives. First, it could let the IA stand by itself. In this case its current park standard is 1.29 acres per 1,000 population. Alternately, the City could treat the area as though it were part of the City's service territory. In this case, the 1 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 15 Fro- combination of City and IA parks would be applied to the combined populations to determine s the existing standard. We recommend this latter approach as it more closely reflects the urbanized park needs of the IA. Table 11 City and IA Combined Parks and Greenway Standards Tigard and Interest Area 1994 Standards Units Amount Standard Neighborhood Acres 17.27 Community Acres 78.91 Special Use Acres 1.21 Linear Acres 38.75 Total Parks 136.15 3.60 Greenways Acres 113.98 3.02 Total Parks and Greenways 250.13 6.62 Paved Trails Miles 1.71 0.05 µ _L C RTIZ ,N' SER-VICE LEVELLS (Ai ernate Meflsod) The City has requested that we explore 'the possibili-y of assigning a portion of park and greenway use to employees. The rational behind this is that employees also use the City's facilities. They place a demand on parks and geenways. For example, while data on the general use of parks are not available, 1994 reservation data indicate that 17% of the use of group picnic areas in Cools and Summerlake Parks is by Tigard-based businesses. Factoring in group size, the proportion of business sector use is 28%. If the reservation and group 'size figures for nom- Tigard-based businesses are added to these totals, the proportion of business sector use is 32% and 51% respectively. Other examples of the employee use of parks are walking and jogging during the lunch hour and informal softball games after wor'.s.. Thus, businesses use and should contribute toward the provision of these services. The central problem with this approach is determining the extent to which employees (as distinct to residents) use the parks and geenways. We have reviewed the national literature on this issue and have found only two studies which, make this assessment with regard to systems development ECONOMIC 3RESOURCE Associates^, Inc. j City of Tigard Park and Recreation Systent Development Charges Page 16 t charges.' Both of these studies use aggregate hours of potential use by employees and residents to develop the demand on parks by customer class. For example, in the Burlington study, "to assess non-resident demand based on employment, an employee-to-resident demand ratio based on hypothetical waking hours spent in the city is used." We have also discussed the issue with Oregon and national finance persons. They are unaware of methods for allocating park development costs to the employment sector. in this report, we have developed a means of determining the amount of park use by employees based on their available recreation time within the City. This method rests on the assumption that people have similar propensities to recreate for each hour of available time. While the type of recreation might differ, the probability of recreating remains relatively constant. Using this approach, the first step is to determine the amount of available time by relevant class of park user. We have summarized our assessment of available time in the Table 12. t City of Burlington Impact Fee Yi sessrnent Study, Vermont Research Associates, October 14, 1992. City of Lodi Development Impact Fee Seedy, Nolte and Associates, August 1991. ECONOMIC SOURCE Associates, Inc. Table 12 Assignment of Available Recreation Time City of Tieard 1494 Category Pion Employed 5-17 Kids Employed Residents' Resident Employed? Transient Employed' Total Population 12,398 2,564 17,182 4,105 21,545 57,795 Summer Weekday Before Work 0.5 0.5 0 1.0 Lunch 0 0 0.0 After Work 1.25 1.25 2 4.5 Total 13 7.5 1.75 1.75 2 26.0 Weekend 13 11 13 0 37.0 Total Summer 13.00 8.50 4.96 1.25 1.43 29.1 Winer Weekday Before Work 0 0 0 0.0 Lunch _ 0 0 0 0.0 After Work 0.5 0.5 0 1.0 Total 8 1 0.5 0.5 0 10.0 Weekend 8 8 8 24.0 Total Winter 8.00 3.t10 2.64 0.36 0.00 14.0 Year Average Ho:us 10.5 5.8 3.8 0.8 0.7 21.6 Total Hours 130,183 14,746 65,354 3,298 15,390 228,970 Percent 56.86% 6.44% 28.54% 1.44% 6.72% L 100.00% F. People living in the City are bath residents and employees. Thus, these individual's time must be allocated between time spent as a resident versus time spent as an employee. This is particularly important' as many of the City's residents do not within the City. They place a demand on parks associated only with their time spent in the City as residents. 2. These are individuals who both work and reside within the City. Their total available recreation time is a com ination of "employed. resident" s and "resident employed". 3. People living outside of the City and working within Tigard. i i Associates, Inc. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 18 The available time is assigned on the basis of the following assumptions: • Non-Employed available time Summer, lam - 8 Pm Winter; 9am 5 pm • Kids Below 5 years in age - Do not recreate in parks by themselves. The demand for parks is generated by the parents of these children. • Kids 5-17 Summer; - Half 9am - 8pm, other half 4pm to 8pm, weekends 9am-8ptn Winter, 4pm Spin, weekends 9atn-5pi n Employed Resident Summer; 5:30pm-8pm, weekends 7ain-8pm Winter; 5:30pm-6:30, weekends 9am-5pan • "Transient Employed Summer; 5:30pm-7:30pm The approach used in this study is more conservative than the other referenced studies in its assignment of park related costs to the commercial sector. We use a more detailed method of determining the available recreation time. NVe specifically take account of differences in season, age of the population, and city residents working outside of the city's boundaries. In addition, we have factored in travel time for both resident and non-resident employees from home to work. Comparison of available recreation time is shown in Table 13. - - Tabic 13 - Comparison of A voila- Me Park Use In Hours per Week Classification Burlington Lodi Tigard Home Related Resident 112.0 112.0 67.8 Employee 67.0 28.5 3.8 Employment Related Resident 45.0 15.0 5.6 Non-Resident 45.0 15.0 5.0 Employee Percent of Resident 50;28% 21.35% 14.84% Approximately eight percent of total recreation time (Shown in Table 12) is assignable to ecnployevs. Each employee demands approximately fifteen percent of the amount of park time as a Tigard resident. i i Associates, Inc. r -i However, neighborhood parks are built primarily for the use of the residents in close proximity of the park. Thus, it is unlikely that employees would use neighborhood parks. Community parks and trails are used by employees. They play ball, use picnicking areas, walk the trails ...etc. Gre-mays are a special category as these facilities generally do not provide recreation opportunities to either residents or employees (other than the trails which are deals with separately). Greenways enhance the general community by providing open space, wetlands, mitigation of flooding ...etc. Thus, they are enjoyed by all, resident and business alike. It is the residential and commercial property that is enhanced by the proper provision of greenway spaces. 0 Using the alternative method, the City currently has the following standards. 'f'able 14 City Park and Greenway Standards, Alternative Method City of Tigard 15194. Park 't'ype Units Amount Population I Per 1,000 Employee Per 1,000 Neighborhood Acres 10.02 Community Acres 78.91 Special Use Acres 1.21 €Linear Acres 3$.75 Total Parks 128.90 3.68 ~ 0. 10 Greenways Acres 113.98 3.00 0.682 Total Parks and Greenways 242.88 6.68 1.092 raved Trails miles 1.71 0.05 ~ 0.010 ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. j a; City of Tigard Paris and Recreation System Development Charges Page 20 PARK, GIIEENWAY AND TRAIL NEEDS Utilizing the traditional current park standard for the City and assuming a future population of LL ' 39,095 in the year 2015, Table 1.5 identifies future park ner=ds by type. -a Table 15 City Parts Needs City of Tigard 11994 Park Needs Standards Units Inventory Standard.` 2000 2015 Neighborhood Acres 10.02 Community Acres 78.91 Special Use Acres 1.21 Linear Acres 38.75 Total Parks 128.90 4.01 7.56 25.27 Greenways Acres 113.98 3.55 6.68 22.35 Total Parks' and Greenways 242.88 7.56 ~ 14.24 47.62 Paved Trails' miles 1.71 ©.J~ _ 0_10 0.34 I1as.°d `ori a 1993 population of 32,145, a 2000 population o 3-4,307 and a 2015 pope ation of 38,447. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 21 Table 16 below identifies future park needs by type in the City's area of interest. This assumes that the combined standards identified above are applied in the IA. t Table 16 IA Park Needs Tigard Interest Area 1994 Park Needs Standards Units Inventory Standard 2000 2015 Neighborhood Acres 17.272 Community Acres 78.913 Special Use Acres 1.212 Linear Acres 38.750 Total Parks 136.147 3.60 3.71 14.12 Greenways Acres 113.98 3.02 3.11 11.82 Total Parks and Greenways 250.13 ~ 6.62 6.82 25.94 Paved Trails Miles 1.71 0,045 0.05 0.20 41 Based on a 1993 population of 5,631, a 2000 population of 6,661 and a 2015 population of 9,549. Associates, Inc. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 22 ]PARK LAND COMPARISONS ; t' %ile the ratio of park land varies widely between communities, Table 17 below gives some comparisons to communities of similar size or situation to that of Tigard. The amount of acres r includes all parrs and open space (defined as greenways in Tigard). j i j , 3 Table 17 Comparison of 'ark Land Standards Selected Cities City Population Acres Standard Percent TIGARD, OR 32,145 234.46 7.29 79.48% Albany, OR 34,350 357.00 10.39 113.26% Edmonds, 'WA 42,843 451.80 10.55 114.92% Hillsboro, OR 42,280 220.51 5.22 56.83% Lake Oswego, OR 32,555 426.72 13.11 142.84% Longview, WA 31,052 382.54 12.32 134.25% Keixer, OR 24,100 - 75.90 3.15 34.32%r, Vancouver, WA 43,000 450.50 10:48 114.17% Willamalane, OR 45,000 404.30 8.98 97.91% Average 327,325 3,003.73 9.18 100.00% " Wiliamalane-Park and Recreation District population is reflective of the District's boundaries which generally includes the urban growth boundary of Springfield. A CQUISITIO T AND DEVELOPI~IENTX COSTS Listed in Table 18 below is an estimate of the acquisition and development costs for each of the j five park types described at the ;beginning of this report. For a specific breakdown of cost on i each park type, please refer to Appendix A. It should be noted that the cost per acre is reflective of the current s'.andard of development in Tigard and can vary widely depending upon the quality, type and number of facilities offered. To acquire greenway property, the jurisdictions must often purchase adj-ining lands which are part of the same parcel. Thus, greenway land j costs makes allowances for the City to purchase not only the direct greenway property but other i adj,,cent properties which can not be easily separated from the greenway: Associates, Ac. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 23 --'c'able 18 Acquisition and Development Costs City of Tigard Site in Ful l Cost Cost Per Acre Park Type Acres Land Development Land Development Neighborhood Park 5 $200,000 $598,442 $40,000 $119,688 Community Park 25 $1,000,000 $2,161,030 $40,000 $86,441 S,aecial Use Area 1 $40,000 $42,199 $40,000 $42,199 Linear Parks 10 $200,400 $221,327 $20,000 $22,133 Greenrvays 5 $100,000 $21,707 $20,000 $4,341 UNIT COSTS f City :i The combination of park standards, per acre costs for land and development and the anticipated units served (resident or i ployee) form the basis for establishing the cost of providing parks far each unit of City growth. F Table 19 City Park Cost per Capita Laity of Tigard, 11994 - i - - T _ Park Costs Park 'hype Standard Development" Land "170tal Parks 4.010 $196,711 $136,285 $332,996 Greenways - 3.546 $4,341 $70,916 $75,258 Paved Trails 0.053 $3,990 0 $3,990 Total All City Recreation $205,042 ` $207,201 $412,243 Cost of Master Planning $14,678 Cost Per Capita $427 1 ; 1. Unit Park development costs calculated by multiplying the cost per acre by the dark + standw-d by the percent of a park acre which is developed in Tigard. s ~~r ECONOMIC RESOURCE ilssociateInc. ncInc. 1 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 24 A weighted average of the development and land costs was used to compute the total cost of meeting the City's parks standard. We estimate that on average, it will cost approximately nn^ buy and dPveln the land for an average City park. The average City park cost is ~~~q computed by weighing individual park costs. In addition to buying and developing land for i parks, greenways and trails, the City must periodically develop a plan for when to buy land, what c type of parks are to be developed and the best location for the parks given anticipated i development. In other words, a parks master plan should be developed and approved by the City t .a - ; to provide operational guidance to the development of the Tigard park system. We estimate the cost of such a plan to be $40,000. Assuming each plan lasts ten years, the cost for each 1,000. new people expected to come to the City of Tigard over the next ten years is approximately $15,000. Thus, it is expected to cost the City of Tigard $427 to provide park land acquisition and 4 development services for each new person coming to the City. IA E' In a similar manner to the calculations for the City, dic cost of serving an additional person in the IA are calculated. &°cause the IA by itself has a much lower existing standard than the City, I the additional cost per person to maintain the existing standard is'just $353. + i 'Table 20 - - 1A Paths Cost per CapiLq Tigard IA, 1994 Park Costs Park Type standard Development Land Total Community 1.29 $74.366 $51,501 , $125,866 Total IA >Recreation $74.366 - $51,501 - - $125,866 Cost of Master Planning $14,678 Cast Per Capita _ $141 ECONOMIC RESOURACE Associates, Ine. k, City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 25 1A and City Combined F 1 :rt1 asswr^ung se 1A wiii bu annexed to the City as development occurs, the City and 1A can be considered a logical service area in which all patrons use the parks and have a common responsibility for park acquisition and development. The unit costs for parks under this alternative is shown below. The computations are similar to those for the City. Table 21 City and IAA Parks and Recreation Cost per Capita City of Tigard and 1A, 1994 Park Costs Park Type Standard Development Land Total parks 3.604 $189,816 $123,646 $313,463 Greenways 3.017 $4,667 $60,345 $65,012 Paved Trails 0.045 $3,395 $0 $3,395 Total All City Recreation $197,878 $183,992 $391,189 Cost of Master Planning $14,678 Cost Per Capita $397 The cost or providing puny acquisition and development services to both the City and IA at t'.,e - :1 combined standard of is ese two areas is $397 per person. Mte-native ivaetl od i To this point in the report, unit cost computations have assumed that the cost of parks is borne 4L. solely on a per capita basis. However, we have previously indicated that employees also recreate and use the parks and trails of the City. Using the standards developed' under the alternative method, we compute the cost for each resident and employee added to the City's existing ? population and. employment base. i i c ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. - - a Table 22 ~9 y Par ks and Rwr°..a-floa Cast r s C~.apft..°..".:d uaa~ployee (mIternativ°w Method) City of Tigard, 1994 Standard Cost Per Capi ta Cost Per Employee Park Type Capita Employee Developed Land Total Developed Land Total Parks 3.683 0.410 $182,527 $125,327 $307,854 $17,776 $13,732 $31,508 Greenways 3.002 0.682 $4,643 $60,035 $64,678 $1,055 $13,636 $14,691 Paved Trails 0.045 0.010 $3,378 $0 $3,378 $767 $0 $767 Total All City Recreation $190,547 $185,363 $375,910 $19,5981 $27,368 $46,966 Cost of Master Planning $13,048 . $1,630 Cost Per Capita $389 $49 Using the alternative method, the cost for acquisition and development of park and recreation services is $389 for each new person added to the City and $49 for every new employee who works in the City. SVSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES System development charges are levied at the point of application for a building permit. If flee building permit is for the purpose of remodeling an existing business or dwelling, no systems development charge is assessed if the remodei is not an expansion of the existing living or work- space, C.ithrm;ise, for all remodels and new developments, a systems development fee is assesse'd based on die number of people or employees who are expected to live or work in the space, i'sr residential sector, we have established the average numb,r of people who will live in various types of dwellings. This information was obtained from the 1993 U.S. Census of Population wid Dousing. i i r- ECON01MIC RESOURCE _ i Associates, Ira< . F Table 23 *ersons r Residential Unit City of Tigard, 1994 Residential Unit Household Size Single Fanuly 2.70 Multi-Family 1.70 Apartments 1.40 Mobile Homes 1.90 r- type of use. Thus, it is not possible to provide an average as a guideline in the same manner as for the residential sector. Consequently, each permit application for the expansion or new construction of business related space must be evaluated separately for the number of employees 7 who are expected to work within the space. The systems development charge is then based on the determination of the total number of employees who will conduct business within the proposed business space. t f The marirmrn systems development charge which could be levied by the City of Tigard under C the various alternatives discussed widiin this report are shown in the table below. - - Table 24 _1 Systems Development Charges' for Maintaining Current Standards City of Tigard, 1994 Type of Development City IA Combined Alternate Single Family Units $1,150 $380 $1,070 $1,050 Multi-Family Units $730 $240 $670 $660 Apartments $600 $200 $560 $540 Mobile Homes $810 $270 $750 $740 Commercial - Per 10 Employees $0 $01 1 $0 $490 Depending on the method chosen and the area for which the SIC is to be charges, it costs die r City between $1,150 and $1,050 for each average single family unit to provide for parks and recreation. Because of the lower service standard in the IA, the cost for the same unit is $380. The results for the other development' types- aTe shown above. Consequently, these are the a ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. j 1 a City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 28 charges which must be levied for the City to maintain the current parks level without using other City funding sources. Over the last five years, the City has had a small property tax levy ($350,000/year) to acquire and develop parks. Over the entire five year period, the average vacant acre paid approximately $35 for park acquisition and development. 't'hus, the current owner of a 10,000 square foot residential lot will have contributed approximately $10 to park development and acquisition. Adjusting the SDCs for this small amount will introduce unnecessary complications. Each residential and commercial SDC must be based on the size of the property being developed. Consequently, because the amount of payment is small, the person paying the property tax is not the same as the person paying the SDC and the administrative complexity of adjusting for this factor, we recommend the City not adjust the SDC for property tax payments previously made by vacant property. Tinder the City, IA, and Combined alternatives, business sector contributions can help fund additional park acquisition and development. However, such contributions can not be used to t` replace the obligations of new residents in meeting the current City standard. Tinder the alternative method of SDC computation, business contributions for improvements and facilities, on an approved list, would quali€y for an SDC credit (the contribution would be in lien of the SDCs to Cie extcnd of the contnbution or SDC). FI-EASIBMEFY CF+' IMPOSING SDC M -INTEREST AREA The City of Tigard can not impose a fee outside of its jurisdiction. The IA is currently unincorporated and is administered by Washington County. Thus, the County would need to collect the fee or grant the City the authority to levy a fee within the unincorporated area. To resolve this issue, the followinb letter was sent to Washington County. l City of Tigard _ Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 29 August 30, 1994 { 9 i Hal 13ergsma, Sr. Planner Department of Land Use and Transportation J 155 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 l Hear Hal, i As i discussed with you on the phone about a week ago, the City of Tigard has asked us to develop a Park Systems Development Charge (SDC) for the area outside its current boundaries but in the City's urban growth boundary (special area of interest). This geographic area lies wholly in Washington County. The problem is that the special area of interest is expected to develop rapidly over the :i next few y,earrs. Without proper planning and financing, the social infrastructure will not be provided at the time of development. This may leave the City or County with a future problem - a large developed geographic area with many people but without parks. The City is hoping to take straps now to avoid this happening. We worked on a similar problem for the City of West Linn acid Clackamas County. in this case, the County turned over all planning and administrat on for the area to the City through an intergovernmental agreement. This worked in West Linn because we were dealing with all governprental functions. Because the Tigard issue involves only the planning and financing of park acquisition and development, a different solution must be found. We would like to propose to you a framework for a resolution of the parks issue within the Tigard special area of interest. The basic tenants of this framework are: tyy„ EI9C IIJT/1171C RESOURCE Associates, Inc. ;i City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 30 1. The City of Tigard develops SDCs for the City and the special area of interest. This work is ongoing now. 2. The SDCs for the City are approved by the City Council and levied within the City for acquisition and development of parks inside the City. 3. The City Council review and accept the SDCs for the special area of interest. The City will then forward its recommendations to the County. 4. Washington County adopts an ordinance setting up the SDCs within the special area of interest. 5. At the point of building permit application within the special area of interest, the County collects the Parks, SDC. 6. All special area of interest Parks SDC revenues are placed in a County Trust Fund. 7. The City develops a master plan for acquisition and development of parks within the special area of inter°st. This master plan is approved by the City Council. 13. The County adopts the master plan for park development within the special area of interest. S'. The City proposes to the County acquisition and development of parks within tine special area of interest when sufficient funds are available in the "Trust Fund. 10. The County approves the proposed projects and acquires or develops the park properties. ? 1. At the time a special area of interest part: is contiguous to the City, the County transfers responsibility for the park to the City. Hal, this is a concept piece. If the County agrees with the general thrust, the needed ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates Mc. City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 31 a details will have to be developed in work sessions between the City and County staff and i attorneys. If you have another way of assuring that the rapidly developing Tigard special area LL~ of interest can acquire and develop the needed parks, I would be interested in hearing your suggestion. Please get back to me or Duane Roberts of the City of Tigard as soon as possible. Sincerely, ECONOMIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. R. Carl Goebel h_ i i E - City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 32 UPDATING FEE STRUCTURE i Accompanying the final report to the City of Tigard is a LOTUS 123 Version 4 spreadsheet model. The spreadsheet model aliows the City to adjust SDCs for changes in inflationary cost increases. We recommend development costs be adjusted based on the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index. Land prices should be adjusted based on the Washington County Assessor's records. ,.1 i o r, F:. f c . , r_., j Type: Neighborhood Paris Size: 5.0 Acres Development Level: 6 improvements Quantity Units Unit Price Total Cost Clearing/Grading 5 Ac. $6,500.00 $32,500 On-Site Drainage 1 Allowance $10,000.00 $10,000 Irrigation System 4 Ac. $12,500.00 $50,000 Electrical Service 1 Allowance $15,000.00 $15,000 Site Lighting 5 Poles $3,000.00 $15,000 Sewer Service 200 Lf. $14.50 $2,900 Water Service 200 L£ $12.50 $2,500 Drinking Fountain 1 Ea. $700.00 $700 Grading/Seeding 4 Ac. $11,500.00 $46,000 Trees 150 Ea. $200.00 $30,000 Shrubs 250 Ea. $75.00 $18,750 Pathway System 1200 Lf. $12.90 $15,480 Picnic Shelter 1 Y Ea. $35,000.00 $35,000 Picnic Tables/Sites ' 5 Ea. $850.00 $4,250 Playground 1 Ea. $35,000.00 $35,000 Multi-Purpose Court 1 Ea. $25,000.00 $25,000 Backstop _ I Allowance $2,500.00 $2,500 Restroom Building 1 Ea. $75,000.00 $75,000 Parking 25 Spaces> $860.00 $21,500 Park Furniture 1 Allowance $7,500.00 $7,500 Misc. Improvements Allowance $50,000.00 $50,000 Subtotal $494,580 Add Contingency @ 10% $49,458 Total Construction Cost $544,038 Add A/E Fees '@ 10%; $54,404 TOTAL' PROJECT COST $598,442 Site Acquisition 5 Ac. $40,000.00 $200,000 .Development Level is a range from 1 xo 10 with 10 being the most highly developed park. ECONOMIC 'RESOURCE associates, Inc. Type: Community Park Size: 25.0 Acres Improvements Quantity Units Unit Price Total Cost Clearing/Grading 15 Ac. $6,500.00 $97,500 On-Site Drainage 1 Allowance $25,000.00 $25,000 Irrigation System 15 Ac. $12,500.00 $187,500 Electrical Service 1 Allowance $25,000.00 $25,000 Site Lighting 20 Poles $3,000.00 $60,000 Field Lighting 4 Fields $65,000.00 $260,000 Tennis Lighting 4 Ea. $9,500.00 $38,000 Sewer Service 600 Lf. $14.50 $8,706 Water Service 600 LE $12.50 $7,500 Drinking Fountain 3 Ea. $700.00 $2,100 Grading/Seeding 15 Ac. $11,500.00 $172,500 Trees 250 Ea. $200.00 $50,000 Shrubs 300 Ea. $75.00 $22,500 Pathway System 2500 Lf. $1290 $32,250 Parking - 200 Spaces $860.00 $172,000 Picnic Shelter 2 Ea. $35,000.00 $70,000 Picnic Tables/Sites 12 Ea. $850.00 $10,200 Playground i Ea. $35,GW.00 $35,000 Multi-Purpose Court P 2 Ea.' $25,00.00 $50,000 Tennis Courts ttt--------------- 4 Ea $21,000.00 $84,0W Baseball Fields 4 Ea.; $201000.00 $80,000 Soccer Fields 2 Ea $10,000.00 $20,000 Restroom/Concession 1 EA $125,000.00 $125,000 Internal Paving 2500 Sf. $1.45 $3,625 Park Furniture 1 Allowance $15,000.00 $15,000 Bleachers' 8 EA $7,200.00 $57,600 Misc. Improvements 1 Allowance $75,000.00 $75,000 Subtotal $1,785,975 Add Contingency @ 10% ' $178,598 Total Construction Cost $1,964,573 Add A/E Fees @ 10% $196,437 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,161,030 Site Acquisition 25 Ac. $40,00.00 $1,000,00 ~lssocicstes, Inc. U Type: Special Use Area Size: 1.0 Acres Development Level: 4 Improvements Quantity Units Unit Price Total Cost Clearing/Grading 1 Allowance $6,500.00 $6,500 Irrigation System 1 Ac. $12,500.60 $12,500 Grading/Seeding 1 Ac. $11,500.00 $11,500 Trees 10 Ea. $200.00 $2,000 Shrubs 25 Ea. $75.00 $1,875 Misc. Improvements 1 Allowance $500.00 $500 Subtotal $34,875 Add Contingency @ 10% $3,488 Total Construction Cost $38,363 Add A/E Fees Ca 10% $3,836 TOTAL PROJECT COST $42,199 Site Acquisition 1 Ac. $40,000.001 $40,000 Note: The above estimates, are for basic site improvements only. ` Facilities' that would 'o on the site would come under separate budget. i i t ECONOTWHC ~E1 SOURCE Associates, Inc. a r: ~ r City of Tigard ! Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 37 i Type: Linear Park 1 Size: 10.0 Acres Development Level: 5 Improvements Quantity Units Unit Price Totcd. Cost ClearingdGrading 3 Ac. $6,500.00 $19,500 On-Site Drainage 1 Allowance $500.00 $500 Irrigation System 3 Ac. $12,500.00 $37,500 Drinking Fountain 1 Ea. $700.00 $700 Grading/Seeding 3 Ac. $11,500.00 $34,500 Trees 10 Ea. $200.00 $2,000 Shrubs 25 Ea. $75.00 $1,875 Pathway System 2100 Lf. $12.90 $27,090 Picnic Tables/Sites 5 Ea. $850.00 $4,250 Playground 1 Ea. $35,000.00 $35,000 Misc. Improvements 1 Allowance $20,000.00 $20,000 Subtotal $132,915 Add Coitingency@a 10% $18,292 Total Construction Cast - - $201;207 ~ Add A/E. Fees @ 10% ~ - ~ $20,121 TOTAL PROJECT COST - - $221,327 Site Acquisition '(1) 10 Ac;. J- $20,000.('{~ $20t9,000 (1) Assumes only 50% of site is developable ECONO1 I-C RESOURCE Associates,' Inc. i Type: Greenway Size: 5.0 Acres Development 1,evel: 1 Improvements Quantity Units Unit Price Total Cost Clearing/Grading 1100 Lf. $2.50 $2,750 Pathway System 1100 Lf. $12.90 $14,190 Misc. Improvements 1 Allowance $1,000.00 $1,000 Subtotal $17,940 Add Contingency @ 10% $1,794 'T'otal Construction Cost $19,734 Add A!E Fees @ 10%m $1,973 TOTAL PROJECT COST $21,707 Site Acquisition 5 M. $20,000.00 $100,000 I ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, iFlc. i ~ a-niaivl, i DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Carol A. Landsman. February 25, 1995 Triangle Plan Timeline As requested by the council, I have put together a proposed timeline for an expedited triangle E study. If the transportation analysis shoves no major additional traffic problems caused by the j land use changes, staff could have comprehensive plan map amendments, zoning map s, amendments and code language implementing design standards to council in six to seven months. If the traffic study suggests problems, it will take another three months to resolve those problems. E This expedited timeframe assumes two public design charettes to evaluate proposed design f standards, a joint planning commission/council study session and a joint public hearing and assistance from Metro. If the council formally requests help, Metro will provide a dollar match and other staff assistance in developing the design standards and testing their impact. TRIANGLE PLAIN 'ITMELINE A 1 1) Transportation study Completed mid April I iesen_ation to council on impacts of land use changb from low-density to general commercial on April 25th. 2) ASSUMING NO PROBLEM WITH TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS: 5-6 months comprehensive plan map findings and amendments drafted design standards developed with the assistance of a design consultant 2 public meetings/design charettes to test design standards smaller public meetings as requested development code language drafted joint planning commission/council nieeting meld joint public hearing 3 3) ASSUMING TRANSPORTATION FINDINGS REQUIRE Additional 3 months REMEDIES TO MAKE LAND USE WORK: innovative mechanism developed interested parties and agencies "agree necessary comprehensive plan and code language L Dear Mayor Nicoli; I feel I need to write to you again. I am writing to,y-ou because I feel I represent some of the citizenry, and you represent the governing authority. I wrote some of this weeks ago, before some of the recent meetings. I thought some of these things would be itlor3 1- n a,x. Y r8:r9 't $:n'. 8. '1 `5'Y.. i_T a....,:, C• s4eaaw + vJ aav n, sae a aaaoa%! a aaaaissaa la. S 41%; " VUH t, SV t an-, i J1G5G bats agaiad..71J111$: 01. 1Y3y concerns are: Do we know enough about the way government operates to know when it is not operating right? To protect ourselves when it doesn't? To protect others? Why should we need to be put in that kind of position? Who is accountable to whom? Are there checks and balances so that it can be a government of, for, and by the people? There are rules in place requiring provisions for citizen involvement, which I don't ' think have been followed with any enthusiasm. Besides that, are there any rules saying that the citizen input ,veeds to be regarded? Since a petition signed by probably more than half 6 of the registered voters in the area was ignored, as well as the unanimous decision of the planning commission, we feel that our input as ignored. We feel that many of the communications coming from city hall have been too full ; of legal mumbo-jumbo. Goal #1 of the Statewide Plannings Goals, #4, says information y. should be available in a simplified, understandable forme We feel that we were not allowed to get involved in the planning process early t enough. Goal 1, #1, says a cross section of the affected citizens should be involved in all j phases of the planning process. Wouldn't that include the visioning exercise years ago? F Many are still `confused about how the whole Triangle plan process came about. Normally, people representing a parcel of land will petition for a zone change, neighboring parcel owners will be notified to submit their concerns, then the Planning Commission and City Council will pass judgement. In this case, the City of Tigard petitioned for the chan,e. and surrounding property owners may have been notified!. What rules are in place , to assum that the m ect'edproperty owners are notified? None that Fcould find. What is in j place to assure that the City Council can be stopped from doing, something they have a vested (conflict of) interest in? Also, many are confused about what the difference is between a quasi-judicial and i legislative decision. One distinct question I haves, in the Community Development Code, chapter 18.32, there are many references to the "Director". Who is the Director? In chapter 18.32.130.A.1 it says property owners and others need to be notified by mail. As near as we can tell', many people missed notices. On top of that, Carol landsman told us that notice was placed in the Times and that, was sufficient to comply, I don't read it that way. Furthermore, a number of us feel that there are some on staff and in the City Council f who seem to have their own agenda for accomplishing; things in the City of Tigard. We are afraid that they will do whatever it takes to fulfill their agenda. Because of this, we will be at every meeting; we can to either convince ourselves this is not true, or mare sure if it is, that the City and its citizens are not harmed. I want to thank you for your effort to allow us to sit in on the study session on 'j February 22nd. Unfortunately, I don't think it turned out as you expected. I remember you sayinu that -,lye could have some input if needed. As it turned out, they, weren't going to let i ur us speak. At least that is what Liz Newton told me. I apologize for losing my temper in i ne ce 2ep1-2~E tQ,~7 ~Ay^ ~ i JJJ a ;f there when I heard that. It just seemed so typical. Again I could hear Staff and Council j approaching important subjects misinformed, not asking crucial questions, and refusing testimony from those who might have valuable experiential knowledge. As it turned out, you did step in and allow us time to speak. Sadly, I was so aggitated by that point that I was virtually incomprehensible. As I expected, Carol Landsman was basing the traffic study on faulty information, that of the Hermoso/Beveland area staying residential. If she would have listened in any of the meetings lately, she would have known better. And as usual, Wendy Hawley is saying that the design for the Tigard Triangle Specific Area flan was formed with input from residents of the Triangle. That is simply not true. We still have not found anyone from the Triangle who worked on that plan. If there was, we would like to know who it was, be- cause they certainly did not represent us. But because we are not allowed to speak during most sessions of the Council, this misinformation is perceived as fact. Then we are forced to demand another hearing, call Councilors at home, or write soapboxes in the Times. s Wendy Hawley says that if design standards are not established for the Triangle, it will soon be covered with big box buildings. That also is not true. Many businesses use an ' attractive building to draw customers. If design standards are so important, why isn't the Council working on that right now? If boxes are not wanted, what is? Victorian? Frank Lloyd Wright? Pyramids? Geodesic domes? Most buildings are boxes of one form or another, even Frank Lloyd Wrights designs. Furthermore, are multi-story buildings being i considered? I believe Carol Landsman said buildings over 2 stories would not be allowed. Many have said they like the looks of Kruse Way, which has buildings over 3 stories. Honestly, we in the Triangle can wait till. traffic studies and other processes are done, although expedience would be very much appreciated. We would mostly like a j guarantee that it even rmZl get done, and done right. I think you made an important paint when you shared that it didn't seem the State really got involved much in local politics, I think the t: DOT flu-eat, the big box fear, and the high density residential dream; are part of the personal agenda of some, but are not based in fact. These issues should be addressed, but not to the point of hal'ting` development. I can certainly appreciate the Council not wanting to hear the life story on every bleeding heart in the city. I'just wish there vas a mechanism to iirure important issues were dealt with on a factual basis. If that had happened sooner, we would probably be one to two gears further toward a solution concerning the Triangle. Well, so much for my thoughts. I just thought you might like to l;;iow why you have to see my ugly mug almo,t every week. So, until next time, thanl;s for hearing me out. Sincerely; John Wozniak 11550 SW 72nd 620-96&2 i i' f l ecr.Pll~~ l PETITION TO THE XAYOR AND CITY COOHCIL OF TIGARD, OREGON Xarch, 1005 WEREAS '(Within the City of Tigard is a specifically unique land l parcel co ly referred to as "The Tigard Triangle". It is -i all the property within the, combined borders of Highway 99, I-5, and Highway 217. Land uses within the Triangle are changing beyond the ouisting, ecopas of the Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS The best planning concept far the Tigard Triangle is to allow the outright and conditional uses in both CP and CO zones within the boundaries of the Triangle. Planning oversight will occur by requiring all new use applications to comply with a design overlay. This will mean amending the Comprehensive Plan. VHF-REAS These combined use designations give maximium opportunities of u . To establish the varicum uses in E: harmony, a diusigu overlay for the Tigard Triangle will be created to coordinate and guide all now Tigard. Triangle use applications as they co 'before the Tigard Planning j Commission. The character and standards of the design 7 overlay will be to encourage development with reasonable ' guidelines for safety, aesthetics, and long term service. The design overlay guidelines should be simple enough to j- administer mad complete enough for the Planning Commission r~ and City Council to address land vee goals. WHEREAS These changes in the Comprehensive plan are beneficial j to the majority of; Tigard Triangle Owners, The City of Tigard, Tigard Residents, and area communities. THEREFORE These below signed petitioners request the Tigard City E' j Council amend the Tigard Comprehensive. Plan to incorporate the land use changes addressed in this petition. iJa~e Signature Print Name Street Address Phoi ti -~S ~ tc3c~ S3t~ St1J I 'l~r~ I~V b2~-~ > y' ~ I ~%t v"j ~ . c Q,4/ 1~ 1L~ ~Cro L Fns l~~4 Sea, v ~ 1 PETITION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF T I GARD, OREGON 1 3hnrch, 1995 WHEREAS Within the City of Tigard is a specifically unique land parcel commonly referred to as "The Tigard Triangle". It is all the property within the combined borders of Highway 99, I-5, and Highway 21'Y. Land uses within the Triangle are changing beyond the existing scope of the Comprehensive i Plan. 3 WHEREAS The best planning concept for the Tigard Triangle in to l allot the outright and`conditional uses in both CP and CO ] zones within the boundaries of the Triangle. Planning oversight will occur by requiring all now uee applications ] to comply with a design overlay. This will nean amending the Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS These combined use designations give =Ximum opportunities of use. To establish the various uses in harmony, a design overlay for the Tigard Triangle will be created to coordinate and guide all new Tigard Triangle use applications an they come before the Tigard Planning Commission. The character and standards of the design overlay will be to encourage development with reasonable guidelines for safety, aesthetics, and long term service.. The design overlay guidelines should be simple enough to i administer and complete enough for the Planning Commi€asioa and City Council to address land use goals. WHEREAS These changes in the Comprehensive plan are beneficial _ to the majority of: Tigard Triangle Owners, The City of Tigard, Tigard Residents, and area communities. THEREFORE These below signed petitioners request the Tigard City Council amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the land use changes addressed in this petition. `gate Signature Print Name L Street Address Phoi o H f k76 X39 VO-W- 96317 7 d~ 4s ~ ~ ~ 1 A ~.Hi %1 ^4J 6ao. -V '~?5~9 ~ 9 c J~ . PETITION TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD, OREGOM March, 199 : WEREAS Vithin the City of Tigard is a specifically unique land parcel commonly referred to as "The Tigard Triangle". It is all the property within the combined borders of Highway 99. I-8, and Highway 217. Land ueess within the Triangle are changing beyond the existing scope of the Comprehensive it Plan. I "rrnBREea The best piannimmg concept for the Tigard Triangle is to allow the outright and conditional uses in both CP and CO, zones within the boundaries of the Triangle. Planning oversight will occur by requiring all new use applications a to comply with a design overlay. This will mean amending the Comprehensive Plan. VHERE S These combined use designations give maximum opportunities of use. To establish the various uses in harmony, a design: overlay for the Tigard Triangle will be created to coordinate and guide all now Tigard Triangle use j applications as they cotes before the Tigard Planning 3 Commission. The character and standards of the deuiga K overlay will be to encourage development with reasonable guidelines for safety, aesthetics, and long term service. The design overlay guidelines should be simple enough to R administer and complete enough for the Planning Commission and City Council to address land use goals. l i WHEREAS These changes in the Comprehensive plan are beneficial to the majority ofi Tigard Triangle Owners, The City of 1 Tigard, Tigard Residents, and area communities. THEREFORE .These below signed petitioners request the Tigard City Council amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to incorporate i the land uca changes addrassed in thin petition. C Date Signature 2 Print Name Street Address - Phor ~j)t1 i 19 ~ N~ ' ! ; LG I.~_ ¢ • J) riY fir. ~2 i 3 9 3, 7 Lp 9 e. L6! cr./ 70*s ~79J-35 pl~~ ~ ti x~l2Fl' 71;1d SM. C1,'n4SY1 ff, S979-/_. f VRERE-AS Within: the City of Tigard is a specifically unique land parcel commonly referred to an "The Tigard Triangle". It is all the property within the combined borders of Highway 99, ~ I-6. and Highway 217. Land uses within the Triangle are ::changing beyond the existing scope of the Comprehensive Plmma. • WIERSUS The best planning concept for the Tigard Triaugla 1s to allow the outright and conditional uses in both CIS and CO j zones within the boundaries of the Triangle. Planning '.1 cverslght will occur by requiring all now use applications to com&,ly with a•dosign overlay. This will mean amending the Comprehensive Plan. - WHEREAS These combined use designations give maximum opportunities of uee. To establish the various uses in harnany, a design overlay for the Tigard Triangle will be created to coordinate and guide all new Tigard Triangle use - applications as they come before the Tigard planning. j Commission. The character and standards of tha design overlay will be to encourage development with reasonable I guidelines for safety, aesthetics, and long term service. The design overlay guidelines should be simple enough to administer and complete enough for the Planning Commission and City Council to address land use goals. WHEREAS These changes in the Comprehensive plan are beneficial ! to the majority of: Tigard Triangle Owners, The City of Tigard, Tigard Residents, and area communities. THEREFORE These below signed petitioners request the Tigard City Council amend the Tigard Comprehensive Plau to incorporate the land use changes addraased in this: petition. The TIGARD CITIZENS OF THE 9EVELAND HERMOSO PARK DEVELOPMENT are comitted•and have been united in acertaining, that we recieve ; 1 a reasonable and suitable price for our land and the replacement value of our homes. Date Signature Prise : Name Street Address Phone # It I O tional FE I 61{yJ1 lprwN U vr- a LI +r L I/ q7S !Sto N 5-7 0410 U z.SZ In r r L v~ 7 d l7 .`.lQ(/t~~ _ 5 FE iS95 ~n vtvi M. S /or1.J S- S. 4J. gt _ ~ 9-363c , .9 MA~2<Art~T A• G Y~ ~39f S /r/ f/~R°OSo (clA/ `39--d/ yf< 73S5 i.~ w, S a fGS FF s Wi '14oc 73 SW ..rmao n~u 431174 - S7Qgc-R Sto,~et~,d 39`/~ . Cd. ,JGri1 C ~pD STiQ~q- S,W. Q~U" 1e3 d" 2 6 F w s w {lci 05 as y r s- r-. ~ ~~5s LGL~,nu Cra L;.iwi 1 h ~ k