Loading...
City Council Packet - 06/20/1995 mot, _ CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). !f no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Times noted are estimate! eAssistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call &29-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Dean. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services. e Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. 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 listed above: 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. SEE e4Tt"ACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 20, 1995 - PACE 1 11111 jj~~ • CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 2Q, 1995 AGENDA 6:30 P.M. 1. STUDY MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Pion-Agenda Iterr!s 6:35 p.m. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) FACILITATORS • Update: Community Involvement Coordinator • Discussion: CIT Facilitators, Council, Staff Resource Teams 7':30 p.m. 3. TIGARD FEED STORE OPTIONS • Update: City Administrator 8:15 p.m. 4. JOINT MEETING WITH TREE TASK FORCE • Staff Report and Introductions: Community Development Department 9:15 p.m. 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS k 9:30 P.M. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The 11gard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are !confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 9:45 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL AGENDA - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 2 ONE :01, MR51 Council Agenda Item L), / TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 • Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Nicoli. 1. ROLL CALL Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; CouncilorsWendi Conover Hawley, Paul Hunt, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. Staff' Present: Bill Monahan, City Administrator; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner; Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director; Liz Newton, Community Involvement Coordinator; Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; and Pam Beery, Legal Counsel. STUDY SESSION JOINT MEETING WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) FACILITATOR Community Involvement Coordinator Newton facilitated discussion on this agenda item. Issues from the January joint meeting held with the CIT and Council members were reviewed: • Attendance - it was noted that June attendance was low. Ms. Newton commented this had been the experience during the summer months last year as well. The CITs will not meet in July, but will meet again in August. • Cityscape - Ms. Newton distributed a copy of the soon-to-be-released Cityscape which highlighted the CITs accomplishments. She noted she may incorporate something similar into CIT meeting notices. • Daycare had been listed as a potential service offered at CIT meetings. Ms. Newton noted preliminary investigations into such a program indicated there may be some concerns with regard to liability. • Joint issues - it was noted that issues with regard to schools and Tri-Met have k been topics of discussion at CIT meetings. • Present options - it was noted that the CITs were working on identifying options to resolve issues as they reviewed different subject matters. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 1 a~ ONE= Discussed process - process concerns were still being noted, especially in light of a recent issue with a CIT report pertaining to the 130th/Winterlake bridge connection considered for the Capitai Improvement Project list. Fallowing are some of the comments and highlights of the conversation which occurred among the City Council members, Facilitators, and Staff Resource Teams. 8 Members should be comfortable in knowing that the action taken at the meeting will be correctly communicated to the decisionmakers. • Question as to whether or not there had been any further consideration of the "cook book" idea with regard to giving a "recipe" for process items. This book would contain a listing of what is needed to work through different processes; i.e., Comprehensive Plan Amendments. C Suggestion that if attendance is low, then perhaps meetings should be canceled for the entire summer. Suggestion that meetings could be held outdoors. a Notation that schools are closed (with the exception of the high school), and that most of the August CIT meetings will be held at City Hall. Discussed communication to City Council, including the form letter idea, writing the letter to go to City Council at the meeting before the CIT adjourns, and expressing minority opinions as well. C Facilitator advised she reminds people that they can write their own letter, call f their decisionmakers and/or staff, or sign up to talk to City Council on the Visitor's Agenda. • Suggestion for a groundrule which states that in order 'Lo participate, an individual should he in attendance. There was an argument presented that at times it may be appropriate for a CIT to receive and read a letter to the membership prsenting another opinion, even though the author and supporters of the opinions contained in that letter are not present at the meeting. People who do not agree with the Majority should also know that their concerns will be registered. • Concerns that the CITs never hear back whether or not Council received their information. • Concern noted that people do not know which CIT they are in. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 2 MIA:1010:111% WE e Ms. Nev=ton noted that the Staff Resource Teams should be comfortable in presenting options to the CIT groups. Several Facilitators nOLed their appreciation of the Resource Teams. Some concern was expressed by Michael Anderson, Staff Resource Team member, that the Resource Team may be taking too much 4 of a lead. • Sue Carver, Facilitator, noted it would depend on the matter with regard to what role the Resource Team member should take. If it is a question of process, then the Resource Team member would be relied upon to give the CITs a thorough amount of information. Diane Jones, West CIT Facilitator, noted the CIT members need to be investigators; the Resource Team often has information that is needed with regard to process. • Resource Team member Karl Kaufman noted it would be helpful to get information back to the CITs with regard to correspondence from others; i.e., information from the Oregon Department of Transpor itation. Ranaye Hoffman, CIT Facilitator, noted that she was concerned that it was unknown how much impact a CIT letter has on the Council. She questioned what the City Council does with the information shared by the CITs. • Ms. Hoffman referred to a recent situation where CIT members expressed concern with how their testimony was received at a Planning Commission meeting. This occurred during testimony on the Capital Improvement Project Priority listing hearing before the Planning Commission. Members had requested that a park be considered on Bull Mountain; members expressed frustration when their testimony was not well ! eceived. Some discussion followed over the particular proposal for the park land with regard to location and potential Metro Greenspace funding. Ms. Hoffman stressed that her concerns were for the way the CIT members were treated at the Council meeting. Councilor Hawley advised she hoped then: Facilitator encourage members to not give up and to continue to participate "participation is the key to success." • Diane Jones advised that Facilitators do encourage their members to participate. There was brief discussion on this point, with suggestions and observations on the decisionmaking process and presentation of opinions. • Ms. Newton summarized "what's next": - Groundruies - IVake available at meetings - Focus on accomplishments - Re-visit Resource Teams' role - Communication issues - Make sure information is getting back to the CITs as to what happened with their Council input CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 3 I''' q 191 MM, ljijjlilj~ Kamm Boom ",laps periodically in the Cityscape outlining the CIT boundaries Include CIT maps as part of the New Citizen packet Get response and feedback to CITs from others (for example, letters fror" organizations such as ODOT) Facilitator Training - Encourage people to come to CIT meetings • Ms. Newton advised she would be sending a questionnaire to anyone who has attended a CIT meeting at least once. • Facilitator Nancy Smith opened discussion with regard to the neutrality of the Facilitator. Ms. Newton advised that Facilitators should remain as neutral as possible so people who do not agree with the general tone of the conversation do not become intimidated by the person who is facilitating the meeting. There was discussion on the Facilitator's role. Councilor Rohlf noted that if there is an issue a Facilitator feels strongly about, then the Facilitator could call upon another Facilitator to preside over that meeting. Councilor Scheckla advised he also thought the Facilitator should remain neutral. Council meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:46 p.m. TIGARD FEED STORE OPTIONS • City Administrator Monahan updated Council on this agenda item. Also present were members representing the following interests: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association, and the Downtown { Merchant's Association. City Administrator Monahan distributed handouts which included the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce proposal to City Council relating to the Johnson Feed Store property; a letter dated June 16, 1995 from Gary Lass of TAHPA; a letter dated June 12, 1995 to the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce; a document labeled "Exhibit 1" (sales agreement from TAHPA between TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce); and a document labeled "Exhibit II; (Historic Conservation Easement). Mr. Monahan introduced the next step in the discussion which was for a compromise. Chamber of Commerce representatives Nancy Novak and Pam Benson addressed Council. Ms. Novak, Chamber of Commerce President, apprised Council of the Chamber's proposal (see packet information for written text). In summary, the Chamber is looking for -a permanent home. They believe the costs involved will be a financial obligation they can meet. The Chamber recognized the importance CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 4 Ems of working with the Downtown Merchant's Association with regard to space for parking. A building with 1,200 to 1,500 square feet would meet the Chamber's - ^weds. The Cha~..ber is also willing to work with the Historical Society to provide room for historical exhibits and use of the office during non-Chamber hours. The Chamber is prepared to reimburse the City for the cost of the property. There was a brief discussion on a possible joint purchase (City of Tigard and Chamber of Commerce) of the property from Burlington Northern. Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association representatives Gary Lass, President, and Judy Fessler, member of the TAHPA organization, outlined their interests and concerns. Mr. Lass advised that last December the TAHPA organization was contacted by a relative of Mr. Johnson's with regard to TAHPA's possible interest in the Tigard Feed and Seed building. Mr. Johnson wishes to retire. TAHPA began inquiries with the Railroad to acquire the land. Mr. Lass then summarized the possibilities of this building both as an historical focal point as well as a building offering multi-purpose rooms. TAHPA, in their talks with the Railroad, found the Railroad was not flexible with regard to purchase of the land. In May, the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Merchant's Association, and TAHPA met. At this time it was learned that the City may have an opportunity to buy the land. The Downtown Merchant's Association wanted a parking lot. There was discussions of moving the buy"ding forward and restoring the biiildina as an office building. It was noted a drawing had been done which depicted saving the original structure (2,300 square feet) plus providing for 24 parking spaces. Mr. Lass advised the TAHPA group should not have to donate the building without compensation. Ms. Fessler also commented on the negotiations to date. She noted the railroad was requiring the building be moved. She advised this would probably mean the building could not be placed on the National Historic Register. She also noted there is an offer on the table from TAHPA to the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Fessler distributed a document dated June 20, 1995, outlining options and possible scenarios that could happen with the Tigard Feed Store, the City of Tigard, Chamber, Merchants, and TAHPA. (This document is on file with the Council packet material.) Also distributed to the Mayor and Council was a chronological history of the project undertaken by TAHPA, as well as drawings showing possible layouts for the building and parking spaces, and a drawing of the Tigard Feed and Seed building moved forward on the lot. There was discussion on the negotiations by the TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the TAHPA organization could assist Mr. Johnson insofar as he could receive a tax benefit because he is donating the building. CITY COUNCIL M-ETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, ?995 - PAGE 5 There was discussion on accommodating the interests of TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce with the resources the Chamber has available. Pam Benson, Chamber of Commerce member, advised the Chamber has funding available; however, there are difficulties with determining how much the Chamber could afford, given the proposed cost of the building of $24,000 payable to TAHPA, the need to address the condition of the build=ing, the cost of moving of the building, as well as the fact that there may be some costs associated with removing hazardous products from the-Feed Store. Michael Marr of the Downtown Merchant's association advised that the Downtown Merchants are looking at long-term revitalization of the downtown on Main Street. The merchants are hoping to create a downtown similar to the Sellwood or Belmont areas. They believe the downtown area is something special, and would serve as a focal point for community identity. He noted the need to maintain the central business district, advising of short-sighted planning in the past. There is a great need for parking. Mr. Marr referred to a poll which he had done with the Downtown Merchants. He mailed out, and received approximately 20 responses out of 60 distributed. He advised there were different funding options identified with regard to parking. He advised that some merchants have parking already and do not feel they should also contribute to additional parking in the area. Some merchants feel this is public parking, and therefore, their tax dollars should be used to purchase the property for parking. Four merchants expressed an interest in putting in $2,500 to $3,500 for a one-time contribution. Leasing parking spaces was also an option. Mr. Marr was hoping the Chamber and TAHPA groups could come to agreement in a "win-win" situation. He advised he hoped the Chamber of Commerce could maintain a presence on Main Street and the Feed and Seed Store would retain x a historic flavor on the street. He advised the area has strong potential and he fully supported TAHPA; however, he did not know whether the historical society should make "money off of this deal." Mr. Marr advised that he hoped the City would recognize that making a purchase of the property would be an investment. He advised he did not believe the City was taking a risk by purchasing this property, because of the property's value. The purchase for the intent of parking is for the public good. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Ms. Fessler explained the negotiations efforts by TAHPA in their attempt to obtain the land from the Railroad. These strategies were not fulfilled because the City became involved. TAHPA would like to use the building for their meetings once a month, noting they recognize the need for parking by the Downtown Merchants. The TAHPA meetings would be held in the evening, and would not conflict with most- of the other businesses. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 6 MOSES= Mr. Monahan advised that Council would discuss the property purchase in Executive Session. He also noted the three groups would need to continue to work on a coordinated proposal with regard to the building and use of land. Meeting recessed at 8:85 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH TREE TASK FORCE Tree Task Force members who signed up on the sign-up sheet included the following: Christy Herr, Sally Christensen, Robert Gillmor, Kent Patton, Doug Smithey, Dan Mitchell, and John Benneth. Mr. John Benneth gave an overview of the Task Force efforts over the past several months. Mr. Benneth referred to the group's success in working out a consensus incorporating a wide range of viewpoints. Mr. Benneth reviewed elements of the proposed ordinance which are contained in the Council packet. The ordinance attempts to deal with trees in sensitive lands and respects the property rights of the average homeowner. In addition, the ordinance includes a prohibition against commercial forestry. Mr. Benneth expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Task Force for the staff members, Senior Planners Dick Bewersdorff and Carol Landsman who gave up many evenings to meet with the Task Force. He also acknowledged Councilor Hawley for her work with the Task Force. Mr. Dan Mitchell presented a video tape of trees throughout Tigard. The video tape illustrated trees in neighborhoods and trees in sensitive land areas. it also depicted developments that were done with saving trees, those developments which removed the trees, and illustrated what the Task Force was hoping to achieve. The -Task Force also noted the importance of saving dead trees for wildlife habitat. Tigard City Council members expressed appreciation for the work done by the Task Force. It was noted this appeared to be a good solution for both the tree and property rights protection issues. There was a brief discussion on the elements of the proposed ordinance. The next step will be to schedule a public hearing. (Note: Tentatively scheduled for 9/12/95.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 7 NON-AGENDA ITEMS • Tigard Promenade Senior Planner Bewersdorff reviewed the conditions contained in the Final Order with regard to the proposed Tigard Promenade. This development will be located along Highway 99W at the intersection of the King City street of Royalty Parkway. Senior Pianner Bewersdorff addressed concerns expressed by Councilor Hunt with regard to traffic patterns and access to and from the pacific Highway entrances. Also addressed were conditions placed on the development with regard to noise emission. Transportation improvements were reviewed, including the conditions placed to address cueing, clear vision, and safe exiting and entrance into the development. After discussion, Council consensus was that they would not call this issue up for further review. Citizen Involvement Team Updates Council consensus was to place a regular agenda item at the Work Session meeting (second Council meeting of every month). The purpose would be to update Council on the issues discussed at the CIT meetings. • Gray Property Purchase This item is tentatively scheduled to be discussed at the June 27 meeting. The Gray property is adjacent to Cook Park. The question is does Tigard want to pursue the purchase? Councilor Hunt suggested that a landscaped area featuring a recirculating water fountain or stream, such as the fountain at the Sequoia Parkway or Summerfeld areas be considered. • Music in the Park Council received information prepared by Matthew Ryan entitled "Facilities Development - Short Thoughts." (Information on file with the Council packet material). City Administrator Monahan was authorized to spend up to $4,000 on construction materials for a temporary stage; labor to be donated. There is possibility of donations from businesses such as Elmo Stud's or Ernst. The Committee will decide within one month if they want a temporary stage built. If they decide not to build the temporary stage, then they will look at renting a stage. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 8 71 • Cost of Living Allowance City Administrator Monahan advised. The 1995-96 budget included funding to allow up to a 3% cost of living adjustment for non-represented personnel. Although the funds were allocated, Council was asked to give direction on the cost of living percentage to be given and the effective dare. OPEU's President has been advised that Council has not approved a COLA for represented staff. Discussions with OPEU regarding a COLA will take place through collective bargaining. After discussion, Council consensus was to allow a 3% cost of living adjustment for non-represented personnel, effective July 1, 1995. • Washington County Public Officials' Caucus Washington County Public Officials Caucus will be held Thursday, July 13 from 7 to 9 p.m. The topic is Metro 2040. • FOCUS FOCUS met Wednesday night, June 14. The results of the Total Water Resources Management workshops were presented. During the coming year, FOCUS will present findings to the City Council to consider implementing the recommendations. • Durham Road (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Council discussed the possibility of the State letting Tigard have jurisdiction over Durham Road from Boones Ferry to Hall Blvd. There is a need to determine costs, issues, and whether this is something ODOT will even consider. Also of concern is installing a traffic signal on 79th/Durham. • 'I 30th/Winterlake Councilor Rohlf noted that most of the activity surrounding the 130thAvinterlake connection has inovled only staff; Council has not been involved. The success of the Tree Task Force Committee was referred to as a method to bring differing viewpoints together to form consensus. Councilor Rohlf proposed bringing together people who had been in favor of the bridge connection and those who were opposed, to review options to relieve traffic concerns on Brittany and address safety and traffic impact in the entire neighborhood. Discussion followed. Councilor Rohif proposed that engineering and work on the bridge connection be stopped for approximately five weeks in order to allow time for the Task Force to look at all issues. Councilor Rohlf advised he had contacted some of the concerned parties an both sides of the issue. Mr. Gene McAdams and Ms. Kathleen McDonald advised they would be willing to serve on this Task Force. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 9 10111 ih gill 111; :~Jim: City Administrator Monahan advised City staff had received a telephone message from Mr. McAdams, stating that he would not want the engineering and design work to stop. Councilor Rohlf noted he would not want to give the appearance of stalling the project. However, he would like to have the engineering work suspended while the Task Force was meeting over the next several weeks. Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hawley noted they would be in favor of the Task Force to "heal wounds." Councilors Scheckla and Hunt expressed concerns that stopping the bridge connection should not be considered as one of the options. Councilor Hunt advised that a vote on this issue had been taken by Council, with the connection receiving the majority vote. In addition, the people in the area have had their opportunity to follow the process and also have a legal option still available to them. Council voted on the recommendation by Councilor Rohif to move forward with the formation of the Task Force and to hold off on the engineering work for approximately five weeks (until August 1, 1995), and that Community Involvement Coordinator Liz Newton act as facilitator to the group. Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Hawley-and Rohlf voted "yes" on Councilor Rohlfs proposal; Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted "no." Council went into Executive Session at 11:00 p.m. Adjournment: 11:35 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ./f f or, City of Tigard Date: c=0620.95 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995'- PAGE 10 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. B01( 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 8232 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 R f C E E u Legal Notice ,1.dvertisinq 1 g ~g95 *city of Tigard e 13 Tearsheet Notice 23125 SW Hall Blvd. <:~1 Of 1113, eTiga rd , Oregon 97223-8199 ® 13 Duplicate Affidavit .Accounts Payable-Terry AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ` STATE OF OREGON, )COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ass. 1, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising [Director, or his principal clerk, of the"T" - ra-ua1_atin TIimes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforesaid county and state; that the _City Council Study Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 15,1995 -'VIA J'1 Subscribed and sworn to b me this 15th day of June,19 9 OFFICIAL SEAL , ROOM A. BURGESS NOTARY °UBLIC -OREGON Notary P is for Oregon ,i COMMISSION NO. 024552 , MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16 1997 My Commission Expires: r AFFIDAVIT _ 11 M, Will i i~ 016 11 11 El i ;i: 1! ~a T1 a foIIovvatt$ peering hl ihlaghts lire published for your at fomaation 1~ull agendas rata} b that ua#a d ffag aa'the City Recorder, 13:325 S W Hall Eonlevard' Tigard; Oregon:97223, cr by c3llin 639-4171 CITY couNaL STUDY tbilliG JUNE 1011'1995 - 6:30 F.M. TIGARD CITY HALL = TOWN HALL 13125,S.W. HALL E OU EVARD, TIGARD. OREGON Studyeettn 6:30 p;txe , t ; a Citizen Involvement Team,CIT) Facilitators will be meeting; with City Council" . 7 30 pin j o Review'of.Tigaed'FeedStore,Options ; ® Joint MeeUng With Tree Task Force E~ecaatave,-SessWo The ;Tigard City Council may go into Execu-. I tive.Sessioti under the 1irovisions.of QRS 1192.660 (1) (d), (e), (t) & (!a): to_disctiss:labor relations, real property transactions, ex- empt public-records and'current and pending litigation issues ® 1:Gontraek ltevaew Bosrd 'L d 5232 _`]Publish June IS` 1995 gli F r oun ; L d -.-A Z ~o ,~f'/t.2 Z --Zr, ,Gtr .~✓1.4iy b~,-- - r 71 -(YN ' M r TIGARD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 12420 SW, MAN ST., IIGARD, OR 97223 (503) 039-i656 i TIG ARID AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROPOSAL TO CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO TIDE QL D JOHNSON FEED STORE PROPERTY The Tigard Chamber hve been looking for a permanent home for several years. Since we are a non-profit organization, our options have been limited. We are excited about the opportunity to purchase property and to remain on Main Street. Although there are other locations in the Tigard community that would be suitable for efface space, we feel that Main Street is the best location for our organization. After evaluating the potential for this site and the costs involved we also feel that this is a financial obligation that we can meet. We are willing to work with the Historical Society in preserving the essence of the feed store., Unto more investigation is done into AIDA requirements and the existing structure, it will be difficult to determine to what extent we can preserve the existing structure. The Chamber also recognizes the importance of working with the Merchant's Association on this project. The downtown area is experiencing a severe parking problem that will only continue to get worse. We recognize the merchants' need for parking and we see this as the highest and best use of the majority of the property at this location. The Chamber is somewhat flexible to the size of the structure we will need. A building 1,200 to 1,500 square feet will meet our needs. We are also willing to work with the Historical Society to provide room for historical exhibits and use of the office during non-chamber hours as we do for all groups in the community that request use of the Chamber office.` We are prepared, at this time, to reimburse the City of Tigard for the cost of the property. We presently have a substantial sum of money in reserve to do this. We 4 also have a loan commitment that will immediately allow us to purchase the f property. We do not wish the City to financially support this-portion of the project, 5. . Finally, we again wish to express our thanks to the Tigard City Council for this consideration. The opportunity to have permanent office space along with the preservation of a long-standing structure on Main Street and addressing the downtown merchants' parking concerns will be a solution that will benefit us all. This solution will not totally address all of the desired needs of all three groups, but will substantially meet the goals of each group. TIGARD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1<<,20 S.W. MAIN 5L 'FIGAF1D, OF? 97223 (50.) 639-1656 June 16, 10% Mr. Gary Lass Tigard Area ff€istorical and Preservation Association c% Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OIL 97223 Dear Mir. Lass: We are excited at the opportunity to work with the Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association and to take part in the historical renovation of the Tigard Feed and Seed budding on fain Street. We hr-ie carefully reviewed and discussed your offer dated June 12,1995, and world like to put forth what we feel we can contribute to this project. We have also carefully analyzed our financial situation and do not want to overextend ourselves in a way that would jeopardize the restoration efforts that you wish to achieve. We feel that we can financially afford to restore and remodel up to approximately 1,200 square feet of the existing building. As in our previous discussions with representatives from your group and the downtown merchants, we feel that this should be taken from the original portion of the building. Our intent is that we have a facility for our existing staff and a small meeting room. It has always been the Chamber's position that our facilities have been available for all community groups to use and we would certainly extend these same guaran- tees to TAHPk Some of the underlying terms that you requested would pore problems for our.mortgage underwriter. As in any business transaction, the mortgage y underwriter must be placed in first position As a result, we will need to carefully discuss these conditions with you and our mortgage underwriter. Those portions of your agreement where you are requesting permission to use a likeness, attach a permanent plaque and be given first right of refusal should the Chamber ever sell the property would probably be agreeable to us. In analyzing the costs of the property, permit fees and restoration activities, we cannot at this time pay you $1,200 per year purchase fee. This additional cost, which would be above and beyond our mortgage payment, is beyond our cash flow capacity. We realize that the TAHPA would like to preserve the entire portion of the existing building but unfortunately our financial situation would not permit this. P' 4 > Mr. Gary Lass v, l09✓ Page 2 We feel that this entire effort is a joint effort between the Downtown Business Merchants, TABPA, and the Chamber. It is in everyone's best interest to work with each entity. The restoration of the entire original structure may not make the parking lot a feasible option for the development of a downtown parking area for the merchants. After reviewing our letter, we would gladly arrange a time when we can meet and further discuss each other's goads and objectives. Sincerely, S, C;~ S. Carolyn Long Exccutive Director I a yr t i A 'Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Ass®ciati®n June. 12, 1935 Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 SW Mean St Tigard OR 97223 Re: Tigard Feed Store To:Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce President and Board Members: Over the last month or so, the City of Tigard Staff and the Mayor have held several meetings with the Tigard Chamber of Commerce representatives, S. Carolyn Long and Pam Benson, representatives from the Tigard Downtown Merchants Association and representatives from the Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association to discuss ways to generate a public parking area while swing the Tigard Feed Store. The general ideas put forth at those meetings were that the City would negotiate to purchase the property around the feed store if the other three parties could come to an agreement on the disposition of the feed store building. The main sticking points, in our opinion, have been that the chamber MUST own the building and that the building MUST be reduced significantly in size. From the onset of these meetings, TAHPA has been willing to negotiate these points in good faith, even though TAHPA had already signed an agreement with the building's current owner to acquire the building. Since impromptu meetings are not the best forum in which to negotiate terms of an agreement, and since none of the other parties have yet to bring a formal proposal to the table, TAHPA respectfully submits the following written proposal package to the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. TAHPA has received permission from Hal Johnson, et al, present owner of the feed store building, to sell or otherwise convey the building to the Chamber or another 3rd party through TAHPA so that he may receive full benefit of tax deductible donation. TAHPA proposes to convey the title of the building to the Chamber pursuant to mutual acceptance of terms and agreements set forth in this proposal- Included in this proposal please find: Exhibit I Terms and Conditions of the Sale Exhibit I1 Preservation Easement example x~ clo Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 A Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association Page 2 of2 This proposal is also based on the following assumptions: 1. The City of Tigard will purchase the band 2. The Peed store building will be relocated and restored within the present property boundaries by the Chamber of Commerce If any of the above assumptions change then fiuther negotiations will be necessary. Time is of the essence, so TAHPA is requesting that a written response showing agreement or counter proposal be made to the TABPA Board of Directors President Gary Lass by Friday, June 16th at 5PM. If no written response is received, TABPA will assume negotiations are terminated by the Chamber and TAHPA will pursue other avenues. Your response can be faxed to Gary Lass at 639-1216. Regards, r7 LASS, President TAHPA PS Let us all try to remember whom it is we serve. If we fail to come to an agreement, the greatest loss will be to the Citizens of Tigard. This unique historic building is one of the few tangible reminders left of this City's agricultural heritage and it deserves to be saved. CC: City of Tigard- Bill Monahan, City Administrator Tigard Downtown Merchants Association- Nfike Main Cv P-P,?- fi t Fdr/L D~ Al c/o.,Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Ball Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 1511111 I igaru Area n!sto rica! and Preservation Association Pagel of 2 Y3 EXMI T E June 12, 1995 SALES AGREFAIENT-- for Real Property thereafter referred as Tigard Feed Store between Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association (TAMPA) and the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce (Chamber). That this day delivered to the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce the following express terms of Sale and conditions of the structure only to wit: The structure known as The Tigard Feed Store, at its present location on Tax Lot # 5400-A at 12344 SW Main Street Tigard Oregon. If the following terms of sale are accepted by the Chamber of Commerce, TAMPA will convey title to the structure "As Is" in its entirety, including any fixtures and inventory remaining within the structure which TAMPA deems to be of no historic value. TERMS OF SALE 1. Chamber agrees to grant TAMPA a Preservation Easement on the structure similar to example enclosed (Exhibit I1) so that the the historic preservation of the structure is assured regardless of the future ownership. 2. Chamber agrees to renumerate TAMPA for the value of the building as follows: A payment of $ 1200.00 per year for 20 years at 0% interest . Frequency of payments no less than once per year. A time schedule to be determined at final closing. If payment is not received at the annual anniversary date then the Chamber has 30 days to pay all money's or the building will be returned to TAHPA. Goods and Services may be substituted for Payments provided that the goods and services are approved by TAMPA and could be used within one year. Goods and services defined as DOLLAR AMOUNT assessed at market or street value. Payment for the building as described above will begin 1 year from the closing date. Chamber shall provide proof of adequate liability and casualty insurance to TAMPA on a yearly basis. 3. Chamber of Commerece agrees to comply with all regulations regarding zoning, building codes, deed restrictions, etc. 4. Chamber of Commerce agrees to restore the exterior of the structure to its original condition ( as current code and construction methods will allow) and to its original dimensions ( approximately 68M5) and keep the building within it present property boundaries. SEE EXHIBIT H. 5. Chamber agrees to grant TAMPA use of shared multipurpose area(s) at no charge for meetings at least ONCE per month (after normal business hours) and as schedule allows by mutual arrangement on other days or nights in perpetuity. c/o Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 i an 1! 11 Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association Page 2 of 2 6. Chamber agrees to grant TAEPA exposure in the public area of the building, at no charge, to display information about TA?-IPA and/or sell historic, historical related items in perpetuity. 7. Chamber agrees to grant TAB PA a reasonable amount of storage and display space (at no charge) for ongoing exhibits or vignettes in perpetuity. 8. TAB PA shall have input into the size and location of the shared facilities and the storage quantity for TABPA. 9. Chamber agrees to grant TAIHPA permission to use the likeness of the Tigard Feed Store's exterior for TABPA'S promotions at no charge. 10. Chamber agrees to grant TABPA permission to place a permanent plaque in or on the building sharing its history with the public. 11. Chamber agrees to offer TAMPA first right of refusal to purchase the building at fair market value at any time during the future with 1 year advance notice. If this building is sold to a pa.*ty other than TAIIPA withr the time of the contractual arrangements, the balance owing on this contract is due in full at the time of closing. Signed This-Date Signed This Date 'Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce Tigard Area 11istorical Preservation Association Director or Designee President Title s c/o Tigard Public Library 13125 SW Wall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 i z-x~,ljQiT' T HISTORIC CONSERVATION EASENIEN'T i ;iiit';fity of We I",I ii+i i , .cZ".- iC turn; portions of the building supporting the !u r. b}' s" ants to tiir. 146ai:r.1, I .meats. a nonprofit corporation f. Re ard;e,, of thr. pr:Irisions of this par:l~Taph one laws of Oregon ("Grantee"), a historic f. e i Grantor shall be authorized to t'e~anstlv;;t, j r(irL' t t~' Lo11 caSeII:ent. on the twins and conditions repair or refinish the Historic l;hmrnts ,if tha tltr;rrihcd >•,ek"°' building without the prior tt'litten c:c?n~ant i:f t'he Prup3erty: Grantor is the oit'nrr in fee Sinn- Grantee ill the event of e"I.m -ge dl:u to casualty l)I(• of the improved rt!al estate dcacribcd on at- loss, deteriGl'3riot), or Wear and'ei , so l:itlg as i I:1,•i,t•d E.Alibit A. Gr:tr:ttri warrants that the ini- bush reconiarLICtion, rcp3:r, or :eFr.i hini; by i pItm-ment on the prop,,rt.y is 3 Certified Histcr'ic Gr;!nt<,r uses in-kind materials and '.vurktn:i;slul: j `zI rurn!rc within Lhe ineanirg of Internal Revenue and restores trig' Historic E le+: eraci to their C„(lr• `cction 170(t)(4)(B). chaff-e:' and conditir:a ;ts of dhe date of tiis _ j 2. G. ':u,: c: Ea-el-e:lt. Grantor hert.by :agrees Easement. HowCt•er, (grantor Ina,: I1121iQ r:4 1.11:11 the e;iSelrietlt granted by this docurnt fit aliall 2tions or changes to tl:r•.:fi)1::.:i:' !ll: Cif rke U;s- i to and encuttlller the historic arc'nttectur:l; tonic Elements widiout Oi)I;fi:iirg th* Yrii.r writ- t•li urrnts of the building which arr. described on the ten Cun3etlt of Grantee. ( :,lr:u h+?(i Exhibit B ("the 1:Iistoric E!!ennents') •p. Maintenance. r la,;i .;y.•:cs to n;':int:,rri •:e ! I'!, !ographs of some of the Iistoric Elcments are { I he : l ~hiiiit C. bl:ildirg and its IIisui_ic Elements in 1 air;!t it rct) i; and in no evert allow it to decer,'or:,te, bt-. and l:estr ictions on .alteration. Except with dhtc present condition. prit•r rrrittc•11 consent of Granl&e or as othel%ci-,, ex- ! ,is cmlitted heir-.in, Gn-mtor shall lust in airy 5. Standar(lti for Repair and Mainr.:nar!;;e. l tiv :,lk:r, rc.,llodci, rrpl:rue, or d2.ina' 9i x1 8 that 31 Work :I:": ! i;i iurh: Elemei-, of ;lie building, mr -ma (:::(nttir tic. kt:)rnL,, of thc~ )a": -in:j s'--!! i j^f(i(T ::';1111 t:x i I ;rnl my aCL WhiCh w::IUpd a' ! then, ,alt r,_ ttt Stan,:?for thi Ile liac: i C ! !aril mend ne-s of the building. The +pit+: the dc-,(.)rlbed atove shall lnclu(lr, but shall 11Gt 6. Cons_nt Procedure. The crr:ttril c:,a_":t of t 1),- limned to: tir8tllt'r, as required in paragraph allx\'e, be sUb!llittir, ; %l T.~;i:>G:1? '(exited by Gn, nt,w by . Any painting OF the Historic ElOlncrts of r.r, r$u• imilding: lhowevcr, Grantee shall be darnled to derailed t.ritten omposal to the tt,.r, current Presi- II:itr ccnsentr.d to any repainting of the Hi !uric d, fit of (;r:lnl.re. If the Fni sident ;,f GT-mn-t- is no, r 1:1oni:nts using Lhe quality and Color" of p:li,1L at'aii%ible, the proposal .u& be submint,-d tr: an;'F i~ pIv-;,ntly existing if prior writt,n notice Nvas rn,~,nbe'r of the Executive i',c.iard of Graritcc. It I giv4mi t0 Gr9 <n' tee'., and Grantee s, pfo!ici>al Is riot acceptfCd or rejected -x;,L!1:Ul thk-%' j 1 .ali not unr a- - - , ~ - refuse .1.0' Conl ent to ally progo'ieii mint- :t~ su~.,miss:,~a, Grantor n',ay pm,:42 .d w.i;^: ! .I., %v !ch 1$ in,U:cping with the. l •Ilsrcxic c:::frac- %.-C .'W 11tt4,(. !f ri:n!•.• `Cl:.i t-:.:I ::i?'''.1• G~:_ he building. !ier~- th.a: all e[ i:.ryr.ray C:<i t:, an- t,r,;f t the tt':'•tr~ I ; r?p~:3.1 apccinc:uly states t113t all Cr.,.'rgcacy Any sandblasting or other destructive o: t 1c h . t sire ! 1f. r of ItlC. exists, th,. rentply Period Sli._1l be ou-S. It :Imaging cleaning of any ce i11itQ1'I Element-, cnhC"S2;1tJy' thrr..att-.:15 to d.,llhagc : pC/fit:U:: of . -.he The installation of any signs; hata0ver Grantee building any action necessary to pre`:ent such darn :illall not unreasonably refilse to Ci.rll:iellt CO the ilge nmv be tailed withow, first obtaining tvrittcri i ir.`;.Oladon of small Sityrl or other d1'lii,rhed sioils•in consent ;'nonce is :mniedinte.l)' ~I iL:h t0 r::1^te` i i weping with the histo::c: character of th0 -,uilding. that vriirk is being pt=!formed. All Work- p8r+;:! !fir. d. Any const rucd, --n in 'the airsJ:tcr. .:Ix)v-- ;h1 PurauanI to t,-,e nrevi.`.us semen Ce S Fig: be :'i7(15I5 the. historic lil`ar2iti' •",i i l ~ i_:. wit. ' h.nhl:fib, or any Incxca5c in the ,.r.sht .,t , or tent ci ;)th of the building 7. Aimunl inspections. Grartc::, at its cp,io C. `•.n'+ mp:lia, renovation, rehabilitation, recon- shall ha,v the right UP 1 ikc annu of structitm, alteration. exp:m oon or demotition the F,;. ldit:g as a whole, a hd the stn: is l:.:c'.: ,crt., ! which ••t'ould adversely Zect the .app-;Hranc:a or in Par, tied sir, upon ti!:ty a :ys' not.:cc rrj Gran%) +I MON _ZZ r l:ranlor aizroes to s1virter notice. In the event Grantee b. To receive darnagts from Crantor to Cr;llpd`nti:;tY, Gran', reasonably believes, that the terms of this casement may have for file.. de-ecelsed value of this enst::Inert or to con.,P::in.- }!t been violated, or are about.fd be violated. Grantee nlay inspect Grnirlteee for any ineparahie darnage to :hc propci y caus,. the building at any time prlwided 1 hrdt rCaEOnable notice, un-lee by any breach of this easeTnerlt; geld flat circumstances, is given to Gralitor. Any it 3YJCt:Or1 :t:^ l:. : s 'hel. • C:htzi • a 5i)eded h,• l- 1 lly i~t .•p' ..W.. thorized by this paragraph shall be conducted solely for tee Grantor purpose of datannining whether tile, condition of the b gilding 12. ,,axes and Expenses. Gra to pity iii taxes ment, any kind upon the and its Historic lrlenients comply with the tenlis of tli.i ease- and shal! not in any way give Granipe the right to con- 13. Notice, A.rly notice required or :>rn:lilted tc, he given duct public tour, of the building, tlx: terms of this ear: lneclt shall culler 1 and 601%'eri d or S. Destruction. If the property is destroyed by fire or other c, r.iailed to Gnuttoror Grlntct 7t- ht!:, re:;pect:•;c cnsu:uty to the extent of 70% of the, value of the building. and ses as follows': recon;tnlctic)n of the building using a majority of it., salvage=d Grantee: 1{istoric Elernrs:ts is not practicable, then the rights Snanted9 to Granter by this easement shall extinguish, and this easernent snail be of no furthe=r affect, with the exc=eption that Gr..!nrc:a may ;1;'ir•l ;;1 age rights any Historic men; nts lellil h all Grantor: not .^d ':r;4;ratod into t reexhnstruction of the building. 1f the building is not set darnaged, or if the damitb was c=aused by the willful act of Grantor; the Grantor shall proceed to restore and or at such other adclrr.ss designated „r! .ti sty G--- --:,r u: 1ehabilitate the building to a condition which is as close ws rea- Grantee from time to tin=e. Except ai e':cprCS~.ly prof idr.cl t:.;r ionlably possible to its condition prior to Lht• casualty, after ob- to the rontr;.iry any such notice shalt t>v .4e:en.ed efi:.:'ctiv': `V' talilirlg Grantee's nppn)val of the !LS OML:011 and rehabilrtaticul actually rrcrived by the addiesa-c, ar I:V ; ullslCCSS digs 4lans, as provided above. tt Crate of mailing ill Portland, Oregon, :1.121%~C`ri l a'Xsi 9. Condtmriation. In the event drat all or a pji-tion of rile 14. Liability. Grantor abree8 Y, iinicrrllit'V and hold, G,-ante. buildding is taken for public purptibes by en; rcise of tminent harmless for allyliability: d;ilMlLfe,, or c:ai;lls that n::i,.* e domain, or ,)ld under threat or eminent domain, tht--n Grantee of Grantor's mvncr'shlp, operatic.n. u: use : i t=ic buile:. N, shall be entitled to a proportionate shalt of the. prootcds equal SpE:Ctii)n of, t)r fillipr'CtUlh repot -,on, ill,= the ratio bet w.: is the dccrcased valve (if the ea sen:trit and sit Il be c~)d n;lruCd + l.,• r=...,- t` i its u l.etl4:'r':1-da;:r iii v. ~ .L.L?'L r%:,t C Ole decreased value of the building, to be deten-iined at the „ tl' . building is in safe cc+ilditi n, h:! !ca_•:ra, (Jr rl. ;Lrr :inne- of the taking. The parties shall each select an an}t-ai to pur~a;,r• dc- appraise- the drereascd value of the Easement and the 15. Attorney's fees. In •,`715l i+: tt or actor is in.ti: lre_ L? creased value of the building. If the 1,wo appraisers Sig -tli:Crcd r r. r en•!+)'d:e any of the rights o_ j,rovis. nL evpi't•ssed in ttti. are unable to a er, -,they shall selec=t a third appri,i er, tt•i:iiSc r , •'1 111r:!it, ila party not prevailing di'r+:e, id; pay r:]c p'int': il!i?3 dti,-ii:i;n will h find. Crantoc and Gran, .Xe ;hall each br•. ' the expenso of .belt own. appl'31SC1 a11(j, if neCeS al J ,late I UL *_hi p?:'t::'s CGStS anl'1 ti113JIliSt]:11C.I 17 CCliitkfl L;) a[31d piil~ j=i: - 2 :pC115L of the thiril3ppC21SC1: SUch Suits as Ole COUrt illdy adJlld ge 2JJk ti.l i..=_ c ttd7 fees at trial and/or oil appeal of sai._' suit action. 10. Term and Successor Interests. The tct'1 Of -,Ills ease- 16. Consideration. Grantor is tali; t°tit shi!i! tit in erpetui The dwii nicnt shall be birdiflig Up<.:1 s Criallt=?r and FLrly successors to Grantor's lllCtrcJt D the t]:Ortjl't; Griirltte :n consideration u. Grartt&s aCd:c;.[Etnrr, of tha ells- bit-, Grantor' shall h,-,,,e no perscnlal 1-iltili'Ly arising out i.:r wig meat to be held xCt,:art't!y for i'111 «thi3 ,7;7:?)ii.'j..~ conditi,jr, ti) Gr~u]tc^':• acc.ptun{t :)f L..;s c~ :riCi:L :..n.., acts or chants occ=ur ring after any transfer or conveyance if Grantor's interest 111 the building anJ :!iC iarl1 Can which i_ in defraying inst ecdon rill'-, admiahrr -,ll?i2 t:ipC1:5$:4 of Gri?r. st:lnii,, provided that Grantor not in del ;i)lt of the ,)f 'Grantor agrees Co CC)nt, 'te to Gr rv:tea: fine Stag 0' rant:)r gay y S - to be }il leer l in ac-eral fund o: r'Ir:C this ea.ivaeot at the time of the tr :lsfin G C its interest in the building if notice: is given w l+12Cic2 prior iii, Graw.,-e and used for the general purr<tSe of Grantee. In add. or at the Si111'.F -,!tile as, the conveyance. Grantee rnihy convey lt5 titjn, Grantor agr.ea to pity the attorney's :ers Incurred, by GCa'ttc in ACC8pt1I1 this diiti~':t:eat. p:YiV: c that Sitcll .'rterest in the property any tlhie, but any conveyiince of the. Grantee's interest n1USt (i) be to an organizatio=n des ib; a? in shall nut exceed S-_ - Sections ;70(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) of the Irnt-rnal ? l•) 17, Appraisal. On or before ~ ,Grant;.r . Cod1:, (H require that the purpose of this easement ui:]ti:•ur to delivt! to Grantee conlpiete COP;:cs of the •'qualint:i. ti•e c°w:rjeu a o&, and Ii.ii) rl. occivi; the acceptance of and "appraisal summan," pertaining to t..... e«samcnr.: as th1 _ l . granti:e. In . the event. Grantee ceases to exist, thEn. :]-.is E,1..e- tennis are detin<:d b, Intern." iC ':e ❑ Rc -!!;-It ion _ rnenr. x11311 be transfened w an entity described in the p=et':OL SU'°?t t0 CCtiQT~?ll(a~i%Z) l1i tll° :tic :i- 1C'i<111.1e l tC c,%i. sentence as determined by t.: Le presiding judge, of L11e tiVn 175 of the -,LC Cform Alez of r ' 19,54', ls-Mittt ivlL ILnutihli County Circuit Court, re.eritsti/m Or k cl'•'iinty 35 w 'he «d: i k;'-'C"- p:.ui;Jl 11. a' +i^al su mntar" nor dex;5 r amee, rn;!Ixe , nny re .lscn _ cot, In the event that h sr aill.jr vioia;cs or G::~ , t<:t: EnforCesltl ClhlC3tC:riS to Violate duly of [lie terilli Of this e3cnlont, "Jrilnedm OC warranty as CO de l:1COll+.e or J :ircZLj t2X of the dorlitioll of this C_?tit': I:ell eti;"CrI ' r•:i d-i' iw shall have e the folloLatllg rights whic'r1 slha!i be curnniatie: , t a: ,.err,.in. a. 10 obtain it temporary or per-,na ent iniun::ion rk5i:aini g 1ti, Itecurdin Grantor and -r t-, ' F Grantor':171m conimitting a violation, ordering Griit+.tor r(> g t•t<' ii t-, that Vlcano • conpw with the te)-ms of Lee eascnicnr., or ordering Gnintrl- rccurll this eascnlC.7t in .lit rac(irils.:if tila county to restore the building ti) the Colldttlun :e!etLlt.Cd by ir.:5 t}IiiLtti;. 15 lOC;.iirtl. easim.ent: D.-I 'r D this dr' tg Of - dr June Z0; 1995 Options and possible Scenarios that could happen with the Tigard Feed Store with City of Tigard, Chamber, Merchants, and,TAHPA OPTION I Based on YES for the City of Tigard to Purchase Property With Chamber as'Buyer of building from TAHPA. 1 A written agreement from Burlington Northern in Texas for the City to purchase property. TAHPA would provide 3ohnson with a Charitable Donation document and the Chamber would provide a preservation easement agreement to TAHPA 2.TAHPA would be out of the picture except for the arrangements with the Chambef. OPTION II Chamber and City Say NO Documentation from the City that negotiations have ended with the railroad and TAHPA* would be able to step back in with negotiations with the Railroad. 2. TAHPA* would raise funds to move and restore the building. TAHPA* would need agreement for purchase, lease of property that the will building sits upon. 3. TAHPA* would own the building and manage it. OPTION1 IIi City buys property - Chamber iVOY involved _AHPA* wog,-' -a-se funds to :hove and resto:._ TAHPA* would =eed agreement for purchase, lease of property that t. a~__ding sits upon. would own 'the bui=ding and manage, funds OPTIONS :V and on...... TA..?A COU'd giVe tile ~,'ac.t to the Someone else k,:.y prope_ ty and _ c a new buq _ ding al 1 owa^. e CBD use and not have to provide any aar'..ing The Railroad could develop t '.--is site with a freigIat siding and _oading a_ea." I -ire The bottom line reality is that this unique symbol of the agriculture heritage of Tigard will be lost to Citizens of Tigard now and in the future. The City will lose owning a very strategic piece of property in downtown Tigard. i iiavc pcrSGi,.ally" Contacted, V,diliz Oigail 7a~iJi15, I feel that we can fill a need for other non-profit organizations to locate here that would compliment both our organizations. Fund raising, I am personally committed to put my money where my mouth is and start a Trust Account with $ 1,000 of our own personal money in the Name of Save The Tigard Feed Store. I have to believe that other businesses or individuals will come forward to also place their money into this Trust. If the project does not go forward, their money will be refunded. Other fund raising efforts can be done but we need a decision from the Council as soon as possible to make plans. l1 A~ Judy Fessler Chairperson. Save the Tigard Feed Store * This might be dor:e uncle= a separate orgaaizatioa titan TA ?A. 12&,W:211~I~11:1111 1112 111 I~II,1111111; r. June 20, 1995 To: Mayor & Council From Judy Fessler, Chr Save The Tigard Feed Store Below please find a chronological order to the project undertaken by `YzAHPA and this chairperson. January 95, Hal Johnson contacted TARPA to ask whether we would be interested in the Feed Store if TAHPA could find a secure place fn-r- i+ =4 +70+mr }s,v m~ `~i rpa q+ nff .ei nr no o i of i nq wi +-1^ R»rl i nrit nn Northern Railroad. TAHPA did look at other property suitable to move the building but couldn't find any present available inventory on Main St. TAHPA started negotiations with the railroad with the district property manager in Seattle. TAHPA representative informed the Merchants Association what they where in the process of doing. Shortly thereafter, we learned that the City of Tigard might be interested in purchasing the land for us. if the Chamber and Merchants could work out a plan for all involved. It was decided that TAHPA would be the focal point and contact to the public. At that time, TAHPA was informed by the Railroad that we could not negotiate further with them that they were dealing with the City of Tigard directly. TAHPA was then taken out of the negotiating loop with the railroad thus eliminating the possiblity of the rairoad donating the entire parcel to TAHPA. In Order to move this project ahead with the Downtown Merchants and the Chamber of Commerce, and to Save the Feed Store from demolition TAHPA has made the following concessions with the above groups: 1. TAHPA agrees to the moving of the building to gain more access for parking for the Merchants. Because the building will loose all grandfather status, this will entail. a 'Large financial investment of up front money for the move, foundation, foundation permits, new water, power, sewer hookups. and demolition of portions of the building. 2. TAHPA has made the concession to reduce the present size of the building from approximately 5500 sq feet to 2400 Sq feet about 575 less than you see today. 3. By Moving and reducing the building by this amount TAHPA was negated any good possibility to qualify for a National Historic Designation. Thus eliminating any possibility for grants. 4. On June 12, 1995, TAZPA offered the Building to the Chamber for some enumeration and preservation easement for them to own, move, restore the building. 5. Time TAHPA would like to have the council make a decision on the purchase of the property, The Johnsonn's life has been put on hold and TAHPA needs to also know if this is a viable option for TAHPA and the Johnsons. TAHPA needs to approach this project in a very orderly manner so as to not risk the conditions of the existing arrangements ':he Johnson's have with the railroad. I Hone this gives You a general overview on some of the discussions that TAHPF has had with all concerned. I would be happy to answer any esti.ons. Judy ess1 r TAHPA Member Chr'. Save The Tigard Feed Store r 1111111111 ' ~ 1111111111 1111 11 1111+~1~1 so ' 1111111 ° 1111/1/111 x y 1 .1111111111 ~~g t~ ~ . . ilk: • !1111 11 + - ~ ~ -.6 Do • a~ oor o Alb Now w '7 9 • 11,111 iill~ . 1111111111 11 11111 111 1t11,►1i11~111 SS 1 1111tH 111111 111111 1 - 11111 • ~11~ 111 .~r:~~7 rt '•~.?f ~0 , =a.. ,*.'•;l y.. I'~• „rti-""~•+~~ -i: ;l' r ~il ~ yl •i• . • . ~ 111; ~"I' •i''- .1, I~yt'..1 I Y.4~~•~~/t~j~ 1~ )j; •~~r j 1t ~ ~~•l •~+~1 ~ {~,~~r ~~~i''~•~ +.1':~'i•~"~`•`. -p. F- . r t ~a tt 1 1 ~ ~ f ~I~'~ 1 1 ~t~} ~A i ' t L 1 + 1t {j! , . : ~ 1~ ' Z t 'M~ Sii.i~' f t: ~~'t; 1; ` /~j{ Itrl iii~• y.~ i , _ f i i 4r yr','+,..:`,'ti.`+.ti!-Ti~ tr,(• 3'!/ t ` ~ r • y~ ~~t: ' i • i i' I: ~~~5 ~f 4 r •{•.3r~ µ5~~~i - ~.z ~ ~I.i''t,,~~! • til f.,t` - 3. 1 1111 F I W,110 ELI J(16 gnrdiDW G i t t Nay F!S. e _ ~M1 6 1 ~ y i .i a.~ Tv~'~ kt ' r.~.:n- .r .YSM PAR mot. 'Y ( 'r { J btk r g « ~r~r s syy~ Mass= r, ill silill prim. rI : 71 ri d ~5 y'' p f y-\ 7 ~ d + g, J r' t mss ! MOD FEED fawNron~npor~i - - are 9 ~gw~ '~T secy;;y ~ u} ~ ~,Ey s } 00 °d N !ill RA=RAnr,9I1nl IRA . AND ISM nrni n= MA--AOr% TO: S. Carolyn Long, Mike Marr, Judy Fessler, John Cook, Pam Benson, Gary Lass, Chuck Woodard, and Ron and Mary Soberg FRO,1VI: William A. Monahan, City Administrator DATE: June 15, 1995 SUBJECT: City Council Meeting of June 20, 1995 On Tuesday, June 20, 1995, the Tigard City Council will discuss the Tigard Feed Store options. I have advised Council that the Tigard Area Historical and Preservation Association, Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Merchant's Association have met and discussed their interests in utilizing the Burlington Northern property. it would be appropriate for your organization to send a representative to the meeting to advise Council of your interest in the property. If you have any written information which you would like us to cop; and make available to Council, please provide it to me prior to the meeting. Please note it is estimated that the discussion of the Tigard Feed Store options will begin at 7:30 p.m. WAMAh h:\logln\jo\wai 1 An, . AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of _lol poi q.~ CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 92-0004 (Tree Removal) PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK itr CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City revise the Community Development Code by adopting a revised Code Section .18.150 regarding tree removal? The attached ordinance reflects the work of the Tree Task Force. The Task Force will be reporting their recommendations at the June 20,1995 work session with Council. Staff 11as provided packet information as if it were a public hearing agenda item. The attached information is what we would expect to provide the Council if there are no changes In the recommendations of the Task Force. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept the Tree Tusk Force Report. INFORMATION SUMMARY he Planning Division began drafting a new Community Development Code Section 18.150 oncerning tree removal in 1991. Original drafts included relatively minor amendments to the existing code. Because of increased citizen interest, the scope of changes increased. After Planning Commission deliberations, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance in July, 1994 and a later work session in August, 1994. An ordinance was drafted to reflect changes made as a result of those meetings as well as an additional public hearing on October 11 1994 and work sessions on September 27, 1994 and November 15, 1994. On November 15, 1994 the City Council passed a resolution to appoint a Tree Task Force. Membership was composed of a cross-section of community interests including those favoring tree protection regulations and those representing property rights concerns. Working with staff, the Task Force met numerous times to develop a consensus approach of when to protect trees without unduly infringing on property rights. The Task Force worked hard to overcome many polarized issues. A February 28, 1995 memo from the Tree Task Force to the City Council outlined a tree protection program that differed in approach from previous draft ordinances. The program centered) on identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve to be weighted more than property rights and vice-versa. The February 28 memo is attached. Tree removal permits L✓ould be required only on sensitive lands. A tree plan would be required for the development process. The Task Force was directed to complete their work on the draft ordinance. This culminated on April 26, 1995 with the Task Force completing their review of the draft ordinance. The attached ordinance is the result of the Task Force's review. s,. Besides the tree removal permit for sensitive lands and the tree plan for development, the draft rdsinance dated April 27, 1995 also includes a prohibition against commercial forestry (ten or more trees per acre, per calendar year for sale). Commercial forestry does not include Christmas tree production or land registered as tax deferred tree farms, or small woodlands which are permitted. The new draft also Includes a range of mitigation based on the amount of trees removed; approval standards for tree removal on sensitive lands that incorporate the Unified Sewerage Agency erosion control standards applicable to all development; and the incentive and penalty provisions that the Council requested in their previous review. The proposed ordinance will substantially reduce the number of tree removal permits from previous ordinance drafts. The tree protection plans will be incorporated into project plan review without the need for a permit. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Revise the attached ordinance. 2. Leave the existing code as is and move to reject the ordinance. FISCAL NOTES f The average estimated cost of processing a tree removal permit was $180 with previous drafts. Since the proposed the ordinance proposed by the Task Force does not require notification of amodiacent property owners and is administrative in nature, the average estimated processing cost - f a tree removal permit under the April 27, 1995 draft is expected to be $72. Based on the 1984 Council resolution establishing planning fees at 80 percent of cost, the proposed fee should be $58 plus $1 for each additional tree over 5 removed. 71 P'PSR R/"aT1 q A7'P^a4TAR , '.x , rvts,lvtv~ct~t~vlvt . r .a OF GA CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON %A 1 T PXW OREGON TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Tree Task Force DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT: _ Tree Protection Program Rased on our discussions, the Tree Task Force has developed a tree protection proggggram that differs in approach from the original proposed ordinance. We have developed our approach by identifying when tree protection is important to the community and when these goals deserve more weight than private property interests and vice-versa. 1) ON SENSITIVE LANDS (which would include steep slopes, lands within a stream corridor or lands within the buffer and area of a wetlands) the City will require a tree permit. The applicant must prove that removal of the tree or removal and mitigation will not decrease the level of erosion control or water quality protection the tree provided. The City will produce a map showing which areas are affected. 2) The City will conduct a SIGNIFICANT TREE study including review of other comma nities' work, definition, identification and inventory. This information will be used differently during the development process than it will be when development is not occurring. In the later category, the City will not prevent the removal of the tree but will offer incentives such as maintenance services and recognition. During development, the City may not allow removal of a significant tree, but will provide incentives such as those proposed in the existing draft tree ordinance. This study will also include an evaluation of when and where the City should apply commercial forestry practices. t 3) DURING DEVELOPMENT, the City should require a tree plan which will include an arborist analysis of existing trees, strategies for saving existing trees or mitigating tree removal for a goal of no net tree loss. Significant trees and trees in sensitive lands would be protected. The City will offer incentives Ankh such as the lessening of other development restrictions, as appropriate. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD '(503) 584-2772 4) .DL&B CORRIDORS, FORESTS, NATURAL LANDDS wiii be protected through the goal v comprehensive plan process and through the city land acquisluon program (which has begun v*ath attempts to purchase the red cedar forest in the Metzger area). 5) Tigard should explore obtaining a Tree Qft LISA designation. This program requires adoption of ordinance provisions that: ® cover the planting, maintenance of trees on city property • development of an urban forestry plan which would include a street tree inventory, educational projects, planting programs and beautification ® establishment of a tree commission, and ® development of arboricultural specifications, all in concert with a city arbcrist. h:\rogin\patty\trwa i i f re s April 27, 1995 CITY OF TIGARD EX:q IB'1M 117%11 M^ ORDINANCE NO. v CHAPTER 18.150 TREE REMOVAL Sections: 18.150.010 Purpose 18.150.020 Definitions 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement 18.150.030 Permit Requirement 18.150.040 General Permit Criteria - Discretionary - Mitigation 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements 18.150.070 Illegal Tree Removal - Violation - Replacement of Trees 18.150.010 Purpose. A.. After years of both natural growth and planting by residents, the City now benefits from a large number of trees. These _ trees of varied types add to the aesthetic beauty of the community, help clean the air., help control erosion, maintain water quality and provide noise barriers. B. The purposes of this chapter are to: 1. Encourage the preservation, planting and replacement of trees in the City; 2. Regulate the removal of trees on sensitive lands in the City to eliminate unnecessary removal of trees; 3. Provide for a tree plan for developing properties;. 4. Protect sensitive lands from erosion; 6. Protect water quality; and 7. Provide incentives for tree retention and protection; 8. Regulate commercial forestry to control the removal of trees in an urban environment. C. The city recognizes that, notwithstanding these purposes, at the time of development it may be necessary to remove certain EXHIBIT "A11 TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 1 i A, I, 111'1 1 1,111 11111104~ii!1121;11, ii; I WE trees in order to accommodate structures, streets, utilities, and other needed or required improvements within the development. (Ord. 89-06; Ord. 83-52) L-- init3ons. A. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, as used in this chapter:, 1. "Canopy cover" shall mean the area above ground which is covered by the trunk and branches of the tree. 2. "Commercial forestry" shall mean the removal of ten or more trees per acre per calendar year for sale. 3. "Hazardous tree" shall mean a tree which by reason of disease, infestation, age, or other condition presents a known and immediate hazard to persons or to public or private property. 4. "Pruning" shall mean the cutting or trimming of a tree in a manner which is consistent with recognized tree maintenance practices. 5. "Removal" shall mean the cutting or removing of 50 percent (50%) or more of a crown, trunk or root system of a tree, or any action which results in the loss of aesthetic or physiological viability or causes the tree to fall or be in immediate danger of falling. "Removal" shall not include pruning. C 6. "Tree" shall mean a standing woody plant, or group of such, having a trunk which is six inches or more in caliper size when measured four feet from ground level. 7. "Sensitive lands" shall mean those lands described at Chapter 18.84 of the Code. B. Except where the context clearly indicates otherwise, words in the present tense shall include the future and words in the singular shall include the plural. 18.150.025 Tree Plan Requirement A. A tree plan for the planting, removal and protection of trees prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, major partition, site development review, planned development or conditional use is filed. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. B. The tree plan shall include the following: EXHIBIT "A"" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 2 I'M 1. Identification of the location, size and species of all existing trees including trees designated as significant by the city; 2. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.150.070.D. according to the following standards: a. Retainage of less than 25 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees. b. Retainage of from 25 to 50 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two- thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070.D. Retainage of from 50 to 75 percent of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50 percent of the trees to bo removed be mitigated according to Section 18.150.070D. d. Retainage of 75 percent or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation. 3. Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; 4. A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. C. Trees removed within the period of one year prior to a development application listed above will inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.150.070 D. 18.150.030 Permit Requirement. A. Tree removal permits shall be required only for the removal of any tree which is located on or in a sensitive land area as defined by Chapter 18.84. B. A tree removal permit shall not be required for the removal of a tree which: 1. Obstructs visual clearance as defined in Chapter 18.102 of the Ccde; EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 3 ZINC! I 2. Is a hazardous tree; 3. Is a nuisance affecting public safety as defined in Chapter 7.40 of the Code; _ 4. Is used for Christmas tree production, or land registered with the Washington County Assessor's office as property tax deferred tree farm or small woodlands, but does not stand on sensitive lands; C. Commercial Forestry as defined by 18.150.020.A.2. and excluding B.4 above is not permitted. 18.150.040 Permit Criteria. A. The following approval standards shall used by the Director or designee for the issuance of a tree removal permit on sensitive lands: 1. Removal of the tree must not have a measurable negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, or water quality as evidenced by an erosion control plan which precludes: a. Deposits of mud, dirt, sediment or similar material exceeding 1/2 cubic foot in volume on public or private streets, adjacent property, or into the storm and surface water system, either by direct deposit, dropping, discharge or as a result of the action of erosion. b. Evidence of concentrated flows of water over bare soils; turbid or sediment laden flows; or evidence of on site erosion such as rivulets on bare soil slopes where the flow of water is not filtered or captured on site using the techniques of Chapter 5 of the Washington County Unified Sewerage Agency Environmental Protection and Erosion Control rules. B. Within stream or wetland corridors, as defined as 50 feet from the boundary of the stream or wetland, tree removal must maintain no less than a 75 percent canopy cover. 18.150.045 Incentives for Tree Retention. A. In order to assist in the preservation and retention of existing trees, the Director may apply one or more of the following incentives as part of development review approval and the provisions of a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025: 1. Density Bonus. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper EXHIBIT 11A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 4 iM I t that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1%) bonus may be applied to density computations of Chapter 18.92. No more than a twenty percent (20%) bonus may be granted for any one development. The percentage density bonus shall be applied to the number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone. 2. Lot Size Averaging. in order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. 3. Lot Width and Depth. In order to retain existing trees over twelve inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.160, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to twenty percent (20%) of that required by the underlying zone. 4. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Parking. For each two percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing frees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses listed in Section 18.106.030, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, a one percent (1%) reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. 5. Commercial/Industrial/Civic Use Landscaping. For each two, percent (2%) of canopy cover provided by existing trees over twelve inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a one percent (1%) reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than twenty percent (20%) of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. 6. Setback Adjustment. The Director may grant a modification from applicable setback requirements of this Code for the purpose of preserving a tree or trees on the site of proposed development. Such modification may reduce the required setback by up to 50%, but shall not be more than is necessary for the preservation of trees on the site. The setback modification described in this section shall supersede any special setback requirements or exceptions set out elsewhere in this Code, including EXHIBIT "All TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 5 n sw but not limited to Chapters 18.96, 18.146, and 18.148, except Section 18.96.020. B. Anv tree nre erved or retained in accordance with this section may thereafter be removed only for the reasons set out in a tree plan according to Section 18.150.025, and shall not be subject to removal under any other section of this Chapter. The property owner shall record a deed restriction that such tree may be removed only if the tree dies or is hazardous according to a certified arborist to this effect as a condition of approval of any development permit impacted by this section. The deed restriction may be removed or will considered invalid if a tree preserved in accordance with this section should either die or be removed as a hazardous tree. The form of this deed restriction shall be subject to approval by the Director. C. A modification to development requiirements granted under this section shall not conflict with any other restriction on the use of the property, including but not limited to easements and conditions of development approval. D. The City Engineer may adjust design specifications of public improvements to accommodate tree retention where possible and where it would not interfere with safety or increase maintenance costs. 18.150.050 Expiration of Approval - Extension of Time. A. A tree removal permit shall be effective for one and one-half years from the date of approval. B. Upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration of the existing permit, a tree removal permit shall be extended for a period of up to one year if the Director finds that the applicant is in compliance with all prior conditions of permit approval and that no material facts stated in the original application have changed. 18.150.060 Application Submission Requirements. A. Application for a tree removal permit shall be on a form provided by the Director. Completed applications shall consist of this form, two copies of the supplemental data and narrative set out in Subsection B or this section, and the - required fee., Applications shall not be accepted unless they are complete as defined herein. e '9 B. The supplemental data and narrative shall include: 1. The specific location of the property by address, assessor's map number, and tax lot; EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 6 11,1011111 111~111, iiaMEMMMI 2. The number, size, type and location of the tree(s) to be cut; 3. The time and method of cutting or removing the tree(s); 4. Information concerning any proposed landscaping or planting of new trees; and 5. A narrative as to how the applicable criteria of this chapter, for example,' Section 18.150.040.A, are satisfied. C. In accordance with Section 18.32.080, the Director may waive any of the requirements in Subsection B above or request additional information. 18.150.070 Illegal 'T'ree Removal-Violation-ReRlacement of Trees. A. The following constitute a violation of this chapter: 1. Removal of a tree: a. without a valid tree removal permit; or b. in noncompliance with any condition of approval of a tree removal permit; or c. in noncompliance with any condition of any City permit or development approval; or d. in noncompliance with any other section of the Code. 2. Breach of a condition of any city permit or development approval, which results in damage to a tree or its root system. B. If the Director has reason to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, then he or she may do any or all of the following: 7 1. Require the owner of the land on which the tree was located to submit sufficient documentation, which may include a written statement from a qualified arborist or forester, showing that removal of the tree was permitted by this chapter. 2. Pursuant to Section 18.32.390, initiate a hearing on revocation of the tree removal permit and/or any other permit orapproval for which this chapter was an approval standard. ,k 3. Issue astop order pursuant to Section 18.24.070 of the Code. 4EXHIBIT °A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 7 a 4. Issue a citation pursuant to Chapter 1.16 of the Code. 5. Take any other action allowed by law. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, ahy pasty found to be in violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 1.16 of the Code shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 and shall be required to remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Replacement of unlawfully removed or damaged trees in accordance with Subsection D of this section; and 2. Payment of an additional civil penalty representing the estimated value of any unlawfully removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal. D. Replacement of a tree shall take place according to the following guidelines: 1. A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. 2. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damaged is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. 3. If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement gees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the City, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. 4. The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. E. In lieu of tree replacement under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the co..sent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement.. F. The remedies set,out in this section shall not be exclusive. EXHIBIT °A" TO ORDINANCE No. 94- Page 8 V lam 1Y) a ~ "a p Juan rnatt k_,I mmm FACILITIES (DEVELOPMENT - SHORT TIIOUGHT3 The first question to ask: What is the status of our local producing organizations and/or visual Mnr`PCC to :1atPquaP, artistsf•.iviuu~.. ~,a1ta „ who L. a1l-'_sited .7 only .r'& y t ah:eia Active companies and ind.G facility - both to serve their artistry and to attract audiences - is the best reason to consider investing in new arts spaces with such area businesses as Music in the Park, City of Tigard, Broadway Rose,Theatre Company, Arts Commission of Tigard, Tigard Chamber of Commerce, Washington` County . Visitors Association, Regional Arts Culture Council and the Community Development Committee, to name a few. . These are the steps we are taking to build new arts spaces in Washington County: 1. Convene a general interest meeting, facilitated by a neutral and respected individual; all ideas were acceptable. Consensus that some sort of a facility is needed. Preliminary conversation with City "Produce evidence of interest". 2• Establish an Action Force with a six-month timeline to explore feasibility, possible configurations, costs and operational schemes. Petitions "I am interested in seeing Tigard havegetter performing arts facilities" circulate, obtain 2,000+ signatures to form first mailing list. Three` sub-committees to be formed: Design, Operations, Fundraising. Each to do research and hold forums with both artists and audience members. 3. Present petitions to City with request for $5,000 to prepare a complete report of feasibility, needs and resources. A part time coordinator hired. 4. Each sub-committee meets monthly. Agendas sent to all interested persons; summaries sent within 24 hours of meetings, each sub-committee color coded foe easy identification. These communication tools to build ownership and interest. Continue building contact list. 5. At the end of six months, each sub-committee to present preliminary reports at a large information meeting. During this planning time, awareness and some fundraising activities to be on-going. Make report to City. If city likes what they hear, they will purchase four acres as a possible site at Cooks Park, with the understanding that committees involved will IN-am match the market nrice'of four acres of land in Federal and State Grants, in kind contributions, and donations; i.e., tourism dollars, etc., for the development of an arts facility on this land. 6. Refine plans with the assistance of theatre consultant who assigns probable space needs to suit the program and uses agreed upon by the various companies. Lists of "must haves", "would like to have", and "probably can't have" developed. Compromises agreed upon between theatre, dance and music artists. Negotiation process signals the kind of operational policies that will work. 7. Publicity, interest, funds, surveys, widening circle of donors or interested persons are initiatives that continue while gearing up for major fundraising campaign, if City accepts the proposal. 8. Determination to consult fundraising professional or to "do it ourselves" with all art groups committing to the process. Fundraising committee sub-divided into: Grants; Major Donor, Community Gifts and Events campaigns. 9. Philosophy that the Center will focus on excellence, education and generative work with highest access to local artists. This influences the selection of the architect and the final design of both building and policies. Now GOVERNOR Ittt 01, 7 ARBARA 110LUIENTs- NETS RELEASE Contact: Gwenn Baldwin, 378-3121 July 24, 1992 Joan Rutledge EDF), 373-736 0 IEGON TOURISM ALLIANCE GETS $1.8 MILLION IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOTTERY FUNDS (Portland)... Governor Roberts announced approval today of $1,849,390 in economic development lottery funding for the Oregon Tourism Alliance (OTA).region made up of Clackamas, Clatsop, Hood River, Multnomah, Tiiiamook, rd Washington countie~r The funding includes $1,649,390 in Regional Strategies Funds-and-$200;006 in Strategic Reserve Funds. The OTA award will provide funding for 14 projects included in OTA's regional interstate tourism strategy. Local, federal, state and private sources will provide an additional $8,798,817 in funds, bringing the total strategy funding to $10,648,207. The Employment Division estimates that 28 direct and 351 indirect jobs will be created as a result of this strategy. "This tourism strategy makes the most of the region's scenic and historic attractions, and will draw tourists year-round," Governor Roberts said. "This strategy not only ensures the continued development of the interstate tourism industry in northwest Oregon, it also addresses the infrastructure, such as workforce development and affordable housing, needed to support this industry. OTA has done an excellent job of building partnerships in the industry, using the Oregon Convention Center as a magnet for attracting visitors to the region. The State's investments in the region have more than paid off," Roberts said. The third round of Regional Strategies funding for the OTA region builds on efforts initiated in the first and second rounds. Two counties that had been a part of the Oregon Tourism Alliance in Rounds 1 and 2, Lincoln and Columbia, decided to pursue other industry focuses in Round 3. ( more ) MEN Oregon Tourism Alliance Regional Strategy Page 1 Oregon Economic Development Department Regional Strategies Section Summary of Strategy Projects as Approved Regional Strategies Funds To Be Project Approved Invested Committed Pending Raised Total aaaaoaaaacaaas3aaaaacacca.cc. 3aacccawaaasaaaaaaaaacasaaocasaaoaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaoasaaaaacaasaaaacc=camaassasarcaaaca3asaa~aa 1. Oregon Trail Reception $ 170,000 76,034 179,461 126,250 31,120 582,865 2. Scenic Train 153,200 2,673,765 83,020 2,909,985 3. Multnomah Falls Exhibits 101,730 148,962 250,692 4. Seafood Center 500,000 209,625 1,995,000 510,000 3,214,621) 5. Hospitality Training 35,960 36,960 73,920 6. Regional Marketing 80,410 166,230 35,000 281,6413 7. Columbia Gorge Historic Hwy. Interpretive Panels 46,000 1,500 11,875 36,000 5,000 100,375 8. Latimer Quilt & Textile ' 55,150 76,508 9,850 141,503 9. Small Community Tourism Development 8,000 8,000 16,000 10. Astoria Affordable Housing 152,000 1,383,894 1,535,894 11. Indian Hills Apts. 100,000 66,272 440,491 606,763 12. Parkdale Museum 33,000 110,000 8,000 182,000 333,000 13. Columbia Gorge Event 191,000 243,000 95,000 50,000 579,006 Site 14. Strategy Implementation Assistance 21,940 21,940 macaaacaaamaamacscaaacaaaaaoaaacacacaacaamassasanaasa:saaaamcacaacaaaaca®aaaaaaamaaa:icaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaacmaaacaasaaaaaa TOTAL APPROVED $ 1,649,390 397,159 5,569,073 2,308,595 723,990 10,648,207 -----------------'-----------------------cc.cc.aa:=o.aac_c....aaa===ac..aoaa=cc.oo3cc=c.caccacaccaaccaoaacs~;ccc=sao:caaaca Guideline Funding Level: $ 693,491 Leverage Ratio: 5:46: 1 11 IINJI!J'Ii~;111111 !!I !111~1 III, 1 011 1 111 MIN Oregon Tourism Alliance Regional Strategy - Page 3 (A list of approved projects and funding levels is attached.) 71 Gin .a M5,1325 illihn in lntterv funds have been targeted for economic ~7Y development projects statewide. -The Regional Strategies Program was establisi,ad iii 1987 and from 1987-91 funded projects totalling $44 million. This lottery money has leveraged $268 million in additional funds and has created 4,264 direct jobs to date. Regional Strategies funding for the 1991-93 biennium totals nearly $12 million. Initial funding requests were $46 million for 227 projects across Oregon. Funding requests represent six key industry sectors identified in the Oregon Benchmarks; agriculture, interstate tourism, environmental services, forest products, high technology, and fisheries. Eighty-three of the proposed regional Strategies projects will be funded. These projects are expected to create 2,063 additional jobs and leverage $64 million in other funds. _3g_ a7 : pMj=ds , ' A i . Ado TIla w1ltners lnelild® an ~'uu ilia announcement was made ii{ Wslnorlll aulafood Center and a florid . a news release issued Friday. 'I'bis is the third time money has 1@ier County safUanerdln® T!!e b=w awarded Under ilie. prograT 4 r., ; : . • , i which began in 1987.,- : • ' i. The flue xicrthweA Gregor. countie By PAT FORGER ' of Clatsop, Clackamas, Multnomah' rgs~cndant®oreyonren` '1' ,Tillamook gtad Washington picked tout t~ov:: Barbara: Roberts has, awaided risna as a priority said fornied'the Ord z. $iff million: in lottery profits to a: van- gon Tourism' Alliance to :lure :lottery efy of tourism=related projects, lnclud- : money tourlsaz;projects: ' ..,r ing a seafood 'con'sumer center in-Asto• : The largest' project is Astoria's Sea- rla and.Oregoan Trail developments' fn food Center, which received its flan re; Clackamas County., quest of $500,000. It was ono of the feva : The aaoney was awarded through the projects to receive full funding in the highly competitive process. The center state ' E6onomIc Development, Depart- meat's: Regional ; Strategies Program. Pleas turn t% said Lise Glancy, manager of the pro- TOURISM, gage so 1"risms. Clacka'mas...0' 6cts. receive fraction d requested nd ' ®Contlnued from Page B1. :the original $495,000 request,., would incorporate the existing Ore- , liclude& in.•the ,package is' a Bar=; I gon• State;.University Seafoods LAW- low: Road Marker Plaza -in Govern-. ratory, and' would provide demon ment;Camp a .scenic ,viewpoint in strations on .home ; preparatioi►,, of Sandy, and a,. historic. farm .and in-. seafoiA A piivately developed:iiotel' .:'terpretive panels aiorig the trail. and restaurantwould be part of.the A .train designed, to bring passen complex.:'. a.•gers on a; sceanig.routeto the coast l The seafood center, is a'pet project f cord , a. iii,v terminal.* in • Banks, is in. Astoria said Clatsop County, rural . Was]fiigfQti# C,aunty, . 'along where . business and. government Port of-tillasnook?Bay; rail tracks, " leaden hope it will reinvigorate the . will get $15$,b6o.'. That, request had s city's declining downtown: The Ore- ; been, cut back: fiYam,the $700,000. re gon . Tourikh*, Alliance, . howeyeri. questedi by Tillamook :County,' but ranked it lad-i6iong.the hve_naajor a: then-'--Roberts:. kickede,In ;another i projects, one iii each member coun- $200,000. from her Strategic Reserve ty, that it endorsed.., : • • - Fund; to. bring: the port's grant to: The; regional ;strategies funding > $353,000:. , pancess , has been going on for n&--Multnomah-untyproject' months, now,. as ..the - funding 're• ::was funded - a• collection of iriter-_ quests: worked; their; way through pretive,exhibits at Multnomah' Falls', ' { multiple.layers_of bureaucracy.. But '~vhicit: ived. its .full request. of. Robertshad.the:lastsay;'and ,chose:? -4101.000'•?c;f': the seafood center as a top priority.:',.,., -A -second nWbi Clatsop County Local leaders and the fishing,indus; proj~: Weis:Ao•funded - $152,000 try lobbied hard for the center, say- for the renovation of the State Hotel, fng that it could do for seafood what aowlatovd:n~into; affordable Housing the Wheat Marketing Center in Portfor•,tourism industry workers,. Total. r j is C IS, million.:. S land doting to promote wheat : ; Hood River ;Coutity',.will. get l,:UtliesMaa~fis%go to"tthg'OFegai : $191,000 toward'a $579,000 project to' : TouAlliance foi:iegional tou- improve the Columbia River water risen marketing, $80,000; hospitality: front for national and international training for tourism workers around sailboarding .events. Hood River the state,: Columbia Gorge n : County only recently selected tou- Historic. Highway - interpretive pan- rism as its, economic development eU; : 46,000; Tillamook's Latimer priority but'W.W be part of the Ore- Quilt and; Textile Center; $55,000; as- •gon Tourism Alliance in the firture. sistan&:to: small' communities for The governor approved $170,000 to tourism%.developpaent, $8,000', tou- spend on Oregon Trail projects in risiii industry } eiuployee . housing at Clackamas County. The Oregon Hoods: River's -Indian Hills Apart- Tourism: Alliance ranked the pro- menu; $100,000: Parkdale Museum's jects first -.in,. importance, but the. collection. of: American Indian ard- governor approved only a fraction of facts`$33,000:.: ' f • , . 7HP7 are Metros pHere s a look at Washington County growth and )ob pro)ections. The ectlons for mpopulation figuros refer to rgsldents living Inside the urban growth' communities, compared to.1999 boundary; the job figures refer to people employed Inside the boundary, census figures: • , ~ • . Clty/county,:' 1992 + 2040 ` Area 1992 Pop. 2040 Pop. • : %Chang Beaverton . 58,785 s6?77,981 Washington. County ; 281,937 619,015 11fti l .Forest Grove;.. :;14,0110pl-r?0,903 Beaverton 58,785 77,981 32V1 I . , Gresham'' 72,210 19,852.: Cornelius 6,425 10,575 65%u, e' °l Qurham' ;t: 800 ' 1,400 n` Hliisbsoroa:" 40,4274,485` r75;6 : t ,,ke 0swog Jo.- 31,545Sr 543 Forest Grove 14,010 20,903 " 49?6 Milwaukle 19,450;;'23,476' Hillsboro 40,425 •74,485 } `1800 Oregon City 16,760c:'•27825. King City 2,065 1,466.' -41%r, Portland;.:::°::459.300'+;591;239: Sherwood , 3,635. 1T606 { ' 380% ;Tiger Tigard 31350 49 450 5796) Tualatin 116,30027,952' Tualatin 16,300 27,952 + 7196 s ; West Linn 17.1 Bi 21,484 Wilsonville 8,755 24,189 17696 ; Wilsonville.> 8,755 ?':24,189<. Area 1992 Jobs' 2040 Jobs /a ® Change; Clackamas 18314931~.362,31 Washington County 168,C19 302,378 < ' 7996b Multnomah 581,891' 791,732 Beaverton 45 934 57 004 2496Y Washington . 281,9371 ~~015r Urban total Cornelius 12,543 5,031 " 98°,80 1,047,3231,f7,3,05t11 Durham ! 754 952 2696' ' Forest Grove . 5,730 10,601 85961.1 :Clark County, Wa. 238,053.4 510,489; .Hillsboro 24,947 61,592 14696v, Note: County totals:do not Include•`.< . King City 1,244 1,406 13% Sherwood 2,587 81336 2229611 :population for areas Inside Urb Reserves and Urban Growth: ,'p Tigard 29,286". A 40,737, 3996,1' Boundary. a,_ Tualatin 13:018:'-. 24,614 8996,1 Source: Metro: Tlx orevmu;,.,;`, Y Wilsonville. 12,465 24,664 98% Source: Metro neareoats„ . 1101 l Item for June 20, F 13'95 Council Meeting MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Administrator DATE: June 16, 1995 SUBJECT:. Unfinished Business Two issues reiated to the June 13, 1995 Council meeting require Council direction. Please consider your position on the following issues so that we may discuss them at the June 20 meeting. e 1. Music in the Park - Council authorized inclusion of $5,000 in the 1995-96 budget for Music in the Park. It is not clear to staff if Council has delegated to staff the decision of which stage option should be selected. If Council has a preference, we will present it to the committee. 2. COLA for Management staff - The 1995-96 budget includes funding to allow for up to a 3% Cost of Living Adjustment for non-represented personnel. Although the funds were allocated, Council needs to give direction on the cost of living percentage to be given and the effective date. OPEU's President has been advised that Council has not approved a COLA for represented staff. Discussions with OPEU regarding a COLA will take place through collective bargaining. Staff would appreciate direction on these two matters so that implementation steps may proceed. WAMAh 1 h:\1ogin\1o\wam06152 i • 7"~are~ ~rur~ ~ Colaol~iS I pie. lab. vr - .e..: 43 44 n IZ544 bF '37 SF 1 ~t 13it._ 3r _ ypp N: ma OW-9 at _ ~o 41 7! 1p - ~2 SF tsc asp n E&vr ` e I -pr 1S y I rrw o v ou y{i6i1 Qil IOQ O" IfL rsnw's x raewwr lw,rt _ _ - - ~ s4 ~ ana ooe aw • = 7SJY (TSLdYJ rK r mole w 84W Or MOW= net 7OL-MAM Al / M1.C ®OO 'fOUN TAlNS AI T SUYN£RFIELD CONO MINION' I - -o