City Council Packet - 03/19/1996 _ c,.r `c.`~c~°t -,-Y~`~.-,i`-., i's~.,-`x~-~ ~,4... i~~ l.?+r!.c;~.~# ~~.+p>'~•1-r err A`TY*'!rn-r.
t~ -
i
_
7 -77
E f -
t \ y
t ~ ,4` ~ sc J
_ - f 3
-7 7;
K Y~ ~ y A `4y' R H - ~ .N.J. f- _ 11111 J .~Ae.
1y
77-
F- 77
€ i F
F Y ~ 2 J 1- - f
t - ! 1
4
L
1
y
r:
75
~ r
~'~9';• ~1` t'ewK' -...~....e ,..+w..e =~&+;»:Y+Luan.." .y..._,........- r_... .,x_.. ~ t- `.S„d-~ r
L t i
Lam! ^
CITY OF TIGARD
y~!~2, Sli~+. $Vl';y ~:[s<'s ' ""s F i k4a r -f ` y
i s
t PLIL C NOTICE: A-:ve-e wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the
rc appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor
at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes s~{u $
u~ or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or +
too
f
the C:«- Ad».:..h«r t-
~c
Times noted are estimated: it Is recommended that persons interested in testifying be N' r ` r
present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can f
L t]
be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be b,
1 scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting.
Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices`
for the Deaf). k "
a ZY~`'S pad t F T
MWAA
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: f `
e Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; i. w r ~3 > +
and
.7 • Qualified bilingual interpreters. fY E
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important tom; # k~
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- 4 2 " p
4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). r
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA L[ -
r 2r
r
r
7777
K,2, m.~
3
,e TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 19, 1996 - 6:30 PM s ; 4
AGENDA
6i3o PM
LL h..s i" w g 1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR NICOLI4N
R 1.1 Roll Call SEE
i a amx h 1.2 Pledge of Alleg!zn`2
s , 1.3 Council Communications/Liaison Reports Y..
ri 1.4 Cali to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items sty; 3
i-'~~'~~:~<c`~~'-:;~"=5. r'• . '.t~~~ 6:I5 PM
2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CIT) COMMUNICATIONS
gE ® CIT Members 1
s$ stems
s. :+x ,^o-• zS'~. a;ss:~. _ 6:45 PM ?''~"v3, ' ' =L 1,45 ffl t
r ~ 3. STATUS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSION
z~ a Community Development Directors
r~~ X'W
r ,~~a 6:55 PM $R~ aar ~'-:i
4. UPDATE: COMPUTER SYSTEMS
o Computer Services Director
a x '
S. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION r~
a Discussion Topics:
II-A2ta, Metro 2040
r s Roles: Planning Commission/Citizen Involvement Teams` ,
tin F i e Recommendations from the Planning Commission
E
s Communications WMl-
i Clarification of Council Expectations w f
- Council Feedback if Disagree with Planning Commission
Recommendation. z _
y e" - s 2- 9:00 PM ✓ .rig~+ +
f, 6. DISCUSSION: CITY FACILITIES SPACE
5
"3 • Assistant to the City Administrator
Ls i ~y - y r '3 z a~+Wl F "
5s c p d io:ooPM F R
gar 7. DISCUSSION: VISIONING (Discussion continued from the 2/26/96 Council r {
apt Ek T -
meeting.) F ,
' 4 _ • Assistant to the City Administrator and Senior Management Analyst/Risky° N4N't~
_N_ g'sVgM
10:10 PM
r F"'4b 1, - .
y S. NON-AGENDA
s.+~t
Irv}i {~~;CSfi.~_
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 19, 1996 - PAGE 2 - 2
1 W.0%
+ {~,t`~- ~ y t, - ✓ t±,q fey v`+ ` ~ tw
"r v`?-s`•-}, .x- a --.'-.^~z ...z c. n"s~,.i:*'.>n -n".:,s 'c - au"-sue -'Fr'z ..Ja ititiE~~t 3r" z ,fie ~a4_b.~'d *.24F, -
.27S
;y. va
t,.,t`''-,r=`
WE ;WdUA
-ry~~k-w,;t'y; t o t'A~ etas r c i
+ -r7"t',-tza~+ € °z Y'" r 7ti7 7¢ r _ F - .r rt - , t -,,.5 ti .7$ J
7i Tj~
aka pc s ter- Rwr~# }
_r~~~sd~~t" x~x`" hr i t i _ i ; ~ j i s - k ~ x,,~- Rm ~5~.itG 4
,y .{s s .cr 1
7%x t- k
$iTZ,. F4 4.,y' S 4= } 4 --F - 1 - {L x' fc#.- 'r3.+.? - 4 f'g
..°=~~„`~`E'h '~L^3 'x
~b~~
r
y F ,v 'D~ r`V F4 `a'-Y f $ Y - ; t 4"`..• 1• k-`«1 ,eh....3 ;3 r''.~ a'.4`
r~• ~~i ~ :.S - `3,. ^~"aa'-'>.,.•.....~.._. _ 7.,. n ,t.'h ..-s~,~,"-,,~-s~~v,n - N ~ ~F, r
-le
? :r w:soPM z a s~=
WE4 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Ti and City Council may '
S y go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660 1)
( (d), (e), (f), et (h) to discuss labor relations,
n real property transaccloas, exempt public records, current et pending litigation
Issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential;
therefore noming to;-. this meeting may be disclosed by those present. a WE-~ifl
MEOW, r
v
P,
° Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not
1.
14
.
disclose any Information discussed during this session. ,as
z
- 10:30 PM a a
r~ ,ham., M
10. ADJOURNMENT y e~
-0319.96
jr u
4. t_ t
FYr' ggY 5 4 4~ .•t -n•
}y,~t~-§ at 3~ ~ s
i i
~r
r ~
'Y 14
COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 19, 1996 - PAGE 3 z a a>
a•"'~.
"Pogg
.'t:a ..2.,W-.C.y rir_ f 3 ,dzx~.,.raz--; --..°,.~y,-~,'?'°'~SN;" ~x y~F,«>:°~"= d..~.a~ ...«~,^~°_•'+{w.e :..t? -.3'.''~i -
Mir-
3 - t ~F - Ur Y..
r x-, - *+,z xr
'pyY»;a
.A,r_r,-:.K,,~+I;ygl a i -y _ ~l F Pr
w~ ESQ •a~s. r f { - - r ~ a g,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~F ,
a~ 'H' '"m~~~-," '~sAy~,~,.s ~ •S .s ~ _ - r ~ - t 2 •,~r p "~~~.v~ ~ ~r i f t l r
: v r
F fir" q _a i - x31,
1! Z
c
% r
%
§ t
}~afg,
vim. ~
Agenda Item No. 3 I
n
' Meeting of u~a3~9fa
G
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETIN
X., ffi e MARCH 19, 1996 - 6:30 PM
€ 1. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR NICOLI { r v
`ds*
' G 1.1 Roll Call
Council President Hunt called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. E4i, s ;
- es Council Present: Council President Paul Hunt, Councilors Bob Rohlf, Brian Moore,
* Ken Scheckla; Mayor Nicoli arrived at 5:21 p.m.
x s Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Assistant to the City N, R.-
Administrator Liz Newton: Associate Planner Nets Mickaelson: Community
G ' .x }
Development Director Jim Hendr x; Planning Manager Dick Bewersdorff; Computer
Services Director Paul debruyn; Senior Planner, Nadine Smith; and City Recorder - - d,
Catherine Wheatley.
4M?;-',=x F3 1.2 Pledge of Allegiance
a n~
nw°Tr - _ 1.3 Council Communlcanons%Liaisou Repuris -None
e
1.4 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
City Administrator Monahan asked to continue the discussion from last week on the
Amber Foods building and to present a proposal from Sprint Spectrum to place a
;f tower on City property. He asked for an Executive Session to talk about labor
- ' relations. s
Council President Hunt asked to discuss the use of the water building. ` r L
Councilor Scheckla asked for an update on the homeless shelter at the water , a
building. Mr. Monahan said that he met with Kim Brown who told him that the
g n shelter would be open on a severe weather-basis only until the end of the month
~vs { t
when it would close as provided by the contract. ~
2 f + r M - 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM (CM COMMUNICATIONS _
ti k s o CIT Members
Mark Mahon, East CIT Facilitator, reported on the last meeting of the East CIT. t< k, ,
x v
fir x~ f ~ ~ He said that they had a presentation on the CIP and a discussion on greenspaces.
'EV
S
NOR'
N
` z rs Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 1 a
3 R,
2 1W
ipi&
aa}
ry✓3~~3++~ ~ a w a~ r - Z r~~n ~ 4 ~
,r
T .
~ h
1- 4"
,
.
~ 1 °
t F
R,
a
tea-~ '~-"~`~"z - - a - _
"'g„a~ - ar y
t
AaL
r,
L " He stated that they would like to see an emphasis or. ta.^.d that could be developed
into trails (with the highest priority on securing developable land), and on having , , r
, an interconnected trail system in the City. ;
, Iran Gott- South CIT Facilitator. said that they attended a ioint meeting with the -
~ ° East CIT. He reported that the South CIT wanted to acquire land first and develop p ~ ,t ` V
11 a
trails last. They would like to see the money spent in a diversified manner a .
throughout the City. He said that the South CIT also had an interest in the possible ' ' , =-x ` ,
_ -';4< development of the Sattler ro ert{'- - = Vii=="=r
t ' a
Mr. Gott commented that development affects a larger group of people than the e
neighbors within 200 feet whom the developers were legally required to notify. He £3
" said that the lack of notification of neighbors further away than 200 feet about t 1 , TAT` - I
developer meetinac with the neighborhood was a uroblem. He said that the CIT
usually wasn't informed either. He commented that he knew (though other residents a ~ ,
i might not) that the developer plans at this stage were very preliminary and might [ t t< 3 g~ L
t not materialize. - i , , -iK
s
Assistant to the City Administrator Liz Newton said that staff would update the , ~ F .
South CIT on the Sattler property at their April 3 meeting. Councilor Hunt asked t1~
how the CIT's input would get back to the developer since his meeting with the , ~
neiohhorhood was. tonight. Ms. Newton suggested asking the developpr to tho VTT " .
meeting. o = 4
j r i4 '
E~
In response to Council questions, Mr. Monahan said that the Sattler property was -
zoned R-7 and R-25. Community Development Director Jim Hendryx confirmed` ;
that the developer has asked for a change in zoning. L I It` , %W" li
a '
ST } ,
Councilor Hunt concurred that asking the developer to the CIT meeting was a good -L a t. r
way to get neighborhood feedback to the developer. n " . ,
-
Mr. Gott confirmed to Councilor Hunt that the South CIT was more interested in W - , ,
buying land than in developing trails. Mr. Mahon commented that the East CTT j 0'
wasn't as concerned about developing trails immediately as it was about acquiring r c ,I J
the land to insure that the trail systems could be developed in the future. . 71
Mr. Gott asked if the County and Tigard could share financially in partnership to ~ , ,
4 buy the property on Bull Mountain (which he understood the County had also been 3 ~ "
j looking at for greenspaces). Councilor Hunt said that they were currently ~ ` a` 1'~x~ '
negotiating to buy the Fern Street property and that perhaps they could get the M;.,.: , ; p
',I County to help pay for part of it. r ; 11 Z' -
~ ~
{jt ';t.,.. F
Councilor Scheckla asked whether the pond on the Sattler property would be left for
'f7 = a park when the property was sold. Mr. Monahan said that issue would be dealt t
} V with at the time of the land use application. He cautioned the Council not to discuss = rI,
y the Sattler property since it could come to them on appeal.
t ,
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 2 Sk {
l G
t
t
t
Y 1
[ x )F
s- e
~,F r
> r
j
E
f
X , ..I
i [
h x
x#1, z }
- , . e -
- - - - 1
- .__i v..tl~
uY
+Y za z _ -s -
RE,
.
a
Martha Bishop, Central CIT, reported that the Central CIT was extremely
> L' interested in trails. She said that they did not mind the greenspaces money going
to other CIT projects if the other CTTs didn't mind sharing the trail beginning at t
' North Dakota and ending on Main Street. She spoke for the trail and its use for
u
alternative modes of transportation and by the school children. She reiterated the
t Central CIT's emphasis on trails. e
4 s ~
Ms. 1',Te--Ion repor teal. that staff made a presers at on on the CIP t the well attended
joint CIT meeting last week. She said that each CIT would meet separately to t,
t discuss which projects each would like to see, and then meet jointly again to voice
~ their concerns for staff to bring to Council.
1 - -t s ~ ~ g~ 3 i•`
t , > Councilor Hunt asked for a status update on the Fern Street property negotiations. t
3s Mr. Monahan said that the draft agreement was in staff review right now, awaiting Y Y
the compietion of the criA nmental a~ressment_ He- stated that, should everything g 2' M
a go well, staff should be ready to execute the purchase early next week.
'V, OM
> Councilor Hunt asked if the recommendation on the greenspaces would come from ~r t
a the Planning Commission or the staff, and when that meeting was scheduled. Mr.5 f
i Hendryx said that staff would bring the recommendations directly to Council. Hem
9 explained that the recommendation was cumulative based on work done by the
rianning Commission and the CITs.
Councilor Scheckla asked if the recommendation would be nrinriti?ed by the CITs a
and the Planning Commission. Ms. Newton said that each CIT prioritized its own - " -
RVII,
list. Councilor Hunt said that he did not see how to reach a consensus on the lists
presented by each CIT and the Planning Commission.
QR 00
Councilor Moore reviewed the process the Planning Commission used to reach its
s3'~ k
recommendation. He said that they functioned like a task force that weighed everyone's list and made decisions based on what they felt were the priorities. #
} Councilor Moore commented that he had understood when the CITs were formed
that they would consider issues that affected the whole city, not just their CTT, -2, W
through a group of representatives from each CIT. That group would forward
OL~
5
recommendations to the Planning Commission for review. $ k~
Ms. Newton said that there wasn't anything that precluded that from happening but F t 1
that in retrospect she didn't think the greenspaces went through the process the best , t
way it could have. r 3
a n! a'
Councilor Moore said that he thought that the Planning Commission acted as
representative for all the City and not just one CIT. He stated that he had felt F
' i comfortable at the time that they made the decision that was the best decision for
the entire City.
r -
-51
r t' FF a-'
r' Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 3* K i
t ~ -a
~F } 9
F 1 ~ Y - - ~ ~ Z~ r t
i ~
N, zE ;v s E
h C Y ~
C
a
y h i _ - --7- A 4 a:-= i
r
}
C
wfflk- - a,{ - - - z 'L-
r
A "'I -.8 r d - . - - - - -
.t sera, - $ - _ -
Mr. Gott commented that the South CYf people knew their list was geared to their LL
own area, and therefore were not surprised that their requests were not necessarily
first on the list.
3 CTATiTC OF RllTnvnARV CONINITuci*^~T
- ` • Community Development Director f
f
- z Mr. Hendryx explained that local jurisdictions began voicing concerns about the
Boundary Commissions when their requests for annexations were turned down. As
a~
a result Metro formed a Task Force to evaluate the Boundary Commission.
Mr. Hendryx reviewed the recommendation of the Task Force regarding the
Boundary Commission functions. Nadine Smith, Senior Planner, clarified that this ki
s L
recommendation eliminated the Boundary Commission as it currently existed and K a x~ '
i replaced it with the Metro Boundary Office. Through this office, Metro staff would iaiawe add-I * uativeiy boundary decisions made by the locai jurisdictions. cr'*r
-71
Mr. Hendryx said that this recommendation would go to MPAC next month and to
' the Metro Council probably in May or June. He explained the new process in more p3 n;
detail, noting the two processes for contested and uncontested cases. The Metro
7 Boundary Office would review applications to verify that they met the statutory
re:y::_r.. .,u for -ward 1I1C111 LU LIIC lUl'al juria-dictions ;or review and
^ hearing procedures before the City Council or Planning Commission. The Metro Ur
Boundary Office would also notify the Department of Records 47 > s
Mr. Hendryx explained what constituted a contested case (i.e., two jurisdictions a
is j.r4
squabbling over the same area or a merger of an authority that wasn't unanimous). sr 4 n
He said that the application would go to a hearings officer for settlement. Mr.
Monahan noted that decision was appealable to Circuit Court. c
< ~-c
Mr. Hendryx said that this recommendation allowed a lot more local government '
' + P
control over the simple annexation process (which was the vast majority of cases).
Local governments would have to help fund the Metro Boundary Office; this t~ t
recommendation did simplify the process. Tigard's assessment might go up from r~
' their current fee of $3300 a year. r`
T
Councilor Scheckla asked how many contested cases have there been in a year v a r
period. Mr. Hendryx said that there were very few contested annexation proposals, °
though the report didn't indicate any percentages under the new criteria. He said
that he could get information on the number of contested cases under the old criteria N 5
for the next Council meeting. Ms. Smith said that in their discussion, the
€ jurisdictions thought that there might be one or two contested cases per jurisdiction
per year. Mr. Monahan concurred that contested applications would not be an issue a
~ in Tigard.
1
r s
InV
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 4 e
6 3• 1 b ~ ~ F s 5 k +,z r ,y t' d.r'~
j A ~
-71
. 1
AM n
s - ! ' - -
k y
TL
LLJ
,
.
ir.h x
ma ,g N a. y . 7 - _ _ - - i r
X
R-KNE P j 9
g ' sy
' mom'- c _ 's--
3~ k - - - - _ - - _ - - r
rytu W i t - y-' ! d
; i - - ._.:.c.,~, ~.,._,..m__._-.-._.__-- W.
c A
.,aV - a;sr r
g w to su ort the proposal tonight rh ,y b `'°F
r Mr. Hendryx said that the Council could take action pp
~ , r and direct staff to prepare a letter to forward to Metro or staff could provide them - ~
r'rti . 11 I /7771 t with written copies of the materials for their review. 1 ®
s d r 'n
, { a +4-,`'
} 4}
j Mr. Monahan suggested that staff do a written analysis of the recommendation and
~ i schedule the issue for a later agenda to give the Council a chance to think about it. .
In response to questions from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Monahan explained that the r r
_ - Boundary Commissioners were volunteers appointed by the Metro Council. Mr. - ~ _ .4 ~ a
Hendryx reiterated that the current Boundary Commission would disappear under a 4'"'
s
this recommendation. ` 3 `
J _ In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said that there ~ ' kIr -
were currently 11 members on the Boundary Commission. Mr. Hendryx said that $ wG~
~ s ~
the only the hearings officer would be involved under this new process, unless it was 1s; ~a Z,t ~F ~ Z ~ appealed to the Metro Council.
i 4. UPDATE: COMPUTER SYSTEMS e:t -.11-, ~ F
o Computer Services Director -
j m.0- se. vinae 7lirowtnr_ >ticarl elia chmy an `i : ~wi ~ ' -
a Paul dPhmvr.. Le P - - - . =4^ - -
and future of the computer systems at the City. He reviewed the history of the 17 Q,Vl _
3'. T
system, noting the 1994 decision to modernize and upgrade the system because of all ~,h -a`a^ A Y ~
u
the problems, including old hardware and software no longer supported by the j' ~ ~n If " ;
to 'r;w-w.
vendors. ~ I sr `
{ `cam -''„"=.n'" a 1
I 210MI I , T
- Mr. debruyn reviewed the work begun in 1995 by the Computer Services ~ k
Department to design and implement a new network. He noted that the goals were `i - 'g
n- ,kW x
to improve reliability on a system no one trusted, to upgrade the work stations ands s
3_
in F":
infrastructure, and to train personnel on the use of the new software. He said that ` ~ F. N. ogm
they brought in fiber-optic technology to connect the buildings; it has proved 99.9% r
reliable despite flood, ice and wind. n m
~a
Mr. debruyn reviewed the upgrades to the file servers, work stations, and software. - , ~ ~ S, rr -X, I He said they introduced the practice of redundancy which allowed continued use of r r ,
- i w B k+ sw i ~ i
the system even though one file server was down, and Windows. He said that they r £ .
-i trained all the city employees on site in the use of Windows, word processing,
1 7 5"Snk
spreadsheets, databases and network scheduling. °
} m y
9
_ j Mr. debruyn reviewed the gains to the City through this upgrade. These included . ~ j t~ T;~
_ provision of better service to the public, access to more information more quickly s::- ~ - > _ z
and efficiently, more productive employees, and better control over city resources. ` ~ , , qr
h F .111 }w a [ S
t y -,-'w - l~~ Y
L i
J - k fl
l}
y~x " Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 5 s X,,- F t
h t
t { b .'Ft J~ f.
- * µ
9
n d L d"F r Fj t L
4
rv
~ 1. - - ~ ~ A - -
t. Y i _ _ k
_ t,_{
-F - 4 5. - -
X 4' - J n -x* - h L
f
F-~ p f L { J L .i
E
- - - }
: ~ 7 I I . r . ~ I - . ~ ~ I , ~ . . I ~ , " - I I , . I
i~ 1
d-
_ ,11
i - F110" _ _4~ ~%W_11~
& , 00 - " - ; - -.1- - - - - ~ -L-, -_-.~_zz-_~_-21 ~ - , . - . I
t s 1 "r
T:~ q
, - _A_', _~A - - " I . -1 ~ I - ~ - - - I ~ ~ , " - - - _,S
i !~+7' ~fr,f'`~c°~af "j~` } ''uex - _a-, ..._..4..w.....aux..w..e~..~ww...«.,,..+u::s::a~.C.:..:tunv...,.: .,.~...~<....xw
Y
I r.Cl: - FYIt intarnnt aMP__¢S; KI; .1
Mr. deBruyn reviewed future projecis. These i4
! 5_'1 t participation in the state E-mail network, network faxing, online information for V7 M -17 1`111
is
r:se u citizens (dial up and kiosk access), ielecommuting, and cuiltinLcd imprv..,...... t in ~ -
I It.- service to the public. 13t L, -3Y, p~-
fi Council President Hunt welcomed the Scouts to the meeting. ` I ; k s X~. f
x-
5. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNIN G COMMISSION - - x # %i, 'k~
s - ~ a,y
{
Planning Commission members present: Judith Anderson, Michael Collson, Carolyn ' _ * I - ' -
DeFrang, James Griffith, Ron Holland, Mark Padgett, Shel Scolar, and Nick Wilson. a 6 I ~ ~ , ; d
J i Xi
f Discussion Topics:
• Update: Metro 2040 M; ~`""~~M ~ " , r_'
H
Mr. Hendryx said that staff has found it difficult to update the Council and the 7 7 _
Planning Commission in a timely fashion on Metro 2040. So they decided to hold 4~? ,'i ` y -
an occasional joint meeting to resent the information to both groups at once. ~
r>Y
%
- .
Mr. Hendryx stated that the term "interim regulation" has been changed to ~
"Regional Framework Plan." lr) He 64-1d halal 4.,=- 1,14--U.- M-71- ':.1
- + of regional standards currently in development. He explained that all elocal ,
jurisdictions would have 18 months from the date Metro adopted the RFP to update '~'~r- ` -
: 11 t- .
{ their codes and regulations to conform to Metro's standards, t - `w.r7~~r a Z:, z A A, ~~te
-rte t, ~ ~
Y w - n: NO= **:.U-a~,..._ resented his analysis of Phase 1 of Metro's a -
i v' RFP. He said that this was Metro's attempt to do an early implementation of the ~
,
Metro 2040 plan. He said that it contained a lot of vague language, making it ~x~ w~t. 1,
:
difficult to pinpoint the impact to Tigard. - E £ f
e, - , a'u3
,
F ' £ Mr. Michaelson reviewed each title requirements and the impacts to Tigard. Titles _ ~ -
- C~~ : " , . . . "I 1. ~ , F~~~i~ F", -11 I
~
s 1 and 2 were "Overall Accommodation of growth" and Accommodation of Growth ,*,Z ~
in Mixed Use Areas." He noted that each jurisdiction would be required to ~ - ~ -
4 f accommodate a certain amount of growth by the year 2015. Potentially Tigard could ~11 r
1 14,342
more e Waln t Island and anldarandarger than theiTr cuorrentic ty l took in Bull Mountain, r ~ ~ .0
r ,yamq2_,-,M%
' _
Mr. Mickaelson stated that Metro was also pushing a zero growth option of no r
expansion of the UGB and jurisdictions accommodating even higher densities inside
, of the UGB. He said that Tigard would have to reevaluate its existing k #
T S
Comprehensive Plan. 13
a
3 In response to questions, Mr. Mickaelson stated that Lake Oswego would grow from F ' f
x
' ` _ s 16,127 households to 19,611 households, an increase roughly proportional to r
Tigard's. He said that Metro was trying to address the problem of a jurisdiction not fi r~
being able to serve an area assigned to it. He said they would use a process called 1 ,z's' '
% ~
f Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 6
77 z `7
C ♦ - - X^> wwu*.~'^." ! 3 ,r T 4 3. j f' Y 1 'tf F
J
- f .T rz'f L%
L _ $ f ;r L e
H r - ~ .k I
s' Y F
-tip y,4'"
:a
. - - - ;
I IL I
F 9 ~,m x -.'1
d 5 1
I P
E - - 7 I ! ~ , : r I , ~ , I ~ , . ~ I I ~ ~ : ~ ~
y 6
I , 7 - ~ I - I I , ~ , , . I ~ I ~ - - ~ - - ~ 1, - - -11 ~ , I , , . . -
- - - a
- }-1
~ , I I . , " , :
_s - - - - - - - ,
-
s x
a,,s f< S x 4 r s 3
x ,rya
ti ~ s
, t~`c~.-yam tr° ~z~ " Iz; •4F'rgvtw"~~a,..; „ ub:a,.~...:._..,. - .._._._.n__........»......~,.>.m.~.,,,..-.sn.=saas.s- ~L- 4 _
x
E , "mediation with jurisdictions" in which jurisdictions could explain why they couldn't -
i~~ a' _ serve an area; Metro might then either exempt them from serving that area or help
.i 5; -71W wF`'. fund the improvements. f
Y - F JS "c~
Mr. Hendryx explained that Tigard has already refused to accept the amount of E
density Metro originally assigned them. He explained that staff evaluated the t r.•
density request on the basis of how to limit the impact to the existing neighborhoods. - ,
t~ , He said that they also requested that some of the density move to the regional and F ~_6 rt _
E. , i ,
town centers and to the corridors. ! a r
- -Y z
James Griffith, Planning Commission, asked if Metro didn't recently vote to enlarge Rl"` ~
, 111
r the UGB. Mr. Hendryx said that Metro was going through an evaluation and " 3 t{
? j setting the urban reserve areas. He said that the debate on the potential expansion k x f s
3 of the UGB had yet to occur. Mr. Mickaelson noted that Metro has asked Tigard
ti ti
} ; to accommodate more density.
---Q ,
rl~~r; IN
R
Mark Padgett, Planning Commission, commented that the responsibility of the City 3~ F,
was to set up zoning plans to achieve the needed densities. He asked what recourse f~ Nry11~ - `
the City had if developers chose to develop at a lesser density than the designated :
zoning, thus throwing off the City's density projections. l 1; s
4~ c
Mr. Mickaelson said that Metro has proposed establishing minimum densities to
require that land be built to a specific density. He said that their point was that if ;
jurisdictions were going to accommodate growth, there came a point where they had Vk ~ ,as c
J -
to put in a mechanism to make sure that happened. - - * - TE -
Mr. Padgett commented that the developers could chose not to build in those azeas.~
Mr. Mickaelson said that the theory was that the demand would be so high, the k {
f developers would build. u ~ ri
- ~g i
Mr. Colison asked what the growth projection from Metro was based on. Mr. e - z u
Mickaelson said that it was based on the 2040 concept; Metro had some specific use r, q
{ _ . types they wanted to establish in areas that might or might not coincide with existing ( P-A 11
, -I
Mr. Mickaelson said that he thought that change during this "ramp up" phase would T,
be confined to the corridors (99W, Hall Blvd, etc.) the town centers, and the R ,
. . I 1--'-,--,---I,-,---" ~
regional centers (Washington Square); this included changing the zoning to allow ~ ~ fi -
- 41
Y r mixed use development in those areas. 4 s ' c, t
Mr. Mickaelson reviewed the issues for Tigard under Titles 1 and 2. They included 4 ` ~ii& „
significant staff time to amend the codes and ordinances, possible adoption of ~ s
" minimum density standards, infrastructure issues (including funding), and dealing ;~e a j
}f a with legal challenges when in conflict with state wide planning rules. + -k
{rte
~ . , 4 ` ~,-,',',zS,~','I--,j-,i I [----~'1-1,1'11c~'I~I~
-3 Y
,f
~7 - }.r, F
N Y - ` ~ Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 7 '.'a r?' ~
f s - ' °
t ~sf
r s n
i
a
a
, p E
_ -
A
f {J - J t 5 e+ Y 1
r ~t ~ } _ - - r i c .-I
v-- p - - s r 5 4
" r
i
s" f j''' a, , "
r
r- cx d:~
" - -
i z_ s.-c?.
sic . gt -
r
~xs' z
rz L~ -x, r s - - a. " -
y s, -Y a
- k _ - ,
''Y•~witu -1%~'++ y4"s... 5 3 °y 4' } - y - t -
S X4
4 i ,g4r3' 1 Y - SC ' i~'- 1
4 P f - E 2 -P F N
4~ 1,
y#- 5' - Cpl a i - - ,t Z,'~ 1 4M
-
a '
ter Mr. Mickaelson reviewed Title 4 "Stream Corridor Preservation," noting that the ~
title was still being rewritten. At the given point in time he looked at it, it included
1 r
uF requirements for new development to make zero contributions to storm water
nnff_ standards for tree preservation, aUewa,ce ^ .,f
rn _ g:.ru iiaia iliuitC u'cia5iiy wst N ¢
transfers to wetlands and topographic features, and general protection of stream - ``>4
rnrridnrc
Mr. Mickaelson reviewed the issues for Tigard, though he was uncertain of what the F "
changes would be because the title was still in flux. These included major changes z. ~
to the existing zoning code, possible rewriting of the tree ordinance, and a r , s' ~
requirement of more generous density transfers. *u 't
Fes, Mr. Mickaelson reviewed Title 5 "Retail Employment Industrial Areas." He said € r{
r
a that there was a limitation on regional uses to less than 50,000 square feet per lot ~>>,".,r,;c Fy,, z_ Y -
in employment areas, though areas already substantially developed with retail would F 2~ - - _ „
' be excepted. He said that the employment areas in Tigard were 72nd Avenue, the. 3 Z s
Triangle, and Greenburg/Cascade Blvd. t -i
Mr. Mickaelson reviewed the issues for Tigard under this title. These included how r1~
would the exceptions be defined and how which area of the Triangle would be = ' s~N, °
..i ln{!1-1 Within the P1C(,'PntillP NP ng.o.l F~-~' much "O" ~ ,
_ ,,..,.V i ca 8,ii ueveiopmeni
in the area was above 50,000 square feet. w~-1
] r a~7~a~~
m
Mr. Griffith asked if there was an appeal mechanism in place for the 50,000 square F - - t
foot limitation. Mr. Hendryx said that the mechanism was the exception process r ° < 3 £ y
Mr. Mickaelson mentioned. He said that he thought that Metro would address the ' {js SM'.{% {
issue through letting art area continue to develop in the way it has been deveioping cT,- t
but that he didn't know that for certain yet. Neither did he know whether Metro - "
or the City would deal with the variance since those areas were still being defined. r .~s F ,
Councilor Rohlf recommended taking a strong stand on some of these issues now. r~ _
He commented that these days one couldn't build a decent grocery store of less than
60,000 square feet.# t
z
Mr. Mickaelson reviewed Title 7 "Regional Accessibility." He said that this was - ~ -4 - i
to
where Metro was setting the standards for the design of streets, including pedestrian }
and bike access, parking requirements, sidewalks with landscaped strips, etc. He " Y r #
said that it would require the City to create a plan for local streets for every lot of . {j am, j y
land greater than one acre that was likely to subdivide or partition. Other elements i' sr
11 ~ included the prohibition of culdesacs and a requirement of bike and - Sb
accessibility even when full street connections were not possible. Pedestrian I 5
s f
t:
Mr. Mickaelson reviewed Title 8 "Narrow Streets," noting the requirements of a , 4
3 limited maximum pavement width of 28 feet, 25 mph speed limits on local streets, ~
t^ s and minimum sidewalks with landscaping strips and street trees. _fp
_ k 4' 5 ri j
s F''; j ;
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 8 t~
'
t {
P f
Fs P S _ a Y f -
P
- ` - - 1
sw. _ -v
t :1
f t , $
5,z ! F - t 1 , _ -
r, " - - r
- _ 4 _JJ
P I~
X
j ! - w'-S Y` G G J
r - r t
rJ - --t - - IK - J
S
9
r -p
IL
1, I
3 _11
.
,W
"ag 'I gl +t1 rip YY
WE, 'ER
s "~7
a ~
Kq-
r x - F _ - s -lair t-
r
~'ar uY'y f ~ 9 ~ 1
Mr. Mickaelson commented that these standards went beyond regional planning and q
p r into micromanagement, especially in transportation. He said that even though the
Ianm,age was somewhat vague, he thought they could take a stand on some of the l x "r
:Su£'....`'ij;.e•
issues. tp~ t x h r iX`
F ~
Ms. Smith reviewed the schedule of workshops, hearings and decisions planned by
Metro to get input from the local jurisdictions and their citizens. The open house
for Tigard was scheduled for April 2 with MPAC public hearings on Apr--' 10 and
a 24 and a de^i : or.:4ay 8. The Metro Council would hold three public hearings
prior to a decision on June 27. + ® -
ji
n i Mr. Hendryx asked for Council direction regarding the issues staff identified. He
y said that they could draft a letter stating those issues for the Mayor's or City } i° z4
r ! Administrator's signature to send to Metro. He announced a March 26 meeting
called by Mayor Nicoli for Washington County mayors and city managers to discuss
; s
I their concerns regarding early implementation of this regional framework plan and
+ _ z ,5
its specificity. He said that Mike Burton, Jon Kvistad and Susan Maclaine have
been invited. f s} "
Mr. Monahan commented that both he and the mayor have attended other meetings
- where the mayors and managers of the other jurisdictions have expressed the same = Mf r7t
concerns about the specificity of these standards. This was an opportunity to , ` rt
express them directly to Metro. He encouraged everyone to attend the workshops. s f h "
V ~ 5
Mr. Hendryx noted that there was time before the April 24 public hearing for the
~J Planning [_'nM rL~icginn and the Council to work together ~eerniciy to dcvelJp a
list of concerns. r~
> Mayor Nicoli arrived at 8:21 p.m.
Mr. Hendryx said that staff could provide the Council and the Commission copies x ?21-2 g 2
t
of the slides as a starting point for discussion. Mr. Monahan suggested giving them r -
+i1t copies of the draft questions from Metro that would be asked at the workshops.
Ms. Smith distributed a handout listing the times, dates and places of the workshops x Q
and public hearings. Staff reviewed the procedures Metro planned to use at those'
meetings. Mr. Hendryx said that notice has appeared in the Oregonian; in addition `v r 4; s 4
Metro had a mailing list of 50,000 people who would receive notice. In Tigard, staff
1 intended to publish a front page notice in Cityscape and inform the CITs at their
meetings. ` ay.-
y Councilor Rohlf requested staff recommendations on these issues, as to what stand
the Council should take (i.e., how much density was a reasonable amount for Tigard: I
1 to absorb?) Mr. Griffith commented that he also wondered how realistic some of k I '
{ - Metro's requests were. i : r ]
s' :9
Meeting Notes - March 19, 3996 - Page 9
rte, - I- r s e a~ ~K7 -
j
r ~ R
,r - - - ktf r J
Tr-
P. ,
f ,
6
F
- 1 Y Zd - - Y
10-
s is f'
~ "k~ - _ "yc-c k
Mr. Hendryx reiterated that the standards were in flux; he did not know when or
K { " if they would change but they have been told that their input would be taken into r
consideration in the next draft. However they haven't seen a new draft yet.
7{ a Roles: Planning Commission/Citizen Involvement Teams A~
11j
Mr. Hendryx noted discussions regarding the roles of the Planning Commission in } Y
dealing with parks and open space planning and transportation planning at both the ""n', -RR . f
Planning Commission and the CITs, especially in regards to the greenspaces project. t
g Ms. Newton stated that the Council appointed members to the Planning Commission
with transportation or parks backgrounds to provide the Commission with some
s needed expertise. She said that they never intended that all transportation or park Vin,}, N,nx t
decisions go through the Commission; rather the Commission would do long range
r`Za,
f ; planning. She explained that with the change on the Council, the thinking also :r h k~
changed. They decided that CITs should look at certain issues that had a city-wide}-
perspective, and form task forces with representatives from each CIT to look at
certain issues.
Ms. Newton noted that the planning staff was used to going to the Planning='z - {
Commission when dealing with land use issues. Staff hadn't gotten together to.
i develop a process to deal with issues like greenspaces; the planning staff simply took
it to the CITs for input and then to the Planning Commission. She said that CIT
facilitators emphasized at their last meeting that the City needed to decide up front 3 v AKA :
on what process they were going to use for issues like greenspaces.~
' Ms. Newton said that the facilitators weren't as concerned about what the process
e
was as long as it was decided on at the beginning and carried through; neither were
they concerned about having a position of authority. She said that the facilitators
thought that the technical issues dealing with the Comprehensive Plan or zoning
t "
: ordinance should go to the Planning Commission whereas the issues dealing with = ry
money allocation were of more interest to the CITs. The facilitators thought that
input coming directly to the Council from the CITs rather than filtered through the e
V w rl, xV
Planning Commission would have a greater grass roots value. ;
Mr. Mahon commented that the problem the CITs had with the greenspaces issue x k
was that the process had changed in midstream. He said that if they knew what the Y 1
E process was prior to considering an issue, they could then tailor their answers to that s
q process. He reiterated that they wanted to know what the process was up front so
everyone knew what to expect all through the process without it changing in ; t 5 x
z E A midstream.
tr
Z
> Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 8:35 p.m. F nj
> Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
S
y
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 10 ! f_
J,
~ 2'{ f r6
1
t \ '.1
Q X ,1 t r
LL
tQ e:
*S,
; u
0., x - a * -
.1 Er
1
F fi -~-~(x _ yt i
h 2
45
r h S4
4 Mayor Nicoll said that he thought the issue of the greenspaces was a unique one that r
M the Council could have handled better. He stated that he thought issues dealing with V r
parks and transportation on a city wide basis should go to the Planning Commission. r
Once those issues became specific to an area, such as putting a park or a road in a f~ x} t
neighborhood, then the issue should go to the CPi's for ii,Nut. He said that at no
i
time were either the CITs or the Pianii;-,g non.n, ......_i____ssinn to be out of the loop.
r , - Councilor Moore commented that with the dissolution of the Transportation X22
Committee and the Parks Committee, the responsibility to oversee CIP projects
dealing with parks and transportation fell to the Planning Commission. That was < 5
why parks and transportation people were placed on the Planning Commission.
- - -
Ms. Newton explained that the initial intent for placing parks and transportation -
people on the Planning Commission was to provide long-range planning expertise. ; A f
She said that decisions were made about process after that change and perhaps the
time had come to decide on a more formal process to handle these issues. t+
The Council and the Commission discussed the issue of process. Mr. Hendryx spoke
y for building flexibility into the process rather than adhering to a rigid system. He F - -
suggested that staff develop a process for each issue as it came along, and then
_ clearly explain that process to both bodies at the beginning.
Both the Council and the Commission agreed with Mr. Hendryx's suggestion.v }
Mayor Nicoll commented that the Council could write some very general policies
describing the options available. Councilor Moore noted the change in Councils as
another reason for allowing flexibility. Ms. Newton pointed out that the CITs mete
only once a month, and that i~sues could easily get backlogged a ~:6au .-*.m ~d
staff would not get the input that they needed from the CITs or the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Holland commented that he felt it was important that the CH' issues go through
;41 -Lol-ly-
.01
the Planning Commission, as they were the most familiar with past projects, bond
issues and needed projects. ~
n h s
Mayor Nicoll suggested that Ms. Newton and Mr. Hendryx prepare a draft 3
resolution for review by both the Commission and the Council to formalize this € rr.
flexible process. r a- '
' Councilor Moore commented on the need for the Council to let the Planning
Commission know why it made certain decisions and vice versa. F.
Councilor Rohlf commented on the need for the Council to get input directly from
the CITs without it being filtered through the Planning Commission. He also i F
suggested that the Planning Commission let the CITs know why they made their f s t { t
decisions, especially if the decision went in a different direction than recommended C
by the CITs. He suggested that they write down the parameters of their decisions
Ott'
tx' Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page it
1
r _s G S
Y - a +,.j-4 t ~FI
S f Tyywwe- - " x/""~F °..r' P+~3•. _ ...va i.^4.4. _ - - 4' 3•FY'"'' : F
_ L hi ~ ftt f- k Q' _ _
9
F - J } 1 h
%
f
.F ~
.
...x
x , f y-
' - r7'- ,~,~~-~~~~,.~~~.~"~,li~,:~~,,-,-~~~-~Ix-4,~~~ -7~ - ~ ~ . ~ , - . , ~ . - ~ " ~ , a, 4, -1 T 0- -
arr "?s r - r < 'r k
R
r '-~i'7,~.4~ '4 x x V l c.,x -
I- .171AKI T
.§.-.r,-"L` +~tt'j rF', _ - t' - ...c - r .ti<.~. _
{ T
c ..55'tni'2 k L.~ - 5 t- - 2~+ i - ?-dUrr 4
t, ~'s£~ x~-" .,w
!tAl ._.....__m.......».,..~~.. w vrsr... _ __d..--.._ e ~....~..W 14 - `;"t
r - a
3 y3^i 4 fi a.' £
F ~t ' regarding CIT recommendations and send a copy of it back to the CITs.e z ,
yr + ,
Councilor Hunt concurred with the need for Council to hear directly from both the -1
r CITs and the Planning Commission rather than only from the Planning Commission. • - . k > .
w.
1. I :1s-' :1 -
- Councilor Moore commented that previously an NPO representative always attended ~ ~
the Planning Commission hearings to provide input on the NPO recommendations.r
He said that CITs typically did not send a rePresentative. Ms. Newton said that z '
y
staff has started to ask CITs to send someone to the update opportunities for the %;e'°='P'•'j= -
Council; the CITs have asked that the information going to the Council also go to
the Planning Commission. t -
.a
1 Ms. Newton noted that the Central CIT suggested that Planning Commission ~ ' y rp a
F = members visit the CITs occasionally in the interests of better communication. Mr. r 4,- z
k , Padgett said that the Planning Commission also discussed that idea but decided : , i' t x
s against it because of the risk of ex parte contact on quasi judicial issues that might 1
come before them. Ms. Newton said that typically CITs did not consider land use ' ' , ~ ;"F, ;
applications the way the NPOs did. '~X, ' ~
s f 52-MZ -1
Councilor Moore asked for clarification on the role of the CITs. Ms. Newton -k
ac ul ,
t explained that the CITs were to consider broader issues than land use applications,
such as the tree ordinance, recvcline, the school district election, etc. She said that '
7 ; they might talk about broad land use issues like the Triangle but not issues specific 1 ~ s
to a shopping center. i I`~
j Mayor Nicol- asked that staff's recommendations include encouraging finding more ~ f
-11 f4-~
avenues of communication between the CITs and the Planning Commission and a ~ 'gcT Fn U
statement that all CIT recommendations going to the Planning Commission also i ~ w ;zl-~' ~5
come directly to the Council at the appropriate time. s t
a ` t~ t lz >F'x tr', E
14
fi Councilor Scheckla asked what the Park Board had done and why it was dissolved. ac n5 +
Ms. Newton explained that the Park Board had made recommendations on park * Q"te., x f-
` purchases and dollars spent on improvements, and had worked on park master . fi~ '
plans, land acquisitions, a park preservation policy and a park bond. She said that 4 - 3", ~
- they had been trying to consolidate and give the Planning Commission a broader ; h , 3 t
F -'authority over different areas because of problems in the process where certain UF, t
issues were falling through the cracks. She noted problems with certain NPOs ' 6 `a~" _ 8^ ~
C ':,°sa
wanting to take on more authority than was properly theirs. Staff had also wanted ~ > i
the citizen-involvement component to have a broader involvement also.
r T, k - # f ~ ,
r Mr. Hendryx suggested that the next newsletter contain a clarification on the
greenspace process. In response to a question, he said that they had three years to b , , t ° e ,
y t - s spend the money. yb
r m_
f t' z
` .
ly
Y
` Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 12 k". a a~ f t
e y~ _ ~
t
4 1„R. t1'a- xr iz ;
I
a l r
Y 1 '4 - SLR _
k
ff .
I LL 1. ~:1 '~L ' r r~ r' 141;;::'~- -51--
~ ~l,,'Zl~~.-I~~,~~,~,~~-,~~~-:-,~4-, - - - .Ic~,- ~ , _ _ , - r r - I - r L ~ - - - , ~ -1 - f
4f
_ 4 ;r-~y
Y
A A
J. r _ _ _
r
d S-j` j ` t l fit ~
d
~ ] ' _ L
.
_3C _ T
W .3 ,
_ - _ _ -
-
I . , -i~'
. '
r - -
.t v r - '
YC.. _ l
"I - . , , , , , - - U ~
u~ -
_a".
Hsu s s
z_ a f{
YT 3• } MT - - V- f,- R
tr a - - _ , -1- ~a -
IAN- I 1-11 IM, , .a' f,~'- -Sa - .«sa`.u.,;-x zcros.,...a ..*.L~z>..,...:,.e.,~rw-_ r. .......,..,.,....__..y_ v_ . , ¢ j,+-
+„,,ter - ,ti 'r'r
= »,u:=: <;>< Mayor Nicoli noted that once the Fern Street property was purchased, they would 3,
move on to the next piece on the list and so on down the list. He said that he saw - r
y ® ,
` this as a two-fo-three year process.
- j
Mayor Nicoli asked the Planning Commission to discuss the process they might use F,, }
15 for another major streets im rovement in the litY ~ He noted that the last -
p program i<^,,
~ { one they used was similar to MSTH'. It was an 18-month program from defining ` - „ r ^ ¢lr
the projects to going out for a vote. He noted that a vote would fall nicely in the F , ~-0
middle of the five-year operating levy cycle and would not, therefore, compete with a, '
p,=_ t 9
tt it. 1 ~
sn Mayor Nicoli said that they would probably wait to begin the process until the new t M1 I
a City Engineer was on board. w t I. J1{'t ..1 t z-~
e Recommendations from the Planning Commission
5 ° Mr. Hendryx mentioned that one concern of the Commission was that they never knew how the recommendations they made to the Council would turn out, nor were 1<
they aware of the ultimate outcome once the Council made a decision. s
« 11
Mr. Holland illustrated miscommunication with an example from the greenspaces~ ~i
project in which the Commission decided that it was more important to acquire land F_ A . s -i
first and then trans because the Council told the CPfs to go 50150 in their ""n,U ¢ r
recommendations. Mr. Hendryx clarified that staff suggested to the CITs that the u W
Metro money be divided equally between land acquisition and trail acquisition. , ~
r Mr. Holland said that the miscommunication lay in the intent of the CTTs not getting `3. ~5 ;
to the Commission. He said that this whole issue could have been resolved much
earlier if that had happened. He spoke for a better way of communicating intent ~r y
f by both the CTTs and the Commission. .r}y°r,-,
I4' SFt`°a`'6'i` I k
Mr. Monahan said that staff was trying to resolve the Commission's concern about
what happened with their decisions at the Council by reporting back to the 44
Commission what actions were taken by Council and the reasons behind the action. i w , k
Mr. Collson noted that that was helping, especially since the Council sometimes got #
different testimony than the Commission did. -
- Councilor Hunt said that he would like a Planning Commission member present ~
" during hearings at the Council on appeals of a Planning Commission decision ins
order to explain the Commission's reasoning behind the decision. Mr. Padgett said b s
that they discussed doing that at the Commission but that there was some s " ,
a disagreement as to whether they should do so or not. One view held that the .
transcript of the hearing would provide a more objective report on what happened , r F
k ? than one person's subjective view. fi k k
x ` ~
~ -r
r
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 13 ix,, -
x
4. { h z v~4 r; ,i.
1 { Y F rarr
y 7~
5
t
i F
l -
> A ~a,"_ _F. 'G c Yd".; i' x w,_ t, T.F ?-'<Y rz~ ( i~? r _ ;1
t
a
r °
1
t ; y - r- f r
-Pf ,t,,n,,~! - - 7, : , , ~ . I , - A. , .1 . , ~ ~ ,
!
'r sx 1
3
V-' + ,t _-'a
:S _ .
K
)I tl
` I. . 1. i I ~ 1 - ~ I I 1, . . I i ~ , , z " - I - I - , 2J - , A
_
-
tw ~ -
X5..11-- .v=:j
Tr•f£" s Y 1-
N
'?5 weer' ie r -
ti ft~
t
lYy yy ,y - J - 3' S- - q Ylf, -
c a w
a rf." € Viz- ~ a } '
~`kL Mr. Holland said that while he agreed with Mr. Padgett's statement, it would be cs
4_,
Z, I 4M
' ar< - - helpful if the knew when certain issues came before the Council so that they could #w'
-11 I e, have an opportunity to testify before the City. }
E. 4r-
k~ an a naw. made sever-' Suggestions for ge ..6 " y a _yT7 -
aJ The v..ui: i and nvuiui a--~ _
' ua $ ; - the Commission to the Council and vice versa. These included sending the Council --g, s' '
agenda to the Commission and making the Commission discussion on a particular ` si. *
- hearing available to the Council if the minutes weren't available. Mr. Hendryx , n i
noted that the City did not provide transcripts of the Commission meetings to the '
, f~ ;
~ - Council, only minutes. k "
g ~ C=$
3 Ln,
z Councilor Scheckla said that knowing how the vote went at the Commission would ' '
r be helpful , i ;
Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Holland for his input on the changes that have Y.'-J #7
E i occurred in the past five years. Mr. Holland said that the minuses were k ~~g ' g ' c
p fr k r;~
.1 V communication; the Commission was missing out on important information that used ' '
r _
to come to them but now went directly to the Council. He said that the pluses were
h v ~
that communications were quite a bit better between the Council and the
f ` >
i.I., z `r^ , a.;;;_ Commission than they used to be, though he spoke for more joint meetings to get y;`
ti
" }Y , to know where people stood on issues and what their backgrounds were. He said -
- 111 uvuc a good ,jvu a', ap~svaui.us a uiVCrn.ij Of pivyac With. '~J S~.~ s
different opinions and backgrounds. E E-{ _
Cvil-'luTiitatlBrLS 7+t~'
11 1~2
Clarification of Council Expectations f s - - F~ - lzl
3
4 Council Feedback if Disagree with Planning Commission Recommendation f ,
6
5 ZK~~
6. DISCUSSION: CITY FACILITIES SPACE _ , 3
, ® Assistant to the City Administrator s " r
G- ,
-
Councilor Hunt commented that all the options presented by staff presumed that the
_1 I
W - i
City would o with the WCCLS levy. He stated that they had agreed to discuss the F
g - t`. a.
issue further before making a decision. Mr. Monahan said staff included that I
assumption in the options solely for purposes of discussion; it did not obligate
Council to go with the levy. He noted that the cost to the Tigard taxpayer was the
same either way. ` ~4r 1
Mr. Monahan updated the Council on the status of the WCCLS library levy. He 7 't
said that the Board still did not agree on how much money to go for: $30 million or , 1 ~ x 't
some other figure. He said that Beaverton wanted to go for it while King City and 5 4, %t
r i Durham have declined participation in it; Beaverton would get $8 million while a
- Tigard would get $3.8 million. r
' Mr. Monahan noted that each jurisdiction would have to sell the levy locally for it
to pass. Each would have to state specifically what they intended to use the money x
~ ;
r - Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 14 ,tkFa e f +
ti '
t f - E
I t4 ` - JF d 2` -
px 8
3
f r
} H i
f -Y -Jr K _ #
1
, ~~1-, LL " , r , , ~ , : L ~ " , [
,r - - E ~ t
t~" - . - - R
pd L 4 r
ki
.'k } t k - y
t-J- ~At _ .4 _ F
J
1 1 h _ i 3 J ,:I
- L.'-1
v - - R
7:74
0, Mt ~T 3
--IS gsn
k RR
J
,.,c° k i - : - - . ri SAC 3a'
ti }*{*%-`a` 3'h - _ '.°1.'su ® - ...,_..._._.....+~.»:.F.,V...•m....+~1.~..,... 3.-ese. ...v» t
ek - _ for. He said that Sherwood has expressed concern that if they got the money fora a'- F -
facility, they might not be able to pay for staffing the facility. He explained that :xa
' unless everyone participated county wide, the levy wouldn't happen. He pointed out tlyx~~~~~
that if the levy passed and Sherwood opted out, then their part of the money would
be reallocated elsewhere.
Mr. Monahan said that the Board deferred making a decision until their May
meeting {the deadline for the decision). He said that staff intended to present all the t
possible options to Council in April for Council direction. He reported that the ;;'si`•:'s 'rA`'
Library operating levy passed last week.,
- - , In response to a question from Councilor Moore, Councilor Hunt stated that while ~ n ~3~` •
he supported increasing the library building, he was concerned at someone telling
the City what to build and where to build it. He said that he was also concerned
' ter:
ry_J a y the lihrarV from a Tigard bond measure would reduce the chances
of passing that bond measure. k
3 Councilor Scheckla noted that it was possible the voters would turn down a Tigard? r b
h a
bond measure for police and library needs. Councilor Hunt agreed, but noted that
_ historically Tigard voters supported the police and library.
{
j Mr. Monahan concurred that was a concern but pointed out that of the $3.8 million
Tigard would get from the WCCLS levy, they only needed $2.6 million to build on 7 J
this site. That left the rest of the money to use to acquire another site where they ` t
could build a library to meet the full-size needs of the library. He said that the 'r~ 5c4 '
4.x,3' `•=~~i - +lHSiti^
present library building could be renovated for office space.
r,,,, 34
' The Council discussed going out with their own levy as opposed to participating in
#z s; ~V 5;1
the WCCLS levy. r s go -
Ms. Davis commented that going with the WCCLS levy would give them more
money than they needed to build a building because they received a set amount
based on Tigard's service area, not based on what they would build. She said that
it was an opportunity to acquire another site and to deal with some of the space and
EE _ 1
10, M 71Z,
parking
at the o ortun to and it d'dn't n site. y always come back to the voters with a ~ ~ t x ~r f r
4 PP y pass, they could rnr 3wti
City levy ws
Councilor Scheckla expressed concern that the voters would get upset voting twice
' on the same levy. The Council discussed his concern. Mayor Nicoli commented that V {r
5 t if the levy failed, the County might put it out again at a lower amount of money
i after hearing citizens' concerns and it could pass.
i Mayor Nicoll spoke for going with the WCCLS levy, saying that Tigard could go out f. ,
j with their own levy should it fail. He noted the issue of people who lived outside y
5 Tigard's city limits who used the library without paying for any of the capital costs. c
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1"996 - Page 15-'-p
t qqEEF
fit',
5 ~ t
t
1 17
'f I T
~M f
a j
r 7 ' ~ F 7 t
kY f-
t 7
- t t y c ~ y .1
7
4
,,~~Yr.
-
t
''S °'t5~ # i f k J 5f
' _ r -
u
l~
He agreed with Councilor Hunt that they did contribute towards the operating costs , ,,`~i~
I through the operating levy. k
"IN-1-1-$'5i, 4 -
a - rF C
Councilor Scheckla mentioned that Tigard citizens probably used other libraries. s ti t
- Mayor Nicoll commented that a substantial number of people in Wasmagieu wuuif { e
' lived outside any city limits. After stating that the Tigard service area included '
r ` 12,000 to 14,000 people living outside the city limits, Ms. Davis said that she could 6 ~
provide statistical information on how many Tigard citizens used other libraries.
F
Councilor Scheckla asked for that information. c
t~ p e~
" 4 Councilor Moore commented that he agreed with the Mayor that the levy had a ~F H - ' _ _
„..,1. better chance passing county wide; if it did not, then they could try it on their own. .r ;r, zr~~?
.r r ti a ' k i - r jjv'
;r.., „ Councilor Rohlf said that though he did not like the process used to reach this levy - .Ya ~s a
} the amount of money requested and how it would be used was unclear - he would - , ;
r as 1 as the das _
_.a. . auyjari the w us wo vaaaa amount, -was i caSvufiuac anu -was a«vuak+aui^,a+a 7,«.-1i- 11, .
by a reonable plan to use the money. He said that he thought it made sense to ;~;,,P;~= 2. g -
r~
take two shots rather than one. -
4 A_ {
Councilor Hunt stated that he would vote against participating in the WCCLS levy . - - , I
a because he thought it preferred one set of employees over another set. ~ "f 1
11
7,Z--, - U--, . -11
Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's direction, stating that he Z~, ~ ate'
_ r thought they should try for everything at one time. ~ „s'- , ` :
- ! d ;
a 1- -x
Discussion on space options continued. Mr. Monahan clarified that any plan put r 4 , L-
forth b staff would include more than sim 1 the library; they wanted to look at .4 M , , ,
this as an overview to address both short-term and long-term solutions. Ms. Newton
noted that staff had considered what other funding mechanisms were available to , } 11 ~ 1»~'~ '
fund other options, should this levy fund the library. _ WRRT OW -
a ~ -a s
Ms. Newton commented that they did assume some givens in developing these n i - E
options. She emphasized that a representative from each department participated L t v
j, r
? s on the committee that developed these options; they wanted to bring a uniform ,x . ~ ' ~
_;r - hIR IM
recommendation to Council that was supported by all City departments. s` ~ -
x z , -
r Ms. Newton reviewed her memo (filed with packet materials), beginning with the y _ Y
assumptions. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, she said that they s n ,
' ' assumed that Tri-Met service would not improve during the 20-year period because - zfx F
.
` the ridership simply wasn't there. This primarily impacted parking. - r
Ms. Newton reviewed different means of addressing the parking issue such as €
r carpooling, telecommuting, flexible hours, double shifting, and contracting out " - ~ , F
, appropriate city services. l, ar
S} k> '
3 L Y. - - t - A
oa t; Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 16 4 " , Z
U,--J,,,-',--4 e - rx -
- 11 F
{ -'t , s,. i -
$ -
i
r wr - ?t D
s .ti - z. _ 4
? 1
x
Y - , 2 { I ,1.1 }
lJ r y - - - - I F y„
,*~i~--,t',-~ ~~,_4,',' /4", ~ E I : ' L" - . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ I ~ , - - - ~ , ,
1 . Ii
i+ - - - 1 5
i J.
M 4 - . i x
i. 2 - ,I'1
j } ! F T Fir 4
°7
t
, v
q, , t - - < t, r i
tf xr a c-, 3
E
~ ~ - - I L I 1. I " ' - ~ . ~ .-~-,-~"-,-"~--,.-..,,.-~..,,,,~.l~,-~,-,~,.,~',~-~,,-~~,.",~~ O"'i ~ , L
I I ~ . I I - z I r . r , - : : I I ~ ~ . I h . . - . ~ , --L.,.;- -
. - - - _ rt -
11 i - -
^4
2
- - , , - ~ _ - - . ~ . I - I I ~ - I -i~ 1- - - - U
k {
x~
% < ~r
~ # f-
u
` - `.~Z3 r k - , sF- a
t Councilor Hunt asked why the projections for building space needs for the police -y ,k
Y, force were for a shorter time period than everyone else. Ms. Newton explained that
€ , - , i' " they used the figures already developed by the police department in their research
into expanding their facility over the next 10 to 12 years. She noted that the police a'
._n
z ~ staffing projections were 20 years out. LL
.
Ms. Newton reviewed the existing space, noting that they limited the discussion to °
facilities in this area, thus excluding the maintenance service facilities on Ash Street.
` - F_ She said that they considered the Canterbury and TCYS buildings as sites to
r
v temporarily house employees during construction. _ k ~ j, - - La Ms. Newton reviewed the existing parking available at the City Hall complex and ~ h ~ - , , '
i .k i immediate area. She explained that though they technically had more than enough ' x , ,
j parking spaces available according to the Code, they actually had a problem now on
. • Wednesday afternoons because of too few parking spaces to accommodate the - - y i~ }
y municipal court docket, library programs, and the changing of the police shift, t..
R k , iy ,P Gt
Ms. Newton reviewed possible options to improve the parking situation, including £ g ~ -
moving the court to the water building and changing the court docketing procedures. - 5 , .
Ms. Newton reviewed the staffing projections, commenting that there were too many - - ~ -j .r
unknowns farther out than five years for staff to feel comfortable with projections ` 5 r3,- ' 1
L~ ['W. , 1.
.d'.
an IUl'tller VUL Mari that. a, LV Led Seella'WJ ei uru a~i.ieiat~u tii:.t tl:°.j ii °--r
careful to place staff in locations that made sense from a customer service and f
function standpoint. For example, they kept Community Development and
Engineering together while considering moving the library and police department ,r , mr=tom
offsite. 4 V I -,jp' L Y ,,~;r.'
Ms. Newton reviewed in detail Option 1 "Police First, Relocate and Build Library",
using map graphics to illustrate placement of the different departments in the
current or proposed facilities. She pointed out the actions planned for each year ' ~ -
under the different scenarios. She noted that in this option the engineering modular - ~ t
was removed to open up the space for parking. This option did include temporary 1.1 P r-i
, s
relocation of some staff during construction. k
4
I -
In response to Council questions, she stated that the funding would come from the rM r ` h
Facilities Fund, and that some inflationary growth was allowed for in the estimates, y ` 7~
though the price for a new library site would probably go up in two to three years. x -
Councilor Hunt asked about the Amber Food property. Mr. Monahan said the : , - I e
E current asking price was $1.28 million. The site had five acres of wetlands that
f z would be useable for another purpose. He said that the lease on the barn would run a 1
F r out in three years. c k w
, w
Ms. Newton reviewed the financing under Option 1, pointing out that except for the
E
_ funding of the library through the WCCLS levy, all monies would come out of the r
7t Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page
1 17 `t tv
`_.a E n 3~F j) t a
! f
5F
r ,,A "ti, t 1 CCC
- - j'-&
7 t T~ _.I
P
J I , 1 " ~ . ~ ~ I ~ _ ~
I f
I
. C
yj I" Y - t ~
,,.'as. F
z t
/ r., k r - .
5
i
a
]
1
- - r~ .1 L
6 r
t ~-il Ito 1 Y i -
acs s ~(`3'~..xw'"' a 4- 3s - r _ ..C, ~t t i' f ty'
- x"47 sc - - _ c - r i .t _a cf ~
+ [zGr s i
R, ItNll t
- ' _
s - N~ Ntl ~
~
~ s 4,
k4
i-'~r-
'x'3 +tt 4th _ F,~ 1}t- -a.~.
4 5+ , Esc r' , _ _ _ r - - a g„ a 7 t
-mss 'x - fi ~r - r - -
a
- ~ A Facilities Nand. She noted that even if the WCCLS levy failed, the needed police ~ & ~
s- F,' improvements could still be made. However that would remove the police from a I ~ ~ s
r City police library levy, should the WCCLS levy fail. ~
,
, - _k
Ms. Newton reviewed the timing, parking and voter impacts of this option. Mr.
Monahan explained that if they took responsibility for the Fsuii Mountain area :uiu
F staff to , _ z,',~
° t e
the Walnut Island area, the County would give theiii fur~us to ....e more - _
` serve that area rather than send their own employees over for housing. ?
,I
U Councilor Hunt asked if the Facilities Fund would have enough in it to pay for these t y. ;
z a improvements. Mr. Monahan explained that even with adding $100,000 a year they, rti§''Y
E ' t ' would still be about $30,000 short in 1997/98 but they could put more into the fund -
1'1that year. i 4' -
x - n ~s `z4
Ms. Newton reviewed Option 2 "Second Floor on City Hall Levy". She said that wr -O , "'4z
~ µr qt j adding a second floor would cost approximately $1 million dollars. She pointed out rt,,
sunder this o tion. She noted that this option " ___A
i - ? the actions planned for different year sunder
x kept most city services at the City Hall site and did not require temporary relocation
e
of employees during construction.
' _t x r<
~1'_H 2tsrax
> c Councilor Rohlf asked -1 thc ::2;z 1::': .g at a . , °~7 Ci" ,Hall r th-
111W ~.Z
~ ~ 707 were considering a second story. Mayor Nicoll commented that they would not do N a .
the study if they decided to build a second story. f ' ; tr ~,x }
x " Ms. Newton reviewed the financing for this option: a bond or levy to fund the , a '
second floor, purchase of the Ash Street site through the Facilities Fund, and 3t' :4 t ,A ~
expansion of the library through the WCCLS funds.
-,a sir
, - ,
a Councilor Hunt noted that the committee has recommended Option 1 and requested ~ x II-q- I
_.I
_3 more discussion of that option. The Council agreed by consensus to do so. 3, r~9
t _t +V ,
i7{} In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Newton said that the bottom -
3
' line dollar amounts for all the options were similar but some didn't include all the a' ' rti' t r~:
-I w~ v
j possible pieces, such as moving the Niche or removing the engineering modular. " RV, 0
as r l,,raY , { i -
Councilor Hunt commented that they were not using the water building enough, and I, , 1~ i'~___)
requested discussion on expanding the old library building to accommodate the r I
xY engineering staff. He said that it bothered him that the projections for the police
'r
were only for 10 years while everyone else was at 20 years out. c j
r s
s In response to a question from Mayor Nicoll, Ms. Newton confirmed that the police k~ - f r
department wing was designed to accommodate a second floor. Councilor Moore ' ~ x E
s suggested letting the police department use the engineering modular for space rather u- r
I K + S - ok h
than removing it for a mere 10 parking spaces. x ,v .
L k 1
Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 18 fit, ? j
x 5- tt EEE ' _'1
i 1
a, 1 -t C,
4 S h, k t
i
r '
E
Z-k
, " , ~ -~g - - - _,_~1,11 21~,',~~_~ _ . _ , , ~ .1 ~ ~ . - ~ I ~ ~i ~:~:t ~ , , , . . ~ I ~ I , , : ~ , ~ ~ . , -~.i:~,.-2~-41,~"-l'~~A~:,-,~,~ -.1 ,
°-C sN 2
r
5 a
r _ _ Ys s
11 y 3 - X3 1 1 J1J
y 1•- - 1
J
} y , L..t - - y.. - 'j
A - _ - f I 4
ti
IT
i.# - } - , t
3 f
T a'
7 'i I r ~ ~ ~ 11 r I I ~ 1, ,:r . I , r 1, ~ I . ~ ~ !`1'1~1' , i . - - , - I -
=1= s~Y -:r
11
17
C
I ~
i -f°~1 - - - - -a" . , - - ~ - 'M
r3CP - y .
f-', P Sz2 5 t _ } g t-
R J
x
r
x a z , Ms. Newton noted that the police chief had not looked at expanding his facility for ;x
J ; I
I x ~ 20 year projections but only for 10 to 15 years out. She said that the police chief t
said that adding the second story would give him more space than he needs. She } 1,
s commentea tnai rosy might want to took at other options if the police stayed in this
..,},'.3.,LLa.. location. - . ? -
4M 1
x n E Mr. Hendryx commented that Community Development and Engineering could put ~ ` ' ; ,
`,x' a loft in the library wing. Ms. Newton said that was not in the dollar figures but ' > 'd ,,t
that it was a possibility. t - a s-
k, i- . - a ~
i Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of stacked parking. Mr. Monahan said that the f ~
r
# cost of a parking structure per space was $75 0. n~ 4R
3
t Councilor Hunt asked if taking an option on the Amber Food property would fit -L tin 3 ' x ;
- 4 b
within the parameters of the dollars projected here. Mr. Monahan said that it y Y
r could, if they picked it up for $1.5 million (Option 1). He stated that a problem was E 4
that they needed to get an option to purchase before knowing the results of the ,~r, F
-7__ r ~ , - , , -411,?-~ ~ -6
WCCLS levy. He commented that they wouldn't get their WCCLS levy funds until
a the year 1999. Ms. Newton confirmed that once the levy passed, they could borrow I , r y
_ against it.
r '
Councilor Hunt suggested using the water building for the court as a way to solve - ~ W
r r '
parking problems at City Hall. Mayor Nicoll commented that the wing at the water s 5ti"
building currently used for auto repair could have a second story placed on it; the p ~"`~I r
auto repair shop could be moved to less valuable land somewhere else with the entire _ ~ F
I I
Y , _ ° wing converted to office space in the next 20 years. Councilor Hunt suggested using _ Z,
the Canterbury building for auto repair. , s , s '
r~~- ,EL a
, t 3 L~
s ; , - Councilor Hunt asked when the levy would be voted on. Ms. Newton said it was :.<~<.; r~. `
slated for March 1997 and that the drop dead date was May 1996.R~
,
Councilor Hunt asked if they could get an option on the Amber Foods property. y
- Mr. Monahan said they might be able to; the realtor kept them informed of r F ~ riic~~ i
potential buyers, t k 4;" xa r -
I'Ms. Newton stated that the staff recommendation was to pursue Option 1. If the ,
Council wanted them to do anything different, such as purchasing the Ash street k x}x
property and moving the Niche, Council needed to let them know. Mayor Nicoll
commented that it would be a good move to purchase the Ash Street property when ce ,
d it became available to get more space for street maintenance offices.
-q , s
Councilor Moore pointed out that the foundation of Option 1 was a go, though they
. might tweak it over the next several years. He said that he liked the idea of moving x j
f' the library across the street to keep the city services together in a city center
complex. L `,-1 0 c
~i - 3 xqtr
r_„ 3 Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 19 '
t
- _ r k1h S y.5t 4
A- h
r_ v c r r ~k ,
r 1 , w t
r t S_,
-r 4 _ Y r
1 T
. -3~V-', -,~~Ir_, - . , , I , I I - , A -
M1
- _ -y 4
~
l - - { i - f
G
r M x _ f- # r , y~
a
-1 I
, - - -
I
- . - - -
tie
SEEMS-
z ' _ f r a r +
P -gam a4MS £ g_ ~ t ' 'S M1- t
rLke-h~yZ _*T1. fi ~ k~ ~1
s' f £ F E ~
k Mr. Monahan reviewed a proposal regarding the Amber Foods property that he r W
rE received from Arthur James, an engineer who offered to do a structural analysis and r °E
71 ` g fe ib?!lt; u:::«; a : ce n: er ti^ the structure to library (at a cost of $67001, He
:1-, n that Ms.
reported . vis toured the building with Mr. James and did think it was
possible to convert it to a library for a reasonable price. He asked if the Council =
wanted staff to pursue talking with Mr. James.
Mayor Nicoli declared a conflict of interest in this discussion because he had a client' x 4 k
- who has d-_ , s ed the Aaiuc- k-s pr Y y in with him. He said that
^ v eri m are
Y fi `'f' Lit Ss~ -
P he would not share those discussions with the Council.
} Mayor Nicoli commented that there were other possibilities to acquire an interest in
t that land, depending on the interests of the other potential buyers. He said that
r4 some buyers might want the land only for two to three years before dumping it or ;F
they might want a joint use of the entire site or use of only one of the buildings. He w}rte -
suggested asking the realtor if there was an opportunity to link up with other
} prospective buyers to pursue other options than outright purchase of the entire site. _=4'
...,n fr.,._ Co ci_!mr Hu^t, Pvfr. -';l 2 t t!t,t
75
they would retain the bus facility in the short term with expectations of razing it for
parking in the long term. He agreed that they could use if for records storage in the e4 fl~~ '
hspt
~ short term, and pointed out the five acres of wetlands in the back. He said that the
value of the land might actually lie more in the wetlands as a greenspace..4
Councilor Hunt concurred with Councilor Moore's suggestion to take Option i as
,..K"
a basic plan and work on developing it from there.
a
g' Mayor Nicoll noted that the next step was convincing the other members of the
S-t g,
Budget Committee that this was the direction to go in.
VAR
Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to the seller about getting an option on the h M,
S", Amber Foods property and look into a joint purchase of the site. He pointed out } Jz
that if someone else wanted to use the bus facility, that could pose a problem in the I, 2--lit
' ; long term. x r f
a
7. DISCUSSION: VISIONING (Discussion continued from the 2/26/96 Council meeting) i $x~#
E 0 Assistant to the City Administrator and Senior Management Analyst/Risk pRp v _ <
Mayor Nicoli requested that this be set over to the next workshop meeting but placed first k { " a
s on the agenda. The Council agreed by consensus. -
w
8. NON-AGENDA
i w y
`-E Mr. Monahan presented the Sprint request to put a 130 foot tall monopole up on a 40 foot 4s
by 40 wot plot h I
- - - , of ground either On water district pYUlicYty in bal:il of the lire station or On
` A t~ - ~K N f r - ;
' Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 20
d Eft ; 2 k ~k t~#'~~r t`rr M }
X
ati >
+c ~-5 t a'~§ - K rte:
eF F
.x r+ t " a-- } Ia J
d z
~ - - A F 4 - 1 C' ) J
a _ b s
t_
OM_. 4 qC.
} J fib}
' i"o- fit -F - - - f , a z fk _ S _
s ? ~ s t- k
X. l` .3 - "''K Y" ~ t } - ,;~f" 7`777 s _
.
't .1 dip c! 1_ - R - Y F
3 2
L i k
5 S OAMIk - x k Y 11 i~ x - x _ -~.«1 st ,u.: y } per,
_ _
} j _ - t'+ e
4r r
:,'r^s~ w s~ you ter.' J ~.sd" uCi'$iu`Jx. _.aa.. ~.w..._ - -~f ' ,s '~s,L. a
ryw . ,r F; the City maintenance services property (though there it would interfere with someu ~,m
_ ,+f y- . -
shy maintenance uses). The $600 to $1000 a month rent would go to the water fund if they ;t ;Y *
"
I 'M t-*% placed it on the water district property. He noted that a problem with allowing the pole €
t.a i 1'z. 'fi`x z d,
aLmz - on water district land was a resolution passed in December 1992 by the Water Disirici _ .
n-
, X,t=~r,~ ,..5y~. ~ Board prohibiting any antennas over three foot above a roof ridge. d-Z~ " -
of
> Y cy~y , U-2yer Nko.; asked if the City could have limited use of the pole for their antennas. Mr. ~ t y,- +
K, Monahan said yes. "
Oill~
Councilor Rohlf asked if this pole would cover any of the dead spots. Mr. Monahan said -
=.-x that it could do so. ?'Al
Y Y - 4 r 1 q j - '^W
•L - -49f ;R' VTr'y-
{ } 3z ` , , f k j Mr. Monahan said that if the Council chose to do this, he would recommend a lease y r 5 S
allowing the City access to the pole and making the land available for other uses (standard ;
( contract clauses for this type of request). He declared a conflict of interest in that he used I L 1
x to represent CellOne and locate these monopoles in the metro area. He said that Sprint ~
emphasized that placing a pole near the downtown area would fill in the dead spots which f4 "
r
J ;f~w- ~ I
would help the City's emergency communications. 4, ~ ~
Mayor Nicoli spoke for exploring the possibility, noting that they could ask Sprint to , - b
7 - ,
rt'`~ landscape the plot with screening. -
t~r °x
fit,; Councilor Hunt reiterated Councilor Scheckla's suggestion to run this by the Tigard ~ s"p .
Merchants Association and get their blessing since it wouldn't add anything to the ° ,
t k S
` - downtown area. ~ 1 i _
After Mr. Monahan confirmed that the money had to go to the water fund, Councilor 'R~,
Rohlf commented that if they located the pole on city property, then the money could go n
F towards improving the downtown.
'O - T=~
y Mr. Monahan said that he would present a request to the Water District at their next § x
s meeting to change this resolution, though it should go to the IWB. U~ ;
1 > Mayor Nicoli said that Mr. Monahan would talk to Sprint regarding the tower. Councilor
r a
; , , ' Rohlf said that he was not inclined to let the Tigard Merchants Association have a vote in h, -
g i ~ this matter. Mayor Nicoli agreed that they should simply inform the merchants. '`"4$ `Z'~ `r~~ .
> Councilor Hunt commented that the Tigard Water District was reluctant to let the City use s r~ I i s1
"4 r the water building as much as they wanted to. He asked the Council's permission to get 7
r 1 _ support from King City an d Durham prior to bringing a request to the IWB to pass a VR
i ° resolution allowing the City of Tigard to use the building as needed.,* u - F ,
3 After discussion, Mayor Nicoli suggested the issue be brought up at an IWB meeting for r ` i
z discussion and a decision.
f
-r v F 4 F'- tttt~ _ , F 7
r Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 21- $L'
" _ , "
aE} a a ~ - I
yJ E i ` - a f*':m~'~.'°°."°." t*icz..- '::r 1 .fir ri w - c*%, Y' P 's..~` v - t ,i --g-- - _ a'~j. k-,k .j
t jr Rj
t tsar f ~ fg 1 - +J { - - ,
~ f lr~~ h t [ - , Fi - -f"
r ta s ss
Y rh 'n - i,r- 7'F-' -
k r+
~ ~ - Nf H~'..7,,'i'~~.&,,~ I . I " - I
J_t-~,`
iiiii
- -
sy:-~`Yj~~a`_tw~, ,tp,(~.~., a: t-rcr 1_[.» ~.tL is r , _ - ti.4 'L %T - rw'=
,
4s M 4 '
w
i_--_» -5$S ,r 4
~sC`-a " a x - # 42 ` e ®
`'Y,~"~`2, - € }v g "r ~yaF ~k ua`N~.aa`'t
?~~#t4 =~a~'f"`-
gag
Al;
30 1
9. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor ivicoit recessed the meeting into Executive Session at y.:,^.. rW It to [DRS t
Ja-
192.660 (1) (d), (e), (t), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, exempt
public records current
pending litigation issues.
N'
10. ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 p.m.
%NM
wj-,
r K
a+ Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
IV k 5 C .
qv
Mayo , ity of Tigard
Date:
a
RMI
c
' ` • ~ { a~.' iAadm\ccm\960319.doc r„^a
r Igs s T-a l fr t
# nom., -
" -N=
Vwll
Aiil
r
gag
t"Mu
{ .t w
t
NOW
1, MUM,
it Meeting Notes - March 19, 1996 - Page 22s, i
~w 5 ?t
o- qg~
TR 4,
+ r= ,y'txF:,,'.a"s;:',°„°r#°"-.'fis'^✓Ria*S'a '",ra;'° .5 T'Sfrs"*rr y` Gs~s .i-
'N'z sky, F r1 1 r„, 'yr~"~t~ u"".r'I*c,~ta~.," s r~s~ ~l-*~-" ~
-ilg
dk .ry t<- t + i t 4'S" 2 X' k 'i+p w. _M 'S N .1
k e"^
,a. ~ M1 as t 4 r-' i s - s 3 i yid s M, A
Frh}-q,
r RM i x x a
Eq -4
yM ~S; >r ~FX G,
MQVIM WO
Y~Z It ` A