City Council Packet - 04/23/1996
- e®
1 µ akau`Sa~.r~.i .:xi:.t~.~.:w~.d_.u......_....utiF.a.....e..s`~~s.,._. ~ _...~.c . J ~ ..t..... ,.~.e~.n.Lr . w .+.xw........w........ .~'~a~,v°.~ * _
: r
Viii v
OF TIG ® j
OREGON
1:.
r
P
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
1 B
t - Z
MEETING -
vh
_ April 23 1996
F A
_ Fier
T 6 3
COUNCIL FETING VIIILL BEf
TELEVISED
g t
cj
3 - - _ Wadmyolccpktl.doc
L) Y
i'
k
13125 SW Hail Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
.k> i-rte -r _ - _ ~w,o-....,... _ 1 's
2w, 4
5
~T~
- .
t t w . .
t - -
kit r~",`N t - h
- - - " ~ I - , , - ~ ; ~ : li~5, , I I
M - - , ~ , ~ . ~ , v - r - - .z c
i
t- ' , ~il
1-11 # a`c r t .M T„ya - - - - ...a.. . . ~.a. ~...._...........u.......a.. F . k fly .
r-,
$1
ry - ° j-'- LC "`s . y
}
E 1
f4
r z aS
jz~ ` - _ t, ~`y' , r>.,„ CITY OF TIGARD , n?j
5512 MW TIM jr s -Y-- .3 sK'!b+4s+~r'AArsF~/na u _
~M 77223 q Z d.Y'a,
r a; t'fREC -
I; •rr `f 1 i~ F.
PS €
3 ?M r
PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on then Yxr
s ~-t appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the "
y;~cr .
Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to r
be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by . .
i contacting either the Mayor or the City Administrator. s rN t~
f ,
Times noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying f;" 1
, - lr~ be present I y 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business ~ A} ' t, -
i
3~
agenda items can be heard in any order after 7.30 p.m.
w ue``,
,eA , :
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and e' ,i s ,
4 should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the f ~ ,
r>
t Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - r
~ ~ _
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
' r
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: ~k'n'
+ .VgS
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing fs E
impairments; and Fu`4
~ g ,
[ 1
• Qualified bilingual interpreters. i
i F. i' ' u' y -I ~ - F_ -i F d Y., 6i - $
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is 1 `f i
important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your ~i `
11_~W,111 ,,,,~-,O,_ n 'I i
need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone W
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
r ~
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). " `
k
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA , Y "
~tt
~ "
'M {
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 1 S F F {
4 Y Ys 4 4
a ff
y _ - _ s ~ `z - -''Sd
t1 § / 7 P
Qi, t~ - l.~ A- 3 r - 'I
k
hyST ii
Y J - - ? 'rf~ 3 2
e , N -1
r - - - - - _
f
L - - Y t t - - - - _ E f"
I
.t. - - - _
i
Z F.j
6 4 J E 1,.-,,,__-.~_,,-;,~,,,1,, 1, ~ L , - - - - -L', , t L , L: ~ - . .1 ~ ~ - , , ,
1 y - k
ie - - - - 7F___
'°PA('~•R'-ry+".Y.?N+c-cam.-`-w ~ti~.,~'A'w'~•.`_"„OC...~
miff-4 _;rI_.. _ _=.~A_S ] _ J_-Si..i• - - .~.uJ _..~~.a .,1.. ri..~.ct'J,_ i~ .i .v.-.. Li__;
a _
r
n.. -az s'qx t _ _
Y 2Fr - - 'r a s o - -
's "w~3 T - y{-x i -7
1 -1 .:x,9.11 - ..._....x_..... a..-..._w.~........a_r-uv L t 1 - -
Y t M;f . 4 -"S - .....a»ans6naw.
4l'
i k
% 1,74 "I
`0.Y > _ e. _b ;
Y bt, -
Y t t r
AGENDA
` 3 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING r
f a{ „ APRIL 23, 1996 - 6:30 PM
t
s} € 6:30 P.m.
• STUDY SESSION
i ` z
> BUSINESS MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City
Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS E ` . '
-0 6
r f 192.660 (1) (d), (e), 8L (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, t > L + w "--3
all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing ~ 11
from this meeiinK _lierlnend bV those present. g zy - _
.:.a~
rU
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, ` % "
.
but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 3
C Y a 5 any a
i >
' > AGENDA REVIEW a*, -Iv
7:30 p.m. i t
1. 1.1 Call to Order - City Council a Local Contract Review Board ~
r 3 s 1.2 Roll Call 3,t as
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports ti cabF
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items ~ t" ;f
7:35 pn r- wsi ~
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) ar } `
j 7:45 pm ~ 4-'
r
3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be ~ °4. ~T -1
enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request 3 X
I I
ti that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. z. As - : t i
Motion to: °j;
3.1 Approve Council Minutes: March 19, 1996 `x 5.
3.2 Receive and File: April 12, 1996 Memorandum from Human x-
5,`-:a Resources Director to Mayor 8L Council Regarding the Employee "s
Recognition Program x -
3.3 Terminate Waterline Easement within the Proposed Hillshire Creek " ~
F~ +
Estates Subdivision t
3.4 Extinguish Sewer Easement for Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision - J L ' T -R J
3 Resolution No. 96-_ # 3
3.5 Support Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) Request for Metro r 5 6
Greenspaces Funds to Help Them Purchase the Thomas Dairy Property - Resolution No. 96-
3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-judicial Comprehensive ~ ?
Plan Amendments for Properties Under Study as Part of the£
11 Transportation Update Within the Tigard Triangle -Res. No. 96-_ -
7y+d_, i 6F t^ ,k
2 '-1
.k. ` tY j
# COUNCIL AGENDA -APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 2 y
j
j<
- z_- , r~ - -'.--;~~-'-r- ~---~7~~ , - - , , --,.~!,-~;~~~!.,-!",-:,~.~~,,~.'~,,~~r" ~1' . " ; :
...a
, j
h - F. - L~
g Y
FZ S - 'f'
tf
F
- E Y' I , ~dl r I ~ 7 ~ ' I r . ~ " ---Z", " -','T ~ , ,
1. , - , , . . , . ~ , ~ n
z_
v _
`
,A
rt disx .k 'Z Yn 'L ~5 - - -,t s ~t h_ ? v~,* x,i-~`'.
.3a~''.c 5 p _ Y S '
f
` I - - 4 r~ t, { ...a+. -e rr 7 Y''
Z w?he - s' IZ > w t B - 3` a r i.~J`.~,_ S a ;
11 ~
~~111 "
x
N51 i;§~k , , 3 r x r
3.7 Enter Into a Personal Services Contract wit Spencer Kupper to
rer rT a - ) Complete the Scope of Work for the Tigard Transportation Update Y 1P v,
4
E r s 3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to , ; "x -
hr Iz „ Prepare a Plan for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park t 4
` 3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract ,
z Y .K
i Any items ~ ^ a h - t
k requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate ' . " v'
discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted ~ f ~a
4K7"_'-'--__-_- T these items which do not need discussion. "k & ~ NIUE a A : ; ~
a r --r 7:50 pm A
4. TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION "
- 7rz~. s1
UPDATE
a. Mary Tobias, President and CEO ,a} } w' 'k. ~r
- -s 8:00 w«tj~i?``9J,t-}k i,.
F` ' "ll < 5. CONSIDER PRO•TEM JUDGE APPOINTMENTS: MARC ABRAMS AND «..,",s~~°=~~~,` ~
jt~m
{ PETER ACKERMAN ~s
~ 3 ~~."`1
a. Staff Report: Administrative Services Manager _ k~3 ~1
J b. Council Questions h . ;A~}S~dfi d s
} : ~ti
C. Council Consideration: kr t ~I
Y ? ,z - Resolution No. 96 Appointing Marc Abrams as Pro Tem mt ,
N
l g ~ ~ y
z
- Resolution No. 96-_ Appointing Peter Ackerman as Pro ~ _
z Tern Judge x
f~
L 1 d. Administer Oaths of Office: Mayor Nicoll zx~~ , ,
11 7 - , ¢ 8:15 Dm id-ern F" .11
6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REPRESENTATION ON INTERGOVERMENTAL ~ ' to I- . ,
WATER BOARD 'p ' , I -
a. Staff Report: City Administrator
~ 3t p, I
, ,
b. Council Discussion ,P ~
7zs vm CONSIDER LIBRARY EXCLUSION ORDINANCE rp `
;r' I a. Staff Report: Library Director I A&&'
,F
~ b. Council Questions _ E ' ' , 4i~ ~ t s
,
1111 - . 11
S C. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96- h
t 8. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICEx t ,x
i CAPITAL LEVY e>r3
a. Staff Update: City Administrator 8L Library Director s._ - ~ I - i ~
b. Council Discussion } , I 1
, n
a Faa
3;y 3 Fi asks i
f F "I y., t
3 -tit l ar wtSJ,tr -
COUNCIL AGENDA -APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 3 _ ; F
; t F 9 'L1 "5 -try f g Y t a
S O.
{
- rwti`
Sw % _ C
rK' } k 4 :'k 1&'
A < 7't t - u z? rrCr't
fa J r - _
3''' y I _ _ g' t
U ° ; i L t l
I - ~ ~ ~ , , ' % ,L , ~ , I jL ~ , r , M - ; I . L ' - , , , -1
....~._t~-v_.. _.i..x s.-. -.v ~_....i._,L - L77_ -_vt. ,._L 1.c..F _"'7-'I...._ 1~c
r~ a ~ - -
,Z - Y
s ,
4_I
5 -
_ 2' 5 -
s a` a
a
14
; 1!N. J 11 s . ill wt,K M,3~ffi k 3 - ''s E' ` i M7; a,R~ -gym . r t . -
i 'a b - t
`~~/"N 9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF " h
xq°` PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES PROJECTS (Continued from the
, ~ April 9, 1996 Council meeting.) Continuation of hearing to select - s ,
£`Y greenspace projects. Tigard is entitled to receive $758,000 in local share ,r
' ' funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. ti~ f" " >`fir
,
7 4 ^ J a. Continue Public Hearing, 'Y 3
b. Update of Council Discussion from the April 16, 1996 Meeting: fi .
<",-,M- ' : Community Development Staff 10 , 4--.i? ,
- y t, c. Council Comment rrt i
d. Close Public Hearing ~ t -
m
F - - r 2. .''..:::.il C^..`-iAor~tinn• .r: L;'a ~x
- 9:20 pm s
, z 10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION k i;' f ` i
1 :7,-"-, ~ I I -
r k - ZCA 96-0001 SHULTZ z s- a
Y, Request: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the ;§?t S . w
.1 -I comprehensive plan from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium °
Density Residential and change the zone from Washington County R-6 to - 1¢x 7- Z - : a -fr
City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road across
} from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE REVIEW - $ ~ ;J~w `qtc"
; r CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan -,o, 4 f' am, ~
` ' , policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; r;; ;
Q 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, y '
Y ni
Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; s°
-17
" and 18.138, land classification of annexed territo ZONE: Present Xfi
ry • IY/ h
Washington County R-6.
I y
a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges
~ .
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department
d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal)'
L
r~ ' e. Staff Recommendation
1=1~'..~"~"-,~"",;,~""'~"-"~,ii
x ° it i
Y r f. Council Questions }
i
g. Close Public Hearing ` w
i
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96- ez Ordinance No. ~ t~R
yt
m - - 'f; its - p
~ e b;.tea ,
~ 1
k, r, - -l ; -,'y f' ass rr kL
t
h
r -,-r ,x COUNCIL AGENDA -APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 4 -
{ h
[ S f x" zF q'-.
S y
T t r .`E cI .1
k~~ -yy.}`. C A.
.RF-i 5 - X N Y 1
Y k 1
7 x ~ t v F_
p - ai qj f
e ~ t f f d cur (S.
,~°k'- T ; v r t ,r 7 /r Ra_ r
t f
t f
y L
'k? 4 a ,k.: '1
= Y f~ 1<-. c -a
<.t..._ -z. .r _ -_~.iti -1----- __c_..y. ~i. -~v S.~~r
-mss
z _
' x~"'a its ~
r
.~}}S".
fi s
ate. ~ z
x
i- k ^3 y Y} F
s- a 9:30 pm j -
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 016-0002 LUNDMARK 1 r r
ANNEXATION
Request: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of XF ;
0.47 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning r
from Washington County R-9 to City of Tigard Medium Density
Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust Street
! just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The
' relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1,
citizen involvement, 10.1.1, service delivery capacity, 10.1.2, boundary
criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community Development Code F
chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification
E } of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-9.Y+`
a. Open Public Hearing
b. Declarations or Challenges';
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department r t {ti
d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) 2
e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
g. Close Public Hearing{
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96- SL Ordinance No.
~R
96- s x
9:40 pm -
12. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ALBERTSON'S
INC./DUNCOMBE Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) Remand
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 93-0009/Zone Change (ZON) 93-
(SDR) 93-0014/Minor Land
0003; Site Development Review h= _ " ti y f r
Partition (MLP) 93-0013
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA){ V
remand for the following development approvals:
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate p *a
approximately eight acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium- 1r -
High Density Residential to Community Commercial on Tax
Lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel 14"
k
N from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density
Residential on Tax Lot 100. The Zone Changes accompanying 4 Y~ a
the above plan changes include a change from R-12 (PD) z
(Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) and R-
W
r 25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned
Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and from C-N 3f
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units
per acre); s
~4s
at ,
' s COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 5 F
z
r r C ~ ~
+
Ti, T
q' r
r t
T ~ J
- - - - - - ` - - . -arcec
er~_~ t
7q 4 _4 '
of ti+
W
~ ~ - R,r --'xd ti ,mss _ _ _ _
d rt eras{"- r,- _ _ y Y- _
C E{
rY-u,tiy` r+
F~- .k 7§ 'is sF t'
5t s -t z-
t - rv- s - s ~ - - -
ryr s 4 2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of E
~.ie€ - ° a 40 000 square foot stand-atone tenant pad and three smaller r- G'1'
' adjoining u
k tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 5,950 square feet r
x
the anchor pad. The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square f i Y ~ '
p' foot stand-alone tenant pads; and
a F--
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel I; 3 L-
I
y N f
into two parcels of approximately eight acres and 3.95 acres Y.
is
each. ~L- _ ~ - e®
= The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required City Council to s~ t t ?
-
a receive and make additional findings on the following issues: T T~s4 It,
3] 1, Transportation Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 8.1.3,a s ',}}__~ggi. `
- "aKt1 x-4 a b{
(f)-(h) and 8.4.1 P
2. Air/Water Quality: LCDC Goal 6 e x
3. Air Quality Impact: TCP Policy 4.1.1 , t
v_, _ 4. Water Quality Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1 y ~
5. Commercial Compatibility: TCP Policy 5.4`
L 6. Buffering: TCP Policy 6.6.1 h F
7. Storm Drainage Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2 t . -
, 1-1
8. Design Criteria: Community Development Code 18.61.055 <
u - r
y --Z' t V
The City Council will open the record for the express purpose of I " .•r,
- Y
} addressing the above eight items and will not take evidence or t° , , -I
argument on any other issues. ! - r F.__~
LOCATION: Southeast and Northeast quadrants of the intersection v, y
of SW Scholls Ferry Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 251 4BB,
Tax Lots 100 and 200). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: } - ~ ~4~~ Ia_ Statewide Planning Goal 6; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1A.1, * { ,
1.1.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.4, 6.6.1, 7.1.2 and 8.1.3 (f)-(h) and 8.4.1;8 x
Community Development Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and E u
" a 18.61.055. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood Commercial zone - a ~-{'k
permits a range of convenience goods and services which are M° °s x - 'a s
n purchased at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience _ 5
{ z;
' sales and personal services, children's day care, financial, insurance 5 ' X ,
and real estate services, food and beverage retail sales, etc. - r~ r, r
} Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot
`1
minimum. r'fx
I I ~
:a
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of E z
§ convenience goods and services which are designed to serve the p
f regular needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods.
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 6 i'
11 y T r
'C t { 55- ~A F
T L
- f- y k iY.~G i _
r
'T Y 4 ! f
4
t }
C
t C
, ~ 1, " ~ I' ' L.~. ~ _ , . 4 ~ ~ I , , ~ ~ ~ I ' - , ; L,~ . ~ , - A `,I_~Jl~- " ` ' ' " - - , f - ' - -
t - 1 e 5 t ,r -.1
E ~ E" _ 6, i c t
e a { i _ r x' 4' ,
? 3 i shear f
t4- - _ _ 6
"r
t f IW - f _ _ T
rJ( t~~, 5 _ -
- - 1
1
L ~4___ r_,
_ m c , k tiF ,
,
s-..~.~-1j < _
F
2
~ ~H,_W~n-,T---- . ~ , ~r, - ~ 11 I
? J i
' ~ '
fi L7 S a4 1~
OR ,
y"ir ; ..g` w i 4a " s4 X~ " C 3
Community Commercial centers typically range in size from a # ti~
11
z -1 minimum of two acres to eight acres. In teens of building square k
91 -o & -1
,n footage, these centers range from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. z
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family I - t
zeF j attached, low and medium rise multiple-family residential units, for , <
~ ' - .1 medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone permits ? U
r s ~s x residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned ~'T ' „
k .3 Development zoning district overlay is designed to encourage - ~ ~ t `
Y + properties to be developed as a single unit in terms of design, access, ~ -
r x etc. y t t' x; ~r
a. Open Public Hearing i= .x M, &
I I", b. Declarations or Challenges k 344 x ,6
r~_ce n____ _
C. ,w,..caperi: Community Development Department .
d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal) fi w
e. Staff Recommendation ; , u `y i h-
1 _ -
fi f. Council Questions 5n '
t g. Close Public Hearing
h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96- F 11 ~k}F ,
F S 10:15 p10 -f A4~ L }
x r ` 13. PUBLIC HEARING - LEGISLATIVE: PROPOSED LAND USE , -W {
APPLICATION FEES/CITY OF TIGARD The Tigard City Council will All - ~ -1 >,>v-
a"N
conduct a public hearing to hear testimony on the proposed land use `s "
, N
application fee changes. *N ;i
r E° w a. Open Public Hearing "4- Y N
b. Declarations or Challenges z 3
C. Staff Report: Community Development Department 4~ ~ _
Z_IRI r w j d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) ' rM
1 e. Staff Recommendation A k . F
z f. Council Questions ' , y °
g. Close Public Hearing tp I_ H
z
s h. Council Consideration }
z - ~ 5"t - 10:25 Pm v t - is e ' _
, 14. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001 - CITY OF ~ ; ~`j, ~ ' Ea
TIGARD - UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION (Set over s ~ Am
4 from April 9, 1996 Council meeting.) A proposal to amend the Tigard t i
`Os Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add Sections C. T-p- , {
Y and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground utility requirement ' ' , {
and a fee in lieu of undergrounding. : ~ ~ _ - rA I
6
a. Open Public Hearing r~ i
' b. Declarations or Challenges t~ 17 i
¢ R ~ .i ` c. Staff Report: Community Development Department y { ,
4 h
f d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) ' ,III" ,
COUNCIL AGENDA -APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 7 " ` i
-i_ v,i,"u~e asa
t a. _ .1
Erna ? t # _ _ a'u ao-'; .i
x r y
rs t y
' „d
f
v -T k i - -
y-7 ~•M1 3 - - - f J i { -J
Z { . ` s F
4 - -1 F J
Eli ! 3 F - ,
fi b
( - x ~1
, ~ " ' " r, . . , T ~ r ~ , , - L , " . . ' r , , ~ I , w , P. .:,_-1
E y - - - _ _ -
r,
~'~_n I+.r .*~T.-.^-rv. _ ~V^i~^y....a- +!S4 '"~aT~'.•» ^"~-.r.-r-'r-.- T"""YJ
Lh
`u'~.§ ~ i.Fi-"~'3s' .y~~' ~ ''vY r ~ v;v~e-r~,c L - _.,....:s: .~`t'•~ s"~ 3~`""`"~~~i `.>#e,.?a
- - ...~,~i,..~z ",tm+~i"v"''. '"$;•~•z, ':•tr _ ~Yz , ~Sv~_... ._{~:i"`n-sar-ry
lE ~~~¢:'~L9~.,~~•Trt.k`A:~=fir 4.~:€,8~~4 f~ ~ Y t { ~p {R.i: u~;'~," 'v,, ~ k ~t7§S~~t~.y.~~~-~
`Y;.. 3~y-~'Y-,.,« 4 v 1 zs - 2 r - - t •r - 3'~"j's - 4a ?E`r
Z.F .s.....~w.-. '✓.~.....u.... _....t~_...:.w..._. dYO.......es.tww~L::.'.i..i.+ 1i'S ~y'~ X~.-rW` ^~F~
ti °ki4f?.6 #SaafTT `it'"}`t"F..✓_'q'UiltiY'L
z% n~
5Of e. Staff Recommendation
f. Council Questions
>rk~ - x
g. Close Public Hearings
{ y h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-
tti-`' _ ~``Y .•q 10:45 pm
15. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 'a
11:00 pm
s 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
* x Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to
s + 5 ab r €s x s.
discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending ,
y n y
litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are .
43~~ ~ss^p' `r~yc'
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
r present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 17. ADJOURNMENT
yi ~~:~,'~~YS; trr;.`8'!-e~e_s. _ _w,"•d:.7. F.g..3vg. u- ~"Y
~ ~ - - yak. ~ •y.+'E "q'VY ~r .
1s\adm\cca\960423.doc~~x
~ t ~ eG.`r' ~a> 5k L
'Ji
5 A .,'i.y~ Iy
r ~
z a rt '~zs~ a
a x E 1',~ tY4 emu. iaC _
7i
3T`'
VZ`
Y
COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 23,1996- PAGE 8
`F h ,yr ,2a f'` s ~
77777-77
7:1~ 77
d < - - - ~ - r'ez-
„fir
3 M.e•• x i. -.i y :t - NFt
.K~ 't
13-
Ye Z,"'"kY s+ if a Vii., ^F,'¢ t
.y ~ vc x
° dyS xt A ✓a } f b -
Cs 'a fz,
vKg,
itv
- `~f`
t -
x 4 k
flCT 't -0„ - - - n .m..r sa - to S.
--v,.a";e~°'*'-.r x4 .w,a,..,...-.- t 4...v.AS✓.za.~.r.,rs...a..wr-.....- - - _ 4` t -_-s."-~.,d
F~N',- .tiuMiDSia`r
. 1# -2V' it
Agenda Item No. s
Meeting of i° /tp Ei F 4
- rr c - - y TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
r
4 s ` - MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996
~ Y Vim,
£ 2 S -
4:max a • STUDY SESSION
c7ti :}Z -
sK Jiln Nicoll
> Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by iviayur
1 > Executive Session: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 l
- z p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor - .y; g , ~ t .
- , ' relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. - tt Q 4
t j 5 t 'Ytt l j,1 ' . - , _
> Executive Session adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
- ,
2s ~_x t
> Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoll, Councilors Brian Moore, Paul Hunt, Bob V ~r~s ~fi~t 11, . Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla. k , )j . , M` ,
11
-j - > Staff Present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Administrator Liz , k`~ 11- Y
- Newton; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Ed Wegner, Maintenance Services; Jim yam` r,
Hendryx, Community Development Director; Gary Alfson, Consultant; Wayne , _ Q - A~~
j'~ Ai~. Waav y-_,
Lowry, Finance Director; Jim Coleman, Legal Counsel; Terry Mahr, City Attorney, r aM j r
Pro Tem; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Plattner, and F I
Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director. .3
F#
- > Agenda Review zt
4
~ City Administrator Monahan reported that Legal Counsel Jim Coleman would step `
down from the Albertson's remand hearing to preserve the record against the 3'r s~~ . mot=
possibility of a conflict of interest. Terry Mahr, the City Attorney for the C ity of { 3 A
4 Newberg, would fill in for him. cs~~ u~
rrw--'t
~ Mr. Monahan suggested that the Council either consider agenda items 13 and 14 ,X,1' _ -
} prior to agenda item 12 (Albertson's hearing) or continue those items to another,
meeting. This would allow the Council to dismiss Mr. Coleman for the evening -if
once item 12 was reached. k
e r
Mr. Mahr noted that one issue of concern on the remand hearing was the possibility I
t -t,. •
that the participants would submit a lot of new documents into the record. He said U sk, ~ s Z] I
that if that was the case, the City might want to take the position that they would not
acce tnew documents into the record until staff had a chance to review those v- - , P
documents and make sure that they only addressed the remand issues. Q,L' z-?
4 x , z- ,Og s - L
Mr. Mahr stated that he has spoken with the applicant about the statutory provisions ."4 C'
allowing him seven days to rebut j 'd,' i.,
€ ' n " --j
5
- Mayor Nicoll asked if the applicant's attorne would write the findin s, should the
x Council make a positive de csion. Mr. Mahr said that the applicant's attorney has ~ q v '
already written the findings which were contained in Exhibit A. Mr. Monahan said
p that if other findings were needed because of new evidence, staff would send them -
out to the applicant's attorney.
`.3 4 1 -
f r CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 1 "
t"- -=w
b 5 ~€t'Y3
-L. ? - - 5 4' t G
k
- - - { $ Gy .
t-__ a -.s 3 - 'P
x '
a
JJ
1'Cf4y. _ - 3
C}f _ - 45 _
- - - - _ i5._ '-3- fi n
- -I
f .u_.. __i. ._„_.~__..s 1, c.~;.._ r......... Y__ r-~ ~.,f.. ..cti~-.~.__.-z
. t
k
ES R _iw.r- -
V - Y^ -
-x-' 1 s - - t _ -
A -,AO " ~ ~,i s ,
{
°if -"`ci „ vy
w
- Mayor Nicoli asked if he could assign time limits to the testimony. Mr. Monahan
_ said yes. r' rt ~
a f~ Councilor Scheckla asked if it was possible to "appeal" on the appeal. Mr. Mahr f'
` .
;..;,"said that passing an ordinance was an appealable decision to LUBA, the Court of .
Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court. He commented that the applicant has told } - _ a, -
him that he expected the decision to be appealed. I ~ . E
-`U~ ~
Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Mahr if he saw anything in the findings that looked
out of art:;= `
- the ordinary. Mr. Mahr said that he thought everything looked good.
s - -i Mr. Monahan reviewed the revised language on item 3.6 on the Consent agenda, t M, x~ n
(the resolution on the waiver of processing land use applications). ~ - v -
!
f Mr. Hendryx pointed out that staff sent notices to every property owner in the r~
Triangle informing them that this issue was on the agenda tonight. Nadine Smith , 0.
received about six calls from people interested in what was going on., `
Planning Commission applications were distributed to Council. Mr. Monahan asked , , - ~ ,4
Mr, ~ ouncil
to allow . Y titma o review themnbt to efore ftheyMay 20 interviews.ayor Nicoli and Councilor Rohlf f, i
~
!r+, Mr. Monahan reviewed additional agenda changes, The Mayor of Durham ; ,;-A;" _z.~, .r
a requested that Item 6 be withdrawn from consideration. He explained (on the r: $ , -
' Willamette River option) that the City of Tualatin wanted to be included on the next = ^#,03 ~
,Z5 level of that study at a cost of $15,000 to each of the now seven participants; it . I -
would cost Tigard approximately $2000 more with the funds coming out of the water k E € ri
budget. He said that the needed to sin a memo of understanding to continue the
they g ~t< s ~
1 - - I process. ' i s''-~ - 'i .s-
1 r -,y--s ~y t- v '~s
Mr. Hendryx reported that there was a letter for the Mayor to sign supporting the ~ ki
r x recommendations of the Committee regarding folding the Boundary Commission into ; ,
P
Metro's process and streamlining the process. He said that one concern staff had ~
was that a lot of the procedural detail and criteria for approving has not been worked =1 <I
out yet; Tigard wanted to remain involved in that process. z - ,
a
a --N ~F'-
Councilor Hunt asked if this was giving more power to Metro. Mayor Nicoli } I
L commented that this cut back the entire process. Mr. Hendry x said that he thought - E, 1 .
this gave more control at the local level. " " .
.
,14 I"~ e gs
e ~ Mayor Nicoli asked if they could still refine the RFP criteria for the study at Cook n r i,
Park even if they passed that item this evening. Mr_ Monahan said yes. Mr. i a i`
Hendryx asked the Council to give staff direction to approve the request subject to q~ ~ I 11
7
I
. - input from the other agencies.
- s -.i t- s x 2
`fI s,
r z k
1 G
t, 5d s-I -
, "J r
p{ -
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 2
k
t` `3?3
$ g
3 - i
h
1 t - - I - - 3'~
v L I L T
4 r '
6
F 1I
[ YS - , C - - J
l
/F
3 ( 1 - - al l r
t' -
-s { f - t -
L,d ry - - ry 4 - .,Y ~ ~ : ~ , M , - . ~ I
t` t ]
c
1 .ir ~..c ...t_ -3"
,
f~k Zx >3 k
d - 7 t
gu=ys k t 3 k 3 'k
I 17
N h
, 1, M: .1 ~ I. - -
Z _ -g t-,~,,a'~
~x xx}`s {
a
k~ x tY f 1. BUSINESS MEETING t s -
r
s- -'i- Y# f a-
y R ~ 9v k A,
~i 11.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board x #t y
M s
a Mayor Nicoli called the business meeting to order at 7:30 pm. f i
x:N •
6 E "S s: a, yy 4eFd f
'`k h 1.2 Roll Call £ s .
3 Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli; Councilors Bob Rohlf, Ken Srheckla, Paul , '
Hunt and Brian Moore. re.,. .
x- . >°i
1, I , t 4 Staff present: City Administrator Bill Monahan; Nadine Smith, Senior Planner; i~ , j ~
Y _ - Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder; Sandy Zodrow, Human Resources Director; Liz ~ a N Newton, Asst to City Administrator; and, Jim Hendryx, Community Development , _
a I F41
Director. # _ ~ , 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance - , r~
1.4. Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None ~ -
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items ~gY
r kil-~
r' City Administrator Monahan noted the following adjustments to the agenda: pulling = `Yi,€sV ,
item 3.9 from the consent agenda for further discussion and withdrawing item 6 at z - a
the request of the City of Durham. ~ r°
- - -
2. VISITOR'S AGENDA °
, va s
0 > Michael Mills, Construction Inspector, President of OPEU Local 199, strongly - U - k; . - ,
km's ~ I
recommended that the Council approve the new OPEU contract. He stated that the Union ~,,~Zh_ t
members have already ratified the tentative agreement. He said that they understood that .r - ~ ~ "
{ the Council has reviewed that agreement and would approve everything except the return , r',,,, F
of the 6% retirement contribution. He said that it was their understanding that the Council i " , r ~
believed that the 6% could only be set aside if Measure 8 were found to be invalid; however _ I s
Council needed to understand that the Union members believed that they had a contractual ti 5~~ f
right to the pension benefit.
- . ~ - 7, ~ ~ '
Mr. Mills stated that they felt that their contract with the City has been violated and that the i
Council was tin to bass the bar ainin~, V '
ryg yp g g process. He said that the Union has filed a
grievance over the City's taking of this benefit and was ready to go to arbitration to settle " i
the issue. He said that if they could settle this without arbitration they could save the City P
approximately $8,000 (the average cost of arbitration). 1 SF, ~ ,
~r
~ Mr. Mills said that this was seriously affecting the morale of the employees. Though the F s ~ r
C P r , { Council needed to consider the will of the citizens of Tigard, they also needed to consider i ~'&tf,* C
tt the City employees. He contended that the citizens didn't vote on Measure 8 knowing that y V
it would mean a reduction in City employee benefits. He stated that the citizens have _
r approved numerous bond measures based on the performance of City employees. He said ' s r r
that the Tigard city employees have complied with the provisions of Measure 8 in ~ P F"r R-
t c t 3 i
A. . h contributing at least 6% towards their own retirement. , 3& e -
Z CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 3 ;W7" t
{ 't x -
W as -r -
Ear s - - - r" s --z--<-A x x; l I%
q r
4 _ - - - - - - - v ir" d
s r a
.:L , I , , - L ~ " ~ , "4` ~ij- I
, ~ 2,~:"_ . - t r ~ ~ , _ ~ , - . - , 11 - - - 1
t
4 - T 7 -
t L T
a
n rs FN t z _
y J _ M s~, - ,r >r
- ,E k F .y k
t
F
l} 1 .-ty t o _ a _ ~1 iy t
N
t.,3,d.i,u .«v,.y,:"; _ir1 -.~1.1 _.v .._'_~i-! `.cv_~. s„..,- i- i.._~.~ i ,c _T , 1. ~~`Y- .~r _Y..-
. .
t*'n,3L y i - - - - - -
' t;R _ _ t
i'~0k' "'W, mot, - - - _
W,
ar"'~ k'" ; 3 r c' - i y z -
1 . 1-~~ a g<
la~^ et 5 S - } ~ r
D
{ ~
£-q
xpF 3%Y!:. ~ Y ; _ -a:4 "s...a - - _ . _ .e 8 , xs .~b
1-1
T. X5i- x 3{ - .~3a ,d ~
dk~ 4Nt-,-1 r t~ ~-a -tF4Yr- a z'~ I
- - ,1,",- 1 Mr. Mills said that the City Administrator presented alternative methods of implementation k t; - g
& to the Council last December. He said that both the attorney hired by the City to negotiate - -
A y this contract and the City's bargaining team have recommended ratification of this '
agreement. He said that the agreement was a complete package achieved by both sides ° `t~_ r ~ _
working to find a balance between the needs of the City and the Union; this agreement was ( t"~
' : meant to resolve all the remaining issues. He said that removing an important aspect would 1 ' ~ f
-i have an opposite effect somewhere else in the agreement. He asked thai the Council -'art- - 1 _
support the Tigard public employees and approve the new contract tonight. ~ait c
{ k-f
4 3 > Dick Skowden, 6105 SW 148th, Beaverton, spoke on the issue of growth and the area's , F
,.:.,=q;,=,.':; ability to accommodate the growth comfortably within the UGB. He stated that it was
important to hold the line on the UGB. He pointed out the dramatic population growth in € ' ,4 ~ ,
the area over the last year and stated that it was important to work as quickly as possible ~
1 T- s
to accommodate the growth and stay ahead of it. He said that it was important that „,.-I''l,4 .
- Washington County and Metro provide staffing to help the local governments take quick 1,: ~.r 5 r- -
4
action in a fair way in order to make proper land use decisions. x. f a _
~3
> Bonnie Mulhearn addressed the issue of the OPEU contract. She asked if the Council ' _,t r 3
thought that their representatives had done a poor job during the negotiations. She s,; x i+, { h:
contended that the Council was violating the existing Union contract and keeping money that - ~ mot. _
r' rightfully belonged to the Union employees. She said that the Council should vote on ~ r- L ,
whether or not the a reed with the tentative agreement in open session. F = n}LL
Y g y- 4 t T „s'. s :t
3. CONSENT AGENDA x142,!"
a F
Mr. Monahan asked to pull Items 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 from the consent agenda. f` -fit ¢
Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the Consent r ; y „
fi Agenda Items 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 and 3.7. ~~F
, Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors i - dt r ° '
v - _ Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes. -
k 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes: March 19, 1996- k _
3.2 Receive and File: ~ -
April 12, 1996 Memorandum from Human Resources Director to Mayor & Council 4 'l ,
regarding the Employee Recognition Program t~
3.3 Terminate Waterline Easement within the Proposed Hillshire Creek Estates { i
Subdivision ,'E r w
3.4 Extinguish Sewer Easement for Bonita Industrial Park Subdivision - Resolution No. }
: , r ;
96-22 ; z ~ ` "Z", ~ ~ ILL,- , - .
3.5 Support Unified Sewerage Agency's (USA) Request for Metro Greenspaces Funds E -V } t
to Help Them Purchase the Thomas Dairy Property - Resolution No. 96-23 1
P 3.6 Waive Processing Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Comprehensive Plan Amendments
1 for Properties Under Study as Part of the Transportation update Within the Tigard
Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24 it s
3.7 Enter into a Personal Services Contract with Spencer & Kupper to Complete the j
Scope of Work for the Tigard Transportation Update s r F
11
3.8 Approve Request for Proposals and Budget for Hiring a Consultant to Prepare a Plan 4` ~ I
for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park _ -~r t
r
{ IE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 4 ;
11
rN , 6 s
L
to i ~M ,r
....:~•r' - - - - 1
. -
F{
f~
t i-
3
l- -t1
-r
-L1r _ - - - i - -
_
- _ y-%$ } f
r 7 - - r
m t
, a, f
x
L L- , - I I ~ ~ * ~ . - ,
. i -
1
1
y
- -
- a, 13
_ _
' - - - - - - - - - -
4 "wax 1-t 9 1 4 - - - _ ~j x -
s fit ti - .V.,.,.. - J 1 ' T o 5- J S''a.3, _
L`' c u~..-a' "mss 7 as - s c,
11 , qr -rte . '`7i f ~ - -
g, C i z , ~
v 3" -`,g~ s, i ;.n a- i'uau .uw I v.a n___u - -,i~ ..fit
fir, - £ Ni a~
3
1-1
maxis k'`
3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract " # ; 4
~ X
X • Consent Agenda -Items Removed for Separate Discussion
3 F , s z'-Plan
Amendments E s r ' > 3.6 for Pro ertes Under Stud ast Partfor the JTrans lorta6 on update e W thin he Tigard - _
A- K r
P Y P - _ x
¢ : _ Triangle - Resolution No. 96-24 ~;4 `k,'' z-
y~ r 3~ Mr. Monahan explained the revised language to the resolution as recommended by t , ` , y -
the City Attorney to clarify the City's position: the City would not accept y - y ~ -K i
`K;s F,,..f.a - ;I, applications at all as opposed to accepting applications and not processing them. y6`{ ' ` " '
{ A 5 ,$E
na t' fit - t
ry _ -.Mr. Hendryx reported that Nadine Smith received some phone calls in response to
n ' the notification sent out to the property owners in the Triangle. - m 3
x s w ~ ,
u - + Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent 3 # _
Agenda Item 3.6 as modified. . s
t, f Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, 1'« p
$ Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") - _ _ ~ _ i~:
Stu.
_e 1, i;' " > 8 Approve vRe u t for Proposals and Bud et for Hirin a Consultant to Pre are aPlan ,aaa=":'
- 3 9 es g g P >:r 's
=.4`= _ r 'lo for the Proposed Expansion of Cook Park 1... UN" ,x dl ,
~ as
Mr. Monahan stated that this RFP drafted by staff has been sent to their potential q~g , ~ A 11 .
partners (USA and various Tigard sports groups) for comment and review; staff ,
i_v F wished to insure that the RFP included the necessary detail to meet all the partners' ~ a ' ,,z, ~ .
11 , V ,f ~
needs. j,, V I
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve Consent N-t
I~ 4 y. ,vg~,. yix
Agenda Item 3.8 with future amendments. S3~s $
1 Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council Present. (Mayor Nicoli, ` f ~ Jj
l
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") zr~~
> 3.9 Approve Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU) Contract xe-
r
Mr. Monahan recommended that the Council pull this item from discussion tonight f 4„-'~ 1;b ,
l-4
J because there wasn't a contract to sign, unless the Council decided to agree to the q -I -r=
- added rovision suggested by the Union on to of the issues that the City's y ~~7+~~:t~'_
P P 1 - r~
- bargaining team recommended. € s - 5~ F ~ ~
=:3 Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a motion to move forward on this item. There was s a k
none. 4 " k~
r - i Mr. Mills protested. He stated that there was a tentative agreement (ratified by the -
F Union) before the Council tonight. He said that the bargaining team has "
recommended that he Council ratify the tentative agreement because the team agreed ,T ~ ~ 'f . F -71 "I F
Y3 ` to the ground rule that when a tentative agreement was reached they would bring it } to a
, " to the Council for ratification. He contended that the signing of he contract was not e
r z" until much later in the process. _ _ -
I -
td
, CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 5 # _
i T f f _ .yam t Y G
ti f° S p X, 4i,-✓ -
ia
F t - -'I
i $ 3 l -k 't t ; 2
3'~~.. _ 5
ea+~yf J 1 4 -
%
r
eS _ r - w
"ys Yi-
~ - - ,n' _
a
n* r' e F
r
y'
~ rj
¢ 4 - I - - - -
r 9 P " i - , , F~ --~i -t ~ , , - , ~ - : - , , - I ~ - ~ 1 , . - , - ij~,~ :i - " , M
'a~~ 8~ zwk k tEy i ,
t-
t
- : 2 r , , ~ - _ ~ . - - I
3
~ f { f 4
11
trM1, _
a I t' ~ Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council had no problem going back into negotiations , H
I ,1 - with the staff. He noted that there were other options under State law that the Union , r 4
could take if it so desired but that the Council would not move forward on this item
1 F t
b ~ 11
' r k;q tv^nlght.
" f 4. TUALATIN VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UPDATE .
r a
Mary Tobias, TVEDC, referred to the packet mailed out earlier to the Council. She . ~
x; a ,
reviewed the latest issue of Doing Business in Washington County, commenting that it has r
been very well received. She pointed out the healthy growth in Washington County over # F r
- 7,A
the past six to eight months. She reported that they have seen a 10% increase since last 1 ® y
f. 3 year in the number of requests for the demographics and economics services provided by ,
TVEDC, the majority of which came from within the Portland Metro area -businesses > j,3, T 4 # a ;
a looking at expansion or relocation. She noted that the major employers list, while not
q~§;-
complete, was a good representation of employers in the county.
Ms. Tobias reported that the Board of Directors was in the process of approving an
` ambitious 1996/97 work plan that built on last year's work plan. She said that the Housing F Y
& Transportation committee was investigating the housing and land use issues in the 2040 x',, r `
- study. She said that the Transportation committee was finding much in the regional i ;
transportation policy with which they concurred but that they did have some concerns about , ~ ti t
possible discrepancies between the Metro projected numbers and what was realistically , 11-1 E 3 ,
probable. ~j 1'
Ms. Tobias pointed out that though a certain number of jobs might be feasible on paper, the 'r ' , s r '
x X characteristics of a particular community might preclude that number existing in reality; for ,ki- ~ -It`s t` ,
example, Sherwood might be able to accommodate 8000 new jobs but it was unlikely toy -x r
actually do so. She suggested that everyone step back from the models and consider reality. " A~ a
f 7 . 3
Mayor Nicoli asked if TVEDC would come out with position papers regarding the 2040 3~#,~ _ 11 a i process, once the final draft came out from Metro. Ms. Tobias said that their Land Use ' F~ , ,
committee was working on three position papers (including growth management and s
affordable housing) while the Transportation committee was working on the first of three F
refinements of the transportation policy segment of 2040. . r i
i ,
Mayor Nicoli asked if the Council could get those comments before the City had to respond r
to Metro, noting that TVEDC had a different perspective. Ms. Tobias said that they would N , -g ~ p
share what they developed as they developed it. ' } 4' {k -
a -x rt , t -
Councilor Scheckla asked how TVEDC defined affordable housing in Washington County.
Ms. Tobias said that they have not yet achieved a workable definition, pointing out that the t-- , ' i
region was struggling with this difficult and complex issue. She said that the subcommittee y ~ 1
was looking at a mathematical formula that included all the myriad of factors involved in r t , _ - ,_,I ~ , -
v rfi
the issue, and that hopefully in 30 days they would have a workable definition. 1 r~,;?
<r
5. CONSIDER PRO TEM JUDGE APPOINTMENTS: MARC ABRAMS AND PETER 1 ~
ACKERMAN ; fi
a. Staff Report 1 s s r
Nadine Robinson, Municipal Court Director, and Michael O'Brien, Senior I a
Judge, presented the staff report. Ms. Robinson reviewed the need for pro rein ~1- #
t \t~ a- , r rx-5 t o
"-~~-',:,.~14,~-,,~:.~~~~,~',~,,;,:'~,.-, - ~ ! -
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 6 , } t
_ s
$ f
r s- i - _ ,r, - - i L r'
I4
f
t t, t
yk, r
P.
I i
M -
~j , , j~.- - , , . , - ' : - - - , , " ~
E _ L _ 1
-F Y 'I
~ ~ 1~ - . . r, ~ . ~ I - , ,,~~---f , -1, "'Irl 1~1.'-` , ~ , ,
j
- . - -
MR , "-~^_~"'t~]?~-? _-._f -_a , _wv ~L.. ._.sf_~.. ._v _ -3
7
~t- '„ems fi r
V~~4'4"x'4 {~'p _ _
g -
' K r`' ~?,r r t , -
4 r
s eta -
- - judges to serve as backups for Judge O'Brien and the process they used to select the - g { - r
-0y- a <
{#j r appointees. She said that they recommended the appointments of Marc Abrams and
- x Y :J Peter Ackerman as pro tem judges on the basis that they had the necessary f qualifications to serve as pro tern judges and that their most closely „ --_V~- ul ~ }
_ reflected Jude O'Brien's. philosophies ~U ,
F "
yt t gr
ac ~
- r _ h. Motion by Councilor Hunt' seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve - K,- " -
c 4 x 4 - - 1 ResotLLrroll .~T., 96'25, ~"r
rc, ''jr ,a , '-ryas
x U~ cx 3r
'rr_ - } - The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-25 by number and title. -
11 t ~ wr RESOLUTION NO. 96-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - 1
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH MARC ABRAMS, ' < ~ ~
h , MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE. q u~ F7
Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli,
Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") ,kZ" g It'- j4~
, ~ " -
> r'
Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded b Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
~ ~5 No. 96-26. -?Ks-t _ -4 i 1 The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-26 by number and title. " - let
a - -1
s r F~~1 ;
, < RESOLUTION NO. 96-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL - , ,
APPROVING PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH PETER ACKERIvIAN,~ ^
Fr s MUNICIPAL COURT PRO TEM JUDGE.; , x~
k M
' Motion was approved by unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli," Y
r Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") F~
9 d. Administer Oaths of Office = "
s C;
? 1 P
Mayor Nicoli administered the Oath of Office to Marc Abrams and Peter Ackerman 1- V I ~
' - _ individually. - - r
W-=, _
3 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: REPRESENTATION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL r'~ C A I
-
£ 1 - ~ , .
WATER BOARD t r^:
,,~4~,~~., ,,~~,,~~-.,:-,,~",S:,7,,;~~,,~-,--~~,~ I I 1.~ ..-I
B-
~~,This item was pulled (see Study Session notes above). `
" _ 7. CONSIDER LIBRARY EXCLUSION ORDINANCE t - r n,, xv f -
, ; ~ ~ a. Staff Report r' 4.- a
4 ~ xl -
s t- ' Kathy Davis, Library Director, gave the staff report. She stated that though the ` . - 1, Z,
' vast majority of citizens served by the Library were wonderful, there were a few ' {rkr t} t
z Y whose behavior was less than appropriate for a library setting. She explained that f {
, a ,
the intent of this ordinance was to give library staff some recourse to deal with : , - I 1
F r illegal or inappropriate behaviors through removal from the premises and revocation ' ' fi k
x - _ r, - .;zx rye.".
- of library privileges for 90 days. r; I V.
4 3
s K
2 ~Q
8.,
Y CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 7 "
sx J ' Yt e,
_ - e 1- , r r
t -,.c1 a C.-r tt F 'C -~~`s-srv 1
_ .,~fi fi. r7. 77 `7 ^arr°+w --T - 12 2- ° i,.?.. ,O -2 . .~e.^°°"". _ 4 S - - Y 1
y i }Sa - _ - f1~-, it"' .tt~1 t' t J
, U ~ , ~ - ' ' - ~ " " .~.":'-'11."I'l~' I I" , , - , -4,
~ d.~Ik,~ 11:,~j,-,,.~,~, , A
o- a
3 t.F S `f 3 Y~"YSt y
3 ,A, y Ll r -jN t x rs
7 F
'i s J
~z ° ~ } s
1 - ~yA~ / 1 4 1 !
o- _-6
' - .1- I 1-1 Sj, '•--r+i--^--_ _'if"~ ^~r-.,11 ~•yn-- T _ -.I
r x u: _
i -i
.w ?sue _ k
- no W
v s"-~ w1yP1 3 ~.'`kT, _ F mot`- _ _ 1 --1 4 f 'y-'
- a 3 i a f x A -W ART „ a r
y0y
t z~t6a~'z 4
- - b. Council Questions t p
a y or t'
Ma or Nicoli asked about the line item on 18 stating that no food or beverages t
} ' 5 t- - were allowed in the library. He said that he still hoped to see an area in the library a~
z1 -M- - where people could read while eating or drinking. Ms. Davis explained that that~k
t4 - _ item was the "user friendly" version of the ordinance that would actually be posted l 3
in the library. She said that the behavior guidelines outlined in the ordinance were :
rr is ? basic common sense and common courtesy.
_ _ .".iS Davis ;;Hied a rhaar IP the wnrrling in the- _--d-linen to state that a person s a ~ i t- • -
violating the law would be removed from the premises and have their library .1. I
- privileges revoked for up to 90 days. ;YT.i- ~ t
f-114, ,
- Mr. Monahan noted typographical errors in the ordinance on page 3 -Chapter 1.16 k>~'~
k?- .
,~D 3 x should be changed to Chapter 1.17. , -1i r-
f
' c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 96-15 and 96-16 ~ h -g ~ -
a 5 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to adopt Ordinance
W. { ,
I -l,
"
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-15 by number and title. ,
t-
, ' t ;t, ° ORDINANCE NO. 96-15, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE _ V ,
: x , TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 7.100, EXCLUSIONS ~$s t "
t FROM TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY. r yr
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor , i - f
s
r Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt and Moore voting "yes.") R- NW ~ .
x: z ~
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to adopt Ordinance g'' 1,,71 g
f No. 96-16.
, , I
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-16 by number and title. ;
1
ORDINANCE NO. 96-16, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE ~ , ~ , I.-
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 1. 17, APPEAL TO CIVIL I° . 1, 11 -
l%
' Q t INFRACTIONS HEARINGS OFFICER. 1.
A s ,
Y 1 t -i, „ I l3 d
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor Y' - ' " 1
Nicoli, Councilors Rohlf, Scheckla, Hunt and Moore voting "yes.") " k
s ,f-1 8. DISCUSS WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICE CAPITAL ~ r x I
s " r': LEVY _ riY
' y1 r a. Staff Update h o , - - ~ j
we, ,
Y
g Ms. Davis presented the staff update. She reviewed the specifics of the le t :2.1 Ili vy, noting r:
_ t?j that Tigard's share of the $30 million dollar levy for its service population of
i r 12.79% of the total county population amounted to $3.8 million dollars. ' - r
r
xw
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 8 ; f .~k>
- -L. "'w'e d
i - - 1-11 .f'j 4'.
a r t' s r Yh n iz,.2~y` lp,;,*L y t _
P L y - i _ f 1, $ f is 3
E a a
a u 1' F
~r„ r r { s ' ill , -jL ~~N?."- ~ 1-~Ii,- E -'-5 ,L it , ~ ~ " ~ , ~ ~ : - ~ , , ~ , . j
r r r h 5 fi Fi
1Y
e s P~ rl
.ate t" t I 4- '7 °Y 5 , , , ~ , ~ 'I- - I , ~ ~ , , , I [
d 2- J if - - j .,.T r Y P S
- "V~ vl~ a y,
w
# as c
"'ER i - ~ , - - - , - i,T~-T,`-~~,:~~`TT T~, t~ M
E5
M
. N W~ v
Fd t':y 1--`{ - _ - I Cat
,W t -.z
T, s t
3 y Feu, i _ iii _
as Ms. Davis reported that several members raised a concern at the Library Budget{ ° , -
a % ,r h - t Board meeting that their share of the allocation (using the funding formula based on "r,k
x service population) would not be adequate to meet their individual building needs;
X a these members suggested raising the amount of the levy to a high enough level k - Y c;
' x _ ' - , f' j where their needs could be met by their share of it. However this put in question t ~ r_, 1,
4 ,L ' the funding mechanism that would have allowed an equitable distribution of the ~ y
>r funds. F ji - , .
j
Ms. Davis stated that the issue of the total dollar amount of the levy and the
s x s "-i allocation formula would be discussed at the May County Library Advisory Board e 'lamp
E (CLAB) meeting. She presented the Tigard Library Board's position statement on x {
=
t is iss,ll?. She said that the Board would not be supportive of the levy unless they g - w. - -
m ,f -1 were assured that some sort of funding mechanise. would be in place that would ~ , . , ~ ~ - ~ , ,
11,
- provide some equity in funds distribution, regardless of the levy rate. V - ~ w -
,
,
Y S 3 $J ~4e'. ~S _ F
Mr. Monahan stated that both he and Ms. Davis agreed with the Board's position R % y-`'- h '
_ that the funding formula already worked out was equitable and made sense both
a county wide and for the individual cities. He asked the Council to consider whether r }
or not they supported the Board's position and to direct he and Ms. Davis to present r' '
V °'t j,,~, z - this position at the May CLAB meeting, 4 -,,V r- i
t ~ ' b. Council Discussion , ~
1W s 3=~-,fiz 5,~ ~ q
z -i Councilor Rohlf stated that he supported the Library Board's position. Mayor Nicoli
concurred. - - 5 3
# F
~ I
Councilor Hunt stated that he would not vote on this because he thought that it was Z I'.
-il 'y ~ OR
, not fair to the rest of the City's building programs. He said that he was not - ~ X
A -1-11,- I'll
f objecting to the Board's position but to any part of the lev i r , 5
-I ~ 7
y ~ i -L'
r 3 Motion by Councilor ~Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Moore, to support the t s ~ 4~,~ ~ ; k
q Tigard Library Board's position on the county wide capital construction levy, Vs- 24W ~ " t -
r 3 giving the Library Director and the City Administrator authority to represent - 11 - . -
that position at the May 1 CLAB meeting. AN ".F--. ~
z - - ~ ~t IR
The motion passed by a four to one vote of the Councilors present. (Mayor Nicoli, ' , i
Councilors Roblf, Moore and Scheckla voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no.") r g_ f~ V, ,116 ~U t "1 ~F
r Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:32 p.m. for a break. E-' u~
a j rt ,a~
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. 4
*Wr
-111 'T
t' - 9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF ; _ R~?(3{ ; ,
y PRIORITIZATION OF GREENSPACES PROJECTS (Continued from the April 9 ~ ; ` EY,
r tt 1996 Council Meeting.) Continuation of hearing to select greenspace projects. Tigard is xl° "i,'_ 3;
34~ entitle to receive $758,000 in local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces bond measure. ( a z€r ~ -
,
a. Continue Public Hearing
b. Update of Council Discussion from the April 16, 1996 meeting Iri-
r
r
cM Y t
~ 11,' ¢ n _ CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 9
k m 'u , - s - t- i,,f t t
Sd _ n _ ~ a
~ , t
Z. e a - Ss I Z r °i ,4,..y» F 'h - °',`.-.+i.^~ s - ~ 3`T f 1h -
µ
t fl t -i i.- .I
T -I'll 4~ ,art i f - _ f j 3{' F{~ Y {
F
y x f t a
z r t e" ,
C3 ' >tia' a # - - o h r
' 4350
E J - r ktf
P S F-' - i
°.4 5 n„ 1 1 4 ,t,
t
V = 5 - x
j ~ - -.r ' _
r r i- Y - 7 - { -
- - ` t +r
- 11--y' , ~
.z 3.~ s Wiz, a, tS - - - s t ? 1 `~',.,,rr::"
s $x
N - ME
m;
,z
F I
-u a3z.,?.x`rv £.3 d..Y.3:.5
vt "k43'*s 1 x't°43- l-^: .x R,s ~r~~^ ~aF aprs; .
Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, distributing materialst t Fi
c t~' to the Council. He reviewed the matrix (on file with the Council packet material) } a k' 7
of the different properties under consideration. He recommended that the Council - }
rw.
s{~,'r'.rapply any funds left over after purchasing the forest projects to trail corridor f:z - fir- ' x i
- ,M acquisition; Metro has agreed to match trail corridor acquisition funds by a 1:2 or 1 t ~ - , ' V .
- 4 - e more ratio per local dollar. He also recommended that the Council pass a resolution ta, ? " , F -
I r expressing their intent to expend future year SDC funds towards the project as well. 3 a
r t- j Y a z -
x
Mr. Roberts reviewed the current park SDC funding schedule, noting the amounts t` x
tentatively identified for trail property acquisition and improvements. He i x-F g
commented that the amount of land to be protected was 27 acres of forest land and - <
s_-r approximately 50 to 75 acres of floodplain.
} i ~ X r
Councilor Hunt asked if [here was an intent from the County to co-opi the purchase
of the Fern Street property. Mr. Roberts said that the County never identified that , 5 V' "m - a
piece on their list. tY, ~ -MU 'A,
' Mayor Nicoll opened the discussion up to public comment; there was none. feR£ ~ , 3
C. Council Comment r
-I I
Mayor Nicoll explained that the Council decided to commit some of the park funds k x {
(i.e., SDC dollars) to try to obtain all of the land mentioned on the list in -1 i - . ,
4, combination with the Metro money. s~ Fi$x f~
l J- 1- RaS< , Y F 4,:T
Mr. Roberts recommended that the Council approve the list of projects, authorize a {
the Mayor to sign the IGA with Metro to receive the local share funds, and authorize <
the Mayor to prepare a letter to be sent to Linda Peters making an offer on the 129th ~ M~ f ~~s ~ r t ;
- t
1$ site. ; - . - I -
_ } ? Councilor Hunt asked if the list was prioritized in any way. Mr. Roberts said nog 4 a
F and stated that the only breakdown was between forest properties and traits
h r properties. - a ;
-.Y ."o,
rs Councilor Rohlf asked about the letter to Washington County. Mr. Roberts said that z j
x3
the County has advised them to proceed in this way and to include letters showing fi
community support for the acquisition. He said that the County was looking for
communit support. He said that the also recommended that the City ass a r l~k
4a, Y Y P y r ~a ,
# resolution declaring the City's intent to commit future year park SDCs for trail land k, ~ Y f a
acquisition.
° x ~ ,
11
5 d. Close Public Hearing I , t ~ ,
f-, -ix r
E
I., I Mayor Nicoll closed the public hearing. pay , k _
I 'rte x
s j e. Council Consideration 'Y"
v ~""cY
x ` r ' _ Councilor Rohlf said that he had no disagreements with any of the recommendations ~ . ; '
- - a - - presented by staff. Councilor Moore concurred. ~ 't
t , t f - - - y P' r e
+y' € CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 10 a ) -1 y -z' - t .
'
~f i' - 3 _ 5 ~f'1
t g
~ s~ y f
t
4 h
9 l i - f 9 r~.k - _
ff
,~~~:t-'~~,~~-'~~3.~','~,,,'.~~~'~~ia~~~~,:~,', ~ E2 ~ . ~ - ~ ~ i--- k_---," J-- - ~~,-,~,~,~,~,~,,-,-,,~-~~~e;'.~,'~'~,:~~,-;~,~,', - " -
~;~,~.~-,~~'F~'~'~,~,~~,'~~,,",'~~'!~,~ - , L-_,.. 1. j , , , ' ' 'L% ~ . , ?i,~~ tt~,,,~a~~'.,~ i
,t ~ f J - - . -
4 - - - _ _ z f I
I T 7- _ + ; - - 4 A 5 -6: - fi -i
~,.,Vffl ~ , , - ~e,~
fi F - tP
. , -IzvP~,,,~,q~-. ~7- - -,f' , L~~ '1021"111, -
_ ~rF•--^- -cam ~Y y 'i ;"'c^ er --gym- -•~'---Ltrm
0 E 1&- V I i " - - - ~ . - , , , ~ -
^T v v r s
err MA M r ks~' i. j - " - -
! I - .
i Y4
<w7asr fsa - - - i:-...~_..~..:m~..~a'.cw~.sa.s = - '.~..,..v__...~ - _t I`fi,f - `'C-
y`te ~l;-.`a 3&tm "%'+m
-R R "N 1 ,f~ 3 " t. i` t t
F11 , I
pas'"trY-- t ar ,12K ;2_
I I, c Councilor Scheckla asked about the Metro money for trails. Mr. Roberts explained { ` f "
that the money for trails was a separate component of the bond measure with $3.5
- million allocated for property acquisition along the Fanno Creek main stem but not r -
` : ` , , for the improvements themselves. He indicated on the map where two of the four a , - '
-zr i - - - target areas identified by Metro were located within Tigard's area of interest. i - - r _a, _
g # Motion by Councilor Rol►If, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the - - - _
- r J Greenspaces project list and send it to Metro and to authorize the Mayor to r - ;
` , ' send a letter to Washington County coopting the 129th property. s- 4 '
v# -i - - Motion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoll, '
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor r- , '
+ Scheckla abstaining) s ,j', w - s
r ......t...-.._L.x,- E,~, _
Motion by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Iv?ours, to author- the - y; ,
, 7A PM 4, -
_ Mayor to sign the IGA with Metro and direct staff to draft a resolution that 3 ~ - y
fi~ r
~ indicates the Council's intent to commit future funding for parks.
-'4 s Motion was approved by a three to one vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoll,
~ 14
Councilors Moore and Rohlf voting "yes"; Councilor Hunt voting "no"; Councilor ` _ ~ i
Scheckla abstaining) O.,
` z
10. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL): ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION - ZCA
96-0001 SHULTZ 3 ~i
ri 4,A Y S,
Request: Annex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the comprehensive plane i
from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and change the yy x b
zone from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull
Mountain Road, across from SW 133rd Avenue, approximately 1000'. APPLICABLE , •>r
REVIEW CRITERIA: The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan 4 t , {
i olices 2.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary '-tN,~ 4` t*a
criteria; and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters~~~
_ 18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ,x, `-,R N- j
.
1 ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6. z _
M
a. Open Public Hearing .1 ¢ z y 4
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title opened the public hearing. 1 Ntz"M ~
t
fi b. Declarations or Challenges: None r W-, ~ l~.
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures. ,3-_ ;,Yc4~;
r - ~
r _5
C. Staff Report
Ray Valone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the location f
f y, of the site on the map. He stated that the application complied with all the fi z , k
applicable City policies and Boundary Commission requirements for annexation and s s
had adequate facilities available to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were - r
r sent and that they have received no objections. Staff recommended approval. x
k n ,
}
G CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 11 t
41
.y4
r
r , 'yW , a r
4r ,r .17
.tip`- r s
t
e 4 - ky' re"!~ -
mss _ - - - ' ;l
k
-w x _ 'p 1
'
W~i ,,r,, -111~, , i , , - , ~ ~ - ` . ~ ~ I ~ - ~ ~ , , ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ , ~ r , , J . , . ~
' -
A r .P ' w rte ~
' r' 3~ , 1 1
'r _ r x f'I ,
r ~s
w .'i, ht - - i ~ 6 2 , ti,
~ ,4n e .>t a - - - *t
Y I t R--"*-` > t - ,4, re r-
~ 2 . i - 4 F7 9
f r__n -
i
;t * - - - - 1;,~, li
J71
f
.41
Y axe m~
; -
d. Public Testimony
1Z, J- - F L
s JohnGoasey, i'ia3ultinbt naitleerlnQSerVlceS, 15256 NW GreenbriarParkway, ;{ifV yP r
Beaverton, representing the applicant, asked for a favorable consideration o. heir
r
request. p
e. Staff Recommendation
x Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and ,F
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval.' t+
3, = y f. Council Questions: None
t,tr #,5° t i~r~t t
_ 3'~..X' 't
g. Close Public Hearing ',c
f r x Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing.
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-27 & Ordinance No. 96-18. ° F
g Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve? s rte'
UM -I
Resolution No. 96-27.
f The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-27 by number and title.
S r
t RESOLUTION NO. 96-27, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
? THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
n~ - sy * s
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-01.
The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
TsF=~~ ;
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.")
. n i
z S ~ Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve
Ordinance No. 96-18.
ze~
The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-18 by number and title.
p S y~ W Y+a~~}~.~ ;
ORDINANCE NO. 96-18, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN 4€ $ '
s r EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-01.
L ~ ~ ~U
t# Ia The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present.
} + r ' (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") f„V*
11. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002 LUNDMARK ANNEXATION r t
i Request: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel of 0.47 acres into the 2 1
city and a change of the comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington County R-9 to k
fi City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12. LOCATION: Property is located at
9275 Locust Street just west of SW 92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
§ The relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen L-
j involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3,}
rr - , a I'
-42 y - - r,ro-z
a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 12
T. ;Z
x ~ FAY 9} „-F ry' - ~ _
za 'r ~ ~I¢ar
1 L
hZ
r.-
'FZ.. f~-sfF- 5 _ t b 1 K~
"E e tF _ ~r ~ 5~ 1
s 4
4
s -~-y Z}„~`-~,S ~ rft t s _ ` r. ,"f _ c e - `r t s ~ x y s ur~r+ ~ k.
5 t E'I
..~.~__na r~Rr.`~-~v~-/:'ki`mC 1"S l"T A" r-n.~.i~ - `T~`-t-~~---F^~'-•-•-.
a ~s3 ~ s ~ a3 ? s % _
`F ~'t 2s
~v -
a t , zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation
MIPP
' r - requirements; and 18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, -
Washington County R-9.
'~V a. Open Public Hearing 3a ff r k' -
t F iy ' Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing.
sA se 5 - t - ~ h s tx ko- M~ys"t d -
b. Declarations or Challenges: None
Mayor Nicoli read the hearings procedures.
M c. Staff Report M
' Mr. Valone presented the staff report. He reviewed the location and specifics of the ~s 1
4i y s 4 p k
Y sites. ommission requiremnts for annewith all the x on and had applicable City policies
and Boundary y~ z
rY Y.acutuca
EU-
avaiiabie to serve it. He stated that appropriate notices were sent and that they have tta~~
received no objections. Staff recommended approval. ;F
d. Public Testimony
x Bert Lundmark, applicant, stated that it was his desire to develop the property
sa
~~f
r a with the construction five row homes.
r e. Staff Recommendation µ
~ sF x - c x~3
a Mr. Valone recommended that the Council adopt the resolution and ordinance and
forward it to the Boundary Commission for approval. j t3.
5- o
t f. Council Questions: None t j
' g. Close Public Hearing
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. a „
~t
h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 96-28 & Ordinance No. 96-19
Motion b Councilor Hunt' seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Resolution
4 No. 96-28. :
- The City Recorder read Resolution No. 96-28 by number and title.
f_' ~c
Y S i k a #lxt{ Y'k r _
a RESOLUTION NO. 96-28, A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO
'it
g_i
z~ THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ` rf
AND ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT B, ZCA 96-02. i
r~+
y rr The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
I Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.¢ 3
s , CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 13
A \ '{p'°".`"~-"a -r+.-a-a+t9RZ`. $'`i'' 3 >f 'am 4f'?'T, iaf •k 5 sFy~'n
~k T
%
aY ~ ? gTJ _ ~ x -
FRI,
j S al 1
r
P a r r
s r ' g„ ,tt` o r
r ~
u
7H-Z. 77
t x s , -
r
i 5 7jr~ a -Y - _
+ !cam - xh
I y i a j ~T
a~. L~IV q?t,d1 t a
t - - r r '~rr t
-amt - # t
. Y - Sy r f d-- -.3+~J ~
jb~ TM - Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Rohlf, to approve Ordinance , s
111 : 3~ P k No. 96-19. 3
~F The City Recorder read Ordinance No. 96-19 by number and title. ` t r £ z
st i E
r ORDINANCE NO. 96-19, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FINDINGS ANDj
11 ' r c CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE AND DECLARING AN } f~ ; EN ,
?
' i EFFECTIVE DATE ZCA 96-02. t ~k - `
rt 1-1
s The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. rt
' (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes.") E _
#s The Council considered Items 13 and 14 at this time. -
~t t-
t, ' _ _ 12. KMLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - ALBERTSON'S INC./DUNCOMBE Land ' x i' t ~
Use Board of Appeals (CUBA) Remand -Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 93-
€ ~
0009/Zone Change (ZONE 93-0003; Site Development Review (SDR) 93-0014/Minor ~ ~ ~ ;f -
~ Land Partition (MLP) 93-0013 K s ~ e
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) remand for the 5
following development approvals: i ~ `
..-1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate approximately eight ~ a .
P, . acres of a 11.95 acre parcel from Medium-High Density Residential to Community .11 x ~ - a
V Commercial on Tax Lot 200 and to redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel r a ~
from neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on Tax Lot t
100. The Zone Changes accompanying the above plan changes include achange - ---W t I, ~1
r from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned Development) and R-30 .11
(PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planner Development) to C-C (Community li~
Commercial) and from C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 t - -N_ ~
` r r j units per acre); k z.:,
_ ;r - ..a aa'~"" `tom` ? a
2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot " r
stand-alone tenant pad and three smaller tenant pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 4,950 '
square feet adjoining the anchor pad. The applicant also ProPoses two 4,000 s uaze'.
{ foot stand-alone tenant pads; and q N 11 - - - 11
- -t
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel into two parcels of ,yrt d~a,
approximately eight acres and 3.95 acres each. 5 ~ :
x pie
The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required City Council to receive and make additional [
y y findings on the following issues: i ~ f - y y ?i ar
1. Transportation Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 8.1.3 _ t r $
p 2 (t)-(h) and 8.4.1 ,
q 2. Air/Water Quality: LCDC Goal 6 _ ` .
3. Air Quality Impact: TCP Policy 4.1.1
v
, E 4. Water Quality Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1 ~ ;
a _ 5. Commercial Compatibility: TCP Policy 5.4 - per, -
r r k 't
6. Buffering: TCP Policy 6.6.1 J - J 'I ~
7. Storm Drainage Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2 ~ , F
-~8. Design Criteria: Community Development Code 18.61.055 ' a,x. ,
fr ^k
- t Z { , k
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 14 '
° i
E r
_ a . '1y t ,1
r r (
- rr~ t P 7
4
- -ice -zF, i
t _ F
s - y -
JS - 5 :y - r„- N
? F
< 1r K
4"z Z~~ , _ - - . " : I - I : - : " , - , ,,-,~f A
a, J i - - i'-- I
r
t J"y - _ _ 'f- dq
't l 4 - _
P Et
` ; - , ~ . . I ~ ~ , . , - 1, ~ ~ M -
ki
r ice- I-s , ' . - T - - - Y
S --5~ p i,` S - - , _
N11 ~
t+~-+ - 1 - - _ -
s, kU,,--,- q ,`,..H"49'° sr~r` - Sw 3 a 'F Y 11
f s {t a LOCATION: Southeast and northeast quadrants of the intersection of SW Scholls Ferry s
_ Road and SW Walnut Street. (WCTM 2S1 4BB, Tax Lots 100 and 200); APPLICABLE Goal
Compre ~~~~s't 1R 1.2, 4W CRITERIA: 4, 616.1 7.1.21ancit8~ 3 (f)-(h) and 8.4h1; CommunitPDevelolment"="t ' -
,
- L Code Chapters 18.22, 18.32 and 18.61.055. ZONE: The existing Neighborhood
; nF r Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and services which are purchased Y
at least weekly. Typical uses would include convenience sales and personal services,
F children's day care, financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail t ; Y , s
sales, etc. Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot lot minimum.
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods and -I ,
a
+ services which are designed to serve the regular needs of residents of nearby residential " 4
wy _ neighbouwuds. Community Corti nercial centers typically range ua size is m. a mi mu.u y~ - ~g r
r of two acres to eight acres. In terms of building square footage, these centers range from ~ .X rA."~
3 30,000 to 100,000 square feet. 1 ~ _ ~ ,Q ;
-
k u g- , Ai
The existing R-25 (PD) zone permits a range of single-family attached, low and medium rise ' r , I ~I~
I T__ multiple-family residential units, for medium-high residential development. The R-25 zone C $ Q- sx
;,r ,
x;
f permits residential densities up to 25 units per acre. The Planned Development zoning r _
district overlay is designed to encourage properties to be developed as a single unit in terms , ' ~'F - ~
. ? of design, access, etc. „r,- 'k~- s: ' fi =a 5 .
-~,a" i
> Mayor Nicoll noted that Mr. Mahr from the City of Newberg would be serving as the City's ,r_ 14
legal counsel on this item because of a conflict of interest with Tigard's City Attorney. Mr. t p-r v
Monahan explained that the issue was raised that Mr. Coleman has represented Albertson's ~V,~ ~ ~
in the past. _ ~ >
Q N""A k
x Mayor Nicoll briefly recessed the meeting. ~ _ , 1- {
I ii, s r'~
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting. £
5 j a. Open Public Hearing -
r
Mayor Nicoli read the hearing title and opened the public hearing, a~ t
. , ~ ~
b. Declarations or Challenges: None ~ ; Y~ _
C. Staff Report ~ rx ' ~
t ~ f~ Vr ~
y _ ' gas
Mr. Bewersdorff presented the staff report. He stated that the Council approved the
3 Albertson's comprehensive plan zone map amendments as well as their specific - J -g~ ax
i development plans (subject to numerous conditions) on December 27,1994; the ~`ef
decision was appealed to LUBA who remanded it to Tigard on October 20, 1995. ~ i' ,-3.
He listed the eight issues on which LUBA remanded the appeal to the Council -
! ,
'+x Mr. Bewersdorff stated that the applicant has completed his work on the remand . x 6 -s ,
: i issues. He advised the Council to limit its review to the main findings on the eight
I'll m ~
remaining issues before LUBA. Mr. Mahr stated that he spoke with both the , -
, ' f 3 applicant and the appellant, both of whom understood that testimony was limited to u
} the eight issues.
r _ ~M F
F `
r t
i CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 15 , , , t
's - s~'x
'i t
'Stir`, ; 3- * - .~z
11
_ _ 1 _ f f
,rs - - - k - 1
`-V~;,,~,iii~,`, 0, - ~ L"~- '1,1.~,,, ,.,z ~ - , ~ . ~ - - ~ - [~~--~i! , , , , , 1 - , - .
V Lft ! . - ~ ~ I ~ I , , . i' I d. - I - - - ~ ; ~ _1 " I - - - - ,~Tll - , , - ,
p
a_s,.,p4",P, - .7 a -7
i h 1-
$ r r 1
? #a s - + t;
1
rt y
~a
d' t T„ b
6 Y i _
l t I
FFF
- r~
YI,Ya«'in
-
r ,
.
K
W
~ - - - _
5~tllsllffl M
i ; I rte, 1 - - _
x-4, ,t - _
x,Y- t ` #r'-mod - A - ,
kl5~y Cc- i Z - -7
,*,r
z 's a"}~'"
k t k u
d. Public Testimony _
Can - s _ _ --<x" ff A.~
h
R Mayor Nicoli read the hearing procedures and time limits, t s _ r -x 2~< x '
c PROPONENTS
~ Y 1- yy Ja -4Ffi~ "I I
- a`=` is='< 9 John Shonkwiler, r
Albertson s, introduced Don buncombe,
Albertson's; Norm Schoen, Project Architect; Steve Ward, West Tech Engineering; _ "
Y and Phil Roarth, Kittleson & Associates (traffic analysis). u~~
t
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed that this was a request to move the existing hburhoodh
S designation of approximately sevzr, acres on one corner of Walnut and { ' AcA ,!i
h ,.~-terry to a community commercial designation of eight acres on another "
sf~ t
comer of Walnut and Scholls Ferry. He stated that the Council approved their site 5
development plan for a 40,000 square foot grocery store with 17,550 square feet of t
_ other commercial area; this use was appealed b Marcotte & ` t ,
by LUBA. by Thriftway but upheld t
Mr. Shonkwiler said that a lot of the consideration here was to clarify the City's ~ka'_ X%' 1
6 -
position on the language of the ordinance and how it worked with the i `-s A° F
Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the total allowable square footage of t 3 b+~'~ All
commercial in a community commercial zone was 100,100; this proposal was for W,
57,500 square feet.'
1 - R - tC 3` 9 }
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the first remand issue: Transportation, CP policy 8.1.3 r i ; I -1
(f)-(h). He said that all of the provisions of this policy were challenged before 7 1I.
y LUBA but that LUBA upheld all of them except for subsections (f) through (h)
which LUBA felt needed more specificity in the findings. a~ ~
y ~ , K a
In regard to (f), the provision of transit stops, bus turnout lanes and shelters, Mr. ~f , i"~ t
Shonkwiler pointed out that this property was not served by transit, and that Tri-Met H ~ S ~
t has stated that it did not intend to provide service in the near future. He said that n
the Council could find that the Albertson's site and its designated uses did not
iii - `t ~ . ~ t
generate transit ridership. He reviewed how the plan allowed for the possibility in l- r `
the future of bus pullout lanes near the proposed mini-park which could serve as a ~ - j- - ~
H - - bus stop area. He contended that the plan did meet the requirements. However they . 'i f
were recommending an additional condition of approval on page 4 of the remand =
t `
statement allowing the City, through a public process, to make that designation in
the future.
P -LL`4 Z ks,*$ F -
In response to subsection <
` b)> handicapped parking spaces, Mr. Shonkwiler explained
ti that the appeal on this arose from a conflict between the two sets of findings before v €
the Council. He said that the mistake was that the second set of findings did not
Y reflect the changes recommended in the set of findings based on the staff report. He -
referred to the revised site and landscape plans that showed the relocation of some ; i, t k try x
of the handicapped parking spaces as recommended by staff to service all entrances ,
to the store.
-'I,i -
s - Mr. Shonkwiler noted that they could not locate the handicapped parking spaces for x xr -
the other commercial pads until they knew where the main entrance would be. , . `
- r - 4,f
_ 4 { ,3 PF i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 16
s -fi f
'N
3 is .
, -'dr y i .
4 r`,t " 11
f )
7
1 i - - - Y' d 11~ k'._
iV
, , - " 1. 1: , ~ J
r i x , . , ;F
s P i
G
t
4 _ f L
s t - 1 r
t P F - '
r
, E
t
✓ - - ; -
{4
f , _
- -
.
_ . Irv _ t.. - T.~
$ 3 . 3 ' -G 1 - - - -
3 x
16 L'ar ,,-,~_,,,--y 1. - . - ~
Y45MP~ 1s - f - - 5 ) r -
f -
S F 3 L
b S 4 i - - - - - x } t -
-,f t l s`g + F "~.>w~'az.6~,tnec L_ _ .a..a.:.~ _ .,aaea..: r
-fi4* 4 - +,4f E _
f
Though they showed handicapped parking in a specific location on the map, it could -'s
t be moved anywhere along the front to the best location for the eventual entrances. - R 4 i" ' "I Itz x k He said that the determination of the exact location of those spaces could be made i y s
-p at the time of the building permit application. r 45
ill- , 3c..... -1- _--5r~ +y Sid`- S,
in regards to subsection (h), land dedication for bicycieipedestrian corridor, Mr. ' ; - ~ ;
F - Shonkwiler referred to the City's adopted pedestrian/bike pathway plan, noting that
9 the proposed pathway in the area did not abL this site; boot Scholls Ferry Road and <
s other land v:cra between the Albertson's site and the proposed pathway, making it rrs 4 , ~ t~-
•FZ_ - , - > -F - impossible for the applicant to dedicate any land for the pathway. He said that he Y.. "-=4- , ; '
,thought that the Council could make the finding that the land dedication was not ,4
required. Y , - `'-r ah
y _ x a x
i Mr. Shonkwiler referred to LUBA record #390 (the site plan) and #391 (theN *`E s
landscape plan) to demonstrate the extension of Murray Blvd and its connection to 4 [--V_.;4~1~~, - ,
` Walnut Street, already proposed by the City. He reviewed how the sidewalks
depicted on the plan along Scholls Ferry, Walnut and Northview Drive connected t~"
to the intersection which in turn would feed up to Murray Blvd and the proposed ~,p4lv 0,
pathway. He also reviewed the internal site circulation with accesses to those ;x r 'V ?
sidewalks. He said that their circulation system was in the best interests of the City is -
for a pedestrian/bike network from the site to the pathway and vice versa. , ~t
r _ Mr. Shonkwiler stated that the second, third and fourth remand issues (Air and 1 , ,
Water quality impacts) have been sufficiently addressed by the West Tech study in ' tf 3
the record. West Tech has analyzed the state, federal and regional plans and stated - ~k r
that this plan was in compliance with all regulations and could feasibly satisfy all the t, W , `~2 3a t z
`J conditions of approval. ,~x z
,
Mr. Shon -viler spoke to the fifth issue: Commercial Compatibility, TCP Policy 5.4. s'N~ k +
- "The city shall insure that new commercial and industrial development shall not " ' ,
a encroach on residential areas that have not been designated for commercial or , z .
industrial uses. " He proposed that the City define the residential area being affected i ` ~
as the area surrounding the intersection of Scholls Ferry and Walnut (the , i
p F"
neighborhood commercial, the residential on two sides, and the multi famil "
ti . designations to the west, northwest and south). He said that he thought that the City, '
could adopt that as part of its interpretation. ,
i
f N h 't t 3, ?Nk -
Mr. Shonkwiler commented that, in considering how the area was affected by the ' . 1, x,e -r g
proposed development, this area already had neighborhood commercial in the t' rs -
residential area; there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that forbade changing r +
the commercial use from one to another or from the residential area to a place that t"° ; s
j would better provide more buffering to eliminate the impacts to the surrounding ~
areas. He contended that the whole point was to not have an overt shock to the _ a~_ ,
residential uses in the area. -
' Mr. Shonkwiler said that there already was a substantial commercial use and that
they were replacing it with another commercial use. The next question was how { f ? t
much impact would that have. He referred to the traffic studies in the record that
showed that there was an insignificant difference between the effect of neighborhood - LL
- commercial on 6.93 acres and the use Albertson's was proposing. He said that
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 17
Y
t 1
s i
} iF t
f -
x
_ - - - -
T
? h if- 1 M1 iI
Y -
r' f b - f F b' -
1 , 'b }
N
- -I
r 1
1 a'A ..a - - - - t i 1
} v
E _
'rr t
_ F vt
sr
{
2 5, ,7
, nf - , . - .
q
_ ~m -
,Riga `'w''Ca{7 }..Ltd a- - " 1 !h
- i
sa
$'ii _ - - 3 r Y
5 'F- 4 F-~ t i - - - - it S - -
e_r ..r.°.m,....._.__..._v_..~ l4 'x r
_l, s is R~ - _ { r+.wt...w__b a
J '4' y . _ - 2
7 Sx' "x - - 7 I5 n 2 4_
. t- 3
S C5 Z_~SA - - T
overall the evidence in the record would sup ort that switching from the
i - , neighborhood commercial to community commercial was a rational planning - k "
4_11'- N W position.
V,, r
c5 # z 1-
Mr. Shonkwiler addressed the question of why move the designation across the _
street. He stated that community commercial allowed more flexibility in how they
could develop the property. He pointed out that the triangular shape of the " ;
neighborhood commercial property made it difficult to provide both commercial uses ~ s
_ and adequate buffering to eliminate adverse impacts to the abutting property; also ti
# r - 4 J the flat area abutted directly up against the multi family structures, allowing no z ~
" latitude for se aration. i . - " r. I", r~
1 p= t
, ~ r
Mr. Shonkwiler said that by moving the property across the street they could'-
excavate down so that the surrounding properties would overlooked two-thirds of the i~ yr~~ F
site; it would also shape the property into a rectangle to allow for better buffering.: 3 t
He noted that the City required 20% open space area around the property; they were ti -
providing 30% which necessitated going from seven acres to eight acres. He said ~f - * 4mk
that he thought that was full justification for why they met the policy. -'r ~ ?
, ,Z «
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that the Council was entitled to make an interpretation on the , , , k -
two different comprehensive plan polices, 5.4 and the locational criteria, which aT
should be compatible. He contended that if they met the locational criteria, it should p Y
be presumed that they also met the requirements of 5.4. i
Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the sixth issue: Buffering TCP policy 6.6.1. He noted the ' ~`,N
code section 18.100 which implemented the landscaping screening requirements - ; F , 4
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. He contended that if the applicant has metz°r r
the code provisions, then they have satisfied the Comprehensive Plan policy 6.6.1 _ g t r ,
' as well. He stated that the previously adopted findings showed that they have r ' _
complied with 18.100; since those findings were not challenged, he said that they - ~ •7 , -
could reasonably rely on them today. xs~,f
K , y. 17 ~ i Mr. Shonkwiler reviewed the specifics of the landscaping plan in terms of how they } ~ _ s
were providing an air pollution absorber, noise and dust filters and a visual barrier r~-
through excavation and landscaping.'
$ a
Mr. Shonkwiler referred to the West Tech report as setting out fully how the :?sf
applicant met the seventh issue of storm drainage and making the conclusion that the t x ¢ kt x _
applicant has met the requirement and could feasibly satisfy the conditions of rE
, t
approval. z, r
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that, in response to the eighth issue of design criteria, it was
- a similar mistake as with the handicapped parking. They submitted a change E
between the staff report and the final decision that was not corrected in the findings.
He referred to LUBA 390 (site plan) and LUBA 391 (landscaping plan) that showed ;5
wM the specifics of the landscaping plan. He said that they have met LUBA's II
x requirement that they revise their plans to clarify exactly what was happening.
Mr. Shonkwiler requested approval of the application and adoption of the findings. P- -i - x,
-
~ y - - r i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 18 F `
e , s
a
b 3
Ij.
xsr S S1
t4 ! f `F-_
1
4- G - 4 _
" , 14 2 , ~ I ~ - I , - , ~ I , , 7 , - ~ I . . I . . I ; . L ~
` $ rs _
,
~ , - ~ I - - I ~t ~,L , I I - , ~ . ~ . ~ , i~: , " , L~, ~ , ~ ,
_ - - - 1 g
u ~ k,
' 3
h
- pg,,~m - 1 - , ~ ~ " - _ - , , . , ~i -
~R_t ..Fib $ 'S
rt ,F sa .uyE i - - -
6 T' ...fem. .~lw..,... - _ t,..3..s+,....,'.ms-e. u....a.,rne,.
f N g - - - -
-Gt ,u .t# #x ` "a __..,....F..--.~ ,x....,..~.~,.._ r, --...,..~,r. .._._e..,~._'°--'°__
d Ipr s _ - -,7
Y ,
a t, h~
F- , 6
t $ r w Barbara Collins, resident at Northview & Castle Hill, stated that the neighbors
felt strongly that Albertson's was doing its best to meet all the requirements and to y - - in
t take the neighborhood into consideration; they were trying to make having t ` r - -
coiru;iercial entity in the neighborhood as livable as possible. She said that they `
hoped this could be worked out as soon as possible and that they felt that Albertson's _
had a good plan. x
Scott Russell, property owner, addressed two issues: transportation and air quality. x tt
He said that neighbors have expressed concern over the potential for a future access _ ,
to Northview; he stated that one of the conditions of approval stated that, should the
City decided to put in that access, it would have to go through a public process and t ,
address the neighbors' concerns. He said that he thought air quality had been i,- 'a
compromised by the opposition. t
' _ OPPONENTS , '
i - - 45-' 3~ If
t~
Y Jeff Kleinman, 1207 SW Sixth Ave, Portland, representing Marcotte Holdings, : ti
Inc. and Murray Thriftway who were the appellants at LUBA, commented that i" Y
he thought that there was a general belief that if LUBA remanded something and the , 14
t applicant threw a "bunch of stuff" at it, then the applicant should automatically
prevail. He said that the "stuff" had to be responsive and address the issues or the ~1,' - }
applicant was not entitled to prevail. He said that the appellants felt strongly that s 4
the applicant has not sufficiently addressed two of the eight issues.
Mr. Kleinman said that they felt that the issue of commercial compatibility was a ~ x~~ 11 fl'r~
fundamental Comprehensive Plan issue that needed to be looked at because the r , , , f, x`
' applicant was asking the Council to make an interpretation that set a dangerous , id not sui
rehensive q tpltisc is ue twashat byt LUBAth's C e in the p oposeda order objectives
the C ty noCouncted j_ i 1
s
submitted by the applicant. M Witch
= s ~ ,
r Mr. Kleinman contended that the neighborhood commercial site that the applicant z ~ ,
said was 6.93 acres was in actual fact a five acre neighborhood commercial site. He ,
submitted materials into the record obtained from the City which mentioned afive -
acre parcel at this site to support his contention (the 1986 City annexation decision, '~F , $ s q t
11
~Zt a 1991 memo from Jerry Offer to Katie Dorsett, and a 1991 letter to Tigard
Planning from the City of Beaverton). f+, 4 ~I- ,V-, 4
~1 t
Mr. Kleinman pointed out that LUBA looked at the appellants' objections to ` ' F , - r
I , _ ' - substituting community commercial for neighborhood commercial; LUBA found that i - i , - 'r , i~l - the argument in the findings that a mistake was made in the original designation .
during the annexation process was sufficient to justify the zone change (the City's , , it y~
designation of the parcel as neighborhood commercial when it had a commercial ~
designation in the County). He stated that the parcel so designated was five acres 4 I', .t
only. ~
"s`
Mr. Kleinman cited LUBA's findings that the applicant had not adequately analyzed
the impacts on the different residential natures of the surrounding neighborhoods
resulting from substituting a larger development for a smaller one on the opposite , e 1 '
corner of the same intersection. He contended that the applicant still has not done x - , j
> x r - .
' CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 19 $ z # J
Qa
,
4 ?
f
Y mm .^hmu^+^^°' --,x: - , p., _ .r . , f A i TTTT
r
'2' t :t
4Y
f _ _ 1 _ .I
7. - _ - -
I
t z1 _ ti F axe .E^- ~J
dS -t_ -
- - - _ -
-1 I
r v r >
a
3 _ _ _ _ r` - z k 7
i
-
S _ ~ -T!^--'.-~~L,, . 1.__ 1 x...-v--~a+m^E~' ~ ~i'-_-._s.-'T'.Tl-'TT^ _Jn - 1" -1- _I 1. +f.~T.'~ _j_ - _ - ~ t _ -
.
I -
- .
W
y
x-E
r
a s 'r _ - -
rte` k t-5, 4 .
q - L t 1 FS r W
' this but rather relied on the proposition that it was all the same, as supported by its F ~
_ r g experts. He stated that the impact was there. He said that while Albertson's mighty
- 6:Z . 4t -:r:,,,,,, be able to address this issue sufficiently to allow them to prevail, they have not done
so yet. ,f
Mr. Kleinman stated that he read a different interpretation of the findings than the
applicant presented and summarized to the Council. He said that the applicant urged
the Council to interpret the policy to mean that (since a community commercial zone _
had a trade area of a 1.5 mile radius) there was no impact from moving the
commercial from one place within that radius to another, if it already has some F4 ~s
residential in it. He stated that interpreting the code in that manner was doing a t}"
grave disservice to the citizens. He contended that the applicant was avoiding the r , - s y ;
analysis required by LUBA by asking for a code interpretation. " -
k w c
Mr. Kleinman stated that the applicant's proposal that policy 5.4 was complied with ` k Y -
`Y simply by meeting the locational criteria was another way of not addressing the
encroachment issue; making that interpretation was also a bad idea for future
proposals. He said that he thought that the Council would be foreclosing the City ,
from exercising some of its review options down the road. ,
xr
Mr. Kleinman stated that the differences between the existing neighborhood , - r
commercial and a community commercial site demanded a finding of greater impact p +S `
, w, k ~
and a measurement of the impacts. He stated that a neighborhood commercial site + ,ill
'T eft
was limited in the code and the plan to a two acre development; they could find V i :
nothing that exempted the existing neighborhood commercial zone from that , t_ ~ € }
requirement.
5 , .44
. 4Zk
k 3
Mr. Kleinman noted the differences between the neighborhood commercial r .7
IF ,
designation and the community commercial designation. He cited plan policy _ r. ~A .g 1 -
12.2.1, section 1.a (2) that limited the trade area of a neighborhood commercial to - ~
serving 5000 people; community commercial served a trade area within an 1.5 mile ,.,~-~M
radius. Neighborhood commercial did not permit restaurants, bars, general retail
uses or general office uses; community commercial did. Individual buildings in+
i~~ ~ ~ - ln-~I~ ,W~
neighborhood commercial were limited to 4000 square feet; the Albertson's store , ? ' `
nt t alone was 40,000 square feet. " Lz, ~,i~ f..F -
ye a '
Mr. Kleinman stated that the Council should consider the total square footage that h t} N ,
` x could be developed under community commercial (100,000 square feet), contending c ~ N', "V x jkk
that they did not know what would happen on that site in the future. He said that - , 'r i
a development of 57,000 square feet would have a substantially different and far * - s - ~
greater impact than a neighborhood commercial development limited to two acres,
1
citing the traffic impacts in particular. 1
i t
Mr. Kleinman reiterated that there has been no analysis of how the impact on the ,
residential areas differed from moving the site across the intersection. He stated that
they thought that the site impacts should be analyzed in reasonable detail prior to ` 4
- moving forward on this application. He said that they believed that the end result =
i was an encroachment under policy 5.4 and an application lacking even the most a
fundamental baseline analysis of the impacts pertaining to the encroachment.
c4
µ L
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 20 ti
x'
fix` r - i ~t r
r - - F. . - . Y -w L [(F 'T.r
i
I r f - - a'-
k f
P.
? f t
C
a fr r
- 1~, ~ , ~ '4-~,-. -j '~4 ~-W, ` I - , " " ~ ~ -1 7 I- , : ' ' ' ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' :4 ~ ' ~ ' ' 1 ~ ' ' , ,~,j- ~ - `,,--~~K",-- --,~~-`,4.~~, ~f
W,'~ ; .
1 t 4
1-.,~~ ~,.-.............-.t T'~. f^"'=`_ 'S. _
i.._:._:.f. f..-- _ ..yam:. , - J-._ 1:
_ . . . . 1
e_ -
" -
_ - - -
Jt
t
- i
ff, WMIN ~ - _ " - ~ . , I -
g
{J
~nia tom, 7 y°- i x"•L5w2^rx. -n ay:"I'll a...,W. a.w:c a.,,.......: r 3, '
k•~'-_'"-.,fix,,.. 3 --r+ _ .z_7, -
-.?"p-g t 7-- - z
t t 4
~xs Mr. Kleinman reviewed Albertson's objectives of securing more space for its store '
'1 " ~7 and rental space but held that that objective in itself was not compliance with the °
.1 4M
.:_~~.-,'~'''~zs, ' i; wry,; _ -.q ; - - code - He ...Io.t rF',at AlhPrtsn - w=.?:i=`z;
Comprehensive Plan or code p~ovisi0 .s. He contended L .son's concerns H
54' that the triangular shaped property would not be a profitable site to develop were
personal economic considerations not permitted in this analysis and could not justify i }
a under the plan anon-existence of impacts of encroachment. - rr - s
r Mr. Kleinman stated that they did not think that the air quality impacts criteria ~ _ J!
z , 1 discussed by LUBA have been successfully addressed. He referred to his memo. , r, ` G~
ti
c j He said that the Plan required the City to ascertain from DEQ the permissibility of n
these uses, particularly for the indirect source air pollution permit He contended that cF
the applicant's statement that they have prepared an application for the permit did €
g not meet the necessary test of approval required to comply with the Plan. F r '
r' r- 4 f- 1 i s y,~r t ~~4 -.R
REBUTTAL
x }
$ , Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he wanted to review the document submitted by Mr. Z }
Kleinman into the record as he suspected that there might possibly be one issue he rr :r
raised that was outside the scope of the remand. He stated that he reserved his right 3 - t t*k i
s to submit a written rebuttal within seven days. r _
` ' Mr. Shonkwiler pointed out that Mr. Kleinman was not involved with this process , , _ s ih
from the beginning and might not be aware of all the evidence in the record. He ~ ' ~
cited a separate order from the City Council that stated that when Walnut Drive went Z4
in, the shape and the size of the lot would be neighborhood commercial. He said „A; , M ~ r,
t, that this document resolved the five acre issue - the parcel was 6.93 acres, as t ~ M >
1 already decided by the Council. _ s ;k shy ~i
Mr. Shonkwiler noted that Mr. Kleinman admitted that LUBA found that a mistake
~ 11
1 was made in the zone designation at the time of the annexation of this property into i -i'~~
` :a
the City and that that was a legitimate reason to uphold the zone change and plan ` w 1,
,,I 1 #
M - amendment. He contended that the types of uses and size limitations of a
neighborhood commercial had no relevancy in this matter because the zoning should' T
~t - have been community commercial instead of neighborhood commercial. Therefore 5
the impacts that Mr. Kleinman contended existed with a major change did not in fact k„ s,
i exist because the zoning designation was wrong from the time of annexation. LUBA ~ x'
found that this zone change corrected a mistake.
Mr. Shonkwiler stated that he would submit a written rebuttal addressing each of 1 .
y these issues and submit it within seven days. t
- i - ,r*
e. Staff Recommendation ; a
r f. Council Questions y ,
Councilor Scheckla asked about undergrounding facilities. Mr. Shonkwiler said that _r ~ f
they intended to underground all the facilities. He explained that the statement was ~Y
on page 18 because undergrounding was a condition of approval. } 1 Y~
r'z~ k, ,l 1 ~ J
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 21 . .
F 4 r
4
E 3 5 d
S Y - i r ;M - y FY
r - „x r-
T t t Fes" - _r ...z-z
+ , - r _ = f - _ Yr
k we, E
{
.
P
L t h :K
1 Ef
- - - : ~ ~ , ~ , ~ . ~ , , _ , , ~ I " , , , , - , ~ - _.Lj~_ J -
y f
t
f
l r
'i k{ f 4- l 3
Y' R a ? d 4 v e r
}Cf
t
s$ p
y E 3 r { qx L
M } {k -.r
f t
- _ ' lam" fi'!` r'.
_K. _ , .~...z ..v_ ~ .
mm_ - - . . .a. .u_._..
a+S•n '+,a. 'k ~ t+'I'llxv~ s ue- , c~ ~ ~r'7`L' ,r - ;m ` n, rY•
I`
5 z : ` a 'r }
"I 2 , -1 - I ~ . " - ~ ~ 7:., -.1- , " ~ ~ - :~v-,~'--":~. vf~-,' ,~',~-.I-~~t~ --k-f z-~ ~j,
i t>,:''.f,^x. •'e:k.~..' .r I`a - .,s- s- --k` g'~e ~l~"{ _
t , - _ a 2i " 3a' ..SCCS~ -
177, ~
4T r ` s 1 a -
i _
~P } r r g. Close Public Hearing;
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. , - f"a ~ k
- r4• 2
" ~ r~` "y2 Mr. Mahr stated that it was appropriate to close the record at this point and allow ~ 0., .k.
,~?5 Tc
u k the applicant seven days to submit a written argument; the argument could not f s a r _ f
~ I consist of any new evidence.
x
Vn~
r Mayor Nicoli noted that the Council would take no further action on this item this . ;
# Y' -I evening and closed the record, z,~ ~ z
t
{ Mr. Monahan said that staff would set this for the date certain of May 14, 1996 for t ,
z Council action. a44 r- a
4 v
- , 1-011-5 * I -
s 13. PUBLIC HEARING -LEGISLATIVE: PROPOSED LAND USE APPLICATION _
t$ -'Y
FEES/CITY OF TIGA)tD
v
a. Open Public Hearing xf § ,
~ - , F-11- I " 11 ~ - ,'~j - , , , I ~ ~ ~r if ems-,
ice - - - - `~~-L'11 I 11- s Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. 1 r u
- Y , ; -
I --1 Xy z b. Declarations or Challenges: None j~~_~ z
- - s
C. Staff Report r,,"
~1 ' t i Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, commented that staff has been % t 4
r
working for the last year on this update of fees to reflect today's costs. He stated 1 t
Y ' s~
r that the last update was 10 years ago; the report prepared four years ago was not ~a -
L acted on at the time. =
+ r - ' rR5R -a - eat
[ m:,~~-, ~ . 1~! -
Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He said that the f , - -
original report prepared four years ago never got to the Council for action. He , a~~ j% q -
M r, stated that the open house staff held for developers was attended only by the ~~~t
Homebuilders Association; though the Association would not endorse the fees, they r
k r would not oppose them either. , F
r, Mr. Bewersdorff noted that these fees related solely to the cost of processing NN
applications; they did not include any follow up or long range planning efforts. He x'h 4
z . -.~r t°
said that staff recommended recovering 100% of both direct and indirect costs. . Mlt bI ,
,,0 - d. Public Testimony: None - s # , , Eyys r J
1" *+r- e. Staff RcCVlltilteIIuatlon - t.,
_ t3 FF -77 Y M2
1Y Mr. Bewersdorff recommended that Council direct staff to prepare a resolution to t ~
recover 100% of the direct and indirect costs of land use applications, including u ,i Y 1
t v adding fees for those items listed in Exhibit A that the City did not charge fees for ' ,x ' G-_
'jam` ~ - at this time.
-iii 7 ix x.Y 'i S 7y r .j
3 as lk , .
g CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 22 5~ ~r 4 '
2' t: i j {
-#c awn cF - f -S - F}, y-K'1 4 g i
f
`t x .h s
r yY. ~G Y 'V
pC - 4 5fi i, 1-!,,
'E°e - •r .:n,+• mot, '7 yak. y^'- r
Y
3z
- fi }
t ~
` Yi '.`a-1 f.-~ - _ x F E} yr 3 "C .1 , B , - - - ~ , ',,i ----1 LIL~'~ '11-', " - - - - , , , , , - . , i,~: ,
! .L - : ,1- _ , " .1 ~,`~f . ~ - M -.Q Ir* ,IV., - - - ,
,.r, j" '$'P'+:r, 5 5 a.i y, :R S36'fF F 3
7-s'~. t,_`t- a - r - 1 ,
i
" M " - - L", -',1, s , - , - P, L. ,
C
~ , .~,11 , . . . , - , , , , , _ " ~ _ - ; "L~ ~ ' ~ " , , " , ~ ~ ~ , 0
4 -I I
_ 5 3 Y -
. _
.r _ 74i r 'M t 1'-1't`~'s"'k,k. - _ _ wr-•: l ~e. i_, wk:•, _
43'4'E x - ter -h' - - , - _ - .:.f,, -
t _3 - - - -
s !z , , u~ 4
" ".:rp x 'k'_s - - .r i 'fi r
£t > t= a.g -,Via' a
C 3• i- fk' j + -
~ } k lam{
~,'z' 3. - r -a',a. xr .h- ,n - - .
,4 Rte - ' tt, 1. s • t ' _ t"` } 't;. inR
Pfg -4 -fy~ " .
,I Dt a
h _ - - gyp,
' i f. Council Questions ~i
Kz ,.,wyU Councilor Scheckla asked about the new fees in Exhibit A. Mr. Bewersdorff `4`- 's LY{ W`4 ,
_11t . G t - ' 2- reviewed the list of those new fees. He said that they were trying to recoup some - s ,
x'- rz -Pc t,
~ ,
of the cost of the processing so that those costs wouldn't be borne by the general ;
Alw~tlz y taxpayer.
r
`3 Councilor Scheckla asked about the 40% additional fees mentioned. -1. _ 'a
W . , ; j Bewersdorff explained that when they received two applications at the same time, : - ~y
'`'",.t,sn;=f~ = = development review application accompanied by a variance request, E-;-_ ~ w : V_tt-'
,,.;,_..,,3,..;,-:,:;.; such as a site
they did not charge the full fee for the second application; they proposed to charger 3
,Vf
rte- only 20% of the fee because so much of the work and notifications were done for , '
SS4.'-y
the first application anyway. 4 4 {
" v -
x g• Close Public Hearing ~,`1 's r k - Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. pg
t
7 t
h. Council Consideration , ~
f
s~ -
Moved by Councilor Rohlf, seconded by Councilor Hunt to direct staff to come
4' back with a resolution. s ~y
A- g 1 ~
- ; ' :`rte. _4 i
5 - The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the Council present. (Mayor
-
Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf and Scheckla voting "yes. , 1.11 , t -i~ 11
Mr. Hendryx reported that over the course of the next year staff would evaluate two ,
U other fee schedules: Community Development looking at building related fees and
Engineering looking at land development fees. , I I -4s 14. ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 96-0001 - CITY OF TIGARD -
UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES EXCEPTION (Set over from April 9, 1996 Council
ZM1
meeting.) A proposal to amend the Tigard Community Development Code Section ~ r
k 18.164.120 to add Sections C and D to provide for exceptions to the underground utility °w a
..4 i
1 x requirement and a fee in lieu of undergrounding. e l
a. Open Public Hearing * ~
fl I '
j
Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. ~rt , f
~f
a b. Declarations or Challenges
Councilor Moore stated that he would abstain from participating since he had a slight ff ; Y
conflict of interest. t - -
3
P- N 4k%
; c. Staff Report . a>
Mr. Hendryx presented the staff report. He said that the intent of this ordinance was I '
to codify in written form the provisions and standards setting the City's ability to '"~A.,4, y
3 recover the costs for undergrounding utilities. He explained that sometimes it was ~ f
not practical to underground facilities at the time of development as required by City r r f ,
s¢~. -f rK,yq
¢
_f CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996 - PAGE 23 ~ Q`;'~
r 11- { t,
r s ,.e.+.-J....
F ~kt Y l 1N t kF 1`"
4
' - h`
E , , t,~~,_ : . - , , ~ - . t. ~ ~ - , , , "'I" J r ,
d
t i
.Y Y" - F a -
$.i - q l Y t F `i
` '"r lj - 4- o-.; -fir -t F'2
¢ss [ r z - t " - x
d
" ~ IM, , , ~ L - - - ~ - I , . " " ~ -1 -1_~_:':1-,. _ _ , ~ i, _~t I- ~fr,7~~ -
'.5 - t- - , 1
, ~ ; : ~ ~ M
- - - - l',
- -
r - -
a ,Y✓ v ',t" T - re;:~x 7. ATr' r-x'yt~i, r ti,.
- - - -tiS3 of V...sd'x..'. p
*11 Am F __1 - - - ~ , , , ~ , ; , , ~ ,
r `
+~x 2a a,, S, ..7~ t a € t` _ a _ n N~_ ~ ~ ~ ~
to r!s' - P s` F S
5~^:~'- 3yiv^.su~r~,r _ Y _ l, r," -z-rf1~ - '~,i ~
'~y
f
P f
P ".irc~C'3t "'.'fi't _ rE { - 7-C fF ~1'FR-i`Ei, ..S
~ r 3 y',gY r t c - "a t - t _ - } } - ,-a , ~ t; g 'i
k v'S 1fe r - ; 5 h 4 "I I
I V,
^ '?a. " - ; ' , f ~ -'erg tf s-, W"'O},., .t _ -
Fv:' A
un 4 standards. This ordinance set up a method that allowcd the City Engineer to ,F~
_ r determine when undergrounding was applicable and when it was not, and to collect 3 V.
® _
~ ~ " ~s , # f a fee in lieu of undergrounding in order to have the money available for - r. Y
`v 1~~ undergrounding in the future when it became practical to do so. He said that it set _
*s ~ ~ up a series of service districts throughout the City to hold the money assessed in y " * _ N-J, '
z Y each district for that district's future undergrounding. 4--, - % ~ 'X~ s
x
a ' _ d. Public Testimony: None
c, r~, H" °I'" v=,?- .her.,, g .
C. Staff Recommendation
l F Mr. Hendryx recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. V~-~~~ $
e
f. Council Questions t s 7g". - I-A
Yy * , - Councilor Hunt stated that he opposed setting up service districts because of the 4 ~ ~g~ x
y r
amount and of because any it would generate in tracking the different funds by district 07
C
y given district might not have enough money by itself to F
x
underground utilities. r`4:Y L { - 5
_ RN
Mayor Nicoli asked if the fund wasn't currently set up in service districts. Mr. s'+L i'st ,a
Bewersdorff said that the process was currently divided into six or seven districts in
_ £ order to provide a more accurate expenditure relative to the area, making sure that . ` ~ ~ {
_ the funds were spent in the area from which they were collected. N-11, ~;~r~--"; ~ ~ t
~ u.1 - - T 5
P^~ Councilor Hunt asked if this was the only fund divided by district. Mr. Bewersdorff y ' Rn
`I: , said that he believed that it was the only one. Councilor Hunt reiterated that lie ~,1.
n could nor. support the ordinance. a
a € V ,V 14
rm _1 .1
`
- ~ rw'``aE= tea.,
i Councilor Scheckla concurred with Councilor Hunt's comments about one area not EX f
c } suggested money to eone lartte stn and allowing City the discgetlon I I ' ~ j
pooling the money into g Po g the tY g? _ s
to move the funds around as needed. He stated that he would not support the
r ordinance either, though item #4 was the only portion that he did not support. 2-~,-'V%; r 1
i%, rev m}"
Councilor Rohlf stated that he thought that they needed to have some way to get the . k
Mayor Nback to the icoli concurred. so that those who paid for undergrounding could get it. F ` 'tr~ ~ 1
g. Close Public Hearing ;
Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing. t _ f `
Mayor Nicoli suggested sending this to a workshop session for discussion on the sole ~j t
x _ ? issue of contention (item #4). He asked that it be scheduled for a session in June r,, _ 4s4 r
f after Councilor Hunt's return.
7- s< Mr. Hendryx pointed out that without the ordinance, staff did not have a codified t K_ 1
a s i `c': policy for the procedures they currently used. fi
~f J y f1`y 'cf k i E
S CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES _ eDprr ?s ioob PAGE 24 f ~ SE
l 4 may., Y 1
M" _ _ i'J 'fi't- I
_ _ ~ ~ ..'_""'TM"•"°`°°°a°°.«a+„>T^-ero srn A :'Cis„' " :Svc _ J ' - ; - ~ FF
_y.r` 1 _ u `,may C
YM .o-
a r M 1
- E I ~ J~ - " " r w ;izra
a
s _ - 3, iY kw _
Ll
cr r
4.1 M_-, r
- - _ _ ,
" , " I - , _~t~ , _ - . c - - ~ - ~ ~1~ " I T 1~ - ~ - . , ~ ~ - T. h I - ;
t,
z z'
r
RiG
W4 Z~
~'...Y
R'SFe ,
r*a ,.,€3. •-f. h €'S .{w',, a 'z s, c. ,c.~~ ;y{•-kk: .'4.
4 z s
f
a~ , 'h" e ^q i- is f-, 4 x~`
qNV7- 41;
Mlj
ffiggr
tk~
OWa i..=,3~ da? mac"
Mr. Monahan stated that staff would schedule this for the June work session with V,
4 -
final Council action at the last meeting in June.
.k'i
15. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
e;rr= 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at under n•
the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (3), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
1,~}
r a transactions, current and pending litigation issues.
t=~~ 17. ADJOURNMENT: 10:33 p.m.
a i2 2 -tee r .
Attest: therine Wheatley, City Recorder
er t
a ay c '
Ma ity of Tigard L
d 3~
D
P
3a
ii , ~t~
's~ .
4 f w jS`'i - 3 hr's - r' ON
.r,
IE
%
t fi za u }3~
-v 5s`
r`~Tgj
Ea
1#~> CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 23, 1996 -PAGE 25
*1'114` 18
-fie 3 w Sr a Y,, y', ~t
j~g
,RA 0M,
ngq- C-
2
1AN
L c fy., gr r `~nf v- f „t„'aa'' aE
pp~ f F`S V Y_ Y A J! f
Y~
._k-s_ . . ~.i~ lv_~... s..-....n+ '_hT-_'1l"~~ .r.•",T.'r•}"'n7...~ '.~+5~ i_..v ~ _ v-.. -~J .1 ~ ~,~~T.1~. z~- ~~_....v... ~i~ 4~
x, , ,-.4. , fix; to r•3 ~ t h - _ . - T r. r q,,~ i,' -
x e -
r
'0,'it, "}"J's"v .F h r,p- a `Z ' .3I x`"a'~~ y 36-s
_ a-~, )_M r t ,-e, r s- X t't -s~;s~L- - ^s, ~i_ "
s. i 1 r*"- Y t - .s. r - -,rvc'`~iti t s r'.y, s u, s
AtM c-+.vyrsa'rr~~ 2 f - a- - _ 4 t <t-r,..a„ R- x t.I t
` ly`x. 'S~'SR.5p. ~i C(r„z d. -g Q rs
- _
'go R1 r,- pie 3 x 3 ? ~
r~ Nom'",: S -
4Y t13~r ~F i t s' J-
&~Y as'
' i t ,
Z
Oaf i - ]
rr COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. L, a, j
"n ' t'1.~ n N lice TT $458
:2,10W . iZ P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 d~
"-a'Y ; BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ~Y , 7
kECf)VEU Ap ~'a"
~,'>1. , r Y ~ Legal Notice Advertising x
' n' . tr., APR 2 1996=~ 3 .
• • 13 Tearsheet Notice f+' ~
City of Tigard
' " CITY'
5, , ; 13125 SW Hall Blvd. OF TIGARD~
v y- cig'ard,Orego.^. 47223-81p° • 13 Duplicate Affidavit u g
n _
` ' 4*~0 z.
r- 7
r ~ ,x ~ ' f - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION , ,;;.IvI v r€; Rg
- 3 STATE OF OREGON,
'p r - x f ! COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as- , 3r- :7ft~
k~~
.
"I" I , i. ~ I, Ka1•hy SnyAa= . .
x being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising F P ME ~
a Y Director, or his principal clerk, of thd+ gard-T ,a a ti n mesa ,
a newspaper of general circulation as d fined in ORS 193.010
- 1_1 and 193.020; published at Tigar~ in the ~.v_~_
~x
T aforesaid county and state, that the 111
r nnn 1 BuG+ ness Dieeting _
' ? z x a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the ' n ~t
" e! 'r entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and ,
x' consecutive in the following issues: ;x.'19 -
~
r "V-11 .~"Y April 1 A 1 946 I -W z
a iry - a
Y'{Ay f x i- - yh-g ' 4 Y Y
s Subscribed and sworn It fore ma thi Ap_r,e 1, T -CIA ' e 4 j ! 11 ti' s } t- 'x F _ uEi E
t y No IC - 0`'--CON Y a ~
' - Note Public for Oregon ;MIS;, CN NO. ' " i t 5 s
MY'COM + S9tON EXPIRES f'A: , 5937 r a~r "
a ) . rt My Commission Expires: , a
a~ 4 a `4 AFFIDAVIT - ~ f 11
~~a 6,1- - ~^t~ - rte.. r 'xl ~ ' ,
,r~ ~ { y z"h fix . rq ~
a ,,E, -,.'-",r gar -a' p ,rsx' , i, F , 11 IL, -
' 9 x~ '12 ter.. a 7 -Z 2' A J ~ `s 5, ' 3 - _ t 'm+" +'''^:=a~z~,l C d~ 4't' -~i -
r .t - 5- F Vie- -r ~itxa~-.k',
-a
1,~`? K'r'~- .x f s"- yu 't t ' t - t _ t' rp,#- , f 1 i
.7 t. f i S t _ N - 9
'w Yi ,ryt iQ;, _Y t, } x I y t h2- Y' i xN $t ~,4
`z a 2 gip,=F 4
B" ^a~, -,wt e d7 _ ._r C - '4- 1 xI ' s .x
+l °«.yjxko- - t E 6 r i r " ` 4 ~",c t i J
z t s r' s
;
;
r' - rya-t ' 1
T"'.
A. R aI
U5s f
g -
%
t u} - 4. - S - - - - -
L .s"- ~nr ,..4e:..-..a_•._._.,_.,.~ .-n...x........,tc,.:...-__.._.......,.a...,._z~.,.,,z.,+.,.,...-...-....._.-.......,.._.._..®._.«.....T,d«.x..+.er._..,,-..,.~....~_.~.__.
r„
The following meeti
ng highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
G Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171.
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 23,1996
TIGARD CITY WALL -TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON
Study Meeting (Red Rock Creek Room) (6:30 P.M.) y
• Executive Session: The Tigard" City Council may go into
Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1).(d)-. l
(e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions,
current and pending litigation issues. = s
• Agenda Review T
Business Meeting (Town Hall) (7:30 P.M.) .
r
• Update-Tualatin Valley Economic Development Corporation ;
4 i 5° ~ S
Council Consideration:
• Discuss Washington County Cooperative Library Service - t
y -
Capital Levy
• Library "Trespass" Ordinance
Public Hearings: ( e
• Consideration or Prioritization of Greenspaces Projects
(Continued from the April 9, 1996 Council meeting.) Continuation
of hearing to select greenspace projects. Tigard is entitled to k s
receive $758,000 in, local share funds from the Metro Greenspaces
_ bond measure.
x ~ ~ n
• 'Zone Change Annexahon -ZCA 96.0001 Shultz t
REQUEST: Annex two parcels'of 6,2 acres into the city and "di
change the comprehensive plan from Washington County R-6 to
City of Tigard Medium Density Residential and chance the zone [ -
North of Bull Mountain Road, cross from g W.. 133rd.
• Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 96-6002
n
Landmark Annexation is
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one ' t
',,parcel of 0.47 acres into the city and a-change of the i
comprehensive plan and zoning from Washington, County R-'9 to € v-
City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12- LOCATION: " r
Property is located at 9275 Locust Street jusrwest of SXL 92nd' F4
• 'Proposed Land Use Application Fees/City of Tigard f
The Tigard City Council will-conduct a public hearing , to hear ttt
testimony on the proposed land use application fee changes. Please
contact Richard Bewersdorff in the Planning Division if you.have 1
any questions. k
j r
• Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 96.0001- City of Tigard
Undergrounding Utilities Exception (Set over from April 9,'
1996'Council meeting.) A proposal to amend the Tigard.
Community Development Code Section 18.164.120 to add, t
r Sections C. and D. to provide for exceptions to the underground t
,utilityrequirementcnd a fee in lieu of undergroonding. k `
• Albertson'slncJDuncumbeLUBARemaad-Comprehensive [
Plan Amendmemt (CPA) 93-0009/Lone Change (ZON) 93-0003,
< Site Develo ment Review (SDR) 93-0014/Minor Land Parti6tion°
P ;
o - (MLP) 93-0013.
TT8458 -Publish April 18,1996. aI
,kr
_ _ - - - - krfr
r k<
- ~ - - 1. - - - - ~ l
I
b ~'~•h.. `*F3i ~ °n~ SL - { - ti _ fr T ~ '3"Sy y'`K" y F'p1' -
- ~~~~~*~S„-E'-r fyr -•t ~ '1S 'n s e -t -tea vJ~`,~ y's,~ `y~+"°""r'.9, ,
•,~Z"" - r' R y 2 N_ . ✓ tie` °t " a % .t 4`~ C a' °am ~aL4. "~a ':1*v r.TS~'sy
s~,.....
~{}tYk't~-
,
~Y
x",cf;,=•,i'~ his- k - 3 -j - (,*ii*'"r~?"'''`s,-`t-' =°s,
''~T b e{ { ---'<"•f.~....F ' r , x .fib.. y., a - 4 r'` farce r`-'~~
21 N.
] s^; X34
R W. go;
I 00--i
PrO --,455R,
13 £ -
MR
Mfr trey _2~
C ~ <3`3 ~ 3" kx 7'd 'gy`m
c '61~a r
MFM2
ASS
vEbMMUNITX NEWSPAPERS1 INC.
Legal
8451
TT
APR 17 19g6 P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (603) 664-0360 N
BEAVERTON,OREGON 97075~~
.ITY OF TIGARp Legal Notice Advertising
s •City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice b l m
13125 SW Hall Blvd. x
~WIN
F3 Y'',: °Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
b
,r• .s` Accounts )?ay°hle-Tcrry • -`'u
MOW
4w 3. r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION irA'yy ,,n 1rFt " d b+
g STATE OF OREGON. ) ~.bu! re,S t
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' w`i ~r~° r]
i"a'.,`~'~}^ $ 9 a
err-- Kathy Snyder
r , being first duty sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising`* :g y
Director, or his principal c,erk, of theTl gars-Tualatin Times s, pr
-la++u...~~aw512i a newspaper of g-ra! circ-Wetion as defined in ORS 193.010
N~a and 193.020; published at Tigard in the e - -4
¢!ra ,ir'_ aforesaid county and state, that the' L
Pnhli~ uAarings_9CJ9F-0001 Shultz - _ ,
x~t h a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
a 4 } - entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and l 3 r
consecutive in the following issues:
z t~
a }
M' V
k M At2ri 1 11 1996
L 3 ASi. j h f
~_s.u Subscribed andswor betoremethisllth day of Apri1,1996--~
u z~ J - r h x G2~a1'N~-~11u~ RUN x cif
i NO" ' IC - O CON
Negry Public for Oregon +;MISS:.)N NO. 4
,97 MY COId: SSION EXPIRES MAY I 1- s r
R-W{ + My Commission Expires:
L
str AFFIDAVIT -j
Zap"`x $n 1` z~~
E Wgnu
~'`SS
* ~ i £ n'i t w ~ ~-w P 1
M",~'
}fz a
_4 _2
w aa~ a- ~ ~g4 i"~ ~R %YA
£ ~ { - 'a ~ rr- : - t t t t ~ r P s L. n~ ~ ¢ W~~ p~~ • 7
vvim`., tL s a
wV,
21
511C .12
'^~~9n`:~'~~, '§''x~ fit ,r,~ 5-" 7 ~ _ psi .rA;'~"-"j~.:a.~~• '
gxs-,~'s.",°"
s,.~x'-~1z zF,~ W , 42, ^r~ 1 r - _ e• F } _ + .A' 4 w 'P € c P r+,
Ftii<`9,W-P`b
~ k
7 May{. - - _
tt
F-s _ - - - - _
~ i ~~`dv C!-'i ~-`~....aFs::'•+~.at:5..r..aGw. ~ _ ..~.n...,... m. rc»-..~m.ra..e..n...,.~.....-.......r.sa_w .."r - .«..xs. .z,.x..,v a
d I F~ ® 4Y
r ; ~ S F
a
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on A inr 123. ,
1996. at.71AO_ M.. at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W,
r Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public orai and written testiumay is
r Invited: The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules
and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or
by, Letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or a
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the U 3
decisionmaker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of
the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from _
the Planning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or
by calling 6394171. 5 ' =2 "
_ - 4s
ji BLIC HEARINGS
f. Fag
9!`A 96-ON! SHUL7A
REQUEBTrAnnex two parcels of 6.2 acres into the city and change the °
comprehensive plan from Washington County R-6 to City of Tigard y. N fir{
Medium Density Residential and change the zone from Washington
County R=6 to City of Tigard R-7. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain } T
Road; across from S.W. 133rd Avenue, approximately,1,000'.
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRIT$RIA: The relevant review criteria in
this case are Comprehensive Plan policies 2.1.1, citizen involvement:
10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2, boundary criteria; and 10.1.3, ?t ; -
zoning designation. Also, Community Development Code chapters
18.136, annexation requirements; and 18.138, land classification of. 4 '
annexed territory. ZONE: Presently, Washington County R-6.
i i 1 1 :!:!lift: fllil ~ fi•.. [
rVZX
=£F
. _ '.L~: q!'•j`-mss'... y~. t - -
•rl -
I
T 18451-Publish-April 11, 1996.
r 4 r v
F
i ~
5
7 4
%
M?'_- 5 -.^~1 -M -1tt~ T .fir' ,.A e~-_f, It -r S ~ .
` `a r c s
µ - fir:" " -cyr ,ryr§, 'a - } r- r 1 ,-'w 3~-+~c„ # 10 zs, a
X3`~ - , +YP. - y _ _ _ 's r x -'e!;,j_"sZV; "`N' f '~P F;- "
d 'Ft t''$` - 4 _ 'i 3 J - w T _ - ! - F3 ;d '1L _ ''i )«w. S} II G ..,.,v°', ' m`.z'+wr, W-=~P._ 3 ^e'~. 1 s _ t i J 1 t x'w C : 4 ~~3«~ Sr " `b.
F _ Ss,2.€.rwi 4,„a'~ cxI -x _ _ _.r _ ,,,,4', - t b S's::'6<`;~-,w~:
y'"' 54,. c - .r t - - rd r t ~,.T~ e ire
E,~„#`+snf s ti _ 44 LJ` - i c'~ a a e ~ 'e 9
,4 I 11
, WE
T;. kI `-"g_yry $c- '
Lx -G`-.r3 s 7 t r - ; i -r _ t 4 ',ti '-sv` - z a, _6
At ~~N,i
A
6 ~2'. Y~ 3 Z r - A 2 T - hy,/1i1.9Y 3' 'iF n' } i
" NOW
F 'i-r #~Sh .x ,,+F. mss-
` sr,1 -
~ -A
p _
-k" A
fl
` Syr r
""I
11
~E~~ - - 12 E C E ) V E D COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. '
" , ~ 4 ` 5 s , P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 604-0360 Notice TT 8 4 4 9 - z
~"e ~ - APR 17 1996 ~ ~ ~4 ~ .
~r
s ~W ~~,;p $ a - BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 L1112 *5 -
~-N~ _v L,I z"~ s. ~:ITY OF TIGARD Legal Notice Advertising
' n t
t ~ `'.JkWa.= •Cit of Ti and • 13 Tearsheet Notice . ,d►
Ir s i y 9 a?"~ t x e I
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
t , , i • 13 Du0licata eKida.,. n
arrt •Tigard,Ore on 97223-8199 v
i~--; g
F ' ? ~.a =t,c counts Payable-Terry • ~
~ 0
:,i~~
Y, t~
z AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
4 - ' g , . s - STATE OF OREGON, )ss. ^ ' ~ L.4 r ~r,e 4 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) x -
W r _ I, Kathy Snyder u,r'~c.
Pr 7 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising X 4 x y
r ~ t-` - P' , - Director, or his principal clerk, of thdPicTa rd-m„a 1 a i- in Times ' s~~<•
a `R- a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ° .
T,~,; and 193.020; published at Tigard in the F ~ `
-t,5 t aforesaid county and state; that the - - ;
€ e r = ZCA96-0002 Lundmark Annexation e M.;
f x 4 - a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the I a -
5 s
t2m3* n entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and -
consecutive in the following Issues:
' z t ' ~ .
a{d } s Aori1 11 , 1996 ;ti ;s t1
f L ,1 4 42 d ~
l
< _ r
F #e "
an
4 r Subscribed and sworn before me this 11th day of .pril,19.9Cr- =q a,
i i 3 i +w - v ro _ r iU t_ t . ~lc,,, BUR - J ~ 3 t {
r ~
_ tJU~,, IC - ORGON
t ,7 i ~ a ,r No Public for Oregon ;•r~aMlS`r:UN NO. 022 52 s .t - R r
~ s My Commission Expires" , MY CON;d'SSION EXPIRES MAYt-,.,1997 _ t~ ~
" at a AFFIDAVIT , r 1, ; r 110 -NN
tr ' F_'i
I f- 5
t Jr ,fr- by -
,eF ,3 `r 1
r 6
vv-' ; -A ^ n s ,
_ - n, _
,;s,7 ,av 3a P v ,
r,
i _ ,4,`',yyfwr o. ~+,d x .GF so- , r F
mm , i.~~4T ;rte _ ~ ^-_,r .~~,S. ~fft}`e s
t § -s
I - 44,
"'O., 171 l r-- ~s,.a r ;e; x R,r,•2r"1,: -1 T =°r ; .`&1`0 .
h7'$ x3 ,t-- k-.-r, a rt n _ _ f r ---~5'h t {i,, u°~„ k 'mr-_ i
E t
s N rv y, r 4 f t+ r 3 ,r 1 4 7 ~f uz 11
3 t
P,-.;;,-. t wrrs+ sf -r-F s s _ i l-"' - W-- ~ # , - . - - , , , 011--l , "I
,7 - fi ar.^ c e 'r t €d i r' 'u~b:afii S 4
n, ti( sot } e r _ -Y --'S,+t z
,a.5, - - 5~ = r _e." _ a ste r -
f~R4~`fC_- .S.St CFA ; { L
'u"' akz',"i E
`0 "N .s S4, t ! ! s - j t _ - 4 c s r# ' •'7 -7
t i + "rc'z -K`- d, ry xF Ott y - r .r~? , b . , ~ a r } r~, 4, S '7 1
, 'iZ - #%&;K, 7F 1 4 ,6 y ' a' ~t ~.r' 4+,'a' , p.I r
* ' . e ix fix'- - } s r 4 - g x , .vet rs. .
t y d:. a,J f7 s-r.a5 c r JWT. r'-I -I1 I
S'`~ e8 '"r
Alr 1 r sr ~ - f,{ { _ 1 r r } ~,xya l3, _ y.r s ~i
r
~ ~y,:-:'Y~"'1 •t nr:~ -xs., ~-..•e7~,c l,. .mss .ran: q'~.^«r i.~ E.•~v,,.ti c'.. _;q~.s rxJrrr -
i
i. ,
The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on A nr? 9 23•.
1996. at 7:30 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 S.W.
Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Both public oral and written testimony is
invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in accordance
with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code, and rules
and procedures of the City Council. Failure to raise an issue in person or
by letter at some point prior to the close of the hearing on the request or
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
_ - ; ducisionmalrer an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of
i the hearing on the request, precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of
E Appeals based on that issue. Further information may be obtained from
the Pluuning Division at 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or
by calling 6394171.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 96-0002
LUNDMARK ANNEXATION Y
REQUEST: The applicant and owners request annexation of one parcel
of 0.47 acres into the city and a change of the comprehensive plan and
zoning from Washington County R-9 to City of Tigard Medium Density Residential/R-12, LOCATION: Property is located at 9275 Locust Sweet
J ustwest of S.W.92nd Avenue. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA:
~e relevant review criteria in this case are Comprehensive Plan policies
2.1.1, citizen involvement; 10.1.1, service delivery capacity; 10.1.2,
t boundary criteria, and 10.1.3, zoning designation. Community
Development Code chapters 18.136, annexation requirements; and
18.138, land classification of annexed territory. ZONE: Presently,
Washington County R-9.
-MT
1 k LET t
~ F9 r,~ ' r 7 aFy a any. 1~• C~
~y it •koln ~ ~ E, ~t ~~.JJ/
yT,,.r3 !~."«ri.~;*f.:4T•.s s'~- rin`.~ 'w 10"
%
r~
T :t' 11tt
r "''"s-r- '±r .,rart;:F~ ~'iW'->`' f~ , tT`"• %.'A k
t . ht, sy« si spa y
i{ v
3 au ~
N.I.: Mao rt~G ' `
Nets: Mop a not to sqk V _;.7
778449 - Publish April 11, 1996.
- _
I
=j
_ 1rt` hr Ifs,",- u,T{ ~1YnuaL +"f>. 1~5 - 1•~
A -1
ke.ty x~'3Y~ ,y
j 5
~x
~c 1
- MW
7"~y
t ? sf `r
A.
.y, 'uG j 4? .u s jF 9 'eY`
t a~
t }$r
R 4'
4~ fiz APR.1 r a9y COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal A ,
..w
P.O. BOX 370 PHON. (w3! o6d-0366 NotlceTT 8454 M~~~~,' 40
CITY OF TIGARO BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075
57-
NN,
- Legal Notice Advertising z
t 117
°City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
p`+~Wx
z° r 13125 ST-7 Hall Blvd. t f k s- r
°Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit~gq' j
ga s Accounts Payable-Terry? -
t ~,x AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, ) 3a5*'v~,c"nc ~
F` COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. a?
e
1Y { 7 I.- Kathy Snyder t
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising
~ Director, or his principal clerk, of theTj garA-Tna 1 at; n Times
w 1
[ z $ a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 ,u•fi '
and 193.020; published at Tigard n thei
N,e aforesaid county and state; that the o ? r x
Hearing-Land Use Anolication Fees
t- a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONr'' successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
~Qo
April 11,1996
~ { Subscribed and sworn t before me thi - 1,1996
CIA IT'D
Y W y
auk
` s
~u
41 Not Public for Oregon Np" ' _IC - O:'. CON p N r.
r ¢
M s< ;IVN NO. My Commission Expires:
MY C06' :"~a10f! EXPIRES t lA'i t 0997' -
x ¢ ~f AFFIDAVIT t
gt-
5k- Y kS
'K N5
s 7 'v
OM RS!"
MK~
NIX
r~ r k '
, 4x-
'A J2
777777 777
P~'¢,sV ' 'y*; f r +--'-~"'.r^ta.. - t~w+~iyz.~s~r~$.,'s-s J f - •i
-s-ai
FC-
'x"'r f ,t#?z`ux"~~, r
:ft 44
1.s`=sN~~
MYy1, sty C ,p r fi i y
r"" 0"
..-3u{..yS -.3
-el
a; s" kza Y x F
i
~ ME
y Px ~z rZ f° s ¢a } A r P 'f -r 9rc,
.w'i
t 7 P WIP ft"`zl"'
r*a fir'" S `"s~. .r^':~. #1rr r+t 1 - rte. ' : _ 'sue _ s~
LAI
i
Wz~
Z 7777
rat ~~*'ix ~"-~i~ ~ w~ a' ~ ` z t - a• t r _ ~s a ~ ; $'s~~,~ ~ s~;~
t a...t27 4
~ e a
A a e~y ;
N-i
Og-
f.W-q "M
.?4arm n3'x~s }
0100.
01
_ Tke Yollb'xitig will be considered by gard the Ti -~ft Not
C. Coon - o Aigil2$;,:. ~t ~ r
t f IM, at 730 P.M. at the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125, S.W.
t , Halt Blvd Tigard, Oregon 47223. Both public oral and written :tom ? z
i a 4 PRIM
~R is invited tesumony,.
* PUBLIC HEARING `g
z
PROPOSED BAWD USE APPLICATION FEES/CTPY OF,TIGARD iWIMMV
w z iy
The Tigard City Council will corxiuet a public hearing to hear,testimony
f on, the proposed land use application fee changes Please contact Richard, I~ w
i n Bow_ ersdorff in the Planning Division if you have any questions
nv y r N,
r " s 'X`P 4 Publish April 11: 149b .i i '
71, U" A
6AW
it 41
121
.Star-~*'°-.~ ~ - ~ _ - xNx~`-a-
,yq i3 v a € J° 1 a r t
'NIP i0,71-11
QTY y
,.a r
0-9
F-
J' O' at _ _ ( k - _p c"- `"5js }ztro'L
yw
§ la
x z- l
1, _S
7 4
4-q r _
fiw Ck - - - ~ F° a
r C R~ Y:'Y YiF _
{s~"z''?'y`
III J~x~L,t„~n'.~z~t'.~ t 7 1 t F „tt ~~~t ~F
.,z Y,rS,^•. s v{ f`sta-~ k r - .1 - r r - { t f gilt --''~-k #..w."#'k'a--x
~tc1- wy- r-~ t Ft' t t ~ ~,F~.~ a. •S `a" ,.t} y
116-
k: - 7+z~mYr i ' * Ss n + a ~ ?r'~.'a,°r~9•w°i~x='
's 'f- 3 4t ~ 4
f a
REIM
g s
1 N {
g, R
15
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC._ tom;
E C E 1 V E C' P.O. BOX 370 PHONF (503) 684.0360 Nottice TT '8 A 5 3 Pi -
BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 r ,t
A
I Legal Notice Advertising r - -2J ~ -
{ _ 7Y OF TIGAR4 j ,
*City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
'IN
•
a 13125 S6V Hall Blvd
r
s h ut Tigard,Oregon 97223-8199 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
•
-MM
z Accounts Payable-Terry • E~~~ -
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
r~ pk .f Y. i hUtlofi'w`A y{s - ^a*~x 7 S
r s - ' STATE OF OREGON,
S~t
k q ar _ COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss. mxtAi -a
I,- Kathv-snydPr
-f t c r being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 amrthe Advertising E-A'rx r- &s r
Directornewspaper. or
gene all circulation as def defined inORS 193.0 0 mesh
3 and 193.020; published at Tigard n the
r, a - aforesaid county and state;that the
_CPA 9'~-f)(1 (19 Alhr r}-ann
k a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the gry ~a F
entire issue of said newspaper for ONFsuccessive and
consecutive in the following issues:
r
- _ April 11,1996
t sis r a 4 z,~ j
P { Subscribed and sworn tAefore me thisl_ th day oafAor; 1,1X46 E
,.M r
Vieux ~K~~
N0.: IC - 0' "CQN Y~ r
t Nota biic for Oregon
wty Commission Expires: MY C061:d'~S"0 N EXPIRES Mk'; ,1997.
gii
: t
AFFIDAVIT t
ryn 4.
A -8V
~ Y
-F~~y3 z F~ ',SY t~ ^f.l rYy.~~s^r~c3+
z4p
r a RNe Y r r .""'^°^.-sam & a ~-oz Ti
y { z 3 '.t a ~"•x•z c, k' r t' 4 - - _ t'. 't3° ~F { il -c, 46
1C a 4 C t - 5 ,y,r rrmu -
z` r~ ~f N t a ,y 5-
-vt
1
:a
i 1 }-p s "k
a:s'v r p
-71
Toc following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on ri123•
rats
1=d 7:0 P.M., at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hal". 131 5 S. V. .
Tigard, Oregon 47223. Both public oral and written testimony -
is invited. The public hearing on this matter will be conducted in
accordance with the rules of Chapter 18.32 of the Tigard Municipal Code,
and any rules and procedures adopted by the Tigard City Council, or rules
of procedure set forth in Chapter 18.30.
r
Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter at some point prior to the
close of the hearing accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to
allow the Hearings authority and all the parties to respond on the request,
p recludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue, ' .S
T'A
and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development
Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes an
appeal based on that cnteno Funkier information is available at City Hall
and may be obtained from the Community Development Director or City
Recorder at the same.location, or by calling (503) 639.4171.
PUBLIC HEARING r _
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 93-0009/
- ZONE CHANGE (ZON) 93-0003
E
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) 93-00141
MINOR LAND PARTITION (MLP) 93.0013
>ALBF.RTSON'S INC./DUNCOMBE LUBA REMAND< ' -
f J
A request to consider an Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA) }
remand for the following development approvals: - g r
1. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change approval to redesignate
approximately eight acres of an 11.45 acre parcel from Medium-High Y L
Density Residential to Community Commercial on Tax Lot 200 and to
~j
redesignate an approximately 6.93 acre parcel from Neighborhood
Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential on Tax Lot 100. 3
The Zone Changes accompanying the above plan changes include a y > ,
change from R-12 (PD) (Residential, 12 units per acre, Planned
Development) and R-25 (PD) (Residential, 25 units per acre, Planned -
Development) to C-C (Community Commercial) and frbm C-N
(Neighborhood Commercial) to R-25 (Residential, 25 units per acre):
d -t
2. Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a
40,000 square foot stand-alone tenant ad and three smaller tenint
pads of 1,200, 2,400 and 5,950 square feet adjoining the anchor pad.
The applicant also proposes two 4,000 square, foot stand-alone tenant
pads; and
S 7
3. Minor Land Partition approval to divide the 11.95 acre parcel into two
parcels of approximately eight acres and 3.95 acres each.
The October 20, 1995 LUBA remand required City Council to receive and _
make additional findings on the following issues:
1. Transportation Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy (TCP) 8.13 (f)-(h)
and 8.4.1 i
2. Air/Water Quality: LCDC Goal 6 Y
3. Air Quality Impact: TCP Policy 4. 1.1
4. Water Quality Compliance: TCP Policy 4.2.1 v
5. Commercial Compatibility: TCP Policy 5,4
6. Buffering: TCP Policy 6.6.1
1 7. Storm Drainage Facilities Feasibility: TCP Policy 7.1.2
J 8. Design Criteria Community Development Code 18.61.055 I
4 7
- - - - - - - -
L ~r
- .
-
-
'~r -
t= wz
v s _ -
EX ,
4k -
i tS S_ _ s
f
} ;BEY ,.T '{'fix
- -"`,M'Y-,r, 71, ,I - - - ,
- _ 1 -t - -
x t 'I {
i E 3
Y
r
z ,
b
1 5....x~
- - - t t - 'i
Y
The City Council will open the record for the express purpose 4% a~
ry of addressing the above eight Items and will not take evidence x
4 or argument on any other issues: y
- t - - 'I I 11
' LOCATION: Southeast and Northeast quadra w of the intersection of , t
S,W, Scholls Fetry Road and S.W,•Walnut Street. (WCTM) 2S14BB, Tax
'Lots 100 and.200). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Statewide -
Planning Goal 6; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 4.l.li 4.2.11 r r s ~ y
5.4,6.6.1,; 7,1:2'and 8,1.3-(f)-(h) and 8.4,1; Community Development-
.
r - - ! = Code Chapters."18.22,18.32 and 18.61.055. ZONE: The existing ~
Neighborhood Commercial zone permits a range of convenience goods -
,and services which, are purchased at least weekly: Typical uses.would a x s
" 4e
- include convenience sales and personal services, children's day care, . • - rt a 4 a
financial, insurance and real estate services, food and beverage retail sales, - ' _
etc Neighborhood Commercial centers have a 5,000 square foot tot ! _ " g -
minimum.' k r,4t . _ fit
. s -J.
i__`
The proposed Community Commercial zone permits a range of ~ z 4 3
convenience goods and services which are designed to serve the"regular $ - m
needs of residents of nearby residential neighborhoods. Community,__ ' 3 ~ M~
O Commerciat centers typically range in size' from a minimum of two acres' ~ _r 4 y 5 , r 11 terms
build { fromg30,t>DO to 100 DOU square f mg square footage these centers range ` f
n
The existingR-2S (PD) zone permits orange of single- family'attached ~u~+~-,XX ` ,
low and medium rise multiple-family residential units; for medium high - 3
residential development. The R-25 zone permits residential densities up to , , - x ~ rS' _
25. units per acre. The Planned Development zoning district overlay is i s '
of design accessuete c propemes to be d veloped as a singte umt m terms - T y q~{ ) i
_ 2 zt1 z-' w .s-*SM it
T7$453 =Publish April I1, 1996., _ . ~ 1 , e f; } e 6
+ ..f - fY I f,O~ +x B T I
,-""V"'' `
_ .i t .
w - a 6~VK'4»rt , ,
tk
s x
i
rd 4--i S
y d J -
3 t
< t
x
i 1 F5!
..f 1 F}'"^C~
5 LL
_ `
s
.1
- 4.v.,1- - .q ' J, - - -
3 f' i
f G
t
r r
- - 7 1
JZ. J - x
} ! A t
_ ~ " " , ~ 1 , U
t ! - FF - -
12 , ~11 I -
C}
i 2
.
r v --r r°s - -
'ua
- - ,y9.,, 7 kx a`` X - k - !
~va € t
.1"rl'.~ . k f f r' G `T• '.C.
11 z - , ~,,~~!;-'~,,--...'~,,--,,~1--~~':~~~~,.~:,~ , . ; I . I ~'.i' - I -4 " - q ~,,:~'L', , 1. - ~ " ~'~"g , 4~'~ " - - - , - - ~-'-A .
zV' . F
es S r a ~ t a,- by S
z~dE sr" 'ra:.w x- - ,ter t d Y.'
„~rry~ G- I ' . =t ` r6 x $ L c - xy r e -Z;"%-' z cry' . y ~ ~3
"l ~-ty! a'~`"`c' p N{+Y_ J - ti - S " tx i f1. R sS+ "t
r s F w r`k
rt° ~ - ;nn 17-j ..t~z t s i s t4 a ~ 1 v h ^z #
~~',„teSa 4 s Erg ~ yy
y. - r43. 4 ~11
-x-* d 3~
I ;1"
,s~a,'~`.,L i,'~~,~ , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ~ '
r r ` t AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING i Ti q t c
r' 11 ti~ 1' fi~ - to ^ F~` t
if
In the Matter of the Proposed£-.A" ?r
.n M s .
L,
is K -_~`-c~ - r z "+•?'"x r't
` County of Washington ) ss. n - -
Y City of Tigard ) ~ -`.--A 4* -
r tL-s at` y *:r f
, UK
3
a T'" Q J A I
M~l begin first duly sworn, on oath, F , - f
M " 'n ' depose and M '
W
3Yi
That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance a t
4 '
Numbers ,P
a. which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated y I aa, q l- ~ `
copy(s) ' ~v~~ 1
% of said ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ ` ~ ~ ' 5
k . q day of A. 4 uQ~ 2 ~ r-.
s~ f { ~J -V "I ~ Luc .
1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon -*4'A~ se ,
FE
11 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon X ~
K. ~ ,
3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon , - ' E -
,~E 1
_ ,
L t y
~ Y
, 'N'~'F.v'z~'. ~t~' ~ :4'~' I -'e~,b_-'~! I [ ~ .
'-r t " 'tYd'4 1 5
x Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 14 ?jR~~ pp
, a - i k
' ' f. ' - o., p ~^1 /n, ♦ s-,qtr e,4A t
a, _,?1 i OFFICIAL SEAL = l ~L u~.~in.~LJ Y Y ltA~J ~I 11 z++
;H s NOTARY CONNIE MARTIN Notary Public for Oregon - `
7a- n _ PUBLIC OREGON `s ' i,' y~-~ a € i
COMMISSION No. 015877. t
I 'r. 4-, :
s-3` ¢ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES tUNE 1,1996 t
bI f a fi w a t
y Commission Expires: ,
P - L:1admljola(Tpmt.doc v 4~ bra-'~,' f
i a t Nm d ' gr~,ayZ 6
s- _x z "s } aa,, sus - ~"V5., .u""t`n' P 4-L r"I
r' ~ r , r 4h; E
m 9 J,
e,-r t - -
j 9--L' _ I
nfk 9- f
S -
z~ ! . L ~ L - r ~ j," '~'i
n.a yFuf t f 7 'k
1 7 ~ ,,,r " I -1 ~ I ~ : : . 1. . " ~ z _ , 9M - ; , ~ . ~ I - - I .
a a .tirt.n~ ry'e-- r s.r; - - -
- - .
~
4f.v4u"y4~ aL--.rt _ fr fir - P }
~s } -ti 'e- as
y. .s Y - ,
:-r - - - fir,
11^v$-4.'"A'd " 4'r+3 3"- 4; S . 1 , -7 _tex.F~x t FF°..{-11
~'C',
isn xi - --1 )Jt-, AFL `4
{'T`h 5d~ ' ` a -t - - ....-..-.e.........,..x u~u..au~.:..,,..... - ~.r,..._.. _ _ -,Y r f _ 5F w z°° 4 C_`"> r ~'r_- :
rK_. x 3
'aa sa 3-a 0 S+ , ar , "
E
a~ -at _V All
'41 , cg
gg CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 1 f4€
k
a,~*ixt* n -z ORDINANCE NO. L -1 ;
~ 3~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY cr
~ ,
- Y ADDING CHAPTER 7.100, EXCLUSION FROM TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY. ` -
h WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council finds that disruptive behavior on City property is contrary to . = '1'-'' ffly '
the public health, safe and welfare and hinders the ability
ty of City staff to provide service; and ' , .max 1
WHEREAS, the Ti¢azd City Council wishes to grant authority to City staff to exclude persons r r
who engage in such disruptive behavior; now, therefore: c`
s - t
,
e. F ,.y~g.,y xj°9
ei~ # K THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ti' %
€ g Section I The Tigard Muaucipal Code is amended by adding Chapter 7.100, Exclusion from "~N ! OW ~
a Tigard Public Library to read as follows: _ F fl {t
.
7.100.10 EXCLUSION FROM TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY, .
.g ~ Y ~ '
9 . A Person is subject to exclusion from the Tigard Public Library for a period 1
i- of up to ninety (90) days in the event they have been arrested and/or convicted for -4, 3
` any of the following conduct: ,;V < x -
w m-h=~z+
1. _ Assault as defined in ORS Chapter 163 (1995) in and/or around the Tigard Public 'k~ z x r`
Library; > ,
"
r 2 Stalking as defined is ORS Chapter 163 (1995); -
. 3. Theft as defined in ORS Chapter 164 (1995) of Tigard library materials; 1
a
- 4. Criminal mischief as defined in ORS Chapter 164 (1995); .;1 .0` ,
5. Any of the graffiti-related offenses as defined in ORS Chapter 164 (1995) j= rr-
73 -s i~ _ involving publicly owned structures within the city limits of Tigard; - t
6. Wilful detention of library property as defined in ORS 357.975 (1995); ° x s~~~~ r
7. Riot, disorderly conduct, or harassment as defined in ORS 166.015, 166.025, ° x ' W ,~V& ,
~ w
~
~ 166.065 (1995); ; ,i ~ '
a ~ 8. Possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon in a public building as prohibited by q~r - % 3
3 ORS 166.370 (1995); a
s
9. Menacing as defined in Tigard City Code Section 7.20.020; -1-_ f ~ s r
r 10. Recklessly endangerment of another person as defined in Tigard City Code k`' z~ N t " z
r s . 7.20.030; cztr ANa~
11 ,p „U.' ,
` - - 11. Harassment as defined in Tigard City Code 7.20.040; '_X
:r r r R- 12. Criminal Trespass as defined in ORS 164.243 to 164.265 (1995) y c ,
(B). In addition to the above, a person is subject to exclusion or may otherwise have 4-
ar
_
. , s F ..r~ - 3• i `g 'ar a u _ l
Ordinance No. ~ ~ Fir'
s Page 1 ' 3,~s F
y F L -
2~ fix - 4'}
,
? t, g 1t,rt 7az ~ p si
i i rt - 1R '?s +t x a,'
V~'_t x r
rx' - X r Y - x L ....P.,
tfi3 +Fs y _ 'Y- J" r:.s'~m_+>.fifi.;.wruw« v^m^w3 'ri~ ~7 .f- 4,ZJf SL ( _ lr~
lI r, I fir. „p h[t, .t ^ r r - frS ~ 1.11
_R' L
-_r'" r ~ r r - . L
?rx sue, , - - ~y- a £ `ec G '1
y f
a r - ~7- - - cn 1
:4
a c - xe`~ ~.`-Ld3 h _ Rr r a ~3 '
r y,,
hF~ y
r
} °
~c
S'
_ Se -g 'a.
.C` y S s` 3 4
~ IN ~y - r - roM -
Y a -
e
I1 " if - k; m 15, - M1r ' ax s r
a ^So- - r lG G
p~
4S.4n" 7
p~3SkS ,x3 3.•5-- 1 d C,%-,'
- r
mtl..cx .~E3.'t ist ~ - ,i,i, Yt-
~ X1`1' t i R v _i `b'ti 5''
- s - - !
-~",2. their library privileges restricted or suspended for a period of up to ninety (90) days in the } i'~y i _
x~ , - _ event they, (or a person under their control or direction) has been issued at least two (2) t
t -v - a r Tigard Library warning notices within any ninety (90) day period for any of the following 4, 5 ~ rg
~c - conduct: x
apt 1 ,
zr_F -b, . 1. Sleeping using bedding, sleeping bag or other sleeping matter in the Tigard Public 1 -
Library unless such use has been approved in advance by the Director of Library ,
Services; , ,
` ~ r 1 2. Use of Tigard Public Library facilities and/or equipment for activities unrelated tos r ,f
the purposes of the Library as those purposes may be determined by the Tigard € r " d 3
_ Library Board. V ka~ .
NE` j ` ` j Loud or excessive noise or use of amplified recording or sound production ~ A, f-,
equipment including but not limited to radios, tape recorders, compact disc (CD) ~ } 3 ~
f players such that the sound produced thereby it is audible five (5) feet from the -
- device unless such use has been approved in advance by the Director of Library Y ~
Services. y; 3 .
(C). As used in subsection (A) above, the term "library privileges" means the ability to ~ t -Y a ~
4 j A { obtain the free use of any printed material, pictures, sound recordings or symbols as may y E rsy .ri
be kept in whatever form or manner, be it owned or controlled by the Tigard Public acv
I -1-11 Library or other public or private libraries with which Tigard may through agreement or ' fir, ) ' i
otherwise have access. NN x hrc i c
7.100.20 PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE EXCLUSION OR WARNING = F+xt^~ ~ , 4q ti
t~ K r
NOTICES. The Chief of Police and the Director of Library Services are hereby`~ F
designated as the persons-in-charge of the Tigard City Library for purposes of issuing ~ 2' 1 h.AA,,g~_ jps -
exclusion notices in accordance with this Chapter. Either the Chief or the Director of r ; 11 3 11
2 'M
r Library Services may authorize other Police or Public Library personnel to issue exclusion 4M -
'
notices consistent with this Chapter and, in addition to the ability to authorize personnel' -
f , , £ issuance of exclusion notices under this Chapter, the Director of Library Services may also ' 1- E
authorize personnel under his or her direction and control to issue Tigard Public Library M
,7 7W ~1111
r Warning Notices. ' - ~h V W. 1 -
L
7.10030 ISSUANCE OF EXCLUSION NOTICES OR WARNING NOTICES. At ~kk~ ' r~
' the time of the arrest of an individual for any of the conduct(s) identified in TCC Section s - 3 'i s
F i c7*-! --N vF 3y
x k - 7.100.10(A), (or within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter) the arresting officer, the Chief - S , f
ofPolice or the Director of Library Services (or such other person(s) as either the r r
Director of Library Services or Chief may have authorized) may issue a written exclusion , " x L
notice excluding the person from the Tigard Public Library. The notice shall specify that
W - r
the person is to be excluded from the Tigard Public Library, the period of the exclusion, k` z + - Zg ~ C
the time the exclusion is to commence as well as contain information concerning the right ~K
1 - to appeal the exclusion notice to the Civil infractions officer as provided for under Chapter ~r r, -
5 ~
{
s
Ordinance No. / #
- F `°-y Paee2
t t ,r
ez a Vi y S
7, k3r ~fi r f{t` * Y5'~
(((`k
1 1 i L i
ek" S } - -
-f
f? 7'iI 9 _ } EAU off
__r . r,"' : . - - - I - I - ;T~i~;~ :",:~~~,',."~'~'~'-,~~.~,-,~*,~21-"~.~. - -i ---,~~f 2;;~~'
5 { h I
ffl'~ U , _ - _ ; , _ , ~ . . ~ , , - -1i - , ..,r~~ , _
t ~ f ~y
J i r ,y,y p
z y~ ng J Z _ k~ k r'' 1
i ¢SC _ •M 2'3 rF
.rk k- fi{{.... 3
3Sy 'S - t T
P
to , , ~ r , r , , r ~ ~ ~ , , " , , _ 'I.- ~ . ~ 'I, ~ ~ _ I i "t - ti y : i
7_ ti
A
I r ~ " , r . . ; : ~ r , , i -1
,
2 - - , - - - I - I , - ~ , 7-~ -~i~', -r-,
ne
_ r N
- -
. ' - s-,:.... it
#u7- ~3 ~ `i - -
- - 4N-$ t-- -
MINif G 7 m= - - 4 II
a
xiS'x5?'- b ci -f -
s s -'z t• -
"'EX'N ','~M~,--;~ , 4- W- - :~~q , -'M I" 11 I:, - , -1--, , . , ~ -
1
' {sue ii 3 E F ' ,
:x , ,
_ k ~
u 1.17 of this Code. The person to whom the exclusion notice is issued shall sign a written r fi
x zw'
, 5- kt , . ( acknowledgment of the receipt of the exclusion notice; if the person refuses to so sign, the Y, „ 4 ~nQ---m!,,
j r arresting officer shall make a written record of the refusal.
I
t: 0s
At the time of the occurrence of any conduct identified in TCC Section 7.100,10(B) (or a "
` within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter) the Director of Library Services (or such other -
Library personnel as the Director of Library Services from time to time may authorize) o ' ` , ,V ,`d " ~ _`r r.,;
~ may issue a written a Tigard Library Warning Notice. The notice shall specify that in the F 7T - '
event a second notice is issued to the individual within the time specified in TCC Section $ „-I '
7.100.1 O(B), that person shall be subject to exclusion from the Tigard Public Library
and/or lose such other vile es tK'
F 1 pn g as the Director of Library Services may in their discretion
determine to be appropriate for a period of up to ninety (90) days. The Warning Notice 1 a
shall also contain information concerning the right of the individual to seek its vacation by aye s•
- appe'ling : LV the Director vaa.ru, a.y ucf vicca w,t~uu uvc (.ij u'ay5 UfliS 1J311$nGC. t "~s,4 S"" `.&y"..
-
t x _
tea'
7.100.40 RIGHT OF APPEAL. The individual to whom an exclusion notice is issued , -
shall have the right to an appeal from the issuance of the notice. w 1 ~ p"'! z € I
Kul r' q~ ' of the notice' s issuance with exclusion must be
the ofiicel _
of the D lector off Libfive 3ervices d or the s~
ary v u-k ~x z, 141 ~,k Chief ofPolice. The notice of appeal shall state the following: w ✓ 4 , _ x - , s
# Lk.
s a
1. the appellant's name; ~4~ t ~
` 2. their address and a telephone number where they can be reached;
3. a concise statement as to why the issuance of the exclusion notice was in error; .
and, i y
i 4. attachacopy of the notice of exclusion appealed from. ~ z - $
's
A hearing on the appeal shall be had as provided for in Chapter 1.17 of this Code and take ,
place no more than ten (10) calendar days after the filing of the appeal, except in the event 'tom 11
It~ -
' , - the Civil Infractions Officer determines otherwise. ~ k - y ¢
J r E
(B). The exclusion shall not take effect during the pendency of the appeal. In the event t _ t
s
no appeal is properly and timely filed, then the exclusion shall take effect on the sixth , ° a a - k ~ .1
calendar day following the issuance of the notice. = ~ , "
(C). The City shall have the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that the 't
exclusion is based on conduct enumerated in TCC Section 7.100.10(A)or is based on the ' , `x
issuance of two Tigard Public Library Warning Notices for the conduct Identified in TCC ; -
Section 7.100.10(B). A determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that the i , ~
- f ' arresting officer had probable cause to effect the arrest of the individual for the conduct t -
used as the basis of the exclusion shall be prima facie evidence that the exclusion is well f, r ;
u
PY
Ordinance No. L f i. r l
ti L:J Page 3 ;r` F i
a ~ t ~ , r x
r # r--i'g,3s-~~ w, 1.
.r, f Y _
t
`k ~ryJ ~
1 R
_ fl 3 } _ 1
"gj
_ Y~-~V .S FT
_ _ _ -5H NTnf y
_ 4~-- _
L F
1PI ~~-,,~zM 1 - - , , , : ~ ~ ~ . ,r, - ; ~ , I - 1 : , ~ ~ ' A ' - ' .
`
4E 't y Y f. " if Y _I
- - _f_ try-4, , .
4 _ _ P , Li-
J 1--1 Y- S
7' - ° - M1
- , , . ~ , , , , - " , - , M
- -
nr S-F=
.
I „"--i }r¢ cy - t 1 'iv _ r~- " r ,s4a r` 1 ~z a 1
it } `S~ct `S £ T a F t - n --~j''tQ;
J % x S~z
- ""Fr{t ~,~R-syr`°- e, ~ZF > xr - 5 r 1 Z 7i r - = s'+,4_ , ;
# :5 z(,A4i -y a'q~ v x i - r x , j _ - x,- t -r - 3`~, a~i 'A ' x. 4{`
2S 211 2 - - ,1',~ - - ~ , -,v, - 7~'~_Zi~~ ~ 1'~ J,:~~ - - , , : - ~ . f *J"', ~"Y , N , -,~~4~ ~ -.~,`T'~ 6 ,g'~, ~ ~ , R,
re,
1, .1 PIN W a:"', Sic= e
&v w y, -
i {W~ n Sr
w
g, zt
£ 4 ~x. yes F, ~ 11 ?`=s- 11 A.
w
J i . .
Wq_ ' . - >s~x 3
a. t? - founded. +i ~
,4 ~~4r ,
t c" 1
tx (D). Copies of any and all documents in its control which are intended to be used by the NFF. n
<L, . ,A:, ; carry ' . City at the hearing shall be made available to the appellant at least two (2) days in advance a:,:,:;,k:. ",=ra, ~s..
1; z-.. - . of the hearing. : <
e r h) u
r
~ ' ` 7.100.50 VARLINCES. Variances from the exclusion may be
Y granted at any time 7=t
`
wF ` r during the exclusion by either the Chief of Police or the Director of Library Services. t
s ~ a , 'x ~ s
C:4 , - unanimou,y h Yv- I ti
~ - 7_ j PASSED: By vote of all members present after being read by number and title only, this _IP t k
_ t
- r,ii , r
3- a€ =23.d day of/ . J [ c 1996. i , 01
c. iw ask a s
Catherine Wheatley, City Reyrder
`~f n ° APPROVED: This ~daY o3/-l tee' -c" 1996.1 1q
i i e s - -'cam 7 '
4 rx crn~
k
i y,~ , M -~~,~~4"...:,~;- , g a
~ 4y Nicofl, Mayor .T t . ` ,
it # , z
Approved as to form:
- f3 t
F !s- A'2`9 z~
a OT r ~ Cirv\ /,Attorney : , Y v
C114 W,0% I
, IIASPI. 9 - I- I H
4sta- "z,v Z3ra{a2tL 4(, t'-'cur= L, I'll
W, Date rI
s
~;s
S %,y r~ht_ pcdacrtv90023l1ib~ary.orl(2l2L96) %
g
_ s,t..~ i t i r 7 w;
7 C
n i yap'_ rE ~Y 1++
r r ? c
Y S Lt.F'e~5'~ P Ym' k
11- I ~ 1! 11-
.qtr s' .
[ qF Sst Z4`t y~ } 2 ~`4- W, L_
I- 1, C j r p Ordinance No. / ~
Tnll. '
A s --.v,~ w erts tafi~ i F
~z~ Page 4
F § s z ~ uxy < ,s ~c " r )E
- s `,I, + 1 , - - - s "F
F i- ' ' ~ ,v a yam--~ _ " q ¢,t ~ 1
n r- F sa 7 s+ ' y "4 _ w
r u J
ti r ` 4 s ~ ~
r z'i~ t r_ s- - - i'' pp ii 1
, ~ , i i , ~ -
I . ~ M I -,,~~r 1-14 ~ " ~ ~ " ' ' . ~ I ~ ~
i ~ f
'x zxN 'E` y 'x"x'{F'# s C _ _ - r t ~ 'Y , wk <,-,Ir_I.. UFF1 2 r 11 11 a r 1s
~*a"n r y, rrr __r } J T' _ , L 9 y # _ r 11 - y t _ kq
r - - -
r " , V- , - ~ ~4 . , ~ ~ , I - ~ , ~ M _ " 1_-~e, ~ ~7,
4•' "i; -
- FS 's--Vi'i' - Sz - a 4 ,r--
~ ~ rrs' 's s"'¢ r s' t - 4 i _ _ x
01,11 "a
-"'-~`t`*~`` %`;k'~' rY _ i ,t»fit'1~L. - 3%•t' 2 rt
10 _ 4-s~+wa*aY'' .5 `a fl " y t t - - - i' 3"° T JL. 2 t4 S 3
a- ga
t _ L L i
y.y 2`F i i
y ase s, 4 _ b e - t _
x+ -kh?`r'•d.r~ fir' $ + - _ - cz .r ~r Mr , r -y ,
#~Y l - rt
, r .F
$
' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ¢ ~R`~- E 1&1 I
1~- -i - ORDINANCE I V ! CO 4s
` AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ~ ' ~ (
Y x ri ADDING CHAPTER 1. 17, APPEALS TO CIVIL INFRACTIONS HEARIN GS OFFICER '
<x
' s m} ay
WHEREAS, there needs to be a convenient and practical method to provide for the appeal of
1;~;l,~,,--~i~l-_,,,', - P~,,~ 11,~ ' -
, ~ " exclusions from the Tigard Public Library as is contemplated by the terms of Tigard Municipal Code s. s;~ ru ',j
} Chapter 7,16 as well as a method to provide for appeals from other City decisions; ; ~ M
1-1
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.16 presently provides a quasi-judicial forum for dealing with civil infractions
of the Tigard Municipal Code and is the forum best suited for such appeals; 14 1
~ NOW, TTY ORE, the City of Tigard- ordains as follows:
11
Ile
x , won I The Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter,* 1.17 P re p
r " r - Appeals to Civil Infractions Hearings Officer to read as follows: s ,
t x r Chapter L 17. Appeals to Civil Infractions Hearings Officer. ~q"" ~ r }
.tea=
1.17.100 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter:{ ; a
, - 7 xe (A) "City department" means and includes any Bureau, Division, Board, F g" , s N 4 i
j t k Commission, Committee, agent, officer, or employee of the City of Tigard. -
1Ua, i
$ _ x (B) "Decision" or "Determination" means and includes any decision~~'p-"~ 4 3
determination, order or other action of any City department. ` -1 . 11,
+
,4~ R t 3
1.17.110. Jurisdiction of the Civil Infraction Hearings Officer. Y -1 _
-f ra t
(A) Whenever, pursuant to any portion of the Tigard Municipal Code, a person v ~E~ - & ,
has the right to appeal to the Civil Infractions Hearings Officer from any - N _
` t decision or determination of a City Department, such appeal shall be in t, " E
' a ; 4 accordance with the procedures and under the conditions set forth in this `s b- ,
a } Chapter. r~5
x.c R x t
1 is; - ,41
_ (B) No person shall have a right of appeal to the Civil Infractions Hearings , :N'P-"_ ~ I F
Officer unless the right of appeal is expressly provided for in this Code. _ - ~ ?
s h F rX , i 5 r'
aye-r a ° t f'^ i _
n; *t p. _5•L «0 rat i
Ordinance No. ~I F
~'_r a Page i ~k a n 3
94 € r .u r~;sxicm~..,,,......-,- .»-,a.*xm~..s.,,rlwrx..x ..~•a -r<:..--...m. _ 'r"""' ~J
t o f tam - 4 _ - 2 t 4 i..
'fit- - x - {
l'k '$='S F 4 1 k j J g S
,-7 -,~lv,~~--~,- A~-,:-'--~--,f E - ~ , , , , , !"1,
$ 4 - - b k f~i _ ; M > 4 -
,_dh 4 Ji f ,
3f r fit r=t `S t f _`XCi L'
x s
r 5 r
W 1. j ,r,,,.,,,,,,, ~ , , ~ -
- ' , t-
11 i b
-t xt
3a r ti z€ rfs o ± ,
R .F ..,p ~j + +
, i,M `&9 £ - - - ; s - F~ -ter. YU,, , .
k - t -t ku'S,
. , gm*MR F ~"~C S Y'~ t"'3-Ya I1 fa i t
~r v i - t -
9-- 1
01 , 51,
r a rx ~M
r ;
E
ro < 1.17.120 Initiation of Appeal.
✓
i (A) Unless otherwise specified in this Code, a request for an appeal shall be , h R:`
,k l x x
11 ,
fir` filed within five , excluding RY ts' °"$"`r
- (5) days g holidays and weekends, after the date ~ - -
F 4 r . of the date of the decision appealed from. i fi 110 'K ; y F
~ (13) Except when the Code provides different)Y, the Notice of APPeal shall be . - r' a
. f in writing and shall: ,F , 4 :
1. Contain either a copy or a complete and full description of the 1`} '
I -
- r decision or determination appealed from;
I
tY r ~ ~
2. A statement of the grounds upon which it is contended the decision w {3 in~ ~V,- - ' r d-.- e1:A . nri>ed nr - hen;n_n i -pro t
4 -U - ~ decision 3 along name
with theire dd es aappe nd a tele hone numb or determination
r
s- 4. Such other information that is deemed appropriate by rule of the fr t- r -
Code Infractions Hearings Officer or as may otherwise be specified >j, ~E, j7 s
- elsewhere in this Code. f, ~ ~ ,
S
Q- k w l S' f J1an° WWI- "T'-V'$t { Y
1.17.130 Hearings and Hearings Procedures. 4 , z i
(A) Upon receipt of aNotice of Appeal, the Civil Infractions Hearings Officer A- ~~t~~ s
shall schedule and hold an appeal hearing within thirty (30) days of the s } £s
x t receipt of the Notice. Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing on n
the appeal shall be sent by first class mail to the address provided on the t
Notice of Appeal. The time for the Hearing maybe extended by motion of a~ , . , I
P~
- the Appellant or the City or in the sound discretion of the Civil Infractions x . - ~ L
a Officer. x G -
I ~
(B) Hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in ~ z
u Sections 1.16.250 to 1.16.300;1.16.320 and 1.16.330 of this Code. S~,u t~' , oa
3F
(C) With the written consent of the Appellant and the City, the Civil . a
Infractions Hearings Officer may determine the matter without a hearing;x 5 F~
, t and solely upon the record before him or her. 3 ~ $ n ~ s I~Vl
k
o-? Y a „ f r 'S ~ kst _ ~i
r
Ordinance No. t~
Page 2 f , s_ d r
: s¢ (r
f ~
i ,
- - . . M' .t 1
- d
a w - >r~ .Er .a -1
y
f - - - - p .t CiJ t„rY
f'1.J Y _ J - _ P t3 4
V 17, ~ - - , , , ~ 1, j _
a{r - - - -i- c: _ - ~~,,.i, rz,~ a lilt[[
p kfR y- Y 'fie
I _ _ , _ - - r , ~ 0
M ~ I ~ ~ ;1 , , . F I , , ~ . ~ , - , ~ - )GL
4 - - - - S _ ~...1
- L`
pow
r r c
14
'~''L 4~7i.~r •f_.~i`Ca .y'i~.a s- F - - - - t .s rte, e {i v q a Y zys i t2+a3A
r _ f r - - e 5~,'F
"'q m
y2 F #+r3~
8 2 t tjc'1' -P x.
t. MR
`yf The Civil Infractions Officer may sustain, modify, reverse, or annul the pry,,; _ F
` decision or determination appealed from. The Civil Infractions Hearings rwr
f u xr rte' a -y i
OfEcer r- aten rnmanA the ded in nr determination back to the City ~P L u 1~ _
x } department for such reconsideration or further action as the Civil
Infractions HcaHags Officer deei ,s new ssm-,
` 1.17.140 Nature of the Decision.
?l~u! '=1' 4- iYy 'L?nF'~A_'.'?icrz~•9~~Y~]ky7Y'~.
~~~.c'= x'toge_§ - - r':M;~ ~~:,.t'u.:r' q,^sm ,}3+ ern-• -
<r y The determination of the Civil Infractions Hearings Officer is a quasi-judicial
~x
z decision and is not appealable to the City Council; any appeal from the decision of ` i
the Civil Infractions Hearings Officer shall be by writ of review to the Circuit ax~'~s ~
yR'(. f-_ - Y 5 Fy W KAY Z
+ i Court of W?chyngton Coun.y, .^,regun as provided for in ORS 34.010 to ORS {
34.100.
«
PASSED: By vote of members present after being read by number and title only, this r0
s _ day of u 1996. ,t
h t C
Catherine )Wheatley, Ci Rec rd b
APPROVED: Thiyof~- 1996.
` rcoli, Mayor
f f i. 5= Mr" F rte"
Approved as to form:& r
-tom ~f / 5.
xa ' CityA omey
F 23 Afn, C M
# Date g a EF
r .,k pce=ml90024kivilintorl(4/11/96)
Y Fyu` srs ai' xv F ,gyp„'' i 1 'z} M,"
~ [I
k - u 'x r a~
+'y -r 4 i Ordinance Nn.
Page 3_ s
4 ~r•• r~ x - - 3 h AP ~ ~ 9 ~
t - rp' r<r a - _ .~:~;N ; . •zra~'.c- a -s`°"'43"r-"T-t ~z- R cam` "'.-tr,. a Y - f .1
Jin
aF'`+Y`r j
; w-i,~k mk ,3 id
ti - r _ a"ta~ z
t o p. a7" .s}x4 7 s_ t a 3 a - r -'w$aa d-3~~ ry+r~'
k .aaux
;ter ref-
_h s Spa
# ^fr- - a r '
xa,c-
9v
_ 'Wi`t-•rr+n-,,.. r
- -
, A- ~zrrs` - ter.. - x'-.h s- - - - - "z - - _ - , - - y.% 5. -
~ A~' - . pfd y-s d "E.
"k X-1 ~:90 w t as ~ y
-~`w -+3 aria- , Y ~x r s -s• - "
- r., , x_ ,.i { i.~'~"'y r 1>+'2x- n.a d }
s ~ y `r `.f'w w § c < < _ - -t s, 4 ~*'4 ~ PA-, ro, R
4 5 r , "t- fir - -.i - - - - rat 2 `°`'-fps
s~ - _ -i qtr 33,,~+ta " z 3
`
s ~ ~
is 3si - 4 f " - i '.F tk'
- , , CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON US a s is rn
M , ~ ORDINANCE NO. 96-19 a k
t, -1 #
JF,2f.~PY-4<,$t„,t~,fi :'a"'".-.`=r _,'~,,q>, vb-a
r ` 3 e AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE A ZONE CHANGE AND r n~u -
" ~
- DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (ZCA 96-0001). n k ° : 11
`-t~ ~N
74 1-1 k
* - ~ WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1996, to consider a zoning "2t,-' ~ ~ F
_ g , 3 designation for two parcels of land located north of Bull Mountain Road across from 133rd Avenue; and -
uM.`
~ ' g h WHEREAS, on April 23, 1990, the Tigard City Council approved a resolution forwarding the proposed , c
; ~-1 annexation to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Govemment Boundary Commission; and .
WHEREAS, the zoning district designation recommended by the planning staff as set forth in the attached 1 -
1 } +vs^'3(t5`h s
. I
staff report and in Section 1 below is that which most closely approximates the Washington County land I.,"N" RA
~i
use designation while implementing the city's existing Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium .3 ,7
Density Residential - -
z THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: h I
6W
~j -
i SECTION 1: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: ~;_1 .
Y I,
° I
a' Tax Map, Lot Number Current Land Use New Land Use t~xz ~k
MINN.-
,i" 2S1 9AB, lots 100 Wash. Co. R-6 Medium Density Residential r-
E ~ ~ and 200 ^sr'
y y Current Zoning New Zoning =
-
~ f_- Wash. Co. R-6 Tigard R-7 yry~ W_
i ,
SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, 1.
x t signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder.
,g Y " J PASSED: By C11tC[/1 uflCt~ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title ;j
x
, only, this3'P` day of 't 1.996. =21
} Ca tine Wheatley, City Re order ~W
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council thisz~~ay of ~l'' 1996.'R n-01
u 'a a r
{ ~ 3` v James Nicoll, Mayor t~ f ~I ,
Approve as to form: - , ` t ` -
z r' 1. - .
i
Y
t i Cit~A~tt(omey/ °tiW ya 'a # k ,
7[E
A € Date ~w tc s
1 - i.VrplnUaylzw96-01.ord ~ - wecl
r 414/96. 3:15 PM a - - a , . -
CS 4-~- r "g a s 1
A W ; ORDINANCE No. 96-L _
-I Page 1 sI * ~
I '
t C,~„s S0 f - P y T 6 b h5 k ~r,N-
3 . x
n - ,,,f,' 9- F
y" ,-L`- ' ` a a r<- r 4.s., * -,fit 1, -r t I
.~}ct ,,i , ` a_s if - .y ,sir- txx. ,1.r. a ~
C "4F, i C V. f
? t s - t _ j Y } R"[ yam:.
u
.
. < r . .