City Council Packet - 05/20/1997TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
MAY 20, 5997 6:30 PM
TIGARD CI'T'Y HALL.
13125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OREGON 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and
should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the
' Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (vuice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing
impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual int 'rnrptprS.
1 Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is
s important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your
need by 3:03 p.m. on tha Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone
numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
0 11 COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
MAY 20, 1997
' 6:30 PM
I 1.
WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 PM
2.
MEETING WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM FACILITATORS AND STAFF E
RESOURCE TEAM MEMBERS
• Assistant to the City Manager
7:30 PM
3.
MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
• Community Development Director
8:30 PM
_
4.
TIGARD TRIANGLE - DISCUSSION ON METRO'S INTERPRETATION OF
TITLE 6, SECTION 3 OF THE URBAN GROWN MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL
PLAN - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STREET CONNECTIVITY
• Community Development Director
9:00 PM
5.
REGIONAL TRANSPORATION PLANNING
• Community Development Director
9:30 PM
7771
6.
I
DiSC'USSiON: COUNCIL GOAL WORK PLAN PROPOSAL III
• City Manager
10:00 PM
7.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
® I COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 2
10:10 PM
R 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss
j labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation
issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are
confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this
session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this
session.
10:30 PM
9. ADJOURNMENT
i:\adm\cathylcca1970520. dce
7
COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 3
kh
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
r WORKSHOP MEETING
t
1
MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997
i
1
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order- City Council & Local Contract Review Board
Meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Council President Paul Hunt
1.2 Roll Cali
i
Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli (6:44 p.m.), Councilors Paul Hunt,
Brian Moore, Bob Rohlf, and Ken Scheckla.
Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Senior Planner Dick
Bewersdorff; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Asst. to the
City Manager Liz Newton; Senior Planner Nadine Smith; and City -
Recorder Catherine Wheatley.
CIT Facilitators and Staff Present: Karl Kaufman, Tigard Police-South {
CIT; Brian Rager, Engineering; Sue Carver, South CIT; Sterling Marsh,
1 South CIT; Kathy Godfrey, East CIT; and Mark Roberts, Planning.
i.
i 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports: None
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
1 2. MEETING WITH CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT TEAM FACILITATORS
AND STAFF RESOURCE TEAM MEMBERS
Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, reported on the outcome of issues
discussed at the September meeting. Some CIT members signed up as
volunteers at the Balloon Festival. Staff has presented several land use
education issues to the CITs, including the expedited review process, the
Regional Transportation Plan, Metro 2040, and city departments and services.
With Measure 47, the staff discussion regarding citizen land use training classes
has been delayed; possibly these classes will be offered in the fall. Two joint
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 1
CIT meetings have been held, one on the capital improvement program and the
one for the city services presentation.
Ms. Newton said that Planning staff requested that the CITs give their feedback
on land use or planning issues to staff who would then incorporate their input
into the staff report to the Planning Commission and City Council. Councilor
Scheckla asked if CIT members gave testimony at Planning Commission
hearings. Ms. Newton explained that CIT members were encouraged to do so
on an individual basis for issues of particular interest to themselves or their
neighborhood. Typically the CITs did not comment on specific neighborhood
issues but rather on city wide issues.
Ms. Newton reviewed other issues that have come up since September. She
explained staff's suggestions for the CIT program made to address the staff
request for a 10% reduction in programs following Measure 47. These included
eliminating the July and January meetings, holding a joint CIT meeting in April,
and allowing the CITs to request the staff members they wanted to attend a
meeting rather than staff making that determination The CIT facilitators
concurred with the suggestions.
In response to Council questions, Ms. Newton said that attendance was low in
January possibly due to weather or end of the holidays.
Ms. Newton informed the Council that recently there has been a problem of low
attendance at the CITs. She asked for suggestions on how to improve the
attendance. She mentioned the difficulty she had in recruiting facilitators last 1
fall, and expressed concern that that situation would continue. She said that f
current facilitators did an excellent job and considered themselves to be I
adequately trained.
Suggestions for improving attendance included a recruitment campaign in
August with CIT facilitators targeting appropriate people and asking them to
facilitate, putting high profile and controversial issues on the agenda,
conducting a survey of what issues people wanted to discuss, and including a
map showing CIT boundaries in every issue of Cityscape announcing the
meeting schedule.
Councilor Scheckla asked for clarification on the CIT process regarding the
Wetlands Ordinance. Ms. Newton explained that the CITs reviewed the
ordinance before it went to the Planning Commission but the South CIT wanted
to discuss it after the Planning Commission had made its decision, and then
make recommendations to Council.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 2 E
l
Ms. Newton reported a recommendation from the Vision Task Force to evaluate
community involvement in Tigard as part of "community livability and
character." She mentioned the May 31 public open house.
Councilor Rohlf asked if staff has correlated attendance figures with topics
discussed. Ms. Newton said yes. She stated that people attended when
discussions were of topics of interest or immediate impact to them. There was a
core group that attended routinely but most attended based on issues.
Karl Kaufman, South CIT, commented that people might stop coming because
the same people said the same things over and over at each meeting. Ms.
Newton said they could address that issue through facilitator training.
Mayor Nicoli asked how the comments of those living in the urban services area
would be incorporated in the citizen involvement process. Ms. Newton said that
residents of Bull Mountain and the Walnut Island already attended the
West/Central CIT meeting. New residents could be reached through Cityscape
or mailings.
Councilor Hunt commented that some people might not come because they
thought that their input would have no effect on Council decisions anyway. Ms
Newton said that staff intended to review the successes of the South CIT at the
next meeting so they could see what they have accomplished. She noted a need
to communicate more clearly to people what happened as a result of their
feedback.
Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 7:15 p.m. for a break.
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
3. MIEE T IP+NG WITH PLANNING COMPNI-ISSION
The Planning Commissioners present were Ron Holland, Michael Collson,
James Griffith, Michael Neff, and Mark Padgett.
Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, reviewed the City Council
goals affecting the Planning Commission. These included:
• The parks master plan;
• An access management plan for 99W
• Metro 2040 and a grant application for master planning Washington Square
as a regional center;
• Land use along Scholls Ferry Road;
• The Walnut Island annexation and long term service provision issue;
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 3
f
i
N
1
• A planning study for the downtown area;
• Passenger rail from Beaverton to Wilsonville;
• Developing an annexation policy;
• The Development Code rewrite;
• Continue working with Metro on land use issues;
• Use of the Greenspace fund.
Councilor Hunt expressed concern that the goal regarding the evaluation of the
Tigard street plan was not included in this list. The City needed to do this over
the next two years in order to develop the next street bond once the current bond
was paid off. Mr. Monahan explained that the goals Mr. Hendryx listed were
the ones that Community Development would take the lead on. Engineering
would take the lead on street and transportation planning. Ron Holland
concurred with the need to begin identifying street projects now in order to be
ready to go out with a new bond in two years.
> Dick Bewersdorff, Senior Planner, explained that Bev Bookin, Kevin Martin
of Sprint PCS, and Spencer Vail were here to speak to the Council regarding
wireless communication and the draft cell tower ordinance. Bev Bookin was the
consultant on the Code rewrite primarily responsible for the draft cell tower
ordinance. Mr. Bewersdorff noted that staff pulled this ordinance out of the
Code rewrite and redrafted it to the format of the current Code because Council
desired to move ahead on this issue quickly. The draft ordinance was similar to
most other ordinances in the region.
Bev Bookin, consultant, explained that she had worked with Larry Epstein,
Tigard Hearings Officer, on the first comprehensive Radio/TV tower ordinance
for Multnomah County in the 1980s. She said that she was also a land use
consultant for one of the cellular companies.
Ms. Bookin explained that cellular facilities were driven by technology and
topography with no consideration of the underlying zone. The transmitters used
line of sight technology and could not be easily moved around. She said that
the cellular and PCS industry were regulated primarily by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) based on the Telecommunications Act of
1996. It was a highly competitive market with anti-trust issues a real concern.
Ms. Bookin said that consequently local jurisdictions had the least latitude of
any governmental agency in regulating these facilities. She mentioned that
about 25 Washington and Oregon jurisdictions have already developed cell
tower ordinances, and therefore, Tigard had the benefit of all that work that has
gone on before.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 4
s
i
i
Ms. Bookin reviewed the draft cell tower ordinance. They proposed a tiered
approach of three classes of facilities to create incentives for cell tower
providers to locate their towers and antennas in places preferred by the
community. The first tier was outright permitting of co-locations on existing
towers or locations on other existing structures. The second tier was a
Director's decision (based on specific criteria) for location of new towers in
commercial or industrial zones. The third tier was a conditional use process for
new towers in residential zones.
Ms. Bookin pointed out the "co-location protocol" provision. Companies were
required to demonstrate that they exhausted all opportunities for co-location
before they could put up new towers. She mentioned that the industry already
had motivation for sharing towers.
Councilor Scheckla asked about moratoriums on ccll towers. Ms. Bookin
explained that moratoriums could only be temporary and were usually for the
purpose of getting legislation in place. She did not recommend that for Tigard
as they could put their ordinance in place quickly.
In response to a question, Ms. Bookin said that there were two major concerns
regarding cell towers: aesthetics and health impacts. She noted that Larry
Epstein did a thorough search of the literature on studies of the health impacts of
electromagnetic energy and found no evidence that it caused negative health
impacts. Mr. Martin pointed out that the Telecommunications Act prohibited
denial of a tower for health impact reasons if it met the FCC guidelines.
Ms. Bookin reiterated that a local jurisdiction could not prohibit the location of
a cell tower in any given zone. They could only regulate its appearance, how it
was sited, and (to some extent) its height.
In response to a question from Mr. Holland regarding property ownership, Ms.
Bookin explained that companies usually leased land rather than purchased it.
Councilor Scheckla asked who took the tower down when necessary. Ms.
Bookin explained that a requirement to remove the tower was usually in the
lease agreement. However this ordinance did include an abandonment
provision for removal if a tower was unused for six months.
Councilor Rohlf asked if the City could require a bond upfront to insure that the
tower came down if the company went bankrupt. Ms. Bookin said they could
do that but usually a company sold its assets to someone else in the case of
bankruptcy.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 5
Y'
i
f
E
s
In response to a question from Michael Neff, Planning Commissioner,
regarding the lengths a company went to prove that a given location was
essential, Kevin Martin explained that the high cost of siting a tower meant that
a company "studied to death" a site before they decided to build on it. He
reviewed the process used by a company to identify an appropriate site. They
looked first for an existing tower or structure, then for a commercial or
industrial site, and lastly in a residential zone for a site with an institutional or
' public use. They did not locate in people's backyards. He commented that
companies avoided as much as possible the length and expense of a conditional
use land use process The industry's goal was not to locate in the most obtrusive
place possible.
Spencer Vail pointed out that these facilities operated at low frequencies
anywhere from 40 to 100 watts. He explained that company networks served a
region, not a local jurisdiction.
Ms. Bookin mentioned a City of Portland study that reported 70% of their cell
facilities located on existing structures, not free-standing towers.
1
J Councilor Scheckla asked if they could gauge how many towers would be
1 needed in the future. Mr. Martin said that was very difficult to do, as it
depended on industry growth and needs. He said that he would not expect to
see more than half a dozen new poles in the City of Tigard in the next five
years.
Mr. Martin reviewed the concept underlying the technology: frequency reuse.
He reviewed the history of the industry growing from two licenses in the
Portland area in 1995 to six active providers in 1997. The FCC sold off higher
frequencies (1860 megahertz) for personal communications services (PCS).
(Cellular operated at 860 megahertz.) The six providers were AT&T Wireless
(Cellular One), Airtouch (GTE Mobilenet/US West), Sprint PCS, Western PCS,
and Magnacom.
Mr. Martin said that the three technologies of cellular AM, cellular FM, and
digital were incompatible. Each had different coverage needs with cellular able
to cover a slightly larger area than PCS. Each handled increased capacity needs
differently. However, they could often use the same site, and co-location was
the rule in the industry. Mr. Vail pointed out that the cost of siting poles
encouraged co-location. Ms. Bookin mentioned that the public venue of permit
applications has become the place where companies negotiated co-location to
avoid any appearance of collusion or anti-trust activities.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 6
that people identify their other concerns in addition to the 660/330 issue so that
Council could track these issues and address them. Councilor Rohlf expressed
concern at opening up the entire plan since 660/330 appeared to be the critical
flaw. Councilor Moore explained that he was interested in serious concerns, not
minor concerns.
John S enter S enter & Ku er directed attention to the d d
Mayor Nicoli reviewed the procedures for the evening. Councilor Moore asked
• P P PP rawmgs an
diagrams in the Council Chamber that were developed during the Task Force
process, and others drawn by Lloyd Lindley to illustrate the 660/330 issue. He
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 7 [
G
s:
t
Mr. Vail mentioned a trade off of co-location. The more antennas on a pole, the
larger the diameter of the pole had to be to accommodate the co-axial cables
connecting the antennas to the black bores. Two small diameter poles in an
area might be preferable to a single fat one. Mr. Martin commented that the
pole heights were also decreasing.
Mayor Nicoli mentioned several issues that he wished to discuss with the
Planning Commission. These included the property along Scholls Ferry Road
and working with the City of Beaverton, the effect of the urban services
agreement on applications coming before the Planning Commission from the
unincorporated area, and the need for a small commercial site on the back of
Bull Mountain that could help reduce traffic on 99W.
The Council and Planning Commission agreed to meet again during the June 17
Council workshop meeting.
l
Mark Padgett, Planning Commissioner, asked if the City could charge a
franchise fee to cellular companies. Mr. Monahan said that the City was
watching that issue but did not want to be premature. Mr. Martin pointed out
that franchise fees were paid by companies using the public right of way to run
their cables and equipment. Cellular companies did not do that. He contended
that a franchise fee would be a tax on a cell company for something that they
did not use.
Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. for a break.
Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
4. TIGARD TRIANGLE - DISCUSSION ON METRO'S
INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 6, SECTION 3, OF THE URBAN
GROWTH MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL PLAN - DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR STREET CONNECTIVITY
reviewed the direction the consultants heard from Council at the beginning of
the process. This included a different expectation for development and the
quality of neighborhood in the Triangle than had occurred before and a desire
for a mixed use employment district that accommodated a variety of lifestyles.
He noted that the City adopted with the Tigard Triangle plan approximately $30
million worth of transportation improvements. Not all of those improvements
were there to satisfy the traffic needs of the Triangle.
Lloyd Lindley, Spencer & Kupper, said that the 660/330 rule came out of the
Metro regional goals and guidelines. It applied to mixed use zones. The Task
Force went through a process of developing a balanced transportation system in
the Triangle. The consultants described that plan including the provision of
public streets at intervals of 660 feet with other accessways at 330 feet. The
intent of a street grid system was to provide relief to the limited number of
main streets through the Triangle, and to provide connectivity in the Triangle.
Mayor Nicoli commented that he saw the issue as who owned and maintained
the streets and accessways under the 660/330 rule. He pointed out that Metro
specifically did not apply the 330/660 rule to G-C zones.
i
Mr. Lindley reviewed in detail how the 660/330 rule would apply and create a
j grid street system. He explained that the four other types of accessways were a
52 to 60 foot accessway, a 10 foot sidewalk, a 40 foot emergency
vehicle/pedestrian/bike accessway, and a 10 foot path that was either a private
accessway with a 24 hour public easement or a privately controlled accessway
j (up to 25 feed wide). He reviewed how the rule would apply to an 8.2 acre
parcel. The building footprint would range from 89,000 to 72,000 square feet.
i (Costco was 148,000 square feet, Cub Foods 74,000 square feet, Fred Meyer
104,000 square feet, and the theater 51,000 square feet.)
j Mr. Lindley that the building footprint could reach 108,000 square feet with
room for another 20,000 square foot pad.
1 Mr. Spencer confirmed that the Metro rule did not apply to C-G areas, only to
mixed use areas. He said that the way the plan had been adopted, the standards
applied to the entire Triangle. Under the framework plan, a 110,000 square foot
footprint with a 330 grid was possible and permissible in C-G areas, but not in
mixed use areas which had a maximum of a 60,000 square foot footprint.
Mr. Lindley noted the possibility of using a variance process in case of
hardships. He said that there were tools and ways to utilize the system in a
flexible way to accommodate development in the Triangle. Mayor Nicoli
i
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 8
J
1
r
I
pointed out that the Tigard variance procedure was very difficult, and he did not
+
i
consider it as an option for a tool.
Councilor Rohlf asked why the Task Force had not developed a street plan. Mr.
Lindley said that hooking up with the existing grid system in the Triangle
interfered with current development plans. They decided to craft a balanced
j
system to accommodate the needs of the people in the Triangle as well as the
needs of the developers. This provided more flexibility for development in the
{
G-C zone than a specific street grid.
j
Mayor Nicoli welcomed Councilor Jon Kvistad, Metro Council Chair. He
I
asked why Metro specifically set aside the 330/660 rule for G-C, and if all the
streets had to be publicly owned or could they be privately owned.
f
Councilor Kvistad said that the Metro Council had a political confrontation over
this issue. They discussed the options and specific applications, such as these
guidelines requiring a public road to be put in on private property through the
middle of an existing business (i.e., Landmark Ford). They were only able to
get G-C exempted from the 660/330 rule on the grounds of needing as much
1
flexibility as possible in G-C areas for development and job creation. The
mixed use zones had to meet certain requirements
-
Councilor Kvistad referenced Mike Burton's letter to Tigard regarding street
patterns and ownership. He said that while implementation of the functional
i
plan elements did reside with Mr. Burton, it was the Metro Council's
responsibility to deal with unclear policy statements. He expressed doubt that
Metro would ever re-open the mixed use guidelines. However there was still
concern on the Council regarding the effect of these guidelines on existing
I
businesses.
Councilor Kvistad said that he has only found one reference in the draft
document mentioning that streets should be public but they were still searching
s
the document.
Councilor Scheckla asked about a grandfather clause. Councilor Kvistad said
that the rules specifically disallowed grandfathering. He explained that the
majority spoke for immediate implementation of the rules with no exceptions as
a response to reducing the UGB expansion. Revisiting issues depending on
local jurisdiction implementation was a possibility. He pointed out that Tigard
was so far ahead of everyone else in implementing these rules, that they would
r
be the first and everyone else would learn from their experience.
> Pat Biggs, School District representative, expressed concern that the Triangle
plan limited the way the building could be put on the property. She noted that
3
t
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 9
{
I
I
1
i
1
i
I
n design standards, parking, setbacks, and some frontage issues created problems
for a big box. She said that she did not think a big box was necessarily ugly.
She said that they were not trying to reduce the standards because they were still
the property owners and concerned about how their tenant used their property.
Speaking as a private individual, Ms. Biggs said that big boxes were important
in attracting the dollars needed to pay for the transportation improvements.
Small businesses could not afford the street improvements. She contended that
this area was perfect for big boxes. She suggested that those who did not want
to live with big boxes move to Lake Oswego. However the Lake Oswegans
1 shopped in Tigard. She argued that big boxes could be attractive and were not
inherently bad.
> Jim Cor liss, Landmark Ford, Task Force member, pointed out that one
could not make a triangle square. Therefore a grid system at 660 foot intervals
would not work in the Triangle. He noted the many streets already vacated in
the Triangle which could not be reclaimed. He expressed concern with the sign
code portion that eliminated the freeway signage they had achieved with the
City sign code rewrite. He said that he did not like the zero setback, citing
California developments as unattractive and unidentifiable. He said that it was
' not reasonable to ask him to put a public street through the middle of his
property, citing security, storage, and parking concerns.
> Tim Roth, Task Force member, said that the comments made by people
immediately impacted by the 660/330 rule were not self-serving because the
rule impacted the whole Triangle, both east and west of 72"d Avenue. It
impacted both big box owners and small property owners. He asked if the
consultants did an overlay of the 660/330 grid. Mr. Lindley said that they did
not apply it. Mr. Spencer noted a grid done early on in the process that the Task
Force had rejected.
f
Mr. Roth asked who was ultimately responsible for the dedicated property under
i the 660/330 scenario. He said that as he understood it, a developer of a property
without existing dedicated right of way was responsible to make the
improvements at his expense and then dedicate the property at his loss. He
mentioned that there were a lot of small properties where it was not feasible for
the owners to comply with the 660/330 rule.
Mr. Roth pointed out that the reality of the Triangle was that it suggested
commercial development, not residential. The property values reflected this.
He mentioned that the biggest argument in previous attempts to rezone the
`J Triangle had been property owners objecting to the downsizing of their
properties from commercial to residential when they had been paying
j CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE to
L_
4
t
i
j
j
i
1
y
i
commercial property taxes. The compromise this time was the Mixed Use
Employment zone. However suggesting that there was an opportunity for
residential was not realistic. Therefore why implement the 660/330 rule since
that was intended to compliment residential.
Mr. Roth asked, under the 669/330 rule, at what point did the City dictate what
property owner ultimately was responsible for pedestrian access. For example,
if a property was 300 feet from the next pedestrian access, did the City require
that property owner to put in the access or assign it to the next property up? He
noted a safety concern of pathway lighting, and asked if property owners would
be asked to light pedestrian right of ways.
Mr. Roth applied the standards to an hypothetical site. He contended that with
all the requirements, including the 660/330, a developer would end up with only
12-15% of the property available for a building. He stated that this was going
dramatically in the wrong direction.
Mr. Roth commented that, based on Councilor Kvistad's remarks, he concluded
that T;..a-A 'vvvuto
effectively be the gu_..t---uinea rivi _ MQet ro. He d;saoo.i with
~uu pig" . greed the developers and the City putting in the time, effort, and money trying to
implement these guidelines, only to have Metro decide, based on Tigard's
experience, that perhaps some things did need to be changed.
Councilor Kvistad reiterated that there was a political battle on the regional
level on this issue. Some communities were less unhappy than others. He said
that every jurisdiction was at the table, and these were the standards that came
out of that. He mentioned that some had argued for testing the standards in a
limited area but others were more concerned with the holding the edge of the
UGB.
j Mr. Roth asked if Tigard was required to adopt the Metro guidelines. Mayor
Nicoli explained that Tigard has already adopted those guidelines without
challenge to Metro. However they could go back to Metro with the problems
they were having.
Mr. Roth said that as a Task Force member he did not know how the 660/330
rule got into their standards. It was discussed a couple of times, and then it was
in the standards, and there was nothing they could do about it. They were not
given the opportunity to consider the damages it could create. Mr. Corliss
commented that the rule was stated as a fact, not given as an option, possibly
because staff knew it had to be in there.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 11
i
■
U
> Gordon Martin, Task Force member, said that this new grid system put him
out of business. It cut through a large commercial site and he could not get any
tenants. Therefore he could not develop the property. He said that eliminating
the grid system on the west side of 72" helped him there but still left him with
problems on a 10 acre mixed use development on the east side.
Mr. Martin suggested having a design option of the 660/330 rule and/or the
performance option. He said that if the performance option were implemented
in a reasonable manner, then he believed that developers and property owners
could live with the option of one or the other. He commented that the City
should not micromanage inside a piece of property. The City should make sure
that traffic can get from the collector to a greater facility in an organized
manner.
Mr. Martin reviewed other concerns he had with the standards. He said that the
50% coverage on major and minor arterials was not possible with some of the
topography. He concurred with the Mayor that the variance process was simply
too cumbersome.
Mr. Martin spoke for defining "local option" for the performance option at the
property line, not the building line. He concurred that a grid system did not
work on a triangular piece of land. The performance option, if fine-tuned,
would probably work in lieu of 660. He said that the zero setback would work
if the City had clear definitions on when it was to be implemented and when
not. Forced dedication of right of way was another area of concern. He said
that cutting a superblock in half, it put a burden on the property owner. Ile
suggested following the dedicated streets as they were.
Mr. Martin said that the 3 acre rule in mixed use employment needed to be
addressed. If a 2.9 acre property was added onto a 10 acre parcel, did the
developer have to follow the 3 acre rule of three-quarters office and one-quarter
retail?
Mayor Nicoli referenced Mr. Martin's development approved in 1994 with four
curb cuts and some pathways. He asked what the difference was between the
original approval and the new standards. Mr. Martin mentioned that the public
right of way inside the site could not be used to meet landscaping requirements,
even with street trees and a sidewalk. He stated that the tenants were saying no.
> Mark Whitlow, Eagle Hardware, concurred that Metro did not require the
application of the 660/330 rule in the G-C zone. He said that the 660/330 rule
was inconsistent with the permitted uses envisioned by the G-C zone. He asked
where the standards came from, contending that the Functional Plan did not
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 12
require these standards. He said that his reading of the 660/330 in the
Functional Plan was a lot softer than the Tigard Code language. He stated that
he saw some interpretative opportunities and hoped that common sense
remained.
Mr. Whitlow contended that the Functional Plan told the cities and counties to
look at how they could connect streets within a vacant five acre or larger tracts
of land. Where it made sense to connect them, they should not be less than 660
feet apart but only where it made sense to connect them. But the Triangle plan
mandated streets every 660 feet regardless. He contended that the Functional
Plan has been rigidly applied instead of with common sense.
Mr. Whitlow pointed out that Tigard had two years to implement the Functional
Plan. He suggested waiting until Metro finished its clarifications and
amendments to implement the plan. He spoke for letting Metro be its own
guinea pig and not make landowners lose tenants.
Mr. Whitlow spoke to treating the G-C area differently than the mixed use. He
contended that when the Task Force decided to divide the Triangle between the
i mixed use and the general commercial, they should have backed out the mixed
j use standards for the G-C. Tigard's site development criteria and the State
` Transportation Planning Rule served to protect Tigard's interests in building
location and pedestrian connectivity.
> Ed Christiansen said that he worked in the Triangle and was responsible for
most of the commercial planning and design work west of 72nd Avenue. He said
that he has been through three preapplication meetings and could not implement
these standards. He referenced a parcel on the map, contending that the public
entitlements would take up over 50% of the site. He mentioned the various
difficulties and problems he has had in pursuing development applications
under these standards.
j Mr. Christensen commented that this was not that large of an area. With the
collectors, arterials, and freeways and taking the local origin from at the
collector or arterial, there was not much space to put in the 330/660 accessways.
He concurred with Mr. Whitlow that as long as they provided connectivity
through the different sites they would achiever their goal of getting people
through the site.
Mr. Martin commented that it was the intent of the Task Force with regard to the
j desin standards, not to have a warehouse district fronting along the arterials of
72" and Dartmouth.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 13
J
1 '
Councilor Moore pointed out that the 660/330 rule was not implemented in the
t
design standards; this provision was in the Triangle Plan itself.
Mr. Spencer commented that the building orientation standards were developed
because of the quality of several of the streets in the district, whether mixed use
or G-C. He said that the standards expressed the vision developed by the Task
Force for the character and quality of the Triangle.
> Kathy Godfrey, Task Force member, stated that all the residential property
owners wanted the G-C designation so that they could get fair market value for
their property. The Mixed Use Employment zone was supposed to protect the
marketability of their properties but somehow it has not done so. She said that
within 5 years 90% of the private homes in the area would be gone, except
possibly high density residential. She said that she liked the design standards
and considered a big box an ugly box, even if decorated. She spoke for using
practicality and common sense in the 660/330 rule. She spoke against taxpayer
money going to pay for maintenance of a road through private property; that
should be the responsibility of the developer.
> Joanne Nordling, Triangle resident, asked that the Council look at Mr.
Martin's suggestion of the either or option of the 660/330 or performance
option.
> Jerry Cash, Cash Realty, said that he has not been able to sell anything in the
Triangle since the Plan was adopted. It was confusing and difficult to explain to
people.
The Council discussed whether or not to continue this discussion to another
meeting. They agreed to put it on next week's agenda.
Councilor Rohlf said that fundamentally he supported the design standards.
They would produce attractive properties for the City for a long time to come.
He said that the problem seemed to be that street locations prohibited buildings
that the Council did not intend to prohibit. He spoke against "throwing out the
baby with the bathwater," and being very careful about what they did.
Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 10:13 p.m. for a break. He left the meeting.
Council President Hunt reconvened the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
5. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 14
2
S
I
i
I
r
i
E
'
i
i
i
f
d
Laurie Nicholson, Associate Planner, explained that regional transportation
planning was occurring at this moment in response to federal and state mandates
for transportation planning, to ISTEA management systems, and to the Clean
Air Act. Metro had to demonstrate that the transportation system could support
the higher densities and more intensive uses called for in the 2040 plan. She
reviewed how the process worked at its various levels, the agencies and
j committees involved, and the legislation affecting transportation planning. She
referenced several Metro charts that illustrated the process of regional
transportation planning. These charts included "Major Inputs in the Regional
Transportation Update" and "System Component Review."
Ms. Nicholson said that the Regional Transportation Subcommittee was
comprised primarily of staff from local jurisdictions who provided feedback to
Metro on their maps.
i
1
I
In response to a question from Councilor Hunt on signal timing, Ms. Nicholson
explained that ODOT timed the signals based on moving traffic along through
roads and how much delay they thought people could tolerate. For example,
99W was the state designated route to the beach and had priority over Hall Blvd,
so traffic backed upon Hall Blvd. Unfortunately this led to more accidents on
the side streets and cut through traffic in the neighborhoods. She said that they
were trying to coordinate with ODOT on an access management plan for 99W.
Ms. Nicholson said that the next levels in the planning process were TPAC,
JPAC, MPAC, and then the Metro Council. She commented that she thought
the Metro staff goal of adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan by the end
of this year was optimistic.
Councilor Rohlf commented that with the Regional Transportation Plan
Subcommittee was the appropriate level for Tigard concerns by the time the
plan got to the top levels, Tigard was invisible. Ms. Nicholson concurred. She
pointed out that other considerations included financial feasibility and priorities
for regional road projects versus local road projects. The I-5/217 intersection
was Tigard's primary regional road. If the Tualatin-Sherwood connector
between 99W and I-5 were built, then 99W would reduce to a road more like
Beaverton-Hillsdale highway and move down the list in terms of funding
priority.
Ms. Nicholson reviewed the Regional Transportation Plan Update Structure
chart. This also illustrated the levels of the planning process. She commented
that Metro was trying to create a street system that accommodate the 2040 plan
but at the same time addressed the congestion; this was difficult to do.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 15
L
F
Ms. Nicholson reviewed the Regional Transportation Alternatives Analysis
Chart that presented the new way Metro would measure congestion. Instead of
measuring a level of service during the p.m. peak hour, now Metro would
measure the level of service over two hours. While this might improve the level
of service rating at an intersection because it was measured differently, the
congestion still remained. However the 2040 plan was now legal.
i
Councilor Rohlf pointed out that in terms of improvements this was a relative
scale because everything dropped down. He asked if this analysis would result
in concrete projects for existing or new streets. Ms. Nicholson said that projects
would be developed for both new and existing streets, however the funding
available would determine what projects were constructed. She said that
personally she doubted that the Tualatin-Sherwood connector would be built.
However there was already $20.7 million already allocated for I-5/217
improvements.
Mr. Hendryx pointed out that regional centers had priority for Metro dollars.
Ms. Nicholson concurred.
f
Councilor Scheckla mentioned the problem of the lack of good transit service in
the suburbs. Ms. Nicholson said that Tri-Met was hoping for high ridership of
_
=
the Westside light rail. In addition they were talking with suburban cities
regarding transit routes through a program called "Transit Choices for
t
i
Livability."
Councilor Rohlf spoke to positioning Tigard in the best possible position to get
funding for their regional center. Mr. Hendryx commented on the intensive
staff time and resources needed to stay on top of these issues. Staff would
a
continue to monitor the situation and bring Council updates. Ms. Nicholson
j
spoke to deciding what the top priority was for which the City would get the
J
most benefit and focus the staff's efforts on that. The issues were
transportation, water quality, and land use.
6. DISCUSSION: COUNCIL GOAL WORK PLAN PROPOSAL
Mr. Monahan said that if Council felt that the staff work was on the right track
in terms of the Council goals, then staff would move forward with fleshing out
the goals.
Councilor Hunt expressed discomfort with the format of the proposal. He said
-
that he could not tie the items into the Council goals. Mr. Monahan reviewed
the format, using the goal of 2000 trees by the year 2000 as an example. The
Council discussed the format, noting some confusion about the goals under
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 16
t
h
j
i
1
i
1
i
0
3
I
monitoring. Mr. Monahan said that the major new efforts were the top three i'
bullets while monitoring covered continuation of goals from last year.
Councilor Hunt said that he disagreed with singling the library out as a stand
alone project. Mr. Monahan said that that was not staffs intent. He explained
that staff had been referring to the facilities issue of getting the library off site to
allow other departments to take over that space, not to the WCCLS issue.
Councilor Scheckla asked about Item #10, the severe weather shelter. Mr.
Monahan explained that he had not heard that the severe weather shelter has
been dropped, even though Interfaith Outreach would not run it.
7. ADJOURNMENT: 11:28 p.m.
Ccu-licZ.c2e
Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorde
, City of Tigard
ar
ate: ~l D~l
i:\adm%cathy\ccm\970520.dm
E - CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 17
a
RECEIVED COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal
Notice TT 8821
~ P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360
1 MAY 2 2 1997 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075
CITY OF TIGARD Legal Notice Advertising
•City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit
*Accounts Payable
I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss.
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that 1 am the Advertising
Director, or his principal clerk, of theg garA-Tna 1 nt i n mimes
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
j and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county kind state, that the
! City Council Workshop
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
May 15,1997
i
I
1 r
Subscribed and sworn t efoT'e me thisl5th day of Mav.1997
OFFICIAL SEAL
t ROBIN A. 13UROESt3
Notary P lic for Oregon *NOTARY PUBLIC•OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 062071
My Commission Expires: MISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 2001
The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 6394171.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
May 20, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. j
TIGARD CITY HALL-TOWN HALL
13125 S.W. HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARB, OREGON
Discussion Topics (Town Hall) I
Citizen Involvement Team Meeting
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
Tigard Triangle Discussion: Metro & Public Access Requirements
Summerlake Park
Council Goals
Executive Session (Red Rock Creek Conference Room)
TT8821 -Publish May 15, 1997. .
L
e~
I _ -
I AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - VISITOR'S AGENDA
DATE : April 22. 1997
(Limited to 2 minutes or less, please)
Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from
you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns
through staff. Please contact the City Administrator prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you.
STAFF
NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC CONTACTED
~arleae 2 ar
rfd / l4✓c~ / Y1 4"1 /f
/'93,00 W Fero i /-u.
I
1
- s
A
Agenda Item No. Lj
Meeting of~
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
f
f
i ~
Lok
CITY OF TIGARD
Cormnunity Development
Shaping A Better Community
City Council & Planning Commission
Dick Bewersdorff
May 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Council - Commission Joint Work Session
® The following is an outline of items to be discussed:
City Council Goals: Jim Hendryx will review City Council goals that impact the Planning
Commission.
Wireless Communication Facilities: Wireless communication facilities (cellular and
personal communications systems) have been a concern. Staff thought it would be a good J
idea to discuss some of the issues prior to the Commission or Council holding public
hearings on proposed regulations.
Bev Bookin, our consultant working on the code rewrite will be at the meeting to discuss the
direction of a new proposed ordinance section for wireless facilities. Kevin Martin from
Sprint Spectrum has volunteered to come to the meeting to provide a cellular industry
perspective. Attached are a draft staff report and draft wireless regulations that have been
prepared for the pubic hearing process.
Open Discussion: Time should be available to discuss other items of Council or
Commission interest or identify items for future discussion.
® i:curp1nldicklccucom.wks5/13!97
M13/97 1:07 PM
L
F
APPLICABLE
REVIEW
CRITERIA:
FILE NAME: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Zone Ordinance Amendment ZOA 97-0002
City of Tigard OWNER: Same
13125 SW Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Citywide
A proposal to amend the Community Development Code (Title 18) by
establishing standards for wireless communication facilities by creating
a new Chapter 152 (18.152). The purpose of these regulations are to
ensure that wireless communication facilities are regulated in a
manner which minimizes visual impacts, promotes universal service to
all customers, encourages colocation of facilities to minimize the
number of new facilities, ensures structural safety, and ensures all
providers are fairly treated.
Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2 and 11; Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Policies 1.1.1.a, 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 7.7.1; and Community Development
Code Chapter 18.30.
SECTION II• BACKGROUND INFORMATION
l
i
i
I
i
I
1
i
n
Agenda Item: 5.
Hearing Date: June 16.1997 7:30 PM
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CnY OF TIOARD
FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON co--iry (Dewfapmeut
Sfu:pirtgA Better Comrnunity
SECTION I: APPLICATION SUMMARY
CASES
APPLICANT:
I
LOCATION:
1
REQUEST:
1
3
The passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act and the selling of new wireless
licenses by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has significantly increased the
number of requests for cellular and personal communication services, communication
towers both locally and across the country. Concern has been expressed by citizens and
council persons regarding the need to regulate the proliferation of facilities. j
STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - ZOA 97-0002 PAGE 1 OF 2 11
Federal Telecommunications Act:
The Federal Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996. This Act deregulated the
nation's communication industry. This deregulation has created a marketplace filled with
new, more efficient technologies.
The Act places three important limitations on local governments as follows:
1. cities may not "unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services",
2. cities may not "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services", and
E
3. cities may not regulate personal wireless services "on the basis of the environmental
effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
(FCC's) regulations concerning such emissions."
Existing Regulations:
Cellular towers and wireless facilities are considered utilities under existing development
code regulations. Utilities are a conditional use that can be approved after a public hearing
by the Hearing's Officer. While buffering, landscaping, and other regulations can be
applied to wireless facilities, the code has no specific language or standards directed
specifically at these facilities.
P
`J
Staff has attached a proposed ordinance that will address the requirements of the Federal
Communications Act and provide for reasonable regulation of wireless facilities. We are
fortunate to have learned from the experience of other cities and have reviewed regulations
from throughout the country. The proposed ordinance is a close adaptation of a model
developed from the experience of Oregon cities and with input from the wireless industry.
The City's consultant team working on the community development code rewrite provided
us with the model and code language to incorporate into the rewrite. Staff has reformatted
the draft back to the existing code format so that the new wireless regulations could be
considered without waiting until the code rewrite is complete.
The new code section provides for an incentive based system for location. It recognizes
that regulations must not have the effect of prohibiting service and provides for the ability of
wireless companies to place facilities where their cellular needs occur.
THE PROPOSED "DRAFT' ORDINANCE INCLUDES:
colocation is encouraged in that use of existing towers is permitted outright;
new towers are also allowed outright in the I-L Light and Heavy Industrial zones;
STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES -ZOA 97.0002
® n w t i Commeri I nd the Industrial Park z D' d
a
J
a
9
i
1
j
i
e owers in ca a --e require a irec ors ecision,
new towers in residential zones, historic overlay, and in excess of 100 feet for a single
user and 125 feet for multiple users (except in the 1-H and I-L zones) require a
conditional use;
a colocation protocol for all freestanding towers requires that wireless applicants must
prove a good faith effort to collocate on existing facilities at the time of pre-application
conference;
standards include tower spacing (500 feet), setbacks (must be designed to collapse
within themselves, in accordance with base zone setbacks or be setback from the
property line by a distance equal to the height of the tower), fencing and landscaping;
review criteria for residentially located towers include protection of views and from
noise;
➢ staff added requirements for a diagram showing the viewshed of a proposed facility and
three to five photo simulations of the proposed facility in the submittal requirements to
help judge the impact of construction; and
➢ staff has, but did not include in the draft, language that would require towers to be
camouflaged like native tree species. This has, apparently, been successful only in the
desert southwest. While design companies claim that they can make towers look like
palm, lodgepole pine and fir trees, it has been indicated that the costs of maintenance
and construction are higher. Other than pictures of the faux tree towers and building
adornments, staff has no examples of such camouflage techniques.
SECTION III: STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Ordinance will not
ffCt,t the health
adversely an - , safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends
THAT THE ATTACHED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ORDINANCE
(18.152) BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR AS AMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
PREPARED BY: William D'Andrea
Associate Planner, AICP
APPROVED BY: Richard Bewersdorff
Planning Manager
May 6. 1997
DATE
May 6. 1997
DATE
i:1cu rplnlzoa97-02. rpi
STAFF REPORT TO THE P.C. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES -ZOA 97-0002 PAGE 3 OF 2
U
i
18.152.010 Purpose.
18.152.020 Definitions.
18.152.030 Exclusions.
18.152.040 Uses Permitted Outright.
18.152.050 Uses Subject to Director's Decision.
18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to
Conditional Use.
18.152.070 Submission Requirements.
18.152.080 Colocation Protocol.
18.152.090 Abandoned Facilities.
18.152.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of these regulations are to ensure that
wireless communication facilities are regulated in a
manner which:
1. Minimizes visual impacts;
2. Promotes universal service to all customers;
3. Encourages colocation of facilities to minimize
o the number of new facilities required;
4. Ensures structural safety; and
5. Ensures all providers are fairly treated.
18.152.020 Definitions
A. Definitions. The following definitions apply to
facilities regulated by this chapter:
1. "Antenna" means a device commonly in the
form ofa metal rod, wire panel or dish, for transmitting
or receiving electro-magnetic radiation. An antenna is
typically mounted on a supporting tower, pole, mast or
building.
2. "Colocation" means the placement of two of
more antenna systems or platforms by separate FCC
license holders ("providers") on a structure such as a
tower, building, water tank or utility pole.
3. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation
Administration.
4. "FCC" means the Federal Communications
Commission.
5. "Provider" means a person or company
business of designing, installing, marketing a
servicing wireless communication services includi
cellular telephone, personal communications servii
(PCS), enhanced/specialized mobile telephones a
commercial paging services.
6. "Wireless communication facility" means
unmanned facility for the transmission or rai
frequency (RF) signals, usually consisting of
equipment shelter, cabinet or other enclosed struct
containing electronic equipment, a support struct
antennas or other transmission and reception devices.
7. "Wireless communication facility, attache
means a wireless communication facility that is affix
to an existing structure, e.g., an existing building wall
roof, mechanical equipment, tower or pole, water la
utility or light pole, which does not include additio
wireless communication support structure.
8. "Wireless communication transmissi
towers" means new structure, tower, pole or in
erected to support wireless communication antennas
connecting appurtenances. For the purposes of th
regulations, such a support structure will be referred
as a "tower". Support structure types include:
a. "Guyed tower" means a tower which
supported by the use of cables (guy wires) which
permanently anchored.
b. "Lattice tower" means a tov
characterized by an open framework of lateral cr
members which stabilize the tower.
c. "Monopole" means a single uptight p
engineered to be self-supporting and requiring guy wi
or lateral cross-supports.
18.152.030 Exemptions
A. Exemptions. The following uses and activities s
be exempt from these regulations:
1. Existing towers and antennas and any rep
reconstruction or maintenance of these facilities wh
do not create a significant change in visual impact.
2. Ham radio towers, citizen band transmitters
antennas.
an
ure
re,
d"
ed
.
,.k
or
u k,
nal `
I
i
ns i
ast
nd
ese
to
I
-
is
are
ver
oss
le,
res
all
air,
ich
u
o
a
o
h
and
I {fireless Communication Facilities (Draft: 5/1/97) Page I of T
DRAFT
Chapter 18.152. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES.
7
R FT
3. Microwave dishes.
4. Antennas and equipment and other apparatus
completely located within an existing structure whose
purpose is to enhance or facilitate communication
function of other structures on the site.
18.152.040 Uses Permitted Outright
A. Colocation of antenna(s) on existing towers in
commercial and industrial zones. Installing an
antenna(s) on an existing communication tower of any
height is permitted outright, so long as the additional
antenna(s) are no more than 20 feet higher than the
existing tower, no more than three providers are
colocating on the towers, and the color of the antenna(s)
blends with the existing structure or surroundings.
B. Colocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower
structure in commercial and industrial zones. Installing
an antenna(s) on an existing structure other than a tower,
such as a building, water tank, sign, light fixture or
utility poie, is permitted outright so long as the
additional antenna(s) is no more than 20 feet higher than
the existing structure, no more than three providers are
E, colocating on the structure, and the color of the
t; antenna(s) blends with the existing structure or
surroundings.
C. Collocation of antenna(s) on existing non-tower
structures in residential zones. Installing an antenna(s)
on an existing structure other than a tower, such as a
building, water tank, sign, light fixture or utility pole, so
land as the additional antenna(s) is no more than 10 feet
higher than the existing structure, no more than three
providers are colocating on the structure, and the color
of the antenna(s) blends in with the existing structure
and surroundings.
D. Installation of accessory equipment shelters. Any
provider who is authorized to collocate on an existing
tower or non-tower structure as provided in Section
18.152.040 A-C above, shall be allowed to install any
necessary accessory equipment shelters and related
equipment at or near the base of the tower or structure,
within the structure, so long as:
I
1. The accessory equipment shelter and related
equipment are either located completely within the
existing structure, or are located within the fenced area
previously approved;
l
,ii
1
2. The equipment shelter and related equipment
shall comply with the development standards, such as
setbacks, height limitations and lot coverage, of the base
zone;
3. No previously-approved landscaping shall be
removed to locate the accessory equipment building and
related equipment. If any such landscaping is removed,
the applicant shall be required to replace it with the
equivalent quantity and type of landscaping on site, in a
manner to achieve the original intent, or to achieve
sufficient screening of any proposed new shelter and/or
equipment if the original intent would no longer be
applicable. If any removed landscaping cannot be
replace on site, then the applicant shall be reviewed per
Section 18.152.050 below.
E. Towers in the 1-L and 1-H zones. Locating a tower
of any height, including antennas, other supporting
equipment and accessory equipment shelters, is
permitted by right in the 1-L and I-H zones, providing
that such a tower shall be set back from any existing off-
site residence by a distance equal to the height of the
tower. Any equipment shelter shall comply with the
development standards ofthe base zone.
18.152.050 Uses Permitted Subject to
Director's Decision
A. Uses permitted. The Director shall review the uses
subject to the applicable Sections of 18.32 and Section
18.120, using approval criteria contained in Section
18.152.05013 below. The following uses are subject to
approval under this section:
I. Towers in commercial zones and the I-P zone.
A tower, including antennas, other support equipment
and/or accessory equipment buildings, in any
commercial or I-P district, provided that such a tower
shall be set back from any existing off-site residence by
a distance equal to the height of the tower.
2. Public open space. A tower, including
antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory
equipment buildings, provided that such a tower shall be
set back from any existing off-site residence by a
distance equal to the height of the tower.
treress toinnuuucation Facilities (Draft. 5/2/97)
~
DRAF
i
3. Colocation in commercial and industrial zones.
Colocation of an antenna(s) that extends more than 20
feet above an existing tower or non-tower structure, or
when colocating more than three providers in
commercial and industrial zones.
4. Colocation in residential zones. Colocation of
an antenna(s) that extends more than 10 feet above a
non-tower structure or an existing tower.
5. Accessory equipment shelter. Installation of
additional accessory equipment shelters or related
equipment if required existing landscaping is removed
and cannot be replaced on the site to achieve the original
intent, or to sufficiently screen any proposed new shelter
and/or equipment if the original intent is no longer
®
applicable.
(Draft. 512197)
6. Towers and antennas in public rights-of-way.
Installation of any tower or antenna within any public
right-of-way, provided that such tower or antenna shall
be set back from any off-site residence by a distance
equal to the height of the tower.
B. Review criteria. Any use subject to a Director's
Decision per Section 18.152.050A above, shall be
evaluated using the following standards:
1. Aesthetic:
a. New towers shall maintain a non-reflective
gray finish or, if required by the FAA, be painted
pursuant to the FAA's requirements.
b. If colocation on an existing tower is
requested, the design of any antenna(s), accessory
structures or equipment shall, to the extent possible, use
materials, colors and textures that will match the
existing tower or non-tower structure to which the
equipment of the colocating provider is being attached.
c. If colocation on an existing non-tower
structure is requested, the antenna(s) and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment shall be a neutral
color that is the same as the color as the supporting
structure so as to make the antenna(s) and related
equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible.
2. Setbacks:
T
a. Towers designed to collapse within
themselves shall be set back in accordance with the
setbacks contained in the base zone.
b. 'rowers not designed to collapse within
themselves shall be set back from the property line by a
distance equal to the height of the tower.
3. Tower spacing: No new tower shall be allowed
within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having
completed the colocation protocol outlined in Section
18.152.080 without success, the provider will be
required to build a tower less than 500 feet from an
existing tower, it will be required to obtain a variance,
as regulated by Section 18.134.
4. Tower height: No lower shall exceed 100 feet
for a single user or 125 for multiple users.
5. Lighting: No lighting shall Le permitted on a
tower except as required by the FAA.
C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests
a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all
applicable state and federal regulations, including, but
not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural, Building
Codes, and FAA.
18.152.060 Uses Permitted Subject to j
Conditional Use Review
A. Uses permitted. The Hearings Officer shall review
the uses subject to the applicable Sections of 18.32 and f
Section 18.130, using approval criteria contained in
Section 18.152.06013 below. The following uses are
subject to approval under this section:
1. Towers in residential zones. A tower, including
antennas, other support equipment and/or accessory
equipment buildings, in any residential zone.
2. Towers within areas with historic overlay
designation. A tower, including antennas, other support
equipment and/or accessory equipment buildings, in
areas with historic overlay designation.
3. Towers in excess of 100 feet for a single user
and 125 for multiple users except those located in the
1-L and l-H zones. which are allowed outright per
Section 18.152.040E.
S
Wireless Communication Facilities
protected to the greatest practical extent:
(1) Mountains;
(2) Significant pubic open spaces;
(3) Historic structures.
b. The following standards, and only the
following standards, shall be used to protect the above
identified points of visual interest to the greatest
practical extent if views from a residential structure
located within 250 feet from a proposed wireless
communication facility to a point of visual interest
specifically identified above is significantly affected:
(1) Investigate other locations within the
0 same lot where such visual impacts can be minimized
overall.
DEAF
B. Review criteria. Any use subject to Hearings
Officer review per Section 18.152.060A above, shall be
r1 evaluated using the following standards:
I
1. Protection of points of visual interest:
a. Views from residential structures located
within 250 feet of the proposed wireless communication
facility to the following points of visual interest shall be
(2) Investigate alternative tower designs
that can be used to minimize the interruption of views
from the residence to the point of visual interest.
(3) Minimize visual impacts to the point of
visual interest referred to above, by demonstrating that
colocation or the use of other structures within the
applicant's service area is not feasible at this time.
(4) Minimize visual impacts by varying tite
setbacks or landscaping standards that would otherwise
be applicable, so long as the overall impact of the
proposed development is as good or better than that
which would otherwise be required without said
variations.
2. Color. Towers shall have a non-reflective
surface and a neutral color that is the same or similar
color as the supporting structure to make the antennas
and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as
u possible, or, if required by the FAA, be painted pursuant
to the FAA's requirements.
Tireless Conanunication Facilities
f
11
3. Setbacks: Towers shall be set back from the
property line by a distance equal to the height of the
tower.
4. Tower spacing: No new tower in a residential
zone shall be allowed within 2,000 feet of an existing
tower. No new tower in non-residential zones shall be
allowed within 500 feet of an existing tower. If, having
completed the colocation protocol outlined in Section
18.152.080 without success, the provider will be
required to build a tower less than the distances
specified above, it will be required to obtain a variance,
as regulated by Section 18.134.
5. Lighting: No lighting shall be permitted on a
tower except as required by the FAA.
6. Fencing and security: For security purposes,
towers and ancillary facilities shall be enclosed by a
six-foot fence.
7. Landscaping and screening. Landscaping shall
be placed outside the fence and shall consist of
evergreen shrubs which reach six-feet in height and
95% opacity within three years of planting.
8. Noise: Noise-generating equipment shall be
sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers or other
suitable means to reduce the sound level measured at the
property line to 45 dBA when adjacent to residential
uses and 55 dBA when adjacent to other uses.
C. Other requirements. At the time a provider requests
a building permit, it must demonstrate compliance to all
applicable state and federal regulations, including, but
not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Structural and
Building Codes and FAA.
18.152.070 Submission Requirements
A. Submission requirements. When submitting an
application for a Director's Decision or Conditional Use
pursuant to Sections 18.152.050 and 18.152.060 above,
the following information must be submitted:
1. To-scale site plan which includes:
a. The location of structures on the property
and the adjoining properties;
(Draft. 511197) Page 4 of 6
r.
b. The location of the proposed facility
S including existing/new tower or non-tower structure
;o-, upon which the antennas are to be attached, equipment
shelter and associated equipment and fenced enclosure,
if any.
c. The location and dimension of all
landscaping, including the type and size of plant
material to be uses, as well as any other landscape
material incorporated into the overall site.
d. On-site circulation and access.
2. To-scale elevations of proposed facility and
ancillary equipment.
3. A diagram or map showing the viewshed of the
proposed facility.
4. Three to Five photo simulations of the proposed
facility from affected residential properties and public
rights-of-way at varying distances.
f
i 5. If facility is to be located in an area of a point of
visual interest, per Section 18.152.060 B.I.a., written
~ documentation of considerations taken to locate the
facility in a manner which minimizes visual impacts.
6. Written documentation fulfilling requirements
of colocation protocol described in Section 18.152.080
below.
18.152.080 Collocation Protocol
A. Purpose. The purpose of this requirement is to
create a process that will allow providers to equitably
share publicly-available, non-proprietary information
among themselves, with interested persons and
agencies, and with the City, at the time the provider
schedules a pre-application conference with the
approval authority. This colocation protocol is designed
to increase the likelihood that all reasonable
opportunities for colocation have been investigated and
the appropriate information has been shared among
providers.
The City recognizes that colocation is preferable,
where technologically feasible and visually desirable, as
a matter of public policy, but that colocation of antennas
by providers is not always feasible for technical or
business reasons. However, if all licensed providers are
made aware of any pending tower or antenna permit
FT
requests, such disclosure will allow providers to have
the maximum amount of time to consider possible
colocation opportunities, and will also assure the City
that all reasonable accommodations for colocation have
been investigated. The code creates strong incentives for
colocation because proposals for colocation qualify for a
less rigorous approval process.
B. Applicability. Requirements for the colocation
protocol apply only to new towers subject to Director's
Decision or Conditional Use review.
C. Pre-application requirement. A pre-application
conference is required for all proposed free-standing
towers except those in the I-L and 1-H zones, which are
pemtitted outright.
D. Colocation request letter requirement. At the time a
pre-application conference is scheduled, the applicant
shall demonstrate that the following notice was mailed
to all other wireless communication providers licensed
to provide service within the City's boundaries:
"Pursuant to the requirements of 18.152.080, [name
of wireless provider] is hereby providing you with
notice of our intent to meet with representatives of the
City of Tigard in a pre-application conference to discuss
the location a new free-standing wireless
communication facility that would be located at
[location]. In general, we plan to construct a [type of
tower] of [number] feet in height for the purpose of
providing [cellular, PCS] service.
Please inform us whether your company has any
existing or pending wireless facilities located within
[specify distance] of the proposed facility, that may be
available for possible colocation opportunities. Please
provide us with this information within 10 business days
after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is
appreciated.
Sincerely [Name of pre-application applicant].
E. Applicant's obligation to analyze feasibility of
colocation. If a response to a colocation request letter is
received by an applicant indicating an opportunity for
colocation on an existing tower of another provider, the
applicant shall make a good faith effort to analyze the
feasibility of colocation. This analysis shall be
submitted with an application for a freestanding tower.
A good faith effort to investigate the feasibility of
colocation on an existing facility shall be deemed to
[fireless Communication Facilities
1
(Draft: 5/2/97)
rage 3 ql 0
L J
q have occurred if the applicant submits all of the
following information:
1. A statement from a qualified engineer
indicating whether the necessary service can or cannot
be provided by colocation at the potential colocation
P site;
3
2. Evidence that lessor of the potential colocation
site either agrees or disagrees to colocation on his/her
t property;
3. Evidence that adequate site area exists or does
not exist at the potential colocation site to accommodate
ancillary equipment for the second provider and still
meet all of the development standards required in the
base zone;
4. Evidence that adequate access does or does not
exist at the possible colocation site.
F. Result of colocation feasibility analysis. If the
applicant has provided information addressing each of
the criteria in 18.152.080D above, the colocation
protocol shall be deemed complete. The applicant's
tower shall then be permitted subject to the applicable
standards and restrictions contained in this chapter.
18.152.090 Abandoned Facilities
A. Abandonment defined. A wireless communication
facility which has been discontinued for a period of six
consecutive months or longer is hereby declared
abandoned.
B. Removal of abandoned facilities. Abandoned
facilities as defined in Section 18.152.090A above shall
be removed by the property owner within 90 days from
date of abandonment. Failure to remove an abandoned
facility is declared a public nuisance and is subject to
penalties per Chapter 7.40 of the Municipal Code.
C. Extension. Upon written application, prior to the
expiration of the six-month period, the Director shall, in
j writing, grant a six-month extension for reuse of the
facility. Additional extensions beyond the first six-
month extension may be granted by the Director subject
to any conditions required to bring the project or facility
into compliance with current regulation(s) and make it
compatible with surrounding development
Wireless Communication Facilities
(Draft. 512197)
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF 5/13/97
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Triangle Public Involvement Process
PREPARED BY: Nadine Smith DEPT HEAD OK ! ^ CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE B .FO F TH . COUNCIL
For purposes of clarification, Elaine Cogan, public involvement consultant for the Tigard Triangle master
planning process, will provide information on the process that was used with the public and with the Triangle
task force to reach the recommendations that were presented to Council.
This is a presentation. No staff recommendation is necessary.
March 11, 1997 the City Council approved design standards for the Tigard Triangle. Since that time, some
1 issues have arisen regarding the way in which the standards were developed and the public involvement process
that was used. Elaine Cogan was the consultant hired by the City to run the public involvement process and she €
facilitated the Triangle Task Force meetings. She will outline for the Council the public involvement plan used to
create the standards. {
Attached is the response received from Metro on the question of whether private street would be allowed to meet
the requirement for public access at intervals of 660 feet. We have scheduled a discussion on this issue for the
i May 20th City Council meeting.
t00 MO•iw{tfI G{tMD tvlxul I •Ot1L~M D. O•{GO. 11111 lilt
I{l f0l 1{) I)00 IAA f0l ]1) Ittl
METRO
® April 28, 1997
Mr. Jim Hendryx I:
Community Development Director
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Mr. H ry v~
Re. nterpreta io of Tide 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
! Thank you for our request for an interpretation of Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban
Growth Management Functional Plan (functional plan).
The intent of Title 6: Regional Accessibility is to support and reinforce the development
+ patterns of the 2040 Growth Concept. The entirety of Title 6 standards will be
(
supplemented by the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) when the RTP is approved and
1 adopted by Metro Council.
While the design of local street systems is generally beyond the scope of the RTP, the i
aggregate effect of local street design impacts the effectiveness of the regional system.
When local travel is restricted by a lack of connecting routes and local trips are forced on
to the regional network, the regional system is over burdened. Section 3 of Title 6,
Design Standards for Street connectivity, is intended to improve local circulation in a
manner that protects the integrity of the regional system. Section 3 is a requirement in
the design of the local street system for new residential and mixed-use developments.
In response to your specific questions:
1. Will Metro require that the street connections to adjacent developing areas at
intervals of no more than 660 feet be public?
2. Does the local jurisdiction have the option of allowing these streets to be constructed
as private streets with public easements?
i
The functional plan requires street connections at intervals of no more than 660 feet.
While these do no have to be dedicated rights-of-way, public streets are the preferred
option and are strongly encouraged. In situations where a dedication is not possible,
local jurisdictions have the options of allowing private streets with public easements.
However, the easement must be a 24-hour easement and the private street should look
and function as a public street. This means that it must be clear, through design and
signage, that this is a place where the public can travel and that there are curbs and
sidewalks along the private road.
I hope this response addresses your questions in full. If you require further information,
please contact Brenda Bernards of my staff at 797-1736.
Anr y,
rto
Executive Officer
■
I
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: City Council
FROM: Laurie Nicholson, Planning Division
DATE: May 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Planning
Enclosed please find the letter from Jim Hendryx to Metro regarding a proposed resolution for the
Western Bypass and the I-5/99W connector. This proposed resolution is one small part of a
number of current regional transportation planning efforts and it is separate from the Highway 99W
Corridor piarming. The proposed Western bypass resolution can impact outcomes of other
planning efforts such as the Highway 99W corridor plan and the Tigard Triangle Plan. I have
scheduled time with Council to discuss regional transportation planning, in depth, at the May, 22
City Council meeting.
Summary of Current Transportation Planning Efforts
• Regional Transportation Plan Update-Enclosed please find the schedule for this planning effort.
The plan sets funding priorities and addresses the function of arterials, highways, and freeways
for the region. Local transportation system plans must comply with the Regional
! Transportation Plan.
• Transportation System Plan-This plan addresses auto, pedestrian, and bicycle needs for Tigard.
The City is in the process of studying the street system component of the plan and will be
taking the entire plan for review by the CIT's, Planning Commission, and City Council.
• Highway 217 Major Investment Study-This study is a component of the Western Bypass study.
Metro will be the lead agency on the study and it will involve ODOT and the affected local
jurisdictions including Tigard. It should be underway starting July 1st of this year. It will do
planning for Highway 217 over the next 20 years.
• Highway 99W/18 Corridor Plan-ODOT is the lead agency on the corridor plan. They have
currently prepared a draft strategy for this corridor over the next 20 years. It is in the public
comment stage. It calls for a connector between I-5 and Highway 99W to handle through
traffic, and recommends that Highway 99W through Tigard remain 5 lanes, if this connector is
built.
• Highway 99W Access Management Plan-ODOT and City of Tigard are the lead agencies on
this plan. A study was completed, but has yet to be implemented. The City is applying for a
r.~ Transportation Growth Management Grant to address the implementation. The study addressed
I
I
i
-l
access management and transportation system management strategies to assist in alleviating
traffic congestion in Tigard.
• Western Bypass/1-5/99W connector-The study did not recommend building the Western
Bypass. Instead it recommended constructing a connector road between I-5 and Highway 99W
to handle through traffic and to widen Highway 217, as well as other projects to address the
Westem Bypass traffic. Metro will need to change the Regional Transportation Plan to delete
references to the Western Bypass and to include the 1-5/99W connector. Metro staff plans to
place two conditions on this resolution. These conditions are as follows: 1. Metro, Washington
County, Yamhill County, Washington County local jurisdictions, and the City of Newberg sign
a Green corridor agreement. The Green Corridor agreement works to ensure that rural areas
between cities are preserved. 2. Metro, Yamhill County, and the City of Newberg draft
agreements to manage growth pressures outside the Portland Metropolitan Area, to minimize
the number of commuters from the Yamhill County area to the Portland Metropolitan area.
Metro has not provided draft agreements for the green corridor or for the proposed agreement
with Yamhill County and Newberg. Enclosed please find the schedule for adoption of Western
Bypass/I-5/99W connector.
cn
z
W
Z
a
O
U
i Fn
W
i ~
W
W
I'V/
F
1
3
i
2Y
Y
LL
g_
N
-
$
3
7a
N
N
m
09
t9
O`~
0
0~.~~
0
13
¢0
4
E n°
m'o
~ E
Eat tpi~
~~~m~'~ m
'g @
E$
o.
'
~X
E
OI
O
O
T
T
O=LL
E
w
~a
>
>
C3
Z
LLZ
msc=
c-~
BE
8
Q
m
C
~
1.2
m
T
o
ON
~
Z
'
Z
~
ro
7
a
0
m~
-
E
T 1E `m
O V
§
A
a~
0o
O
o
QE = cg
= ~
F °
b o
U
§
= fi ~
R
m
v _ p Ep r
N
u S'
r
N I
¢
N
a
4n
~ to
3
00
E 0
o
a~
0
~BMaalj B~ [
fZ~
All
flip
s
f 1
f
~(eM481H Qt pmalnog lauol6atl ® piummos glunwwop 9L G
- 1
L
5 m°
Cl C[
m ~
m~
c
aLL~
FF=y-°_°_
S n3
J
r
LL g
LLLL
g EE
.g+
,
6=+
p'po E-
~
am
o..m
~
~8
N
~a
yqi
V
8 `m
a !C3
m
o u)
r/j
m Li N
Oj~
a
ro~
Em
H
E
m
Z
v
E°'
as
m
a`
a.s
_
y2m~3.m Q79 -H
co ~
~
~
c
..0~3.m-~'•5:~oc
$
It
m~~.
t.
amy
m m
E
ad
O
SL
na
~•°x.0.4, m n
~a ~~'~,°g
s
M
u
yy~~
rom
c'~
YO IS
vmro
~a
N
US
21 vA
x rt
~
= Nm Ero
m
E
~
VI ~
v
~
v
~
S
~
_
q
~i.
O
~
35 c~G
I EE v~
mscA
EE ~i
3
li
3
I
mi
g
g
u
V) o
NV
°
~
fn
F
N
~H
g
ME~3~
•
$
m
t
m
ro
m
'e
m
'e
m
"e
°m
mmo
-•~E-
a„E
u°i4
rmmp
,~Eo
Y m~
o
E
b
>N
> - n
~
zN
Escp
Q°c
u
y ~
~ S f B
y y R
$ iq £4 ~
U a ~
~ Z
eG
~ 2 Z
U S Z Z
E.
~d a c
3 s
g >
>
0
IeanS leuol6atl eE IaeIIS Nlunwwo~ qE peotl uvgit7 eb pvo
tl Iv~ntl qb
N
r.L
W
!
y
f
1
~
W C
N
i
a4
4~
cts
-
C
fn
cc
C:1
0
D
C.
0
i
~
*
y@
3
Y~1
4
t~
F
I
~
n
I
4
i
E
Q
2~
Q v
W
W
~
°
y:.
ca
No
W ¢
0
is
W
LL
~
=
W
L m
t o
L
r
L
cc
W V
J
W
N A
m
CI L
J
W
m
N
O m
A
A'~
a~
W
U
o
t
9~
E
_Y
W Y-
U
0
W
V)
Z
o
0
0
Z
W
F
¢
QO $
C
aZa
° C
m~ S
J
E
L iD
Z 0
Q m
m,o
U ~
a
o
E
OIHVN30S1N3W3AOddWI
_
Cl)
j
O
U
U
~
=
_u
m
u
u
y
°
fn
to
N
i
C
L-
W
>
J
J
J
W
p.~
J
Q
U
S
W
U
U
0
s
V
W
°
Z
n
Z
i
Z
w
~
m
b b
$ N
N
N A C U
N
u
>
w
in
~
O
n
O
E
`o
N
_ c_
L
J
U
m
m
m
m
N
W
R
J
J
J
O
>
a
N
Y~
cc
4
0
.
E
L
O
o
u.
W
Om
°
b E~ E4
E E o
z
z
z
_
LL
h N
o o$
0
LL
CO
t/1
N
m
J
6~ J
Y
N
O
0
O
m
-
J
°
~
F-I
a
J
J
J
j
°
v
° o o
o
o
5
b b
b T
Q m
~N
m
p
U°
t
,
N
O
m U
6
O w LL LL
!
a
E
.
.
.
f
OIHVN30S 1N3W3AOadWI
Y _
METRO
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Alternatives Analysis
Table 1
RTP Motor Vehicle System Scenarios
Lane Miles Added to Create Motor Vehicle Networks*
Performance Measure
Low
(LOS F)
Moderate
(LOS E)
High
(LOS D)
Highway Lane Miles Added (totals in parentinses)
51(51)
118069)
166 (335)
Arterial Lane Miles Added (totals in parentheses)
519 (519)
289 (808)
291(1,099)
i.
i
E
j 'The 2015 Committed System was used to deuelop these networks, with the addition of the Mount Hood Parkway, Sunrise Highway
t and Tualatin-Sncrwaod Parkway assunhcd. Networks were Arvcloprd to reach LOS standards far tlhr PM ]-Hour Peak. -
i Table2 _ V
RTP Motor Vehicle System Scenarios -
Travel Time Summary for Selected Corridors*
From
To
1994
2015
Committed
2015
Low
2015
Moderate
2015
High
Downtown
Beaverton
20.5
22.5
19.4
17.5
16.9
Beaverton
Hillsboro
19.9
21.9
20.5
17.9
17.2
Beaverton
Clackamas
36.3
40.4
37.0
32.0
30.4
'Travel limes are in minutes for the PM 2-hour peak.
j Table 3
RTP Motor Vehicle System Scenarios
Comparison of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
1
I
Network
Lane Miles
Total
Lane Miles
Chan a om1994.
Total VMT
Itrtra-UGB
VMT/Capita
Infra-UGB
VMT/Capita
Change from 1994.
1994.
13,580
-
14,749,300
12.91
-
2015 Committed*
13,975
395
20,842,743
13.31
+3.10%
Low (LOS F)
14,545
965
20,988,102
13.40
+3.8070
Mod (LOS E)
14,952
1,372
22,700,822
14.50
+12.30%
High (LOS D)
15,409
1,829
23,102,958
14.75
+14.2970
'lrrrludcs the 2015 romntiffed system plus the Mount Hood Parkway, Sunrise Hiizhway and Tualatin-Sherwood Parkway.
Arterial and highway lane miles ronnbined
i
26, AI-Q-J
i
2
O ~ o
r
vt O a w
t ~ (hC3
a
2
E
Q5 c
2?
1,
a~
v
f ' caUi tai -
75
' U U
co
1 ~ a
j ~ n Ur, ~ e Us `a'. a ~
F-
U C
iii
A Q F k
+ rL • IU- n O ~ ~ t
o
P ~ oQ ad
O ~
W
w 3 5 g
12
E d r,8pz c o- q I
-Lai
X$a~
ayzsu 2 >"_`ppgUu tea, DU1$
F m
r ti~ N❑ ~a ~ ❑ ~ ¢a F~3 ~
Z
F
r
t
7
O, U a
OF m
Q
m
~ Q U U ~ O
;7 >-y F-o aE
aQ V° al v j
° E o I -
Fq-71
5 a , o.
d ip !
Q~ ~ ~ Q5 =E 7g
0
7 `a!d Na y oZi a
_ a❑ a o a~
h3 ~4 Q ~ o fA f~ ~C A
! N H ,
~i ~ LLc yh ;E0 Um
' U<" 3E n~ Un ~ Oo.n °.z to o•
C3 to U ° 3E U i
! O. dD Rm C
' U a
o~
- 1° 47 ~ c
,e o m a
A
i
HER
g
N ~IIIIIIIIIIII~~~~~III ~~g~g~ > h R ;~~eu ~~`g r _ 8~.gg
`usq$
y ~~qE~~ Q 8 ~>zm8 .fl 4 qB$z ~ ~c $'¢g
y. 8 U w 5 ~'~~•a ~ g8Eq~ O E~ P~~~
CL narmoE is V+ a~Dg a m„"_~ z3~ a
® II3$E Oo`a mn UcF~¢ O M,
LL
I ~
Z
O
F-
a
U_
U)
a
J
U
Z
O
U
Z
J
LL
r2 _N
F- rf.
Cl) IL:
LL
W
U_
W
0
O
J
a
Z
0
0
UJ
i
i
(K E
w 0
=m Lrc
F M v
0-~?O
Y ~
U3 O C
C
C
~
N
T
i c c
U 4
m
Z nE
>
y
S c
m
7
z
(D z
z O
F H
¢
4. N'
D
y
a c°
a
j 1
OZ
c41
:n
n
~
'tn _d
Z Q -1
° C C
6 y
4p N
N f0 C O O
Q
Z w
C O Q
o0
(n
O
U d
O
cn 4)
0.
41 U O J N
~
~
u
E
2
Q
z
t0
° _
E °
e A
E .c
_
A N
.50 41 J U
W
M
L m
m
V L O
O1
d
3 Q:
o O
3 ~
d 41 W
of
m
m
m
m o1
1~
J d'F-
J O10
Y W
° J
V
41
N~
N
U C
C!n N
N 0 d N
C N
d
m
ry
N
~O
C
W
41
n
y O
n
N O N C N
~
n
E
C
o_
Z O
a
(7 m
ab
Q U m
.
a,QE~v
c° N
N
° E
(7
Z.~ (n
O --o N
E
N
N~ 4
.
.0 D.
H
~ o
y ..m. OI
.21
m 0
m o
O m
m
O
m
O
. u
°
EL
s
ix
N
m 06
'
Of co
N
m
i!i 2 N U
O O N
c o c
a N N
c. ~m
' V m i
O
c
: m
V
c m E
t
a-:
m 4
-o-
Z
O y 41
c u v v
tp''
m N 4)
C
~
C
c
C
~
;
8
O Q. C C
y E o N E P
o N E?
N C V y L
U
C U N
.4/
O
N UZ
d~NC C
F-U
d~NCC100
Hu
C ~O ~.d
F...ow c
VOC'.d y.
QU amp.
0°~O
Unm E
'N.
N
4' E
°
N
E
"
o~
m
roc
.n
0 3
m
Z
w
U
c
O C O 4)
'
E o y o° a
° m
n o
m .O > y
n o m
c
j .f] m
N y p~
c
N c
° E 3
J 0
O
LL
d V O y
Som
O! y .d
-~'~Yr
o
Ol U
-~~.-J
° A m.
~00
m
J
J✓ .O N W
G
m
a
EL
O
C
O N (p 16/1 0 m ~
N 2 °
A r C C m
Z'
E
N
.O = C L E
> E
0:2 m
N
C.
G t o C Lp1
W
O
O C.
3~ O°
U S2 N tJ
O
U
d
n
L X000-
° N
C N
y N
n
y
LNnm
0
O u N 9
E
m
ynOU
y
u° O 0
y
N'CG N}ry~S
.
a'
u'~
~
~ N1
1041
O
p
C-c~..C
N
€ o
c
m
U m N 2
.
m m n n n
O
m m n EA
:
C
•
C
d c m E
u
J m
'
p
L' 2p
U.z U Q.tl.
z
O
J
¢
U)
4d 1-
JH
C
W m
R'
0
U)
CC WW
us
T
LL m m
-
lx
Q
.
U
o
U U)
U M
UZ, W # L
~
. O W
0
; J. I
LLI -J
J Q
Q W
m
s~
z
oast
00
O~
u. U
a.¢ v'S
¢
U O in
U-1
d'Q
-l
f
0
!
j
I,
j
i
k
FOR PHOTO'S
SEE
~ COUNCIL MEETING I
PHOTO FILE 199'
DATE: 95-/ao/,f 7
AGENDA ITEM # y
I
FOR AGENDA OF May 20. 1997
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY ADMIN OK
ISSUE, BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Consideration of the 1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION i
Review, discuss and make changes, if needed, to the attached Work Plan Proposal for the 1997 Council Goals.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
i
Attached is the 1997 Council Goals Work Plan Proposal. Executive Staff reviewed the listing of Council goals
Ord assigned a workplan proposal to each goal. Goals were then grouped by the following major categories:
• Measure 47/50 Affected Priorities
• Complex City Program Goals
• City Operational Goals
• Council Areas of Interest to Monitor
j Staff proposes to begin work or continue work on each of the goal areas as outlined above. An update on goals
is scheduled for July 22, 1997. The next update will occur at the September 30, 1997 Special Meeting which
has been tentatively scheduled. The goal setting date has been changed from February to better accommodate f -
timing with budget preparation.
Also attached is a new format for the Tigard Council Tentative Agenda with goals scheduled as outlined in the
Work Plan proposal.
1997 Council Goals
Work Plan Proposal
Measure 47/50 Affected Priorities
• Address Space Needs
• Police Funding - Specialty Programs
• Library Facilities
Complex City Program Goals
• Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan
• Visioning Project
• Parks Master Plan
• Develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
• 99W Improvements
• Planning Studies - Washington Square/Scholls/Walnut Isl.
• Planning Study - Downtown Area
City Operational Goals
• Implement Workplace Violence Recommendations
• Plant 2000 Trees by the Year 2000
• Improve Image Through Volunteer Program
Council Areas of Interest to Monitor
• Teen Center
• Passenger Rail
• Review Existing City Ordinances & Resolutions
• Monthly Reporting of Pending Development Locations
• Board, Committee & Task Force Updates
• Change Goal Setting Cycle to Fall
• Public Transit Improvements
• Employee Recognition
• Improve Media Relations
j Develop Plan to Address Problems of Tigard's Homeless
a
#More#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
J
J
• Consider Issues of Affordable Housing
16
• Update Engineering Fees
16
• Develop Annexation Policy
16
• Rewrite Tigard Development Code
16
• Develop a Long-Range Plan for Development and
Maintenance of City Streets
16
• Evaluate Use of Traffic Calming Devices on SW N. Dakota
16
• Define and Develop Tigard's Approach to Working w/Metro
17
• Secure Long-Term Water Supply
17
® 0 Promote Use of Metro Greenspaces Funds...
17
F~
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Measure 47/50 Affected Priorities
Address Space Needs: Continue to address the space needs
of the City, including needs resulting from the addition of staffing
to handle Washington County Urban Services.
Workp/an: After the May 20 Election, we will assess
short- and long-range space needs. Staff will incorporate
appropriate elements of the previous study and take into
account the addition of the modular building acquired for urban
services. Information will be prepared for review by King City,
Durham and the Water District.
Financial impacts could be very great and will most likely involve
the issuance of bonds to finance acquisition of property and
construction of additional facilities. This goal may span several
years due to the length of time it may take to go through such a
process.
Once the results of Measure 50 are known, we will evaluate the
3,000 square foot addition and remodeling of existing space for
the Police Department.
Timing: May 20 - Election
May 27 - Preliminary Report to
Council (if election is too close
to call, then analysis will have to
wait until election results are
certified.)
June 17 - Workshop Meeting - Staff to
present recommendations
and a proposed Workplan
on Measure 47150 affected
goals.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 1
Prepared May, 1997
i
i
I6
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
0
Measure 47/50 Affected Priorities
Police Funding - Specialty Programs: Program such as Yo
Officer, GREAT, DARE, Officer at the Square, etc. must
evaluated once the results of Measure 50 are known.
Workplan: After the May 20 Election, we will assess c
ability to provide all or some of these programs. Other k
players, the School District Administration and Washingt,
Square Management have been advised of the upcomii
budget process and funding issues. They have been invited
give input into the programs and to suggest alternative fundii
sources.
Timing:
uth
be
May 20 - Election
May 27 - Preliminary Report to
Council (if election is too close
to call, then analysis will have t~.
to wait until election results are
certified.)
June 17 - Workshop Meeting - Staff to
present recommendations
and a proposed Workplan
on Measure 47/50 affected
goals.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 2
Prepared May, 1997
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Measure 47/50 Affected Priorities
Library Facilities - Long-Term Financing Options: Measure
47 created uncertainty of funding for the Library through both
general fund resources and the WCCLS levy. Library facilities
are at capacity.
0,
Workplan: After the May 20 Election, we will review and
reevaluate our financing options for the Library and all City
operations. We will review the five-year plan strategy. This is
something we should be doing over the several years so that by
the time we get to the end of our current plan, we have a
strategy in place to address the next period.
Timing: May 20 - Election
May 27 - Preliminary Report to
Council (if election is too close
to call, then analysis will have to
wait until election results are
ccI"L ified. I
June 17 - Workshop Meeting - Staff to
present recommendations
and a proposed Workplan
on Measure 47/50 affected
goals.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 3
Prepared May, 1997
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
Comprehensive Public Facilities Plans: Develop
comprehensive public facility plans in the following areas by
December 1998: Streets, Sewer System Trunk Lines, Sidewalks
Workplan: The total timeframe for development of the
comprehensive plans and report to the City Council is 18
months. This is a feasible timeframe if the process is
implemented promptly and continued steadily to the planned
completion date for presentation to Council. Impediments to
meeting that time frame could be diversion of staff to other high
priority tasks which impact the overall timeframe for completion.
Listed below are the components of scheduling this goal in order
to be ready for presentation to Council in 18 months:
• 2 weeks - Compile information; assemble existing plans
• 1 month - Evaluate available information and existing
plans to include ongoing studies
• 1 month - Identify additional studies that are needed to a)
serve existing City and b) serve those areas within the
urban growth boundary likely to be annexed to the City
Y 1 month - Develop tasks that would result in preparation of
the comprehensive plans
• 12 months - Develop comprehensive plans
• 1 month - Identify funding based on developed plans
• 2 weeks - Submit findings and proposed funding
mechanisms to City Council.
Timing: Council would be apprised of progress on
this goal at the scheduled update on
Council goals on 7/22/97 and at the goal
setting meeting on 9/30/97.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 4
Prepared May, 1997
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
Visioning Project: The Visioning process, titled "Tigard Beyond
Tomorrow," is a community-wide effort to establish a long-term
direction for the future of Tigard. The process is a partnership
with the Tigard-Tualatin Schools and involves citizens in a
variety of ways throughout the process. The end product will be
a set of target areas, goals for each target area and strategies tc
implement the goals.
Workplan: (See attached.)
Timing: Council will be apprised of progress on this
goal at the last meeting of every month
while the Vision Task Force meets and
during the time the Action Planning
Committees are meeting. Also Council will
receive information at the scheduled
update on Council goals on 7/22/97 and at
the goal setting meeting on 9/30/97.
6
r- 4d
g
G >
T •
_
00
~
T N
~ U
O
T
.
G
° U_ V= V Gi VI
^
CC
~ r ~
G
r°
N G
~ N
n V ~ r G O
L`., G
E5 f
c
_
O
=
N C
N e i °3
~ c
V
G~
~
T 4
~ co ~
~
~
•
+
r vl
o-
'
O
mo
,
p L"
>
,y V
O
2
•
O p c p
vi
v
~
~
C a
> G C V
v
?
'
>
u u O
E
~ . c c y ~
r
> Y C N H
G
•
G z
_
E
r.
4.w „y,
Z
3
~ •y c E
cn G
y_
O H E
y
>
vi
_
F-1 O
` 6
D
0
N
0
E
7.r •
>
~
V A
V~ 'o
y
y
T
•
I•~ O
~
~
'Vj Cl
O ~
n
N
E o
o
F
v
O
C1
CD
c
N
b
=
I~
O
N
M N
=
y
it
0
12
Y
F
c
T '
V >
a
o
°D E
_ a
O
3
d d
3
c
V N
G W
O p
i C V
v o c
~•V O
~ V R
C N '9 `
N j ttl G
V 00 00
U
0 "0
z u c
O U
> G N V
13
V `
A
O y
= h
Y ~ ~
1O
C
E
E
oo r_
~ _
c
O m
~ ~
O 5
c
c
=
R
a n
O
R
V
> >
'O 00
V C
C t-
O
C O
y V
O O
-i1
d ~
M c
G7 7
O
R p
C tC0 N
j„'
W E S
_
G C O
R
~
R I.
V d
c E ~
I
C
W
i
°
•0 E 40
C
v
a
000
O
O I
m
-V
. C
■
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
Timing:
Finalize RFP -
May 1997
Request budget authorization -
June 1997
Hire consultant-
June 1997
Update Report-
July 1997
Complete Study-
October 1997
Adopt new parks master plan -
November 1997
Parks Master Plan: Review and update the city parks master
plan to meet the changing recreational needs of the community
and the planning requirements of Oregon state law affecting
system development charges.
Workplan:
• Finalize project approach and form advisory committee
• Analyze planning characteristics; identify potential park sites
• Analyze existing park areas and facilities
• Analyze community park needs
• Develop recommendations for park site/ facility development
• Develop capital improvement and implementation plan
The Finance Department will participate in this goal by identifying the
funding available for park expansion and supply information to those working
on the expansion planning of the maintenance costs for expanded facilities.
The current SDC charges are based on fee calculatins that include the
estimated $40,000 cost of developing a parks master plan.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 6
Prepared May, 1997
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
~l Develop A Neighborhood Traffic Management Program: In
1996, the Traffic Calming Committee formed to evaluate traffic
calming techniques and recommended a series of actions to
Council. The recommendations require evaluation and
refinement by City staff before a set of action items are carried
out. The Engineering Department will take the lead in evaluating
the recommendations and preparing proposals for carrying out
the recommendations in a timely manner. Other departments
will be involved during this process, and the Engineering
Department will be responsible for coordinating their
participation. If additional funding is required to implement the
recommendations, the affected departments will prepare budget
adjustments to carry out the programs.
Workplan:
• Evaluate and refine the recommendations - 1 month
• Prepare proposals for carrying out the recommendations in a
timely manner
• Budget Adjustments - Each budget cycle for the next few
years
• CIP Projects - As available funding allows, incorporate in
each CIP Budget Year to implement recommendations.
Timing: Council will receive information at the
scheduled update on Council goals on 7/22/97 and at
the goal setting meeting on 9/30/97.
.J City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 7
Prepared May, 1997
i
i
l
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
~l 99W Improvements: Promote completion of the planning
process and support funding of improvement identified along
99W such as the Hall/99W Project.
Workplan:
• Apply for T GM funds (requesting a $40,000 grant) to I
complete public involvement process (Complete in July
1997; receive money in August 1997)
• Acquire consultant services to design public involvement
process (September 1997)
• Complete public involvement process (November 1997 -
February 1998) _
• Package implementation program
! • Take implementation program through public process.
recommendations for park site and facility development -
(March - June 1998)
• Develop capital improvement and implementation plan
j l
j Council will receive information at the scheduled update on
Council goals on 7/22/97 and at the goal setting meeting on
9/30/97.
~ y
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 8
1"J Prepared May, 1997
1
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Complex City Program Goals:
Planning Studies - Washington Square/Scholls/Walnut
Island. Three areas of the community were identified for
planning future needs (land use, public facilities) and the role the
City will play. Each area is unique & experiencing development
pressures. Distinct studies are needed; not all can be
completed at the same time due to staff and financial limitations.
s
i -
WorkPlan: i
• Request grant funding for Washington Square
• Work in cooperation with Beaverton on Scholls Ferry Area
• Continue to assist in the resolution of Walnut Island Issues
• Request grant funding for Washington Square
Currently:
• Cooperatively requesting $150,000 TGM grant (Metro,
ODOT, Washington Co. and Beaverton) for Washington
Square work.
• Beaverton requested a TGM grant for work on Scholls Ferry
E
• No additional funding has been requested for Walnut Island
Timeline:
• Complete Washington Square grant applications - July 1997 I'
i • Receive grant money for Washington Square, August 1997
• Provide analysis of required comprehensive plan
? amendments for downtown area - June 1998
• Hire consultants for Washington Square - September 1997
• Analysis and public involvement for Washington Square -
November 1997 - June 1998
• Public hearings on Comprehensive Plan and Development
Code revisions for Washington Square - June-October 1998
Council will receive information at the scheduled update on
Council goals on 7/22/97 and at goal setting meeting on
+i 9/30/97.
i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 9
Prepared May, 1997
■
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
I Complex City Program Goals:
~l Planning Study - Downtown Area: This is one of the areas
identified in the Visioning Project to review for livability goals. In
addition continue work with the Downtown Merchant's
Association to develop the City's direction for the downtown area
as a continuation of the 1996 Council goal. Community
Development staff will work with representatives of the
Association and Council to develop a work plan for a concept
plan for the area to meet the intent of the Metro town center
designation placed on the downtown.
Workplan:
• Identify downtown issues through the Visioning Project and
2040 work.
• At this time, no additional fund requested for the downtown
area
j Propose comprehensive plan and development code
amendments for the downtown area, December 1998 -
February 1999.
Council will receive information at the scheduled update on
Council goals on 7/22/97 and at the goal setting meeting on
9/30/97.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 10
Prepared May, 1997
M
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
` City Operational Goals:
~l Implement Workplace Violence Recommendations: In 1996,
ff
an employee committee reviewed the safety of City work sites
and made recommendations for improvements to procedures,
security systems, and physical settings.
Workpaan:
Timing
'0
6
I
Staff is presently assigning costs to the
capital, materials and training needs on the
items to be addressed. Those
improvements that can be addressed within
budget will be undertaken in the next few
months. Training and materials are -
proposed in the 97/98 Budget. Council will
receive information at the scheduled
update on Council goals on 7/22/97 and at
the goal setting meeting on 9/30/97. E
j City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 11
j Prepared May, 1997
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
City Operational Goals:
Plant 2000 Trees by the Year 2000: This long-term goal will
require a plan for annual planting of 500 trees.
Workplan:
Emphasis will be on the following:
• Replacing trees on public property lost through storm activity
• Replacing tress on private and public property which have caused
damage to sidewalks in a subdivision
• Planting within city parks and greenspaces
• Propose a street-tree planting effort
The Property Manager and Planning Manager, with input from the
Development Review Engineer, will develop a new street tree planting
program that will describe desired tree selections, proper planting
methods and care and maintenance responsibilities. This plan will be
presented to Council for adoption. The Park Supervisor will initiate a
tree planting program for City owned and operated properties.
Partial funding will be from the tree replacement fund which has an
appropriation balance (FY 97/98) of $246,200. Private donations will
also be utilized.
Various volunteer groups will be involved in this project such as the
boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, neighborhood groups, churches and Friends
of Fanno Creek. (Note: A local citizen is willing to donate over 100
Douglas Fir Trees.)
Timing: Council will receive information at the
scheduled update on Council goals on
7/22/97 and at the goal setting meeting on
9/30/97.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 12
Prepared May, 1997
j
i
a
d
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
City Operational Goals:
~l Improve City Image Through Volunteer Program: An effort
will be made to identify volunteer opportunities and the means to
carry out a program to channel the interests and efforts of
volunteers toward and improved City appearance.
Workplan:
j
Emphasis will be on developing a program by identifying opportunities
for volunteer assistance and then utilizing volunteers appropriately.
The role of the Administration Department will be to assist
departments in identifying and placing volunteers. In addition, records
should be kept to recognize the volunteers for their efforts and to
quantify the results of the projects.
Council will receive information at the
scheduled update on Council goals on
7/22/97 and at the goal setting meeting on
9/30/97.
City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 13
Prepared May, 1997
S
4 -r
i
I,
p~p
r
i
I;
x
i
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
Council Areas of Interest to Monitor
The following list represents areas of Council interest to monitor and
act upon when timing appears to warrant.. Council will receive
information if any of these areas of interest begin to generate activity
or are at a critical decision-making stage. Council will also receive
information at the scheduled update on Council goals on 7/22/97 and at
the goal setting meeting on 9/30/97.
1. Teen Center - Police Chief Goodpaster is on the Youth Task
force. The new Chair, Stan Baumhofer has had a discussion with
Sports Nation in Tualatin regarding providing after school
programs. this issue is being actively discussed at this time and
the School district is also involved to determine what types of
transportation could be available to assist transporting the
children to this location after school. A "goals" paper is being
prepared by the group to send to Sports Nation for a formal
_
response.
{
2. Passenger Rail - Continue to support the concept of passenger
a rail service planning through Tigard. Attend meetings and
monitor activities and keep the Council informed of passenger
rail activities.
1
I
3. Review Existing City Ordinances and Resolutions - Streamline
the City Code to eliminate outdated language. This is an ongoing
!
process and as ordinances or resolutions outlining Council
policv areas are detected to be inconsistent with practice or
community need, staff will bring these forward for Council
consideration for amendment.
4. Monthly Reporting of Pending Development Locations - Staff is
now providing weekly updates of application activity to the
Council.
J City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 14
Prepared May, 1997
j
1
a
1
o
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
5.
Board, Committee and Task Force Updates - Annual updates will
be scheduled on Council agendas. The updates shall be either in
a meeting format or written report. Boards and Committees will
be assigned a pre-scheduled time, while Task Forces will meet
when the Task Force requires Council direction or upon
completion of the effort.
6.
Change Goal Setting Cycle to Fall - Staff proposes the next
i
Council goal setting date be September 30, 1997. This will
coordinate the goal setting process with budget preparation.
7.
Public Transit Improvements - Monitor and participate in work
being done by Tri-Met. Staff to advocate improvements to create
better transit choices within Tigard.
8.
Employee Recognition - Council wants to make the public more
k.`
aware of the good work by staff and the positive side of City
employment. One option is to recognize employees in the
j
Cityscape. We will explore options to get the word out tv the
I
i
public.
9.
Improve Media Relations - This is a goal that is also a carryover
from last year's Council goal list. City staff has met with
members of the media to discuss ways to improve coordination
so that positive news stories can be stressed.
10.
Develop a Plan to Address the Problems of Tigard's Homeless -
This is a goal that is also a carryover from last year's Council
goal list. IOS is in the midst of constructing and fund raising for
the RITE Center to be located at Greenburg/Tiedeman in Tigard.
i City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 15
Prepared May, 1997
I
1
OF
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
r
11. Consider Issues of Affordable Housing - This is a goal that is also
a carryover from last year's Council goal list. Ongoing support
as needed.
12. Update Engineering Fees to Recover Staff Time Spent In
Development Review Process - This is a goal that is also a
carryover from last year's Council goal list. This goal has been
delayed until the effects of Measure 47/50 are known.
13. Develop Annexation Policy; Especially for Island Areas - This is a
goal that is also a carryover from last year's Council goal list.
This goal has been delayed until the effects of Measure 47/50 are
known.
14. Rewrite Tigard Development Code - This is a goal that is also a
carryover from last year's Council goal list. Work is progressing
with the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Group.
15. Develop a Long-Range Plan for Development and Maintenance of
City Streets - This is a goal that is also a carryover from last
year's Council goal list. The Capital Improvement Program will
be presented for Council consideration on June 24, 1997.
16. Evaluate Use of Traffic Calming Devices for SW North Dakota -
This is a goal that is also a carryover from last year's Council
goal list. The Study has been completed; staff will be reporting
the findings to City Council at the June 17, 1997 Workshop
irieCiiig.
! City Council Goals 1996/97 - Page 16
Prepared May, 1997
i
1997 Council Goals - Work Plan Proposal
17. Define and Develop Tigard's Approach to Working/Dealing With
Metro - This is a goal that is also a carryover from last year's
Council goal list. Ongoing; staff to keep Council apprised of
issues as they occur or if direction is needed. Asst. to City
Manager recently testified at a meeting where jurisdictions were
invited to give their perspective on communication issues with
Metro.
18. Secure Long-Term Water Supply - This is a goal that is also a
carryover from last year's Council goal list. Ongoing; staff will
keep Council apprised of the consortium's activities.
19. Promote Use of Metro Greenspaces Funds for the Tualatin River
and Fanno Creek - This is a goal that is also a carryover from last
year's Council goal list. Work continues; staff will apprise
Council as properties are identified and negotiations reach the
point where Council direction is needed.
i s \adm\cathy\counc iI\gols97. doc
City Council Goals 1996197 - Page 17
Prepared May, 1997
1.
n
a ~
U
c
F
u
J
U
'D
F
i
I
w
1
s
L.
o
U
c
y
c
a
•o
u
c
ii.
n
o
1
•`y
~
C7
3
n
F
0
E
u
c
0
3
U
_
+
°
v
v
a
i
c
w
C
'
a'
'm
u
u
u
N
1
y
n
Ca
o
c
u
5
~
U
a
r,
'
_
u
T
~
w
~
~
1
T
~
y
❑
O~
u
~c
H
a`
c
o.
n
Q
~
u
u
v
u
B
Y
U
-
N
o
E
C
T
•O
O
v
E
'
~
i
V
h
y
T
❑
c
-
~
Q
G
a
r
o
co
U
n.
o
c
_
2
o
U
c
o
°J
u
a
W
0
n
6
O
V
C
p
°d
V
y
v
~
C
u
q
Lnn
=
V
`
O
1
G
'7
u
v
C
Q
C
O
=
~
O
T
C
d
to
O
n
L
a.
O
U
.D
-j
O
u
r
S
7
m
❑
U
y
H
>
U
UO
G
°
O
U
n
m
e~
u
00
c
°
•
~
U
c
d
h
L
O
n
6
G
2
C
O
O
.
~
F
C
•u
E
cn
c
in
3
U
F
rn
au'
U
U
~
>
ti
U
G.
.C
U
u
rn
Q
A
~
C
Q
u
❑
L
~
_n
V
Q
_
a
p
0
E
p
o
o
Q
V
~
u
E
4
aC
=
c
~
.=l
_
n
w
o
V
a
~
a
'
m
n
M
~
5
n
Q
M
'o
u
G
C
c
~n
C`fl
r3
p
~
1
ca
w
~
I
u
C
'v
i
p
on
c
'
o
~
ev
o
p~
u
~
U
u
C
N
.o
c
\
00
V
7
0
U
y
h
H
V
C
n
q
c
~
~
•v
N
N
9
oo
u
`
c-
o_
C
0
0
~
i
n
a
m
>
U
U
G
O
.C
•c
o
0
0
a
o
3
~
~
o
U
i
r
F
`
a
o
3
>
o
U
E
N
U
m
o
o
~
h
.fir
a.
~
c
3
e¢i
~
-
00
i\
~
v
~
a
~
T
S
oJ
U
v
-
C
o
au'
Q
7
CQ
a
C
e
~
>
~
~
~
n.
.a
~
H
O
u
d
a
~
O
~
d
q
~
n
~
c
T
z
c
c
N
u
a
=
.N
>
n
=
,
T
,N
m
U
M
2
>
U
c
v
CD
v
C
F
V
r~
F
N
V
~
~
W
c
OD
C
o
c
u
a
0
M N
~
` v
1
I
a
i
n
c
,
°
~
U
G
O
Z
L
O
3
'c
o\
F
n
o
a\
0
o
V
s
eZ
`1
0
5
0
U
v
.
y
Oa
O
C
C
7
h
1
O\
o
O~
v~
H
a'
0
m
=
U
H
H
d
C
~
C
u
CI
e
c
~O
'fl
u
C
~
'C
cf,
G
O
u
o
c
~
3
F
R
a
r
Q~
~
u
°O
O
3
7
v
F4
i
h
v
c
u
Q
v
C
F
u
U
a
F
N
C
tO
u
C
~
~
~
O
~
c
G
O
V
Y
G
~
9
C
d
u
'u
C
G
~
=
in
L
d
~
m
~
O
U
U
U
<
u
C
C
~
C
v
~i
u
a
V
Ln
H
N
u
e
O
9
O
in
a
m
U
G
Z
r
a
L
3
~
°
ri
o
F
c~
a.
CS
47,
o
67
\
t
~
'u
c
N
O
C
~
~
L-1
G
v
C
.y
7
c
~
C
a
u
a
0
O
o
L
a
m
U
R
O
n
O
M
No
h
E
C
en
C1
G
j
R
~
u
u
N
•p
u
C
~
N
0
0
U
G
O
Z
3
•a
t~
e
F
a
0
s
G
v~
C
O
a
3
v
N
y
C
0
u
~
~
T
7
C
C
~
N
U
.
.
rn
m
H
u
c
•
co
c
o
v
"
c
C
N
•p
~
7
U
G
O
.
C
L
O
3
•a
r
F
o
Ch
o
O
~
3
v
h
v
CA
v
F
c
O
U
CA
G
O
S
OA
L
C
O
G
o
u
o
3
~
~
~
C
d
u
~
~
d
C
p
N
•
o
u
`
•
~
rn
o
.
m
U
G
O
~
y
Y
L
O
3
F
U
o
Y
u
N
o
G
~
3
~
Vl
G
•y
CA
~
C
C
Q7
o
~
O
u
~
el
O
~
~
V
a
•
M
9
u
C
V
C
`
'
n
a
m
u